authenticity of a research finding is its

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here .

Loading metrics

Open Access

Peer-reviewed

Research Article

Constructing and influencing perceived authenticity in science communication: Experimenting with narrative

Contributed equally to this work with: Lise Saffran, Sisi Hu, Amanda Hinnant

Roles Conceptualization, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Project administration, Resources, Supervision, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

Affiliation Department of Public Health, University of Missouri, Columbia, Missouri, United States of America

Roles Data curation, Formal analysis, Methodology, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

* E-mail: [email protected]

Affiliation School of Journalism, University of Missouri, Columbia, Missouri, United States of America

Roles Conceptualization, Investigation, Supervision, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

Roles Methodology, Validation, Writing – review & editing

¶ ‡ These authors also contributed equally to this work.

Affiliation School of Medicine, University of Colorado, Denver, Colorado, United States of America

Roles Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

Affiliation Obstetrics, Gynecology and Women’s Health, University of Missouri, Columbia, Missouri, United States of America

• Lise Saffran, 
• Sisi Hu, 
• Amanda Hinnant, 
• Laura D. Scherer, 
• Susan C. Nagel

• Published: January 15, 2020
• https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0226711
• Peer Review
• Reader Comments

This study develops a measure of perceived authenticity in science communication and then explores communication strategies to improve the perceived authenticity of a scientific message. The findings are consistent with literature around trust and credibility, but indicate that authenticity—the perception that the scientist is a unique individual with qualities beyond institutional affiliations or a role in the production of the research—may add a potentially important dimension to accepted categories of integrity and benevolence.

Citation: Saffran L, Hu S, Hinnant A, Scherer LD, Nagel SC (2020) Constructing and influencing perceived authenticity in science communication: Experimenting with narrative. PLoS ONE 15(1): e0226711. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0226711

Editor: Dion R. J. O'Neale, University of Auckland, NEW ZEALAND

Received: June 12, 2019; Accepted: December 2, 2019; Published: January 15, 2020

Copyright: © 2020 Saffran et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Data Availability: All data files are available from the Open Science Framework (OSF) database (accession URL: https://osf.io/7wcg8/?view_only=5831825b4240466a806fbc0a0f1cdf16 ).

Funding: The study was funded by the Research Council Grants at the Office of Research and Economic Development in the University of Missouri within the project titled, “Perceived Authenticity as a Cause of Trust in Science Communication.” Research Council Grant Number: URC-18-045. URL: https://research.missouri.edu/internal/researchcouncil . Funding received: LS. The funder had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Introduction

The traditional approach of science communicators, which seeks to fill in a knowledge deficit on the part of the public, is ineffective in a changing media and political environment according to the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine’s Communicating Science Effectively : A Research Agenda (NAS report) [ 1 ]. The NAS report further argues the bidirectional aspects of science communication. It underscores the fact that even as the scientist is evaluating their audience and adapting messages accordingly, the audience is also gauging the scientist. The NAS report identifies trust as being caused by the audience’s perception of the communicator’s integrity, dependability, and competence [ 1 ]. Examining trustworthiness in the context of organizational behavior, Mayer, Davis, and Schoorman [ 2 ] identify these qualities as expertise, integrity and benevolence, consistent with a wide variety of research into credibility and trustworthiness [ 3 – 5 ]. In each case, trust is caused by a collection of factors that includes judgments about the communicator’s character and intentions, as well as their ability and knowledge.

The literature in science communication broadly supports the idea that trust is affected by audience perceptions that a potential trustee is motivated by good intentions and possessed of good character. The NAS report [ 1 ] calls these characteristics integrity and dependability, Hendriks, Kienhues, and Bromme [ 3 ] refer to them as integrity and benevolence. These elements of trustworthiness associated with benevolence and integrity overlap substantially with the qualities identified by Fiske and colleagues [ 6 ] as contributing to perceptions of warmth, a quality that combined with judgments about competence form universal dimensions of social cognition. Research by Schoorman, Mayer, and Davis [ 7 ] acknowledges that the establishment of trust is not exclusively a cognitive activity and that affective responses to the communicator and indeed emotional states have the power to influence trust.

The aim of this study is to examine how the concept of authenticity might offer a comprehensive framework for the causes of trust identified in the literature as integrity and benevolence . Based on a review of authenticity literature in social psychology, education, marketing and communication, public health communication, organizational behavior and narrative studies, our a priori definition of perceived authenticity is this: the belief by the message receiver that the communicator is a human being with their own history , values , and point of view and that the message they are communicating is in accordance with those values . While there is a significant body of interdisciplinary literature that examines authenticity with regard to self [ 8 – 9 ], intimate partner relationships [ 10 ] and marketing/branding [ 11 – 12 ], the nature of authenticity in science communication has, to our knowledge, not been examined.

As there is currently no useful measure of perceived authenticity in the context of science communication, a primary goal of this research is to develop a valid measurement tool. The instrument tested here was designed to be expansive in measuring the resemblance of authenticity to benevolence and integrity in order to capture qualities that may not be entirely reflected in those two widely accepted causes of trust, including reciprocity and warmth. The definition used in this research intentionally excludes the concept of expertise. In the research of Fiske and Dupree [ 13 ] warmth is judged before competence, and additional research suggests that judgments of expertise are most vulnerable to motivated reasoning, particularly in politicized contexts [ 14 – 15 ].

In sum, this research first explores perceived authenticity as a method of conceptualizing the perception that the scientist is a unique individual with qualities beyond institutional affiliations or a role in the production of the research, then develops and tests an instrument for measuring the perception of authenticity and, finally, explores how authenticity might be communicated, and manipulated, through narrative in a non-politicized context.

Conceptions of authenticity

Ancient Greek philosophers, including Socrates, describe an ideal combination of self-knowledge, benevolence, and ethical behavior that is echoed in contemporary definitions of authenticity [ 8 ]. The presence of a human being who possesses self-knowledge, clarity in their convictions, an individual set of values, and a commitment to acting in accordance with those values lies at the heart of much of the definitions of authenticity in social psychology literature [ 16 ]. Much of the psychological literature examining authenticity focuses on an individual’s own self-concept and behavior, for example, the authenticity inventory built by Kernis and Goldman around a multi-component conceptualization that includes self-understanding, unbiased processing, behavior that is consistent with one’s values, and places value on others perceiving the “real you” [ 8 ]. An authentic speaker is one who is “[S]incere, innocent, original, genuine, and unaffected,” [ 17 ] as well as transparent with regard to intentions, point of view and values [ 18 ] and who is willing to be personally associated with the message being conveyed [ 11 ].

The literature examining authenticity in the context of marketing and consumer behavior examines authenticity as a quality which is both conveyed and perceived [ 11 , 19 ]. In organizational and management literature, the definition of authenticity often emphasizes the relational aspect [ 20 – 21 ], an emphasis which is also found in literature examining authenticity in the context of education [ 22 – 23 ].

The education literature is particularly relevant in this case, because perceived authenticity offers the message receiver an opportunity to recognize that the communicator is a unique individual with a set of values, a history, and intentions, as they themselves are. Johnson and LaBelle’s [ 22 ] research into teacher authenticity acknowledges the challenge of conveying authenticity in the context of a power imbalance, a context which offers the possibility that the communicator may be perceived as “looking down” on the message receiver [ 22 ]. The potential of authenticity to capture the dimensions of trust that focus on the communicator’s “having a personal stake in the issue,” their similarity to the receiver” and their “willingness to admit uncertainty” [ 24 ] have particular relevance in science communication, where the communicator is possessed of presumed expertise and advanced knowledge. It is with regard to the reciprocal summing up by communicator and message receiver, particularly in an inherently unbalanced exchange (what Petraglia refers to in public health communication as dialogue [ 25 ]) that perceived authenticity offers areas of potential difference from traditional conceptions of integrity and benevolence .

Communicating authenticity in science

In developing science communication messages with the potential to convey what Rabinovich et al. describe as “transparency about the intentions, point of view, and values of the communicator [ 18 ], we turned to the literature in health humanities, public health communication and literary studies. Literature in psychology, public health communication and narrative suggests that narrative strategies, particularly those that focus convincingly on individuals with complicated inner lives, have the potential to increase empathy across cultural divides and diminish message resistance [ 26 – 27 ]. Further, strategies that encourage people to focus on the unique qualities of individuals may be effective in reducing bias toward the group those individuals represent, according to social psychology research into individuation [ 28 ]. In this framework, authentic communication is communication in which an individual person is perceived to be discernable and, while not personally known, is nonetheless recognizable enough to elicit a personal response on the part of the audience.

Understanding how authenticity might be constructed and measured in science communication is particularly important in an environment where an increasing number of people obtain science information through the internet [ 3 ]. For lay people, assessments of credibility and trustworthiness are complicated by the inconsistent nature of information available online about the communicators of scientific information: information can be incomplete, misleading and difficult to source [ 3 ]. Further, as scientists increasingly incorporate narrative into their communication efforts, there may be unintended consequences to attempting authentic communication without having studied the qualities of effectively authentic messages. There is evidence that inauthentically communicating even a true message may diminish trust [ 29 ].

In determining the credibility of a source, people often rate perceived expertise—related to having common interests with the speaker and perceptions of trustworthiness—over actual expertise, for example an advanced degree in the subject [ 30 ]. In deciding about these factors, the audience may be assessing the organization that the scientist represents, the medium for communication, relevant political, social or economic considerations and potential threats to their identity and values [ 31 – 32 ]. People reject scientific information that contradicts their own beliefs and seek out information that confirms their beliefs in the process called motivated reasoning [ 33 ]. While some science topics—climate change, vaccination—are clearly linked to social and political identity in public discourse [ 34 – 35 ], the politicization of science topics generally is in flux and subject to a variety of trends [ 36 ]. A style of communication that relies on objectivity and traditional scientific authority is undermined by motivated reasoning, particularly when topics are related to political ideology [ 37 ].

If authenticity in communication “enables individuals to understand, emotionally as well as cognitively, how information can relate to their everyday existence,” [ 25 ], then a sense that scientists, too, are grappling with questions of uncertainty, particularly around value-laden issues, offers a potential avenue of connection and even empathy.

Materials and methods

Hypotheses and research questions.

The purposes of this study are first to develop a measure of perceived authenticity in science communication and then to explore which communication strategies can improve the perceived authenticity of a scientist. The first part of this research inquiry asks:

• RQ1: What is a valid measure for perceived authenticity in science communication?

Based on previous research, four strategies alternately employed in the scientific brief were hypothesized to enhance the authenticity of a message: 1) first-person narrative style alone; 2) presenting forward-looking fallibility; 3) presenting the researcher’s origin of interest; 4) presenting backward-looking fallibility. All experimental messages were presented in the first person in order to explicitly connect the message with the individual communicator without an intermediary.

It is hypothesized that a scientific brief with any of those four strategies will increase the perceived authenticity of the scientist when compared to the perceived authenticity of a scientific brief without any of those four strategies.

• H1: First-person narrative style in a scientific brief will be perceived as more authentic than the control message.

The narrative components in the message conditions involve, in each case, conveying that the science communicator is an individual with a specific point of view, values and interior life. The first experimental message condition employs the first person narrative voice to convey, in the simplest way, that a single individual is communicating to the audience. Hypothesis 1 thus provides a useful basis for further message design. Each of the other three strategies are added to the first-person narrative style. Therefore, the additional hypotheses are:

• H2: First-person narrative style combined with presenting forward-looking fallibility in the scientific brief will be perceived as more authentic than the control message.
• H3: First-person narrative style combined with presenting the researcher’s origin of interest in the scientific brief will be perceived as more authentic than the control message.
• H4: First-person narrative style combined with presenting backward-looking fallibility in the scientific brief will be perceived as more authentic than the control message.
• RQ2: Which narrative strategy or strategy-combinations in a scientific brief are perceived as more authentic?

Design and stimuli

This study was a between-subjects online experiment with a U.S. sample that manipulated message strategies within a vignette that was written as a brief report of scientific research. The chosen topic was non-controversial and non-political (the domestication of plants in agriculture) in order to avoid the influence of other social and political factors.

The elements of narrative used to construct this study’s 5 narrative message conditions are theorized to promote empathy through identification [ 38 ]. The study design utilizes first person point of view (Conditions 2–5), which explicitly ties the message to the messenger [ 39 – 40 ]. Thus, the 5 experimental conditions designate a single communicator with whom readers could identify: a scientist with a point of view, history, and individual concerns. The intention of this study to measure authenticity directly, as opposed to isolating and measuring factors associated with authenticity (such as uncertainty or vulnerability), led to the adoption of the first person in all experimental message conditions for the following reason: In this study perceived authenticity relates to the perception that the communicator is an individual person and responsible, as an individual, for the message being communicated. Presenting qualities such as vulnerability in the third person would introduce yet another person into the communication exchange—the narrator. Including a third person could risk undermining the connection between the message and communicator.

Perceived authenticity is also associated with transparency, honesty and openness [ 11 ], verisimilitude [ 41 ], voice [ 42 ] and the presence of an unruly narrative [ 40 ]. These indicate a tendency by readers to consider narratives of contestation and opposition more authentic, for example content that is at odds with what audience members might expect the communicator’s perspective to be, such as a scientist who is willing to admit a previous mistake to their audience or one who is open to the possibility that future discoveries may undermine current findings (Conditions 3 and 5). The NAS report also connects trust to “the willingness of both parties to take risks and be vulnerable” [ 1 ], which in the context of science communication could also take the form of a scientist’s admitting previous errors (backward-looking fallibility) or highlighting uncertainty in their work (forward-looking fallibility). In our definition of forward-looking fallibility, what the communicator is conveying is a specific kind of scientific uncertainty: the idea that future discoveries might prompt a reevaluation of present findings. The origin of the scientist’s interest in the subject under study (Condition 4) relates to the importance of provenance in much authenticity literature, the idea that an object, or message, has an organic, as opposed to fabricated, origin [ 11 ]. See S1 Appendix for the scientific briefs and more detail on each message condition.

Participants and procedure

Perceived authenticity is fundamentally a type of attitude, and prior research has shown that effect sizes for attitude change interventions are typically small to moderate [ 43 ]. A priori power analysis conducted using G*Power showed that 40 participants are needed for each cell in order to detect a medium effect (f = .25) for a F -test with a between-subjects factor to have a power of .80 at an alpha level of .05. Considering the attention issue of the online panel study and the possible outliers, a total of 500 U.S. based participants were recruited for this experiment. Amazon Mechanical Turk (MTurk) was used to recruit the participants. MTurk is a web-based crowdsourcing survey platform that is widely used to recruit participants for social science research and shown to generate reliable and valid data [ 44 – 45 ].

After participants consented to the study, they were instructed to read a passage from a plant science researcher describing new findings on plant domestication that offered dating ancient corn cobs as an example of research. Next, the participants were randomly assigned to one of the five scientific brief conditions. After their exposure to the passage, participants answered an attention check question which required them to choose among four options (bananas, dogs, corn cobs, chickens) in response to the question, “The passage you just read talks about__”. They then completed a 20-item authenticity questionnaire. Finally, participants answered demographic questions, were thanked for their participation, and were compensated $0.5. The average amount of time spent on the study was 3.94 minutes ( SD = 2.66, range = 1–25).

Demographic questions included gender, age, race, education, and political identification. Education was measured by asking participants to select their highest level of degree on a 6-point scale, from less than high school degree (1) to a graduate degree (6). Political identification was measured on a 7-point scale, from strong Democrat (1), to no preference (4), to strong Republican (7). See S1 Appendix for the full list of survey questions.

Dependent variable scale development

Authenticity..

Because there is no established scale for perceived authenticity, we developed 19 questions adapted from research into dispositional authenticity by Kernis and Goldman [ 8 ] and Wood et al. [ 9 ] and with reference to the research of Johnson and LaBelle [ 22 ] on teacher authenticity. For example, the instrument developed by Wood et al. [ 9 ] measures authenticity through agreement on a 5-point scale with statements such as “I always stand by what I believe in.” These items were adapted for the current study to refer to the science communicator, for example, “This researcher believes in the findings he/she is presenting.” When developing our measurement tool we took particular note of efforts to measure authenticity in contexts where the target of the assessment occupies a position of relative power. This approach acknowledges the imbalance inherent in the exchange; the communicator is in fact an expert and thus in a privileged position—certainly with regard to knowledge but also, potentially with regard to education and status—vis a vis the audience. This is in contrast to questions of authenticity that arise in other contexts, such as intimate partner relationships where the perceptions are toward someone of equal status or in marketing, where the audience holds a presumed power over the communicator (to buy or not to buy). Thus, Johnson and LaBelle’s research on teacher authenticity formed the basis for a series of additional measures in this study related to whether or not the communicator is perceived to “look down” on readers and whether she desires to hide behind a “smoke screen of professionalism” [ 22 ].

The 19 questions were drafted to measure five aspects of authenticity drawn from the literature that reflected both emotional and cognitive aspects. The measures included these concept groupings: openness, unbiased processing, self-awareness, relevance of the research for the audience, and the researcher’s passion for the research. For the purpose of this study, the category of “relevance” was added to reflect both the perceived inherent value of the information being presented as well as the communicator’s good faith efforts to make sure that the audience can relate to the information in a personal way. The survey included questions such as, How likely is this researcher to hide their true thoughts , feelings and doubts behind their role as a researcher ? (Reverse coding) (1 = very unlikely; 5 = very likely). Seven out of the 19 questions were designed as reverse wording questions. We acknowledge that reverse-wording strategy does not reduce response bias that results from participants’ acquiescence, inattention, or confusion on the items [ 46 ]. Using reverse-worded items in this study was not for those purposes, however, but to improve interpretation of the items. Those seven questions flowed better and were therefore easier to understand when phrased in a reverse direction. Therefore, we decided to keep those reverse-worded questions in the questionnaire and later reverse coded them in the statistical analysis. A final question (20) “ How authentic do you perceive this scientist to be ? (1 = least authentic; 5 = most authentic) was included as a validation item. All authenticity measures used a 1–5 Likert scale.

Results and discussion

Sample overview.

Participants who failed the attention check question (68 participants) were removed from analyses, leaving a total analytic sample size of N = 432 ( M age = 35.06 years, SD = 11.20, range = 18–73). The sample included 235 males (54.4%) and 197 females (45.6%), and participants were primarily White/Caucasian ( n = 337, 78%), followed by Black/African American ( n = 39, 9%), Asian ( n = 39, 9%), and American Indian or Alaska Native ( n = 8, 1.9%). With regard to education level, nearly half of the participants had bachelor’s degrees ( n = 200, 46.3%), 38.2% ( n = 200) had less than a bachelor’s degree, and 15.5% of participants ( n = 67) had a graduate degree. With regard to political identification, nearly half of the participants identified as Democrat ( n = 202, 46.8%), 155 (35.8%) identified as Republicans, and 75 (17.4%) indicated no preference. Among the 432 U.S. adults, 92 saw the control message, 83 saw the first-person condition, 83 saw the condition referencing uncertainty with regard to the findings, 87 saw the condition referencing the origin of the science communicator’s interest in the subject under study, and 87 saw the condition referencing earlier mistakes in the scientist’s interpretation of the data/analysis.

Factor analysis

Research question 1 seeks to develop a valid scale of authenticity in science communication. Two exploratory factor analyses (EFA) were conducted to answer this research question. The results revealed that 11 of the 19 items were coherent and consistent measures of two factors of authenticity. In the initial EFA, all 19 items were expected to be related to authenticity. This EFA used principal axis factoring with direct oblimin rotation because it is generally expected in social science that the factors would be correlated [ 47 ]. The criterion for factor extraction was that the eigenvalue be larger than 1. Three factors were extracted. Items were assigned to a particular factor if their primary loadings were greater than .5, which is a desirable cutoff point indicated in previous literature [ 48 ]. After examining the loadings of the three factors, seven items loaded under the first factor, eight items loaded under the second factor, whereas no item loaded greater than .5 under the third factor. After this, we re-examined each item based on its loading and logic, and 11 items from the first two factors were kept. The eight items with inadequate loadings shared some conceptual characteristics, mainly they often asked participants to engage in more complex thought thereby leading to confusion and/or they asked participants to speculate to a greater degree than other questions.

To re-test and confirm the selection, a second EFA was conducted. In the second EFA, 11 items were factored by principal axis factoring with direct oblimin rotation. Two factors emerged. Items which loaded under the first factor substantially resembled descriptions of integrity in the broader literature, reflecting unbiased processing and transparency/honesty. Items loading under the second factor included those that resembled benevolence in the literature (respectful of audience) but also included perceived qualities in the researcher that had emotional dimensions (passion for the research, a desire to be understood) as well as self-understanding and knowledge of the subject. We labeled the second factor connection to reflect the connection of the researcher to three dimensions: self, research, audience.

Among the 11 items, six were loaded under the factor connection and the other five were loaded under the factor integrity . The factors connection and integrity cumulatively accounted for 43.35% of the variance among the items (see Table 1 ). Specifically, the connection factor had an eigenvalue of 3.65, accounting for 33.16% of the variance; its loaded items have a Cronbach’s alpha of .80. The integrity factor had an eigenvalue of 1.12, accounting for 10.19% of the variance; its loaded items have a Cronbach’s alpha of .81. The correlation between these two factors was .494, which indicated that the correlation was not so high as to suggest these two factors were measuring the same construct [ 49 ]. According to the factor analysis, two dependent variables, connection and integrity , were formed by calculating the mean score of all items loaded under each factor, respectively; both variables scored on a scale of 1 (least) to 5 (most).

• PPT PowerPoint slide
• PNG larger image
• TIFF original image

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0226711.t001

We subsequently tested the convergent validity of the factors against participants’ self-reported perceived authenticity through a linear regression with the factors connection and integrity as independent variables, and the self-reported perceived authenticity as the dependent variable. The result showed both the connection and integrity factors were significantly related to perceived authenticity, with connection ( B = .65, SE = .05, p < .001, ΔR 2 = .37) accounting for a larger portion of authenticity judgments than integrity ( B = .17, SE = .05, p < .001, ΔR 2 = .03). The total variance in authenticity explained by these two factors (41%) was similar to the factor analysis result (43%). Therefore, we consider this two-dimensional measurement to be a valid measure of perceived authenticity for hypothesis testing.

Hypotheses testing and second research question

A multivariate analysis of covariance (MANCOVA) determined the effect of the five different message conditions on the two factors of authenticity (i.e., connection and integrity), after controlling for participants’ education and political ideology. The five message conditions were set as an independent variable, education, and political ideology were set as covariates, and the two factors (connection and integrity) were dependent variables. Preliminary assumptions checking revealed that data was normally distributed, observed from normal Q-Q plots; there were linear relationships between covariates and dependent variables for each condition, as assessed by scatterplot; there was homogeneity of regression slopes, as assessed by the interaction term between education and condition, F (8, 832) = .77, p = .63, and political identification and condition, F (8, 832) = .40, p = .92; there was homogeneity of variance and covariance, as assessed by Box's M test ( p = .002); there was one univariate outlier for connection, as assessed by standardized residuals greater than ± 3 standard deviations, and two multivariate outliers, assessed Mahalanobis distance values greater than a cut-off point of 13.82, in which the one univariate outlier was also one of the multivariate outliers. These two outliers were kept because the results were not substantially affected after comparing the results of the MANCOVA with and without the outliers. Table 2 shows the means, adjusted means, standard deviations, and standard errors for connection and integrity for each message condition, in which means and adjusted means were not dissimilar.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0226711.t002

There was a statistically significant difference between message conditions on the combined dependent variables (i.e., connection and integrity) after controlling for education and political identification, F (8, 848) = 2.93, p = .003; Wilks' Λ = .95; partial η 2 = .03. Follow up univariate one-way ANCOVAs were performed with a Bonferroni adjustment. There were statistically significant differences in adjusted means for both connection ( F (4, 425) = 3.37, p = .01, partial η 2 = .03) and integrity ( F (4, 425) = 3.71, p = .006, partial η 2 = .03) among different message conditions. Pairwise comparisons with a Bonferroni adjustment were made for both connection and integrity factors of authenticity (see Table 3 ). It should be noted that pairwise comparisons were conducted in SPSS, in which p-value reported will be 1.000 when the product of unadjusted p-value and the number of comparisons exceeds 1.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0226711.t003

Hypothesis 1 proposed that the first-person narrative style in a scientific brief (message condition 2) will be perceived as more authentic than the conventional style control message. This hypothesis was partially supported by the data. Participants who saw the scientific brief using the first-person narrative style rated statistically significantly higher on connection ( M dif = .26, p = .045) than those who saw the control message, but not significantly higher on integrity ( M dif = .31, p = .15).

Hypothesis 2 proposed that the first-person narrative style combined with presenting forward-looking fallibility in the scientific brief (message condition 3) will be perceived as more authentic than the control message. This hypothesis was not supported by the data. Compared with those who saw the control message, participants who saw the scientific brief using the first-person style combined with presenting uncertainty with regard to the findings did not rate statistically significantly different on either connection ( M dif = .14, p = 1) or integrity ( M dif = .03, p = 1) factors of authenticity.

Hypothesis 3 proposed that the first-person narrative style combined with presenting the researcher’s origin of interest in the scientific brief (message condition 4) will be perceived as more authentic than the control message. This hypothesis was fully supported. Participants who saw the scientific brief using the first-person narrative style combined with presenting the researcher’s origin of interest rated statistically significantly higher on both connection ( M dif = .29, p = .02) and integrity ( M dif = .36, p = .04) than those who saw the control message.

Hypothesis 4 proposed that the first-person narrative style combined with backward-looking fallibility in the scientific brief (message condition 5) will be perceived as more authentic than the control message. This hypothesis was not supported by the data. Participants who saw the scientific brief in this condition did not rate statistically significantly higher on either connection ( M dif = .11, p = 1) and integrity ( M dif = .32, p = .12) of authenticity.

Research question 2 investigated which strategy or strategy combinations in a scientific brief can make the science communicator be perceived as more authentic. Pairwise comparisons with a Bonferroni adjustment in previous MANCOVA showed the message condition 4 (i.e., the scientific brief writing in the first-person narrative style combined with presenting the researcher’s origin of interest) did not elicit significantly higher scores for either connection or integrity factors of authenticity when compared to condition 2 (i.e., the scientific brief writing in the first-person narrative style only), condition 3 (i.e., the scientific brief writing in the first-person narrative style combined with forward-looking fallibility), or condition 5 (i.e., the scientific brief written in the first-person narrative style combined with backward-looking fallibility). However, according to the findings from H1 to H4, message condition 4 was the only message which elicited significantly higher scores on both connection and integrity of authenticity when compared to the control message. Therefore, it is appropriate to conclude that message condition 4, the combination of the first-person narrator and presenting the researcher’s origin of interest in the scientific message, were perceived as more authentic.

Exploratory analyses

The MANCOVA result above showed that the covariates, education ( F (2, 424) = 6.76, p = .001, Wilks' Λ = .97, partial η 2 = .03) and political identification ( F (2, 424) = 24.18, p < .001, Wilks' Λ = .90; partial η 2 = .10) were significantly associated with the combined dependent variables. Though not hypothesized, exploratory analyses were conducted to determine whether education and political identification interacted with message conditions to affect the perceived authenticity of the scientist. First, two interaction terms (i.e., between education and the condition variable, and between political identification and the condition variable) were added into the above MANCOVA models; however, there were no statistically significant interaction effects for either the interaction between education and conditions ( F (8, 832) = .77, p = .63, Wilks' Λ = .985) or between political identification and conditions ( F (8, 832) = .40, p = .92, Wilks' Λ = .992).

To further test the additional unique effects of education and political identification on authenticity after accounting for the effects of message conditions, two hierarchical linear regressions were conducted. Four dummy-coded conditions, education, and political identification were the independent variables, and connection and integrity were the dependent variables, respectively. Table 4 displays the results of the hierarchical regressions for the both connection and integrity factors. For the prediction of the connection factor of authenticity, the model accounts for a significant portion of the dependent variable, F (6, 425) = 5.05, R 2 = .07, p < .001. The unique and statistically significant contribution of the education and political identification was 4%. Participants with higher education level ( B = -.08, SE = .02, p = .001) and who self-identified more as Republican ( B = -.04, SE = .02, p = .01) rated the connection factor of authenticity statistically significantly lower. For the prediction of the integrity factor, the model also accounts for a significant portion of the dependent variable, F (6, 425) = 11.83, R 2 = .14, p < .001. The unique and statistically significant contribution of education and political identification was 12%. Similar to the prediction of the connection factor, participants with higher education level ( B = -.09, SE = .03, p = .004) and who self-identified more as Republican ( B = -.16, SE = .02, p < .001) rated the integrity factor of authenticity statistically significantly lower.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0226711.t004

This research developed and tested a novel tool for measuring authenticity in the context of science communication that can shape and inform trust and credibility research. This research also discovered that if a scientist shares the origin story of their research in first-person, people are more inclined to perceive the scientist as authentic. If a scientist uses first-person alone in the scientific brief, people are more inclined to perceive the scientist as authentic based on a feeling of connection. These findings offer both theoretical and practical headway in the understanding of authenticity in science communication.

Dimensions of perceived authenticity in response to the narrative message conditions strongly aligned with the qualities of trustworthiness identified in the literature as benevolence and integrity. More specifically, the message testing suggested that authenticity in a science communication context is connected more strongly to benevolence than integrity. However, the results of our factor analysis also offered an intriguing suggestion that the established concept of benevolence might be expanded to include perceptions of the researcher’s passion for their own work and the potential relevance of that work to the audience. We consequently characterized the benevolence category more broadly as connection—to oneself, to one’s work, and to one’s audience.

Because the factor categorized in our study as connection captures not just the warmth and goodwill that the scientist may feel for the audience, but also warmth and goodwill that is generated toward the scientist in return, it emphasizes the reciprocal nature of the communication exchange and establishment of trustworthiness. It addresses such questions as: Does the researcher care about me understanding their research, does the researcher care whether or not the research is relevant to my life, is the researcher willing to show me their true self in a way that invites my connection to them, and even empathy? This reciprocity may be particularly crucial when the power (i.e. knowledge/expertise) differences are more pronounced and/or the conditions exist for motivated reasoning (i.e. the researcher exhibits sociocultural cues that are at odds with the audience’s). While acknowledging that the connection measure could be argued to represent diverse components (i.e., the relationship of the researcher with the audience, with their work, and with their self-understanding), our factor analysis indicates that there is a valid reason for grouping these items together. By identifying a link between the researcher’s attitude toward the work/audience and the audience’s emotional response to the researcher, this study raises interesting new questions. If, as Petraglia claims [ 25 ], “authenticity is not exclusively—or even predominantly—about the objective accuracy of information as much as it is about one’s attitude toward information,” it is not just the audience’s attitude toward the information that is in play in assessing the potential contribution of perceived authenticity in trustworthiness, but the researcher’s as well. This research points toward an expansion of the idea of benevolence to include these additional characteristics.

Among the four narrative conditions this study tested—each based on qualities that the literature suggested were associated with perceived authenticity—only the narrative condition that combined the first-person narrative style with the researcher’s origin of interest was rated as significantly more authentic for the connection and integrity factors than the control. Just using a first-person narrative style resulted in perceptions of more authenticity on the connection factor, which was also rated significantly higher than the control. The message conditions designed to illustrate vulnerability in the scientist (backward-looking fallibility) and openness about scientific uncertainty (forward-looking fallibility) did not result in increased perceptions of authenticity that were statistically significant. The challenge of measuring the impact of scientific uncertainty on perceptions of authenticity points to a limitation of this study. Scientific uncertainty is itself multi-faceted and under-defined in the literature [ 50 ]. Further, uncertainty is a primary driver of scientific research generally and findings are rarely presented without some acknowledgement of how knowledge on the subject is evolving. Thus, by underscoring the openness of the communicator toward revision—both past and future—message conditions 3 and 5 amplify a kind of uncertainty that is nonetheless also present in the control message to a lesser degree.

Another limitation suggested by this result relates to the relative difficulty of drafting narrative conditions that reflect complex and/or subjective attributes such as vulnerability and openness, as compared to the comparatively concrete narrative task of describing how a scientist came to be interested in the subject at hand. All experimental message conditions were designed to be of the same approximate length, ranging from 175 words (message condition 5) to 194 words (message condition 4), with the exception of message condition 2 which involved a change to the first person but otherwise included no new information. Dramatizing forward- and backward-looking fallibility by adding concrete examples might well have made them more similar to message condition 4 in vividness, but would have likely required a trade-off with regard to similarity in length. This dilemma underscores a challenge of narrative research generally and represents a limitation in this study: narratives are heterogeneous and multi-dimensional and the preponderance of interdisciplinary definitions of narrative focus on structure rather than content. While some recent research offers a framework for examining the power of some narratives to engage over others [ 51 ], the absence of useful methods to compare narrative “power” represents a gap in the study of narratives and warrants further study.

At the same time, the fact that the first-person narrative style combined with presenting the researcher’s origin of interest in the scientific brief did produce significant results indicates this might be an effective technique for conveying the researcher’s “personal stake in the issue” [ 24 ] in a manner that promotes a sense of authenticity.

Though research suggests that some individuals may be more inclined to trust others in general (Mayer et al., 1995), the literature further suggests that a variety of social factors may predispose certain groups to trust or not trust scientific leaders and that these factors may vary significantly according to context [ 1 ]. Political ideology, education level, race/ethnicity, and gender have all been shown to have impact in some settings and with some topics [ 32 , 36 , 52 – 53 ]. In particular, the literature suggests that political affiliation and education level impact trust in science communication messages in politicized contexts [ 31 , 54 – 55 ]. Findings in this study discovered some of those same predispositions, as evidenced by differences in perceived authenticity related to education level and political identification that emerged in a non-politicized context.

Because politicized contexts have been shown to influence trust, the authors intentionally chose a topic—the domestication of plants—that has not been politicized for the purpose of measuring perceived authenticity in response to narrative manipulations. Neither education nor political affiliation were predicted to exert significant effects on the perception of authenticity in response to our message conditions. However, regardless of the message condition, the participants with higher educational level and who self-identified more as Republican rated statistically significantly lower scores for both the connection and integrity factors of authenticity. Although it is possible that the topic of plant domestication has political dimensions of which the researchers were unaware, it is more likely that these results reflect political and educational predispositions toward scientists in general.

Practical applications and future research

In conceptualizing and measuring perceived authenticity in science communication, this research speaks to a gap highlighted in the NAS report: “Given the importance of audience perceptions about the trustworthiness and credibility of the communicator, research needs to examine the effects on audiences when science communicators are open about their own values and preferences” [ 1 ]. The discovery that by sharing the origin of his/her interest in a subject a scientist might enhance perceived authenticity is a strategy that is importantly not dependent upon the audience’s understanding or acceptance of other indicators, such as institutional affiliation.

While, as mentioned above, the conceptual framework of connection will benefit from future study, this research nonetheless hints at the ways that perceived authenticity may differ from other causes of trust such as transparency or honesty. A science communicator who is transparent and honest can be expected to reveal their institutional ties. Institutional trust, however, is more influenced by the kind of sociocultural factors at work in motivated reasoning than trust in an individual person [ 14 ] and so, to the extent that critiques of scientists focus on the argument that they are self-interested, biased or possessing a hidden agenda [ 54 ], the attempt by the scientist to communicate scientific objectivity and institutional authority may work against their trustworthiness. The objective style of traditional science communication—meant to convey “abstract truths that remain valid” regardless of context [ 41 ]—is disadvantaged in a media environment that privileges personal narratives from a variety of professional and non-professional sources [ 3 ]. By refocusing on the individual communicator, however briefly, these narrative techniques have the potential to create opportunities for connection that might be otherwise closed off.

The Internet provides ample opportunity for consumers to apply sociocultural criteria to the filtering of information, including scientific information. In this context, conventional hallmarks of expertise such as advanced degrees, institutional affiliation, and claims of objectivity [ 15 ] may provoke motivated reasoning related to sociocultural factors, as opposed to conferring authority, as the science communicator may hope. This presents science communicators with the following dilemma, particularly when they are communicating findings in politicized contexts: A scientist must simultaneously present themselves as unlike their audience in an important way (they have information to share that is the result of rigorous research—they are an expert with important findings) while also convincing the audience that they are not so unlike them (politically, or in their specific professional and personal goals) that they should be dismissed as untrustworthy. This dilemma becomes more pronounced the more specialized and complicated the findings and the more necessary the reliance on expertise [ 56 ]. As conceptualized by this research, authenticity offers an opportunity for scientist and audience to recognize each other as individuals with qualities in common that, while expressed in the context of science communication, are not dependent upon the science itself (passion, eagerness to be understood, a specific personal history).

In the current media and political environment, many influences on how audiences apply sociocultural filters in forming perceptions of a scientist’s ability/expertise are beyond the scientist’s control. Understanding how a scientist might increase the degree of trust by strengthening credibility with regard to one specific component may allow them to offset other potential deficits. The narrative manipulation tested in this first study highlights an approach—communicating the scientist’s origin of interest in the topic—that is concrete and available to a given science communicator, regardless of the external environment. The next phase of research will study whether or not conveying a sense of the scientist as a human being, a unique individual with qualities beyond institutional affiliations or a role in the production of the research, has the power to mediate motivated reasoning with regard to the communication of politicized findings.

Supporting information

S1 appendix. messages used in each experimental condition and a full list of survey questions..

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0226711.s001

Acknowledgments

We gratefully acknowledge Dr. J. Chris Pires from the Division of Biological Sciences at the University of Missouri for his professional and generous consultation on the scientific materials used in our experiment.

• 1. National Academies of Sciences‚ Engineering‚ and Medicine. Communicating science effectively: A research agenda. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 2017.
• View Article
• Google Scholar
• PubMed/NCBI
• 8. Kernis MH, Goldman BM. A Multicomponent Conceptualization of Authenticity: Theory and Research. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology. 38: Academic Press; 2006. p. 283–357.
• 16. Shamir B, Eilam-Shamir G. Chapter 3 “What’s Your Story?” A Life-Stories Approach to Authentic Leadership Development. Leadership Now: Reflections on the Legacy of Boas Shamir. Monographs in Leadership and Management. 9: Emerald Publishing Limited; 2018. p. 51–76.
• 24. Renn O, Levine D. Credibility and trust in risk communication. In: Kasperson RE, Stallen PJM, editors. Communicating Risks to the Public: International Perspectives. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands; 1991. p. 175–217.
• 37. Nisbet MC, Markowitz E. Science Communication Research: Bridging Theory and Practice. Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science; 2016.
• 47. Osborne J, Costello A, Kellow J. Best practices in exploratory factor analysis. 2008 2019/10/16. In: Best Practices in Quantitative Methods [Internet]. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc. Available from: https://methods.sagepub.com/book/best-practices-in-quantitative-methods .
• 49. Harrington D. Confirmatory factor analysis. New York, NY: Oxford university press; 2009.
• 53. National Science Board. Science and technology: Public attitudes and understanding. Alexandria, VA; 2018.

Students’ perceived authenticity and understanding of authentic research while experimenting in a non-formal learning setting

• Open access
• Published: 07 March 2024

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

• Sarah Hohrath   ORCID: orcid.org/0009-0008-8257-7562 1 ,
• Sandra Aßmann   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-5132-269X 1 ,
• Heiko Krabbe   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-3474-4086 2 &
• Maria Opfermann 3  

920 Accesses

2 Citations

Explore all metrics

Non-formal learning settings like out-of-school labs provide students with insights into authentic learning situations. For example, in physics, students are engaged in experimenting as an authentic method. However, increasing the authenticity in experimentation can lead to overwhelming demands and hinder concept development and does not even need to be perceived as more authentic. We investigated the role of authenticity in experimenting in an out-of-school lab. Specifically, we explored (a) what influence the level of guidance has on students’ perceived authenticity (RQ1), (b) which references students use in their assessment judging perceived authenticity (RQ2), and (c) to what extent perceived authenticity predicts students’ learning outcomes (RQ3). To address these issues, a mixed methods study was carried out. One hundred forty-two students of seventh and eighth grade experimented in small groups and investigated the pattern that occurs when different apertures are placed between various light sources and a screen. Students were randomly assigned to one of two variants of the learning setting. In the guided experimentation group, students performed five pre-designed experiments and one freely chosen experiment, while the self-determined experimenting students freely designed all six experiments. A questionnaire was administered for perceived authenticity and interviews were conducted about the experimentation process. The learning outcome was measured with a pre- and post-test. We found no significant difference in perceived authenticity and learning outcomes of the two groups. To explain this, we conducted and analyzed interviews in terms of students’ understandings of authentic research to determine the views their authenticity judgments were based on.

Similar content being viewed by others

Investigating students’ perceived authenticity of learning activities in an out-of-school lab for social sciences: a replication study

Model authenticity in learning mathematical experimentation: how students perceive and learn from scientist and peer models

Stirring a Secret Sauce: A Literature Review on the Conditions and Effects of Authentic Learning

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

Introduction

Non-formal learning.

Formal learning in institutions like schools or universities is based on a curriculum that usually focuses on knowledge acquisition and ends with a certification of learning goals and qualifications (Aßmann, 2013 ; Leu, 2014 ). In contrast, non-formal learning is also goal-oriented but takes place outside the formal learning systems. Its content is not determined through a curriculum and the learning process does not require final certification (Rogers, 2014 ). Non-formal learning has a complementary and sometimes compensatory function to formal learning (Commission of the European Communities, 2001 ). One institution that can complement school-based formal learning is the out-of-school lab. As an institution especially addressing schoolchildren, it offers additional and different learning opportunities compared to schools (Glowinski & Bayrhuber, 2011 ; Haupt et al., 2013 ). In out-of-school labs, the contents of projects do not need to be part of a (school) curriculum (Euler, 2005 ) but can be a thematic continuation or deepening (Euler & Schüttler, 2020 ). Participation in the projects is optional and the topics are thus freely selectable. Another important characteristic of out-of-school labs is that depending on the project, they aim to offer students the opportunity to act like real researchers and, therefore, to learn authentically (Betz, 2018 ; Glowinski & Bayrhuber, 2011 ; Sommer et al., 2018 ). According to LernortLabor ( 2019 ) as well as Haupt et al. ( 2013 ), the Alfried Krupp-Schülerlabor der Wissenschaften, in which we conducted our study, meets in our study conception the criteria of a classical out-of-school lab as students are visiting the lab with their whole class and the topic of this project is an extension of the school curriculum in physics. Further, the project day was didactically preplanned, and the goal of the day students should have reached by experimenting was already set.

Authenticity in learning situations

Working (authentically) in out-of-school labs means that students’ learning is inspired by researchers’ working approaches. Such inquiry learning involves using methods from the respective discipline (Betz, 2018 ; Glowinski & Bayrhuber, 2011 ; Haupt et al., 2013 ). In science, for example, this means “planning and conducting investigations, drawing conclusions, revising theories, and communicating results” (Lee & Songer, 2003 , p. 923), but also working collaboratively and using typical materials of the respective discipline (Nachtigall et al., 2022 ). This is also in line with students’ expectations when visiting an out-of-school learning setting in the context of science lessons: students expect more time for experimentation than in school as well as working collaboratively (Nachtigall & Rummel, 2022 ). Further, they expect that the experiments are student-centered and that they can pursue their own ideas during the experimentation process (Garner & Eilks, 2015 ; Schwarzer & Parchmann, 2015 ). Additionally, students also expect a visit to an out-of-school lab to be authentic in the sense that it is similar to working like real researchers (Schwarzer & Parchmann, 2015 ).

Authentic learning, and along with it the perceived authenticity, has different advantages compared to school learning: It has a motivating effect on students (Betz, 2018 ; Glowinski & Bayrhuber, 2011 ; Nachtigall et al., 2018 ) as well as effects on students’ (situational) interest (Nachtigall & Rummel, 2021 ; Pawek, 2009 ), which are factors relevant for learning (Krapp, 1992 ), and especially important for making career decisions (Woods-McConney et al., 2013 ). It allows students to experience natural contexts addressing real problems, and thereby links the more abstract learning at school with the application of knowledge to the real world (Gerstenmaier & Mandl, 1995 ; Herrington & Oliver, 2000 ; Stamer et al., 2021 ). This should lead to the acquisition of scientific knowledge (Scharfenberg & Bogner, 2014 ). Further, through authentic learning situations, students can gain insights into the real work of scientists (Euler, 2005 ; Reimann et al., 2020 ; Scharfenberg & Bogner, 2014 ) and break down corresponding stereotypes, for example, that scientists are primarily male and wear a white coat (Christidou, 2011 ; Hagenkötter et al., 2021 ; Höttecke, 2001 ). This is important so that students can, for example, make informed decisions about their future careers (Euler, 2005 ; Scharfenberg & Bogner, 2014 ; Stamer et al., 2019 , 2021 ) as well as to learn scientific reasoning for everyday life problems (Chinn & Malhotra, 2002 ; Mansfield & Reiss, 2020 ). Recent studies showed that students did not know about important aspects of scientists’ work, like interpreting data or collaboration between different researchers, and therefore, their judgments of authenticity in a learning situation were biased by their limited knowledge (Stamer et al., 2021 ).

Undoubtedly, there is a difference between researchers and students, for example regarding prior knowledge about the content and the inquiry process, but also regarding time and resource restrictions. Because of this, real research can be overwhelming for students (Lee & Songer, 2003 ). Therefore, it must be acknowledged that the authenticity of a learning situation can be classified on a continuum between a didacticized learning situation and the real world of scientists (Betz et al., 2016 ; Sommer et al., 2020 ).

Betz et al. ( 2016 ) suggested a model where perceived authenticity in learning situations is shaped by personal and learning setting characteristics. The perceived authenticity again may have an influence, for example, on students’ situational interest, concept development, and competencies. According to the model, aspects of the teaching situation such as location, method, content, material, innovation, and the instructor may influence on perceived authenticity and can be influenced through the instructor, whereas personal characteristics such as gender, prior knowledge, epistemic beliefs, and individual interest of the students are not selectable for the instructor. For example, a location could seem more authentic, if it has been prepared primarily for scientific purposes. A method is considered authentic if it is part of the scientific methods used in the discipline (Finger et al., 2022 ; Sommer et al., 2020 ). In any case, the teaching situation needs to be evaluated regarding its authenticity against the background of the discipline. The model has already been tested in the context of out-of-school labs through various studies in different subjects (history: Mierwald, 2020 ; linguistics: Betz, 2018 ; social sciences: Nachtigall et al., 2018 ; for an overview, see Nachtigall & Rummel, 2021 )—however, empirical results on the assumptions postulated by the model were rather mixed. Betz ( 2018 ) conducted a study with the same tasks, but at two different places: in schools and in an out-of-school lab. When comparing the effects of the location on students’ perceived authenticity and their situational interest, the out-of-school lab was perceived as more authentic, and the situational interest was higher in the out-of-school lab. Nachtigall et al. ( 2018 ) as well as Nachtigall and Rummel ( 2021 ), for instance, varied the authenticity of the method from direct instruction to an approach closer to (social) scientists, namely productive failure and assessed students’ perceived authenticity as well as their situational interest. The productive failure approach simulated features of scientific inquiry, in which students worked in an initial phase on a complex problem without prior guidance and received canonical solutions to discover the limitations of their own ideas and to learn from their mistakes later on. In the direct instruction approach, typical solution strategies were presented to students before they worked on the problem. In contrast to their hypotheses, students in the more authentic productive failure approach did not report higher perceived authenticity than students who participated in the less authentic direct instruction approach. Additionally, Stamer et al. ( 2021 ) conducted a study in an out-of-school lab in which they compared two conditions with each other: watching videos of authentic scientists working and afterwards conducting the experiments versus just conducting the experiments. They found that students also watching the experiments have a better idea of scientists’ activities. Concerning the material, Schüttler et al. ( 2021 ) conducted a study in physics that compared students’ perceived authenticity of low-cost versus high-end laboratory equipment. As expected, they found that students’ perceived authenticity was significantly higher when the material was equivalent to that of real researchers. As can be seen, there are different possibilities to foster perceived authenticity in out-of-school learning opportunities. The rather mixed results for the variation of the method led us to conduct a study with varying methods in physics.

Experimenting as a learning method in physics

Experimenting is established with different functions in physics classes (Euler et al., 2015 ; Lazonder & Harmsen, 2016 ). To foster learning, it is necessary that students work not only hands-on but also with their minds, following their own ideas (Hofstein & Lunetta, 2004 ). This can be achieved through inquiry-based learning by allowing students to investigate a phenomenon in a “more authentic [way]” (Hofstein & Lunetta, 2004 , p. 30), which means similar to the way used by scientists. According to the definition of Lazonder and Harmsen ( 2016 ), inquiry is a method where:

students conduct experiments, make observations or collect information in order to infer the principles underlying a topic or domain. These investigations are governed by one or more research questions, either provided by the teacher or proposed by the students; adhere (loosely) to the stages outlined in the scientific method; and can be performed with […] tangible materials […]. (p. 682)

Nevertheless, it is discussed whether inquiry-based learning supports effective learning of physical concepts (Hattie, 2009 ; Kirschner et al., 2006 ; Lazonder & Harmsen, 2016 ). In their meta-analysis, Lazonder and Harmsen ( 2016 ) conclude that guidance seems to be necessary for concept development through inquiry-based learning. However, students can be supported with different levels of guidance depending on their level of knowledge and experiences during the experimentation process (Bell et al., 2005 ). Bell et al. ( 2005 ), for example, distinguish in their model between four levels depending on the information about the research question, the method, and the solution that is given to the students. Further, Tesch and Duit ( 2004 ) found that in German physics lessons, the level of openness is rather low as students have nearly no opportunity to plan or analyze an experiment on their own. Chinn and Malhotra ( 2002 ) found similar results when analyzing textbook tasks as well as tasks designed by researchers: students mostly do not follow their own research questions, often do not need to conduct several studies, or do not have the task to develop a theory based on their experimental results. This is in line with the findings of Börlin ( 2012 ) that students in German physics classes have only seldom the chance to decide which experiments to conduct or in which order they want to conduct the experiments during station learning. Thus, students cannot conduct an inquiry process directly without any instructional support, for example by the teachers. They rather need especially at the beginning more support which then can decrease (Bell et al., 2005 ). Further, Horstendahl et al. ( 2000 ) postulated that students with high competencies and high motivation can conduct experiments with fewer instructions whereas students with low competencies and high motivation better receive more instructions to avoid overwhelming them. In line with this, Euler ( 2005 ) found that students with less interest in science need more guidance during an experimentation process. Overall, it must be considered that inquiry for school students is relatively authentic compared to the work of scientists as it is not close to authentic inquiry tasks (Chinn & Malhotra, 2002 ).

When using experimentation for concept acquisition, the predict-observe-explain-approach (POE) by White and Gunstone ( 1992 ) is often suggested (Hofstein & Lunetta, 2004 ) as it specifies the question and the task. During POE, students first need to predict the outcome of an experiment, then conduct the experiment and observe it, and afterwards, give explanations for the observed situation. In the last step, there may occur differences between predictions and observations and students receive the possibility to discuss these discrepancies. As a result, POE helps students to investigate on their own with the goal to work minds-on as well as hands-on (Hofstein & Lunetta, 2004 ; White & Gunstone, 1992 ).

The present study

In the present mixed methods study, we examined students’ perceived authenticity and their perception of authentic research by varying the intended authenticity of the method. Therefore, we used an experimentation process with two different levels of guidance in an out-of-school lab. The students investigated through an experimentation process the optical phenomenon of the so-called sun thalers (Schlichting, 1995 ). This refers to the round spots of light that appear on the ground under a canopy of leaves when sunlight passes through the holes. We decided to use this phenomenon as students have no prior knowledge about it because varying the light source is not part of the German school curriculum and, furthermore, because the experimental setup is simple and not dangerous. Students were asked to investigate this phenomenon in small groups: They were given four different light sources (single and multiple LED spots, one elongated and one extended bulb) and three differently shaped apertures (circular, triangular, and rhombic) to examine the pattern that occurs (Wosilait et al., 1998 ). We had two different intervention groups: Guided experimenting students received instruction on which five combinations of light source and aperture they should use in which order. The combinations considered the variable control strategy and the bridging strategy (Clement, 1993 ). The sequence of the combinations got increasingly cognitively demanding and closer to the real situation of sun thalers. For the sixth and final experiment, the light source and aperture were freely selectable for guided experimenting students. Self-determined working students needed to select the combinations of light source and aperture for all six experiments on their own since they were not given any specifications for this.

Research questions and hypotheses

Our research was led by three research questions and their related hypotheses: In Research Question 1, we aimed to explore the influence that the level of guidance has on students’ perceived authenticity. With regard to this question, we hypothesized the following:

H1.1: Self-determined experimenting students experience their learning as being more authentic than guided experimenters.

Following Betz et al. ( 2016 ) and Finger et al. ( 2022 ), we assumed that self-determined experimentation can be located closer to the work of researchers on the continuum between a didactic learning setting and the real professional world. Furthermore, we expected the following in particular:

H1.2: Self-determined experimenters have especially on the dimension “methods” a higher perceived authenticity then guided experimenters.

The difference between the self-determined and the guided intervention was the method during the experimentation process with the self-determined intervention intended to be relatively more authentic due to less instructions and, thus, being closer to the real world of scientists. Further, as students expect student-centered experimentation processes in small groups in out-of-school learning settings (Garner & Eilks, 2015 ; Schwarzer & Parchmann, 2015 ), the self-determined intervention was closer to this expectation of students for out-of-school lab visits. Therefore, in addition to H1.1, we especially expected a difference regarding this component of the perceived authenticity in favor of self-determined experimenters as their experimentation process was with less instructions and accordingly was more open for students pursuing their own ideas.

In Research Question 2, we examined what reference students use in their assessment judging their perceived authenticity. The questionnaire for the assessment of perceived authenticity in science education by Finger et al. ( 2022 ), which is used in this study, is based on a specific understanding of authentic research, but there is no guarantee that students completing the questionnaire will have the same understanding of research in mind. Even when students are really working like researchers, it is probable that they do not recognize it, because they have limited knowledge about the work of researchers (Stamer et al., 2021 ). Previous studies have already shown that students have different ideas about science and scientists, for example, that scientists are mostly men in a laboratory, who can be role models for society, but their personality can also be eccentric and their actions immoral (for an overview see Christidou, 2011 ). Thus, we complemented the quantitative assessment of perceived authenticity with student interviews to explore the understanding of authentic research of students from our sample and to better understand their judgments. This analysis was explorative.

Finally, in Research Question 3, we investigated to what extent perceived authenticity predicts students’ learning outcomes. Thereby, we hypothesized the following:

H3.1: Students with higher perceived authenticity show higher learning outcomes than students with lower perceived authenticity.

According to the model by Betz et al. ( 2016 ), perceived authenticity has, among other things, an impact on knowledge acquisition, and therefore, with a higher perceived authenticity, the learning outcomes should be higher. Nevertheless, empirical findings are ambiguous in this regard: Scharfenberg et al. ( 2007 ) found a significantly higher learning success for groups experimenting in a laboratory in comparison to groups learning non-experimental in school, which includes a difference in favor to the laboratory regarding a more authentic location as well as a more authentic method. For example, Nachtigall et al. ( 2018 ) could not find a significant effect of perceived authenticity on the learning outcome.

Conceptualization of the mixed methods study

In order to gain a deeper understanding of students’ learning through authentic experimenting in a non-formal learning setting and their perceptions of authentic research, we conducted a mixed methods study (Johnson et al., 2007 ). We used a ( convergent) parallel design for our study as both qualitative and quantitative methods are performed independently, but the respective data were collected (nearly) simultaneously and were combined in the interpretation of the results (Schoonenboom & Johnson, 2017 ; Teddlie & Tashakkori, 2010 ). Both sets of data were used to focus on the research questions from different perspectives.

Our sample consists of N  = 142 seventh and eighth grade students (female = 63, male = 77, diverse = 2; \({M}_{{\text{Age}}}\) = 13.04, \({SD}_{{\text{Age}}}\) = 0.65) from six different classes of two German secondary schools. Teachers voluntarily registered for the project day based on their interests. The participating classes were randomly divided into small groups that were alternately assigned to one of the two interventions. In each class, one group per intervention was randomly selected to be videographed during the experimentation process and interviewed after the project day. For the quantitative data analysis, the sample was reduced to N  = 139 valid cases, where each instrument was filled out. N  = 69 students in 25 different groups experimented guided, while N  = 70 students distributed over 23 different groups experimented self-determined. The interviews were voluntary and took place a few days after the visit to the out-of-school lab in the afternoon during the students’ free time. Thus, the sample for the qualitative content analysis is based on N  = 24 students from 11 different groups.

Study design

In the following, the design of the intervention as well as the procedure will be presented.

Design of the intervention

In our study, students experimented guided or self-determined during an unassisted experimentation process for exploring the phenomenon of the sun thalers. To create a cognitive conflict, the students in both groups were first shown that behind a triangular aperture, there is a triangular light spot if it is illuminated with a punctual light source, but surprisingly, a circular light spot if an extended circular light source is used. Then, they were instructed to solve this in a series of experiments. Guided experimenting students received a prescribed sequence of the combinations of light sources (punctual light source, multiple (i.e., 28) LED spots, elongated light source, and one extended circular bulb) and apertures (circular, triangular, rhombic) for the first five of their six experiments. Thereby, the sequence is based on the variable control strategy combined with the bridging strategy (Clement, 1993 ) closing stepwise the gap between the two initial experiments. Only for the sixth experiment students were allowed to freely select the combination of light source(s) and aperture. In contrast, self-determined experimenters received the same materials but no instruction on when to use which light source respectively which aperture. Therefore, they needed to decide for all their six experiments which material they wanted to use to investigate the phenomenon.

When using the introduced authenticity model by Betz et al. ( 2016 ) for classifying our study design into their proposed learning setting characteristics, we varied the method. The self-determined intervention is intended to be relatively more authentic as students, like researchers, did not receive direct instructions about which materials to use and when. Therefore, self-determined experimenters are not able to follow a more “simple, algorithmic procedure” (Hodson, 1999 ), which is one of the myths about science which is often propagated in science classes (Hodson, 1999 ). It must be noted that the given materials (i.e., light sources and apertures) may not perceived as particular authentic materials by the students, since they are quite ordinary and (partly) familiar to the students (Braund & Reiss, 2006 ; Nachtigall et al., 2022 ). But they are not dangerous and thus can be used by students independently without strict supervision for experimenting in small groups. Working in small groups should contribute to the authenticity (Betz et al., 2016 ), because it can be regarded to be more similar to researchers’ work mode (Chinn & Malhotra, 2002 ). However, the limited amount of time in the out-of-school lab project can be seen as a restriction compared to authentic research because there is a difference between an authentic timeframe and an educational timeframe for an inquiry process (Hod & Sagy, 2019 ), and in our study, the authentic timeframe was limited by the project day.

With regard to the other aspects of authenticity, i.e., location, instructor, and innovation, the following applied: students worked in a real laboratory in an out-of-school lab at a university as location. The instructor was a real researcher, even if her appearance did not correspond to typical students’ conceptions about scientists (Hagenkötter et al., 2021 ; Höttecke, 2001 ) as the instructor was younger and female and did not wear glasses. The context of the sun thalers is a real-life phenomenon, which can be observed in students’ everyday life. Investigating such an observable phenomenon through simplified model experiments in the laboratory is a common approach for inquiry tasks in classrooms, even when the simplification is a known limitation of model experiments (Chinn & Malhotra, 2002 ). However, the novelty value for science is low since the phenomenon has already been explored. Nevertheless, the phenomenon was unknown to the students and, therefore, could be an innovative topic for experimentation.

Overall, the self-determined intervention is intended to be relatively more authentic on the continuum between a didacticized learning setting and the world of real researchers (Betz et al., 2016 ; Hod & Sagy, 2019 ; Sommer et al., 2020 ), but it needs to be noted that it is still not authentic research in the eyes of scientists as they are some restrictions (i.e., less authentic material due to its characteristics) for the project day as explained above.

Each participating class completed the same project day, which lasted 4.5 h in total with an additional 1.5 h of break time. The day started with the pre-test, which was to be filled out on a computer. This was followed by a repetition of rectilinear light propagation and light ray paths were considered from the various light sources to be used in the experimental process. Further, we tried to induce a cognitive conflict through two demonstration experiments. First, we showed a punctual light source directed at a triangular-shaped aperture which resulted in a triangular-shaped light spot, and afterwards, we used the extended circular light source, which produced a circular image for the same aperture. This image is formed because the triangular images of the many point-like light sources of the extended light source overlap in a circle (Schlichting, 1995 ). Since imaging with extended light sources is rarely considered in school, this image was not expected by students, causing surprise and a cognitive conflict. Thus, the students were challenged to solve this in their small groups with experiments following the question: What influence do the shape of the light source and aperture have on the image?

After the necessary experimental material had been distributed, all students were given 10 min to freely explore the materials and develop their first ideas. Next came a period of 64 to 87 min ( \({M}_{\mathrm{Length Exp}.\mathrm{ process}}\) = 80 min, \({SD}_{\mathrm{Length Exp}.\mathrm{ process}}\) = 9 min) with more structured investigations in which students conducted six experiments according to the POE scheme in their small groups (White & Gunstone, 1992 ). Each participant was encouraged to write down his or her predictions, discoveries, and explanations in a prepared lab book.

Having finished the experiments, the students answered the post-test and the questionnaire about perceived authenticity on the computer. Finally, the results of the experimentation process were discussed with the whole class and the results were applied to the phenomenon of the sun thalers. For organizational reasons, interviews with two randomly selected small groups of each class could not take place on the same day. For eight groups, the interview was conducted between 1 and 3 days after the project day, three groups had the interview 16 respectively 25 days later, and one group dropped out. Usually, the interviews were conducted via the video conferencing system Zoom. In one case, the interview took place at the school. The interviews lasted between 13:23 and 36:20 min.

Perceived authenticity

We measured students’ perceived authenticity with the questionnaire of Finger et al. ( 2022 ) which is based on the model of authenticity by Betz et al. ( 2016 ). The questionnaire allowed a validated multidimensional assessment of perceived authenticity for out-of-school lab learning settings. The basis of the questionnaire is the understanding that authentic research in an out-of-school lab is when students experience the everyday life and working methods of researchers in their discipline as well as the complexity of their field of work (Finger et al., 2022 ). The questionnaire consists of 13 items (Cronbach’s α  = 0.84) that reflect the four dimensions of authenticity Footnote 1 : method (4 items; Cronbach’s α  = 0.70; “I myself proceeded as one proceeds in research.”), location (3 items; Cronbach’s α  = 0.82; “I worked at a place where research was being done.”), instructor (3 items; Cronbach’s α  = 0.67; “I was assisted by a real researcher.”), and innovation (3 items; Cronbach’s α  = 0.79; “I helped research answer an important question.”). Each item was assessed on a 5-point Likert scale from 1 =  completely wrong to 5 =  completely correct . Further, all items are on the authenticity-continuum scale close to the reality of scientists.

Implicit subjective understanding of authentic research

We conducted group interviews with the small groups that were selected to be videographed. Each interview consisted of five parts regarding the experimentation process and students’ perception of it: We started the interviews with an open question about the way of experimenting and whether the students had already experience, plus what was different regarding experimenting in school. Next, we asked students to describe and explain their specific procedure during the experimentation process. This was followed by questions about authentic research. In the fourth part, students told us about their knowledge gained through the experiments, and finally, we finished the interviews with students reporting their personal challenges. All interviews were semi-structured and each part started with an open conversation prompt that was followed up by more specific questions if topics were not already covered in the talk (Brenner, 2006 ). This allowed us to strengthen the comparability between the different group interviews. Furthermore, students of that age are used to a certain level of guidance in discussions from school which makes the situation more familiar (adapted from Grecu et al., 2022 ). In this paper, our focus for the analysis is on the part about what is authentic research for the participating students. This part of the interviews covered the students’ ideas of what research is and if they think they conducted research during the project day. Through this, we wanted to analyze students’ implicit subjective understandings of authentic research (König & Volmer, 2020 ).

Prior and post knowledge test

Prior to and after the experimentation process, students answered a knowledge test about geometrical optics. In the pre-test, four different areas from geometrical optics were covered by 19 items: light propagation (5), shadow (5), aperture (5), and reflection (4) ((adapted) items of Teichrew & Erb, 2019 ; Haagen-Schützenhöfer & Hopf, 2013 ; Mavanga, 2001 ; McDermott & Shaffer, 2009 ; self-constructed items). We used two-tier items: The first tier assessed students’ knowledge about the topic and the second tier assessed students’ conceptual reasoning. Due to Rasch analysis and classical discriminatory power analysis applied to the pre-test data, eight items had to be excluded. Thus, the pre-test results of the students are calculated based on 11 items (Cronbach’s α  = 0.59).

To keep the test time short, only items related to aperture imaging were used in the post-test. For this purpose, four additional items were added to the five items of the pre-test. Due to the results of the Rasch analysis and the discriminatory power analysis, we had to exclude three items. Thus, all results related to the post-test are based on the remaining six items (Cronbach’s α  = 0.56).

For each item, students could receive up to two points in our rating: one for the correct first tier and the second point if both tiers were answered correctly. If just the second tier was answered correctly, students did not receive a point. Since we dropped the items concerning light propagation in the post-test, we do not expect the repetition of rectilinear light propagation and light ray paths to have a direct impact on the post-test results.

For all calculations (except the preliminary analyses), the sample is based on N  = 139 valid cases. The sample for the qualitative content analysis is based on N  = 24 students from 11 small groups. Quantitative analyses were conducted with SPSS 28 and the Rasch analysis software Winsteps (version 4.5.4). For qualitative analyses, MAXQDA 2020 was used.

Before more in-depth analyses, a χ 2 -test regarding gender, an ANOVA regarding students’ grades in physics, mathematics, and German, and regarding prior knowledge were calculated to ensure that both intervention groups are comparable. It has to be noted that not all students wanted to share their grades (valid cases out of N  = 139 students—physics: N  = 105; mathematics: N  = 133; German: N  = 135).

The samples for the two interventions did not differ statistically significantly regarding gender ( χ 2 (2) = 2.63, p  = .27, ϕ  = 0.14). Neither differences in grades (physics, F (1,103) = 1.29, p  = .26, η 2  = 0.01, 95% CI [0.00; 0.08]; mathematics, F (1,131) = 1.59, p  = .21, η 2  = 0.01, 95% CI [0.00; 0.07]; German, F (1,133) < 1) nor in the pre-test ( F (1,137) = 1.07, p  = .30 (two-tailed), η 2  = 0.01, 95% CI [0.00; 0.06]) were found between guided and self-determined experimenting groups.

What influence does the level of guidance have on students’ perceived authenticity (RQ1)?

First, descriptive statistics will be presented in Table  1 . Since not all dimensions were assessed with the same number of items in the FEWAW, the mean score is calculated for each dimension. This makes the dimensions comparable on the same scale from 1 ( completely wrong ) to 5 ( completely correct ).

We then calculated a multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) with the four scales of the questionnaire as dependent variables and the intervention groups as factors, for comparing students’ perceived authenticity based on their level of guidance. The MANOVA revealed no differences between guided and self-determined experimenting students on the combined dimensions of perceived authenticity ( F (4, 134) = 0.90, p  = .464, \({\eta }_{p}^{2}\) = 0.026, Wilk’s Λ  = 0.974) (H1.1). Furthermore, as can be seen in Table  1 , even for the dimension method where we expected a difference in perceived authenticity depending on the level of guidance, no significant difference was found (H1.2).

Accordingly, our hypotheses that self-determined experimenting students perceived the learning situation as more authentic (H1.1), especially with respect to the method (H1.2), cannot be confirmed. Guided experimenters even reported slightly higher scores on all scales, although the differences were minimal and not significant.

What reference do students use in their assessment judging their perceived authenticity (RQ2)?

For the qualitative analysis, we first created anonymous transcripts of the interviews according to the guidelines of Lamnek and Krell ( 2016 ). Afterwards, we conducted a qualitative content analysis (Kuckartz & Rädiker, 2022 ) with the goal to extract students’ individual subjective understanding (König & Volmer, 2020 ) of research and to cluster these statements into a category system we developed deductively-inductively. We began by marking statements of students that referred to what they understand by research and what they do not evaluate as such. These statements were then assigned to the categories of method , location , instructor , and innovation from the questionnaire of Finger et al. ( 2022 ). We also found statements which did not belong to either of the four dimensions; these were first marked as such and later categorized into our inductively developed categories. For this purpose, we have elaborated on the implicit subjective understanding concealed behind a statement by examining the students’ expressed perception of research for each statement. Furthermore, similar statements were clustered into categories. The coding process was iteratively done in multiple coding cycles by the first author and results were discussed in the team several times.

Finally, the created codes of students’ implicit subjective understanding of authentic research could be assigned to 13 categories (for an overview, see Table  2 ). These categories are presented in the following and are illustrated by short quotations from students’ statements in the interviews Footnote 2 (Elo et al., 2014 ; Kuckartz, 2019 ). The quotations were translated from German and were smoothed out linguistically. We first consider the categories used in the FEWAW questionnaire.

The dimension method refers to statements about the guidelines during a research process. These ranged from researchers having no guidelines at all (“We had instructions. And researchers have these mostly I think probably not” (January 17, 2022, guided)) to researchers sticking to predefined processes (“[it was typical for research that] we got a chronological order of the experiments” (December 6, 2021, guided)).

Location with specific rules

For the second dimension location , we found students’ statements expressing the idea that researchers work in special professional laboratories (“we were sitting in a laboratory where actually other things are being researched” (February 7, 2022, self-determined)) where certain rules apply (“I find that is so typical for research that you have rules that you have to follow.” (December 7, 2021, guided)). Students were unanimous in this regard.

Regarding the dimension instructor from the questionnaire, no references were found in the interview data.

The category innovation includes statements that refer to the extent to which research or the subject of research and the resulting outcome must be something new. Thereby, students differentiated between something new for themselves (“so for us, I think it was already research, because we didn’t know what the outcome would be” (December 6, 2021, guided)) and for researchers (“that’s something that quite a few people have done before us and for me, that would be when you really find something new.” (December 13, 2021, guided)). Two statements also indicated that it is research even when contents are already explored if you get closer to the true answer (“that we have researched for ourselves, but we came closer to the correct result, so we could already guess the result a little bit, therefore I would say that we have already researched but not like real scientists.” (December 13, 2021, guided)).

In addition to the four dimensions from the questionnaire, we extracted the following categories inductively from the material: 5. research interest , 6. topic , 7. scientific practices including the subcategory experimenting , 8. working mode , 9. time constraints , 10. material and devices , 11. collaboration , 12. hints , and 13. belonging to our data acquisition . The categories 7 to 12 are all part of the work of researchers, but we decided not to categorize them as subcategories of “method.” Statements in the category “method” were especially focused on the level of openness in guidelines during a research process, while statements in the categories 7 to 12 were independent from the different levels of guidance.

Research interest

While the category innovation includes statements about the degree of novelty, the category research interest includes statements about the goal and purpose respectively motives of research and researchers, i.e., the interest in knowledge in general. Students in our sample have the understanding that researchers ask themselves questions and find answers to these questions, for example by using experiments. This self-questioning is assumed to be intrinsically motivated as can be seen by the following statement: so you ask yourself all your life questions about it and then you just want to find out, so then you do research, and you also think not only about the possible things, but also about the things that are actually not possible and then you just investigate it. (December 9, 2021, self-determined)

The category topic covers statements about researchers having different subjects and contents of interest in knowledge such as “[Researchers] work with carbon dioxide or so” (January 17, 2022, self-determined) and “Everything can be the content of research” (December 6, 2021, self-determined). These statements range from less to more specific ideas of topics.

Scientific practices including the subcategory experimenting

Statements about scientific practices include, for example, documenting or testing hypotheses, “[we] really researched, because everything that was done was documented. One has also, so at least WE have also documented in detail, so that one can derive something from it afterwards” (December 9, 2021, self-determined) or “we just proceeded according to such a scheme, always justified [our results], we have thought about why […] and just also have made sketches” (December 7, 2021, guided). Further, statements specifically about experimenting as a scientific practice were assigned to the subcategory experimenting. Examples from this category are “[Researchers] experiment” (December 13, 2021, self-determined) and “[It speaks for research that] we found out everything on our own with experiments.” (December 6, 2021, self-determined).

Working mode

In contrast, statements about the working mode emphasize the behavior like “[we did not work like researchers,] our concentration speaks against it, I would say.” (December 7, 2021, self-determined).

Time constraints

Students’ statements unanimously indicate that researchers have no time constraints , for example, “They don’t have such time constraints, of course, so I think they’re freer with time” (December 7, 2021, guided) and “[I do not think it is typical that] we always had to wait for the others until they had finished their experiment and we always only had a given time how long we [were allowed to] need” (February 7, 2022, self-determined).

Material and devices

Statements in the category material and devices refer to the subjective understanding of the equipment used by researchers such as “[Research is] with things that you don’t have in your everyday household, that you need certain material for it” (January 17, 2022, self-determined). Students were in agreement that research equipment is not commonplace but can be used in other research projects as well.

Collaboration

Students think that researchers are working together in groups ( collaboration ) as was the case during the out-of-school project day. An example is “[…] in research to what I have noticed so far, often [one] researches among other people, that you discuss with, and that was for me just quite like research on that day, that you did something in a group” (December 6, 2021, self-determined).

However, the interviewed students have the understanding that researchers (unlike in the out-of-school project) do not receive feedback or advice from outside of their research group ( hints ): “Not typical for research was that you got support […] if you had questions, they were answered” (December 9, 2021, self-determined).

Belonging to our data acquisition

Statements related to our testing such as “[that we needed to answer] a knowledge test on a computer” (February 7, 2022, self-determined) were categorized as belonging to our data acquisition .

To what extent does perceived authenticity predict students’ learning outcomes (RQ3)?

Descriptive results of the learning outcome in the form of the post-test results can be seen in Table  3 . As the ANOVA shows, there is no significant difference in the learning outcome depending on the received level of guidance.

A mediation analysis was conducted to analyze whether learners’ perceived authenticity of the method (M) mediates the effect of the intervention (X) on the post-test results (Y) (H3.1). Considering the bootstrap confidence interval (see Fig.  1 ), the mediation analysis revealed no indirect effects of the intervention on the post-test results. Further, the mediation analysis demonstrated that students who perceived the method as more authentic achieved better post-test results (see Fig.  1 ).

Mediation model with post-test results as outcome variable

Authentic learning situations allow students to work like real researchers and apply their knowledge to the real world, which is usually not possible through more abstract learning in school (Gerstenmaier & Mandl, 1995 ; Herrington & Oliver, 2000 ). This has, for example, motivating effects as well as effects on conceptual development and competencies (Betz et al., 2016 ; Glowinski & Bayrhuber, 2011 ). But a learning situation intended to be more authentic is not always subjectively perceived as more authentic by the students (Gulikers et al., 2008 ; Nachtigall et al., 2018 ), and therefore, the expected effects could not always be measured (Nachtigall et al., 2018 ). Consequently, subjectively perceived authenticity must be taken into account for finding effects on, for example, conceptual development in analyses. In this mixed methods study, we compared the effects of different levels of guidance on perceived authenticity (RQ1). In addition, the understanding of authentic research that students expressed in the interviews was analyzed (RQ2). Finally, we investigated whether students with a higher perceived authenticity have a higher learning outcome than students with a lower perceived authenticity (RQ3).

For RQ1, we did not find a difference in the perceived authenticity depending on the level of guidance (H1.1). This applies both to the summarized perceived authenticity and to the single dimensions method, location, instructor, and innovation. Although this result stands in contrast to our hypotheses (H1.1, overall perceived authenticity; H1.2, perceived authenticity of the method), it is consistent with the results of Nachtigall and Rummel ( 2021 ) for learning activities in an out-of-school lab for social sciences in which the authenticity level of learning activities did likewise not affect students’ perceived authenticity. These findings could be explained by the proposal of Nachtigall ( 2019 ) that more prominent factors may overshadow the other dimensions of an authentic learning situation. In our case, this would refer to the location, which was perceived as most authentic from students. Following Hod and Sagy ( 2019 ), the timeframe has an impact on the authenticity of a learning situation. Thereby, we had two different timeframes: Overall, our project day was from 9 am to 3 pm and students worked all day on the same topic. This is closer to a normal working day and could be in favor of the perceived authenticity. On the other hand, the time for experimenting was limited for each experiment, and thus, this could lower the perceived authenticity. Therefore, it is possible that the timeframe had a limiting influence on students’ perceived authenticity.

Considering RQ2, it can be assumed that students have a different perception of research and how researchers work than the questionnaire of Finger et al. ( 2022 ) expects. For instance, the item “I myself proceeded as one proceeds in research.” does not specify how one in research proceeds, and therefore, students needed to use their own understanding of authentic research for answering this item; as can be seen in the qualitative analysis, students had different understandings of an authentic method. Gulikers et al. ( 2008 ) found similar results: When students and teachers were asked about their perception of authenticity of the same learning situation, students rated the authenticity significantly lower than teachers. Further, the overview of Christidou ( 2011 ) is in line with our ambiguous results as in her meta-analysis, students had different images of science as well as of scientists. When interpreting the results of the questionnaire, it must be considered that students may have different understandings of research. Consequently, the results cannot simply be aggregated by intervention and compared with each other, when we cannot guarantee that they have the same understanding of research. Hence, the test instrument should be supplemented with the request that students explain their understanding of research for being able to properly interpret the results. Thus, the mixed method approach was beneficial to gain a deeper understanding of students’ responses and their interpretation of authentic research.

Regarding the learning outcome, we did not find a difference depending on the intervention. Further, while analyzing the effect of the perceived authenticity of the method on the learning outcome with a mediation analysis (RQ3), the mediation analysis demonstrated a significant, positive effect of the perceived authenticity of the method on the post-test results. This result suggests that the mediator variable exerted a higher effect on the post-test results than the intervention during the experimentation process. As there was no mediation effect of the perceived authenticity of the method, mediation through other variables seems to be a possible solution for being better able to explain our results. Such variables could be personal characteristics such as situational interest or motivation, which were not assessed in this study. Both may be improved through authentic learning situations (Betz et al., 2016 ; Itzek-Greulich et al., 2017 ; Schüttler et al., 2021 ) and correlate with perceived authenticity (Nachtigall & Rummel, 2021 ). It was shown previously that self-determined experimenting had a positive effect on students’ intrinsic motivation which itself often leads to a better learning outcome (Euler, 2005 ).

Surprisingly, however, the different interventions themselves did not have an impact on the learning outcome. This result might be attributable to three possible reasons: (a) lack of prior knowledge to produce learning-relevant situations when experimenting self-determined, (b) lack of preparation and post-processing of the project day, and (c) our measures did not capture the differences in authenticity as well as in the learning outcome. With regard to students’ lack of prior knowledge (a), we observed that the sequence of experiments of self-determined experimenting groups was mostly not based on the variable control strategy for choosing the next combination of light source and aperture. When counting how many self-determined experimenting groups selected experiments based on variable control strategies, just nine out of 23 groups were able to control the variables for three successive experiments. No group conducted experiments with at least four out of the six experiments based on the variable control strategy. Thus, it is possible that self-determined experimenters did not produce learning-relevant situations in which they could have better investigated the phenomenon of sun thalers. This could be explained by students’ missing prior experiences from school learning regarding conducting their own experiments. Out of the 70 self-determined experimenters, 54 reported that they conduct experiments (really) seldom in school, which may be enhanced by the restrictions during the corona pandemic. But with the rather limited scope for action due to the limited possibilities for the combination of light source and aperture as well as the restriction to six experiments, it seems to be of no difference for the learning outcome whether the guided experimenters systematically investigated the phenomenon or the self-determined experimenters unsystematically. Future studies could therefore examine whether the intervention has a significant impact on the perception of the authenticity as well as on the learning outcome in a more complex setting, with correspondingly a greater scope for action. In more complex learning settings, students may, in fact, require a less authentic but more supportive approach, particularly if it offers them the necessary structure to facilitate learning. Repeated visits might be beneficial, especially for self-determined experimentation, as it is then possible to learn how to systematically create situations that are relevant to learning (Zehren et al., 2013 ).

Regarding the lack of preparing or post-processing the project day in school (b), we did not offer teachers such material. Previous studies have found that the effects of the out-of-school lab are more sustainable when students received materials and time at school for preparing as well as post-processing the project day (Euler, 2005 ; Guderian, 2007 ; Reimann et al., 2020 ). For example, Reimann et al. ( 2020 ) found a stabilization in knowledge for students with preparation as well as follow-up phases while students’ knowledge without preparation or follow-up at school decreased. Garner and Eilks ( 2015 ) emphasized the relevance of integration into the school “as essential elements for the success of out-of-school learning” (p. 1199) as students then perceive the experiences as less unrelated events. However, even if student laboratory projects are integrated in such a way, positive effects do not automatically occur and may even fail to appear (Schwarzer, 2020 ).

Finally, we cannot guarantee that our measures were able to capture differences between the self-determined and the guided experimenting students regarding their perceived authenticity as well as their learning outcome (c) as the difference between both interventions was rather small. It has to be noted that it is possible that there were differences between both interventions, for example, in regard to students’ perceived autonomy as self-determined students were allowed to make more decisions than guided students, which we did not measure.

Overall, the results of this study show little impact of the method on the perceived authenticity and of the perceived authenticity on the learning outcome. We found in our study that the reason might be that students do not really know what it means to work like a researcher. This is in line with the findings of Stamer et al. ( 2021 ). This means that there is a need to improve students’ understanding of authentic science to achieve the goals of authentic learning. Namely, these goals are effects on motivation (Betz, 2018 ; Glowinski & Bayrhuber, 2011 ; Nachtigall et al., 2018 ) as well as (situational) interest in science (Nachtigall & Rummel, 2021 ; Pawek, 2009 ), informed (career) decisions (Euler, 2005 ; Scharfenberg & Bogner, 2014 ; Stamer et al., 2019 , 2021 ; Woods-McConney et al., 2013 ), acquisition of scientific knowledge (Scharfenberg & Bogner, 2014 ), and scientific reasoning (Chinn & Malhotra, 2002 ; Mansfield & Reiss, 2020 ).

Limitations

The present study has some important limitations. Firstly, our knowledge tests each have rather low reliability. Even after item exclusion by reliability and Rasch analyses, reliabilities are Cronbach’s α  = 0.59 (pre-test) and Cronbach’s α  = 0.56 (post-test). This means that our knowledge tests did not measure peoples’ knowledge about geometrical optics in general (pre-test) and aperture illustrations in particular (post-test) consistently (Boone et al., 2014 ). The low reliability in both tests can be explained by the response behavior of the students if they do not have a stable concept. The problem of a rather low reliability regarding knowledge tests in this age group is not untypical (see for example the studies of Chu et al. ( 2009 ) and Härtig et al. ( 2019 )). Another limitation is that according to the model by Betz et al. ( 2016 ), the perceived authenticity is influenced by personal characteristics such as interest which we did not assess. Therefore, we cannot analyze our sample regarding personal characteristics as predictors for perceived authenticity. Further, as already discussed, students’ perceived authenticity may vary and even be lower than the perception of teachers of the same situation (Gulikers et al., 2008 ). Students’ perception of authenticity was not assessed in advance, but only at the end through the questionnaire respectively after the project day through the interviews. Finally, the students in our sample are only from two different schools. Thus, the generalizability of the results may be limited.

Implications for further research

After conducting the study, there are several implications for future research. First of all, due to the positive effects of preparation as well as follow-up of student lab projects on interest, motivation, and knowledge development (Euler, 2005 ; Guderian, 2007 ; Reimann et al., 2020 ), both should be integrated. A possibility for this could be the preparation of a lesson, including materials, for schools in which basic knowledge like light propagation is repeated so that students are more familiar with this. For the follow-up, students could discuss open questions with their teachers respectively the instructors of the project day. When using the videoconference system Zoom for this, this would even make it easier as research showed (Yonai et al., 2022 ).

Additionally, the interaction between the different dimensions of authenticity (location, method, instructor, and innovation) should be examined. In the present study as well as in the studies by Nachtigall and Rummel ( 2021 ) and Nachtigall et al. ( 2018 ), the perceived authenticity of the location may have overshadowed the perception of the learning method and have thus led to nonsignificant results. It remains to be investigated whether the method, as a conceptual aspect during a research process, is perceived as more authentic by the students when the location, as a physically tangible aspect during a research process, is (perceived) less authentic, for example, because the project day takes place in the school and not in an out-of-school lab.

Further, as our interview data showed, students had different understandings of research and did not use the same understanding as a basis for answering the questionnaire. Another implication for further research could be to explain to students explicitly what research is and which domain-specific methods are used, so that they have a comparable idea of research.

In addition, it would be interesting to identify different types that cluster students with similar understandings of research. Therefore, a larger sample may be needed than the one used in the qualitative sample as well as a selection of the developed categories that should be answered by the students for easier comparability, either during an interview or through a questionnaire. The questionnaire could be created based on our results. Further, we conducted a qualitative content analysis of students’ subjective understanding of authentic research due to the scope of our data. Another possibility would be a more reconstructive way of analyzing students’ understanding as this would allow them to gain a deeper insight.

Finally, we did not examine whether the different groups had a productive, collaborative experimentation experience with relevant learning situations. Based on this, we also did not analyze the effect of group work on individual perceptions of authenticity. This seems to be interesting as different group constellations could have an influence on the learning experience, for example, when in one group one member takes the role of the teacher and guides the remaining group members. This could have a negative impact on the perceived authenticity of the method as it became less open.

Data availability

The participants of this study did not give written consent for their data to be shared publicly, so due to the sensitive nature of the research (data from underage students) supporting data is not available.

The items are self-translated from German.

The dates after each statement refer to the day of participation at the out-of-school lab project day, not the date of the interview as then it is more comparable which statements are from the same class (adapted from APA 7th edition). Due to anonymization, no names are given, only the groups as such.

Bell, R. L., Smetana, L., & Binns, I. (2005). Simplifying inquiry instruction. The Science Teacher, 72 (7), 30–33.

Google Scholar  

Betz, A. (2018). Der Einfluss der Lernumgebung auf (wahrgenommene) Authentizität der linguistischen Wissenschaftsvermittlung und das Situationale Interesse von Lernenden [The influence of the learning environment on learners’ (perceived) authenticity of science communication and on their situational interest]. Unterrichtswissenschaft, 46 (3), 261–278. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42010-018-0021-0

Article   Google Scholar  

Betz, A., Flake, S., Mierwald, M., & Vanderbeke, M. (2016). Modelling authenticity in teaching and learning contexts: A contribution to theory development and empirical investigation of the construct. In C. K. Looi, J. L. Polman, U. Cress, & P. Reimann (Eds.), Transforming learning, empowering learners. The International Conference of the Learning Sciences (ICLS) 2016 (Vol. 2, pp. 815–818). International Society of the Learning Sciences. https://doi.org/10.22318/icls2016.110

Boone, W. J., Staver, J. R., & Yale, M. S. (2014). Rasch analysis in the human sciences . Springer.

Book   Google Scholar  

Börlin, J. (2012). Das Experiment als Lerngelegenheit. Vom interkulturellen Vergleich des Physikunterrichts zu Merkmalen seiner Qualität [The experiment as a learning opportunity. From cross-cultural comparison of physics teaching to characteristics of its quality.]. [Doctoral dissertation, University of Basel]. https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwi3nZrXofCBAxUPov0HHXqfBZsQFnoECBkQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fedoc.unibas.ch%2F21283%2F1%2FBoerlin_online_final.pdf&usg=AOvVaw06uR8JOlGvuNb3ziBYTI_T&opi=89978449

Braund, M., & Reiss, M. (2006). Towards a more authentic science curriculum: The contribution of out-of-school learning. International Journal of Science Education, 28 (12), 1373–1388. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690500498419

Article   ADS   Google Scholar  

Brenner, M. E. (2006). Interviewing in educational research. In J. L. Green, G. Camilli, & P. B. Elmore (Eds.), Handbook of complementary methods in education research (pp. 357–370). Routledge.

Chinn, C. A., & Malhotra, B. A. (2002). Epistemologically authentic inquiry in schools: A theoretical framework for evaluating inquiry tasks. Science Education, 86 , 175–218. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10001

Christidou, V. (2011). Interest, attitudes and images related to science: Combining students’ voices with the voices of school Science, teachers, and popular science. International Journal of Environmental & Science Education, 6 (2), 141–159.

Chu, H.-E., Treagust, D. F., & Chandrasegaran, A. L. (2009). A stratified study of students’ understanding of basic optics concepts in different contexts using two-tier multiple-choice items. Research in Science & Technological Education, 27 (3), 253–265. https://doi.org/10.1080/02635140903162553

Clement, J. (1993). Using bridging analogies and anchoring intuitions to deal with students’ preconceptions in physics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30 (10), 1241–1257. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660301007

Aßmann, S. (2013). Medienhandeln zwischen formalen und informellen Kontexten: Doing connectivity [Media activities between formal and informal contexts: Doing connectivity]. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-01940-2

Commission of the European Communities (2001). Making a European area of lifelong learning a reality . http://aei.pitt.edu/42878/1/com2001_0678.pdf

Elo, S., Kääriäinen, M., Kanste, O., Pölkki, T., Utriainen, K., & Kyngäs, H. (2014). Qualitative content analysis: A focus on trustworthiness. SAGE Open, 4 (1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244014522633

Euler, M. (2005). Schülerinnen und Schüler als Forscher: Informelles Lernen im Schülerlabor [Students as scientists: Informal learning in a student lab]. Naturwissenschaften Im Unterricht: Physik, 16 (90), 4–12.

Euler, M., & Schüttler, T. (2020). Schülerlabore [Student labs]. In E. Kircher, R. Girwidz, & H. E. Fischer (Eds.), Physikdidaktik: Methoden und Inhalte (4th ed., pp. 127–166). Springer Spektrum.

Euler, M., Schüttler, T., & Hausamann, D. (2015). Schülerlabore: lernen durch forschen und entwickeln [student labs: learning through researching and developing]. In E. Kircher, R. Girwidz, & P. Häußler (Eds.), Physikdidaktik: Theorie und Praxis (3rd ed., pp. 759–782). Springer Spektrum.

Finger, L., van den Bogaert, V., Fleischer, J., Raimann, J., Sommer, K., & Wirth, J. (2022). Das Schülerlabor als Ort authentischer Wissenschaftsvermittlung? Entwicklung und Validierung eines Fragebogens zur Erfassung der Authentizitätswahrnehmung der Wissenschaftsvermittlung im Schülerlabor [Out-of-school labs as places for authentic science education? Construction and validation of a questionnaire for measuring the perception of authenticity of science education in out-of-school labs]. Zeitschrift Für Didaktik Der Naturwissenschaften, 28 (2), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40573-022-00139-4

Garner, N., & Eilks, I. (2015). The expectations of teachers and students who visit a non-formal student chemistry laboratory. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 11 (5), 1197–1210. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2015.1415a

Gerstenmaier, J., & Mandl, H. (1995). Wissenserwerb unter konstruktivistischer Perspektive [Knowledge acquisition from a constructivist perspective]. Zeitschrift für Pädagogik, 41 (6), 867–888. https://doi.org/10.25656/01:10534

Glowinski, I., & Bayrhuber, H. (2011). Student labs on a university campus as a type of out-of-school learning environment: Assessing the potential to promote students’ interest in science. International Journal of Environmental and Science Education, 6 (4), 371–392.

Grecu, A. L., Hadjar, A., & Simoes Loureiro, K. (2022). The role of teaching styles in the development of school alienation and behavioral consequences: A mixed methods study of Luxembourgish primary schools. SAGE Open, 12 (2), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440221105477

Guderian, P. (2007). Wirksamkeitsanalyse außerschulischer Lernorte: Der Einfluss mehrmaliger Besuche eines Schülerlabors auf die Entwicklung des Interesses an Physik [Effectiveness analysis of out-of-school learning sites: The influence of repeated visits to science labs on the development of interest in physics] [Doctoral dissertation, Humboldt University Berlin]. edoc-Server. https://doi.org/10.18452/15610

Gulikers, J. T. M., Bastiaens, T. J., Kirschner, P. A., & Kester, L. (2008). Authenticity is in the eye of the beholder: Student and teacher perceptions of assessment authenticity. Journal of Vocational Education & Training, 60 (4), 401–412. https://doi.org/10.1080/13636820802591830

Haagen-Schützenhöfer, C., & Hopf, M. (2013). Testheft Optik [Test booklet optics] [Unpublished work]. University of Vienna.

Hagenkötter, R., Nachtigall, V., Rolka, K., & Rummel, N. (2021). „Meistens sind Forscher älter, meist tragen die eine Brille“ – Schülervorstellungen über Wissenschaftler*innen [“Scientists are usually older and wear glasses” – Students’ conceptions about scientists]. Unterrichtswissenschaft, 49 (4), 603–626. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42010-021-00110-1

Härtig, H., Fraser, N., Bernholt, S., & Retelsdorf, J. (2019). Kann man Sachtexte vereinfachen? – Ergebnisse einer Generalisierungsstudie zum Textverständnis [Is there a possibility making science texts easier? – Trying to generalize findings regarding text comprehension]. Zeitschrift Für Didaktik Der Naturwissenschaften, 25 (1), 273–287. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40573-019-00105-7

Hattie, J. A. C. (2009). Visible learning. A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement . Routledge.

Haupt, O. J., Domjahn, J., Martin, U., Skiebe-Corrette, P., Vorst, S., Zehren, W., & Hempelmann, R. (2013). Schülerlabor – Begriffsbestimmung und Kategorisierung [Student lab – Definition and categorization]. MNU, 66 (6), 324–330.

Herrington, J., & Oliver, R. (2000). An instructional design framework for authentic learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 48 (3), 23–48. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02319856

Hod, Y., & Sagy, O. (2019). Conceptualizing the designs of authentic computer-supported collaborative learning environments in schools. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 14 (2), 143–164. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-019-09300-7

Hodson, D. (1999). Going beyond cultural pluralism: Science education for sociopolitical action. Science Education, 83 (6), 775–796. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-237X(199911)83:6%3c775::AID-SCE8%3e3.0.CO;2-8

Hofstein, A., & Lunetta, V. N. (2004). The laboratory in science education: Foundations for the twenty-first century. Science Education, 88 (1), 28–54. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10106

Horstendahl, M., Fischer, H. E., & Rolf, R. (2000). Konzeptuelle und motivationale Aspekte der Handlungsregulation von Schülerinnen und Schülern im Experimentalunterricht der Physik [Conceptual and motivational aspects of students’ regulation of action in experimental physics classes]. Zeitschrift Für Didaktik Der Naturwissenschaften, 6 , 7–25.

Höttecke, D. (2001). Die Vorstellungen von Schülern und Schülerinnen von der „Natur der Naturwissenschaften“ [Students’ conceptions of the „nature of science“]. Zeitschrift Für Didaktik Der Naturwissenschaften, 7 (1), 7–23.

Itzek-Greulich, H., Flunger, B., Vollmer, C., Nagengast, B., Rehm, M., & Trautwein, U. (2017). Effectiveness of lab-work learning environments in and out of school: A cluster randomized study. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 48 , 98–115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2016.09.005

Johnson, R. B., Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Turner, L. A. (2007). Toward a definition of mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1 (2), 112–133. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689806298224

Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41 (2), 75–86. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep4102_1

König, E., & Volmer, G. (2020). Einführung in das systemische Denken und Handeln [Introduction to systemic thinking and acting] (2nd ed.). Beltz.

Krapp, A. (1992). Interesse, Lernen und Leistung: Neue Forschungsansätze in der Pädagogischen Psychologie [Interest, learning, and achievement: Recent research approaches in pedagogical psychology]. Zeitschrift für Pädagogik, 38 (5), 747–770. https://doi.org/10.25656/01:13977

Kuckartz, U., & Rädiker, S. (2022). Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse. Methoden, Praxis, Computerunterstützung [Qualitative content analysis. Methods, practice, computer support] (5th ed.). Beltz.

Kuckartz, U. (2019). Qualitative analysis: A systematic approach. In G. Kaiser & N. Presmeg (Eds.), Compendium for early career researchers in mathematics education (pp. 181–197). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-15636-7

Lamnek, S., & Krell, C. (2016). Online-Material – Transkriptionsregeln [Online-Material – Guidelines for Transcription]. In S. Lamnek & C. Krell (Eds.), Qualitative Sozialforschung (6th ed., online-material). Beltz. https://www.beltz.de/fachmedien/psychologie/online_material/qualitative_sozialforschung.html

Lazonder, A. W., & Harmsen, R. (2016). Meta-analysis of inquiry-based learning: Effects of guidance. Review of Educational Research, 86 (3), 681–718. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654315627366

Lee, H.-S., & Songer, N. B. (2003). Making authentic science accessible to students. International Journal of Science Education, 25 (8), 923–948. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690305023

LernortLabor (2019). Schülerlabor-Atlas 2019: Schülerlabore im deutschsprachigen Raum [Student lab atlas 2019: Student labs in German-speaking countries]. LernortLabor.

Leu, H. R. (2014). Non-formales und informelles Lernen – unverzichtbare Elemente frühpädagogischer Professionalisierung. Eine Analyse vor dem Hintergrund des Deutschen Qualifikationsrahmens [Non-formal and informal learning – indispensable elements of early childhood education professionalization. An analysis against the background of the German qualifications framework]. Weiterbildungsinitiative Frühpädagogische Fachkräfte.

Mansfield, J., & Reiss, M. J. (2020). The place of values in the aims of school science education. In D. Corrigan, C. Buntting, A. Fitzgerald, & A. Jones (Eds.), Values in science education: The shifting sands (Vol. 1, pp. 191–209). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-42172-4_12

Mavanga, G. G. (2001). Entwicklung und Evaluation eines experimentell- und phänomenorientierten Optikcurriculums. Untersuchung zu Schülervorstellungen in der Sekundarstufe I in Mosambik und Deutschland [Development and evaluation of an experiment- and phenomenon-oriented optics curriculum. Investigation of student perceptions in lower secondary school in Mozambique and Germany.] . Logos.

McDermott, L. C., & Shaffer, P. S. (2009). Tutorien zur Physik [Tutorials on physics]. Pearson.

Mierwald, M. (2020). Historisches Argumentieren und epistemologische Überzeugungen. Eine Interventionsstudie zur Wirkung von Lernmaterialien im Schülerlabor [Historical reasoning and epistemological beliefs. An intervention study on the effect of learning materials in the out-of-school lab]. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-29955-2

Nachtigall, V., & Rummel, N. (2021). Investigating students’ perceived authenticity of learning activities in an out-of-school lab for social sciences: A replication study. Instructional Science, 49 , 779–810. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-021-09556-3

Nachtigall, V., Rummel, N., & Serova, K. (2018). Authentisch ist nicht gleich authentisch – Wie Schülerinnen und Schüler die Authentizität von Lernaktivitäten im Schülerlabor einschätzen [Authentic does not equal authentic – How students evaluate the authenticity of learning activities in an out-of-school lab]. Unterrichtswissenschaft, 46 (3), 299–319. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42010-018-0020-1

Nachtigall, V., Shaffer, D. W., & Rummel, N. (2022). Stirring a secret sauce: A literature review on the conditions and effects of authentic learning. Educational Psychology Review, 34 (3), 1479–1516. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-022-09676-3

Nachtigall, V., & Rummel, N. (2022). “Learning experiences, technology, and no grades” – What students expect from a non-formal learning setting outside of school. In C. Chinn, E. Tan, C. Chan & Y. Kali (Eds.), International collaboration toward educational innovation for all: overarching research, development, and practices, Proceedings of the 16th International Conference of the Learning Sciences (ICLS) 2022 (pp. 139–146). International Society of the Learning Sciences.

Nachtigall, V. (2019 ). Failing just as scientists do? The effectiveness of productive failure for learning in an out-of-school lab for social sciences (Publication No. rub.3281666) [Doctoral dissertation, Ruhr University Bochum]. University Library Bochum.

Pawek, C. (2009). Schülerlabore als interessefördernde außerschulische Lernumgebungen für Schülerinnen und Schüler aus der Mittel- und Oberstufe [Promoting the interest of secondary I and II students through student laboratories as out-of-school learning environments] [Doctoral dissertation]. IPN Kiel. https://macau.uni-kiel.de/receive/diss_mods_00003669

Reimann, M., Herzog, S., Parchmann, I., & Schwarzer, S. (2020). Wirksamkeit der schulischen Vor- und Nachbereitung eines Schülerlaborbesuches [Effectiveness of preparation and follow-up lessons in school of a student lab visit]. Zeitschrift Für Didaktik Der Naturwissenschaften, 26 (1), 227–240. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40573-020-00121-y

Rogers, A. (2014). The base of the iceberg . Barbara Budrich Publishers. https://doi.org/10.3224/84740632

Scharfenberg, F.-J., & Bogner, F. X. (2014). Outreach science education: Evidence-based studies in a gene technology lab. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 10 (4), 329–341. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2014.1086a

Scharfenberg, F.-J., Bogner, F. X., & Klautke, S. (2007). Learning in a gene technology laboratory with educational focus: Results of a teaching unit with authentic experiments. Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education, 35 (1), 28–39. https://doi.org/10.1002/bmb.1

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Schlichting, H. J. (1995). Sonnentaler fallen nicht vom Himmel [Sun thalers do not fall from the sky]. Der Mathematische Und Naturwissenschaftliche Unterricht, 48 (4), 199–207.

Schoonenboom, J., & Johnson, R. B. (2017). How to construct a mixed methods research design. Kölner Zeitschrift Für Soziologie Und Sozialpsychologie, 69 (Suppl 2), 107–131. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11577-017-0454-1

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Schüttler, T., Watzka, B., Girwidz, R., & Ertl, B. (2021). Die Wirkung der Authentizität von Lernort und Laborgeräten auf das situationale Interesse und die Relevanzwahrnehmung beim Besuch eines naturwissenschaftlichen Schülerlabors [Effects of an authentic location and laboratory equipment for the situational interest and the perception of content relevance when visiting an out-of-school science lab]. Zeitschrift Für Didaktik Der Naturwissenschaften, 27 (1), 109–125. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40573-021-00128-z

Schwarzer, S. (2020). Gestaltungsprinzipien der Alltagsnähe in Schülerlaboren [Design principles of proximity to everyday life in student laboratories]. In K. Sommer, J. Wirth, & M. Vanderbeke (Eds.), Handbuch Forschen im Schülerlabor (pp. 39–49). Waxmann.

Schwarzer, S., & Parchmann, I. (2015). Erwartungen von Schülern und Wissenschaftlern an Schülerlaborbesuche [Student and scientist expectations of student lab visits]. In S. Bernholt (Ed.), Heterogenität und Diversität-Vielfalt der Voraussetzungen im naturwissenschaftlichen Unterricht: Gesellschaft für Didaktik der Chemie und Physik, Jahrestagung in Bremen 2014 (Vol. 35, pp. 232–234).

Sommer, K., Wirth, J., & Rummel, N. (2018). Authentizität der Wissenschaftsvermittlung im Schülerlabor – Einführung in den Thementeil [Authenticity of science education in the school laboratory – Editorial of the special issue]. Unterrichtswissenschaft, 46 (3), 253–260. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42010-018-0022-z

Sommer, K., Firstein, A., & Rothstein, B. (2020). Authentizität (der Wissenschaftsvermittlung) im Schülerlabor [Authenticity (of science education) in the school laboratory]. In K. Sommer, J. Wirth, & M. Vanderbeke (Eds.), Handbuch Forschen im Schülerlabor (pp. 21–30). Waxmann.

Stamer, I., Pönicke, H., Tirre, F., Laherto, A., Höffler, T., Schwarzer, S., & Parchmann, I. (2019). Development & validation of scientific video vignettes to promote perception of authentic science in student laboratories. Research in Science and Technological Education, 38 (2), 168–184. https://doi.org/10.1080/02635143.2019.1600491

Stamer, I., David, M. A., Höffler, T., Schwarzer, S., & Parchmann, I. (2021). Authentic insights into science: Scientific videos used in out-of-school learning environments. International Journal of Science Education, 43 (6), 868–887. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2021.1891321

Teddlie, C., & Tashakkori, A. (2010). Overview of contemporary issues in mixed methods research. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie, Mixed methods in social & behavioral research (2nd ed., pp. 1–41). SAGE.

Teichrew, A., & Erb, R. (2019). Entwicklung und Evaluation eines zweistufigen Testinstruments für Schülervorstellungen zur Anfangsoptik [Development and evaluation of a two-step test instrument for student conceptions of initial optics.]. In V. Nordmeier & H. Grötzebauch (Eds.), Didaktik der Physik – Beiträge zur DPG-Frühjahrstagung . Fachverband der Deutschen Physikalischen Gesellschaft.

Tesch, M., & Duit, R. (2004). Experimentieren im Physikunterricht – Ergebnisse einer Videostudie [Experimentation in physics lessons - results of a video study]. Zeitschrift Für Didaktik Der Naturwissenschaften, 10 , 51–69.

White, R. T., & Gunstone, R. F. (1992). Probing understanding . Falmer Press.

Woods-McConney, A., Oliver, M. C., McConney, A., Schibeci, R., & Maor, D. (2013). Science engagement and literacy: A retrospective analysis for indigenous and non-indigenous students in Aotearoa New Zealand and Australia. Research in Science Education, 43 (1), 233–252. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-011-9265-y

Wosilait, K., Heron, P. R. L., Shaffer, P. S., & McDermott, L. C. (1998). Development and assessment of a research-based tutorial on light and shadow. American Journal of Physics, 66 (10), 906–913. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.18988

Yonai, E., Shimoni, E., Kahil, K., & Blonder, R. (2022). Authentic science learning during COVID-19: The adaptive design of a SEM outreach activity. The Biophysicist, 3 (1), 35–48. https://doi.org/10.35459/tbp.2021.000206

Zehren, W., Neber, H., & Hempelmann, R. (2013). Forschendes Experimentieren im Schülerlabor: Kognitive und motivationale Effekte [Inquiry-experimentation in a student lab: Cognitive and motivational effects]. Der Mathematische Und Naturwissenschaftliche Unterricht, 66 (7), 416–423.

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research was funded within the doctoral program “Metacognitive Monitoring in Authentic Learning Environments in Out-Of-School Labs (MeMo-akS)” by the Professional School of Educational Studies of Ruhr University Bochum. We thank the members for their feedback on the design of this study. Further, we would like to thank the team of the Alfried Krupp-Schülerlabor der Wissenschaften (out-of-school lab) for their cooperation and all the teachers and students who participated in our study. We thank our student research assistants for their help in collecting the data, transcribing the interviews, and proofreading this manuscript.

Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL. Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Faculty of Philosophy and Educational Research, Ruhr University Bochum, Universitätsstraße 150, 44801, Bochum, Germany

Sarah Hohrath & Sandra Aßmann

Faculty of Physics and Astronomy, Ruhr University Bochum, Universitätsstraße 150, 44801, Bochum, Germany

Heiko Krabbe

Institute for Educational Research, University of Wuppertal, Gaußstraße 20, 42119, Wuppertal, Germany

Maria Opfermann

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

Conceptualization: Sarah Hohrath, Sandra Aßmann, Heiko Krabbe, Maria Opfermann; methodology: Sarah Hohrath, Sandra Aßmann, Heiko Krabbe, Maria Opfermann; formal analysis and investigation: Sarah Hohrath; writing—original draft preparation: Sarah Hohrath; writing—review and editing: Sarah Hohrath, Sandra Aßmann, Heiko Krabbe, Maria Opfermann; funding acquisition: Sandra Aßmann, Heiko Krabbe, Maria Opfermann; supervision: Sandra Aßmann, Heiko Krabbe, Maria Opfermann.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sarah Hohrath .

Ethics declarations

Ethical approval.

Data collection followed the standards of the German Psychological Society (DGPs) and ethical approval was given by the Faculty of Philosophy and Educational Sciences of the Ruhr University Bochum as students’ personal data such as their voices were recorded.

Consent to participate

Written informed parental consent was given for all participants.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Current themes of research .

Sarah Hohrath . Her current themes of research are non-formal learning in out-of-school labs, perceived authenticity in out-of-school labs, metacognitive monitoring during experimentation, concept development through experimentation, and (shared) regulation processes when experimenting.

Sandra Aßmann . Her research areas include learning with digital media and the connection between formal, non-formal, and informal learning processes.

Heiko Krabbe . His research areas include learning process-oriented design of physics lessons, professional vision, and language support in physics teaching.

Maria Opfermann . Her activities are focused on multimedia learning, self-regulation, and cognitive load. She has contributed to research on cognitive load measurement (especially the question, when cognitive load should be assessed), generative learning activities such as drawing, and the role of decorative pictures for learning. As part of the elementary school department, she is now especially interested in ways to optimize learning and cognitive load for very young learners.

Most relevant publications .

No previous publications.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Hohrath, S., Aßmann, S., Krabbe, H. et al. Students’ perceived authenticity and understanding of authentic research while experimenting in a non-formal learning setting. Eur J Psychol Educ (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-024-00810-z

Download citation

Received : 05 July 2023

Revised : 04 February 2024

Accepted : 12 February 2024

Published : 07 March 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-024-00810-z

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Authentic learning
• Out-of-school lab
• Experimenting in physics
• Mixed methods

Advertisement

• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• v.5(7); 2019 Jul

Authenticity and inauthenticity in narrative identity

Joshua a. wilt.

a Case Western Reserve University, USA

Sarah Thomas

b PBS-SoCal (KOCE-TV), USA

Dan P. McAdams

c Northwestern University, USA

Self-reported authenticity is related to higher well-being, however, employing self-report questionnaires to measure authenticity may be limited in that they do not capture the lived experience of authenticity. We employ a narrative identity approach to the study of authenticity to potentially better capture some of the idiosyncratic richness and nuance of authentic experience. In Study 1, 87 undergraduates wrote descriptions of three separate memories: one in which they felt authentic, one in which they felt inauthentic, and a vivid, emotional memory. Thematic analysis identified five dimensions of authenticity (relational authenticity, resisting external pressures, expression of true self, contentment, owning one's actions) and 4 dimensions of inauthenticity (phoniness, suppression, self-denigration, and conformity). In study 2, 103 undergraduates provided written descriptions of authentic and inauthentic experiences. Scenes were coded for the dimensions of authenticity and inauthenticity listed above, and those categories were related to self-report scales assessing authenticity and related constructs (autonomy, honesty, Machiavellianism). Correlational and factor extension results suggested that narratives themes showed evidence of both convergent and discriminant validity. Implications for narrative and self-report approaches to authenticity are discussed.

1. Introduction

The idea of finding and expressing one's true nature, or being authentic , has been exalted through the ages by philosophers, social theorists, and psychologists alike ( Robinson et al., 2012 ). The converse, denying and subjugating one's real identity, or being inauthentic , is portrayed in a more negative light ( Nehamas, 1999 ). This consensus of attitudes toward authenticity and inauthenticity may stem from the view that authenticity is an honest and therefore morally superior way of being (e.g., Christy et al., 2016 ; Gino et al., 2015 ; Strohminger et al., 2017 ). Research also suggests that authenticity is beneficial; studies consistently document associations between authentic functioning and higher levels of self-esteem, psychological well-being, positive affect, relationship quality, and a host of other indicators of psychosocial adaptation ( Erickson and Whatron, 1997 ; Goldman and Kernis, 2002 ; Harter, 2002 ; Schlegel et al., 2016 ; Wood et al., 2008 ).

The studies cited above relied on self-report scales to measure various aspects of authenticity and inauthenticity (e.g., Kernis et al., 2006 ; Wood et al., 2008 ). These scales treat authenticity as a trait-level individual difference, that is, they quantify the extent to which people believe they are being authentic versus inauthentic across a number of different dimensions. We believe that the narrative identity perspective ( McAdams, 2008 ) may complement the trait approach to authenticity by offering a compelling framework from which to explore individuals' lived-experience of authenticity and inauthenticity. According to this approach, the psychological construction of life-stories brings together one's remembered past and imagined future into a narrative identity that provides life with some degree of unity and purpose ( McAdams, 1996 ). Constructing life stories involves autobiographical reasoning, which involves making connections between experiences and aspects of the self ( McLean and Fournier, 2008 ). It is possible that, during the process of autobiographical reasoning, individuals could evaluate whether their lived-experience was consistent with their core sense of self, or whether the experience felt phony or fake with reference to the self. That is, people could form judgments about whether their ways of being in different situations in their lives were authentic or inauthentic.

In this paper, across two studies, we aim to (i) develop a coding system for authentic and inauthentic themes, and (ii) relate those themes to existing self-report measures of authenticity and inauthenticity. Achieving these aims may show areas of convergence and divergence between self-report and narrative approaches to authenticity.

1.1. Conceptualization and measurement of trait authenticity and inauthenticity

Authenticity has been an eminent concern across the history of personality psychology. Humanistic psychologists (e.g., Maslow, 1968 ; Rogers, 1961 ) characterized the true self as being an innate set of attributes that may be discovered on the journey to self-realization and optimal functioning. Psychodynamic perspectives noted the importance of honest self-appraisal (acknowledging one's strengths and weaknesses) as crucial to achieving a balanced psychological mindset ( Horney, 1950 ). Personality developmental approaches to authenticity have emphasized that owning one's inner psychological characteristics (thoughts, emotions, desires) and expressing oneself in ways consistent with that inner life are fundamental to healthy maturation ( Harter, 2002 ). Despite such interest, efforts to measure authenticity and related constructs have emerged only relatively recently.

Kernis et al. (2006) developed a multicomponent self-report measure of authenticity, the Authenticity Inventory 3 (AI3), that was based on a review of philosophical approaches to the true self (e.g., Aristotle, Kierkegaard, Sartre). The four components identified were Awareness, or knowing and trusting in one's motives, feelings, desires, and self-relevant cognitions; Unbiased Processing, or objectivity with respect to one's positive and negative self-aspects; Behavior, which measures the extent to which one behaves in accord with one's values; and Relational Orientation, which measures valuing and striving for openness, sincerity, and truthfulness in one's close relationships.

A three-factor model of authenticity proposed by Wood et al. (2008) , meant to encompass previous philosophical and psychological approaches to authenticity, is operationalized by the Authenticity Scale. This self-report measure consists of Authentic-Living, or living in accordance with one's own values and beliefs; Accepting External Influences, or the belief that one must conform to the expectations of others; and Self-alienation, or feeling out of touch with the true-self.

Scores from each of the measures have shown good evidence of internal consistency as well as validity for predicting multiple domains of well-being across several studies (e.g., Boyraz et al., 2014 ; Kernis et al., 2008 ). Other reliable and valid self-report measures of authenticity have been developed for more specific purposes, for Example, to assess authenticity in different social contexts ( Robinson et al., 2012 ), in relationships ( Gan and Chen, 2017 ; Wang, 2016 ), and as a short-term state (e.g., degree of perceived authenticity over a 30-minute period) as opposed to a more enduring trait ( Lenton et al., 2016 ; Sedikides et al., 2017 ). Thus, there are a wide array of self-report inventories of authenticity that may be applied flexibly for different research aims.

Self-report measures of authenticity have notable strengths, including their previously noted psychometric characteristics. They also consist of a relatively small number of items and require a short amount of time to complete, which allows for efficient data collection on a large scale. Further, as the self may have privileged knowledge regarding a person's perceived “true self” (as compared to peers or observers), self-reports could reflect a fundamentally important source of data on authenticity ( Fleeson and Wilt, 2010 ).

Self-report authenticity questionnaires may also carry some disadvantages that are highly relevant to authenticity. For instance, people may miss the subjective details related to how people understand their own lives in the framework of their society and culture ( McAdams, 1996 ). Furthermore, the scope of self-report questionnaires is limited by the content of questions, and thus such measures may not capture individuals' experiences of authenticity ( Schlegel and Hicks, 2011 ). Social desirability and self-enhancement biases may be particularly likely with a construct as socially valued as authenticity. Additionally, general limitations of self-report scales include the possibility that individuals may not understand the questions or the response options, and that people may interpret the questions and response options differently.

1.2. A narrative identity approach to assessing authenticity

Narrative identity is typically studied by collecting a select set of scenes from individuals' life-stories memories that portray a personally significant event ( McAdams, 2008 ). Narrative identity researchers aim to quantify important characteristics of stories (e.g., narrative complexity, different themes, affective tone) and have developed a myriad of valid measures of a number of these qualities ( McAdams and Manczak, 2015 ). The current project examined life-story scenes that are specifically related to authenticity and inauthenticity and attempted to create a reliable and valid system for coding authenticity/inauthenticity themes. This approach is grounded in notions of authenticity as being an experience in which people evaluate themselves in relation to aspects of their identity, namely against aspects of their “true self” identity ( Vannini and Franzese, 2008 ). That is, authenticity and inauthenticity emerge as one self-reflects on whether their behaviors, goals, and feelings in specific circumstances were congruent or not with their “true self” concept.

One previous project examined authenticity and inauthenticity in narratives of when participants felt “most me” or “least me” ( Lenton et al., 2013 , p. 280). Narratives were coded for self-aspects, experiential themes, emotions, and needs that were theoretically related to authenticity- and inauthenticity-based reviews of the literature. The “most me” narratives were characterized by higher levels (as compared to the “least me” narratives) of ideal-self attributes, themes such as fun, familiarity, and achievement, by higher levels of positive emotions, and by higher reports of need-satisfaction in the domains of self-esteem, relatedness, autonomy, competence, security, meaning, popularity, and physical thriving. In contrast, the “least me” narratives contained relatively more themes of doing as expected, feeling judged, facing difficulty, isolation, failing one's own or others' standards, and illness, and by higher levels of negative emotions. Furthermore, upon reflection, participants reported more nostalgia and positive emotions when thinking about the “most me” scene. Another study found that different groups report varying levels of affect, need satisfaction, and self-consciousness in their “most me” and “least me” scenes ( Lenton et al., 2014 ).

1.3. Overview of studies

The results presented in Lenton et al. (2013 , 2014) went beyond self-report research by capturing experiences of authenticity as expressed in life-stories. Yet the narrative coding also included the limitation of coding themes that had been previously identified in the literature. Therefore, those studies may not capture unique aspects of authenticity that emerge from a bottom-up approach to coding participants' lived-experience. That was the aim of Study 1, described next. 1 In Study 2, we relate aspects of authenticity/inauthenticity that emerged in Study 1 to self-reported authenticity and other potentially relevant traits. Study 2 answers questions about whether people who think of themselves as authentic/inauthentic describe their experiences in ways that reflect their traits. These studies occur in a particular sociohistorical context, particularly, they involve American undergraduate students at a midwestern university in the early 21 st century. Cultural influences undoubtedly influence notions of authenticity and inauthenticity of our study participants. Therefore, though generalizability to other contexts cannot be assumed, we hope to provide an approach that can be generalized to other populations in the future. All materials, data, and analyses are provided at https://osf.io/u9fea/?view_only=5bb21c2ba8d442218ed4f750c6c2a4c1 .

2.1. Study 1

We collected descriptions of life-story scenes that were experienced as authentic, inauthentic, and emotionally vivid. We coded themes present in the scenes using a bottom-up approach. In order to identify the themes that were uniquely prevalent in the authentic and inauthentic scenes, we compared the frequencies of themes in these scenes to the same themes in the emotionally vivid scene.

2.1.1. Participants

Study 1 consisted of 87 undergraduate students (54% men), aged between 18 and 22 ( M = 18.66, SD = .93), at a large, private Midwestern university who participated in partial fulfillment of the research participation requirement of an introductory psychology course. Ethnicities were: White (41%), Asian-American (36%), Hispanic or Latino (9%), Black (4%), Multiracial (4%), and “other” (5%). All methods were approved by the Northwestern University Institutional Review Board (IRB).

2.1.2. Procedure

Participants were recruited to the study through the introductory psychology student participant pool. Individuals deciding to participate in the study navigated to a secure website affiliated with the university where they gave informed consent. Then, participants completed written narratives of scenes in the past year of their lives that were remembered as authentic, inauthentic, and emotionally vivid. The authenticity prompt directed participants to describe “an authentic scene, a scene in which you were most like your true self.” The inauthenticity prompt directed participants to describe and “an inauthentic scene, a scene in which you were least like your true self.” Prompts were comparable to those used in Lenton et al. (2013) and were kept short because longer and more descriptive prompts could be more likely to bias participant responses toward the description contained in the prompt. The instructions for the emotionally vivid memory were to describe “a particularly emotionally vivid scene, a scene which you experienced as very memorable.” For each scene, participants were asked to describe what happened, where and when the event took place, who was involved, thoughts and feelings during the event, and what the event says about “you and your personality.”

2.1.3. Coding procedure

The purpose of the coding procedure was to identify and classify the phenomenology of authentic and inauthentic experiences. In the first part of the coding procedure, we employed an approach similar to grounded theory ( Creswell, 2007 ; Strauss and Corbin, 1998 ) to inductively derive themes from the data. Two undergraduate research assistants (coders) read the authenticity and inauthenticity scenes independently and generated lists of adjectives and phrases to describe the content of each scene. Coders were instructed to generate descriptors of the protagonist's behavior and mental state (e.g., thoughts, feelings, goals, etc.), the physical location of the scene (e.g., at school, at home, etc.), and the people present in the scene (e.g., friends, family, etc.). The two coders' lists were combined and duplicate descriptors were deleted. In all, a total of 108 unique descriptors were identified (see Appendix ). In the second part of the coding procedure, two independent, undergraduate coders rated whether each of the 108 descriptors identified in the first part of the coding procedure were present or absent in the authentic scene, inauthentic scene, and emotionally vivid scene. 2 In order to illustrate and clarify the coding procedure, we provide in the Appendices an Example of one participant's authentic, inauthentic, and emotionally vivid scenes and the characteristics that were noted as present in each scene during in the second part of the coding procedure.

2.1.3.1. Inter-coder agreement

We first examined whether coders agreed on the relative frequency of the different characteristics across each scene. We created variables reflecting the frequency of each characteristic occurred in each scene for each coder. For Example, for the authenticity scene, the number of times each characteristic occurred represented a row value in this variable. In order to assess inter-coder agreement, we computed intraclass correlations ( ICCs ; Shrout and Fleiss, 1979 ). For example, coder 1's authentic scene variable was correlated with coder 2's authentic scene variable.

2.1.3.2. Identifying unique characteristics

Characteristics that occur frequently in participants' authentic scene narratives and with high relative frequency compared to their occurrence in inauthentic and emotionally vivid narratives could be said to be uniquely definitive of authentic experiences. In order to quantify “uniqueness,” we relied on three criteria.

The first criterion of uniqueness was calculated as the total frequency of occurrence for characteristics in authentic and inauthentic scenes. The second criterion was the raw difference between frequency of occurrence between the target scene (authenticity or inauthenticity) and the sum of frequencies across other scenes. For the authenticity scene, this would equal the frequency of occurrence of the characteristic in the authenticity scene minus the sum of the frequencies in the inauthenticity and vivid scenes. This criterion is important because characteristics that occur frequently in the target scene may occur at a high rate in other scenes as well and therefore not be unique to the target scene. The third criterion was calculated by multiplying the raw difference (i.e., the value obtained for the second criterion) by the ratio of occurrence in the target scene compared to the sum of occurrence in the other scenes. For the authenticity scene, this value was obtained by taking the raw difference (i.e., the second criterion) and multiplying it by the quotient of the frequency of occurrence of the characteristic in the authenticity scene and the sum of the frequencies in the inauthenticity and vivid scenes. This weighted difference criterion weights the second criterion by the odds of occurrence for each characteristic in the target scene compared to the other scenes combined.

2.1.4. Results

We first assessed the intercoder agreement for the different scenes. Then we identified unique characteristics in each scene using the total frequency, raw difference, and weighted difference criteria described in the previous section. Finally, we clustered similar individual characteristics into broader, conceptually coherent categories.

2.1.4.1. Intercoder agreement

ICC s were uniformly high for the authentic (.95), inauthentic (.88), and vivid (.92) scenes, indicating that coders agreed on the relative frequency of each characteristic for each scene.

2.1.4.2. Unique characteristics

The top 30 most frequently occurring characteristics (and ties) for the authentic scene and inauthentic scene are shown in Tables  1 and ​ and2, 2 , respectively. These tables also show each characteristic's values for the absolute difference and ratio of occurrence criteria (along with the ranking of those characteristics based on each respective criterion). Most of the frequently occurring characteristics were also identified as highly unique based on the absolute difference and ratio criteria (indicated with italics in the table). Indeed, 23 of the most frequently occurring authentic characteristics and 19 of the most frequently occurring inauthentic characteristics were in the top 30 (and ties) based on the other criteria as well. We selected these criteria to be uniquely definitive of authentic and inauthentic experiences, respectively.

Table 1

The top 30 most frequently occurring characteristics (and ties) for the authentic scene.

Note. The Raw Difference was computed as the Authentic Scene frequency minus the sum of frequencies across other scenes. The Weighted Difference is equal to the Raw Difference divided by the sum of the frequencies in the other scenes. The numbers appearing in parentheses are the ranks of each characteristic according to the Raw Difference and Weighted Difference criteria, respectively. Characteristics in bold were in the top 30 for each of the criteria and were selected as uniquely definitive of authenticity scenes.

Table 2

The top 30 most frequently occurring characteristics (and ties) for the inauthentic scene.

Note. The Raw Difference was computed as the Inauthentic Scene frequency minus the sum of frequencies across other scenes. The Weighted Difference is equal to the Raw Difference divided by the sum of the frequencies in the other scenes. The. The Weighted Difference for “Going with the crowd/conformity is listed as “NA” because the sum of occurrence for this characteristic in the Authenticity and Emotionally Vivid scenes was equal to 0. The numbers appearing in parentheses are the ranks of each characteristic according to the Raw Difference and Weighted Difference criteria, respectively. Characteristics in bold were in the top 30 for each of the criteria and were selected as uniquely definitive of inauthenticity scenes.

2.1.4.3. Conceptual and thematic aggregation

Many of the characteristics identified as highly unique in authentic scenes (e.g, “trusting others,” and “understanding others”) and inauthentic scenes (e.g., “feeling phony/fake,” and “putting on an act.”) were deemed conceptually similar. We therefore sought to increase the parsimony of the results by clustering characteristics together. This was done by the first and second author independently, then discussed by both authors and again and discussed with the third author. Authors classified similar themes together and assigned a name to the cluster that represented the concept common among the individual themes (see Table 3 ).

Table 3

Conceptual and thematic aggregation of characteristics that were uniquely definitive of the authentic scene and inauthentic scene.

2.1.5. Discussion

This study represents a first step to examine themes occurring in narratives of authentic and inauthentic experiences. We identified individual themes that were conveyed at relatively high levels in life story scenes of authentic and inauthentic experiences as compared with scenes depicting an emotionally vivid experience.

For the authentic scene, the first category was named relational authenticity . This category is similar to the relational component of authenticity proposed by Kernis et al. (2006) , as it encompasses the values of openness and honesty in interpersonal interactions, as well as striving for empathy and understanding in relationships. Furthermore, authenticity in relational contexts has received increased empirical attention and has been shown as a robust predictor of relational health, such as more secure romantic attachment, higher caregiving to a partner, positive responses from interaction partners, and interpersonal trust ( Gouveia et al., 2016 ; Plasencia et al., 2016 ; Wickham, 2013 ). The second category, expression of true self , is similar to the authentic behavior component of Kernis et al. and the authentic living component of Wood et al. (2008) , as it reflects a genuine expression of one's true thoughts and feelings. The contentment category, reflecting comfort and enjoyment, is not well-represented by self-report authenticity measures; however, this theme is similar to the positive emotions theme that characterized the “most me” narratives in Lenton et al. (2013) . Ownership of actions reflects taking responsibility for behaviors and a sense of self-authorship of one's life, similar to the construct of autonomy in Self-Determination Theory ( Deci and Ryan, 1985 , 2000 ). Resisting external pressures, such as by disobeying authority and resisting outside influence seems to be the conceptual inverse of Wood et al.'s accepting external influence component.

For the inauthentic scene, the phoniness category reflects being “fake” or putting on an act that is inconsistent with one's true self. This component seems to capture the recognition that one is not behaving authentically and may therefore be thought of as the opposite pole of the expression of true self category. To the extent that being fake reflects perceptions of being out of touch with one's true self, this category may also be similar to the self-alienation component of Wood et al. (2008) . Conformity , encompassing themes such as “going with the crowd” and “living up to others' expectations” has the flavor of controlled behavior (low autonomy) along with the accepting external influence component of Wood et al. The suppression category reflects both a knowledge of one's true way of being and actively denying its expression through thought, feeling, and behavior. Thus, it seems this category captures both the awareness component of Kernis et al. (2006) and the denial of authentic behavior or authentic living. Finally, the self-denigration category encompasses derogatory thoughts and disgust directed toward the self. This category is not well-represented in self-report measures of authenticity but seems related to the negative emotions theme found in the “least me” scenes in Lenton et al. (2013) .

In sum, most of our categories shared conceptual space with existing self-report measures. Contentment and self-denigration do not have corresponding self-report scales, however, similar themes were observed in “most me” and “least me” scenes reported in Lenton et al. (2013) . Well-being and ill-being are typically seen as outcomes of authenticity and inauthenticity, respectively ( Boyraz et al., 2014 ), and so it may not be surprising that these categories have emerged as uniquely definitive of authentic and inauthentic experiences. All components from self-report measures were reflected in our categories of aggregated themes with the exception of the unbiased awareness component of Kernis et al. (2006) . However, single themes that uniquely defined the authenticity scene (“acceptance of imperfections/flaws”) and inauthenticity scene (“avoiding negative evaluation”) suggest that the unbiased awareness component may be relevant to participants' memories of authentic and inauthentic scenes.

2.2. Study 2

Our goals in Study 2 were twofold. First, we aimed to use the clusters of themes that were characteristic of authenticity and inauthenticity scenes as the basis for generating a systematic and reliable coding system for memories of authenticity and inauthenticity. Second, we aimed to examine the relations between our coding categories with self-report measures of authenticity, as well as with the traits of autonomy, honesty-humility and Machiavellianism.

The construct of autonomy from Self-Determination Theory ( Deci and Ryan, 2000 ) may be thought of as related to authenticity, as it is defined by experiencing one's behavior as congruent with inner values and interests as opposed to being controlled by external forces. Autonomy may be distinguished from classical views of authenticity by the lack of the assumption of a single “true self”; that is, from the perspective of SDT, any aspect of the self that feels autonomous is considered true and authentic.

Honesty-humility is a trait from the HEXACO model of personality that reflects individual differences in tendencies to approach others in fair, sincere, and modest ways as opposed to being deceptive and greedy ( Ashton and Lee, 2001 ). When included in factor analyses with other personality traits, honesty-humility loaded on a factor defined by authenticity and autonomy measures ( Maltby et al., 2012 ).

Machiavellianism is part of the “Dark Triad” of traits, including narcissism and subclinical psychopathy ( Paulhus and Williams, 2002 ), that reflects individual differences in tendencies to manipulate others, experience cold affect in interpersonal situations, have negative views of other people, and pursue selfish goals ( Rauthmann and Will, 2011 ). Though no studies (to our knowledge) have examined the relations between authenticity and Machiavellianism, studies have suggested that Machiavellianism is strongly, negatively associated with honesty-humility ( Jonason and McCain, 2012 ; Lee and Ashton, 2005 ) and thus might be expected to relate negatively with authenticity.

This study may be important for at least three reasons. First, it serves as a first step toward establishing the reliability and validity of a coding scheme for authentic and inauthentic experiences. Second, it begins to situate a narrative approach to authenticity within prominent trait approaches to authenticity (and to related traits) in the personality literature. Third, including measures of honesty-humility and Machiavellianism allowed us to explore whether people at different ends of socially desirable (i.e., honesty-humility) and undesirable (i.e., Machiavellianism) traits understand authenticity in different ways.

2.2.1. Participants

Participants were 103 undergraduate students (40% men) from the same university as in Study 1, ages 18 to 22 ( M = 18.79, SD = 1.06), who completed the study as partial fulfillment of the requirements of an introductory psychology course. Ethnicities were: White (58%), Asian-American (21%), Black (9%), Hispanic or Latino (6%), Multiracial (4%), and Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander (1%). The sample size was based upon practical limitations of the undergraduate subject pool. All methods were approved by the Northwestern university IRB.

2.2.2. Procedure

Participants were recruited to the study through the introductory psychology participant pool. Individuals deciding to participate in the study navigated to a secure website affiliated with the university where they gave informed consent. Then, participants completed an online questionnaire containing the self-report measures described below as well as the written narratives of authentic and inauthentic scenes. As in Study 1, the authenticity prompt directed participants to describe “an authentic scene, a scene in which you were most like your true self”, and the inauthenticity prompt directed participants to describe and “an inauthentic scene, a scene in which you were least like your true self.” For each scene, participants were asked to describe what happened, where and when the event took place, who was involved, thoughts and feelings during the event, and what the event says about “you and your personality.”

2.2.3. Self-report measures

2.2.3.1. authenticity inventory.

Participants completed Kernis et al. (2006) Authenticity Inventory (AI-3), which includes 45 items that assess four components of authenticity: awareness (e.g., I am in touch with my motives and desires); unbiased processing (e.g., I am very uncomfortable objectively considering my limitations and shortcomings (reverse scored)); behavior (e.g., I frequently pretend to enjoy something when in actuality I really don't (reverse scored)); and relational orientation (e.g., I want people with whom I am close to understand my weaknesses). Participants responded to items on a 6-point scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 6 (strongly agree). Alphas were acceptable for each subscale: for awareness, α = .83; for unbiased processing, α = .74; for behavior, α = .74; and for relational orientation, α = .79.

2.2.3.2. Authenticity Scale

Participants completed Wood et al.'s (2008) Authenticity scale, which includes 12 items that assess their tripartite model of authenticity: self-alienation (e.g., I don't know how I feel inside); accepting external influence (e.g., I usually do what other people tell me to do); and authentic living (e.g., I am true to myself if most situations). Participants responded to items on a 6-point scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 6 (strongly agree). Alphas were acceptable for each component: for self-alienation, α = .90; for accepting external influences, α = .84; and for authentic living, α = .83.

2.2.3.3. Autonomy

Participants completed the 7-item assessment of autonomy included in the Basic Psychological Needs Scale ( Gagné, 2003 ). Items assess the degree to which participants feel their need for autonomy is currently satisfied (e.g., I feel like I am free to decide for myself how to live my life). Participants responded to items on a 6-point scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 6 (strongly agree), and α = .72 for the scale was acceptable.

2.2.3.4. Honesty-humility

Participants completed the International Personality Item Pool (IPIP) assessment of honesty-humility (IPIP-HEXACO; Ashton et al., 2007 ; Goldberg et al., 2006 ). The IPIP-HEXACO honesty-humility scales assess the four facets of honesty-humility included in the HEXACO model of personality with 10 items for each facet: sincerity, (e.g. “Don't pretend to be more than I am”); fairness, (e.g., “Try to follow the rules”); greed avoidance (e.g. ”Don't strive for elegance in my appearance”); and modesty (e.g. “Am just an ordinary person”). Participants responded to items on a 6-point scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 6 (strongly agree. Alphas were acceptable for each facet: for sincerity, α = .87; for fairness, α = .85; for greed avoidance, α = .62; and for modesty, α = 83. The IPIP-HEXACO scales have convergent correlations of between .76 and .98 with the original HEXACO facet scales ( Ashton et al., 2007 ).

2.2.3.5. Machiavellianism

Machiavellianism was measured using the 20-item MACH IV scale developed by Christie and Geis (1970) . Each respondent was asked to indicate the extent of his or her agreement or disagreement with each of the 20 items (e.g., “It is wise to flatter important people.”) using a 6-point scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 6 (strongly agree). An α coefficient of .73 was obtained for this scale.

2.2.4. Coding procedure

We developed a content analysis system for coding the themes that were identified in Study 1 as uniquely descriptive of authentic and inauthentic experiences. Two coders blind to information about participants were required to determine (i) how much each authentic scene conveyed each of the themes that were uniquely descriptive of authentic scenes and (ii) how much each inauthentic scene conveyed each of the themes that were uniquely descriptive of inauthentic scenes. Themes uniquely descriptive of authentic experiences in Study 1 were: relational authenticity, expression of true self, contentment, ownership of actions, and resisting external pressures. Themes unique to inauthentic experiences were: phoniness, conformity, suppression, and self-denigration. Coders used the guidelines presented in the Appendix to code each respective theme. Inter-coder reliabilities were calculated as ICC s for the average of fixed coders ( Shrout and Fleiss, 1979 ) for all themes, and scores for each theme were calculated as the average of coders' ratings.

2.2.5. Reliability of coding categories

Our first goal of this study was to create reliable coding categories for themes that were uniquely definitive of authenticity and inauthenticity scenes. Based on the guidelines of Koo and Li (2016) , this goal was achieved for relational ( ICC = .75), contentment ( ICC = .83), ownership of actions ( ICC = .65), resisting external pressures ( ICC = .67), phoniness ( ICC = .75), conformity ( ICC = .75), and suppression ( ICC = .62) codes. The expression of true self theme from the authenticity scene ( ICC = .51) and self-denigration theme from the inauthenticity scene ( ICC = .51) had moderate interrater reliabilities. However, 70% of expression of true self codes were within one point of complete agreement (e.g., Coder 1 rating = 1, Coder 2 rating = 2) as were 89% of the suppression codes, suggesting that these categories were coded reliably. Nonetheless, results pertaining to these themes should be interpreted with some caution.

First, we present descriptive statistics for self-report and narrative variables. We then examine correlations among self-report variables and narrative themes. Finally, we conduct data reduction procedures on the self-report variables and relate the resultant factors to narrative themes.

3.1. Descriptive statistics

Means and standard deviations for self-report and narrative variables are shown in Table 4 . Participants reported relatively higher scores on self-report variables scored in a desirable direction (e.g., authenticity, honesty) than those scored in an undesirable direction (e.g., inauthenticity, Machiavellianism). Although mean values were relatively low for narrative codes, this was likely because only one or two themes were most prevalent in each individual's scene. Supporting this interpretation, 70/103 participants scored at least 2.5 for one of the authenticity codes, and 90/103 participants scored at least 2.5 on one of the inauthenticity codes. Thus, the large majority of participants showed at least moderate levels of at least one of the themes in their authenticity and inauthenticity scenes.

Table 4

Means, standard deviations, and correlations for self-report measures (s1–s13).

Note. Descriptive statistics were calculated at the average item level for self-report variables. Correlations >.2 are significant at α = .05.

3.2. Correlations among variables

3.2.1. self-report variables.

Pearson correlations among variables are shown in Table 4 . As was to be expected, self-report scales scored in the direction of authenticity had strong positive correlations with each other (and autonomy) and strong negative correlations with scales scored in the direction of inauthenticity. Authenticity scales and autonomy also tended to correlate positively with honesty facets and negatively with Machiavellianism, whereas inauthenticity scales showed the opposite pattern of relations. Finally, honesty facets correlated negatively with Machiavellianism.

3.2.2. Narrative themes

Turning to the correlations between authenticity codes (see Table 5 ), relational authenticity was positively correlated with expression of true self and contentment, and ownership of actions was positively correlated with resisting pressures. Contentment was negatively correlated with ownership of actions. For inauthenticity codes, suppression was positively correlated with conformity and negatively correlated with self-denigration. Looking across authenticity and inauthenticity codes, ownership of actions was positively correlated with self-denigration. Overall, most bivariate correlations between pairs of narrative themes did not reach statistical significance, and magnitudes of those that did were small to moderate. This pattern of findings suggests that individual themes may be considered separately in relation to self-report variables.

Table 5

Means, standard deviations, and correlations for narrative codes (n1-n9).

Note. Descriptive statistics were calculated from the average of coders' ratings for narrative variables. Correlations >.2 are significant at α = .05.

3.2.3. Self-report variables and narrative themes

There were several statistically significant correlations between narrative codes and self-report variables (see Table 6 ). Relational authenticity in authentic scenes was positively associated with relational orientation from the Authenticity Inventory; people who view themselves as expressing their true selves in relationships described authenticity scenes in which they related to other people in honest, trusting, and understanding ways. Self-denigration in inauthentic scenes was positively associated with awareness from the Authenticity Inventory; people who profess to know their psychological make up (affect, behavior, thoughts, and motivations) tend to criticize themselves when depicting memories of inauthenticity. The negative associations between self-report variables reflecting higher authenticity, autonomy, and honesty and the phoniness code suggests that people who perceive themselves as less authentic emphasize discrepancies from their true selves when recounting inauthentic memories. People who report higher Machiavellianism also emphasized phoniness in inauthenticity memories; thus, people who report using others to get what they want narrated inauthenticity memories in which they acted in a fake manner.

Table 6

Correlations between self-report variables and narrative codes.

Note. Correlations >.2 are significant at α = .05. n1 = Relational authenticity; n2 = Expression of true self; n3 = Contentment; n4 = Ownership of actions; n5 = Resisting external pressures; n6 = Phoniness; n7 = Conformity; n8 = Suppression; n9 = Self-denigration.

3.3. Factor extension analysis

Factor extension analysis involves deriving factors from a given set of variables, and then finding the loadings of an additional (or extended) set of variables (i.e., variables not included in the original factor analysis) on those factors ( Dwyer, 1937 ; Horn, 1973 ). Factor extension analysis was desirable for these data because the self-report variables were highly intercorrelated. In order to conduct the factor extension analysis, we first needed to know how many factors to extract. The technique used to answer this question was Very Simple Structure (VSS) analysis ( Revelle and Rocklin, 1979 ), an exploratory method for determining the optimum number of interpretable factors to extract from a data set. This index can take values between 0 and 1 and is a measure of the goodness-of-fit of the factor solution for a given factorial complexity. The VSS value peaked at .91 for a two-factor solution for with a complexity of two.

A minimum residual factor analysis extracting 2 factors was carried out on the self-report scales and rotated using the oblimin rotation. Factor extension analysis determined what the loadings of the narrative codes would be on these factors (see Table 7 ). Factor 1 was defined at the positive pole by authenticity and autonomy scales, and at the negative pole by inauthenticity. Factor 2 was defined by the honesty scales at the positive pole and by Machiavellianism at the negative pole. The two factors were moderately, positively correlated ( r = .49). Using a cutoff of .2 for interpretation, factor extension results showed that the narrative codes of “ownership of actions” and “self-denigration” were positively related to the authenticity factor (Factor 1), and that the “phoniness” code was negatively related to both the authenticity and honesty factors (Factor 2). People who scored high on authenticity/autonomy tended to describe their authentic moments as times when they took ownership of their actions, and they described their inauthentic moments as times when they criticized themselves. People who reported themselves as highly inauthentic, as Machiavellian, and as dishonest described their inauthentic moments as containing relatively high degrees of phoniness.

Table 7

Factor extension analysis results.

Note. A minimum residual factor analysis extracting 2 factors was carried out on the self-report scales and rotated using oblimin rotation. Factor extension analysis determined what the loadings of the narrative codes would be on these factors. Numbers underneath columns “Factor 1” and “Factor 2” are factor loadings. “h2” = communality; “u2” = uniqueness.

3.4. Discussion

As noted in the discussion of Study 1, there is a great deal of conceptual overlap between our narrative coding scheme and existing self-report measures of authenticity and related constructs. This overlap is also observed in the empirical associations in Study 2, attesting to the convergent validity of both the self-report variables and narrative codes. Yet the degree of overlap is not nearly strong enough to consider the constructs redundant across levels of analysis. The magnitude and consistency of the associations suggests that trait approaches and narrative approaches to authenticity may each tap into unique information about a person's psyche; the narrative codes show evidence of both convergent and discriminant validity with trait measures. This pattern of results mirrors findings from other research examining relations between trait and narrative variables (e.g., Lodi-Smith et al., 2009 ; McAdams et al., 2004 ; Wilt et al., 2011 ).

4. Discussion and conclusions

Authenticity has been espoused as a central virtue by philosophers and psychologists alike, and recent trait approaches to measurement of authenticity have revealed compelling empirical associations between higher levels of authenticity and greater well-being. Based on the notion that authenticity may be relevant to narrative identity — the evolving life stories that connect one's past with the present and imagined future — our goals in the current research were to (i) identify authenticity and inauthenticity themes as expressed in life story scenes, (ii) create reliable coding categories for such these themes, and (iii) examine the relations between narrative themes and self-report assessments of authenticity and related constructs. These goals were largely realized across two studies of undergraduates, thus representing a first step toward the study of authenticity and inauthenticity in narrative identity.

4.1. Authenticity/inauthenticity in life-story scenes

The different components of authenticity and inauthenticity revealed through life story scenes coincided well with self-report measures. Though this might not seem surprising in hindsight, there are several reasons that our coding strategy could have identified themes lying outside of existing self-report frameworks (see Adler et al., 2017 ; Panattoni and McLean, 2018 ). Methodological reasons include lack of method variance, differences in operationalization of the constructs, and socially desirable responding to both self-reports and narrative prompts. Conceptual reasons include the possibility that generating narratives taps into a different mode of thought than does responding to self-report questions, that narrative measures may be more susceptible to unconscious influences than are self-report items, and that narratives are more contextualized to particular situations and influenced by a perceived audience than are self-report responses. Finally, our use of an inductive or data-driven approach to coding did not necessitate overlap with any existing theoretical frameworks of authenticity ( Syed and Nelson, 2015 ).

The conceptual correspondence seems to be good news for both self-report and narrative approaches to authenticity. Self-report measures need not expand to include content that was missed, and narrative approaches need not seek theoretical justification for content lying outside of self-report boundaries. However, the levels of assessment were not redundant; the moderate associations between narrative themes and self-report measures suggest that narrative assessments do not overlap completely with self-report scales.

Because authenticity has been a robust predictor of mental health, perhaps the most pressing question for future research is to determine whether narrative themes are related to mental health above and beyond self-report measures. There is good reason to think that this might be the case. A recent review concluded that narrative themes have incremental validity in predicting well-being both cross-sectionally and prospectively independently of dispositional personality traits ( Adler et al., 2016 ). Additionally, qualitative studies link authenticity to healthy behavior ( Conroy and de Visser, 2015 ) and quantitative studies show that expressing intrinsic values in memories is related to well-being ( Lekes et al., 2014 ).

Another direction for future research that may further integrate trait and narrative approaches to authenticity is to explore what types of life stories support (self-reported) authentic functioning. That is, how does narrative identity differ among people with higher and lower levels of self-reported authenticity? The current study reveals only limited information related to this question; specifically, our findings suggest that people with different levels of self-reported authenticity see different themes as indicative of authenticity/inauthenticity in life story scenes. For Example, our findings indicate that a person with higher self-reported relational authenticity is likely to view relational honesty as indicative of authenticity. Our findings have nothing to say about whether people with higher levels of self-reported relational authenticity tell life stories (when not primed to tell moments that are authentic) that convey themes of open, honest, and close relationships. It is easy to envision a study that tests these ideas. Scenes from a typical life story interview (e.g., high point, low point, turning point, important memories from different times of life) could be coded for the authenticity/inauthenticity themes identified in the current study, and these themes could be correlated with self-reported authenticity measures. It is worth noting that a study like this could not be conducted without first identifying valid coding categories for authenticity/inauthenticity, as was done in the current studies.

4.2. Limitations

There may be some concern that authenticity and inauthenticity were assessed through subjective methods of self-report and life-story scenes. Therefore, we cannot make claims about more objective aspects of authenticity and inauthenticity that might be captured by measures such as experimentally manipulated reaction times (e.g., Schlegel et al., 2009 ). Though this is a potential limitation, subjectivity is at the core of a narrative identity perspective on authenticity. The narrative identity approach is authenticity centered on one's personal myth regarding what it means to be true (and false) to oneself. This standpoint is somewhat similar to that taken by Schlegel and colleagues (e.g., 2009 ; 2011 ; 2013 ) regarding the true self-concept. The authors remained neutral on the issue of the ontological reality, preferring instead to define the true self-concept as the cognitive schema and subjective beliefs and feelings what aspects of one's self-concept reflect true, core characteristics. This decision was based on the rationale that perceptions of reality can have important consequences regardless of the accuracy of the perceptions.

The researchers and coders bring unique perspectives and biases to extracting themes from qualitative data. Other labs may have identified different themes and clustered themes in different ways in Study 1. This would have resulted in different quantitative coding categories in Study 2. Indeed, the emergence of categories that were similar to dimensions of authenticity/inauthenticity that emerged in previous research may reflect some of our biases. Therefore, our coding systems is not meant to be exhaustive but rather one potentially useful way of examining authenticity in life-stories.

The generalizability of our findings may also be limited because we relied on samples of undergraduates from a Western, educated, industrialized, rich, and democratic (WEIRD) society ( Henrich et al., 2010 ). Potential limitations to generalizability based on age and culture are highly relevant for the concept of authenticity. Identity conflicts may be more salient for undergraduate participants than for older adults, and therefore older adults might have a more stable ideas about what constitutes authenticity and inauthenticity ( Schlegel et al., 2013 ). More stable notions of authenticity could result in stronger and possibly more reliable associations between scales attempting to measure authenticity-related constructs. Authenticity may also be more highly valued among Western as compared to non-Western nations ( Lenton et al., 2013 ; Slabu et al., 2014 ). Understandings of authenticity could therefore vary across cultures, which may have consequences for which themes emerged as uniquely defining of authenticity and inauthenticity; for instance, most themes that were uniquely definitive of authenticity in the current study were primarily concerned with the self, which may be due to the relative emphasis on self-enhancement in Western nations. Perhaps people from non-Western nations would place more emphasis on relational authenticity themes. Regardless of these limitations, narrative studies in their essence are aimed at developing an understanding of how a particular group of people understand themselves in a particular sociohistorical context ( McAdams and Pals, 2006 ).

Finally, our relatively small sample sizes may be considered a limitation. In Study 1, it is possible that different unique themes may have emerged with a greater sample size, or that the rank-ordering of unique themes could have changed. In Study 2, our power to detect small-to-medium effect sizes was not optimal. Though we recommend that future studies employ larger sample sizes, we are aware that logistical challenges to collecting and coding narratives would make doing so a lengthy and costly undertaking.

5. Conclusion

In the current studies, we found that for undergraduates in a Western society, authentic experiences entail expressing one's perceived true nature, being content and relaxed, taking ownership of one's choices, not giving in to external pressures, and having open and honest relationships. In contrast, inauthentic experiences involve being phony, conforming to others' expectations, suppressing one's emotions, and denigrating the self. Thus, life-story scenes characteristic of authenticity/inauthenticity turned out to be similar to the ideas emerging from prominent psychological and philosophical theories. Assessments of narrative authenticity/inauthenticity were related to but distinct from self-report assessments, opening the possibility for narrative approaches to reveal unique insight into the psychology of the true and false selves.

Declarations

Author contribution statement.

Joshua Wilt: Conceived and designed the experiments; Performed the experiments; Analyzed and interpreted the data; Contributed reagents, materials, analysis tools or data; Wrote the paper.

Sarah Thomas: Conceived and designed the experiments; Analyzed and interpreted the data; Wrote the paper.

Dan McAdams: Conceived and designed the experiments; Analyzed and interpreted the data; Contributed reagents, materials, analysis tools or data; Wrote the paper.

Funding statement

This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Competing interest statement

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Data associated with this study has been deposited at Open Science Framework under: https://osf.io/u9fea/?view_only=5bb21c2ba8d442218ed4f750c6c2a4c1 .

1 Both studies were part of larger projects and thus contained additional self-report measures that were not included in the current analyses. All study materials, all data, and all analyses for the current manuscript are available at: https://osf.io/u9fea/?view_only=5bb21c2ba8d442218ed4f750c6c2a4c1 .

2 Coders were instructed to work on only one type of scene at a time in order to reduce the likelihood that the coding of the participant's target scene (i.e., the scene being coded) was influenced by the content of the participant's other scenes. For instance, we did not want the content of a participant's authenticity scene to influence how a coder perceived the same participant's inauthenticity scene.

Appendix A. Unique descriptors of authentic and inauthentic scenes

Appendix B. Example scenes

Example authenticity scene. “I was with my friends at their dorm room. We were in the common room, just us, it was late and we were laughing about weird ticks that we have. I was with me boyfriend, and when it was my turn I said that I drool a lot while I'm asleep. At the time I was sleeping with my boyfriend but hadn't told him about my drooling. We all laughed, and then my boyfriend turned to me and said, “yeah you do drool a lot” and I felt so embarrassed and ashamed. But we were laughing about it at the same time and it just made me feel comfortable about myself. Then he went and said something equally as embarrassing and I felt better. I realized that everyone does something weird and gross and it was cool to talk about it, out in the open. I really felt like I could be myself around these people.”

This scene was coded as containing the characteristics of: “companionship”, “acting in a genuine way with others, “feeling true to oneself” “enjoyment” “feeling understood by others”, “being honest with others”, “receiving encouragement”, “being with friends”, “not being judged”, “embarrassment”, “being carefree”, “trusting others”, “revealing true feelings to others”, “being relaxed”, “being disinhibited”, and “acceptance of imperfections”.

Example inauthenticity scene. “ The first day at [university blinded] I was really desperate to meet people that would like me. At night I went to a dance party and felt that no one would like me unless I was “on”. So I started being funny and comical, people started laughing and soon I had people congregating around watching me tell jokes and be funny. I started saying that I liked music that I hated because these people liked it. I felt so fake! And I wanted to just be myself, but I knew that if I was myself people wouldn't like me. So I kept up being funny because I wanted to be the life of the party. Pretty soon everyone was talking about how funny and clever I was. As the party died down and people left I had a phone filled with new numbers, but I felt just as alone as when I walked in. I walked back to my room and thought that I really wouldn't like anyone that I had met that night personally.”

This scene was coded as containing the characteristics (presented in the order in which they were coded) of: “feeling phony”, “lying to others”, “being different from one's usual self”, “desire to make a good impression”, “striving for acceptance”, “acting to please others”, “being pessimistic”, and “being upset”.

Example emotionally vivid scene. “ I drove out of my high school for the very last time. It was the last day of school my senior year, and I was done with all of my tests. It was the last time I would drive out of the parking lot as a student. I felt so many emotions: accomplishment, fear, lots of sadness, yet happiness. I was one of the last ones to finish my exams and when I walked out the parking lot was empty. It was hot I just remembered wanting to stay there, and not leave. I thought back at my experiences and wanted to have the same great moments in college. At the end I remembered being afraid of were life was gonna take me next.”

This scene was coded as containing the characteristics (presented in the order in which they were coded) of: “sadness”, “happiness”, “accomplishment”, “being at school”, “fear”, and “nervousness”.

Appendix C. Authenticity and inauthenticity coding guidelines

Relational authenticity. Key characteristics of scenes containing “relational authenticity” (identified in Study 1) are: acting in a genuine way with others, companionship, feeling understood by others, honest with others, revealing true feelings to others, trusting others, and understanding others . Relational authenticity reflects the degree to which the protagonist feels connected to others. The scene conveys the sense that others are trustworthy and expressions of honesty are welcomed with understanding and in a non-judgmental way. The protagonist feels a strong sense of companionship with others in the scene. Scenes were coded on a scale from 1 (very low) to 4 (very high) based on the degree to which they conveyed relational authenticity: “The scene conveyed relational authenticity to a...degree”.

Expression of true self. Key characteristics scenes containing the theme “expression of true self” are: expression of true thoughts, feeling true to oneself, genuineness, and revealing one's true self . This code reflects the degree to which the protagonist feels true to him/herself. The scene conveys the sense that one's actions and feelings are accurate reflections of one's true nature. The protagonist feels that the scene is a genuine portrayal of one's real self. Scenes were coded on a scale from 1 (very low) to 4 (very high) based on the degree to which the protagonist expressed his or her true self: “The scene expresses the protagonist's true self to a...degree''.

Contentment. Key characteristics of scenes containing the theme “contentment” are enjoyment, feeling comfortable, happiness, and relaxation . This code reflects the degree to which the protagonist feels content in his/her surroundings. The scene conveys a sense of comfort and happiness. The protagonist feels relaxed and natural in the situation or event described in the scene. Scenes were coded on a scale from 1 (very low) to 4 (very high), based on the degree to which they convey contentment: “The scene conveyed feelings of contentment to a...degree.''

Ownership of actions. Key characteristics of scenes containing the theme “ownership of actions” are accepting responsibility, acting in accordance with one's beliefs and values, and taking ownership of choices . This code reflects the degree to which the protagonist feels ownership of his/her actions. The scene conveys the sense that actions were in accordance with the values of the protagonist. The protagonist accepts responsibility for his/her actions by identifying some value or value system and acting in accordance with those values. Scenes were coded on a scale from 1 (very low) to 4 (very high), based on the degree to which they conveyed that the protagonist accepted ownership of his/her actions. “The protagonist accepted ownership of his/her actions to a...degree.''

Resisting external pressures. Key characteristics of scenes containing the theme “resisting external pressures'' are disobeying authority and resisting influence . This code reflects the degree to which the protagonist resists external pressures to conform. The scene conveys the sense that the protagonist defies the influence of social pressures. The protagonist opposes authority figures and/or societal expectations. Scenes were coded on a scale from 1 (very low) to 4 (very high), based on the degree to which the protagonist resisted external pressures. “The protagonist resisted external pressures to a...degree.''

Phoniness. Key characteristics of scenes containing the theme “phoniness'' are different from usual self, feeling phony/fake, and putting on an act . This code reflects the degree to which the protagonist feels that he/she is being phony. The scene conveys the sense that the protagonist is putting on an act that is different from how he/she usually behaves (unless the difference is endorsed as authentic). The protagonist feels fake and/or contrived. Scenes were coded on a scale from 1 (very low) to 4 (very high), based on the degree to which the protagonist felt phony. “The protagonist conveys the sense of phoniness to a...degree.''

Conformity. Key characteristics of scenes containing the theme “conformity” are acting to please others, going with the crowd, being influenced by others' expectations, living up to others' expectations, concern with making a good impression, pleasing others, and striving for acceptance or to fit in . This code reflects the degree to which the protagonist conforms to the demands of others or society. The scene conveys a sense that the protagonist is striving to make a good impression, fit in, or is acting in order to please others. The protagonist attempts to gain acceptance by adjusting his/her behavior to conform to social/societal pressures. Scenes were coded on a scale from 1 (very low) to 4 (very high), based on the degree to which the protagonist conformed to external pressures. “The protagonist conforms to external pressures to a...degree.''

Suppression. Key characteristics of scenes containing the theme “suppression'' are denying, subverting, or changing one's emotions, holding in one's true beliefs, and lying to others . This code reflects the degree to which the protagonist suppresses his/her emotions, thoughts, and actions. The scene conveys the sense that the protagonist is actively withholding his/her opinions or lies to others in order to avoid revealing true beliefs and opinions. The protagonist actively avoids expressing his/her true self in order to avoid negative consequences. Scenes were coded on a scale from 1 (very low) to 4 (very high), based on the degree to which the protagonist suppresses true feelings, beliefs, and behavior. “The protagonist suppressed his/her true self to a...degree.''

Self-denigration. Key characteristics of scenes containing the theme “self-denigration'' are expressing disgust with oneself and self-criticism . This code reflects the degree to which the protagonist describes him/herself in derogatory terms. The scene conveys the sense that the protagonist does not approve of the way he/she acted and may be disgusted with him/herself. The protagonist is critical of him/herself. Scenes were coded on a scale from 1 (very low) to 4 (very high), based on the degree to which the protagonist was self-critical and self-denigrating. “The protagonist was self-critical and self-denigrating to a...degree.''

• Adler J.M., Dunlop W.L., Fivush R., Lilgendahl J.P., Lodi-Smith J., McAdams D.P. Research methods for studying narrative identity. Soc. Psychol. Personal. Sci. 2017; 8 :519–527. [ Google Scholar ]
• Adler J.M., Lodi-Smith J., Philippe F.L., Houle I. The incremental validity of narrative identity in predicting well-being: a review of the field and recommendations for the future. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Rev. 2016; 20 :142–175. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ashton M.C., Lee K. A theoretical basis for the major dimensions of personality. Eur. J. Personal. 2001; 15 :327–353. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ashton M.C., Lee K., Goldberg L.R. The IPIP-HEXACO scales: an alternative, public-domain measure of the personality constructs in the HEXACO model. Personal. Individ. Differ. 2007; 42 :1515–1526. [ Google Scholar ]
• Boyraz G., Waits J.B., Felix V.A. Authenticity, life satisfaction, and distress: a longitudinal analysis. J. Couns. Psychol. 2014; 61 :498–505. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Christie R., Geis F.L. Academic Press; New York: 1970. Studies in Machiavellianism. [ Google Scholar ]
• Christy A.G., Seto E., Schlegel R.J., Vess M., Hicks J.A. Straying from the righteous path and from ourselves. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 2016; 42 :1538–1550. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Conroy D., de Visser R. The importance of authenticity for student non-drinkers: an interpretative phenomenological analysis. J. Health Psychol. 2015; 20 :1483–1493. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Creswell J.W. second ed. Sage; Thousand Oaks, CA: 2007. Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing Among Five Approaches. [ Google Scholar ]
• Deci E.L., Ryan R.M. The general causality orientations scale: self-determination in personality. J. Res. Personal. 1985; 19 :109–134. [ Google Scholar ]
• Deci E.L., Ryan R.M. The "what" and "why" of goal pursuits: human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychol. Inq. 2000; 11 :227–268. [ Google Scholar ]
• Dwyer P.S. The determination of the factor loadings of a given test from the known factor loadings of other tests. Psychometrika. 1937; 2 :173–178. [ Google Scholar ]
• Erickson R.J., Whatron A.S. Inauthenticity and depression. Work Occup. 1997; 24 :188–213. [ Google Scholar ]
• Fleeson W., Wilt J. The relevance of Big Five trait content in behavior to subjective authenticity: do high levels of within-person behavioral variability undermine or enable authenticity achievement? J. Personal. 2010; 78 :1353–1382. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gagné M. The role of autonomy support and autonomy orientation in prosocial behavior engagement. Motiv. Emot. 2003; 27 :199–223. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gan M., Chen S. Being your actual or ideal self? What it means to feel authentic in a relationship. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 2017; 43 :465–478. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gino F., Kouchaki M., Galinsky A.D. The moral virtue of authenticity: how inauthenticity produces feelings of immorality and impurity. Psychol. Sci. 2015; 26 :983–996. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Goldberg L.R., Johnson J.A., Eber H.W., Hogan R., Ashton M.C., Cloninger C.R., Gough H.G. The international personality item pool and the future of public-domain personality measures. J. Res. Personal. 2006; 40 :84–96. [ Google Scholar ]
• Goldman B.M., Kernis M.H. The role of authenticity in healthy psychological functioning and subjective well-being. Ann. Am. Psychother. Assoc. 2002; 5 :18–20. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gouveia T., Schulz M.S., Costa M.E. Authenticity in relationships: predicting caregiving and attachment in adult romantic relationships. J. Couns. Psychol. 2016; 63 :736–744. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Harter S. Authenticity. In: Snyder C.R., Lopez S.J., editors. Handbook of Positive Psychology. Oxford University Press; New York, NY US: 2002. pp. 382–394. [ Google Scholar ]
• Henrich J., Heine S.J., Norenzayan A. Most people are not WEIRD. Nature. 2010; 466 :29. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Horn J.L. On extension analysis and its relation to correlations between variables and factor scores. Multivar. Behav. Res. 1973; 8 :477–489. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Horney K. Norton; New York, NY: 1950. Neurosis and Human Growth; the Struggle toward Self-Realization. [ Google Scholar ]
• Jonason P.K., McCain J. Using the HEXACO model to test the validity of the dirty dozen measure of the dark Triad. Personal. Individ. Differ. 2012; 53 :935–938. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kernis M.H., Goldman B.M., Zanna M.P. Vol 38. Elsevier Academic Press; San Diego, CA US: 2006. A multicomponent conceptualization of authenticity: theory and research; pp. 283–357. (Advances in Experimental Social Psychology). [ Google Scholar ]
• Kernis M.H., Heppner W.L., Wayment H.A., Bauer J.J. American Psychological Association; Washington, DC US: 2008. Individual Differences in Quiet Ego Functioning: Authenticity, Mindfulness, and Secure Self-Esteem Transcending Self-interest: Psychological Explorations of the Quiet Ego ; pp. 85–93. [ Google Scholar ]
• Koo T.K., Li M.Y. A guideline of selecting and reporting intraclass correlation coefficients for reliability research. J. Chiropr. Med. 2016; 15 :155–163. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lee K., Ashton M.C. Psychopathy, machiavellianism, and narcissism in the five-factor model and the HEXACO model of personality structure. Personal. Individ. Differ. 2005; 38 :1571–1582. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lekes N., Guilbault V., Philippe F.L., Houle I. Remembering events related to close relationships, self-growth, and helping others: intrinsic autobiographical memories, need satisfaction, and well-being. J. Res. Personal. 2014; 53 :103–111. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lenton A.P., Bruder M., Slabu L., Sedikides C. How does "being real" feel? The experience of state authenticity. J. Personal. 2013; 81 :276–289. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lenton A.P., Slabu L., Bruder M., Sedikides C. Identifying differences in the experience of (in) authenticity: a latent class analysis approach. Front. Psychol. 2014; 5 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lenton A.P., Slabu L., Sedikides C. State authenticity in everyday life. Eur. J. Personal. 2016; 30 :64–82. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lodi-Smith J., Geise A.C., Roberts B.W., Robins R.W. Narrating personality change. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 2009; 96 :679–689. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Maltby J., Wood A.M., Day L., Pinto D. The position of authenticity within extant models of personality. Personal. Individ. Differ. 2012; 52 :269–273. [ Google Scholar ]
• Maslow A.H. second ed. D Van Nostrand; Oxford, England: 1968. Toward a Psychology of Being. [ Google Scholar ]
• McAdams D.P. Personality, modernity, and the storied self: a contemporary framework for studying persons. Psychol. Inq. 1996; 7 :295–321. [ Google Scholar ]
• McAdams D.P. Personal narratives and the life story. In: Pevin L.A., John O.P., editors. Handbook of Personality: Theory and Research. 3 ed. Guilford Press; New York, NY: 2008. [ Google Scholar ]
• McAdams D.P., Anyidoho N.A., Brown C., Huang Y.T., Kaplan B., Machado M.A. Traits and stories: links between dispositional and narrative features of personality. J. Personal. 2004; 72 :761–784. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• McAdams D.P., Manczak E. Personality and the life story. In: Mikulincer M., Shaver P.R., editors. APA Handbook of Personality and Social Psychology. APA Books; Washington, DC: 2015. [ Google Scholar ]
• McAdams D.P., Pals J.L. A New Big Five: fundamental principles for an integrative science of personality. Am. Psychol. 2006; 61 :204–217. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• McLean K.C., Fournier M.A. The content and processes of autobiographical reasoning in narrative identity. J. Res. Personal. 2008; 42 :527–545. [ Google Scholar ]
• Nehamas A. Princeton University Press; Princeton, NJ: 1999. Virtues of Authenticity: Essays on Plato and Socrates. [ Google Scholar ]
• Panattoni K., McLean K.C. The curious case of the coding and self-ratings mismatches: a methodological and theoretical detective story. Imagin. Cognit. Pers. 2018; 37 :248–270. [ Google Scholar ]
• Paulhus D.L., Williams K.M. The dark Triad of personality: narcissism, machiavellianism and psychopathy. J. Res. Personal. 2002; 36 :556–653. [ Google Scholar ]
• Plasencia M.L., Taylor C.T., Alden L.E. Unmasking one's true self facilitates positive relational outcomes: authenticity promotes social approach processes in Social Anxiety Disorder. Clin. Psychol. Sci. 2016; 4 :1002–1014. [ Google Scholar ]
• Rauthmann J.F., Will T. Proposing a multidimensional machiavellianism conceptualization. Soc. Behav. Personal. Int. J. 2011; 39 :391–403. [ Google Scholar ]
• Revelle W., Rocklin T. Very simple structure - alternative procedure for estimating the optimal number of interpretable factors. Multivar. Behav. Res. 1979; 14 :403–414. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Robinson O.C., Lopez F.G., Ramos K., Nartova-Bochaver S. Authenticity, social context, and well-being in the United States, england, and Russia: a three country comparative analysis. J. Cross Cult. Psychol. 2012 [ Google Scholar ]
• Rogers C.R. Houghton Mifflin; Oxford, England: 1961. On Becoming a Person : (1961) on Becoming a Person. [ Google Scholar ]
• Schlegel R.J., Hicks J.A. The true self and psychological health: emerging evidence and future directions. Soc. Personal. Psychol. Compass. 2011; 5 :989–1003. [ Google Scholar ]
• Schlegel R.J., Hicks J.A., Arndt J., King L.A. Thine own self: true self-concept accessibility and meaning in life. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 2009; 96 :473–490. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Schlegel R.J., Hicks J.A., Christy A.G. The eudaimonics of the true self. In: Vittersø J., editor. Handbook of Eudaimonic Well-Being. Springer; 2016. pp. 205–213. [ Google Scholar ]
• Schlegel R.J., Hicks J.A., Davis W.E., Hirsch K.A., Smith C.M. The dynamic interplay between perceived true self-knowledge and decision satisfaction. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 2013; 104 :542–558. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Schlegel R.J., Hicks J.A., King L.A., Arndt J. Feeling like you know who you are: perceived true self-knowledge and meaning in life. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 2011; 37 (6):745–756. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sedikides C., Slabu L., Lenton A.P., Thomaes S. State authenticity. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 2017; 26 :521–525. [ Google Scholar ]
• Shrout P.E., Fleiss J.L. Intraclass correlations: uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychol. Bull. 1979; 86 :420–428. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Slabu L., Lenton A.P., Sedikides C., Bruder M. Trait and state authenticity across cultures. J. Cross Cult. Psychol. 2014; 45 :1347–1373. [ Google Scholar ]
• Strauss A., Corbin J. Sage; Newbury Park, CA: 1998. Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedures and Techniques. [ Google Scholar ]
• Strohminger N., Knobe J., Newman G. The true self: a psychological concept distinct from the self. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 2017; 12 :551–560. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Syed M., Nelson S.C. Guidelines for establishing reliability when coding narrative data. Emerg. Adulthood. 2015; 3 :375–387. [ Google Scholar ]
• Vannini P., Franzese A. The authenticity of self: conceptualization, personal experience, and practice. Sociol. Compass. 2008; 2 :1621–1637. [ Google Scholar ]
• Wang Y.N. Balanced authenticity predicts optimal well-being: theoretical conceptualization and empirical development of the authenticity in relationships scale. Personal. Individ. Differ. 2016; 94 :316–323. [ Google Scholar ]
• Wickham R.E. Perceived authenticity in romantic partners. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 2013 [ Google Scholar ]
• Wilt J., Olson B.D., McAdams D.P. Higher-order factors of the Big Five predict exploration and threat in life stories. J. Res. Personal. 2011; 45 :613–621. [ Google Scholar ]
• Wood A.M., Linley P., Maltby J., Baliousis M., Joseph S. The authentic personality: a theoretical and empirical conceptualization and the development of the Authenticity Scale. J. Couns. Psychol. 2008; 55 :385–399. [ Google Scholar ]

Monday 02 September 2024

• Leader comment
• Letters to the editor
• Sunday’s readings
• Faith features
• Book reviews
• Visual arts
• Performing arts
• Caption competition
• Out of the question
• 100 years ago

Turin Shroud scholar produces more evidence of its authenticity

A figure from the report

THE bloodstains and markings on the Holy Shroud of Turin correspond to the brutal treatment of Christ described in Gospel accounts of his crucifixion, a new study suggests.

The study, published by the University of Padua, is by Professor Giulio Fanti, co-ordinator of the international Shroud Science Group. Fanti, a professor of mechanical and thermal measurements, is the author of numerous works on the Shroud over 25 years, and is convinced of its authenticity.

The Shroud is a handmade twill linen cloth measuring 4.4 by 1.1 metres which contains the image of the front and back of a man, most clearly revealed in a photographic negative taken in 1898.

The Vatican, given ownership in 1983, has not officially pronounced on its authenticity. In 1988, it was carbon-dated to the 12th century, although some scientists claim that the testing was carried out erroneously on a piece of medieval cloth.

T he new study reports: “There are hundreds of reddish spots of varying shapes and sizes which almost completely overlap the body image imprinted on it, and which seem perfectly consistent with the different types of torture suffered by Jesus who was wrapped in it as a corpse.

“Bloodstained marks on the head consistent with a crown of thorns, blood marks on the hands and feet with crucifixion, and a bloodstain on the chest with the post-mortem spear wound that Christ received.”

The presence of creatinine particles with ferritin, often a by-product of muscle contractions, provides microscopic confirmation of “very heavy torture”, he says. The right eye of the Shroud’s body image is “more sunken and apparently furrowed by a vertical mark”, indicating that the victim was “blinded by a blow to the head”, or wounded “by a thorn from the crown placed on Jesus’s head”.

The 11,300-word study, which includes medical and forensic images, concludes that the likely cause of Jesus’s “relatively early death on the cross” was “hemopericardial infarction”, brought on by kidney and liver failure from “flagellation and microcytic anemia”.

“Jesus was severely scourged and nailed to the cross — he died and his corpse was placed in the sepulchre in Jerusalem and wrapped in the Holy Shroud.”

It continues: “The strong uremia that produced an accentuated shrinkage of the volume of the erythrocytes in the blood caused serious problems in oxygen exchange during breathing. To compensate for these physical problems, Jesus had to increase his breathing heavily, as well as the frequency of his heartbeats, which prompted a heart attack as the main cause of death.”

Although apparent references to the Shroud were made in the early centuries, the object’s documented history dates from its exhibition in 1353 at the French town of Lirey, from where it was acquired by the royal House of Savoy.

Damaged by fire in 1532 while housed in a chapel at Chambéry, it was taken to Turin in 1578, and has remained in a specially designed chapel close to the city’s cathedral since 1683, apart from several brief periods of wartime concealment.

In his new study, Professor Fanti argues that the image on the Shroud was produced by radiation or an “electric-type energy” of unknown origin, “probably connected with the Holy Fire of Jerusalem which emanated from the corpse and reacted with the linen”.

Features of the facial image, he argues, “accurately coincide” with depictions of Christ on Byzantine coins from the seventh century, suggesting that the Shroud was “seen during the Byzantine Empire”.

His study refers to previous investigations, including those of 1980 and 1981 which confirmed the existence of human blood and fluid produced by pulmonary edema on the Shroud. The “different directions” of blood rivulets, bearing “different macroscopic characteristics”, indicate that the body was held in an upright position and later rotated and rested on its side, while traces of local clay and limestone also indicate a “quick burial”, the new study says.

Professor Fanti writes: “Jesus probably lost at least a third of his blood, thereby causing hypovolemic shock — a strong reduction in the volume of blood circulating in the body due to various hemorrhages and body fluid losses.

“Due to uremia, the red blood cells significantly reduced their ability to exchange oxygen, thus causing a notable tachycardia, which was also accentuated by tonic and clonic contractions, or muscle spasms, resulting from the hypertension of the limbs nailed to the cross. . .

“During Jesus’s last hour before dying on the cross, a reduced blood flow to the kidneys was also caused by hypovolemia and severe dehydration.”

Professor Fanti writes that his study was “partially supported by a religious group that requested anonymity”, which had backed his forensic work on other objects. The results, he says, are “fully consistent” with the description of Christ’s scourging and crucifixion in the Gospels.

In an interview in February 2023 with Italy’s La Voce dell’Ionio , the Professor dated his interest in the Shroud to a school visit, aged ten, saying that he was personally convinced that this development was a “work of God”.

Browse Church and Charity jobs on the Church Times jobsite

Other stories

Vatican outlines plans for synodality reforms.

18 Jul 2024

Sir James MacMillan leads campaign not to ban Latin Mass

26 Jul 2024

See Vatican I in its historical context, says Rome in new paper on an ecumenical Petrine ministry

14 Jun 2024

Leader comment: Dignitas Infinita: the Vatican’s balancing act

12 Apr 2024

Vatican reports a rise in lay people in 2022, but a decline in priests

08 Apr 2024

Cardinal speaks of ‘the dark hour of Golgotha’ in Ukraine  

Wait for the Church of England parliamentary spokesperson to end soon

02 Sep 2024

Other Topics

Top Comment

Dangers social-action projects must avoid

Christian charities should be confident about their purpose, but beware propping up an unjust system, Jon Kuhrt argues

Job of the Week

London and home counties.

In 2022, we stepped out in faith and boldly created a community café in the church itself, aiming to demonstrate God’s love in practical ways through kindness and hospitality.

Priest-in-Charge - Initially Funded for 3 Years

Priest-in-Charge (initially funded for 3 years) extendable to 5 years if considered to be successful at 2.5 years review.  

Team Vicar and Rural Dean

We are looking for a Team Vicar for three very special rural parishes with four churches who have all worked happily together for many years.

Find more jobs

Forthcoming Events

Green church awards.

Awards Ceremony: 6 September 2024

R ead more details about the awards

Festival of Preaching

15-17 September 2024

The festival moves to Cambridge along with a sparkling selection of expert speakers

tickets available

Inspiration: The Influences That Have Shaped My Life

September - November 2024

St Martin in the Fields Autumn Lecture Series 2024

SAVE THE DATE

Festival of faith and literature.

28 February - 2 March 2025

The festival programme is soon to be announced sign up to our newsletter to stay informed about all festival news.

Festival website

Visit our Events page for upcoming and past events 

Most popular, disused church not allowed to become a mosque.

Factional fighting in the open at Barnabas Aid

‘Inappropriate’ to shoot Danny Boyle horror film in church, chancellor rules

Next Bishop of Wolverhampton comes from Oxford and London via Kenya

New churches are dropping the word ‘church’, report finds

Timothy Dudley-Smith, hymn-writer and bishop, has died

Angela Tilby: Schismatics in the C of E go up a gear

CDM system failed us, says Blackburn diocese, after paying off canon ‘who posed risk’

Resource churches: To sow, plant, or graft?

Welcome to the Church Times

To explore the Church Times website fully, please sign in or subscribe.

Non-subscribers can read four articles for free each month. (You will need to register.)

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Review Article
• Published: 28 June 2024

Distilling the concept of authenticity

• Constantine Sedikides   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-4036-889X 1 &
• Rebecca J. Schlegel   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-7331-4102 2  

Nature Reviews Psychology volume  3 ,  pages 509–523 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

367 Accesses

1 Citations

16 Altmetric

Metrics details

Authenticity has long captured the imagination of literary figures, philosophers and scientists. The construct originated in Aristotelian thinking and serves as an injunctive societal norm in contemporary society. Although people have been fascinated with authenticity since at least the time of the ancient Greeks, the concept remains elusive. In this Review, we aim to clarify the construct of authenticity. First, we consider the evidence for conceptualizations of authenticity as self-accuracy, self-consistency, self-ownership and self-enhancement. We then differentiate between trait authenticity and state authenticity and highlight pertinent theoretical models and measurement approaches. Authenticity is relevant to psychological functioning, and we describe its associations with self-regulation, behaviour regulation, interpersonal relations, psychological health and consumer behaviour. Although authenticity has beneficial effects in these domains, it also has drawbacks such as the potential for hypocrisy, off-putting positive self-presentation and conflict in the workplace. We conclude by pinpointing empirical lacunae and proposing future research directions.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Subscribe to this journal

Receive 12 digital issues and online access to articles

55,14 € per year

only 4,60 € per issue

Buy this article

• Purchase on SpringerLink
• Instant access to full article PDF

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Similar content being viewed by others

Going beyond the individual level in self-control research

The unique nature and psychosocial implications of awe

A qualitative exploration of individual differences in wellbeing for highly sensitive individuals

Ferrara, A. Reflective Authenticity: Rethinking the Project of Modernity (Routledge, 2002).

Taylor, C. A Secular Age (Harvard Univ. Press, 2009).

Authentic: Merriam-Webster’s Word of the Year https://www.merriam-webster.com/wordplay/word-of-the-year (2023).

Tredennick, H. & Barnes, J. The Nicomachean Ethics (Penguin Classics, 2004).

Golomb, J. In Search of Authenticity: Existentialism from Kierkegaard to Camus (Routledge, 1995).

Steiner, C. J. & Reisinger, Y. Understanding existential authenticity. Ann. Tour. Res. 33 , 299–318 (2006).

Article   Google Scholar  

Bennett, E. A. Alienation and its consequence: an exploration of Marxism, hikikomori, and authenticity via relational connection. Humanist. Psychol. 48 , 257–270 (2020).

Erickson, R. J. The importance of authenticity for self and society. Symb. Interact. 18 , 121–144 (1995).

Umbach, M. & Humphrey, M. Authenticity: The Cultural History of a Political Concept (Springer, 2018).

Williams, J. P. Authenticity in Culture, Self, and Society (Routledge, 2009).

Jones, B. Authenticity in political discourse. Ethical Theory Moral. Pract. 19 , 489–504 (2016).

Kernis, M. H. & Goldman, B. M. A multicomponent conceptualization of authenticity: theory and research. Adv. Exper. Soc. Psychol. 38 , 283–357 (2006).

Lakey, C. E., Kernis, M. H., Heppner, W. L. & Lance, C. E. Individual differences in authenticity and mindfulness as predictors of verbal defensiveness. J. Res. Personal. 42 , 230–238 (2008).

Vazire, S. & Carlson, E. N. in Handbook of Personality: Theory and Research 4th edn (eds John, O. P. & Robins, R. W.) 837–852 (Guilford, 2021).

Vazire, S. & Wilson, T. D. (eds). Handbook of Self-Knowledge (Guilford, 2012).

Vazire, S. & Carlson, E. N. Self-knowledge of personality: do people know themselves? Soc. Personal. Psychol. Compass 4 , 605–620 (2010).

Alicke, M. D. & Sedikides, C. Self-enhancement and self-protection: what they are and what they do. Eur. Rev. Soc. Psychol. 20 , 1–48 (2009).

Sedikides, C. & Gregg, A. P. Self-enhancement: food for thought. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 3 , 102–116 (2008).

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Gillath, O., Sesko, A. K., Shaver, P. R. & Chun, D. S. Attachment, authenticity, and honesty: dispositional and experimentally induced security can reduce self- and other-deception. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 98 , 841–855 (2010).

Murphy, D., Joseph, S., Demetriou, E. & Karimi-Mofrad, P. Unconditional positive self-regard, intrinsic aspirations, and authenticity: pathways to psychological well-being. J. Humanist. Psychol. 60 , 258–279 (2020).

Maslow, A. Toward a Psychology of Being (D Van Nostrand, 1962).

Rogers, C. R. On Becoming a Person (Houghton Mifflin, 1961).

Barrett-Lennard, G. T. Carl Rogers’ Helping System: Journey & Substance (Sage, 1999).

Wood, A. M., Linley, P. A., Maltby, J., Baliousis, M. & Joseph, S. The authentic personality: a theoretical and empirical conceptualization and the development of the Authenticity Scale. J. Couns. Psychol. 55 , 385–399 (2008).

Boucher, H. C. The dialectical self-concept II: cross-role and within-role consistency, well-being, self-certainty, and authenticity. J. Cross Cult. Psychol. 42 , 1251–1271 (2011).

Kraus, M. W., Chen, S. & Keltner, D. The power to be me: power elevates self-concept consistency and authenticity. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 47 , 974–980 (2011).

Sheldon, K. M., Gunz, A. & Schachtman, T. R. What does it mean to be in touch with oneself? Testing a social character model of self-congruence. Self Identity 11 , 51–70 (2012).

Ebrahimi, M., Kouchaki, M. & Patrick, V. M. Juggling work and home selves: low identity integration feels less authentic and increases unethicality. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 158 , 101–111 (2020).

Dormanen, R., Sanders, C. S., Maffly-Kipp, J., Smith, J. L. & Vess, M. Assimilation undercuts authenticity: a consequence of women’s masculine self-presentation in masculine contexts. Psychol. Women Q. 44 , 488–502 (2020).

Sheldon, K. M. Becoming oneself: the central role of self-concordant goal selection. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Rev. 18 , 349–365 (2014).

Sheldon, K. M., Ryan, R. M., Rawsthorne, L. J. & Ilardi, B. Trait self and true self: cross-role variation in the Big-Five personality traits and its relations with psychological authenticity and subjective well-being. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 73 , 1380–1393 (1997).

Fleeson, W. & Wilt, J. The relevance of Big Five trait content in behavior to subjective authenticity: do high levels of within-person behavioral variability undermine or enable authenticity achievement? J. Pers. 78 , 1353–1382 (2010).

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Cooper, A. B., Sherman, R. A., Rauthmann, J. F., Serfass, D. G. & Brown, N. A. Feeling good and authentic: experienced authenticity in daily life is predicted by positive feelings and situation characteristics, not trait-state consistency. J. Res. Personal. 77 , 57–69 (2018).

Jongman-Sereno, K. P. & Leary, M. R. Self-perceived authenticity is contaminated by the valence of one’s behavior. Self Identity 15 , 283–301 (2016).

Jacobs, R. & Barnard, A. Authenticity as best-self: the experiences of women in law enforcement. Front. Psychol. 13 , 861942 (2022).

Sedikides, C. Self-construction, self-protection, and self-enhancement: a homeostatic model of identity protection. Psychol. Inq. 32 , 197–221 (2021).

Sedikides, C. & Green, J. D. What I don’t recall can’t hurt me: information negativity versus information inconsistency as determinants of memorial self-defense. Soc. Cogn. 22 , 4–29 (2004).

Baumeister, R. F. Stalking the true self through the jungles of authenticity: problems, contradictions, inconsistencies, disturbing findings — and a possible way forward. Rev. Gen. Psychol. 23 , 143–154 (2019).

Ryan, W. S. & Ryan, R. M. Toward a social psychology of authenticity: exploring within-person variation in autonomy, congruence, and genuineness using self-determination theory. Rev. Gen. Psychol. 23 , 99–112 (2019).

Vess, M. Varieties of conscious experience and the subjective awareness of one’s “true” self. Rev. Gen. Psychol. 23 , 89–98 (2019).

Rivera, G. N. et al. Understanding the relationship between perceived authenticity and well-being. Rev. Gen. Psychol. 23 , 113–126 (2019).

Kim, J., Christy, A. G., Rivera, G. N., Hicks, J. A. & Schlegel, R. J. Is the illusion of authenticity beneficial? Merely perceiving decisions as guided by the true self enhances decision satisfaction. Soc. Psychol. Personal. Sci. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550620903202 (2020).

Vess, M. & Maffly-Kipp, J. Intentional mindwandering and unintentional mindwandering are differentially associated with the experience of self-alienation. Personal. Individ. Differ. 185 , 111289 (2022).

Kim, J., Christy, A. G., Schlegel, R. J., Donnellan, M. B. & Hicks, J. A. Existential Ennui: examining the reciprocal relationship between self-alienation and academic amotivation. Soc. Psychol. Personal. Sci. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550617727587 (2017).

Anderson, C. L., Chen, S. & Ayduk, Ö. When does changing emotions harm authenticity? Distinct reappraisal strategies differentially impact subjective and observer-rated authenticity. Self Identity 19 , 590–612 (2020).

Seto, E. & Hicks, J. A. Disassociating the agent from the self: undermining belief in free will diminishes true self-knowledge. Soc. Psychol. Personal. Sci. 7 , 726–734 (2016).

Strohminger, N., Knobe, J. & Newman, G. The true self: a psychological concept distinct from the self. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 12 , 551–560 (2017).

De Freitas, J., Cikara, M., Grossmann, I. & Schlegel, R. Origins of the belief in good true selves. Trends Cogn. Sci. 21 , 634–636 (2017).

Maffly-Kipp, J., Truong, T. N., Edens, J. F. & Vess, M. Dark triad traits are associated with a weaker morally-good true self bias in self-perceptions. Self Identity 22 , 832–848 (2023).

Seto, E. & Schlegel, R. Becoming your true self: perceptions of authenticity across the lifespan. Self Identity https://doi.org/10.1080/15298868.2017.1322530 (2017).

Bench, S. W., Schlegel, R. J., Davis, W. E. & Vess, M. Thinking about change in the self and others: the role of self-discovery metaphors and the true self. Soc. Cogn. 33 , 169–185 (2015).

Wilson, A. E. & Ross, M. From chump to champ: people’s appraisals of their earlier and present selves. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 80 , 572–584 (2001).

Bailey, E. R. & Iyengar, S. S. Positive — more than unbiased — self-perceptions increase subjective authenticity. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 125 , 1351–1372 (2023).

Hart, W., Richardson, K., Breeden, C. J. & Kinrade, C. To be or to appear to be: evidence that authentic people seek to appear authentic rather than be authentic. Personal. Individ. Differ. 166 , 110165 (2020).

Haslam, N., Bain, P., Douge, L., Lee, M. & Bastian, B. More human than you: attributing humanness to self and others. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 89 , 937–950 (2005).

Zhang, Y. & Alicke, M. My true self is better than yours: comparative bias in true self judgments. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 47 , 216–231 (2021).

Zell, E., Strickhouser, J. E., Sedikides, C. & Alicke, M. D. The better-than-average effect in comparative self-evaluation: a comprehensive review and meta-analysis. Psychol. Bull. 146 , 118–149 (2020).

Sedikides, C. & Alicke, M. D. in The Oxford Handbook of Human Motivation (ed. Ryan, R. M.) (Oxford Univ. Press, 2019).

Guenther, C. L., Zhang, Y. & Sedikides, C. The authentic self is the self-enhancing self: a self-enhancement framework of authenticity. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. https://doi.org/10.1177/01461672231160653 (2023).

Gebauer, J. E., Wagner, J., Sedikides, C. & Neberich, W. Agency-communion and self-esteem relations are moderated by culture, religiosity, age, and sex: evidence for the “self-centrality breeds self-enhancement” principle. J. Pers. 81 , 261–275 (2013).

Sedikides, C. & Strube, M. J. Self-evaluation: to thine own self be good, to thine own self be sure, to thine own self be true, and to thine own self be better. Adv. Exper. Soc. Psychol. 29 , 209–269 (1997).

Checkland, P. Systems Thinking, Systems Practice: Includes a 30-Year Retrospective (Wiley, 1999).

Gimbel, S. Exploring the Scientific Method: Cases and Questions (Univ. Chicago Press, 2011).

Endler, N. S., Parker, J. D., Bagby, R. M. & Cox, B. J. Multidimensionality of state and trait anxiety: factor structure of the Endler Multidimensional Anxiety Scales. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 60 , 919–926 (1991).

Fridhandler, B. M. Conceptual note on state, trait, and the state–trait distinction. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 50 , 169–174 (1986).

Fleeson, W. Toward a structure- and process-integrated view of personality: traits as density distributions of states. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 80 , 1011–1027 (2001).

Nezlek, J. B. A multilevel framework for understanding relationships among traits, states, situations and behaviours. Eur. J. Personal. 21 , 789–810 (2007).

Lenton, A. P., Bruder, M., Slabu, L. & Sedikides, C. How does “being real” feel? The experience of state authenticity. J. Pers. 81 , 276–289 (2013).

Cole, D. A., Martin, N. C. & Steiger, J. H. Empirical and conceptual problems with longitudinal trait-state models: introducing a trait-state-occasion model. Psychol. Methods 10 , 3–20 (2005).

Liu, J. J., Dalton, A. N. & Lee, J. The “Self” under COVID-19: social role disruptions, self-authenticity and present-focused coping. PLoS One 16 , e0256939 (2021).

Wessel, J. L., Huth, M. L., Park, J. Y. & Welle, B. The importance of role-based and collective authenticity on well-being and withdrawal. Soc. Psychol. Personal. Sci. 11 , 207–216 (2020).

Seligman, M. E. P. Authentic Happiness: Using the New Positive Psychology to Realize Your Potential for Lasting Fulfillment (Simon and Schuster, 2002).

Medlock, G. The evolving ethic of authenticity: from humanistic to positive psychology. Humanist. Psychol. 40 , 38–57 (2012).

Maslow, A. H., Maslow, B. G. & Geiger, H. The Farther Reaches of Human Nature (Penguin/Arkana, 1993).

Goldman, B. M. & Kernis, M. H. The role of authenticity in healthy psychological functioning and subjective well-being. Ann. Am. Psychother. Assoc. 5 , 18–20 (2002).

Google Scholar  

Walumbwa, F. O., Avolio, B. J., Gardner, W. L., Wernsing, T. S. & Peterson, S. J. Authentic leadership: development and validation of a theory-based measure†. J. Manag. 34 , 89–126 (2008).

Leroy, H., Anseel, F., Gardner, W. L. & Sels, L. Authentic leadership, authentic followership, basic need satisfaction, and work role performance: a cross-level study. J. Manag. 41 , 1677–1697 (2015).

Lopez, F. G. & Rice, K. G. Preliminary development and validation of a measure of relationship authenticity. J. Couns. Psychol. 53 , 362–371 (2006).

Napoli, J., Dickinson, S. J., Beverland, M. B. & Farrelly, F. Measuring consumer-based brand authenticity. J. Bus. Res. 67 , 1090–1098 (2014).

Ryan, R. M. & Connell, J. P. Perceived locus of causality and internalization: examining reasons for acting in two domains. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 57 , 749–761 (1989).

Sheldon, K. M., Osin, E. N., Gordeeva, T. O., Suchkov, D. D. & Sychev, O. A. Evaluating the dimensionality of self-determination theory’s relative autonomy continuum. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 43 , 1215–1238 (2017).

Sheldon, K. M. & Elliot, A. J. Goal striving, need satisfaction, and longitudinal well-being: the self-concordance model. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 76 , 482–497 (1999).

Koestner, R., Lekes, N., Powers, T. A. & Chicoine, E. Attaining personal goals: self-concordance plus implementation intentions equals success. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 83 , 231–244 (2002).

Sheldon, K. M. & Lyubomirsky, S. Achieving sustainable gains in happiness: change your actions, not your circumstances. J. Happiness Stud. 7 , 55–86 (2006).

Goffman, E. Presentation of Self in Everyday Life 12 (Knopf Doubleday, 1959).

Schlegel, R. J., Hicks, J. A., King, L. A. & Arndt, J. Feeling like you know who you are: perceived true self-knowledge and meaning in life. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 37 , 745–756 (2011).

Lehman, D. W., O’Connor, K. & Carroll, G. R. Acting on authenticity: individual interpretations and behavioral responses. Rev. Gen. Psychol. 23 , 19–31 (2019).

Sedikides, C., Slabu, L., Lenton, A. & Thomaes, S. State authenticity. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 26 , 521–525 (2017).

Sedikides, C., Lenton, A. P., Slabu, L. & Thomaes, S. Sketching the contours of state authenticity. Rev. Gen. Psychol. 23 , 73–88 (2019).

Lenton, A. P., Slabu, L. & Sedikides, C. State authenticity in everyday life. Eur. J. Personal. 30 , 64–82 (2016).

Landa, I. & English, T. Variability in state authenticity predicts daily affect and emotion regulation. Emotion 22 , 1995–1999 (2022).

Huber, C., Germar, M. & Mojzisch, A. Authenticity occurs more often than inauthenticity in everyday life. Soc. Psychol. 53 , 63–72 (2022).

Heppner, W. L. et al. Within-person relationships among daily self-esteem, need satisfaction, and authenticity. Psychol. Sci. 19 , 1140–1145 (2008).

Rice, C. & Pasupathi, M. Reflecting on self-relevant experiences: adult age differences. Dev. Psychol. 46 , 479–490 (2010).

Chen, K., Zhang, H. & Schlegel, R. J. Does being angry feel authentic? A test of how affective valence and motivational direction differentially influence state authenticity. Motiv. Emot. 47 , 828–841 (2023).

Kelley, N. J. et al. Nostalgia confers psychological wellbeing by increasing authenticity. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 102 , 104379 (2022).

Schmader, T. & Sedikides, C. State authenticity as fit to environment: the implications of social identity for fit, authenticity, and self-segregation. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Rev. 22 , 228–259 (2018).

Reber, R. & Unkelbach, C. The epistemic status of processing fluency as source for judgments of truth. Rev. Philos. Psychol. 1 , 563–581 (2010).

Aday, A. et al. The SAFE model: state authenticity as a function of three types of fit. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. https://doi.org/10.1177/01461672231223597 (2024).

Gan, M., Heller, D. & Chen, S. The power in being yourself: feeling authentic enhances the sense of power. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 44 , 1460–1472 (2018).

Smallenbroek, O., Zelenski, J. M. & Whelan, D. C. Authenticity as a eudaimonic construct: the relationships among authenticity, values, and valence. J. Posit. Psychol. 12 , 197–209 (2017).

Kifer, Y., Heller, D., Perunovic, W. Q. E. & Galinsky, A. D. The good life of the powerful: the experience of power and authenticity enhances subjective well-being. Psychol. Sci. 24 , 280–288 (2013).

Shelton, J. N., Richeson, J. A. & Salvatore, J. Expecting to be the target of prejudice: implications for interethnic interactions. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 31 , 1189–1202 (2005).

Stephan, E., Sedikides, C. & Wildschut, T. Mental travel into the past: differentiating recollections of nostalgic, ordinary, and positive events. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 42 , 290–298 (2012).

Cha, S. E. et al. Being your true self at work: integrating the fragmented research on authenticity in organizations. Acad. Manag. Ann. 13 , 633–671 (2019).

Elson, M., Hussey, I., Alsalti, T. & Arslan, R. C. Psychological measures aren’t toothbrushes. Commun. Psychol. 1 , 25 (2023).

Gelman, A. & Loken, E. The statistical crisis in science. Am. Sci. 102 , 460–465 (2014).

Garrison, K. E., Rivera, G. N., Schlegel, R. J., Hicks, J. A. & Schmeichel, B. J. Authentic for thee but not for me: perceived authenticity in self-control conflicts. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 49 , 1646–1662 (2023).

Li, Q., Ren, X., Zhou, Z. & Wang, J. Reciprocal relationships between self-control and self-authenticity: a two-wave study. Front. Psychol. 14 , 1207230 (2023).

Kim, J., Chen, K., Davis, W. E., Hicks, J. A. & Schlegel, R. J. Approaching the true self: promotion focus predicts the experience of authenticity. J. Res. Personal. 78 , 165–176 (2019).

Tohme, O. & Joseph, S. Authenticity is correlated with mindfulness and emotional intelligence. J. Humanist. Psychol. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022167820940926 (2020).

Toper, A., Sellman, E. & Joseph, S. Examining the structure of authenticity: a factor analytic study of the Authenticity Scale and Authenticity Inventory subscales. Humanist. Psychol. 50 , 304–319 (2022).

Maffly-Kipp, J. et al. Civic hope and the perceived authenticity of democratic participation. Soc. Psychol. Personal. Sci. 14 , 419–427 (2023).

Kim, J. et al. True-self-as-guide lay theory endorsement across five countries. Self Identity 21 , 939–962 (2022).

Schlegel, R. J., Hicks, J. A., Davis, W. E., Hirsch, K. A. & Smith, C. M. The dynamic interplay between perceived true self-knowledge and decision satisfaction. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 104 , 542–558 (2013).

Chen, K., Zhang, H., Friedman, M. & Schlegel, R. J. The authentic catch-22: following the true self promotes decision satisfaction in moral dilemmas. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 102 , 104376 (2022).

Kim, J., Christy, A. G., Rivera, G. N., Hicks, J. A. & Schlegel, R. J. Is the illusion of authenticity beneficial? Merely perceiving decisions as guided by the true self enhances decision satisfaction. Soc. Psychol. Personal. Sci. 12 , 80–90 (2021).

Zhang, H., Chen, K., Schlegel, R., Hicks, J. & Chen, C. The authentic moral self: dynamic interplay between perceived authenticity and moral behaviors in the workplace. Collabra Psychol. 5 , 48 (2019).

Kim, J., Christy, A. G., Rivera, G. N., Schlegel, R. J. & Hicks, J. A. Following one’s true self and the sacredness of cultural values. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 76 , 100–103 (2018).

Yang, Y., Zhu, S., Gan, Y. & Dang, J. To be authentic, to be eco: exploring the link between authenticity and pro-environmental behavior. Front. Psychol. 12 , 755860 (2021).

Newman, G. E., Bloom, P. & Knobe, J. Value judgments and the true self. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 40 , 203–216 (2014).

Christy, A. G., Seto, E., Schlegel, R. J., Vess, M. & Hicks, J. A. Straying from the righteous path and from ourselves: the interplay between perceptions of morality and self-knowledge. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 42 , 1538–1550 (2016).

Wei, L., Zhang, H., Liu, Z. & Ge, X. Goal completion moderates the association between immoral behavior and self-perceived authenticity. Self Identity 21 , 644–659 (2022).

Metin, U. B., Taris, T. W., Peeters, M. C. W., van Beek, I. & Van den Bosch, R. Authenticity at work — a job-demands resources perspective. J. Manag. Psychol. 31 , 483–499 (2016).

Xu, X., Xia, M., Zhao, J. & Pang, W. Be real, open, and creative: how openness to experience and to change mediate the authenticity-creativity association. Think. Skills Creat. 41 , 100857 (2021).

Akin, A. & Akin, U. Examining the relationship between authenticity and self-handicapping. Psychol. Rep. 115 , 795–804 (2014).

Markowitz, D. M., Kouchaki, M., Gino, F., Hancock, J. T. & Boyd, R. L. Authentic first impressions relate to interpersonal, social, and entrepreneurial success. Soc. Psychol. Personal. Sci. 14 , 107–116 (2023).

Boyd, R., Ashokkumar, A., Seraj, S. & Pennebaker, J. The Development and Psychometric Properties of LIWC-22 (Univ. Texas at Austin, 2022).

Venaglia, R. B. & Lemay, E. P. Hedonic benefits of close and distant interaction partners: the mediating roles of social approval and authenticity. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 43 , 1255–1267 (2017).

Baker, Z. G., Tou, R. Y. W., Bryan, J. L. & Knee, C. R. Authenticity and well-being: exploring positivity and negativity in interactions as a mediator. Personal. Individ. Differ. 113 , 235–239 (2017).

Tou, R. Y. W., Baker, Z. G., Hadden, B. W. & Lin, Y.-C. The real me: authenticity, interpersonal goals, and conflict tactics. Personal. Individ. Differ. 86 , 189–194 (2015).

Wickham, R. E., Williamson, R. E., Beard, C. L., Kobayashi, C. L. B. & Hirst, T. W. Authenticity attenuates the negative effects of interpersonal conflict on daily well-being. J. Res. Personal. 60 , 56–62 (2016).

Seto, E. & Davis, W. E. Authenticity predicts positive interpersonal relationship quality at low, but not high, levels of psychopathy. Personal. Individ. Differ. 182 , 111072 (2021).

Wickham, R. E. Perceived authenticity in romantic partners. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 49 , 878–887 (2013).

Rivera, G. N., Smith, C. M. & Schlegel, R. J. A window to the true self: the importance of I-sharing in romantic relationships. J. Soc. Pers. Relatsh. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407518769435 (2018).

Barnett, M. D. & Deutsch, J. T. Humanism, authenticity, and humor: being, being real, and being funny. Personal. Individ. Differ. 91 , 107–112 (2016).

Pinto, D. G., Maltby, J., Wood, A. M. & Day, L. A behavioral test of Horney’s linkage between authenticity and aggression: people living authentically are less-likely to respond aggressively in unfair situations. Personal. Individ. Differ. 52 , 41–44 (2012).

Wilt, J. A., Grubbs, J. B., Exline, J. J. & Pargament, K. I. Authenticity, presence of meaning, and struggle with ultimate meaning: nuanced between-and within-person associations. J. Res. Personal. 93 , 104104 (2021).

Xia, M., Lv, H. & Xu, X. Validating the Chinese version authenticity scale: psychometrics in college and community samples. Curr. Psychol. 41 , 7301–7313 (2022).

Grijak, Đ. Authenticity as a predictor of mental health. Klin. Psihol. 10 , 23–34 (2017).

Cheng, L., Li, Z., Hao, M., Zhu, X. & Wang, F. Objectification limits authenticity: exploring the relations between objectification, perceived authenticity, and subjective well-being. Br. J. Soc. Psychol. 61 , 622–643 (2022).

Lutz, P. K., Newman, D. B., Schlegel, R. J. & Wirtz, D. Authenticity, meaning in life, and life satisfaction: a multicomponent investigation of relationships at the trait and state levels. J. Pers. 91 , 541–555 (2023).

Hong, E. K., Zhang, Y. & Sedikides, C. Future self-continuity promotes meaning in life through authenticity. J. Res. Personal. 109 , 104463 (2024).

Schlegel, R. J., Vess, M. & Arndt, J. To discover or to create: metaphors and the true self. J. Pers. 80 , 969–993 (2012).

Bailey, E. R., Matz, S. C., Youyou, W. & Iyengar, S. S. Authentic self-expression on social media is associated with greater subjective well-being. Nat. Commun. 11 , 4889 (2020).

Sutton, A. Living the good life: a meta-analysis of authenticity, well-being and engagement. Personal. Individ. Differ. 153 , 109645 (2020).

Wang, Y. N. Balanced authenticity predicts optimal well-being: theoretical conceptualization and empirical development of the authenticity in relationships scale. Personal. Individ. Differ. 94 , 316–323 (2016).

Womick, J., Foltz, R. M. & King, L. A. Releasing the beast within? Authenticity, well-being, and the Dark Tetrad. Personal. Individ. Differ. 137 , 115–125 (2019).

Thomaes, S., Sedikides, C., van den Bos, N., Hutteman, R. & Reijntjes, A. Happy to be “Me?” Authenticity, psychological need satisfaction, and subjective well-being in adolescence. Child Dev. 88 , 1045–1056 (2017).

Cable, D. M., Gino, F. & Staats, B. R. Breaking them in or eliciting their best? Reframing socialization around newcomers’ authentic self-expression. Adm. Sci. Q. 58 , 1–36 (2013).

Boytos, A. S., Costabile, K. A. & Logan, T. R. Describing autobiographical memories: effects of shared reality and audience attitude valence on perceived authenticity and self-esteem. Self Identity 22 , 77–101 (2023).

Harter, S., Waters, P. L., Whitesell, N. R. & Kastelic, D. Level of voice among female and male high school students: relational context, support, and gender orientation. Dev. Psychol. 34 , 892–901 (1998).

Slabu, L., Lenton, A. P., Sedikides, C. & Bruder, M. Trait and State authenticity across cultures. J. Cross Cult. Psychol. 45 , 1347–1373 (2014).

Diehl, M., Jacobs, L. M. & Hastings, C. T. Temporal stability and authenticity of self-representations in adulthood. J. Adult Dev. 13 , 10–22 (2006).

Davis, W. E., Hicks, J. A., Schlegel, R. J., Smith, C. M. & Vess, M. Authenticity and self-esteem across temporal horizons. J. Posit. Psychol. 10 , 116–126 (2015).

Kernis, M. H. Toward a conceptualization of optimal self-esteem. Psychol. Inq. 14 , 1–26 (2003).

Bryan, J. L., Baker, Z. G. & Tou, R. Y. Prevent the blue, be true to you: authenticity buffers the negative impact of loneliness on alcohol-related problems, physical symptoms, and depressive and anxiety symptoms. J. Health Psychol. 22 , 605–616 (2017).

Zou, X., Sedikides, C. & Wildschut, T. What good is organizational nostalgia in the time of pandemic? Unpacking a pathway from COVID-related stress to authenticity at work. Self Identity 22 , 620–638 (2023).

Maffly-Kipp, J. et al. The role of perceived authenticity in psychological recovery from collective trauma. J. Soc. Clin. Psychol. 39 , 419–448 (2020).

Hammond, M. et al. Feelings of parental authenticity moderate concurrent links between breastfeeding experience and symptoms of postpartum depression. Front. Glob. Womens Health 2 , 651244 (2021).

Orth, U. & Robins, R. W. Is high self-esteem beneficial? Revisiting a classic question. Am. Psychol. 77 , 5–17 (2022).

Dufner, M., Gebauer, J. E., Sedikides, C. & Denissen, J. J. A. Self-enhancement and psychological adjustment: a meta-analytic review. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Rev. 23 , 48–72 (2019).

Nunes, J. C., Ordanini, A. & Giambastiani, G. The concept of authenticity: what it means to consumers. J. Mark. 85 , 1–20 (2021).

Gilmore, J. H. & Pine, B. J. Authenticity: What Consumers Really Want (Harvard Business, 2007).

Brown, S., Kozinets, R. V. & Sherry, J. F. Teaching old brands new tricks: retro branding and the revival of brand meaning. J. Mark. 67 , 19–33 (2003).

Graefe, D., Mowen, A. & Graefe, A. in Craft Beverages and Tourism, Volume 2: Environmental, Societal, and Marketing Implications (eds Slocum, S. L., Kline, C. & Cavaliere, C. T.) 27–47 (Springer, 2018).

Beverland, M. The ‘real thing’: branding authenticity in the luxury wine trade. J. Bus. Res. 59 , 251–258 (2006).

Youn, H. & Kim, J.-H. Effects of ingredients, names and stories about food origins on perceived authenticity and purchase intentions. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 63 , 11–21 (2017).

Grayson, K. & Martinec, R. Consumer perceptions of iconicity and indexicality and their influence on assessments of authentic market offerings. J. Consum. Res. 31 , 296–312 (2004).

Carroll, G. R. in Emerging Trends in the Social and Behavioral Sciences (eds Scott, R. A., Kosslyn, S. M. & Pinkerton, N.) 1–13 (Wiley, 2015).

Beverland, M. B. & Farrelly, F. J. The quest for authenticity in consumption: consumers’ purposive choice of authentic cues to shape experienced outcomes. J. Consum. Res. 36 , 838–856 (2010).

Smith, R. K., vanDellen, M. R. & Ton, L. A. N. Makeup who you are: self-expression enhances the perceived authenticity and public promotion of beauty work. J. Consum. Res. 48 , 102–122 (2021).

Lee, S., Sung, B., Phau, I. & Lim, A. Communicating authenticity in packaging of Korean cosmetics. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 48 , 202–214 (2019).

Spielmann, N. & Charters, S. The dimensions of authenticity in terroir products. Int. J. Wine Bus. Res. 25 , 310–324 (2013).

van Giesen, R. I. & de Hooge, I. E. Too ugly, but I love its shape: reducing food waste of suboptimal products with authenticity (and sustainability) positioning. Food Qual. Prefer. 75 , 249–259 (2019).

Matthews, L., Eilert, M., Carlson, L. & Gentry, J. When and how frontline service employee authenticity influences purchase intentions. J. Bus. Res. 114 , 111–123 (2020).

Ibarra, H. The authenticity paradox. Harv. Bus. Rev. 93 , 52–59 (2015).

White, M. H. & Crandall, C. S. Perceived authenticity as a vicarious justification for prejudice. Group Process. Intergroup Relat. 26 , 534–554 (2023).

Pillow, D. R., Crabtree, M. A., Galvan, M. J. & Hale, W. J. Not simply in the eye of the beholder: authenticity as a product of candidate preference and unfettered speech. Polit. Psychol. 39 , 849–868 (2018).

Sedikides, C., Hoorens, V. & Dufner, M. in Self-Concept, Motivation and Identity: Underpinning Success with Research and Practice (eds Guay, F., Marsh, H., McInerney, D. M. & Craven, R. G.) 29–55 (IAP, 2015).

Van Damme, C., Hoorens, V. & Sedikides, C. Why self-enhancement provokes dislike: the Hubris hypothesis and the aversiveness of explicit self-superiority claims. Self Identity 15 , 173–190 (2016).

Hotchkiss, S. Why Is It Always About You?: The Seven Deadly Sins of Narcissism (Simon and Schuster, 2008).

Barry, C. T., Kerig, P. K., Stellwagen, K. K. & Barry, T. D. Narcissism and Machiavellianism in Youth: Implications for the Development of Adaptive and Maladaptive Behavior (American Psychological Association, 2011).

Aloni, N. Enhancing Humanity: The Philosophical Foundations of Humanistic Education (Springer, 2007).

Opie, T. & Freeman, E. Our biases undermine our colleagues’ attempts to be authentic. Harvard Business Review https://hbr.org/2017/07/our-biases-undermine-our-colleagues-attempts-to-be-authentic (2017).

Knoll, M. & van Dick, R. Authenticity, employee silence, prohibitive voice, and the moderating effect of organizational identification. J. Posit. Psychol. 8 , 346–360 (2013).

Monzani, L., Knoll, M., Giessner, S., van Dick, R. & Peiró, J. M. Between a rock and hard place: combined effects of authentic leadership, organizational identification, and team prototypicality on managerial prohibitive voice. Span. J. Psychol. 22 , E2 (2019).

Chamorro-Premuzic, T. 4 Pieces of Career Advice it’s Okay to Ignore https://hbr.org/2020/10/4-pieces-of-career-advice-its-okay-to-ignore (2020).

Bailey, E. R. & Levy, A. Are you for real? Perceptions of authenticity are systematically biased and not accurate. Psychol. Sci. 33 , 798–815 (2022).

Karelaia, N., Guillén, L. & Leroy, H. When being oneself is socially rewarded: social identification qualifies the effect of authentic behavior at work. Hum. Relat. 75 , 2058–2090 (2022).

Mok, A. Feeling at home in two cultural worlds: bicultural identity integration moderates felt authenticity. J. Cross Cult. Psychol. 53 , 179–212 (2022).

West, A. L., Muise, A. & Sasaki, J. Y. The cost of being “true to yourself” for mixed selves: frame switching leads to perceived inauthenticity and downstream social consequences for biculturals. Soc. Psychol. Personal. Sci. 12 , 829–838 (2021).

Schmid, P. F. Back to the client: a phenomenological approach to the process of understanding and diagnosis. Pers. Centered Exp. Psychother. 3 , 36–51 (2004).

Helgeson, V. S. Relation of agency and communion to well-being: evidence and potential explanations. Psychol. Bull. 116 , 412–428 (1994).

Kwan, V. S. Y., Bond, M. H. & Singelis, T. M. Pancultural explanations for life satisfaction: adding relationship harmony to self-esteem. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 73 , 1038–1051 (1997).

Reed, D. E. et al. Authenticity as a resilience factor against CV-19 threat among those with chronic pain and posttraumatic stress disorder. Front. Psychol. 12 , 643869 (2021).

Cislak, A. & Cichocka, A. National narcissism in politics and public understanding of science. Nat. Rev. Psychol. 2 , 740–750 (2023).

Golec de Zavala, A. & Lantos, D. Collective narcissism and its social consequences: the bad and the ugly. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 29 , 273–278 (2020).

Robinson, R. N. S. & Clifford, C. Authenticity and festival foodservice experiences. Ann. Tour. Res. 39 , 571–600 (2012).

Ostermeier, K., Cooper, D. & Caldas, M. Can I be who I am? Psychological authenticity climate and employee outcomes. Hum. Perform. 35 , 1–30 (2022).

Ostermeier, K., Medina-Craven, M. N., Camp, K. M. & Davis, S. E. Can I be me with you at work? Examining relational authenticity and discretionary behaviors in the workplace. J. Appl. Behav. Sci. 58 , 316–345 (2022).

Reis, G. G., Braga, B. M. & Trullen, J. Workplace authenticity as an attribute of employer attractiveness. Pers. Rev. 46 , 1962–1976 (2017).

Frazier, B. N. & Gelman, S. A. Developmental changes in judgments of authentic objects. Cogn. Dev. 24 , 284–292 (2009).

Gelman, S. A., Frazier, B. N., Noles, N. S., Manczak, E. M. & Stilwell, S. M. How much are Harry Potter’s glasses worth? Children’s monetary evaluation of authentic objects. J. Cogn. Dev. 16 , 97–117 (2015).

Harter, S. in Handbook of Positive Psychology (eds Snyder, C. R. & Lopez, S. J.) 382–394 (Oxford Univ. Press, 2002).

Kipfelsberger, P., Braun, S., Fladerer, M. P. & Dragoni, L. Developing authenticity: a quasi-experimental investigation. Personal. Individ. Differ. 198 , 111825 (2022).

Vasconcellos, D. et al. Self-determination theory applied to physical education: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J. Educ. Psychol. 112 , 1444–1469 (2020).

Elliot, A. J. & Hulleman, C. S. in Handbook of Competence and Motivation: Theory and Application 2nd edn (eds Elliot, A. J., Dweck, C. S. & Yeager, D. S.) 43–60 (Guilford, 2017).

Alchin, C. E., Machin, T. M., Martin, N. & Burton, L. J. Authenticity and inauthenticity in adolescents: a scoping review. Adolesc. Res. Rev. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40894-023-00218-8 (2023).

Al-Khouja, M., Weinstein, N., Ryan, W. & Legate, N. Self-expression can be authentic or inauthentic, with differential outcomes for well-being: development of the authentic and inauthentic expression scale (AIES). J. Res. Personal. 97 , 104191 (2022).

Ariza-Montes, A., Giorgi, G., Leal-Rodríguez, A. & Ramírez-Sobrino, J. Authenticity and subjective wellbeing within the context of a religious organization. Front. Psychol. 8 , 1228 (2017).

Nazari, F., Khoshnood, Z. & Shahrbabaki, P. M. The relationship between authenticity and death anxiety in cancer patients. OMEGA J. Death Dying 86 , 966–979 (2023).

van den Bosch, R. & Taris, T. W. Authenticity at work: development and validation of an individual authenticity measure at work. J. Happiness Stud. 15 , 1–18 (2014).

Jiang, T. & Sedikides, C. Awe motivates authentic-self pursuit via self-transcendence: implications for prosociality. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 123 , 576–596 (2022).

Brunell, A. B. et al. Dispositional authenticity and romantic relationship functioning. Personal. Individ. Differ. 48 , 900–905 (2010).

Le, B. M. & Impett, E. A. When holding back helps: suppressing negative emotions during sacrifice feels authentic and is beneficial for highly interdependent people. Psychol. Sci. 24 , 1809–1815 (2013).

Zhang, H., Chen, K. & Schlegel, R. How do people judge meaning in goal-directed behaviors: the interplay between self-concordance and performance. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 19 , https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167218771330 (2018).

Borawski, D. Ostracized and unreal: does cyberostracism affect authenticity? Personal. Individ. Differ. 189 , 111486 (2022).

Lenton, A. P., Slabu, L., Sedikides, C. & Power, K. I feel good, therefore I am real: testing the causal influence of mood on state authenticity. Cogn. Emot. 27 , 1202–1224 (2013).

Zhang, J. W. et al. A compassionate self is a true self? Self-compassion promotes subjective authenticity. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 45 , 1323–1337 (2019).

Pop, I. & Dinkelacker, J. Unlocking the self: can microdosing psychedelics make one feel more authentic? Nordisk Alkohol Nark. 41 , 142–155 (2024).

PubMed   Google Scholar  

Yu, X., Huang, H., Liu, S. Q. & Lu, Z. Signaling authenticity of ethnic cuisines via handwriting. Ann. Tour. Res. 85 , 103054 (2020).

Yang, Y., Sedikides, C., Wang, Y. & Cai, H. Nature nurtures authenticity: mechanisms and consequences. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 126 , 79–104 (2024).

Impett, E. A., Javam, L., Le, B. M., Asyabi-Eshghi, B. & Kogan, A. The joys of genuine giving: approach and avoidance sacrifice motivation and authenticity. Pers. Relatsh. 20 , 740–754 (2013).

Baldwin, M., Biernat, M. & Landau, M. J. Remembering the real me: nostalgia offers a window to the intrinsic self. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 108 , 128–147 (2015).

Craik, F. I. M. et al. In search of the self: a positron emission tomography study. Psychol. Sci. 10 , 26–34 (1999).

Kelley, W. M. et al. Finding the self? An event-related fMRI study. J. Cogn. Neurosci. 14 , 785–794 (2002).

Marquine, M. J. et al. Impaired personal trait knowledge, but spared other-person trait knowledge, in an individual with bilateral damage to the medial prefrontal cortex. Neuropsychologia 89 , 245–253 (2016).

Philippi, C. L. et al. Preserved self-awareness following extensive bilateral brain damage to the insula, anterior cingulate, and medial prefrontal cortices. PLoS One 7 , e38413 (2012).

D’Argembeau, A. et al. Distinct regions of the medial prefrontal cortex are associated with self-referential processing and perspective taking. J. Cogn. Neurosci. 19 , 935–944 (2007).

Heatherton, T. F. et al. Medial prefrontal activity differentiates self from close others. Soc. Cogn. Affect. Neurosci. 1 , 18–25 (2006).

Denny, B. T., Kober, H., Wager, T. D. & Ochsner, K. N. A meta-analysis of functional neuroimaging studies of self- and other judgments reveals a spatial gradient for mentalizing in medial prefrontal cortex. J. Cogn. Neurosci. 24 , 1742–1752 (2012).

Murray, R. J., Schaer, M. & Debbané, M. Degrees of separation: a quantitative neuroimaging meta-analysis investigating self-specificity and shared neural activation between self- and other-reflection. Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev. 36 , 1043–1059 (2012).

Feng, C., Yan, X., Huang, W., Han, S. & Ma, Y. Neural representations of the multidimensional self in the cortical midline structures. NeuroImage 183 , 291–299 (2018).

Berridge, K. C. & Kringelbach, M. L. Neuroscience of affect: brain mechanisms of pleasure and displeasure. Curr. Opin. Neurobiol. 23 , 294–303 (2013).

Delgado, M. R. Reward-related responses in the human striatum. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 1104 , 70–88 (2007).

Enzi, B. et al. Is our self nothing but reward? Neuronal overlap and distinction between reward and personal relevance and its relation to human personality. PLoS One 4 , e8429 (2009).

Northoff, G. & Hayes, D. J. Is our self nothing but reward? Biol. Psychiatry 69 , 1019–1025 (2011).

Chavez, R. S. & Heatherton, T. F. Multimodal frontostriatal connectivity underlies individual differences in self-esteem. Soc. Cogn. Affect. Neurosci. 10 , 364–370 (2015).

Chester, D. S., Lynam, D. R., Powell, D. K. & DeWall, C. N. Narcissism is associated with weakened frontostriatal connectivity: a DTI study. Soc. Cogn. Affect. Neurosci. 11 , 1036–1040 (2016).

Wharton, A. S. The psychosocial consequences of emotional labor. Ann. Am. Acad. Pol. Soc. Sci. 561 , 158–176 (1999).

Hochschild, A. R. The Managed Heart: Commercialization of Human Feeling, Updated with a New Preface (Univ. California Press, 2012).

Morris, J. A. & Feldman, D. C. The dimensions, antecedents, and consequences of emotional labor. Acad. Manage. Rev. 21 , 986–1010 (1996).

Liu, X.-Y., Chi, N.-W. & Gremler, D. D. Emotion cycles in services: emotional contagion and emotional labor effects. J. Serv. Res. 22 , 285–300 (2019).

Rafique, T., Tasleem, S., Hassan, Q., Tariq, A. & Mumtaz, S. Antecedents and consequences of emotional labor, a review. Bull. Bus. Econ. 6 , 157–165 (2017).

Zhao, X., Fu, N., Freeney, Y. & Flood, P. C. Revisiting the effect of emotional labor: a multi-level investigation in front-line service teams. Front. Psychol. 11 , 570048 (2020).

Pugh, S. D. Service with a smile: emotional contagion in the service encounter. Acad. Manage. J. 44 , 1018–1027 (2001).

Andrzejewski, S. A. & Mooney, E. C. Service with a smile: does the type of smile matter? J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 29 , 135–141 (2016).

Grandey, A. A., Fisk, G. M. & Steiner, D. D. Must ‘Service With a Smile’ be stressful? The moderating role of personal control for American and French employees. J. Appl. Psychol. 90 , 893–904 (2005).

Han, K.-M. et al. Emotional labor and depressive mood in service and sales workers: interactions with gender and job autonomy. Psychiatry Res. 267 , 490–498 (2018).

Jeung, D.-Y., Kim, C. & Chang, S.-J. Emotional labor and burnout: a review of the literature. Yonsei Med. J. 59 , 187–193 (2018).

Jung, H. S. & Yoon, H. H. Moderating role of hotel employees’ gender and job position on the relationship between emotional intelligence and emotional labor. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 43 , 47–52 (2014).

Pugliesi, K. The consequences of emotional labor: effects on work stress, job satisfaction, and well-being. Motiv. Emot. 23 , 125–154 (1999).

Riforgiate, S. E., Howes, S. S. & Simmons, M. J. The impact of daily emotional labor on health and well-being. Manage. Commun. Q. 36 , 089331892110413 (2022).

Kariou, A., Koutsimani, P., Montgomery, A. & Lainidi, O. Emotional labor and burnout among teachers: a systematic review. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 18 , 12760 (2021).

Aung, N. & Tewogbola, P. The impact of emotional labor on the health in the workplace: a narrative review of literature from 2013–2018. AIMS Public Health 6 , 268–275 (2019).

Xiong, W. et al. How emotional labor affect hotel employees’ mental health: a longitudinal study. Tour. Manag. 94 , 104631 (2023).

Chen, C.-C., Lan, Y.-L., Chiou, S.-L. & Lin, Y.-C. The effect of emotional labor on the physical and mental health of health professionals: emotional exhaustion has a mediating effect. Healthcare 11 , 104 (2023).

Chen, K.-Y., Chang, C.-W. & Wang, C.-H. Frontline employees’ passion and emotional exhaustion: the mediating role of emotional labor strategies. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 76 , 163–172 (2019).

Tang, Y., Xu, E., Huang, X. & Pu, X. When can display of authenticity at work facilitate coworker interactions? The moderating effect of perception of organizational politics. Hum. Relat. 76 , 27–52 (2023).

Hennekam, S. & Ladge, J. J. Free to be me? Evolving gender expression and the dynamic interplay between authenticity and the desire to be accepted at work. Acad. Manage. J. 66 , 1529–1553 (2023).

Hewlin, P. F. And the award for best actor goes to…: facades of conformity in organizational settings. Acad. Manage. Rev. 28 , 633–642 (2003).

Hewlin, P. F. Wearing the cloak: antecedents and consequences of creating facades of conformity. J. Appl. Psychol. 94 , 727–741 (2009).

Hewlin, P. F., Kim, S. S. & Song, Y. H. Creating facades of conformity in the face of job insecurity: a study of consequences and conditions. J. Occup. Organ. Psychol. 89 , 539–567 (2016).

Hewlin, P. F., Dumas, T. L. & Burnett, M. F. To thine own self be true? Facades of conformity, values incongruence, and the moderating impact of leader integrity. Acad. Manage. J. 60 , 178–199 (2017).

Oc, B., Daniels, M. A., Diefendorff, J. M., Bashshur, M. R. & Greguras, G. J. Humility breeds authenticity: how authentic leader humility shapes follower vulnerability and felt authenticity. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 158 , 112–125 (2020).

Fladerer, M. P. & Braun, S. Managers’ resources for authentic leadership — a multi-study exploration of positive psychological capacities and ethical organizational climates. Br. J. Manag. 31 , 325–343 (2020).

Peus, C., Wesche, J. S., Streicher, B., Braun, S. & Frey, D. Authentic leadership: an empirical test of its antecedents, consequences, and mediating mechanisms. J. Bus. Ethics 107 , 331–348 (2012).

Bai, F., Ho, G. C. C. & Liu, W. Do status incentives undermine morality-based status attainment? Investigating the mediating role of perceived authenticity. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 158 , 126–138 (2020).

Gill, C. & Caza, A. An investigation of authentic leadership’s individual and group influences on follower responses. J. Manag. 44 , 530–554 (2018).

Banks, G. C., McCauley, K. D., Gardner, W. L. & Guler, C. E. A meta-analytic review of authentic and transformational leadership: a test for redundancy. Leadersh. Q. 27 , 634–652 (2016).

Braun, S. & Peus, C. Crossover of work–life balance perceptions: does authentic leadership matter? J. Bus. Ethics 149 , 875–893 (2018).

Clarke, N., Jennings, W., Moss, J. & Stoker, G. The Good Politician: Folk Theories, Political Interaction, and the Rise of Anti-Politics (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2018).

Valgarðsson, V. O., Clarke, N., Jennings, W. & Stoker, G. The good politician and political trust: an authenticity gap in British politics? Polit. Stud. 69 , 858–880 (2021).

Ceccobelli, D. & Di Gregorio, L. The triangle of leadership. Authenticity, competence and ordinariness in political marketing. J. Polit. Mark. 21 , 113–125 (2022).

Luebke, S. M. & Engelmann, I. Perceiving politicians as true to themselves: development and validation of the perceived political authenticity scale. PLoS One 18 , e0285344 (2023).

Stiers, D. et al. Candidate authenticity: ‘to thine own self be true’. Polit. Behav. 43 , 1181–1204 (2021).

Gaden, G. & Dumitrica, D. The ‘real deal’: strategic authenticity, politics and social media. First Monday https://doi.org/10.5210/fm.v20i1.4985 (2015).

McShane, L. & Cunningham, P. To thine own self be true? Employees’ judgments of the authenticity of their organization’s corporate social responsibility program. J. Bus. Ethics 108 , 81–100 (2012).

Enli, G. & Rosenberg, L. T. Trust in the age of social media: populist politicians seem more authentic. Soc. Media Soc. 4 , 2056305118764430 (2018).

Markus, H. R. & Kitayama, S. Culture and the self: implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychol. Rev. 98 , 224–253 (1991).

Ito, M. & Kodama, M. Sense of authenticity, affectivity, and cultural construal of the self among Japanese university students. Psychological Rep. https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.100.1.83-86 (2007).

Robinson, O. C., Lopez, F. G., Ramos, K. & Nartova-Bochaver, S. Authenticity, social context, and well-being in the United States, England, and Russia: a three country comparative analysis. J. Cross Cult. Psychol. 44 , 719–737 (2013).

Miyamoto, Y., Nisbett, R. E. & Masuda, T. Culture and the physical environment: holistic versus analytic perceptual affordances. Psychol. Sci. 17 , 113–119 (2006).

Xia, M. & Xu, X. Does authenticity always breed mental health? A cross-cultural comparison between the United States and China. Asian J. Soc. Psychol. 26 , 132–145 (2023).

Sariçam, H. Life satisfaction: testing a structural equation model based on authenticity and subjective happiness. Pol. Psychol. Bull. https://doi.org/10.1515/ppb-2015-0034 (2015).

Rathi, N. & Lee, K. Does it pay to be authentic? Implications of authenticity for life satisfaction and psychological well-being in a collectivist culture. J. Happiness Stud. 22 , 147–161 (2021).

Sedikides, C., Gaertner, L. & Cai, H. in Advances in Motivation Science , Vol. 2 (ed. Elliot, A. J.) 185–241 (Elsevier, 2015).

Kokkoris, M. D. & Kühnen, U. “Express the real you”: cultural differences in the perception of self-expression as authenticity. J. Cross Cult. Psychol. 45 , 1221–1228 (2014).

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Center for Research on Self and Identity, School of Psychology, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK

Constantine Sedikides

Psychological and Brain Sciences, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, USA

Rebecca J. Schlegel

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

The authors contributed equally to all aspects of the article.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Constantine Sedikides .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Peer review

Peer review information.

Nature Reviews Psychology thanks Erica Bailey, Michael Knoll, and the other, anonymous reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Sedikides, C., Schlegel, R.J. Distilling the concept of authenticity. Nat Rev Psychol 3 , 509–523 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s44159-024-00323-y

Download citation

Accepted : 17 May 2024

Published : 28 June 2024

Issue Date : August 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1038/s44159-024-00323-y

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Do you always feel like you’re able to be yourself, or do you feel that you sometimes have to change who you are in certain situations? If you’re like many people, you might sometimes feel inauthentic—in other words, that you can’t act in ways that reflect how you really feel. However, psychologists have suggested that authenticity (an important concept in positive psychology) may be a key part of well-being, and—importantly—that it’s possible to increase how authentic we feel in our daily lives. In today’s post, I’ll review the research on authenticity, discuss its relationship to well-being, and suggest ways that you can work to cultivate authenticity.

“I think when you’re authentic, you end up following your heart, and you put yourself in places and situations and in conversations that you love and that you enjoy.” – Neil Pasricha, Author of Blog 1000 Awesome Things

What is Authenticity?

Psychologist Kennon Sheldon and his colleagues describe authentic behavior as behavior that we have freely chosen and which allows us to express who we are. In other words, authentic people act in ways that reflect their values and identity. Authenticity can be difficult to define because it’s different for everyone. For example, a behavior that might feel authentic for one person could feel inauthentic for someone else. Ultimately, however, authenticity involves feeling like “yourself” and not feeling like you’re wearing a “mask” that prevents others from seeing who you are. In humanistic psychology , authenticity is seen as crucial for well-being , and a lack of authenticity can result in psychopathology .

According to Alex Wood (who is known for studying positive psychology ) and his colleagues, authenticity has three components. The first component, self-alienation , refers to whether someone feels like they know and understand themselves (since a person who doesn’t truly understand themselves would feel more self-alienated and less authentic). The second component is authentic living , which involves feeling like your behaviors reflect your true feelings. The third component is accepting external influence , which involves changing one’s behaviors to fit in or acting in a way that others think you should, and is seen as a sign of less authenticity.

Do most people act authentically all the time, or do they change their behavior from one situation to the next? Psychologists call people’s tendency to change their behavior to match a particular situation self-monitoring . High self-monitors are more likely to change their behavior depending on the social environment they find themselves in, while low self-monitors tend to act similarly across a range of situations. Is it better to be a high or low self-monitor? Psychologists suggest that there are pros and cons to both: too much self-monitoring can cause someone to be seen as inauthentic, while too little can cause someone to be seen as inflexible. As psychologist Gregory Jantz explains for Psychology Today , “While adapting to your environment is certainly beneficial in some situations, shifting your personality completely is problematic.”  In other words, it’s okay to not express exactly what you’re thinking or feeling all the time. For example, if your friend is a terrible singer, you might not want to tell them this in order to spare their feelings—but this is different from being inauthentic. In other words, it’s important to find a balance between expressing ourselves and monitoring the situation to decide on the most appropriate way to respond in a given context.

Are Authentic People Happier?

Neil Pasricha, author of the blog 1000 Awesome Things , explains in a TEDxToronto talk that authenticity may be key to living a good life:  “I think when you’re authentic, you end up following your heart, and you put yourself in places and situations and in conversations that you love and that you enjoy. You meet people that you like talking to. You go places you’ve dreamt about. And you end up following your heart and feeling very fulfilled.”   In other words, he suggests that authenticity could be linked to happiness if it it leads us to pursue things that are more enjoyable and fulfilling to us.

What does the research say—are more authentic people indeed happier? In one study , researchers found that people who scored higher on a measure of authentic living reported greater happiness, more positive emotions , and higher self-esteem than people who reported being less authentic. More authentic people also reported having better relationships with others and more personal growth. Similar results were found in another study: more authentic people were found to be happier with their lives and have higher self-esteem.

Another study asked participants how authentic they felt in different life roles (for example, in roles such as friend, employee, student, etc.). The researchers found that, when people felt more authentic in a particular role, they felt less neurotic and were more satisfied with that particular role. Additionally, when participants felt more authentic in general (the average of how authentic they felt in different life roles), they had higher self-esteem and had lower stress, anxiety, and depression. Although these studies don’t show that authenticity necessarily causes greater well-being, they do suggest that authenticity may be an important part of psychological health.

Authenticity and Relationships

Researchers have also found that more authentic people may be happier in their relationships with others. In one study , participants who were in romantic relationships were asked to fill out surveys on their attachment style , how authentic they felt in their current relationship, and how they felt about their relationship. Participants who reported more authenticity in their relationships scored lower on a measure of attachment avoidance —that is, more authentic participants didn’t feel the need to avoid closeness in their relationships. The researchers also found that feeling more authentic in a particular relationship was related to more satisfaction with the relationship overall.

Why Do People Behave Inauthentically?

“In order for connection to happen, we have to allow ourselves to be seen, really seen.” – Brené Brown

Although authentic people tend to have happier relationships, many people may avoid authenticity in their relationships because they fear rejection . As Jantz explains, people often are inauthentic because they believe it’s what others want to see: “instead of showing up as yourself, you show up as the person you think everyone else will like.”

Ironically, however, presenting ourselves in the way that we think others want may actually hinder us when we work to build close relationships with others. Psychologist and researcher Brené Brown explains that being authentic in our interactions with others is crucial for developing meaningful relationships. Brown explains that “in order for connection to happen, we have to allow ourselves to be seen, really seen.” When Brown studied research participants who felt fulfilled and connected to others in their personal lives, she found that they had something in common—they were able to be true to themselves: “as a result of authenticity, they were willing to let go of who they thought they should be in order to be who they were.” In other words, authenticity appears to be crucial for developing closeness and connection to others—but, paradoxically, a fear of rejection may be what keeps us from expressing our authentic selves.

Importantly, however, some people may fear being their authentic selves because they fear that those around them will be less than supportive. For example, for LGBT individuals, people who may face religious oppression, or people who have invisible disabilities, being open about one’s authentic self can involve greater risks. In one study , researchers tested out this idea by asking LGB individuals how they felt about different types of social situations they found themselves in (such as with friends, with family, or with coworkers). The researchers found that when LGB individuals felt that a particular social environment supported their autonomy—in other words, that they felt able to be who they really are—they were more open about their sexual orientation, and in that environment they had lower levels of depression and higher self-esteem. Importantly, coming out to people who were more controlling and less accepting was not linked to higher well-being. In other words, lack of support can be a significant barrier to being one’s authentic self. However, finding more supportive and accepting people to surround yourself with can sometimes be an important first step to living more authentically.

Living More Authentically

Given the importance of authenticity, how can we work to live in more authentic ways? Psychologists have found several techniques we can use to increase feelings of authenticity in our daily lives.

• Re-frame what vulnerability means. In her TED Talk “Listening to Shame,” Brown explains that one thing we can do is to re-frame vulnerability as a brave act. She points out that people often don’t show vulnerability because they don’t want to seem weak. But when we do open up, others are more likely to applaud our bravery than to judge us. In other words, one way we can work to be more authentic is by reminding ourselves that being vulnerable and authentic is actually a sign of bravery and courage.
• Cultivate mindfulness. Jantz explains that it’s common for people to have trouble staying focused in the present moment. He argues that staying present and mindful is key for authenticity: “Mastering the art of presence perhaps is the single most effective way to ensure authenticity in any situation.” If you want to try to be more mindful in everyday situations, it’s actually easier than you might think: you can try a phone app to increase mindfulness, or incorporate a short 30-second mindfulness practice into your daily routine.
• Seek out situations that let you be authentic. Researchers have suggested that self-awareness is an important component of authenticity. According to Jantz, one way to become more authentic is to use this self-awareness to figure out which situations and contexts allow us to be more authentic. If you’re interested in developing this type of self-awareness, psychotherapy can be a safe space to help figure out who you really are. In particular, the humanistic approach to psychotherapy sees authenticity as especially important. Therapists who follow a humanistic approach to psychology work to be authentic in their interactions with clients and help clients to cultivate this type of authenticity for themselves.

Psychologists have found that living with authenticity does seem to be an important part of well-being. People who are authentic tend to be happier, have higher self-esteem, and feel better about their relationships. Despite this, many people struggle to be authentic at times, especially if they worry about being rejected. However, by becoming more comfortable with vulnerability, working to be more mindful, and looking into psychotherapy as a way to figure out who you are and who you want to be, it’s possible to live more authentically.

Additional Reading:

• Brafman, R. (2008). Does authenticity lead to happiness? Psychology Today . https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/dont-be-swayed/200808/does-authenticity-lead-happiness
• Brown, B. (2010). The power of vulnerability. TEDxHouston. https://www.ted.com/talks/brene_brown_on_vulnerability
• Brown, B. (2012). Listening to shame. TED. https://www.ted.com/talks/brene_brown_listening_to_shame
• Furnham, A. (2017). Monitoring the self: Are you a high or low self-monitor? Psychology Today . https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/sideways-view/201701/monitoring-the-self-are-you-high-or-low-self-monitor
• 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. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Brian_Goldman3/publication/251802973_The_role_of_authenticity_in_healthy_psychological_functioning_and_subjective_well-being
• Jantz, G. L. (2015). 4 ways to be a more authentic person. Psychology Today . https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/hope-relationships/201503/4-ways-be-more-authentic-person
• Kaufman, S. B. (2016). Grit and authenticity. Scientific American Mind . https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/beautiful-minds/grit-and-authenticity/
• Legate, N., Ryan, R. M., & Weinstein, N. (2012). Is coming out always a “good thing”? Exploring the relations of autonomy support, outness, and wellness for lesbian, gay, and bisexual individuals.  Social Psychological and Personality Science ,  3 (2), 145-152.   http://selfdeterminationtheory.org/SDT/documents/2012_LegateRyanWeinstein_SPPS.pdf
• Lopez, F. G., & Rice, K. G. (2006). Preliminary development and validation of a measure of relationship authenticity. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 53 (3), 362-371. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.559.5686&rep=rep1&type=pdf
• Pasricha, N. (2010). The 3 A’s of awesome. TEDxToronto. https://www.ted.com/talks/neil_pasricha_the_3_a_s_of_awesome
• Pedersen, T. Self-monitoring. PsychCentral . https://psychcentral.com/encyclopedia/self-monitoring/
• 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 (6), 1380-1393. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Barbara_Ilardi/publication/232491028_Trait_Self_and_True_Self_Cross-Role_Variation_in_the_Big-Five_Personality_Traits_and_Its_Relations_With_Psychological_Authenticity_and_Subjective_Well-Being
• Wood, A. M., Linley, P. A., Maltby, J., Baliousis, M., & Joseph, S. (2008). The authentic personality: A theoretical and empirical conceptualization and the development of the Authenticity Scale. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 55 (3), 385-399. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/42739517_The_Authentic_Personality_A_Theoretical_and_Empirical_Conceptualization_and_the_Development_of_the_Authenticity_Scale

About this Contributo r: Elizabeth Hopper received her PhD in psychology from the University of California, Santa Barbara, where she conducted research on positive psychology and gratitude. Prior to attending UCSB, she received her BA in Psychology and Peace & Conflict Studies from UC Berkeley and worked in a research lab at UC San Francisco studying health psychology. Her research interests include gratitude, positive emotions, close relationships, and health. When she’s not writing about psychology, Elizabeth can often be found exploring the Bay Area and spending time with her dog, Luna.  In addition to HealthyPsych, Elizabeth’s writing has also been published by the Greater Good Science Center .

Leave a reply Cancel reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Thank you for visiting HealthyPsych! 

If you find our site helpful, we invite you to like our Facebook page to get our latest updates.

Take good care in the meantime.

Terms of Use and Privacy Policy

Welcome! By using HealthyPsych.com, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy .

Disclaimer : The information and other content provided on this site, or in any linked materials, is for informational purposes only and is not intended as medical advice.  Please consult directly with your medical provider on your specific needs. Your use of this site to locate a Psych Professional or to engage with members of the social network is voluntary and at your own risk.

Data Privacy : this site uses cookies, Google Ads and Google Analytics.  Please see the ‘Do Not Sell My Personal Information’ link at the bottom left of the page to ‘opt-out’ of personalized Google Ads.  You can also opt-out of Google targeted advertising by going here: https://adssettings.google.com/.   Go to https://tools.google.com/dlpage/gaoptout to opt-out of data collected by Google Analytics.  Go to https://us.norton.com/blog/how-to/how-to-clear-cookies to learn how to clear cookies from your browser.

Please read our full Terms of Use and Privacy Policy .  If you have any questions, please message us here: Contact Us .

Authenticity

Reviewed by Psychology Today Staff

Individuals considered authentic are those who strive to align their actions with their core values and beliefs with the hope of discovering, and then acting in sync with, their true selves. When people act in ways that violate their self-concept , they may experience negative feelings, ranging from mild discomfort to heavy guilt .

• What Is Authenticity?
• How to Be Authentic

There is debate over whether people actually possess an innate self and need to uncover it, or whether the true self is flexible and determined by the choices people make throughout their lives. Defining and measuring the characteristic has proven challenging, but ongoing research aims to pin down the components of authenticity and discover its connections to self-esteem , goal-achievement, coping skills, and an array of other psychological benefits.

The concept is still debated today, but psychologists Michael Kernis and Brian Goldman developed an Authenticity Inventory in 2000 comprised of four key factors:

1. Self-awareness: Knowledge of and trust in one's own motives, emotions, preferences, and abilities.

2. Unbiased processing: Clarity in evaluating your strengths and your weaknesses without denial or blame.

3. Behavior: Acting in ways congruent with your own values and needs, even at the risk of criticism or rejection.

4. Relational orientation: Close relationships, which inherently require openness and honesty.

The journey toward authenticity is a lifelong process, but certain time periods may elicit more exploration than others. Adolescents and young adults experiment with friends, partners, hobbies, and jobs to identify what feels right for their present and their future. People in middle age may reflect on their identity , evaluating whether the choices they’ve made thus far, such as in their career and relationships, have provided fulfillment.

The internet has dramatically expanded the capacity for self-expression. But people’s identity on social media sometimes departs from what they view as their true self, or the self they are offline. It can be valuable for those individuals to reflect on whether their social media presence expresses the full range of their identity so that their community or audience can understand them in a way that aligns with their genuine self.

Authenticity is a bedrock of well-being. The trait is correlated with self-esteem, purpose, vitality, and the ability to set and accomplish goals . It’s also linked to coping skills that allow people to navigate life’s challenges in healthy ways, rather than resorting to self-destructive habits such as drugs or alcohol , and it may act as a buffer against the negative effects of loneliness .

Mindfulness refers to being aware of one’s experiences without judgment. Research suggests that people who score higher on surveys of authenticity are also more mindful and emotionally intelligent . This relationship could be bidirectional: Practising mindfulness and learning about emotional intelligence could provide the tools to become more authentic, leading people to think differently and become more observant, accepting, and capable of change.

Being authentic involves the ability to be introspective and understand what motivates oneself. Such accurate self-knowledge can be a double-edged sword, though, if it reveals uncomfortable truths or weaknesses that one would rather not admit. However, advocates of authenticity argue that in the long run, it’s better to be accurate than biased.

Being authentic can also put a person at odds with their larger peer group if their emerging perspective is an unpopular one. However, authentic people wouldn’t look to others for approval or surrender to the social pressures of what they should or shouldn't do. The validation they derive from following an internal compass is sufficient for their mental well-being.

Developing authenticity is an ongoing process. To begin, reflect on your values. What changes can you make to live in accordance with those values? You can observe yourself objectively (pretend that you’re a fly on the wall or assessing someone else) and observe which actions and choices feel authentic and which do not. Examine belief systems that you developed in childhood or ingrained patterns that no longer serve you—understanding the roots of current beliefs can help you move forward.

Genuine people share a few key traits. They tend to take time to develop an opinion and speak their mind, respond to internal expectations rather than external ones, and forge a unique path to fulfill their passion and purpose. They aren’t threatened by failure and can admit their faults. They are often less judgmental of others and have strong self-esteem.

If a person tends to be defensive and self-deceptive, they are likely not being true to themselves. Qualities of inauthentic people include having unrealistic perceptions of reality, looking to others for approval and validation, being judgmental, not thinking things through, not learning from mistakes, and being unable to express emotions clearly or understand their own motivations.

Being authentic requires courage. Revealing your true self could garner disfavor from others, such as by expressing opposing political beliefs or sharing honest feedback with a loved one. It makes you vulnerable to rejection or betrayal. Additionally, authenticity demands tremendous mental energy —the willingness to continually evaluate your values, your options, and your actions.

We are drawn to genuine people —rather than people who simply agree with whatever we say or do—because those who are true to themselves are also likely to be true and honest with us. Authenticity is also associated with many appealing traits, including confidence , strength, individuality, and emotional resilience .

We don't often pay attention to the feelings, thoughts, and sensations driving our actions. Mindful balance of head and heart is key to making the “right” decision. Here's how.

Masking neurodivergence in the workplace can lead to burnout and anxiety. But unmasking, under the right circumstances, may unlock creativity, turning differences into strengths.

Authentic exploratory research teaches student engineering and more.

We abandon our bodies and close the door on their wisdom, turning them into mere calling cards for advertising our worth.

Tired of your digital routine? Learn how to spark spontaneous, joyful moments and unlock unexpected wonder in daily life.

The trad-wife movement now trending on social media comes with its own set of consequences.

3 steps to becoming a more effective listener.

Is "toxic masculinity" in decline? Here's why "tonic masculinity" may offer men more options.

A Personal Perspective: The biggest triumph for my autistic son and me was that we had real fun together—not just the maternal kind of fun where you feel happy because they’re happy.

A Personal Perspective: A healthy spirituality connects us with ourselves, each other, and life itself.

• Find a Therapist
• Find a Treatment Center
• Find a Psychiatrist
• Find a Support Group
• Find Online Therapy
• United States
• Brooklyn, NY
• Chicago, IL
• Houston, TX
• Los Angeles, CA
• New York, NY
• Portland, OR
• San Diego, CA
• San Francisco, CA
• Seattle, WA
• Washington, DC
• Asperger's
• Bipolar Disorder
• Chronic Pain
• Eating Disorders
• Passive Aggression
• Personality
• Goal Setting
• Positive Psychology
• Stopping Smoking
• Low Sexual Desire
• Relationships
• Child Development
• Self Tests NEW
• Therapy Center
• Diagnosis Dictionary
• Types of Therapy

Sticking up for yourself is no easy task. But there are concrete skills you can use to hone your assertiveness and advocate for yourself.

• Emotional Intelligence
• Gaslighting
• Affective Forecasting
• Neuroscience

PERSPECTIVE article

The essence of authenticity.

• 1 Liesenfeld Research Institute, Boston, MA, United States
• 2 Department of Public Health and Community Medicine, Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston, MA, United States
• 3 Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Hannover Medical School, Hannover, Germany
• 4 Department of Differential Psychology, University of Trier, Trier, Germany
• 5 Institute of Psychology, University of Osnabrück, Osnabrück, Germany

In this paper, we build upon the model of authenticity proposed by Lehman and colleagues, which includes the dimensions consistency, conformity, and connection. We expand this “3C-view” by adding a fourth dimension, continuity, which results in what we have come to call “4C-view of authenticity.” We discuss our proposal from a process perspective and emphasize that congruence might be a reasonable candidate for a concept that unifies the four dimensions of authenticity.

Introduction

In a recent review article, Lehman and colleagues write about authenticity in the context of management studies ( Lehman et al., 2019 ). Their point of departure is their perception that the term “authenticity” refers to what is real, genuine, or true. In contrast to this, Lehman and coauthors outline their perspective of authenticity as dependent on the referent of the term. In keeping with other recent publications motivated by a “lack of definitional clarity” ( Newman, 2019 , p. 8), they outline different meanings the term can have in different contexts and ask what we are talking about when we talk about something or someone authentic.

Obviously, this semantic heterogeneity has its disadvantages, of which Lehman et al. (2019) emphasize two: the difficulties it brings for scholarly discourse and the possibility of “missing the big picture” ( Lehman et al., 2019 , p. 2). In order to overcome these hurdles, the authors propose a conceptual framework that rests on three different “meanings” of authenticity: authenticity as consistency, as conformity, and as connection.

In brief, authenticity as consistency is the congruous relationship between an entity’s external characteristics and its internal values. Authenticity as conformity is a congruous relationship between an entity and its social norms. Authenticity as connection is the congruence between an entity and “a person, place, or time as claimed” ( Lehman et al., 2019 , p. 3). We deliberately use the terms congruence and congruous in all three definitions because we propose in this paper that congruence is the essence of authenticity . In general, we use these terms in keeping with Merriam-Webster’s dictionary definition for congruous , “being in agreement, harmony, or correspondence” ( Congruous, 2020 ). We think that all three of Lehman and coworkers’ interpretations of authenticity encompass some form of congruence: a particular congruous relationship between an entity and characteristics of itself, between an entity and its social context, and between an entity and another one, respectively.

We think of authenticity not as a static concept, but as a developmental process, as subject to change. Consequently, we suggest that besides the above three “C’s,” there is a fourth “C,” a fourth meaning of authenticity as continuity . The continuity perspective captures the developmental character of authenticity, the ever-changing relationships between an individual and himself/herself, others, and the social norms his/her life is embedded in. These relationships are different across the lifespan; they are different for the same person as a child, adolescent or adult. Hence, authenticity as continuity describes the congruous relationship between an entity and features of development and, therefore, captures the evolving nature of authenticity. Going beyond the static view of authenticity allows for inherent changes in authenticity over time and places a greater emphasis on becoming authentic instead of being authentic. Thus, authenticity as continuity combines a dynamic connection between static and process characteristics of authenticity, which in turn makes authenticity more of an on-going project instead of something that can be achieved.

Based on these considerations, we define authenticity as “the process of being in a congruous relationship with self, others, and relevant social norms.” Thus defined, we restrict our discussion to authenticity as a concept that can be applied at both the level of the individual as well as at the level of the collective (community and population). In this paper, we first briefly review Lehman et al.’s (2019) view of authenticity as consistency, conformity, and connection (henceforth, “3C-view” of authenticity). Then, we propose the addition of a fourth C, continuity (4C-view). Next, we explore and propose congruence as the essence of authenticity. Finally, we discuss advantages and disadvantages of our proposal.

The 3C-View of Authenticity

Lehman et al. (2019) tackle the problem of multiple interpretability of the term “authenticity.” The paper appeared in Academy of Management Annals and is, therefore, written from an economics and management perspective. In this section, we outline their discussion and argument step-by-step.

The authors’ 3C-View emerges from three guiding questions that address the referent, the target, and the audience of authenticity. First, they argue that in order to capture the meaning of authenticity one has to know who or what is the reference point to assess authenticity, which can be either inside (i.e., the entity itself) or outside of the entity (e.g., social category) that is judged. Second, the meaning of authenticity also depends on who or what the judgment of authenticity is directed to, meaning who or what the entity in itself is (e.g., individuals, organizations, brands, and objects etc.). Lastly, the audience that makes the authenticity judgment should be considered, and whether the audience is congruent with the entity (e.g., the self) or different (e.g., consumers judging authenticity of a product). The concept of authenticity as consistency was derived from classical philosophical works by the ancient Greeks and the existentialist movement (see Lehman et al., 2019 ). Here, the referent and target are the same (i.e., the entity) and hence authenticity is judged by the congruous relationship between external characteristic and internal representations of values and beliefs of the entity. An entity is primarily considered an individual in this conceptualization. The audience that judges on the congruence can be congruent with the entity (i.e., the alignment of an individual’s internal representations with his/her behavior leads to a feeling of authenticity or inauthenticity) or different (i.e., the perception of someone’s behavior being aligned with his/her assumed inner representations). However, in both cases the interpretative nature of authenticity is very subjective, as internal representations cannot be measured objectively, but are rather dependent on subjective feelings, or estimates from the perceived characteristics. Definitions in this conceptualization of authenticity reflect these two major aspects for alignment: the understanding of one’s true self (i.e., internal representation) and behaving and interacting accordingly (i.e., external characteristics; e.g., Goldman and Kernis, 2002 ; Harter, 2002 ; Kernis and Goldman, 2005 , 2006 ; Wood et al., 2008 ). This conceptualization is informed by research themes around self-concept ( Kraus et al., 2011 ), self-representation ( Walumbwa et al., 2008 ; Hochschild, 2012 ) and organizational as well as brand identity ( Beverland, 2005 ; Hatch and Schultz, 2017 ; Lehman et al., 2019 ).

Understanding the meaning of authenticity as conformity is embedded in cognitive psychology on schemas and work in sociology on institutional categories (for a brief overview see Lehman et al., 2019 ). Here, the referent lies outside of the entity (i.e., the social category). The target of the authenticity judgment, i.e., the entity, is either an individual (e.g., a musician creates music that is congruous with their genre; a leader with a specific leadership style and their actions are congruous with expectations of that category) or an object (e.g., a restaurant that serves cuisine that is congruous with the restaurant’s theme). Thus, authenticity is assessed by the congruous relationship between the entity and the social category that serves as a referent. The audience that judges on the congruence can be the entity itself or outside of the entity using categories and classifications to locate and evaluate authenticity. They can even act jointly to determine how authentic an entity is (e.g., people rate authenticity of a restaurant by evaluating who dines at that restaurant). As referent and target can both be captured objectively, the interpretative nature is much more objective than in the previous evaluation of authenticity. Yet, according to the authors, it still has subjective elements, as humans define and perceive social categories, and therefore there are some variabilities depending on the audience. In this conceptualization, the referent is dynamic as it is defined by members of the specific category, as they determine the norms and expectations the entity is subject to. Therefore, authenticity is subject to change according to the evolvement of a social category. Authenticity thus conceived “… reflects a concern with correct classification” (Davies, 2001, p. 203; citation in Lehman et al., 2019 , p. 14). This conceptualization of authenticity is informed by research themes around category membership ( Kovács et al., 2014 ) and reinterpretation ( Negro et al., 2011 ; Lehman et al., 2019 ).

The last conceptualization according to the 3C-view is authenticity as a connection , which is derived from work both in psychological essentialism and semiotics ( Lehman et al., 2019 ). Here, the referent is outside of the entity and is identified as a point of connection to a specific origin (i.e., person, place, or time). The target of the authenticity is mainly considered an object (e.g., artwork, clothing, and jewelry). Authenticity is judged by the congruence of the entity and the spatial and/or temporal distance to a specific outside criterion. The audience that judges the authenticity is equally outside of the entity and either relies on expert knowledge (e.g., an authentic Picasso painting is defined by certain criteria) or is the expert in itself (e.g., a connoisseur), which in turn makes the interpretation of authenticity highly objective. This conceptualization is informed by research themes around provenance ( Dutton, 2003 ), transference ( Grayson and Martinec, 2004 ) and symbolism ( Leigh, 2006 ; see also Lehman et al., 2019 for an in depth review).

The 4C-View of Authenticity

While the 3C-view reflects the complexity of authenticity, it does not capture the developmental aspect of authenticity. Thus, we propose a fourth “C”: authenticity as continuity . This view takes a process perspective : it captures the developmental process of authenticity. This perspective goes hand in hand with the remarks on authenticity of Peterson (2005) who characterized the term “authenticity work,” stating that individuals continuously work on appearing and remaining authentic and thus derived that authenticity “[…] is subject to continual change” ( Peterson, 2005 , p. 1086). Moreover, Koole and Kuhl (2003) hold that a chronic fixation (i.e., being static in authenticity) is rather suboptimal, as a dynamic change in affect and temporary alienation are relevant to allow for self-development and “optimal functioning sometimes requires active suppression of the authentic self […]” ( Koole and Kuhl, 2003 , p. 46). We think that the study of the variability of authenticity expressions over time, both intra-and inter-individually, will be as relevant to personality psychology research as is the variability of other behavioral characteristics. In particular, conceiving of expressions of authenticity as density distributions over time ( Fleeson, 2001 ) might be one fruitful way of looking at the continuity dimension of authenticity.

Several considerations are important when thinking of authenticity as continuity. First , authenticity is established through repeated self-assessment. An individual has to continuously evaluate whether he/she considers himself/herself being authentic or not. This involves constantly seeking “one’s truth of […] feelings and desires” ( Krause, 2017 , p. 5f) and reflecting critically on them in order to evolve authentically. Second , in a process, change abounds. Therefore, there are no characteristics of authenticity that are constantly fixed. Everything moves and is always subject to change. This requires the ongoing evaluation and re-evaluation of these ever-changing characteristics with the question in mind whether they fit the then current perception of authenticity. This resonates with the reflections of education researcher Pauline E. Leonard, who wrote about navigating the road of authenticity that “[b]ecoming authentic is a process, a journey, not an end in itself; it is an inner and outer journey and requires a continual examination of one’s multiple identities within the context of the communities in which one lives, works, and interacts” ( Leonard, 2005 , p. 7f). Third , with each change, the question comes up whether the continuity of authenticity is interrupted. It is difficult, but not impossible, to define breakage points where someone considers himself/herself authentic before and non-authentic after such point if the characteristics of authenticity are constantly changing. For example, traumatic events may cause an interruption in authenticity. Quade et al. (2019) examined in a qualitative study about scapegoating – a term that describes actively deflecting the blame received for one’s own failures by blaming others – how this traumatic event left it challenging for female leaders to remain authentic. In their qualitative study, all participants experienced an incongruence between their self-image and the image their audience had of them ( Quade et al., 2019 ). Fourth , every process has a beginning and an end. It seems clear that the authenticity process does not begin at birth due to the intellectual requirements of the person to self-evaluate. The endpoint of the process is hard to determine and is probably only individually defined, perhaps just like all of the process. One could argue that certain illnesses, such as dementia, can lead to an assessment of an endpoint, whereas authenticity is no longer experienced or perceived. Yet as the mental state of people with dementia is fluctuating, it could be considered more as a fading of authenticity rather than an actual end point of authenticity (see also Holm, 2001 ).

The concept of authenticity as continuity can be viewed in light of the work of modern philosophers, such as Parfit (1984) , who addressed moral, personal identity, and normative ethics. In keeping with our outline of the 3 C’s, we apply to the 4th C (authenticity as continuity) the same three guiding questions, considering the referent, the target, and the audience of authenticity. Here, the referent is considered the feature of development over time (e.g., typical development). The target of the identity judgment, i.e., the entity, is mostly considered an individual but can also be an object (e.g., a company), a community, or even a population. Therefore, authenticity is assessed by the congruous relationship between the entity and the feature of development over time that serves as a referent. The audience that judges on the congruence can be the entity itself or reside outside of the entity, who either rely on expert knowledge on features of development or the “gut feeling” of how oneself or others stay true to their path of development. While the former can be considered rather objective, the latter is very subjective since internal representations cannot be measured objectively, but are rather dependent on subjective feelings, or on inferences based on perceived characteristics. This conceptualization is informed by research themes that revolve around personality development, subjective sense of self, and individual values ( Kuhl, 2001 , 2020 ; Newman, 2019 ; Urminsky and Bartels, 2019 ).

Taken together, our extension of Lehman’s 3C-view of authenticity provides a comprehensive model of authenticity, henceforth called 4C-Model of authenticity ( Table 1 ). The 4C-model allows for a more complete, inclusive, and integrated understanding of authenticity. Moreover, the model reveals interesting relations among the different characteristics of authenticity.

Table 1 . The 3-Cs proposed by Lehman et al. (2019) and the fourth C proposed in this paper.

All four Cs are relational in that they either relate different kinds of characteristics of one individual or entity to each other (C1, C4) or characteristics of an individual or entity to something external (C2, C3; Figure 1 ). All four Cs are arranged so that these two axes of authenticity relations self-self (green) and self-world (red) form the diagonals (1,4) and (2,3), respectively. What all four kinds of relationship have in common is that the relation is congruous.

Figure 1 . The 4-C model of authenticity with personal axis (green diagonal) and social axis (red diagonal) displayed in juxtaposition.

Congruence as the Essence of Authenticity

In this section we explicate what we mean when we use the term congruence in our present context. We also outline why we think that congruence is the essence of authenticity .

The Latin origin of the word, congruere , means to come together , to fit in , to correspond , or to agree . We see things or aspects as congruous or congruent when we see fit . When characteristics that form or represent the relata of C–relationships go well together , we consider them congruous. What does that mean, to go well together? Let us consider a few examples pertinent to C1, consistency.

First, it should be possible to assess (evaluate) the relata and their relationship. We cannot establish congruence if we cannot make up our mind about the meaning of relata in and of themselves, as well as for each other. In terms of consistency (C1), what are we talking about when we talk about external features and internal values? We need to define what counts as external and internal value. We also need to explicate what external feature and internal values we are talking about.

Second, the relata have to be mutually relevant. For example, the relationship between external characteristics and internal values in C1 should have mutually relevant relata if, for example, a person behaves in a friendly and peaceful manner and his/her values include a devotion to non-violence. It makes less sense to attempt to establish a relation between peaceful behavior and the part of a person’s value system that embraces family values. Congruence can be evaluated in the former, but not the latter case. We can say that friendly behavior and a non-violent stance are congruent, and that aggressive behavior and a non-violent stance are incongruent. But we cannot say that friendliness and family values are necessarily congruent. On the other hand, aggressive behavior and family values are not entirely incongruent.

Third, and most obviously, the relata have to support each other in a justificatory, explanatory, or even causal way, at least in one, sometimes in both directions. A non-violent stance causes peaceful behavior, which in turn supports a non-violent stance. Anti-racist values explain inclusive behaviors, which in turn nurture an anti-racist value system.

Fourth, the relata should not contradict each other. Supporting the death penalty and insisting on keeping the 10 Commandments as an important component of one’s value system is a contradiction. Only if relata stand in a non-contradictory relationship with each other can we consider them congruous.

In sum, we see congruence as referring to a self-self or self-world relationship in which relata are assessable, mutually relevant and supportive, and non-contradictory. Based on our definition of congruence and our discussion of the 4 C’s we believe that congruence is a formidable candidate for the common denominator of all four Cs and, therefore, for representing the essence of authenticity.

In this paper, we have discussed Lehman’s 3C view of authenticity and expanded it by adding a fourth C, continuity. This modification emphasizes our view that authenticity is not static, but a process. This process perspective is based on the assumption that authenticity is subject to change, requires continuous work, and can thus be characterized as a developmental process.

Moreover, we have proposed that congruence may be the essence of authenticity. All four Cs require congruent relationships between internal and external aspects and, together, represent a proposed 4C model of authenticity.

Rogers uses the terms “congruence” and “incongruence” to delineate the difference between individuals who live an authentic life (congruence) at least in part due to receiving positive regard and those who cannot (incongruence) and who develop defense mechanisms ( Rogers, 1951 ). According to Rogers’ concept of an “organismic valuing process,” a person has an inborn capability to estimate what kinds of changes will be good for them in terms of being conducive to their strive towards such lived congruence. Sheldon and colleagues have put that theory to the test and performed a study to see “how people change their minds over time about what goals and values to pursue” ( Sheldon et al., 2003 , p. 837). Their results suggest that individuals shift towards intrinsic more than extrinsic goals, which supports the hypothesis that subjective well-being plays a greater role in such changes than, e.g., social desirability. These results provide an illustration of the developmental process we aim to capture with our fourth C, continuity. They also suggest that Lehman et al.’s consistency might be a stronger motivation for such developmental change than conformity.

Among the many possible repercussions of inauthenticity appears to be that experiencing inauthenticity can come as a threat to one’s moral self-concept ( Gino et al., 2015 ). Gino and colleagues have offered the explanation that inauthenticity and dishonesty share similar roots in that both are a “violation of being true, whether to others or oneself” (p. 984). Feelings of impurity in the context of inauthenticity could be explained by a spillover effect, because dishonesty is not socially accepted, while inauthenticity is. However, experiencing inauthenticity (i.e., incongruence) is a vital aspect for the process perspective of authenticity, as incongruence allows for continuous re-evaluation, and hence offers opportunities for development ( Kuhl, 2020 ).

How does our 4C-model of authenticity fit with existing categorization schemes? Newman recently lamented the “lack of definitional clarity [which is] due in part to the diversity of contexts in which authenticity is studied” ( Newman, 2019 , p. 8). In response to this perceived heterogeneity of definitions, Newman proposes three broad categories, i.e., historical, categorical, and values authenticity. The first two apply mainly to objects (e.g., pieces of art or types of food, resp.) Only the third appears to be applicable to individuals in that it refers to “the consistency between an entity’s internal states and its external expressions” ( Newman, 2019 , p. 10). This definition maps directly onto Lehman et al.’s first dimension of authenticity. Both Lehman et al.’s three and our fourth dimension should not be viewed as mutually exclusive categories, but as viewpoints or lenses through which the different kinds of authenticity can be studied.

We wish to emphasize that we developed our 4C-model of authenticity in the context of models of the self. In other words, we refer to authenticity (in the present context) as a characteristic of the self and its development. Our goal is not to contribute to the debate about what authenticity is in general , but to expand the list of characteristics of authenticity in the particular context of concepts of the self and the development of the self. When Newman writes about the “psychology of authenticity,” his focus is on what he calls “lenses” or “dimensions of consideration” ( Newman, 2019 , p. 10). His lenses (historical, categorical, and value) are not characteristics or dimensions of authenticity, but of the ways how authenticity is established in different contexts.

Carroll views authenticity as “an attribution – nothing more, nothing less” ( Carroll, 2015 , p. 3). He claims that “[i]n modern society, authenticity is often socially constructed,” and is thereby “culturally contingent and historically situated” ( Carroll, 2015 , p. 3) He contrasts this kind of socially constructed authenticity with Dutton’s nominal authenticity , e.g., the kind of authenticity attributed to an original painting or historically authentic piece of clothing ( Dutton, 2003 ), the authenticity of which can usually be “objectively and definitively evaluated”( Carroll, 2015 , p. 4). It remains to be explored whether the individual authenticity (the authentic self) we discuss in this paper is a kind of nominal authenticity that can be evaluated, but only subjectively, or if it is culturally contingent, or both.

Given that we have developed our model in the area of personality psychology, we do not see it as representing a different category, but as an additional dimension that, together with Lehman et al.’s three Cs, applies mainly to Newman’s category of values authenticity. We hope that our model will be helpful in further research on authenticity not only in individuals, but perhaps also in communities and populations. Such extension of our model from the realm of personal to social psychology, however, is clearly beyond the scope of this paper.

Data Availability Statement

The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article/supplementary material, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

Author Contributions

OD is the primary contributor regarding the proposed 4-C model and its outline. KL contributed to the overall idea and specific topic of this publication. All authors contributed to the writing of article and approved the submitted version.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Beverland, M. B. (2005). Crafting brand authenticity: the case of luxury wines*. J. Manag. Stud. 42, 1003–1029. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6486.2005.00530.x

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Carroll, G. R. (2015). “Authenticity: attribution, value, and meaning” in Emerging trends in the social and behavioral sciences: An interdisciplinary, searchable, and linkable resource. 1st Edn. eds. R. A. Scott and S. M. Kosslyn (London: Wiley).

Google Scholar

Congruous (2020). In Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary . Available at: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/congruous (Accessed January 02, 2021).

Dutton, D. (2003). “Authenticity in art” in The Oxford handbook of aesthetics (Oxford University Press), 258–274.

Fleeson, W. (2001). Toward a structure-and process-integrated view of personality: traits as density distributions of states. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 80, 1011–1027. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.80.6.1011

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Gino, F., Kouchaki, M., and Galinsky, A. D. (2015). The moral virtue of authenticity: how inauthenticity produces feelings of immorality and impurity. Psychol. Sci. 26, 983–996. doi: 10.1177/0956797615575277

Goldman, B. M., and Kernis, M. H. (2002). The role of authenticity in healthy psychological functioning and subjective well-being. Ann. Am. Psychother. Assoc. 5, 18–20.

Grayson, K., and Martinec, R. (2004). Consumer perceptions of iconicity and indexicality and their influence on assessments of authentic market offerings. J. Consum. Res. 31, 296–312. doi: 10.1086/422109

Harter, S. (2002). “Authenticity” in Handbook of positive psychology. eds. C. R. Snyder and Lopez (New York: Oxford University Press), 382–394.

Hatch, M. J., and Schultz, M. (2017). Toward a theory of using history authentically: historicizing in the Carlsberg group. Adm. Sci. Q. 62, 657–697. doi: 10.1177/0001839217692535

Hochschild, A. R. (2012). The managed heart: Commercialization of human feeling. Berkeley, Los Angeles: University of California Press.

Holm, S. (2001). Autonomy, authenticity, or best interest: everyday decision-making and persons with dementia. Med. Health Care Philos. 4, 153–159. doi: 10.1023/A:1011402102030

Kernis, M. H., and Goldman, B. M. (2005). “From thought and experience to behavior and interpersonal relationships: a multicomponent conceptualization of authenticity” in On building, defending and regulating the self: A psychological perspective eds. A. Tesser, J. V. Wood, and D. A. Stapel (New York: Psychology Press), 31–52.

Kernis, M. H., and Goldman, B. M. (2006). A multicomponent conceptualization of authenticity: theory and research. Adv. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 38, 283–357. doi: 10.1016/S0065-2601(06)38006-9

Koole, S. L., and Kuhl, J. (2003). In search of the real self: a functional perspective on optimal self-esteem and authenticity. Psychol. Inq. 14, 43–48.

Kovács, B., Carroll, G. R., and Lehman, D. W. (2014). Authenticity and consumer value ratings: empirical tests from the restaurant domain. Organ. Sci. 25, 458–478. doi: 10.1287/orsc.2013.0843

Kraus, M. W., Chen, S., and Keltner, D. (2011). The power to be me: power elevates self-concept consistency and authenticity. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 47, 974–980. doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2011.03.017

Krause, R. (2017). Irrwege zum authentischen Selbst. e-J. Philos. der Psychol. 23, 1–13.

Kuhl, J. (2001). Motivation und Persönlichkeit. Interaktion psychischer Systeme (Hogrefe).

Kuhl, J. (2020). “Being oneself the functional basis of authenticity and self-development” in Interdisciplinary perspectives from philosophy, psychology, and psychiatry. eds. G. Brüntrup, L. Gierstl, and M. Reder (Wiesbaden: Springer VS), 163–183.

Lehman, D. W., O’Connor, K., Kovács, B., and Newman, G. E. (2019). Authenticity. Acad. Manag. Ann. 13, 1–42. doi: 10.5465/annals.2017.0047

Leigh, T. W. (2006). The consumer quest for authenticity: the multiplicity of meanings within the MG subculture of consumption. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 34, 481–493. doi: 10.1177/0092070306288403

Leonard, P. E. (2005). The ethics of practice: navigating the road of authenticity: journey interrupted. Values and ethics in educational administration. 3, 1–8.

Negro, G., Hannan, M. T., and Rao, H. (2011). Category reinterpretation and defection: modernism and tradition in Italian winemaking. Organ. Sci. 22, 1449–1463. doi: 10.1287/orsc.1100.0619

Newman, G. E. (2019). The psychology of authenticity. Rev. Gen. Psychol. 23, 8–18. doi: 10.1037/gpr0000158

Parfit, D. (1984). Reasons and persons. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Peterson, R. A. (2005). In search of authenticity. J. Manag. Stud. 42, 1083–1098. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6486.2005.00533.x

Quade, K., Beaver, A., Fry, L., Bulmini, D., and Miller, E. (2019). Being thrown under the bus and rising above the fray: maintaining authenticity. J. Ins. Res. 8, 92–98. doi: 10.9743/jir.2019.1.9

Rogers, C. R. (1951). Client-centered therapy: Its current practice, implications, and theory. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 560.

Sheldon, K. M., Arndt, J., and Houser-Marko, L. (2003). In search of the organismic valuing process: the human tendency to move towards beneficial goal choices. J. Pers. 71, 835–869. doi: 10.1111/1467-6494.7105006

Urminsky, O., and Bartels, D. (2019). “Identity, personal continuity and psychological connectedness across time and over transformation” in Handbook of research on identity theory in marketing. eds. A. Reed and M. Forehand (Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing), 225–239.

Walumbwa, F. O., Avolio, B. J., Gardner, W. L., Wernsing, T. S., and Peterson, S. J. (2008). Authentic leadership: development and validation of a theory-based measure†. J. Manag. 34, 89–126. doi: 10.1177/0149206307308913

Wood, A. M., Linley, P. A., Maltby, J., Baliousis, M., and Joseph, S. (2008). The authentic personality: a theoretical and empirical conceptualization and the development of the authenticity scale. J. Couns. Psychol. 55, 385–399. doi: 10.1037/0022-0167.55.3.385

Keywords: authenticity, congruence, self, self-development, continuity in self-development

Citation: Dammann O, Friederichs KM, Lebedinski S and Liesenfeld KM (2021) The Essence of Authenticity. Front. Psychol . 11:629654. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.629654

Received: 15 November 2020; Accepted: 22 December 2020; Published: 21 January 2021.

Reviewed by:

Copyright © 2021 Dammann, Friederichs, Lebedinski and Liesenfeld. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY) . The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

*Correspondence: Olaf Dammann, [email protected]

Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Here’s how you know

• U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
• National Institutes of Health

Whole Person Health: What It Is and Why It's Important

.header_greentext{color:greenimportant;font-size:24pximportant;font-weight:500important;}.header_bluetext{color:blueimportant;font-size:18pximportant;font-weight:500important;}.header_redtext{color:redimportant;font-size:28pximportant;font-weight:500important;}.header_darkred{color:#803d2fimportant;font-size:28pximportant;font-weight:500important;}.header_purpletext{color:purpleimportant;font-size:31pximportant;font-weight:500important;}.header_yellowtext{color:yellowimportant;font-size:20pximportant;font-weight:500important;}.header_blacktext{color:blackimportant;font-size:22pximportant;font-weight:500important;}.header_whitetext{color:whiteimportant;font-size:22pximportant;font-weight:500important;}.header_darkred{color:#803d2fimportant;}.green_header{color:greenimportant;font-size:24pximportant;font-weight:500important;}.blue_header{color:blueimportant;font-size:18pximportant;font-weight:500important;}.red_header{color:redimportant;font-size:28pximportant;font-weight:500important;}.purple_header{color:purpleimportant;font-size:31pximportant;font-weight:500important;}.yellow_header{color:yellowimportant;font-size:20pximportant;font-weight:500important;}.black_header{color:blackimportant;font-size:22pximportant;font-weight:500important;}.white_header{color:whiteimportant;font-size:22pximportant;font-weight:500important;} what is whole person health.

Whole person health involves looking at the whole person—not just separate organs or body systems—and considering multiple factors that promote either health or disease. It means helping and empowering individuals, families, communities, and populations to improve their health in multiple interconnected biological, behavioral, social, and environmental areas. Instead of just treating a specific disease, whole person health focuses on restoring health, promoting resilience, and preventing diseases across a lifespan.

.header_greentext{color:green!important;font-size:24px!important;font-weight:500!important;}.header_bluetext{color:blue!important;font-size:18px!important;font-weight:500!important;}.header_redtext{color:red!important;font-size:28px!important;font-weight:500!important;}.header_darkred{color:#803d2f!important;font-size:28px!important;font-weight:500!important;}.header_purpletext{color:purple!important;font-size:31px!important;font-weight:500!important;}.header_yellowtext{color:yellow!important;font-size:20px!important;font-weight:500!important;}.header_blacktext{color:black!important;font-size:22px!important;font-weight:500!important;}.header_whitetext{color:white!important;font-size:22px!important;font-weight:500!important;}.header_darkred{color:#803d2f!important;}.Green_Header{color:green!important;font-size:24px!important;font-weight:500!important;}.Blue_Header{color:blue!important;font-size:18px!important;font-weight:500!important;}.Red_Header{color:red!important;font-size:28px!important;font-weight:500!important;}.Purple_Header{color:purple!important;font-size:31px!important;font-weight:500!important;}.Yellow_Header{color:yellow!important;font-size:20px!important;font-weight:500!important;}.Black_Header{color:black!important;font-size:22px!important;font-weight:500!important;}.White_Header{color:white!important;font-size:22px!important;font-weight:500!important;} Why is whole person health important?

Health and disease are not separate, disconnected states but instead occur on a path that can move in two different directions, either toward health or toward disease.

On this path, many factors, including one’s biological makeup; some unhealthy behaviors, such as poor diet, sedentary lifestyle, chronic stress, and poor sleep; as well as social aspects of life—the conditions in which people are born, grow, live, work, and age—can lead to chronic diseases of more than one organ system. On the other hand, self-care, lifestyle, and behavioral interventions may help with the return to health.

Chronic diseases, such as diabetes, cardiovascular disease, obesity, and degenerative joint disease, can also occur with chronic pain, depression, and opioid misuse—all conditions exacerbated by chronic stress. Some chronic diseases increase the immediate and long-term risks with COVID-19 infection. Understanding the condition in which a person has lived, addressing behaviors at an early stage, and managing stress can not only prevent multiple diseases but also help restore health and stop the progression to disease across a person’s lifespan.

.header_greentext{color:green!important;font-size:24px!important;font-weight:500!important;}.header_bluetext{color:blue!important;font-size:18px!important;font-weight:500!important;}.header_redtext{color:red!important;font-size:28px!important;font-weight:500!important;}.header_darkred{color:#803d2f!important;font-size:28px!important;font-weight:500!important;}.header_purpletext{color:purple!important;font-size:31px!important;font-weight:500!important;}.header_yellowtext{color:yellow!important;font-size:20px!important;font-weight:500!important;}.header_blacktext{color:black!important;font-size:22px!important;font-weight:500!important;}.header_whitetext{color:white!important;font-size:22px!important;font-weight:500!important;}.header_darkred{color:#803d2f!important;}.Green_Header{color:green!important;font-size:24px!important;font-weight:500!important;}.Blue_Header{color:blue!important;font-size:18px!important;font-weight:500!important;}.Red_Header{color:red!important;font-size:28px!important;font-weight:500!important;}.Purple_Header{color:purple!important;font-size:31px!important;font-weight:500!important;}.Yellow_Header{color:yellow!important;font-size:20px!important;font-weight:500!important;}.Black_Header{color:black!important;font-size:22px!important;font-weight:500!important;}.White_Header{color:white!important;font-size:22px!important;font-weight:500!important;} Is whole person health being used now in health care?

Some health care systems and programs are now focusing more on whole person health.

.header_greentext{color:green!important;font-size:24px!important;font-weight:500!important;}.header_bluetext{color:blue!important;font-size:18px!important;font-weight:500!important;}.header_redtext{color:red!important;font-size:28px!important;font-weight:500!important;}.header_darkred{color:#803d2f!important;font-size:28px!important;font-weight:500!important;}.header_purpletext{color:purple!important;font-size:31px!important;font-weight:500!important;}.header_yellowtext{color:yellow!important;font-size:20px!important;font-weight:500!important;}.header_blacktext{color:black!important;font-size:22px!important;font-weight:500!important;}.header_whitetext{color:white!important;font-size:22px!important;font-weight:500!important;}.header_darkred{color:#803d2f!important;}.Green_Header{color:green!important;font-size:24px!important;font-weight:500!important;}.Blue_Header{color:blue!important;font-size:18px!important;font-weight:500!important;}.Red_Header{color:red!important;font-size:28px!important;font-weight:500!important;}.Purple_Header{color:purple!important;font-size:31px!important;font-weight:500!important;}.Yellow_Header{color:yellow!important;font-size:20px!important;font-weight:500!important;}.Black_Header{color:black!important;font-size:22px!important;font-weight:500!important;}.White_Header{color:white!important;font-size:22px!important;font-weight:500!important;} U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Whole Health Approach

The VA’s Whole Health System of Care and Whole Health approach aims to improve the health and well-being of veterans and to address lifestyle and environmental root causes of chronic disease. The approach shifts from a disease-centered focus to a more personalized approach that engages and empowers veterans early in and throughout their lives to prioritize healthy lifestyle changes in areas like nutrition, activity, sleep, relationships, and surroundings. Conventional testing and treatment are combined with complementary and integrative health approaches that may include acupuncture, biofeedback, massage therapy, yoga, and meditation.

.header_greentext{color:green!important;font-size:24px!important;font-weight:500!important;}.header_bluetext{color:blue!important;font-size:18px!important;font-weight:500!important;}.header_redtext{color:red!important;font-size:28px!important;font-weight:500!important;}.header_darkred{color:#803d2f!important;font-size:28px!important;font-weight:500!important;}.header_purpletext{color:purple!important;font-size:31px!important;font-weight:500!important;}.header_yellowtext{color:yellow!important;font-size:20px!important;font-weight:500!important;}.header_blacktext{color:black!important;font-size:22px!important;font-weight:500!important;}.header_whitetext{color:white!important;font-size:22px!important;font-weight:500!important;}.header_darkred{color:#803d2f!important;}.Green_Header{color:green!important;font-size:24px!important;font-weight:500!important;}.Blue_Header{color:blue!important;font-size:18px!important;font-weight:500!important;}.Red_Header{color:red!important;font-size:28px!important;font-weight:500!important;}.Purple_Header{color:purple!important;font-size:31px!important;font-weight:500!important;}.Yellow_Header{color:yellow!important;font-size:20px!important;font-weight:500!important;}.Black_Header{color:black!important;font-size:22px!important;font-weight:500!important;}.White_Header{color:white!important;font-size:22px!important;font-weight:500!important;} U.S. Department of Defense Total Force Fitness Program

The Total Force Fitness program arose within the U.S. Department of Defense Military Health System in response to the need for a more holistic approach—a focus on the whole person instead of separate parts or only symptoms—to the demands of multiple deployments and the strains on the U.S. Armed Forces and their family members. The focus extends the idea of total fitness to include the health, well-being, and resilience of the whole person, family, community, and U.S. military.

.header_greentext{color:green!important;font-size:24px!important;font-weight:500!important;}.header_bluetext{color:blue!important;font-size:18px!important;font-weight:500!important;}.header_redtext{color:red!important;font-size:28px!important;font-weight:500!important;}.header_darkred{color:#803d2f!important;font-size:28px!important;font-weight:500!important;}.header_purpletext{color:purple!important;font-size:31px!important;font-weight:500!important;}.header_yellowtext{color:yellow!important;font-size:20px!important;font-weight:500!important;}.header_blacktext{color:black!important;font-size:22px!important;font-weight:500!important;}.header_whitetext{color:white!important;font-size:22px!important;font-weight:500!important;}.header_darkred{color:#803d2f!important;}.Green_Header{color:green!important;font-size:24px!important;font-weight:500!important;}.Blue_Header{color:blue!important;font-size:18px!important;font-weight:500!important;}.Red_Header{color:red!important;font-size:28px!important;font-weight:500!important;}.Purple_Header{color:purple!important;font-size:31px!important;font-weight:500!important;}.Yellow_Header{color:yellow!important;font-size:20px!important;font-weight:500!important;}.Black_Header{color:black!important;font-size:22px!important;font-weight:500!important;}.White_Header{color:white!important;font-size:22px!important;font-weight:500!important;} Whole Health Institute

Established in 2020, the Whole Health Institute’s Whole Health model helps people identify what matters most to them and build a plan for their journey to whole health. The model provides tools to help people take good care of their body, mind, and spirit, and involves working with a health care team as well as tapping into the support of family, friends, and communities.

.header_greentext{color:green!important;font-size:24px!important;font-weight:500!important;}.header_bluetext{color:blue!important;font-size:18px!important;font-weight:500!important;}.header_redtext{color:red!important;font-size:28px!important;font-weight:500!important;}.header_darkred{color:#803d2f!important;font-size:28px!important;font-weight:500!important;}.header_purpletext{color:purple!important;font-size:31px!important;font-weight:500!important;}.header_yellowtext{color:yellow!important;font-size:20px!important;font-weight:500!important;}.header_blacktext{color:black!important;font-size:22px!important;font-weight:500!important;}.header_whitetext{color:white!important;font-size:22px!important;font-weight:500!important;}.header_darkred{color:#803d2f!important;}.Green_Header{color:green!important;font-size:24px!important;font-weight:500!important;}.Blue_Header{color:blue!important;font-size:18px!important;font-weight:500!important;}.Red_Header{color:red!important;font-size:28px!important;font-weight:500!important;}.Purple_Header{color:purple!important;font-size:31px!important;font-weight:500!important;}.Yellow_Header{color:yellow!important;font-size:20px!important;font-weight:500!important;}.Black_Header{color:black!important;font-size:22px!important;font-weight:500!important;}.White_Header{color:white!important;font-size:22px!important;font-weight:500!important;} North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services

The North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services has incorporated a whole person health approach into its health care system by focusing on integrating physical, behavioral, and social health. The state has taken steps to encourage collaborative behavioral health care and help resolve widespread inequities in social conditions, such as housing and nutritious food access.

.header_greentext{color:green!important;font-size:24px!important;font-weight:500!important;}.header_bluetext{color:blue!important;font-size:18px!important;font-weight:500!important;}.header_redtext{color:red!important;font-size:28px!important;font-weight:500!important;}.header_darkred{color:#803d2f!important;font-size:28px!important;font-weight:500!important;}.header_purpletext{color:purple!important;font-size:31px!important;font-weight:500!important;}.header_yellowtext{color:yellow!important;font-size:20px!important;font-weight:500!important;}.header_blacktext{color:black!important;font-size:22px!important;font-weight:500!important;}.header_whitetext{color:white!important;font-size:22px!important;font-weight:500!important;}.header_darkred{color:#803d2f!important;}.Green_Header{color:green!important;font-size:24px!important;font-weight:500!important;}.Blue_Header{color:blue!important;font-size:18px!important;font-weight:500!important;}.Red_Header{color:red!important;font-size:28px!important;font-weight:500!important;}.Purple_Header{color:purple!important;font-size:31px!important;font-weight:500!important;}.Yellow_Header{color:yellow!important;font-size:20px!important;font-weight:500!important;}.Black_Header{color:black!important;font-size:22px!important;font-weight:500!important;}.White_Header{color:white!important;font-size:22px!important;font-weight:500!important;} Ornish Program for Reversing Heart Disease

The Ornish Program for Reversing Heart Disease is an intensive cardiac rehabilitation program that has been shown to reverse the progression of coronary heart disease through lifestyle changes, without drugs or surgery. The program is covered by Medicare and some health insurance companies. The program’s lifestyle changes include exercise, smoking cessation, stress management, social support, and a whole-foods, plant-based diet low in total fat. The program is offered by a team of health care professionals who provide the support that individuals need to make and maintain lasting changes in lifestyle.

.header_greentext{color:green!important;font-size:24px!important;font-weight:500!important;}.header_bluetext{color:blue!important;font-size:18px!important;font-weight:500!important;}.header_redtext{color:red!important;font-size:28px!important;font-weight:500!important;}.header_darkred{color:#803d2f!important;font-size:28px!important;font-weight:500!important;}.header_purpletext{color:purple!important;font-size:31px!important;font-weight:500!important;}.header_yellowtext{color:yellow!important;font-size:20px!important;font-weight:500!important;}.header_blacktext{color:black!important;font-size:22px!important;font-weight:500!important;}.header_whitetext{color:white!important;font-size:22px!important;font-weight:500!important;}.header_darkred{color:#803d2f!important;}.Green_Header{color:green!important;font-size:24px!important;font-weight:500!important;}.Blue_Header{color:blue!important;font-size:18px!important;font-weight:500!important;}.Red_Header{color:red!important;font-size:28px!important;font-weight:500!important;}.Purple_Header{color:purple!important;font-size:31px!important;font-weight:500!important;}.Yellow_Header{color:yellow!important;font-size:20px!important;font-weight:500!important;}.Black_Header{color:black!important;font-size:22px!important;font-weight:500!important;}.White_Header{color:white!important;font-size:22px!important;font-weight:500!important;} What does research show about whole person health?

A growing body of research suggests the benefits of healthy behaviors, environments, and policies to maintain health and prevent, treat, and reverse chronic diseases. This research includes several large, long-term epidemiological studies—such as the Framingham Heart Study, Nurses’ Health Study, and Adventist Health Studies—that have evaluated the connections between lifestyle, diet, genetics, health, and disease.

There is a lack, however, of randomized controlled trials and other types of research on multicomponent interventions and whole person health. Challenges come with conducting this type of research and with finding appropriate ways to assess the evidence. But opportunities are emerging to explore new paths toward reliable and rigorous research on whole person health.

.header_greentext{color:green!important;font-size:24px!important;font-weight:500!important;}.header_bluetext{color:blue!important;font-size:18px!important;font-weight:500!important;}.header_redtext{color:red!important;font-size:28px!important;font-weight:500!important;}.header_darkred{color:#803d2f!important;font-size:28px!important;font-weight:500!important;}.header_purpletext{color:purple!important;font-size:31px!important;font-weight:500!important;}.header_yellowtext{color:yellow!important;font-size:20px!important;font-weight:500!important;}.header_blacktext{color:black!important;font-size:22px!important;font-weight:500!important;}.header_whitetext{color:white!important;font-size:22px!important;font-weight:500!important;}.header_darkred{color:#803d2f!important;}.Green_Header{color:green!important;font-size:24px!important;font-weight:500!important;}.Blue_Header{color:blue!important;font-size:18px!important;font-weight:500!important;}.Red_Header{color:red!important;font-size:28px!important;font-weight:500!important;}.Purple_Header{color:purple!important;font-size:31px!important;font-weight:500!important;}.Yellow_Header{color:yellow!important;font-size:20px!important;font-weight:500!important;}.Black_Header{color:black!important;font-size:22px!important;font-weight:500!important;}.White_Header{color:white!important;font-size:22px!important;font-weight:500!important;} Will the National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health (NCCIH) fund research on whole person health?

Yes, NCCIH plans to fund research on whole person health . (Details can be found in the NCCIH Strategic Plan FY 2021–2025: Mapping a Pathway to Research on Whole Person Health . )

By deepening the scientific understanding of the connections that exist across the different areas of human health, researchers can better understand how conditions interrelate, identify multicomponent interventions that address these problems, and determine the best ways to support individuals through the full continuum of their health experience, including the return to health.

.header_greentext{color:green!important;font-size:24px!important;font-weight:500!important;}.header_bluetext{color:blue!important;font-size:18px!important;font-weight:500!important;}.header_redtext{color:red!important;font-size:28px!important;font-weight:500!important;}.header_darkred{color:#803d2f!important;font-size:28px!important;font-weight:500!important;}.header_purpletext{color:purple!important;font-size:31px!important;font-weight:500!important;}.header_yellowtext{color:yellow!important;font-size:20px!important;font-weight:500!important;}.header_blacktext{color:black!important;font-size:22px!important;font-weight:500!important;}.header_whitetext{color:white!important;font-size:22px!important;font-weight:500!important;}.header_darkred{color:#803d2f!important;}.Green_Header{color:green!important;font-size:24px!important;font-weight:500!important;}.Blue_Header{color:blue!important;font-size:18px!important;font-weight:500!important;}.Red_Header{color:red!important;font-size:28px!important;font-weight:500!important;}.Purple_Header{color:purple!important;font-size:31px!important;font-weight:500!important;}.Yellow_Header{color:yellow!important;font-size:20px!important;font-weight:500!important;}.Black_Header{color:black!important;font-size:22px!important;font-weight:500!important;}.White_Header{color:white!important;font-size:22px!important;font-weight:500!important;} For More Information

Nccih clearinghouse.

The NCCIH Clearinghouse provides information on NCCIH and complementary and integrative health approaches, including publications and searches of Federal databases of scientific and medical literature. The Clearinghouse does not provide medical advice, treatment recommendations, or referrals to practitioners.

Toll-free in the U.S.: 1-888-644-6226

Telecommunications relay service (TRS): 7-1-1

Website: https://www.nccih.nih.gov

Email: [email protected] (link sends email)

Know the Science

NCCIH and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) provide tools to help you understand the basics and terminology of scientific research so you can make well-informed decisions about your health. Know the Science features a variety of materials, including interactive modules, quizzes, and videos, as well as links to informative content from Federal resources designed to help consumers make sense of health information.

Explaining How Research Works (NIH)

Know the Science: How To Make Sense of a Scientific Journal Article

Understanding Clinical Studies (NIH)

A service of the National Library of Medicine, PubMed® contains publication information and (in most cases) brief summaries of articles from scientific and medical journals. For guidance from NCCIH on using PubMed, see How To Find Information About Complementary Health Approaches on PubMed .

Website: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/

.header_greentext{color:green!important;font-size:24px!important;font-weight:500!important;}.header_bluetext{color:blue!important;font-size:18px!important;font-weight:500!important;}.header_redtext{color:red!important;font-size:28px!important;font-weight:500!important;}.header_darkred{color:#803d2f!important;font-size:28px!important;font-weight:500!important;}.header_purpletext{color:purple!important;font-size:31px!important;font-weight:500!important;}.header_yellowtext{color:yellow!important;font-size:20px!important;font-weight:500!important;}.header_blacktext{color:black!important;font-size:22px!important;font-weight:500!important;}.header_whitetext{color:white!important;font-size:22px!important;font-weight:500!important;}.header_darkred{color:#803d2f!important;}.Green_Header{color:green!important;font-size:24px!important;font-weight:500!important;}.Blue_Header{color:blue!important;font-size:18px!important;font-weight:500!important;}.Red_Header{color:red!important;font-size:28px!important;font-weight:500!important;}.Purple_Header{color:purple!important;font-size:31px!important;font-weight:500!important;}.Yellow_Header{color:yellow!important;font-size:20px!important;font-weight:500!important;}.Black_Header{color:black!important;font-size:22px!important;font-weight:500!important;}.White_Header{color:white!important;font-size:22px!important;font-weight:500!important;} Key References

• Aggarwal M, Ornish D, Josephson R, et al. Closing gaps in lifestyle adherence for secondary prevention of coronary heart disease. American Journal of Cardiology. 2021;145:1-11.
• Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. Decision Memo for Intensive Cardiac Rehabilitation (ICR) Program—Dr. Ornish’s Program for Reversing Heart Disease (CAG-00419N). Accessed at https://www.cms.gov/ on April 26, 2021.
• Deuster PA, O’Connor FG. Human performance optimization: culture change and paradigm shift. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research. 2015;29(suppl 11):S52-S56.
• Gaudet T, Kligler B. Whole health in the whole system of the Veterans Administration: how will we know we have reached this future state? Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine. 2019;25(S1):S7-S11.
• Malecki HL, Gollie JM, Scholten J. Physical activity, exercise, whole health, and integrative health coaching. Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Clinics of North America. 2020;31(4):649-663.
• National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health. NCCIH Strategic Plan FY 2021–2025: Mapping a Pathway to Research on Whole Person Health. National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health website. Accessed at https://www.nccih.nih.gov/about/nccih-strategic-plan-2021-2025 on May 14, 2021.
• North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services website. Healthy Opportunities and Medicaid Transformation. Accessed at https://www.ncdhhs.gov/about/department-initiatives/healthy-opportunities/healthy-opportunities-pilots/healthy on April 26, 2021.
• Military Health System website. Total Force Fitness. Accessed at https://health.mil/Military-Health-Topics/Total-Force-Fitness on April 26, 2021.
• Tilson EC, Muse A, Colville K, et al. Investing in whole person health: working toward an integration of physical, behavioral, and social health. North Carolina Medical Journal. 2020;81(3):177-180.
• U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs website. Whole Health. Accessed at https://www.va.gov/wholehealth/ on April 26, 2021.
• U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs website. Whole Health Library. Accessed at  https://www.va.gov/wholehealthlibrary/ on April 26, 2021.
• Vodovotz Y, Barnard N, Hu FB, et al. Prioritized research for the prevention, treatment, and reversal of chronic disease: recommendations from the Lifestyle Medicine Research Summit. Frontiers in Medicine (Lausanne). 2020;7:585744.
• Whitehead AM, Kligler B. Innovations in care: complementary and integrative health in the Veterans Health Administration Whole Health System. Medical Care. 2020;58(9S)(suppl 2):S78-S79.

.header_greentext{color:green!important;font-size:24px!important;font-weight:500!important;}.header_bluetext{color:blue!important;font-size:18px!important;font-weight:500!important;}.header_redtext{color:red!important;font-size:28px!important;font-weight:500!important;}.header_darkred{color:#803d2f!important;font-size:28px!important;font-weight:500!important;}.header_purpletext{color:purple!important;font-size:31px!important;font-weight:500!important;}.header_yellowtext{color:yellow!important;font-size:20px!important;font-weight:500!important;}.header_blacktext{color:black!important;font-size:22px!important;font-weight:500!important;}.header_whitetext{color:white!important;font-size:22px!important;font-weight:500!important;}.header_darkred{color:#803d2f!important;}.Green_Header{color:green!important;font-size:24px!important;font-weight:500!important;}.Blue_Header{color:blue!important;font-size:18px!important;font-weight:500!important;}.Red_Header{color:red!important;font-size:28px!important;font-weight:500!important;}.Purple_Header{color:purple!important;font-size:31px!important;font-weight:500!important;}.Yellow_Header{color:yellow!important;font-size:20px!important;font-weight:500!important;}.Black_Header{color:black!important;font-size:22px!important;font-weight:500!important;}.White_Header{color:white!important;font-size:22px!important;font-weight:500!important;} Other References

• Alborzkouh P, Nabati M, Zainali M, et al. A review of the effectiveness of stress management skills training on academic vitality and psychological well-being of college students. Journal of Medicine and Life. 2015;8(4):39-44.
• Bisht K, Sharma K, Tremblay M-È. Chronic stress as a risk factor for Alzheimer's disease: roles of microglia-mediated synaptic remodeling, inflammation, and oxidative stress. Neurobiology of Stress. 2018;9:9-21.
• Buettner D, Skemp S. Blue Zones: lessons from the world’s longest lived. American Journal of Lifestyle Medicine. 2016;10(5):318-321.
• Chen T-L, Chang S-C, Hsieh H-F, et al. Effects of mindfulness-based stress reduction on sleep quality and mental health for insomnia patients: a meta-analysis. Journal of Psychosomatic Research. 2020;135:110144.
• Conversano C, Orrù G, Pozza A, et al. Is mindfulness-based stress reduction effective for people with hypertension? A systematic review and meta-analysis of 30 years of evidence. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2021;18(6):2882.
• Katz DL, Karlsen MC, Chung M, et al. Hierarchies of evidence applied to lifestyle medicine (HEALM): introduction of a strength-of-evidence approach based on a methodological systematic review. BMC Medical Research Methodology. 2019;19(1):178.
• Kruk J, Aboul-Enein BH, Bernstein J, et al. Psychological stress and cellular aging in cancer: a meta-analysis. Oxidative Medicine and Cellular Longevity. 2019;2019:1270397.
• Levesque C. Therapeutic lifestyle changes for diabetes mellitus. Nursing Clinics of North America. 2017;52(4):679-692.
• Ni Y, Ma L, Li J. Effects of mindfulness-based stress reduction and mindfulness-based cognitive therapy in people with diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Nursing Scholarship. 2020;52(4):379-388.
• Ornish Lifestyle Medicine website. The Ornish Reversal Program: Intensive Cardiac Rehabilitation. Accessed at https://www.ornish.com/intensive-cardiac-rehab/ on April 26, 2021.
• Schneiderman N, Ironson G, Siegel SD. Stress and health: psychological, behavioral, and biological determinants. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology. 2005;1:607-628.
• Seal KH, Becker WC, Murphy JL, et al. Whole Health Options and Pain Education (wHOPE): a pragmatic trial comparing whole health team vs primary care group education to promote nonpharmacological strategies to improve pain, functioning, and quality of life in veterans—rationale, methods, and implementation. Pain Medicine. 2020;21(suppl 2):S91-S99.
• Tamashiro KL, Sakai RR, Shively CA, et al. Chronic stress, metabolism, and metabolic syndrome. Stress. 2011;14(5):468-474.
• Whayne TF Jr, Saha SP. Genetic risk, adherence to a healthy lifestyle, and ischemic heart disease. Current Cardiology Reports. 2019;21(1):1.
• Whole Health Institute website. Accessed at https://www.wholehealth.org/ on May 19, 2021.

Acknowledgments

NCCIH thanks Mary Beth Kester, M.S., and Helene M. Langevin, M.D., NCCIH, for their review of this publication.

This publication is not copyrighted and is in the public domain. Duplication is encouraged.

NCCIH has provided this material for your information. It is not intended to substitute for the medical expertise and advice of your health care provider(s). We encourage you to discuss any decisions about treatment or care with your health care provider. The mention of any product, service, or therapy is not an endorsement by NCCIH.

Related Topics

NCCIH Strategic Plan FY 2021–⁠2025 Mapping a Pathway to Research on Whole Person Health

Methodological Approaches for Whole Person Research Workshop

Transforming Veterans’ Health: Implementing a Whole Health System of Care

Complementary, Alternative, or Integrative Health: What’s In a Name?