Journal of Research in Personality 60 (2016) 56–62

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Research in Personality

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jrp

Authenticity attenuates the negative effects of interpersonal conflict

on daily well-being
Robert E. Wickham ⇑, Rachel E. Williamson, Charlotte L. Beard, Charlene L.B. Kobayashi, Tom W. Hirst
Palo Alto University, United States

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Prior research has established a consistent relationship between felt authenticity and greater psycholog-
Received 23 March 2015 ical and physical well-being. Nevertheless, a number of important questions remain regarding the role of
Revised 22 November 2015 authenticity in shaping individuals’ responses to stressful events in daily life. Interpersonal conflict in
Accepted 25 November 2015
particular, has been established as one of the strongest contributors to daily stress, and a number of prior
Available online 2 December 2015
studies suggest that the negative effects of interpersonal conflict may be moderated by personality fac-
tors. The present work used a diary design to examine the role of trait authenticity in buffering individ-
Keywords:
uals from the negative effects of interpersonal conflict. More importantly, we show that the protective
Authenticity
Interpersonal conflict
role of trait authenticity functions independently from the previously established effects of agreeableness
Agreeableness and neuroticism.
Neuroticism Ó 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Well-being

1. Introduction neuroticism (Bolger & Zuckerman, 1995; Jensen-Campbell &

Graziano, 2001; Suls, Martin, & David, 1998), though no published
The concept of authentic self-expression is well established in research has examined whether authenticity shapes how individu-
philosophy, literature, and humanistic psychology. Theorists such als respond to conflict. The present work uses a diary design to
as Maslow (1968) and Rogers (1961) have long touted the benefits examine the role of two facets of trait authenticity, specifically,
of knowing one’s ‘‘true-self” and maintaining a state of being in self-awareness and unbiased processing of self-relevant information
which one’s behavior is free from external coercion. Though (Kernis & Goldman, 2006), in buffering individuals from the nega-
authenticity is a relatively new construct in empirical psychology, tive effects of interpersonal conflict. More importantly, we show
the existing research demonstrates that a more authentic orienta- that the protective role of trait authenticity functions indepen-
tion toward life is associated with higher self-esteem (Kernis, dently from the previously established effects of agreeableness
2003; Kernis & Goldman, 2006; Wood, Linley, Maltby, Baliousis, and neuroticism.
& Joseph, 2008), greater self-concept clarity (Sheldon, Ryan,
Rawsthorne, & Ilardi, 1997), lower levels of psychological distress 1.1. Authenticity
(e.g., anxiety, depression, stress, negative affect; Kernis &
Goldman, 2006; Ryan, LaGuardia, & Rawsthorne, 2005; Wood Authenticity has been broadly defined in contemporary psycho-
et al., 2008) and better physical health (Ryan et al., 2005; logical research. Theorists working from a Self-determination
Sheldon et al., 1997). However, questions remain regarding the Theory (SDT) perspective have described authenticity as an action
role of authenticity on peoples’ response to daily life events. or behavior that reflects one’s ‘‘true-self” (Deci & Ryan, 2000), and
Interpersonal conflict in particular has been established as one of highly authentic persons as being ‘‘open” to their ongoing experi-
the strongest contributors to daily stress (Bolger, DeLongis, ence without attempting to distort their perception or interpreta-
Kessler, & Schilling, 1989), and a number of prior studies suggest tion of reality (Hodgins & Knee, 2002). Drawing heavily on SDT
that the negative effects of interpersonal conflict may be moder- and earlier humanistic conceptualizations, Kernis (2003, p. 13)
ated by the Big-5 Model personality traits of agreeableness and describes authenticity as the ‘‘unobstructed operation of one’s
true- or core-self in one’s daily enterprise.” More recently, Wood
⇑ Corresponding author at: Clinical Psychology Ph.D. Program, Pacific Graduate et al. (2008) proposed a ‘‘person-centered” model of authenticity
School of Psychology, Palo Alto University, 1791 Arastradero Road, Palo Alto, CA that draws heavily on the Rogerian therapeutic model (Rogers,
94304, United States. 1961), and focuses on the interplay between self-alienation,
E-mail address: [email protected] (R.E. Wickham). authentic living (behavior), and environmental forces. Similarly,

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2015.11.006
0092-6566/Ó 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
 R.E. Wickham et al. / Journal of Research in Personality 60 (2016) 56–62 57

Harter (2002) emphasized a consistency between thoughts, feel- negative mood, than non-interpersonal demands and stressors.
ings, and behavior, such that authenticity is manifested by the out- Indeed, the deleterious effects of interpersonal conflict are
ward expressions of one’s inner self. observed across all types of relationships. Lepore (1992) showed
Regardless of the specific organizing framework, contemporary that interpersonal conflicts between college roommates were pre-
research provides considerable empirical evidence that an authen- dictive of increased psychological distress over the course of the
tic orientation toward life is associated with greater well-being, semester, and more recently, Page and Wilhelm (2007) found that
independent of trait positive or negative affect (Goldman & arguments with family members uniquely contributed to post-
Kernis, 2002; Heppner et al., 2008; Kernis & Goldman, 2006; partum depressive symptoms among recent mothers. Even work-
Ryan et al., 2005; Sheldon et al., 1997). Other work examining place conflicts have the potential to increase global distress and
self-complexity suggests that reporting greater authenticity across strain (Hahn, 2000).
different self-aspects (Ryan et al., 2005) or life roles (Sheldon et al., Interpersonal conflict has consistent negative effects on well-
1997) is associated with better functioning. A growing body of being across a variety of life domains and relationship types. How-
research also suggests that authenticity in one’s romantic relation- ever, individuals vary in the degree to which conflict influences
ships is uniquely associated with more positive relationship out- their subjective well-being. Many of the prior studies investigating
comes (Brunell et al., 2010; Wickham, 2013; Wickham, Reed, & moderators of the association between conflict and well-being have
Williamson, 2015). examined Big-5 trait makers as potential buffering factors. These
The present work adopts the multi-component conceptualiza- studies draw on the argument that higher levels of agreeableness
tion of authenticity described by the Kernis–Goldman Authenticity is associated with a stronger desire to maintain positive interper-
(KGA; Kernis & Goldman, 2006) model, which is comprised of four sonal relationships, which should lead these individuals to react
dimensions: awareness, unbiased processing, behavior, and relational more negatively to conflicts. Jensen-Campbell and Graziano
orientation. Awareness refers to the knowledge of and trust in one’s (2001) used a diary design to examine interpersonal conflicts
motives, feelings, wants, and self-relevant cognitions. Heightened among adolescents, and found that self-rated agreeableness was
awareness of one’s strengths and weaknesses, the salient and associated with higher levels of negative affect during conflicts,
latent aspects of one’s personality, as well as the reasons behind whereas teacher-rated agreeableness was negatively associated
one’s emotional experience, allow a person to maintain a multi- with negative affect during conflict. Similarly, individuals reporting
faceted, yet well-integrated self-structure. As such, individuals higher levels of neuroticism were assumed to be generally more
reporting higher levels of awareness may experience greater func- emotionally reactive, and thus more negatively impacted by con-
tional flexibility, allowing them to deal more effectively with flict. Consistent with this line of reasoning, Bolger and Zuckerman
stressful events. Unbiased processing refers to the ability to (1995) reported that participants reporting lower levels of neuroti-
acknowledge and incorporate self-evaluative information in a cism showed a weaker relationship between interpersonal conflict
non-defensive manner. A person high in unbiased processing is and daily depressive symptoms. Finally, Suls et al. (1998) used the
able to objectively evaluate his or her attributes, emotions, and diary design to examine the moderating effects of both traits, and
internal experiences, even when the conclusions have unflattering found that the relationship between interpersonal conflict and neg-
implications for the self. Furthermore, individuals who frequently ative affect was stronger (more positive) for participants reporting
engage in unbiased processing may be less reactive to discordant higher levels of agreeableness, but not neuroticism. In light of these
social interactions because the corresponding negative self- prior findings, the present work examined both neuroticism and
implications are readily acknowledged and accepted. Awareness agreeableness as covariates in order to provide a more powerful
and unbiased processing describe fundamental aspects of self- and precise test for the moderating effects of authenticity.
knowledge that are likely to play a key role in shaping a person’s
cognitive and affective responses to stressful social events, such 1.3. Authenticity, interpersonal conflict, and well-being
as interpersonal conflict.
The third component of the KGA model ‘‘reflects the behavioral Prior research has established a robust relationship between
output of the awareness and unbiased processing components” interpersonal conflict and psychological well-being (Bolger et al.,
(Kernis & Goldman, 2006, p. 288). A person behaves authentically 1989; Hahn, 2000; Lepore, 1992; Page & Wilhelm, 2007), and has
when his or her values or preferences are consistent with his or identified the Big-5 traits of agreeableness and neuroticism as
her overt actions, though this requires both self-knowledge and moderators of this association (Bolger & Zuckerman, 1995;
an environment supporting the normativity of one’s beliefs Jensen-Campbell & Graziano, 2001; Suls et al., 1998). However,
(Kernis, 2003). Finally, relational orientation refers to the extent we are aware of no prior work examining the role of trait authen-
to which one values openness and honesty in close relationships. ticity as a potential conflict buffer. As such, the present study used
A relationally oriented person wants to be perceived accurately an interval-contingent diary design to examine the extent to which
by close others, including both positive and negative self attri- the relationship between interpersonal conflict and subjective
butes. In contrast to awareness and unbiased processing, which well-being is moderated by psychological authenticity. Although
describe intrapsychic or introspective processes, behavior and rela- the KGA model (Kernis & Goldman, 2006) is comprised of four
tional orientation represent an external manifestation of authen- facets, the present study focused on the awareness and unbiased
ticity, and their expression is dependent on the development and processing components because they are most relevant to the
maintenance of self-knowledge via awareness and unbiased pro- self-esteem regulation process operating when an individual expe-
cessing (Kernis, 2003). riences discordant social interactions. Moreover, in light of the
prior work showing cross-level moderating effects for agreeable-
1.2. Interpersonal conflict, personality, and negative affect ness and neuroticism, these two personality factors were also
included as control variables in the analysis.
Interpersonal conflicts represent salient negative events that Individuals reporting higher levels of awareness were expected
threaten psychological well-being. In fact, interpersonal conflicts to exhibit a weaker relationship between conflict and psychologi-
are among the most pervasive and troubling form of daily stressor. cal well-being because they should be less likely to view the con-
Bolger et al. (1989) found that individuals’ conflicts with their flict incident as a threat to their global self-esteem. More
romantic partner, children, and assorted close-others (i.e., specifically, individuals experiencing greater awareness should be
relatives, coworkers, friends, etc.) were stronger contributors to more effective in putting the conflict into context by viewing it
58 R.E. Wickham et al. / Journal of Research in Personality 60 (2016) 56–62

for ‘‘what it is”, and little more. In contrast, individuals with lower 2.2.1.1. Kernis–Goldman Authenticity Inventory (KGAI). Participants
awareness may be more uncertain about their role and potential responded to the full 45-item Kernis–Goldman Authenticity Inven-
culpability in the conflict, increasing the likelihood that they will tory (Kernis & Goldman, 2006), though the present work focuses
ruminate on the event and internalize the corresponding distress. specifically on the awareness and unbiased processing subscales.
Moreover, we expected participants who report engaging in The KGAI-awareness subscale (12 items) measures the knowledge
greater unbiased processing to also be less negatively affected by of one’s internal states (i.e., motives, feelings, self-relevant
conflict because they are better equipped to evaluate the conflict thoughts) and confidence in the validity of one’s subjective experi-
in a non-defensive and objective manner. This is because individu- ence (‘‘For better or for worse I am aware of who I truly am”;
als who process incoming self-relevant feedback in an unbiased a = .77). The KGAI-unbiased processing dimension (10 items) mea-
manner are more adept at accepting both positive and negative sures the extent to which a person is able to process externally
self-aspects and incorporating them into their self-schema. based self-relevant information in a non-defensive manner (‘‘I find
Although, the global predictive utility of these Big 5 traits is it very difficult to critically assess myself” (reversed); a = .73). Par-
well-established, we believe that awareness and unbiased process- ticipants responded using a 5-point Likert scale (1 = ‘‘Strongly Dis-
ing should emerge as stronger predictors of a person’s response to agree”; 5 = ‘‘Strongly Agree”).
events that threaten self-esteem, such as conflict, because they
more directly address the social cognitive mechanisms at work fol- 2.2.1.2. Big Five Inventory (BFI). The BFI (John & Srivastava, 1999) is
lowing interpersonal conflicts. According to John and Srivastava a 44-item measure of the 5 major domains of personality. Partici-
(1999), agreeableness characterized by trustworthiness, straight- pants responded to the full measure, though the present work
forwardness, altruism, compliance, modesty, and tenderminded- focuses specifically on the agreeableness (9 items; ‘‘I see myself
ness, whereas neuroticism is described as anxiety, angry as someone who tends to find fault with others”; a = .79) and neu-
hostility, depression, self-consciousness, impulsiveness, and vul- roticism (8 items; ‘‘I see myself as someone who worries a lot”;
nerability. Although both traits share features with authenticity a = .87) facets. Participants responded using a 5-point Likert scale
(i.e., authentic individuals should report higher agreeableness (1 = ‘‘Disagree Strongly”; 5 = ‘‘Agree Strongly”).
and lower neuroticism), they are measured at a higher level of
abstraction, relative to these components of authenticity. Being 2.2.2. Daily diary questionnaire
more agreeable may lead an individual to want to please others, Participants completed the diary form each night prior to going
and possibly avoid conflict, or blame oneself for the occurrence to bed, regardless of whether a conflict occurred that day. Each
of conflict. Similarly, reporting higher levels of neuroticism may daily online record asked participants if they had experienced an
mean that a person is more easily upset during and after conflict. interpersonal conflict that day, with whom the conflict occurred,
However, endorsing these personality traits does not provide any and a number of items pertaining to their evaluation of the conflict.
information regarding how an individual interprets and evaluates Following the conflict description, participants responded to a
the implications of conflict for his/her sense of self-worth. There- number of items measuring aspects of subjective well-being,
fore, we expected awareness and unbiased processing to emerge including two items measuring self-esteem (e.g., ‘‘I am satisfied
as significant cross-level moderators of the relationship between with myself”; ‘‘I think I am no good at all”), as well as four items
conflict and daily psychological well-being, independent of neu- assessing life satisfaction (Diener et al., 1985; e.g. ‘‘I am satisfied
roticism and agreeableness. with my life”) using a 9-point Likert scale (1 = ‘‘Strongly Disagree”;
9 = ‘‘Strongly Agree”). Exploratory factor analysis on these 6 items
revealed a single common factor (first eigenvalue > 20, all
2. Method
others < 1), and reliability analyses suggested that these items
formed an internally consistent composite (a = .92).
2.1. Participants and procedure
2.3. Analysis strategy
Undergraduates were recruited from the subject pool at a large
southwestern university. Participants were recruited through
Prior research suggests that the negative effects of interpersonal
direct appeals to upper-level Psychology classes and mass emails
conflict often persist long after the initial event (Bolger et al.,
distributed via the online research management system. Interested
1989), therefore it is important to account for the temporal struc-
students attended a laboratory session in which they completed a
ture of the event level process (Wickham & Knee, 2013) by exam-
baseline packet of self-report measures and were briefed on the
ining both the concurrent and lagged association between the
diary procedures. Of the 86 participants who attended the baseline
interpersonal conflict (predictor) and daily well-being (outcome).
session, 6 failed to complete any of the diary responses, and 8 com-
The concurrent effect represents the association between the pre-
pleted fewer than 6 of the 14 diary entries and were excluded from
dictor and the outcome on that same day, whereas the lagged
further analysis. The remaining participants were predominantly
effect represents the unique association between the previous
female, so 4 male participants were excluded to increase the preci-
day’s predictor and current day’s outcome. The primary analysis
sion of the study’s generalizability. The final sample was comprised
is expressed in the following level 1 equation:
of 68 female undergraduate participants who completed an aver-
age of 12.92 diary entries (SD = 3.25), were relatively young Well-Being jt ¼ b0j þ b1j  Conflict jt þ b2  Conflictjt1 þ ejt ð1Þ
(Mage = 24.21 years, SDage = 7.61 years) and diverse, with 21%
Asian/Pacific Islander, 8% African American, 35% Caucasian, 24% In Eq. (1), the well-being (self-esteem, life satisfaction) for person j
Hispanic/Latino, 7% Middle Eastern, and 5% who marked ‘‘Other.” on day t is a function of regression intercept (b0j), the concurrent
effect of conflict (Conflictjt), the lagged effect of conflict (Conflictjt1),
and the person-day specific deviation (ejt). To complete the model
2.2. Materials
specification, each of the level 1 coefficients are expressed as an
outcome in a series of level 2 equations:
2.2.1. Baseline packet
This packet included basic demographic questions (e.g. age, sex, b0j ¼ c00 þ c01 Av g:Conflict j þ c02 KGAIAwarenessj þ c03 KGAIUnbiasedj
and ethnic/racial background), along with a number of self-report
measures.
þ c04 Agreeablenessj þ c05 Neuroticismj þu0j ð2Þ
 R.E. Wickham et al. / Journal of Research in Personality 60 (2016) 56–62 59

b1 ¼ c10 þ c11  KGAIAwarenessj þ c12  KGAIUnbiasedj related to both agreeableness (r = .43, r = .50, respectively) and
þ c13  Agreeablenessj þ c14  Neuroticismj ð3Þ neuroticism (r = .56, r = .53).

b2 ¼ c20 þ c21  KGAIAwarenessj þ c22  KGAIUnbiasedj 3.2. Primary analysis

þ c23  Agreeablenessj þ c24  Neuroticismj ð4Þ
For the primary analysis, concurrent (Conflictjt) and lagged (Con-
In Eq. (2), c00 is the grand mean of the well-being outcome across all flictjt1) conflict status were represented using an effect-coded vec-
persons and days, c01 is the coefficient linking the proportion of tor (1 = Conflict; 1 = No Conflict), and level 2 predictors were
diary responses with a conflict to a person’s average well-being. grand-mean centered. Parameter estimates for the primary analy-
c02 and c03 describe the relationship between a person’s baseline sis are provided in Table 2. Analyses revealed a significant first-
KGA subscale scores (KGA-Awarenessj and KGA-Unbiasedj, respec- order effect for both concurrent conflict (c10 = 0.103, 95%CI =
tively) and his or her average well-being across all days. Similarly, [0.181, 0.024]) and lagged conflict (c20 = 0.108, 95%CI =
c04 and c05 describe the relationship between a person’s baseline [0.185, 0.031]) predicting daily well-being. These coefficients
personality trait scores (Agreeablenessj and Neuroticismj, respec- emerged in the expected direction, suggesting that individuals
tively) and his or her average well-being across all days. Finally, report lower well-being on days in which interpersonal conflict
u0j represents residual person-specific deviations from the overall occurred, as well as the day following an interpersonal conflict.
grand mean of the outcome variable. Turning to Eqs. (3) and (4), No significant first-order effect emerged for KGAI-awareness
c10 and c20 represent the first-order effects of concurrent (Conflictjt) (c02 = 0.721, 95%CI = [0.102, 1.544]) or KGAI-unbiased processing
and lagged (Conflictjt1) conflict predicting daily well-being (respec- (c03 = 0.093, 95%CI = [0.661, 0.847]), suggesting that reporting
tively) variable, whereas c11 and c21 describe the cross-level inter- greater authenticity at baseline was not associated with higher
action effect of a person’s baseline KGAI-awareness and subscales levels of well-being across the diary period. However, there was
on the first-order effects of conflict. This same pattern of interaction a significant concurrent conflict  KGAI-awareness interaction
effects is reflected in c12 and c22, looking at KGAI-unbiased with (c11 = 0.254, 95%CI = [0.068, 0.441]) and concurrent conflict 
concurrent and lagged conflict, c13 and c23, looking at agreeableness KGAI-unbiased processing interaction (c12 = 0.185, 95%CI = [0.013,
with concurrent and lagged conflict, and c14 and c24, looking at neu- 0.357]). Neither the lagged conflict  KGAI-awareness interaction
roticism with concurrent and lagged conflict. Finally, a first-order (c21 = 0.044, 95%CI = [0.226, 0.139]) nor the lagged conflict 
auto-regressive covariance structure was specified among level 1 KGAI-unbiased processing interaction (c22 = 0.077, 95%CI =
residuals, and models were estimated in SAS PROC MIXED (SAS [0.249, 0.095]) reached significance. Turning to the Big-5 trait
Institute, 2013) using restricted maximum likelihood estimation. markers, a significant first-order effect emerged for neuroticism
(c05 = 0.625, 95%CI = [1.102, 0.148]), and a significant concur-
rent conflict  neuroticism interaction (c14 = 0.126, 95%CI = [0.015,
3. Results 0.238]) also emerged, suggesting that individuals reporting lower
levels of neuroticism were more negatively impacted by interper-
3.1. Descriptive statistics sonal conflict.
Proportional reduction in error estimates (PRE; Snjiders &
Table 1 contains descriptive statistics and correlations for all Bosker, 1999) were computed as measures of overall effect size.
study variables. Between-person correlations are listed in the Using the variance components from a null random intercept
upper triangle, with intra-class correlations provided along the model (s200 = 2.699; r2 = 0.723), the level 1 PRE was estimated as
diagonal, and the within-person correlation provided in the lower 1  (2.372/3.392) = 0.301, suggesting that the inclusion of the model
triangle. Conflict was represented using a dummy-code (1 = Con- predictors reduced the error in predicting of day-level well-being
flict; 0 = No Conflict) for the descriptive analysis, and the mean by approximately 30%. Similarly, the level 2 PRE was estimated as
conflict reporting across participants and time was .320, indicating
that on any given day, approximately 32% of participants reported
experiencing an interpersonal conflict. As expected, the authentic- Table 2
Parameter estimates for diary analysis predicting daily well-being from concurrent
ity dimensions (KGAI-awareness, KGAI-unbiased processing) were
and lagged conflict.
correlated with one another (r = .60, p < .001), and also moderately
Coefficient Est. Est./S.E. Sig.
c00 – Intercept 6.665 39.64 <.001
Table 1 c10 – Conflictjt (Concurrent) 0.103 2.57 .010
Within and between persons correlations among authenticity, Big-5 traits, daily c20 – Conflictjt1 (Lagged) 0.108 2.74 .006
conflict and well-being. c01 – Average Conflictj 0.037 0.01 .999
c02 – KGAI  Awarenessj 0.721 1.75 .085
Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 SDB
c03 – KGAI  Unbiasedj 0.093 0.25 .807
1. KGAI-awareness – .60** .43** .56** .17 .40** 0.55 c04 – Agreeablenessj 0.303 0.97 .335
2. KGAI-unbiased – .51** .53** .43** .37** 0.65 c05 – Neuroticismj 0.625 2.61 .011
3. Agreeableness – .52** .23y .34** 0.66 c11 – Conflictjt  KGAI  Awarenessj 0.254 2.68 .008
4. Neuroticism – .26** .50** 0.94 c12 – Conflictjt  KGAI  Unbiasedj 0.185 2.11 .035
5. Daily conflict .19 .30* 0.20 c13 – Conflictjt  Agreeablenessj 0.103 1.61 .109
6. Daily well-being .08** .81 1.71 c14 – Conflictjt  Neuroticismj 0.126 2.22 .027
M 3.93 3.31 4.02 2.93 0.32 6.63 c21 – Conflictjt1  KGAI  Awarenessj 0.044 0.47 .638
SDW – – – – 0.42 0.84 c22 – Conflictjt1  KGAI  Unbiasedj 0.077 0.88 .382
c23 – Conflictjt1  Agreeablenessj 0.094 1.46 .146
Note: Within-persons correlations below the diagonal, between-persons correla- c24 – Conflictjt1  Neuroticismj 0.069 1.23 .221
tions above the diagonal. Intra-class correlations printed along the diagonal.
s200 – Random Intercept Variance 1.693 5.20 <.001
SDW = Within-persons standard deviation; SDB = between-persons standard
q – Autoregressive Correlation 0.304 6.69 <.001
deviation.
y
r2 – Level 1 Residual Variance 0.679 15.23 <.001
p < .10.
*
p < .05. Note: Significant coefficients in bold font. KGAI refers to the Kernis–Goldman
**
p < .01. Authenticity Inventory subscale (Awareness or Unbiased Processing).
60 R.E. Wickham et al. / Journal of Research in Personality 60 (2016) 56–62

1  (1.745/2.723) = 0.359, indicating that the fitted model reduced conflict and well-being (c10-High Unbiased = 0.019, 95%CI = [0.129,
the error in predicting person-level well-being by approximately 0.167]). These simple slopes are illustrated in Fig. 1.
36%. Finally, post hoc power analyses were conducted using the pro- The pattern of simple slopes observed for neuroticism differed
cedure outlined by Mathieu, Aguinis, Culpepper, and Chen (2012), from prior studies (Bolger & Zuckerman, 1995; Suls et al., 1998),
and revealed that power to detect the concurrent conflict  KGAI with individuals reporting low levels of neuroticism exhibiting a
interactions was greater than .99. strong negative relationship between concurrent conflict and
well-being (c10-Low Neuroticism = 0.224, 95%CI = [0.351, 0.097]),
3.3. Simple-slope analysis and those reporting higher levels of neuroticism showing no
significant association between conflict and well-being
A significant concurrent conflict  KGAI interaction was (c10-High Neuroticism = 0.019, 95%CI = [0.120, 0.157]).
observed, suggesting that the relationship between interpersonal
conflict and psychological well-being on a given day depends on 4. Discussion
an individual’s level of trait authenticity (i.e., KGAI-awareness,
KGAI-unbiased processing) and neuroticism. Simple slope analyses The present study examined the role of psychological authen-
(Aiken & West, 1991) were conducted to better understand the ticity in buffering individuals from the negative consequences of
functional form of these interactions. For each version of the mod- interpersonal conflict. Drawing on the authenticity framework
erator variable, the conditional (simple) effect of daily conflict was described by Kernis and Goldman (2006), the awareness and unbi-
computed at low (1 SD) and high (+1 SD) levels of authenticity ased processing components of the KGA model were selected as
and neuroticism. Parameter estimates for simple slopes and inter- moderators of the relationship between conflict and daily well-
cepts are provided in Table 3. being. Results supported the prediction that individuals reporting
Consistent with our hypotheses, the effect of concurrent conflict higher levels of awareness or unbiased processing do not experi-
was non-significant among individuals reporting high (+1 SD) ence a decrease in general well-being following an interpersonal
levels of KGAI-awareness (c10-High Awareness = 0.037, 95%CI = conflict, whereas people reporting lower levels of these dimensions
[0.093, 0.167]), which suggests that interpersonal conflict is not of authenticity exhibited a strong, negative relationship between
associated with lower daily well-being for more authentic individ- daily conflict and well-being. More importantly, the moderating
uals. However, the simple effect of conflict was significant (nega- effects of unbiased processing and awareness operated indepen-
tive) for those reporting lower (1 SD) levels of KGAI-awareness dently of the previously established Big-5 trait markers agreeable-
(c10-Low Awareness = 0.243, 95%CI = [0.370, 0.115]), which is con- ness and neuroticism (Bolger & Zuckerman, 1995; Suls et al., 1998).
sistent with the idea that individuals experiencing lower levels of These results indicate the independent contribution of authenticity
authenticity are more sensitive to interpersonal disputes. A similar as a protective trait for the effect of interpersonal conflict on self-
pattern of simple slopes was observed using KGAI-unbiased pro- esteem and life satisfaction.
cessing as the moderator, with individuals reporting low levels of Prior work has linked higher levels of authenticity to greater
authenticity exhibiting a strong negative relationship between self-esteem stability and resiliency (Kernis, 2003), but the present
concurrent interpersonal conflict and well-being (c10-Low Unbiased = study is unique because it is the first to provide evidence that trait
0.225, 95%CI = [0.352, 0.098]), and those experiencing higher authenticity may protect individuals from the deleterious effects of
levels of unbiased processing showing no relationship between interpersonal conflict. According to the KGA model (Kernis &

Table 3
Unstandardized simple slopes.

KGAI-awareness KGAI-unbiased Neuroticism

Est. Est./S.E. Est. Est./S.E. Est. Est./S.E.
Low Mod. c00 – Intercept 6.268 21.79 **
6.603 23.28 **
7.264 24.85**
c10 – Conflictjt 0.243 3.72** 0.225 3.47** 0.224 3.45**
High Mod. c00 – Intercept 7.061 25.52** 6.726 21.24** 6.065 21.95**
c10 – Conflictjt 0.037 0.56 0.019 0.25 0.019 0.26

Note: Low and High Mod. refer to levels of the person-level moderators at ±1 SD relative to the mean.
**
p < .01.

Concurrent Conflict × KGAI-Awareness Concurrent Conflict × KGAI-Unbiased Processing

7.25

7
Daily Well-Being

6.75

6.5

6.25

5.75
No Conflict Conflict No Conflict Conflict
Low Awareness (-1 SD) High Awareness (+1 SD) Low Unbiased Proc. (-1 SD) High Unbiased Proc. (+1 SD)

Fig. 1. Simple slopes for concurrent conflict  KGAI interactions predicting daily well-being.
 R.E. Wickham et al. / Journal of Research in Personality 60 (2016) 56–62 61

Goldman, 2006), greater self-knowledge (awareness) and a disin- simultaneous moderators and were only able to replicate the con-
clination toward self-serving attributions (unbiased processing), flict  neuroticism at a marginal level of significance.2 Moreover,
reflect a sense of self that is less contingent on external events, Suls et al. (1998) argued that highly neurotic individuals may not
which may help these individuals to manage conflict, and the have a negative reaction to interpersonal conflict (and may in fact
corresponding ego-threat more productively (Kernis, 2003).1 welcome conflict), because disharmony and social strife are congru-
Indeed, these components of authenticity share many common fea- ent with their tendency to view themselves, others, and the world in
tures with the autonomous causality orientation described in the general in a negative light.
SDT literature (Deci & Ryan, 2000), which is associated with a The present study is limited by convenience sampling of under-
decreased reliance on self-serving biases (Knee & Zuckerman, graduate female university students. Although the student body at
1996), self-handicapping and defensive coping (Knee & Zuckerman, this institution is slightly older and more diverse than the typical
1998). These findings are also consistent with results from an undergraduate sample, future work should examine a broader
unpublished study described by Kernis and Goldman (2006), which age range to better examine if the protective aspects of authentic-
suggests that individuals exhibiting stable-high self-esteem were ity are specific to the types of conflicts experienced by emerging
more likely to interpret interpersonal threats as benign, whereas adults. However, it is worth noting that prior work investigating
individuals with less stable self-esteem were more likely to person- authenticity, as well as moderators of interpersonal conflict have
alize these events (Kernis & Goldman, 2006). identified no meaningful gender differences, and we see no clear
In addition to being less reactive to conflict, individuals report- theoretical reason to suspect that these processes would operate
ing higher levels of awareness or unbiased-processing tended to differently across male and female participants. The present work
report higher levels of well-being across all diary responses. These operationalized unbiased processing and awareness as stable
findings corroborate the wealth of literature on the positive effect of traits, but felt authenticity is also subject to state-level fluctuation
dispositional authenticity on daily life, including perceived psycho- in response to environmental factors (Heppner et al., 2008). Mea-
logical and subjective well-being (Goldman & Kernis, 2002; Kernis suring authenticity on a daily level (in addition to conflict and
& Goldman, 2006; Wood et al., 2008). These findings are also consis- well-being) would allow future research to more precisely disen-
tent with Fenigstein, Scheier, and Buss (1975) suggestion that indi- tangle these complex relationships. Future research also should
viduals with private self-conscious processes are more likely to attempt to measure the cognitive and affective responses to con-
reflect upon their own role related to negative events. It is possible flicts more precisely in an effort to better understand the specific
that individuals with higher levels of unbiased processing and mechanisms that make authentic individuals more resilient when
awareness were able to evaluate their contribution to daily conflict. experiencing stressful events.
The general association between interpersonal conflict and The present work contributes to the growing literature on
well-being is well established, however, prior work has empha- authenticity by demonstrating that being self-aware and engaging
sized affectively-oriented appraisals of subjective well-being by in unbiased processing (two aspects of authentic functioning) may
focusing on outcomes such as daily mood (Bolger et al., 1989; mitigate the distress associated with interpersonal conflict. The
Reis, Sheldon, Gable, Roscoe, & Ryan, 2000; Suls et al., 1998), anger results also further clarify the moderating role of Big-5 trait mark-
(Bolger & Zuckerman, 1995; Page & Wilhelm, 2007), depressive ers by demonstrating that the protective benefits provided by
symptoms (Bolger & Zuckerman, 1995), stress (Hahn, 2000), and authenticity are distinct from the previously established effects
psychological distress (Lepore, 1992). The current study is unique of agreeableness and neuroticism. The findings of the current study
because it demonstrates that individuals also exhibit declines in have broad implications for clinical, counseling, educational, and
cognitive appraisals of subjective well-being (i.e., self-esteem, life organizational psychology because awareness and unbiased pro-
satisfaction) on the day of a conflict (concurrently), as well as the cessing represent attainable states of being and learned abilities
following day (lagged). Even though the current paper focuses pri- that will develop naturally when individuals are provided with
marily on the protective effects of authenticity, the inclusion of environments that support their basic psychological needs (i.e.,
agreeableness and neuroticism in the analyses also provided an autonomy, competence, and relatedness; Deci & Ryan, 2000;
opportunity to replicate and extend prior work. Specifically, the Kernis, 2000). Therapists, educators and managers are in a unique
concurrent conflict  agreeableness interaction (p = .109) emerged position to foster authentic functioning by adapting treatment pro-
in the same direction that was reported by Suls et al. (1998), who tocols, educational practices, and organizational policies that sup-
found that more agreeable individuals reported greater negative port these basic needs.
affect following interpersonal conflicts. Additionally, the negative
first-order effects of neuroticism predicting well-being were con- References
sistent with the findings reported by Bolger and Zuckerman
(1995), who showed that more neurotic individuals reported Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting
interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
greater anger and depression across all diary responses (regardless Bolger, N., DeLongis, A., Kessler, R., & Schilling, E. (1989). Effects of daily stress on
of conflict). However, the significant concurrent conflict  neuroti- negative mood. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 808–818.
cism interaction emerged in the opposite direction, suggesting that Bolger, N., & Zuckerman, A. (1995). A framework for studying personality in the
stress process. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 69, 8900–8902.
more neurotic individuals reported virtually no decrease in well- Brunell, A., Kernis, M., Goldman, B., Heppner, W., Davis, P., Vascio, E., & Webster, G.
being following conflict, which is the opposite of what Bolger (2010). Dispositional authenticity and romantic relationship functioning.
and Zuckerman (1995) reported. It is important to note that Suls Personality and Individual Differences, 48, 900–905.
Deci, E., & Ryan, R. (2000). The ‘‘what” and ‘‘why” of goal pursuits: Human needs
et al. (1998) also examined agreeableness and neuroticism as and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227–268.
Diener, E., Emmons, R., Larsen, R., & Griffin, S. (1985). The satisfaction with life scale.
1
Journal of Personality Assessment, 49, 71–75.
At first glance, the KGA dimension of relational orientation may appear to be
relevant to a person’s response to interpersonal conflict. However, relational
2
orientation reflects a preference for openness and honesty in close relationships, or The unexpected results could also reflect a very nuanced suppression effect.
a generalized desire to be ‘‘real” in one’s social interactions, which may lead an Follow-up sensitivity analysis suggests that the concurrent conflict  neuroticism
individual to construe a conflicts in a number different ways. Additionally, ancillary interaction coefficient emerges as significant and positive when agreeableness,
analyses found no significant main effect (p = .08) or interactions (ps > .21) for awareness, and unbiased processing (and their corresponding interactions) are also
relational orientation, and the significance of the main-effects and interactions for included simultaneously. For all other model configurations, the direction of
awareness and unbiased processing were unaffected by the inclusion of relational concurrent conflict  neuroticism is consistent with prior research (Bolger &
orientation. Zuckerman, 1995; Suls et al., 1998), albeit non-significant.
62 R.E. Wickham et al. / Journal of Research in Personality 60 (2016) 56–62

Fenigstein, A., Scheier, M. F., & Buss, A. H. (1975). Public and private self- Maslow, A. H. (1968). Toward a psychology of being (2nd ed.). New York: D. Van
consciousness: Assessment and theory. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Nostrand.
Psychology, 43(4), 522–527. Mathieu, J., Aguinis, H., Culpepper, S., & Chen, G. (2012). Understanding and
Goldman, B., & Kernis, M. (2002). The role of authenticity in healthy psychological estimating the power to detect cross-level interaction effects in multilevel
functioning and subjective well-being. Annals of the American Psychotherapy modeling. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97, 951–966.
Association, 5(6), 18–20. Page, M., & Wilhelm, M. (2007). Postpartum daily stress, relationship quality, and
Hahn, S. (2000). The effects of locus of control on daily exposure, coping and depressive symptoms. Contemporary Family Therapy, 29, 237–251.
reactivity to work interpersonal stressors: A diary study. Personality and Reis, H., Sheldon, K., Gable, S., Roscoe, J., & Ryan, R. (2000). Daily well-being: The
Individual Differences, 29, 729–748. role of autonomy, competence, and relatedness. Personality and Social
Harter, S. (2002). Authenticity. In C. R. Snyder & S. Lopez (Eds.), Handbook of positive Psychology Bulletin, 26, 419–435.
psychology (pp. 382–394). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Rogers, C. (1961). On becoming a person: A therapist’s view of psychotherapy. Boston:
Heppner, W., Kernis, M., Nezlek, J., Foster, J., Lakey, C., & Goldman, B. (2008). Within- Houghton Mifflin.
person relationships among daily self-esteem, need satisfaction, and Ryan, R., LaGuardia, J., & Rawsthorne, L. (2005). Self-complexity and the authenticity
authenticity. Psychological Science, 19, 1140–1145. of self-aspects: Effects on well-being and resilience to stressful events. North
Hodgins, H., & Knee, C. (2002). The integrating self and conscious experience. In E. American Journal of Psychology, 7, 431–448.
Deci & R. Ryan (Eds.), Handbook of self-determination research (pp. 87–100). SAS Institute (2013). SAS documentation, version 9.4. Cary, NC: SAS Publications.
Rochester, NY: University of Rochester Press. Sheldon, K., Ryan, R., Rawsthorne, L., & Ilardi, B. (1997). Trait self and true self:
Jensen-Campbell, L., & Graziano, W. (2001). Agreeableness as a moderator of Cross-role variation in the big-five personality traits and its relations with
interpersonal conflict. Journal of Personality, 69, 323–362. psychological authenticity and subjective well-being. Journal of Personality and
John, O., & Srivastava, S. (1999). The Big-Five trait taxonomy: History, measurement, Social Psychology, 73, 1380–1393.
and theoretical perspectives. In L. Pervin & O. John (Eds.), Handbook of Snjiders, T., & Bosker, R. (1999). Multilevel analysis: An introduction into basic and
personality: Theory and research (2nd ed., Vol. 38, pp. 102–138). New York, advanced multilevel modeling. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
NY: Guilford Press. Suls, J., Martin, R., & David, J. P. (1998). Person-environment fit and its limits:
Kernis, M. (2000). Substitute needs and the distinction between fragile and secure Agreeableness, neuroticism, and emotional reactivity to interpersonal conflict.
high self-esteem. Psychological Inquiry, 11, 290–300. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24, 88–98.
Kernis, M. (2003). Toward a conceptualization of optimal self-esteem. Psychological Wickham, R. E. (2013). Authenticity in romantic partners. Journal of Experimental
Inquiry, 14, 1–26. Social Psychology, 49, 878–887.
Kernis, M., & Goldman, B. (2006). A multicomponent conceptualization of Wickham, R. E., & Knee, C. R. (2013). Examining temporal processes in diary studies.
authenticity: Theory and research. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.). Advances in Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 39, 1184–1198.
experimental social psychology (Vol. 38, pp. 284–357). New York, NY: Wickham, R. E., Reed, D. R., & Williamson, R. E. (2015). Establishing the
Academic Press. psychometric properties of the self and perceived-partner Authenticity in
Knee, C., & Zuckerman, M. (1996). Causality orientations and the disappearance of Relationships Scale-Short Form (AIRS-SF): Measurement invariance, reliability,
the self-serving bias. Journal of Research in Personality, 30, 76–87. and incremental validity. Personality and Individual Differences, 77, 62–67.
Knee, C., & Zuckerman, M. (1998). A non-defensive personality: Autonomy and Wood, A. M., Linley, P. A., Maltby, J., Baliousis, M., & Joseph, S. (2008). The authentic
control as moderators of defensive coping and self-handicapping. Journal of personality: A theoretical and empirical conceptualization and the
Research in Personality, 65, 115–130. development of the Authenticity Scale. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 55(3),
Lepore, S. (1992). Social conflict, social support, and psychological distress: 385.
Evidence of cross-domain buffering effects. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 63, 857–867.