Journal of Research in Personality 92 (2021) 104086

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Research in Personality

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

Realness is a core feature of authenticity

Christopher J. Hopwood a,⇑, Evan W. Good b, Alytia A. Levendosky b, Johannes Zimmermann c,
Daniela Dumat c, Eli J. Finkel d, Paul E. Eastwick e, Wiebke Bleidorn e
a
University of California, Davis, USA
b
Michigan State University, USA
c
University of Kassel, USA
d
Northwestern University, USA
e
University of California, Davis, USA

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

Article history: We established realness as the relatively stable tendency to act on the outside the way one feels on the
Received 4 February 2021 inside, without regard for proximal personal or social consequences. In nine studies, we showed that real-
Revised 5 March 2021 ness is a) a core feature of individual differences in authenticity, b) generally adaptive but largely unre-
Accepted 7 March 2021
lated to agreeableness, c) highly stable, d) reliably observable in dyadic behavior, and e) predictive of
Available online 13 March 2021
responses to situations with potential for personal or social costs. Informants both perceive agreeable
motives in real behavior and recognize that being real can be disagreeable. We concluded that realness
Keywords:
represents an important individual difference construct that is foundational for authentic social behavior,
Authenticity
Transparency
and that being real comes with both costs and benefits.
Realness Ó 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc. This is an open access article under the CC BY license
Congruence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Personality

1. Introduction such people, expressing themselves directly seems to trump other

concerns. These kinds of people are real, even in moments with
There are times in life when it is difficult to know whether or potential personal and social costs.
not to reveal your true thoughts, feelings, and desires. For instance, We use the term realness to mean behaving on the outside the
what do you do when you are annoyed by a friend who is being way one feels on the inside, without regard for proximal personal
rude to restaurant staff? Or, what do you do when a new romantic or social consequences. We situate realness within the broader
partner is publicly affectionate in a way that makes you feel concept of authenticity. However, whereas we understand authen-
uncomfortable? How do you handle a situation in which someone ticity as a dynamic, multidimensional process, we conceptualize
you know is clearly upset by something, but seems reticent to tell realness as a more specific, core feature of that process that is
you what the problem is? What if you like someone but are too revealed only in certain social conditions. Specifically, we under-
nervous to say so, and find yourself instead expressing your liking stand realness as important for authenticity because it reflects
by teasing them, and giving the wrong impression? Being explicit stable individual differences in the tendency to be authentic when
in these situations comes with risks for yourself and others. It situations apply pressure to do otherwise. This pattern of behavior
can make situations uncomfortable or awkward, or convey the and its potential downsides was a major emphasis of classical
wrong impression. This can, in turn, have negative long-term models of authenticity that is mostly missing in contemporary
effects. On the other hand, it can feel fake to hide the way you think empirical research and assessment tools. In particular, realness
or feel, and this can also come with both short- and long-term has been hidden by a strong positive valence in authenticity ques-
costs. Most people can readily identify friends who would almost tionnaires and efforts to include other features that may support
certainly confront a rude friend, establish boundaries about public authentic behavior, such as inner values, self-awareness, or various
affection with a new date, ask someone what is bothering them, or styles of external expression.
express genuine liking in situations like those described above. For In the introduction that follows we describe how realness has
been described in classical theories of personality, with particular
attention to distinguishing realness from the broader and more
⇑ Corresponding author at: University of California, Davis, 1 Shields Ave, Davis, CA complex construct of authenticity. We then review empirical work
95616, USA. on authenticity, to highlight how realness has become obscured by
E-mail address: [email protected] (C.J. Hopwood).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2021.104086
0092-6566/Ó 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc.
This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
C.J. Hopwood, E.W. Good, A.A. Levendosky et al. Journal of Research in Personality 92 (2021) 104086

methodological and conceptual issues in contemporary research. how self-actualized realness may not be particularly popular, even
We then present a series of nine studies in which we generate a if the self-actualized person is working towards social causes larger
measure of realness by uncovering the core and common behav- than themselves (the upshot of his perspective, though, is that the
ioral dimension within existing authenticity measures, removing self-actualizing person will not care all that much). May (1953, p.
the positive valence from that dimension, and examining how it 193) asserted that ‘‘people lack courage (to be their authentic
relates to a variety of theoretically relevant variables. We conclude selves) because of fear of being isolated. . .. laughed at, ridiculed,
based on the results of these nine studies that realness represents or rejected” and held up Socrates and Spinoza, two philosophers
an important individual difference construct that is foundational celebrated for rejecting social norms at tremendous personal costs
for authentic social behavior, and that being real comes with both in order to achieve authentic expression, as prototypes.
costs and benefits. Indeed, many famous martyrs for noble causes suffered greatly
from being real. Martin Luther King, Jr. was murdered by a reac-
1.1. Realness in personality theory tionary and Galileo was subjected to an undignified funeral as a
consequence of their efforts to hasten human progress by speaking
A review of classical theories of realness and related concepts in truth to power. Sojourner Truth and Thomas Paine advanced their
the personality literature reveals certain trends and consistencies causes with unusual risk and valor and at tremendous personal
regarding its nature and consequences. cost. The #MeToo Movement or American athletes who kneel dur-
ing the U.S. national anthem provide more contemporary examples
1.2. Realness is healthy that are surely complemented by less public instances that the
reader could easily call to mind. Of course, there are also many
Realness has been regarded as a principal outcome of healthy converse examples, in which people with antisocial motives
development and/or effective psychotherapy, a point that has been caused harm by being real.
especially stressed by clinically oriented theorists. Jung (1939) In contrast, there may also be advantages to certain forms of
described a true self that lies beneath defensive personas and that inauthentic behavior. Deceit has been taken for granted and even
is capable of growth and contact with meaningful symbolism. extolled as a political mechanism (Machiavelli, 1513/1916; von
Winnicott (1958) distinguished the true vs. false self in personality, Rochau, 1853). A particularly nefarious version of deceit has to
the former being whole and unified whereas and the latter at risk do with seeming to be real to one’s political base, in a way that
of splitting, dissociation, and incoherence. Horney (1951) asserted is offensive or divisive to society in general. For instance, populist
that the real self is ‘‘the alive, unique, personal center of ourselves, leaders have summoned racist or classist instincts among citizens
the only part that can and wants to grow” (p. 155) but warned that as a tactic to engender support, with the implication that they
‘‘under stress, the person will become alienated from his real self ‘‘ are simply being honest rather than politically correct. To be clear,
(p. 13) whereas ‘‘if nourished, the real self surges toward self- we do not know if such individuals were being real (whether they
realization” (p. 17). Early existentialists held this pattern of behav- were personally racist or classist) or whether they were using a
ior up as among the highest touchstones of moral achievement politically advantageous strategy, just as we cannot know if people
(Boss, 1963; Heidegger, 1927; Kierkegaard, 1849), with outcomes who are being agreeable are being real when it is to their advan-
that not only reflect personal health and well-being, but which also tage. But in many cases, there is reason to suspect that the strategy
have positive effects for relationships and society. These perspec- was more important in such people than an honest expression of
tives highlight that realness has generally been considered, by the- their inner values (we leave room for the likelihood that some
orists of various persuasions, as an outcome of psychological world leaders have simply been really bad people). Humor, which
maturation, health, and adjustment. is often literally or at least concretely inauthentic (e.g., in sarcasm
and irony a person says things they do not mean) is generally asso-
1.3. Realness has downsides ciated with positive outcomes (Kuiper, Martin, & Olinger, 1993),
particularly when it is good natured (Barnett & Deutsch, 2016;
Theorists have also consistently stressed the balance between Leist & Müller, 2013). Lerner (1993) suggested that it may be adap-
the upsides and downsides of authentic behavior (see Jongman- tive for women trying to cope with sexism to avoid realness, at
Sereno & Leary, 2019). There is a reason people often censor what least in certain contexts, because asserting one’s views directly
they say or how they behave; unmitigated realness can hurt or can have disparately negative attributions for women relative to
embarrass other people or the self. In personal relationships, social men. These examples augur a second commonality in classical the-
tact often involves holding back, whereas people often regret hav- ories of realness: it may have both good and bad consequences for
ing revealed how they truly feel during moments of emotional dys- the individual and society. In particular, in some cases realness can
regulation. At a social level, being real in the political sphere can come across as disagreeable or impolite, disrupt social harmony,
garner support from a politician’s base but sow divisions at the and alienate the person who has been real, even if a person has
national level (Rosenblum, Schroeder, & Gino, 2019). good intentions. Conversely, if a person truly has unseemly
The personal downsides of benevolent realness have received thoughts and feelings, expressing those thoughts and feelings, or
significant theoretical attention. For Kierkegaard (1844), being being real, can cause harm to self and others, particularly to the
authentic inevitably conflicts with being a reliable member of degree that such individuals are politically powerful.
social institutions. It is lonely, alienating, and produces feelings
of dread. Rogers (1961) put a fine point on this aspect of authentic- 1.4. Being real is a core aspect of the broader concept of authenticity
ity by emphasizing that it requires lessening the influences of
‘‘oughts”, expectations, and needs to please others. He urged peo- The third thread in this tapestry is more complicated still. What
ple in the direction of autonomy despite various pressures to fit are the processes and components that give rise to behavioral real-
in. Maslow (1968), who thought of authenticity as the cardinal ness, and how do they fit together? From an existential perspec-
behavioral indicator of self-actualization and viewed the authentic tive, the essence of personal development involves escaping the
person as ‘‘complete and final in some sense” (p. 123), asserted that nihilism that comes with recognizing that there is no objective
‘‘he” (sic.) must ‘‘transcend his culture” (p. 16) and generally purpose to life, and creating a subjective meaning to which per-
underscored that risks of self-actualization include social ostracism sonal energy, values, and behaviors can be attached (Sartre,
and being seen as proud, arrogant, or indifferent. He also warned 1946). Fundamental to this essence is the use of one’s inner life
2
C.J. Hopwood, E.W. Good, A.A. Levendosky et al. Journal of Research in Personality 92 (2021) 104086

to guide external behavior. Rogers famously described this con- tenable model of authenticity that is faithful to classical theories of
struct – which he variously referred to as genuineness, congruence, authenticity.
authenticity, and realness – as both a principal outcome of effec-
tive therapy (Rogers, 1961, p. 165) and one of the three necessary 1.5. Summary
and sufficient characteristics of effective psychotherapists (Rogers,
1957). He asserted that realness occurs when ‘‘the feelings the per- Based on our literature review, we define being real as behaving
son is experiencing are available to him (sic.), available to his on the outside the way one feels on the inside, without regard for per-
awareness, and he is able to live these feelings, be them, and is able sonal or social consequences. It is distinguishable from other fea-
to communicate them” (Rogers, 1961p. 61). From his perspective, tures of authenticity and other personality variables by several
being real allows a person to accept whatever comes their way properties.
and act in a way that is adaptive, because ‘‘he” has ‘‘trusted his gut”
and acted upon his inner experience in a specifically specified class  First, authenticity is a complex construct with internal/psy-
of situations. chological and external/behavioral dimensions (Fig. 1). Inter-
The view that realness has essentially to do with acting on the nal aspects include psychological functions that support
outside the way one feels on the inside is common (c.f., ‘‘genuine- authentic behavior, such as self-awareness, accuracy of social
ness” in Ryan & Ryan, 2019) but it has typically been wrapped in perception, and capacity for reflection. External behavior
the trappings of a more complicated, dynamic, multifaceted includes all of the verbal and non-verbal expressions that
process, under the rubric of authenticity. For instance, the central communicate variation in authenticity to others in social sit-
distinction of Deci and Ryan’s (1985; 2000) highly generative uations. Realness is the connection between these internal
Self-Determination Theory (SDT) is between authentic and exter- and external dimensions. When people act the way they think
nal motivations for behavior. In the SDT model, authentic motiva- and feel (whether those internal states are positive or nega-
tions are intrinsic and self-authored goals organized to achieve a tive, conflictual or straightforward, socially acceptable or
sense of competence, relatedness, and autonomy. Authentic not), they are being real.
motives are at perpetual risk of stultification by external, environ-  Second, realness is a product of psychological maturation, and
mental motives; seemingly benign or even positive reinforcers like thus should be positively associated with indicators of well-
verbal praise, financial compensation, or public reward can dull being, mental health, and mutually satisfying relationships. This
inner motives for authentic living (Deci, Koestner, & Ryan, 1999). is particularly the case among people who have relatively devel-
Kernis and Goldman (2006) understand the disposition to be oped internal functions as depicted in Fig. 1.
authentic as involving four components that are measured using  Third, however, realness may involve violating social norms,
separate scales on their questionnaire: being aware of one’s inner and thus it can come with both upsides and downsides for self
states, processing those states in a way that is relatively free from and others. In particular, realness reflects prioritizing being
bias, expressing those states in behavior, and being particularly genuine over social harmony, and thus should not be posi-
motivated to be genuine in close relationships. Wood et al. tively associated with traits related to the personality domain
(2008) conceptualize authenticity as a process of a) an inner expe- agreeableness. On the other hand, one can also be fake by act-
rience of self, b) accurate awareness of that inner experience, and ing less agreeably than they actually feel, and many people
c) expression of that inner experience. Their questionnaire contains appreciate realness in others. For these reasons, we would
three corresponding scales: self-alienation, authentic living, and not expect realness to be negatively associated with agreeable-
accepting external influences. The idea is that self-alienation pre- ness, either.
vents accurate awareness, and that either variation in the motive  Fourth, to the degree that realness can be used to describe peo-
to be authentic (authentic living) or susceptibility to other motives ple, in general, realness scores should be relatively stable over
(external influences) can interfere with authentic expression. time, albeit subject to the influence of situational and develop-
Sheldon, Davidson, and Pollard (2004) apprehend authenticity as mental factors (similar to personality traits; see Bleidorn &
a character trait that describes people who are true to themselves Schwaba, 2017).
and accurately represent their internal states (feelings), intentions  Fifth, given that it manifests in social contexts (Chen, 2019),
(thoughts), and commitments (behaviors). Although there is varia- realness should be observable by others, meaning that other
tion in these sub-scale structures, they have in common a distinc- people should be able to reliably rank people they know in
tion between internal (i.e., awareness) and external (i.e., behavior) terms of their tendency to be real.
domains of authenticity (Knoll, Meyer, Kroemer, & Schröder-Abé,
2015).
Overall, these models share the assumption that authentic
behavior is the result of a dynamic, multicomponent process.
Moreover, even though they may not have common views about
what those components are or their relative importance, they all
emphasize the connection between inner and outer states. In other
words, these models disagree about which specific internal and
external features are contained within the authenticity construct,
whereas they agree that the connection between these features
is critical. We concluded from this literature that authenticity, as
a complicated, multi-component, temporal, and highly contextual-
ized process, is unlikely to be captured in cross-sectional question-
naire data. However, the connection between the way people feel
on the inside and how they behave on the outside, independent
of the internal or external components themselves, represents a
core aspect of authenticity. The premise of this paper is that isolat-
ing this aspect would be a valuable step toward a more empirically Fig. 1. Realness as the Core of Authenticity.

3
C.J. Hopwood, E.W. Good, A.A. Levendosky et al. Journal of Research in Personality 92 (2021) 104086

 Sixth, individual differences in realness should predict behavior personality and interaction styles in terms of both dynamic
in situations when there are plausible negative consequences processes and distinctions between awareness and behavior.
for being real, because realness is not simply being disagreeable To be clear, we largely accept the thesis that different psycho-
and simply upsetting people, nor is it being honest when it is to logical components likely interact with one another in a variety
one’s advantage, it is a pattern of behavior that proves itself by of complicated ways that ultimately give rise to what is regarded
being, at times, socially disadvantageous. as authentic patterns of behavior. However, our position is that
the research literature may have gotten ahead of itself by trying
to capture this entire process with multidimensional question-
1.6. Realness within empirical research on authenticity naires, typically implemented in cross-sectional designs. We con-
cluded that it would be better to build up from robust, unitary
Given its theoretical importance for social behavior, it is not and foundational concepts to more complex, temporally nuanced
surprising that there has been both longstanding interest in models. This would enable a foundational literature on the basic
authenticity among personality and social psychologists and a parameters of this essentially authentic tendency. Moreover,
recent swell of research on the subject (Kovács, 2019; Hicks establishing the structure of different elements of authenticity
et al., 2019; Hutchinson, 1995). We review that work in this sec- realness should support eventual work designed to unpack how
tion in terms of the properties summarized above, to examine these elements unfold within dynamic and highly contextualized
the degree to which realness as we conceptualize it is represented social processes. As such, we focus on realness as the core dimen-
therein. sion of authenticity. While we accept the general notion that
Existing authenticity measures can be categorized into two authenticity involves other constructs, we do not have a position
types: those that measure a general disposition to be authentic about the degree to which existing models accurately capture the
(Kernis & Goldman, 2006; Knoll et al., 2015; Wood et al., 2008) constructs involved. Instead, we focus on isolating realness as a
and those that measure the tendency to be authentic in particular core and essential feature of authentic behavior.
roles or relationships (Brunell et al., 2010; Fleeson & Wilt, 2010;
Gelso, 2002; Sheldon, Ryan, Rawsthorne, & Ilardi; 1997). When Hypothesis 1. Realness content will be present in existing authenticity
these measures have multiple dimensions, their scales generally measures
distinguish between more internal and more external features of
the construct, as reflected in Fig. 1. As discussed above, these com- Given that we see realness as a core distinguishing feature of
ponents are thought to interact in a dynamic, temporal process. authenticity, we should expect to find realness item content within
Although models differ with regard to specifics, the general idea existing authenticity measures, albeit perhaps obscured and in
is that the person becomes aware of some inner goal, sense, or need of adaptation to clearly demarcate the tendency to act on
experience then acts upon that awareness in a manner that is more the outside the way one feels on the inside, without regard for per-
or less true to the inner goal, sense or experience. sonal or social consequences.
We have two concerns about using these kinds of tools to
approximate this sort of process. First, we question the centrality Hypothesis 2. Indicators exclusively focused on realness will form a
of internal and external features, in isolation, to the concept of unidimensional trait
authenticity. Internal features, such as having some level of aware-
ness of internal states, being able to accurately perceive external 1.7. Correlates of authenticity
contexts, reflection, and self-regulation undergird a wide variety Although realness should be reflected in thoughts, feelings,
of adaptive psychological functions. One of these functions may desires/goals, and behaviors, this core should cohere as a single,
be a tendency toward authentic behavior, but authenticity is nei- homogeneous construct. Realness can manifest through the con-
ther a unique nor a necessary outcome of these healthy internal gruence between inner emotions and outer affects, the trans-
processes. For instance, we would expect relationship success, parency of one’s motives, the sharing of perceptions and
well-being, and lower risk for psychopathology to also follow from attributions, or directly through behavior as perceived by others.
these capacities. Although external behavior is a critical indicator It is thus important that a robust model of realness include content
of authenticity, it also is not sufficient without reference to internal related to each of these psychological functions. That being said,
states. We thus focus on the connection between inner states and distinguishing these functions as separate factors was not our goal.
outer behavior, as discussed above. Rather, our focus was on what they have in common.
Second, we are skeptical that it is possible to decompose a com-
plex dynamic within-person process using measures that assess Hypothesis 3. Realness should generally correlate with measures of
relatively stable attributes designed to make between-person dis- well-being and adaptive functioning.
tinctions at one point in time. It is perhaps telling that, in contrast
to the multidimensional questionnaires that are typical in cross- Authenticity measures have a broad array of adaptive correlates
sectional authenticity research, studies focused on the experience (Hicks et al., 2019), including healthy personality traits such as
of authenticity in particular moments (e.g., Fleeson & Wilt, 2010; high extraversion, openness, agreeableness, and conscientiousness,
Lenton, Bruder, Slabu, & Sedikides, 2012; Sheldon, Gunz, & low neuroticism (Fleeson & Wilt, 2010; Grégoire, Baron, Ménard, &
Schachtman, 2012) or observations of others’ authenticity Lachance, 2014; Pinto et al., 2012; Sheldon et al., 1997; Wood et al.,
(Gershon & Smith, 2019; Rosenblum et al., 2020) tend to gauge 2008), well-being/self-esteem (Davis, Hicks, Schlegel, Smith &
authentic experience as a single construct that implicitly amalga- Vess, 2015; Grandey, Foo, Groth, & Goodwin, 2012; Heppner
mates inner goals, senses, experiences, awareness, and behavior. et al., 2008; Kifer, Heller, Perunovic, & Galinsky, 2013; Knoll
That is, whereas research that does not attempt to capture tempo- et al., 2015; Lenton et al., 2012; 2016; Ménard & Brunet, 2011;
ral processes makes distinctions about internal and external Rivera et al., 2019; Sheldon et al., 1997; Thomaes et al., 2017;
aspects of authenticity that are presumed to dynamically interact, Wood et al., 2008), enhanced metacognition (Chiaburu, Cho, &
research that endeavors to study authenticity as a function of Gardner, 2015), greater autonomy (Hodgins & Knee, 2002), and
situational context tends to collapse different components. Thus, reduced stress/distress (Goldman & Kernis, 2002; Grégoire et al.,
neither cross-sectional nor temporally sensitive research has fully 2014; Kernis & Goldman, 2006; Satici & Kayis, 2013; Sheldon
accounted for the processes theorized to account for authentic et al., 1997; Theran, 2011; Wood et al., 2008). Others are more
4
C.J. Hopwood, E.W. Good, A.A. Levendosky et al. Journal of Research in Personality 92 (2021) 104086

interpersonal, such as being liked (Hodgins, Koestner, & Duncan, others’ authenticity as warm or agreeable. Indeed, based on past
1996), receiving social support (Harter et al., 1996; Ryan & Solky, research using informant-report methods, we would expect obser-
1996), attachment security (Gillath et al., 2010; Gouveia, Schulz, vers to prefer their friends to be real rather than artificially polite
& Costa, 2016), developmental experiences with caregivers or superficially agreeable (e.g., Kovács, 2019; Liu & Perrewe, 2006).
(Lynch & Sheldon, 2017; Robinson, Lopez, & Ramos, 2014; Theran
& Han, 2013), honesty (Maltby et al., 2012), and healthy romantic
Hypothesis 5. Individual differences in realness should be rank-order
relationships (Brunell et al., 2010).
and mean-level stable across time at levels similar to personality
Research also suggests positive consequences over the longer
traits.
term. From the perspective of SDT, authentic behaviors help to sat-
isfy one’s basic needs (Deci & Ryan, 1985; Ryan & Deci, 2000).
1.9. Observability
Work by Sheldon and colleagues verifies that working towards
Research suggests that authenticity measures achieve rank-
more authentic goals is associated with well-being and goal attain-
order and mean-level stabilities that are in the range of what
ment (Sheldon & Elliot, 1999; Sheldon & Houser-Marko, 2001;
would be expected of individual difference constructs such as per-
Sheldon et al., 1997), and a study by White and Tracey (2011) sug-
sonality traits (Boyraz, Waits, & Felix, 2014; Reinecke & Trepte,
gests that authenticity is related to confidence in career choices.
2014; Zhang, Zhou, Dik, & You, 2019). There is also evidence that
Psychotherapy research connects patient ratings of their sense that
people are more authentic in certain kinds of relationships
the therapist is being genuine with treatment outcomes (Eugster &
(Robinson et al., 2018) and situations (Fleeson & Wilt, 2010;
Wampold, 1996; Gelso, 2009; Marmarosh et al., 2009) perhaps in
Lenton, Bruder, Slabu, & Sedikides, 2012; Sheldon, Gunz, &
part because therapist self-disclosure helps clients see their thera-
Schachtman, 2012) and that it increases with effective psychother-
pists as more human (Knox et al., 1997). Overall, existing research
apy (Bayliss-Conway et al., 2020). Sheldon et al. (1997) found that
leaves little doubt that authenticity is a net positive characteristic
the consistency of traits across different social roles and the degree
for well-being, social functioning, and adaptation. Given this pat-
of authenticity in these roles independently predicted overall well-
tern of authenticity correlates, the fact that we hypothesize that
being, suggesting that consistency in authentic behavior across
realness is a core feature of authenticity, and theoretical work
situations may, itself, indicate an important characteristic of
positing realness as an outcome of healthy development, we
authenticity. Indeed, some authors have operationalized authen-
expect realness to be generally adaptive as well.
ticity in terms of consistency across situations (Sutton, 2018).
This pattern of sensitivity to situational factors that is similar
Hypothesis 4. Realness should not be related to agreeableness traits.
across individuals also accord with findings about personality
traits (Fleeson, 2001). The overall pattern fits with the model
1.8. Stability
shown in Fig. 1: realness, like other aspects of authenticity and per-
That being said, it is also intuitive that most people think that it
sonality traits more generally (Bleidorn et al., 2020), is a stable
is better to be authentic than otherwise, and empirical correlates of
individual difference that is also responsive to situational and con-
various authenticity measures bear this out (Sedikides &
textual factors. We thus expected individual differences in realness
Skowronski, 1997). Who would want to be seen, or to see them-
to be relatively stable across time, in terms of both rankings
selves, as inauthentic (Jongman-Sereno & Leary, 2016; Lenton
between people (r > 0.50) and absolute group changes (approach-
et al., 2012; 2013)? Cross-cultural research suggests that authen-
ing 0) in the absence of external pressures.
ticity is a relatively universal value (Slabu, Lenton, Sedikides, &
Bruder, 2014). Like many positively-valenced variables, there is a
risk for participants to see authenticity as an entirely positive attri- Hypothesis 6. Individual differences in realness should be observable in
bute, as would be suggested by trait correlations that are all in the social situations.
more adaptive direction (Leising et al., 2020). For instance,
Jongman-Sereno and Leary (2016) showed in two studies that peo- 1.10. Predicting situations
ple view their positive actions as being more authentic than their Given that authentic behavior occurs in a social context, real-
negative actions, even when the objective authenticity of their ness should be observable by others, and observers should be able
behavior was controlled. to reliably rank people as more or less real relative to one another.
Critically, these correlations contrast with some of the nuance Several studies have demonstrated that observers can reliably code
in influential theories of authentic personality reviewed above the authenticity in other peoples’ behavior. For instance, Anderson
(e.g., Maslow, 1968; Rogers, 1961), suggesting that contemporary et al. (2020) had people describe their emotional responses to a
research may be missing something important (Baumeister, film clip they had just watched, and their descriptions were coded
2019). Specifically, in contrast to nearly universal positive correla- by three people using a single 7-point item ranging from genuine
tions between authenticity measures and adaptive outcomes in to not genuine. These codes were reliably related to one another
empirical research, there is good reason to believe that there (alpha = 0.67 and 0.74 in two studies). Gershon and Smith (2020)
should be downsides, at least occasionally, to authentic behavior. had participants rate entrepreneurs, politicians, tour guides, and
In particular, early theorists would not support a definition of comedians whose vignettes they read using three items asking
authenticity as being particularly agreeable, because there are about authenticity, sincerity, and genuineness (adapted from
times when being true to one’s self risks disappointing, annoying, Barasch et al., 2014). The alphas for these items tended to be
or frustrating others. Yet, Pinto et al. (2012) found that agreeable- around 0.91 across several studies. Importantly, these authors also
ness was correlated between 0.23 and 0.49 with authenticity found that it was important to give observers access to multiple
scales; these results included authenticity scales explicitly instances of targets’ authentic behavior, because people actually
designed to measure more external or behavioral features. In our rated targets as less authentic the more the targets repeated them-
conception, realness should be reliably related to traits involving selves. Rosenblum et al. (2019) found that observers reliably rated
psychological adjustment (high conscientiousness and low neu- politicians who use politically incorrect language as more authen-
roticism) and sociability (i.e., high extraversion and openness), tic (using adapted items from Wood et al., 2008 scale having to do
but not to those related to a desire for social harmony and polite- with ease of being influenced) but also less warm. This finding is
ness vs. rudeness and antagonism (i.e., agreeableness). We note consistent with our view of realness in suggesting that assess-
that this does not necessarily mean that observers will not see ments that focus more explicitly on observable behavior in a
5
C.J. Hopwood, E.W. Good, A.A. Levendosky et al. Journal of Research in Personality 92 (2021) 104086

context with potential costs may reduce associations between Table 1

authenticity and traits related to agreeableness. Studies and Hypotheses.

Study Hypothesis Specific Study Goal

1 1 Examine the correlates of existing authenticity
Hypothesis 7. Individual differences in realness should predict measures
behavior in situations where there are potential downsides to being 2 2/3/4 Create a unidimensional realness scale (RS), examine
real initial correlates
3 2/3/4 Confirm structure of realness and examine correlates
with existing authenticity measures
It is established that the state experiences of traits are reliably 4 3/4 Examine correlates between realness and personality
related to stable trait ratings (Fleeson, 2001), and a reliable corre- variables
lation has been observed between ratings of trait authenticity and 5 3/4 Replicate correlates between realness and personality
the frequency of experiencing authentic states (Lenton et al., 2012; variables
6 3/4 Use peer nomination strategy to disentangle realness
Lenton, Slabu, & Sedikides, 2016). We note that a separate litera-
ratings from positive valence effects
ture has to do with the fact that the felt experience of authenticity 7 5 Examine 4-month retest reliability of realness
is more related to aspects of situations than consistency between 8 6 Examine reliability of observer ratings of realness
one’s behavior and one’s self-rated personality traits (Fleeson & among participants in a speed dating task
Wilt, 2010). This idea, while important for thinking about how 9 7 Translate the RS to German, examine validity of
realness for predicting situational behavior, extend
authenticity manifests as a contextualized social process, is inde- correlates
pendent of our interest in identifying a marker of stable individual
differences in realness. Taken together, existing research suggests
that assessments of stable tendencies predict the likelihood of
2. Study 1
authentic behavior in specific social situations, on average. How-
ever, as noted above, realness can only be tested in situations in
The goal of the first study was to identify realness within the
which there are potential personal or social downsides. When
content of popular authenticity measures, and to establish associ-
one’s inner sensibilities and external pressures align, the same
ations between these measures with a variety of criterion vari-
behavior can serve both goals. Thus, we should expect the finding
ables. We administered three commonly used measures to 983
that trait authenticity predicts situational behavior to extend to a
undergraduates (mean age = 19.46, SD = 2.07; 776 female/207
more specific assessments of realness in situations with potential
male; 713 white, 79 black, 138 Asian/Pacific Islander, 51 multira-
personal or social costs.
cial, 2 other; 41 Hispanic/941 non-Hispanic/1 unreported) and
examined the intercorrelations and external correlates of their
1.11. Overview of studies scales.

We tested these hypotheses through a progression of nine stud- 2.1. Measures

ies (Table 1). In the first, we examined the subscales of three
widely used multidimensional authenticity measures, and found The Authenticity Inventory, Version 3 (AI; Goldman & Kernis,
that these scales had very similar and uniformly adaptive patterns 2004) is a 45-item measure of authentic personality style with four
of correlation with external variables, including agreeableness. We dimensions (Kernis & Goldman, 2006): awareness (Cronbach’s
generated an item list with common instructions and response a = 0.77), unbiased processing (a = 0.66), behavior (a = 0.73), and
anchors to isolate content specifically reflective of realness as man- close relationships (a = 0.76). The Real Relationship Inventory (RRI;
ifest in thoughts, feelings, motives, and behaviors. In the second Gelso et al., 2005; Kelly et al., 2010) is a 24-item questionnaire
study, we administered self and informant report versions of these designed to measure two characteristics of a real relationship rel-
items along with a number of criterion measures in order to select evant for psychotherapy (but applicable to any relationship), real-
the best functioning indicators. We termed the resulting 12-item ism (having realistic appraisals of self and other, a = 0.92) and
measure the Realness Scale (RS). In the third study, we confirmed genuineness (a = 0.91). The Authenticity in Relationships Scale
the unidimensional structure of the RS and examined its correla- (AIRS; Lopez & Rice, 2006) is a 37-item questionnaire designed to
tions with other authenticity measures. In the fourth and fifth measure two relational authenticity factors (Gouvea et al., 2013):
studies, we examined correlations between the RS and personality unacceptability of deception (a = 0.89) and intimate risk taking
traits in large undergraduate and community samples, with partic- (a = 0.89). Both the RRI and AIRS instruct respondents to rate their
ular attention to associations with agreeableness. In the sixth behavior in a specific relationship. We asked people to respond to
study, we used a peer nomination sampling strategy to dissociate RRI and AIRS items in terms of their relationships with friends.
realness from likability or positive valence. In the seventh study, We administered a variety of criterion measures of adaptive and
we evaluated the retest and mean-level stability of the realness maladaptive personality. We generally expected authenticity
scale across five months. In the eighth study, we applied the RS scales to correlate positively with adaptive personality traits. The
as an observational measure to code speed-dating interactions, in Five Factor Model Rating Form (FFMRF; Mullins-Sweatt et al.,
order to evaluate the inter-rater reliability of observed ratings of 2006) is a 30-item measure of the five-factor model of personality
realness. In the ninth study, we translated the RS to German and with one item for each facet of the NEO-PI-R (Costa & McCrae,
examined its validity for predicting actual behavior in a variety 1992). We used the FFMRF to measure five personality domains:
of hypothetical situations, as well as perceived impacts of realness neuroticism (a = 0.68), extraversion (a = 0.71), openness to experi-
for self and others. Statistical significance was set at p < .01 for all ence (a = 0.71), agreeableness (a = 0.69), and conscientiousness
statistical tests, and interpretation largely focused on effect sizes. (a = 0.80). The Inventory of Interpersonal Problems-Short Circumplex
No study was preregistered. All studies were approved by local (IIP-SC; Hopwood et al., 2008; Soldz et al., 1995) is a 32-item mea-
IRB boards and all data are available at https://osf.io/3kqpw/? sure of interpersonal dysfunction. The circumplex octant scales
view_only=2c91999e89c5457a9b5817fc8efc615d. (Mdn. a = 0.76) can be summarized with three factors: overall

6
C.J. Hopwood, E.W. Good, A.A. Levendosky et al. Journal of Research in Personality 92 (2021) 104086

interpersonal distress, problems related to dominance vs. submis- Validity correlations suggest that authenticity is a generally
siveness, and problems related to warmth vs. coldness (Gurtman & adaptive construct, and in fact it is strongly related with a number
Pincus, 2003). The Interpersonal Sensitivities Circumplex (ISC; of indicators of mental health. However, the tendency to be agree-
Hopwood et al., 2011) is a 64-item measure of behaviors that the able and sensitive to others’ coldness was among the strongest cor-
respondent finds irritating in others. Like the IIP-SC, the circumplex relates of existing authenticity scales. As discussed above, these
octant scales (Mdn. a = 0.80) of the ISC can be summarized with results do not align with our concept of realness, which is rooted
three factors: overall interpersonal sensitivity, being annoyed by in theories of authentic personality and behavior that have consis-
dominance vs. submissiveness, and being annoyed by warmth vs. tently prioritized genuineness over social grace, politeness, or
coldness. The Hyperbolic Temperament Questionnaire (HTQ; impression management. Overall, these results were consistent
Hopwood, Thomas, & Zanarini, 2012; a = 0.91) is an 11-item mea- with our hypothesis that the core of authenticity lies in the connec-
sure of borderline personality features based on Zanarini’s theory tion between its more internal and external features, but that this
of hyperbolic temperament (Zanarini & Frankenburg, 2007). We core is masked in existing measures by positive valence, efforts to
administered three scales from the Personality Diagnostic assess internal and external dimensions as distinct from one
Questionnaire-4+ (PDQ-4+; Hyler, 1994), a measure of DSM-4-TR another, and the influence of peripheral factors.
(APA, 2000) personality disorder categories. We specifically mea-
sured dependent (a = 0.64), narcissistic (a = 0.59), and obsessive–
3. Study 2
compulsive (a = 0.42) disorders. The Personal Health Questionnaire
(PHQ; Rizzo et al., 2000; a = 0.86) is a 9-item measure of depres-
Although these issues are difficult to disentangle at the level of
sion with items that correspond directly to the DSM-4-TR symp-
existing subscales, we observed that some specific items seemed to
tom criteria. The Internality Scale of Locus of Control (LOC;
reflect our concept of realness whereas others did not. The purpose
Levenson, 1981; a = 0.59) is an say 8-item measure of internal vs.
of Study 2 was to isolate realness content within existing authen-
external locus of control. The Toronto Alexithymia Scale (TAS;
ticity measures in order to generate a reliable, unidimensional
Bagby, Parker, & Taylor, 1994; a = 0.85) is a 20-item measure of
measurement tool. We focused on two specific features of items
alexithymia, or difficulties with emotional awareness. The
within existing measures. First, items should reflect external
Experiences in Close Relationships Scale (ECR; Fraley et al., 2011) is
behaviors that align with internal states. For instance, they should
a 36-item measure of anxious (a = 0.94) and avoidant (a = 0.95)
reference being transparent, open, and straightforward in social
attachment styles.
situations. In contrast, they should not solely reference internal
or external states (e.g., self-awareness). We especially preferred
2.2. Results and discussion
items that specified the situations in which realness would be
observed – that is, when there were potential costs to being real.
The top section of Table 2 shows that the intercorrelations
This was based on our conceptualization that realness involves
among the various authenticity scales tended to be high, particu-
being authentic even when there are downsides.
larly for the two RRI scales (r = 0.92). However, there was some
Second, because we were interested in realness as a generalized
variation in these correlations, pointing to a distinction between
individual difference that would be relatively stable across situa-
more internal and external aspects of authentic behavior. For
tions and relationships, items should refer to a general trait rather
instance, the unbiased processing scale had relatively weak corre-
than a specific behavior or certain relationships. We had two rea-
lations with scales explicitly focused on external behavior such as
sons for this choice. First, although it is widely understood that
AIRS intimate risk taking (r = 0.17).
authenticity is more likely and, arguably, appropriate in some
The middle section of Table 2 shows that these scales also had a
kinds of relationships than others, we defined realness as a stable
highly similar pattern of association with external variables, lar-
trait whose between-person rank order would generally pertain
gely indicative of psychological health and well-being. Specifically,
across situations with different presses for being real. Second, we
authenticity scales tended to have positive correlations with
sought to develop a general measure that could be used for a vari-
extraversion, openness, agreeableness, conscientiousness, and
ety of purposes in the pursuit of understanding realness, rather
internal locus of control and negative correlations with neuroti-
than a measure that would be useful only for studying certain
cism, interpersonal problems, sensitivity to others’ warmth, bor-
kinds of relationships.
derline, dependent, and narcissistic personality, depression,
Three of the authors independently identified items that best
alexithymia, and attachment avoidance and anxiety. We computed
reflected these features on the AIRS, RRI, AI, and Wood et al.
Pearson congruence coefficients1 to examine the similarity of these
(2008) Authenticity Scale items. Of the 118 total items on these
correlation patterns. These values, shown in the bottom section of
four instruments, we found 42 non-redundant items reflecting
Table 2, ranged from 0.77 to 1.00, with the majority > 0.90. Overall,
our notion of realness. However, these were not balanced with
these values suggest that, despite their different conceptual inter-
regard to thoughts, feelings, behaviors, and motives/desires, nor
pretations, each authenticity scale across these three multidimen-
in terms of item keying. Thus, we wrote 38 additional items (all
sional instruments has a very similar pattern of external correlates.
80 items are available at https://osf.io/7vdgp/?view_only = 2
Overall, these results indicate that authenticity is generally adaptive
c91999e89c5457a9b5817fc8efc615d). We harmonized all items
and each instrument is tapping a very similar construct, although
with a 4-point scale (False, Somewhat False, Somewhat True, True)
there may be some subtle distinctions between more internal and
and reworded items to reflect a general disposition rather than
more external aspects.
specific relationships as necessary. We then collected data with
This pattern is somewhat consistent with what we would hope
the goal of trimming these 80 items in order to construct a unidi-
for from a measure of realness, but there were also notable diver-
mensional realness scale that we could use to examine self-
gences. The fact that all authenticity scales are highly intercorre-
informant agreement and correlates.
lated suggests that the construct coheres at a broad level, as we
would expect.
3.1. Methods
1
We used Pearson coefficients rather than Tucker coefficients because we were
interested in specifically in the pattern of correlations; we were not interested in Participants were 1033 undergraduates (mean age = 19.77,
evaluating the relative magnitude and shape of those correlations for each scale. SD = 2.02; 749 female, 282 male, 2 other; 702 white, 70 black,
7
C.J. Hopwood, E.W. Good, A.A. Levendosky et al. Journal of Research in Personality 92 (2021) 104086

Table 2
Authenticity subscale intercorrelations and validity correlations.

Authenticity Inventory Real Relationships Authenticity in Relationships Scale

Inventory
Awareness Unbiased Behavior Relationship Genuine Realism Intimate Risk Unacceptability of
Processing Orientation Taking Deception
Intercorrelations
Unbiased Processing 0.44
Behavior 0.59 0.46
Relationship orientation 0.65 0.30 0.60
Genuine 0.53 0.23 0.44 0.63
Realism 0.53 0.25 0.45 0.62 0.92
Intimate Risk-Taking 0.40 0.17 0.38 0.53 0.70 0.63
Unacceptability of 0.42 0.35 0.51 0.52 0.65 0.64 0.56
Deception
Validity Correlations
Neuroticism -0.32 -0.32 -0.36 -0.17 -0.17 -0.20 -0.09 -0.14
Extraversion 0.33 0.18 0.34 0.36 0.37 0.36 0.34 0.28
Openness 0.25 0.17 0.22 0.27 0.28 0.28 0.27 0.25
Agreeableness 0.29 0.13 0.20 0.38 0.36 0.36 0.27 0.27
Conscientiousness 0.42 0.19 0.30 0.37 0.34 0.36 0.20 0.28
Interpersonal Problems -0.31 -0.37 -0.41 -0.21 -0.24 -0.24 -0.22 -0.23
Dominance 0.04 0.03 0.12 -0.01 -0.04 -0.06 0.11 0.01
Warmth 0.10 -0.04 0.00 0.26 0.18 0.15 0.16 0.05
Interpersonal 0.03 -0.22 -0.08 0.12 0.06 0.05 0.08 0.01
Sensitivities
Sensitivity to Dominance 0.11 -0.06 -0.03 0.19 0.22 0.21 0.10 0.12
Sensitivity to Warmth -0.19 -0.03 -0.12 -0.38 -0.29 -0.27 -0.29 -0.26
Borderline -0.27 -0.36 -0.35 -0.08 -0.14 -0.18 -0.07 -0.17
Dependent -0.41 -0.39 -0.50 -0.28 -0.30 -0.33 -0.33 -0.21
Narcissistic -0.17 -0.23 -0.22 -0.23 -0.22 -0.23 -0.23 -0.14
Obsessive-Compulsive -0.05 -0.21 -0.13 0.06 0.00 -0.01 -0.01 0.03
Depression -0.31 -0.32 -0.35 -0.21 -0.17 -0.20 -0.19 -0.06
Internal Locus of Control 0.21 0.20 0.15 0.17 0.15 0.17 0.16 0.13
Alexithymia -0.61 -0.51 -0.55 -0.50 -0.43 -0.44 -0.32 -0.38
Attachment Anxiety -0.33 -0.40 -0.40 -0.23 -0.22 -0.24 -0.24 -0.12
Attachment Avoidance -0.39 -0.19 -0.32 -0.46 -0.32 -0.32 -0.27 -0.24
Congruence Coefficients
Unbiased Processing 0.92
Behavior 0.97 0.97
Relationship orientation 0.94 0.77 0.87
Genuine 0.96 0.83 0.91 0.98
Realism 0.97 0.85 0.92 0.98 1.00
Intimate Risk-Taking 0.94 0.83 0.91 0.96 0.97 0.96
Unacceptability of 0.95 0.84 0.91 0.96 0.98 0.98 0.94
Deception

Note. p-values and CIs are not given for ease of presentation.

154 Asian/Pacific Islander, 1 Native American, 31 multiracial, 31 Table 3

Hispanic, and 42 other). Of these, 368 had a participant- Realness Scale item properties in Study 2.
nominated informant (informants’ mean age = 2.17, SD = 4.52; Item Part- Factor Loadings
271 female, 97 male; 275 white, 24 black, 35 Asian, 3 Native Amer- Whole
ican, 20 Hispanic, 11 other). r Method General
In addition to the 80 candidate realness items, participants also At times I say what people want to hear rather 0.47 0.56 0.31
completed the following criterion measures. The Five-Factor Model than what I want. r
Rating Form (Mullins-Sweatt et al., 2006) is a 30-item measure of I do what works best for the situation even if 0.31 0.37 0.17
the personality traits neuroticism (a = 0.75), extraversion it is not how I feel. r
Others might see me as fake. r 0.34 0.37 0.08
(a = 0.70), openness (a = 0.63), agreeableness (a = 0.68), and con- It would take a lot for me to tell someone they 0.45 0.30 0.37
scientiousness (a = 0.80). They were also administered the honesty have hurt me. r
scale from the HEXACO-60 (Ashton & Lee, 2009, a = 0.73) and scales I tell the truth even if it makes others 0.44 – 0.65
from the Computer Adaptive Test of Personality Disorders (Simms unhappy.
I say what I believe even if people don’t like it. 0.56 – 0.68
et al., 2011) measuring emotional detachment (7 items a = 0.85), I sometimes act like I believe what others 0.44 0.49 0.26
manipulativeness (6 items a = 0.89), and submissiveness (6 items believe. r
a = 0.89). The IIP-SC was used, as in study 1, to assess interpersonal I tend to tell others exactly what I think even 0.50 – 0.74
problems and its octant scales (Mdn. a = 0.76) were summarized in if it causes conflict.
I avoid sharing desires that others may not 0.47 0.41 0.33
terms of overall interpersonal distress, problems related to domi-
approve of. r
nance vs. submissiveness, and problems related to warmth vs. I express my needs and desires directly. 0.57 – 0.56
coldness. Finally, the Self-Monitoring Scale was administered I share my feelings with others even if it 0.51 – 0.78
(a = 0.60). We expected realness to correlate negatively with upsets them.
self-monitoring. Informants completed the 80 realness items with I tell people what I want even if they may not 0.51 – 0.66
want the same thing.
reference to the target (participant), as well as the FFMRF

8
C.J. Hopwood, E.W. Good, A.A. Levendosky et al. Journal of Research in Personality 92 (2021) 104086

(neuroticism a = 0.75, extraversion a = 0.69, openness a = 0.57, report (Table 5). As expected, realness was correlated positively
agreeableness a = 0.73, conscientiousness a = 0.85). albeit modestly with honesty and interpersonal dominance and
Items were selected based on a consideration of several criteria negatively with emotional detachment, manipulativeness, submis-
(Holden & Fekken, 1990). First, we preferred items with a relatively siveness, interpersonal problems, and self-monitoring. Notably, it
low reading level. Second, we sought to balance reverse- and was uncorrelated with warmth. Informant-rated realness had
positively-keyed items, to minimize the potential impacts of fewer significant correlations, likely due to method effects and
response style (Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994). For negatively- lower power due to the smaller sample. Unlike self-reported real-
keyed items, we focused on not being real to avoid some personal ness and mirroring the effects for big five variables, it was posi-
or social cost. Third, we selected items with strong part-whole cor- tively correlated with warmth. It was also negatively correlated
relations, to be sure we were targeting items at the core of the real- with emotional detachment and manipulativeness.
ness construct. Fourth, we sought balance in item content in terms To summarize, in this study we were able to identify 12 realness
of sharing thoughts, sharing feelings, sharing desires, and showing items that formed a unidimensional scale, were balanced in keying,
authenticity in behavior. and covered a range of content involving being real with others
about thoughts, feelings, desires, and behavior. Correlates between
3.2. Results and discussion this scale and self-reported criteria were as predicted. However,
self-other agreement was comparatively low, perhaps because par-
Based on a consideration of each of these factors, we ultimately ticipants and informants seemed to understand realness somewhat
selected the 12 items in Table 3 for the Realness Scale (RS). These differently. Both self- and informant-reports associated realness
items are balanced in terms item keying and content (i.e., three with healthier emotional and interpersonal functioning. However,
items explicitly refer to thoughts and feelings each, four to motives individuals considering their own behavior associated realness
or desires, and two to behaviors). Eight of the items explicitly ref- with assertive dominance, whereas individuals considering a tar-
erence a potential social tradeoff of being real. The Flesch-Kincaid get’s behavior associated realness with warm agreeableness.
reading level for all items was 7th grade or lower with a median of
4.5 and part-whole correlations (with reference to all 80 initial
4. Study 3
items) were all above 0.3. The alpha was 0.81 and the item mean
was 2.78 (SD = 0.56). We fit these items to a factor model with
The goal of Study 3 was to confirm the unidimensional structure
diagonally weighted least squares (WLSMV) estimation to deal
of the RS and examine associations with existing authenticity mea-
with categorical indicators using Mplus version 8 (Muthén &
sures, in order to confirm that the scale captured an essential fea-
Muthén, 1998–2017). A model with one substantive factor and
ture of this complex construct. We administered the RS and five
one method factor where the reverse keyed items were freed
authenticity measures to 504 Amazon Mechanical Turk workers
showed adequate fit to the data (X2(48) = 153.79, RMSEA = 0.05,
(mean age = 36, SD = 11.32; 255 female, 245 male, 4 other; 353
CFI = 0.96, TLI = 0.95, SRMR = 0.03). Although one item (‘‘others
white, 35 black, 7 Asian/Pacific Islander, 41 Hispanic, 68 other)
might see me as fake”) had a relatively small contribution to the gen-
who were paid $7/hr for participating in the Fall of 2016. Authen-
eral factor, we retained it to enhance content validity. Specifically,
ticity measures included the three that were used in Study 1 (AIRS,
this is one of the two items asking about other peoples’ impressions
a = 0.95, RRI, a = 0.96 and AI, a = 0.94) as well as the Wood et al.
of the respondent’s behavior.
(2008) Authenticity Scale (a = 0.89) and three items adapted from
The informant version of the RS had an alpha of 0.83 (M = 3.03,
Fleeson and Wilt (2010, Study 2; a = 0.92). The mean score on the
SD = 0.53). The self-informant correlation for the RS was 0.16
RS items was 2.78 (SD = 0.56). Covariance among the items fit a
(p = .002; 95% CI = 0.06 - 0.26), lower than we had expected. Table 4
model with a method factor well (X2(48) = 138.87, RMSEA = 0.06
displays correlations between realness, as rated by both self and
[CI = 0.05-0.07], CFI = 0.96, TLI = 0.95, SRMR = 0.04). Correlations
informant, and big five traits, as rated by both self and informant.
between the RS and established authenticity measures ranged from
Self-reported realness correlated positively with self-reported
r = 0.47 to 0.64 (Table 6), suggesting that the RS is strongly associ-
extraversion and conscientiousness, negatively with neuroticism,
ated with existing authenticity measures, even though its content
and was uncorrelated with agreeableness and openness.
is more specific to realness as we define it.
Informant-informant correlations mirrored this result, but with
somewhat stronger correlations with openness and agreeableness.
The only significant correlation between informant-reported real- 5. Study 4
ness and self-reported traits was for high extraversion. No correla-
tions between self-reported realness and informant-reported traits The goal of Study 4 was to replicate the correlations of the RS
were significant, although there was a potentially meaningful neg- with self-reported personality traits observed in Study 2. Study 4
ative correlation between self-reported realness and informant- consisted of 1,025 undergraduates; 19 were removed for > 10%
reported agreeableness. missing data, leaving 1006. The mean age was 19.72 (2.19); 180
Overall, these results suggest that, although agreement (17.60%) self-identified as male and 822 (8.2%) as female, and 4
between self and informants is relatively low, similarity in the (0.40%) as other; 252 (24.6%) were Hispanic and 754 (73.6%) were
nomological networks of realness as assessed by self and informant not Hispanic; there were 328 (32%) white, 22 (2.1%) black, 485
was relatively high. The RS is generally associated with adaptive (47.3%) Asian, 27 (2.7%) Native American, 94 (9.2%) multiracial,
personality features. However, whereas by self-report people 47 (4.6%) Latin American, and 3 (0.3%) other races reported. The
who see themselves as real do not also see themselves as agreeable coefficient alpha for the RS was 0.79, and alphas for the IPIP-50
and are not seen by others as agreeable, informants who rated tar- (Goldberg, 1999) measure of big five traits were 0.85 for neuroti-
gets as more real also perceived them to be more agreeable. This cism, 0.88 for extraversion, 0.80 for openness, 0.81 for agreeable-
may suggest that realness is an attribute that is appreciated or ness, and 0.80 for conscientiousness. As expected, realness was
experienced as agreeable or warm by others, even if it is not actu- negatively correlated with neuroticism and positively correlated
ally a particularly agreeable or polite pattern of behavior. We with extraversion, openness, and conscientiousness (Table 7).
explore this issue further in Study 6 below. These results provided initial confirmation that realness has gener-
We next examined correlations of self- and informant-rated ally adaptive personality correlates, but is unrelated to
realness with the measures that were only administered by self- agreeableness.
9
C.J. Hopwood, E.W. Good, A.A. Levendosky et al. Journal of Research in Personality 92 (2021) 104086

Table 4
Self and informant correlations between realness and big five personality traits in Study 2.

Realness Self Informant

Big Five trait Self Informant Self Informant
r 95%CI p r 95%CI p r 95%CI p r 95%CI p
Neuroticism -0.26 [-0.43, -0.24] < 0.01 -0.08 [-0.18, 0.03] 0.13 -0.08 [-0.18, 0.03] 0.14 -0.29 [-0.38, -0.20] < 0.01
Extraversion 0.35 [0.32, 0.50] < 0.01 0.07 [-0.05, 0.17] 0.20 0.16 [0.05, 0.26] < 0.01 0.35 [0.25, 0.44] < 0.01
Openness 0.12 [0.01, 0.21] 0.03 -0.04 [-0.13, 0.05] 0.45 -0.02 [-0.12, 0.09] 0.68 0.21 [0.10, 0.32] < 0.01
Agreeableness 0.00 [-0.11, 0.11] 0.94 -0.13 [-0.24, -0.03] 0.01 0.08 [-0.04, 0.20] 0.13 0.23 [0.13, 0.33] < 0.01
Conscientiousness 0.17 [0.05, 0.28] <0.01 0.04 [-0.06, 0.14] 0.42 0.08 [-0.04, 0.18] 0.15 0.19 [0.09, 0.29] < 0.01

Table 5
Correlations between self-reported and informant-reported realness and self-reported criterion variables in Study 3.

Criterion Variable Self-Report Realness Informant-Report Realness

r 95% CI p r 95% CI p
Honesty 0.13 [0.02, 0.25] < 0.01 0.13 [0.03, 0.23] 0.01
Emotional Detachment -0.44 [-0.53, -0.35] < 0.01 -0.25 [-0.35, -0.16] < 0.01
Manipulativeness -0.27 [-0.36, -0.18] < 0.01 -0.15 [-0.26, -0.04] < 0.01
Submissiveness -0.52 [-0.59, -0.46] < 0.01 -0.07 [-0.17, 0.03] 0.21
Interpersonal Problems -0.50 [-0.57, -0.42] < 0.01 -0.07 [-0.18, 0.05] 0.16
Dominance 0.47 [0.39, 0.54] < 0.01 0.12 [0.03, 0.25] 0.01
Warmth -0.08 [-0.18, 0.04] 0.15 0.20 [0.11, 0.29] < 0.01
Self-Monitoring -0.26 [-0.36, -0.15] < 0.01 -0.05 [-0.15, 0.05] 0.32

Table 6
and 5 largely confirm our expectation that the RS is a) positively
Correlations between realness and composite scores from five authenticity and strongly correlated with existing authenticity measures, b) like
inventories. other authenticity measures in having generally positive corre-
Authenticity Instrument Realness Scale 95% CI
lates, but c) different from other authenticity measures in being
mostly unrelated to agreeableness. However, given the importance
Authenticity Inventory 0.64 [0.60 - 0.69]
of the agreeableness effect in particular, and the ambiguity in these
Real Relationship Inventory 0.47 [0.40 - 0.53]
Authenticity in Relationships Scale 0.54 [0.47 - 0.61] results (i.e., a significant agreeableness correlation in Study 5), we
Authenticity Scale 0.60 [0.55 - 0.66] next sought to pursue the association between realness and agree-
Fleeson and Wilt items 0.49 [0.42 - 0.57] ableness in more detail. Specifically, we designed a study to disen-
Note. All p < .01. tangle perceptions of a people who are equally likeable but differ in
realness.

6. Study 5 7. Study 6

The purpose of Study 5 was to replicate these results in a com- In Study 6, we used a peer nomination strategy to test whether
munity sample. Participants were 1004 Mturk workers from the informant report correlations with agreeableness traits were due
United States who were paid $7/hr for participating in the summer to valence or selection effects, and to dissociate realness from lik-
of 2018. The average age was 36.46 (SD = 1.99); 532 (51.8%) were ability or positive valence more generally. Specifically, we asked
male, 471 (45.9%) were female, 1 other; 111 (1.8%) were Hispanic people to select two friends, both of whom were equally likeable,
and 893 (87.0%) were not Hispanic; 780 (75.9%) were white, 113 but one of whom was particularly real whereas the other was
(11%) black, 63 (6%) Asian, 10 (1%) Native American, 32 (3.1%) mul- not. We reasoned that this design would eliminate the positive
tiracial, and 6 (0.6%) other. The coefficient alpha for the RS was association between realness and agreeableness from informant-
0.86, and alphas for the IPIP-50 (Goldberg, 1999) measure of big reports (Table 4), and thus show that realness can come across as
five traits were 0.92 for neuroticism, 0.91 for extraversion, 0.83 relatively disagreeable when referenced against a more courteous
for openness, 0.88 for agreeableness, and 0.85 for (but equally likeable) alternative.
conscientiousness. Participants were 746 undergraduates in a public American uni-
Results are given in Table 7. As in Study 4, realness was nega- versity who were compensated with course credit. The average age
tively correlated with neuroticism and positively correlated with was 19.81 (SD = 2.10); 625 were women, 117 men, and 4 reported
extraversion, openness, and conscientiousness. Contrary to our other genders; 372 were Asian/Asian-American, 165 White/
hypothesis, a modest but significant positive correlation was European-American, 12 were Black/African-American, 11 Pacific
observed with agreeableness. Overall, the results of Studies 3, 4, Islander, 5 Native American, 68 multi-racial and 113 reported

Table 7
Realness correlations in Studies 4 and 5.

Trait Study 4 Study 5

r 95% CI p r 95% CI p
Neuroticism -0.29 [-0.22, -0.34] < 0.01 -0.35 [-0.29, -0.41] < 0.01
Extraversion 0.36 [0.30, 0.42] < 0.01 0.31 [0.24, 0.36] < 0.01
Openness 0.29 [0.23, 0.35] < 0.01 0.30 [0.23, 0.36] < 0.01
Agreeableness 0.06 [-0.01, 0.12] 0.07 0.18 [0.11, 0.25] < 0.01
Conscientiousness 0.25 [0.19, 0.31] < 0.01 0.28 [0.21, 0.35] < 0.01

10
C.J. Hopwood, E.W. Good, A.A. Levendosky et al. Journal of Research in Personality 92 (2021) 104086

other races or did not report race; 179 participants identified as 8. Study 7
having Hispanic ethnicity. Participants were given the following
instructions (order of second and third paragraph was The goal of Study 7 was to estimate the retest stability of real-
randomized): ness. We sampled 412 undergraduates (mean age = 20.35,
‘‘Please think of two friends that can be described by each of the SD = 2.13; 81% women, 17% men, 2% other; 36% white, 34%
following paragraphs. You should like these two friends about the Asian/Asian-American, 3% black, 2% Native American/Pacific Islan-
same, and feel about equally close to both of them. der, 25% other). Of these, 301 completed the RS five months after
The first friend is not that concerned about seeming rude, and baseline. The retest correlation was 0.74, and the mean among
others see them as ‘real’, direct, straightforward, and even brutally people who participated at both waves was 2.45 (SD = 0.53) at time
honest. They say what they want rather than what others want to 1 and 2.45 (SD = 0.52) at time 2 (d = 0.00). Overall, these data sup-
hear and tell others what they think even if it causes conflict. They port the interpretation of realness as a stable individual difference
do what they feel or want whether or not others want or feel the variable, with longitudinal consistency estimates similar to what
same thing, even it makes the situation awkward or uncomfort- we would expect of personality traits.
able. They tell the truth even if it makes others unhappy and are
not afraid to tell someone else if they feel hurt or disappointed.
9. Study 8
This person would never act like they believed something others
believed if they did not feel it themselves.
The goal of Study 8 was to test whether realness could be reli-
The second friend is very concerned about seeming rude, and
ably coded in actual behavior by observers. Part of the logic of this
others see them as polite, discreet, flexible, and possibly even ‘in-
study is that traits can be inferred from the observation of multiple
authentic’. They say what they think others want to hear rather
contextualized states (Lenton et al., 2013), and that observations of
than what they actually want in order to avoid conflict. If they
individuals across multiple interactions produces more valid esti-
believe others want or feel something strongly, they may pretend
mates of realness than those from a single social situation
that they want or feel the same thing to keep the situation com-
(Gershon & Smith, 2020). Thus, we had trained research assistants
fortable. They may not tell the whole truth if they fear it will make
observe targets across 12 interactions with different people, and
others unhappy, and would avoid telling someone else they feel
then use the RS scale items to estimate how real the person was
hurt or disappointed. This person would be willing to act like they
in their interactions, in general.
believed something others believe to avoid an awkward situation.”
Specifically, eight research assistants (four women and four
They were then asked to rate the personality characteristics of
men) coded interactions during 8 speed dating sessions with 24
each of these friends (order of friends was randomized) using the
people each, for a total of 192 targets (Eastwick et al., 2007;
IPIP-120 (Maples et al., 2014, median facet a = 0.75 for real friend
Finkel & Eastwick, 2008). Each session was coded by 4 coders (2
and a = 0.75 for polite friend), the Agentic and Communal Values
men and 2 women), who watched all 12 interactions for a given
scale (Trapnell & Paulhus, 2012; alphas ranged from 0.78 to
participant and then filled out the 12-item RS based on what they
0.94), and the Honesty scale from the brief HEXACO-60 (Ashton
think the person is like, in general. The overall alpha for the RS was
& Lee, 2009; a = 0.78 for real friend and a = 0.81 for inauthentic
0.90, and the one-way random effects average ICC for the overall
friend).
realness score was 0.59 (95% CI = 0.48 - 0.68; individual
The profile correlation for mean personality facet scores across
ICC = 0.26, 95% CI = 0.19 - 0.35), indicating statistically significant
the ‘‘real” and ‘‘inauthentic” friend was r = 0.22, suggesting rather
(p < .001) agreement across observers about individual differences
different profiles for these two vignettes. Participants rated the real
in realness. We explored correlations between observer-rated real-
friend as substantially more extraverted, assertive, and agentic and
ness and a brief self-report measure of big 5 traits (Donnellan et al.,
substantially less agreeable, communal, and cooperative (Table 8).
2006; neuroticism a = 0.78, extraversion a = 0.84, openness
As with self-report correlations, peers rated their friend who is
a = 0.65, agreeableness a = 0.75, conscientiousness a = 0.74). All
more real as less neurotic, but in contrast to other findings, they
correlations were < |0.05| and none were statistically significant,
also rated that person as less conscientious. Interestingly, raters
perhaps because of method effects.
actually perceived the inauthentic person as more ‘‘honest” based
on the HEXACO scale, highlighting both differences between a
self-report and peer-nomination approach to studying 10. Study 9
authenticity-related constructs, and substantive differences
between realness and HEXACO honesty. The goals of Study 9 were to translate the RS to German, evalu-
Overall, these results suggest that the informant-report correla- ate correlations with measures of personality and interpersonal
tion between realness and agreeableness observed in Study 2 may effectiveness, and test the ability of the RS to predict behavior in
have been, at least in part, an artifact of the general halo effect hypothetical interpersonal scenarios in which individuals would
associated with informant-reported personality traits (Leising have to decide between either being real or not in situations in
et al., in press). That is, when asked to describe a friend, there is which either response may come with risks. As a first step, the
a tendency for people who say positive things in one domain items from the RS were translated by two bilingual researchers,
(i.e., realness) to extend those positive descriptions to other who then agreed on consensus items. The items were then back
domains (i.e., agreeableness). However, when asked to distinguish translated by a third bilingual speaker, and checked for accuracy
real and polite friends that are equally likeable, people tend to see against the original items. The German version of the measure
the real friend as relatively less agreeable. Self-report data tend to was then given to a sample of 204 participants from the general
be between these two effects in that the association between real- population (142 women, 62 men) with an average age of
ness and agreeableness is small or null. This finding supports our M = 31.3 years (range = 18 to 71, SD = 13.13). A model with one
contention that a critical element of being real involves the ability substantive factor and one method factor where the reverse keyed
to be disagreeable at times, and highlights the impact of different items were freed showed adequate fit (X2[48] = 123, RMSEA = 0.09,
approaches to asking people about this kind of behavior. CFI = 0.95, TLI = 0.94, SRMR = 0.07]. The alpha was 0.85.

11
C.J. Hopwood, E.W. Good, A.A. Levendosky et al. Journal of Research in Personality 92 (2021) 104086

Table 8
Differences in peer ratings of a real and inauthentic friend.

‘‘Real” Friend ‘‘Inauthentic” Friend Cohen’s

Mean SD Mean SD d
Big Five Domains
Neuroticism 2.93 0.51 3.11 0.50 -0.35
Extraversion 3.45 0.50 3.14 0.52 0.60
Openness 3.22 0.43 3.26 0.40 -0.11
Agreeableness 3.13 0.58 3.68 0.53 -0.99
Conscientiousness 3.35 0.59 3.49 0.60 -0.23
Big Five Facets
Anxiety 3.04 0.83 3.65 0.73 -0.78
Anger 3.34 0.91 2.60 0.91 0.81
Depression 2.52 0.77 2.78 0.81 -0.34
Self-Consciousness 2.75 0.75 3.35 0.76 -0.79
Immoderation 3.14 0.67 3.03 0.68 0.17
Vulnerability 2.80 0.81 3.23 0.75 -0.55
Friendliness 3.47 0.75 3.34 0.77 0.17
Gregariousness 3.31 0.91 2.95 0.93 0.38
Assertiveness 3.70 0.77 2.81 0.85 1.11
Activity Level 3.23 0.64 3.08 0.66 0.23
Excitement Seeking 3.46 0.72 3.03 0.73 0.59
Cheerfulness 3.52 0.68 3.64 0.67 -0.18
Imagination 3.30 0.69 3.31 0.71 -0.03
Artistic Interest 3.23 0.79 3.45 0.75 -0.28
Emotionality 3.34 0.68 3.63 0.63 -0.44
Adventurousness 2.94 0.64 2.68 0.60 0.41
Intellect 3.30 0.77 3.20 0.74 0.14
Liberalism 3.19 0.64 3.30 0.56 -0.18
Trust 3.06 0.78 3.55 0.70 -0.67
Morality 3.39 0.83 3.77 0.78 -0.48
Altruism 3.42 0.73 3.91 0.64 -0.72
Cooperation 2.89 0.88 3.84 0.79 1.13
Modesty 2.71 0.85 3.35 0.83 -0.76
Sympathy 3.33 0.68 3.67 0.62 -0.52
Self-Efficacy 3.74 0.69 3.69 0.67 0.08
Orderliness 3.08 0.91 3.31 0.92 -0.25
Dutifulness 3.55 0.70 3.72 0.70 -0.24
Achievement 3.50 0.76 3.60 0.76 -0.13
Self-Discipline 3.33 0.75 3.37 0.74 -0.05
Cautiousness 2.91 0.91 3.25 0.88 -0.39
Honesty 3.03 0.67 3.26 0.68 -0.34
Values
Agency 5.59 1.70 4.73 1.57 0.52
Communion 5.90 1.52 6.65 1.36 -0.52

negatively related to fear of negative evaluation. Given the similar-

Table 9
ity of empathy to agreeableness, we were not surprised to find
Correlations between RS and individual difference measures in a German sample.
realness was not significantly correlated with empathy.
Measure r 95% CI p Study 9 participants were also asked to respond to nine scenar-
Neuroticism -0.24 [-0.37, -0.11] < 0.01 ios in which they could be real or not, in which either choice could
Extraversion 0.46 [0.34, 0.56] < 0.01 have a perceived cost. For each scenario there were two different
Openness 0.17 [0.03, 0.30] 0.02
versions, one highlighting costs for self and the other highlighting
Agreeableness -0.11 [-0.24, 0.03] 0.13
Conscientiousness 0.16 [0.03, 0.30] 0.02 costs for others. The participants were divided randomly into two
Competence 0.44 [0.32, 0.54] < 0.01 subsamples (N = 107 and 97), for which the scenarios either
Fear of Negative Evaluation -0.44 [-0.55, -0.32] < 0.01 emphasized cost for the self or for the other. For instance, in one
Empathy -0.05 [-0.19, 0.09] 0.46 scenario, the participant is told that they have accidentally shared
* p < .01. a friend’s secret, and are asked whether they tell the friend about
this. In one version of this scenario, the emphasis is placed on
Participants also completed measures of the big five (Danner the respondent’s discomfort discussing this with their friend (cost
et al., 2019; alphas ranged from 0.80 to 0.89), interpersonal compe- for self), whereas in the other, emphasis is placed on how the
tence (Riemann & Allgöwer, 1993; a = 0.90), fear of negative eval- friend may feel hurt (cost for others). The respondents were then
uation (Kemper, Lutz, & Neuser, 2012, a = 0.87), and empathy asked how likely they would be ‘‘real” on a 4-point scale (in this
(Paulus, 2009; alpha = 0.75). Correlations with the RS are given in case, tell the friend). Alphas were 0.60 (self) and 0.61 (other) for
Table 9. These results essentially replicate studies reported above these scenarios. The RS correlated r = 0.58 and r = 0.55 for the self
in English speaking samples that showed positive correlations and other scenarios, respectively, strongly supporting the validity
between realness and extraversion and negative correlations with of the RS to predict reports of contextualized social behavior.
neuroticism. Correlations with openness and conscientiousness
were positive but not significant at p < .01, and the correlation with 11. Discussion
agreeableness was negative but weakest in absolute value among
the big five traits. The results add to our previous findings by show- At the moment, the world is awash in ‘‘fake news”, citizens are
ing that RS is related positively to interpersonal competence and routinely manipulated by politicians who do not mean what they
12
C.J. Hopwood, E.W. Good, A.A. Levendosky et al. Journal of Research in Personality 92 (2021) 104086

say, and social media platforms incentivize virtue signaling and authenticity in being strongly related to agreeable personality
punish straightforwardness. Although being ‘‘yourself” is often characteristics.
extolled in modern society, it comes with social risks. It is these Based on our literature review, we concluded that this was a
moments of social risk that provide perhaps the most valid test result of two main factors. The first was that existing measures
of whether a person is actually being real: a person who is only real seem to capture some non-specific social desirability variance
when it pays off is not really real at all. that contributes to discriminant validity issues with respect to
This complexity is emphasized in classical psychological theo- agreeableness-related traits and behaviors. The second was the
ries about authenticity and related concepts (congruence, genuine- effort to account for multiple internal and external features that
ness, transparency), yet contemporary research uses measures that give rise to authentic behavior, even if they are supportive but
are strongly related to agreeableness, and which tend to mix con- not essential. We understand authenticity as a relatively com-
tent that is central to authentic behavior with content that is more plex, multi-component, within-person process involving dynamic
peripheral. We sought to identify, distinguish, and validate the ten- connections between internal states and external behavior.
dency to be real, the core individual difference variable underlying Many of the existing authenticity measures were based on the-
authentic personality processes, which we define as doing on the ories that explicitly referenced such dynamic, multi-component,
outside what one feels on the inside regardless of the proximal within-person processes. These processes included some features
social consequences. that seem central to authenticity (behavioral expressions of
Realness may be a particularly important individual difference inner states), as well as other features that may support
variable within certain domains of social behavior. For instance, authentic behavior but in a somewhat non-specific way (e.g.,
being real may be both harmful and beneficial for politicians, but self-awareness).
for citizens, it is a key characteristic of trust (Rosenblum et al., To be clear, we think that studying authenticity and all of the
2019). As such, both actual demonstrations and (potentially inac- processes that support it is an important endeavor for social scien-
curate) perceptions of realness are nearly always an important tists. However, we concluded that, rather than trying to capture all
consideration in the political sphere. Related, standing up to or of the features involved in complex within-person authenticity
criticizing powerful people and institutions to promote social jus- dynamics using measures designed to detect between-person dif-
tice is socially risky, by definition. People who have been made ferences, it would be better to begin by isolating a core between-
famous for doing so (e.g., Joan of Arc, Sitting Bull, Colin Kaepernick, person variable that is central to authentic behavior. A firm model
Thomas Paine, Rosa Parks, William Tell, Henry David Thoreau) of individual differences in realness can help facilitate authenticity
strike us as prototypically real – and they have historically experi- research by distinguishing those individuals most likely to be real
enced both the costs and benefits of this trait. To the degree that in a given situation, and by providing a variable that can be used to
being real is an important ingredient for making the world a better study the within-person contours of real behavior across time and
place, understanding and promoting realness at the individual situations.
level may contribute to a more just society. At the same time, peo- We found that realness content was present in existing multidi-
ple who both hold and express hateful, racist, and divisive beliefs mensional measures of authenticity, but that it was also obscured
are also being real. As such, the social value of realness may depend in measures with scales that focused on either internal character-
on the health of those inner qualities that support it, such as self- istics such as capacities for personal awareness, accurate percep-
awareness and capacity for reflection. tion, and reflective function, or external characteristics involving
Realness may be particularly important in close relationships, explicit social behavior. While such characteristics, in combination,
such as psychotherapy, romance, or parenting. Indeed, we would may support authenticity, it is not being aware or behaving in a
hypothesize that, all things equal, most people would rather have certain way in isolation that provides evidence that someone is
a close relationship with someone who is real than with someone authentic – it is the correspondence between these inner and outer
who is not. Again, however, we would expect that realness would states. This correspondence could be labeled congruence or trans-
be particularly valued in close relationships when it is supported parency, terms which directly indicate the connection between
by internal capacities for empathy and personal reflection. This inner and outer states. However, the second obscuring factor was
notion is captured by the idea that people generally prefer a friend that item content on existing measures tended to have a strong
whose ‘‘heart is in the right place”. positive valence. A consequence of this positive valence is that
These speculations point the way to future research that will authenticity measures tend to be strongly correlated with agree-
benefit from our generation of a unidimensional model of realness. able traits. However, as described in detail above, this pattern of
In these studies, realness was relatively stable, observable, predic- correlation departs significantly from classical theories of authen-
tive of contextualized social behavior, positively associated with ticity. An authentic person should be so whether or not there are
adaptive functioning, and largely unrelated to concerns about potential negative consequences. In fact, situations in which the
being agreeable vs. antagonistic, as predicted. These results have potential for negative consequences are present provide the truest
implications for understanding individual differences in an impor- tests of authenticity. We refer to this tendency to be transparent or
tant pattern of social behavior and may help clarify disconnections congruent without regard for social consequences as realness. By
between classical theories and contemporary research on realness, we simply mean that when a person reveals everything
authenticity. they think, feel, and want on the inside to others in a way that is
direct and straightforward, they are being real; when they conceal
11.1. Realness and authenticity such features, they are being fake.
To be clear, realness does not solve all of the problems with
Authenticity has captured the attention of theorists and authenticity. A significant hurdle is that the validity of realness
researchers for decades, but it is a highly complex construct that scores depends on the rater having a valid account of inner states.
has proven difficult to study and around which no scholarly con- Generally speaking, the self is the best source of information about
sensus has emerged (Hicks et al., 2019). The authenticity literature inner states, although individuals may have not accurately report
is somewhat disjointed, with measures that are similar but not them for a variety of reasons. Observers and informants, in con-
identical, and in which theory and research have parted ways in trast, may not share all of the self’s blind spots, but they also do
important respects (Baumeister, 2019). Moreover, our results sug- not have direct access to the target’s inner states. It may be possi-
gest that existing measures deviate from classical theories about ble to create experimental approaches to test the relevance of
13
C.J. Hopwood, E.W. Good, A.A. Levendosky et al. Journal of Research in Personality 92 (2021) 104086

self-insight to some degree (e.g., by manipulating inner states 11.3. Realness and conceptually similar constructs
directly via priming techniques), which would be an important
direction for future work. Some of the modest correlations between realness and concep-
One specific way in which realness may be different from tually similar constructs are important for understanding the dif-
authenticity occurs when a person has two motives. For instance, ference between realness and other aspects of authenticity. For
a person may disapprove of someone else’s behavior but also value example, honesty as conceptualized on the HEXACO is a relatively
social harmony, and expect that expressing that disapproval would instrumental trait with significant positive valence (e.g., If I knew
create disharmony. It is not clear whether expressing disapproval that I could never get caught, I would be willing to steal a million
or not would be the most authentic behavior in this situation. dollars (reverse), I wouldn’t use flattery to get a raise or a promo-
However, the most real response would be to both express disap- tion at work, even if I thought it would succeed). In contrast, the
proval and also express the desire to maintain social harmony. To social costs of realness are embedded in the items of the RS, which
the extent that either of these inner states or motives are con- also focus on being real for its own sake, as opposed to the instru-
cealed, the response is not real (but still could potentially be mental utility of the alternative. To be concrete, HEXACO honesty
authentic in at least some sense). Future work focused on the might be better at capturing the tendency (not) to use subterfuge
how people express themselves when their motives conflict would in order to get something or impress someone, RS realness might
be informative about both realness and the broader concept of be better at capturing the tendency to act according to inner expe-
authenticity. rience regardless of personal or social consequences.
Self-monitoring is another conceptually similar but somewhat
11.2. Correlates of individual differences in realness broader and empirically distinct construct. Self-monitoring focuses
on behavioral expression, and particularly non-verbal expressions
We found that individual differences in realness were strongly (Snyder, 1974). Moreover, the absence of self-monitoring can func-
related to variation in existing measures of authenticity and corre- tion to be either real or non-real. For instance, according to Snyder
lated with high levels of extraversion, openness, conscientiousness, (1974), one of ‘‘the goals of self-monitoring may be to communi-
honesty, dominance, internal locus of control, and interpersonal cate accurately one’s true emotional state”. In other words, for a
competence. Realness was negatively associated with neuroticism, person who is characteristically deceptive or fake, an absence of
a range of maladaptive personality characteristics, interpersonal self-monitoring would tend to contribute to being less real. Over-
problems, self-monitoring, and fear of negative evaluation; and it all, we see self-monitoring as capturing some aspects of being real
was largely unrelated to agreeableness, although the pattern of in the sense that the absence of self-monitoring is thought to pro-
results was complicated, as we will discuss in more detail below. duce a tight, non-reflected connection between internal states and
Overall, this pattern of correlations suggests that people who are outward behavior, but that the concept also includes some of the
more real tend to have more adaptive personalities. This is consis- internal features depicted in Fig. 1, and may not necessarily be
tent with classic theories that postulate that realness is an out- associated with being real in any particular situation. The relatively
growth of psychological maturity (e.g., Horney, 1951; Maslow, modest correlation between realness and self-monitoring in study
1968). However, as discussed above, this may depend on the level 3 is consistent with this interpretation.
of health of inner characteristics such as self-awareness and capac- Disinhibition, a third conceptually similar construct, is a broad
ity for reflection and emotion regulation. In other words, it may be trait involving impulsive behavior. It tends to be associated with
the case that realness is adaptive among healthy, prosocially moti- negative outcomes such as externalizing psychopathology
vated individuals, whereas it is maladaptive or even pernicious (Patrick et al., 2013), and tends to decrease normatively with age
among people who are less well-developed or antisocial. Indeed, (Vaidya, Latzman, Markon, & Watson, 2010). There is a similarity
we note that children are often seen as characteristically ‘‘real”, between being real and being disinhibited, because both of these
despite not having developed personalities. Given that both classi- concepts involve a connection between inner states and behavioral
cal theory and our data imply but do not prove that realness is an expression. However, disinhibition is broader and more maladap-
outcome of healthy maturation, genetically-informed develop- tive, and thought to reflect a kind of psychological immaturity or
mental data would be useful for better understanding the sources underdevelopment. For instance, whereas disinhibition is a strong
of individual differences in the construct (Wagner et al., 2020), and predictor of substance use (Iacono, Malone, & McGue, 2008), we
future research should seek to distinguish being real from the would not expect realness to be related to substance use. Instead,
healthy inner capacities that support personal and interpersonal we would expect people who are real to use substances if they feel
adaptation. like using them, and not use substances if they don’t, whereas we
Although we conceptualize realness as an individual differ- would expect disinhibited people to experience an urge to use sub-
ence construct, we also wish to emphasize that it is importantly stances that they find difficult to control. Disinhibition has been
different from the big five or analogous personality traits. conceptualized as low conscientiousness (Clark & Watson, 2008);
Personality traits such as those in the big five indicate the ten- in this study the RS was consistently albeit modestly negatively
dency to behave in a certain way, relative to others, across time correlated with conscientiousness, supporting the empirical dis-
and situations. For instance, people who are high in extraversion tinction between realness and disinhibition.
are more extraverted than most other people in most situations.
In contrast, realness is a contingent construct, in that it is only 11.4. Realness and agreeableness
possible to test whether someone is real when social risk is pre-
sent. As such, it is most telling to observe realness when the One of the main motivations for this research was our observa-
relevant costs are present. In an individual difference measure tion that classical theories of authenticity emphasized the poten-
such as the RS, this can be specified in the items themselves. tially disagreeable aspects of realness (e.g., Maslow, 1968)
In observational or experimental work, this would have to be whereas existing measures of authenticity had uniformly positive
taken into account in other ways, such as the manipulation of correlations with individual differences in agreeable behavior
scenarios so as to create social risk. This would be a fruitful (e.g., Pinto et al., 2012). We concluded that this discrepancy may
avenue for future research because it would help inform the be due, at least in part, to social desirability. Generally speaking,
mechanics of real behavior, and help distinguish it from other authenticity and agreeableness are both positive characteristics,
kinds of traits. and thus items designed to assess them might contain
14
C.J. Hopwood, E.W. Good, A.A. Levendosky et al. Journal of Research in Personality 92 (2021) 104086

non-specific positive valence, creating a correlation between the in the environment (Ryan & Ryan, 2019) affect realness. We antic-
two constructs (Baumeister, 2019; Jongman-Sereno & Leary, 2016). ipate that, like other traits, realness will be strongly impacted by
Comparisons of validity correlations from self, informant, and both individual differences and situational dynamics. In this set
peer-nomination data were used to disentangle social desirability of studies, we focused on individual differences and learned very
effects. The self-report correlation between realness and agree- little about situational dynamics. By generating a valid measure
ableness was negligible. The correlation between informant-rated of realness that can be administered as a self-report, informant-
realness and informant-rated agreeableness was positive, which report or behavioral observation tool, we have we have provided
may suggest that informants would generally prefer their friends a method for capturing this core feature of authentic behavior
to be real. This interpretation is consistent with assertions by the- and set the stage for work on the manifestation and dynamics of
orists like Rogers (1961) regarding the interpersonal importance of realness states in actual social contexts.
being real. However, when given a forced choice between a real
and a polite friend, both of whom the rater likes, informants rated 11.6. Limits to generalizability
the polite friend as substantially more agreeable than the real
friend. This pattern can be summarized as follows: people who These studies were conducted exclusively in WEIRD samples in
are more real do not tend to see themselves as more agreeable, two countries. It would be important to examine how well the con-
but people tend to see realness in their friends as more agreeable cept of realness generalizes to other cultures in terms of content
than otherwise, while also recognizing that it is less agreeable to validity, measurement invariance, and patterns of correlation
be real than to be polite. before generalizing these results to people, in general. Even within
Longitudinal and experimental work would be useful for further these countries, efforts were not specifically made to examine how
disentangling realness from disagreeableness, from the perspective realness functions across important sub-segments of the popula-
of both the self and others. Further refinement of the measurement tion (e.g., different ethnicities or social classes). This is a related
of these constructs may also be useful. Specifically, it may be that and important area for future work. It seems plausible that, within
realness is experienced as warm or communal in a deep sense, WEIRD countries, people with different backgrounds are more
even if it is not agreeable in the more superficial sense. Colloqui- likely to exhibit realness than others. For instance, it may be that
ally, people often experience gratitude when others are ‘‘real” with people with more historical or personal privilege experience rela-
them, presumably because they attribute that realness to some tively less social risk in being real than people from underrepre-
kind of deep or lasting concern. Given the possibility that perceived sented or underprivileged groups. Extending from this idea is the
agreeableness and realness reflect different levels of psychological possibility that certain known groups might be particularly high
functioning, it may not make sense to measure them with the same (e.g., counselors) or low (e.g., thieves) in realness. Studies sampling
kinds of tools (Leary, 1957), and it may be profitable to develop such groups would provide a novel means of validating and study-
techniques that distinguish deeper, motivational aspects of behav- ing realness.
ior from more visible, superficial aspects.

11.7. Conclusion
11.5. Realness, context, and states

Our goal was to establish the construct of realness, or the ten-

One interesting finding from recent research is that people tend
dency to act on the outside the way one feels on the inside regard-
to report feeling more authentic when they are their best selves,
less of social consequences. This is in contrast to fakeness, in which
not their most typical selves, in social situations (Beer & Harris,
a person conceals certain aspects of the inner experience. A person
2019; Fleeson & Wilt, 2010). This speaks to the valence effect dis-
who hides their thoughts, feelings, or motives from others is
cussed above – people want to believe they are their best selves
plainly not being real. Realness has mostly been studied in the con-
deep inside, which includes being authentic (Hicks, Schlegel, &
text of authenticity, a complex within-person process often mea-
Newman, 2019), and there is a fairly consensual model of what
sured with tools that do not align in certain ways with classical
the best self is (Bleidorn et al., 2019). This may help explain why
theories. In particular, these measures try to capture a multicom-
ratings of authenticity and ratings of adaptive personality traits,
ponent temporal process using cross-sectional questionnaires,
including agreeableness, converge at a very general level.
and to be saturated with positive valence, including agreeableness.
But a different and perhaps more interesting behavioral ques-
As such, realness is somewhat obscured in contemporary authen-
tion is, in the moment when the crisis strikes, are you real
ticity research. In this study, we isolated realness within the gen-
(Sedikides et al., 2019)? Being real in this sense is not the same
eral domain of authenticity, developed a tool that could be used
thing as behaving according to one’s typical trait levels, being the
to measure relatively stable individual differences in realness from
same way across all situations, or being the best version of your-
the perspective of the self, informants, or observers, and estab-
self. As inner feelings may change dramatically across situations
lished its properties. This sets the stage for future work on authen-
or roles, then behavior must correspondingly change, given that
tic social processes, and in particular the sources, correlates, costs,
realness is defined by the congruence between inner and outer
and benefits of being real.
states. Realness is consistency with how one feels in a given
moment, which itself might change across situations, and which
may deviate from typical traits. A related question is, what if a per- Appendix:. Realness scale
son has an internal conflict and their behavior only corresponds to
one side of that conflict? We would argue that this would be only Please read the following statements and use the scale provided
partly real, and to be fully real, one should outwardly express both to indicate how accurate each statement is of you, in general.
aspects of their internal conflict. Scale: False, Slightly True, Mainly True, Very True
Longitudinal and contextualized, multi-method data are needed At times I say what people want to hear rather than what I
to test these kinds of hypotheses. We did not consider how contex- want. (r)
tual factors such as relationship closeness or hierarchy (Chen, I do what works best for the situation even if it is not how I feel.
2019), the match between internal and external states (Eastwick, (r)
Finkel, & Simpson, 2019), relationship dynamics (Finkel, 2019), Others might see me as fake. (r)
internal conflict (Strack & Deutsch, 2004), or the level of support It would take a lot for me to tell someone they have hurt me. (r)
15
C.J. Hopwood, E.W. Good, A.A. Levendosky et al. Journal of Research in Personality 92 (2021) 104086

I tell the truth even if it makes others unhappy. Eugster, S. L., & Wampold, B. E. (1996). Systematic effects of participant role on
evaluation of the psychotherapy session. Journal of Consulting and Clinical
I say what I believe even if people don’t like it.
Psychology, 64, 1020–1028.
I sometimes act like I believe what others believe. (r) Finkel, E. J., & Eastwick, P. W. (2008). Speed-dating. Current Directions in
I tend to tell others exactly what I think even if it causes conflict. Psychological Science, 17, 193–197.
I avoid sharing desires that others may not approve of. (r) Fleeson, W. (2001). Toward a structure-and process-integrated view of personality:
Traits as density distributions of states. Journal of personality and social
I express my needs and desires directly. Psychology, 80, 1011–1027.
I share my feelings with others even if it upsets them. Fleeson, W., & Wilt, J. (2010). The relevance of big five trait content in behavior to
I tell people what I want even if they may not want the same subjective authenticity: Do high levels of within-person behavioral variability
undermine or enable authenticity achievement? Journal of Personality, 78,
thing. 1353–1382.
Fraley, R. C., Heffernan, M. E., Vicary, A. M., & Brumbaugh, C. C. (2011). The
experiences in close relationships—Relationship Structures Questionnaire: A
References method for assessing attachment orientations across relationships.
Psychological assessment, 23, 615–625.
Gelso, C. J. (2009). The real relationship in a postmodern world: Theoretical and
American Psychiatric Association (2000). Diagnostic and Statistical Manual for Mental
empirical explorations. Psychotherapy Research, 19, 253–264.
Disorders, fourth edition text revised (DSM-IV-TR). Washington DC: Authors.
Gelso, C. J., Kelley, F. A., Fuertes, J. N., Marmarosh, C., Holmes, S. E., & Costas, C.
Anderson, C. L., Chen, S., & Ayduk, Ö. (2020). When does changing emotions harm
(2005). Measuring the real relationship in psychotherapy: Initial validation of
authenticity? Distinct reappraisal strategies differentially impact subjective and
the Therapist Form. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52, 640–649.
observer-rated authenticity. Self and Identity, 19, 590–612.
Gershon, R., & Smith, R. K. (2020). Twice-told tales: Self-repetition decreases
Ashton, M. C., & Lee, K. (2009). The HEXACO–60: A short measure of the major
observer assessments of performer authenticity. Journal of Personality and Social
dimensions of personality. Journal of personality assessment, 91, 340–345.
Psychology, 118, 307–324.
Bagby, R. M., Parker, J. D., & Taylor, G. J. (1994). The twenty-item Toronto
Gillath, O., Sesko, A. K., Shaver, P. R., & Chun, D. S. (2010). Attachment, authenticity,
Alexithymia Scale—I. Item selection and cross-validation of the factor structure.
and honesty: Dispositional and experimentally induced security can reduce
Journal of psychosomatic research, 38, 23–32.
self- and other-deception. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98,
Barasch, A., Levine, E. E., Berman, J. Z., & Small, D. A. (2014). Selfish or selfless? On
841–855.
the 15 signal value of emotion in altruistic behavior. Journal of Personality and
Gouveia, T., Schulz, M. S., & Costa, M. E. (2016). Authenticity in relationships:
Social 16. Psychology, 107, 393–413.
Predicting caregiving and attachment in adult romantic relationships. Journal of
Barnett, M. D., & Deutsch, J. T. (2016). Humanism, authenticity, and humor: Being,
Counseling Psychology, 63, 736–744.
being real, and being funny. Personality and Individual Differences, 91, 107–112.
Goldberg, L. R. (1999). A broad-bandwidth, public-domain, personality in- ventory
Baumeister, R. F. (2019). Stalking the true self through the jungles of authenticity:
measuring the lower-level facets of several five-factor models. In I. Mervielde, I.
Problems, contradictions, inconsistencies, disturbing findings—And a possible
Deary, F. De Fruyt, & F. Ostendorf (Eds.). Personality psychology in Europe (Vol. 7,
way forward. Review of General Psychology, 23, 143–154.
pp. 7–28). Tilburg, The Netherlands: Tilburg University Press.
Bayliss-Conway, C., Price, S., Murphy, D., & Joseph, S. (2020). Client-centred
Goldman, B. M., & Kernis, M. H. (2002). The role of authenticity in healthy
therapeutic relationship conditions and authenticity: A prospective study.
psychological functioning and subjective well-being. Annals of the American
British Journal of Guidance & Counselling, 1–11.
Psychotherapy Association, 5, 18–22.
Beer, J. S., & Harris, M. A. (2019). The advantages and disadvantages of self-insight:
Goldman, B. M., & Kernis, M. H. (2004). The development of the authenticity inventory,
New psychological and neural perspectives. In J. M. Olson (Ed.), Advances in
version 3. Unpublished data.
experimental social psychology: Vol. 6. Advances in experimental social
Gouvea, J. S., Sawtelle, V., Geller, B. D., & Turpen, C. (2013). A framework for
psychology (p. 121–173). Elsevier Academic Press.
analyzing interdisciplinary tasks: Implications for student learning and
Bleidorn, W., Hopwood, C.J., Ackerman, R.A., Witt, E.A., Kandler, C., Reimann, R.,
curricular design. CBE—Life Sciences. Education, 12, 187–205.
Samuel, D.B., & Donnellan, M.B. (2020). Healthy personality from a basic trait
Grandey, A., Foo, S. C., Groth, M., & Goodwin, R. E. (2012). Free to be you and me: A
perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 12-07-1225.
climate of authenticity alleviates burnout from emotional labor. Journal of
Bleidorn, W., & Schwaba, T. (2017). Personality development in emerging
Occupational Health Psychology, 17, 1–14.
adulthood. In Personality development across the lifespan (pp. 39–51).
Grégoire, S., Baron, L., Ménard, J., & Lachance, L. (2014). The authenticity scale:
Academic Press.
Psychometric properties of a French translation and exploration of its
Boss, M. (1963). Psychoanalysis and Daseinsanalysis (L. E. Lefebre, Trans.). New
relationships with personality and well-being. Canadian Journal of Behavioral
York: Basic Books.
Science, 46, 346–355.
Boyraz, G., Waits, J. B., & Felix, V. A. (2014). Authenticity, life satisfaction, and
Gurtman, M. B., & Pincus, A. L. (2003). The circumplex model: Methods and research
distress: A longitudinal analysis. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 61(3),
applications. Handbook of psychology, 407–428.
498–505.
Harter, S., Marold, D. B., Whitesell, N. R., & Cobbs, G. (1996). A model of the effects of
Brunell, A. B., Kernis, M. H., Goldman, B. M., Heppner, W., Davis, P., Cascio, E. V., &
perceived parent and peer support on adolescent false self-behavior. Child
Webster, G. D. (2010). Dispositional authenticity and romantic relationship
Development, 67, 360–374.
functioning. Personality and Individual Differences, 48, 900–905.
Heidegger, M. (1927/1962). Being and Time. J. MacQuarrie & E. Robinson (Tr.), New
Chen, S. (2019). Authenticity in Context: Being True to Working Selves. Review of
York, NY: Harper & Row. Horney, K. (1951). Neurosis and Human Growth. New
General Psychology, 23, 60–72.
York, NY: W.W. Norton and Company.
Chiaburu, D. S., Cho, I., & Gardner, R. (2015). Authenticity matters more than
Heppner, W. L. O., Kernis, M. H., Nezlek, J. B., Foster, J., Lakey, C. E., & Goldman, B. M.
intelligence and personality in predicting metacognition. Industrial and
(2008). Within-person relationships among daily self-esteem, need satisfaction,
Commercial Training, 47, 363–371.
and authenticity. Psychological Science, 11, 1140–1145.
Clark, L. A., & Watson, D. (2008). Temperament: An organizing framework for trait
Hicks, J. A., Schlegel, R. J., & Newman, G. E. (2019). Introduction to the Special Issue:
psychology. In O. P. John, R. W. Robins, & L. A. Pervin (Eds.), Handbook of
Authenticity: novel insights into a valued, yet elusive, concept. Review of
Personality: Theory and research (3rd ed., pp. 265–286). New York, NY: Guilford
General Psychology, 23, 3–7.
Press.
Hodgins, H. S., & Knee, C. R. (2002). The integrating self and conscious experience. In
Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Normal personality assessment in clinical
E. L. Deci & R. M. Ryan (Eds.), Handbook of Self-Determination Research
practice: The NEO Personality Inventory. Psychological Assessment, 4, 5–13.
(pp. 87–100). Rochester, NY: University of Rochester Press.
Davis, W. E., Hicks, J. A., Schlegel, R. J., Smith, C. M., & Vess, M. (2015). Authenticity
Hodgins, H. S., Koestner, R., & Duncan, N. (1996). On the compatibility of autonomy
and self-esteem across temporal horizons. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 10,
and relatedness. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22, 227–237.
116–126.
Holden, R. R., & Fekken, G. C. (1990). Structured psychopathological test item
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic Motivation and Self-determination in Human
characteristics and validity. Psychological Assessment: A Journal of Consulting and
Behavior. New York, NY: Plenum.
Clinical Psychology, 2, 35–40.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of
Hopwood, C. J., Ansell, E. B., Pincus, A. L., Wright, A. G. C., Lukowitsky, M. R., & Roche,
intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist,
M. J. (2011). The circumplex structure of interpersonal sensitivities. Journal of
55, 68–78.
Personality, 79, 708–740.
Deci, E. L., Koester, R., & Ryan, R. M. (1999). A meta-analytic review of experiments
Hopwood, C. J., Pincus, A. L., DeMoor, R. M., & Koonce, E. A. (2008). Psychometric
examining the effects of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation. Psychological
characteristics of the Inventory of Interpersonal Problems – Short Circumplex
Bulletin, 125, 627–668.
(IIP-SC) with college students. Journal of Personality Assessment, 90, 615–618.
Donnellan, M. B., Oswald, F. L., Baird, B. M., & Lucas, R. E. (2006). The mini-IPIP
Hopwood, C. J., Thomas, K. M., & Zanarini, M. C. (2012). Hyperbolic temperament
scales: Tiny-yet-effective measures of the Big Five factors of personality.
and borderline personality disorder. Personality and Mental Health, 6, 22–32.
Psychological Assessment, 18, 192–203.
Horney, K. (1951). Neurosis and human growth. London: Routledge.
Eastwick, P. W., Finkel, E. J., Mochon, D., & Ariely, D. (2007). Selective versus
Hutchinson, D. S. (1995). Ethics. In J. Barnes (Ed.), The Cambridge companion to
unselective romantic desire: Not all reciprocity is created equal. Psychological
Aristotle (pp. 195–232). Cambridge, UK: The Press Syndicate of the University of
Science, 18, 317–319.
Cambridge.
Eastwick, P. W., Finkel, E. J., & Simpson, J. A. (2019). Best practices for testing the
Hyler, S. E. (1994). Personality questionnaire (PDQ-4+). New York: New York State
predictive validity of partner preference-matching. Personality and Social
Psychiatric Institute.
Psychology Bulletin, 45, 167–181.

16
C.J. Hopwood, E.W. Good, A.A. Levendosky et al. Journal of Research in Personality 92 (2021) 104086

Iacono, W. G., Malone, S. M., & McGue, M. (2008). Behavioral disinhibition and the the positivity bias in SNS communication. Computers in Human Behavior, 30,
development of early-onset addiction: Common and specific influences. Annual 95–102.
Review of Clinical Psychology, 4, 325–348. Rivera, G. N., Christy, A. G., Kim, J., Vess, M., Hicks, J. A., & Schlegel, R. J. (2019).
Jongman-Sereno, K. P., & Leary, M. R. (2016). Self-perceived authenticity is Understanding the relationship between perceived authenticity and well-being.
contaminated by the valuence of one’s behavior. Self and Identity, 15, 283–301. Review of General Psychology, 23, 113–126.
Jung, C. G. (1939). The Integration of Personality. New York, NY: Farrar & Rinehart. Rizzo, R., Piccinelli, M., Mazzi, M. A., Bellantuono, C., & Tansella, M. (2000). The
Kelley, F. A., Gelso, C. J., Fuertes, J. N., Marmarosh, C., & Holmes-Lanier, S. (2010). The Personal Health Questionnaire: A new screening instrument for detection of
Real Relationship Inventory: Development and psychometric investigation of ICD-10 depressive disorders in primary care. Psychological Medicine, 30,
the client form. Psychotherapy Theory, Research, Practice, and Training, 47, 831–884.
540–553. Robinson, O. C., Lopez, F. G., & Ramos, K. (2014). Parental antipathy and neglect:
Kernis, M. H., & Goldman, B. M. (2006). A multi-component conceptualization of Relations with big five personality traits, cross-context trait variability, and
authenticity: Theory and Research. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in Experimenal authenticity. Personality and Individual Differences, 56, 180–185.
Social Psychology (pp. 284–357). New York, NY: Academic Press. Robinson, O. C., Lopez, F. G., Ramos, K., & Nartova-Bochaver, S. (2018). Authenticity,
Kierkegaard, S. (1944). Begrebet Angest. Vigilius Haufniensis. social context, and well-being in the United States, England, and Russia: A three
Kierkegaard, S. (1849/1980). The Sickness unto Death. H.V. Hong & E.H. Hong (Tr.), country comparative analysis. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology..
Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Rogers, C. R. (1957). The necessary and sufficient conditions of therapeutic
Kifer, Y., Heller, D., Perunovic, W. Q. E., & Galinsky, A. D. (2013). The good life of the personality change. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 21, 95–103.
powerful: The experience of power and authenticity enhances subjective well- Rogers, C. R. (1961). On Becoming a Person. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
being. Psychological Science, 24, 280–288. Rosenblum, M., Schroeder, J., & Gino, F. (2019). Tell it like it is: When politically
Knoll, M., Meyer, B., Kroemer, N. B., & Schröder-Abé, M. (2015). It takes two to be incorrect language promotes authenticity. Journal of Personality and Social
yourself. Journal of Individual Differences., 36, 38–53. Psychology..
Knox, S., Hess, S. A., Petersen, D. A., & Hill, C. E. (1997). A qualitative analysis of client Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of
perceptions of the effects of helpful therapist self-disclosure on long-term intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist,
therapy. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 44, 274–283. 55, 68–78.
Kovács, B. (2019). Authenticity Is in the Eye of the Beholder: The Exploration of Ryan, R. M., & Solky, J. A. (1996). What is supportive about social support? In
Audiences’ Lay Associations to Authenticity Across Five Domains. Review of Handbook of social support and the family (pp. 249–267). Boston, MA: Springer.
General Psychology, 23, 32–59. Ryan, W. S., & Ryan, R. M. (2019). Toward a social psychology of authenticity:
Kuiper, N. A., Martin, R. A., & Olinger, L. J. (1993). Coping humor, stress, and Exploring within-person variation in autonomy, congruence, and genuineness
cognitive appraisals. Canadian Journal of Behavioral Science, 25, 81–96. using self-determination theory. Review of General Psychology, 23, 99–112.
Leising, D., Burger, J., Zimmermann, J., Bäckström, M., Oltmanns, J. R., & Connelly, B. Sartre, J.P. (1946/1973). Existentialism is a Humanism. P. Mairet (Tr.), London:
S. (2020). Why do items correlate with one another? A conceptual analysis with Meuthen.
relevance for general factors and network models. Satici, S. A., & Kayis, A. R. (2013). Predictive role of authenticity on psychological
Leising, D., Vogel, D., Waller, V., & Zimmermann, J. (in press). Correlations between vulnerability in Turkish university students. Psychological Reports, 112,
person-descriptive items are predictable from the product of their mid-point- 519–528.
centered social desirability values. European Journal of Personality. Sedikides, C., & Skowronski, J. J. (1997). The symbolic self in evolutionary contest.
Leist, A. K., & Müller, D. (2013). Humor types show different patterns of self- Personality and Social Psychology Review, 1, 80–102.
regulation, self-esteem, and well-being. Journal of Happiness Studies, 14, Sedikides, C., Lenton, A. P., Slabu, L., & Thomaes, S. (2019). Sketching the contours of
551–569. state authenticity. Review of General Psychology, 23, 73–88.
Leary, T. (1957). Interpersonal diagnosis of personality; a functional theory and Sheldon, K. M., Davidson, L., & Pollard, E. (2004). Integrity. In C. Peterson & M. E. P.
methodology for personality evaluation. Ronald Press. Seligman (Eds.), Character Strengths and Virtues (pp. 249–271). Oxford, UK:
Lenton, A. P., Bruder, M., Slabu, L., & Sedikides, C. (2012). How does ‘‘being real” Oxford University Press.
feel? The experience of state authenticity. Journal of Personality, 81, 276–289. Sheldon, K. M., & Elliot, A. J. (1999). Goal striving, need satisfaction, and longitudinal
Lenton, A. P., Slabu, L., & Sedikides, C. (2016). State authenticity in everyday life. well-being: The self-concordance model. Journal of Personality and Social
European Journal of Personality, 30, 64–82. Psychology, 76, 482–497.
Lerner, G. (1993). The creation of feminist consciousness: From the middle ages to Sheldon, K. M., Gunz, A., & Schachtman, T. R. (2012). What does it mean to be in
eighteen-seventy. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. touch with oneself? Testing a social character model of self-congruence. Self and
Levenson, H. (1981). Differentiating among internality, powerful others, and Identity, 11, 51–57.
chance. In H. M. Lefcourt (Ed.), Research with the Locus of Control Construct Sheldon, K. M., & Houser-Marko, L. (2001). Self-concordance, goal attainment, and
(pp. 15–63). New York: Academic Press. the pursuit of happiness: Can there be an upward spiral? Journal of Personality
Liu, Y., & Perrewe, P. L. (2006). Are they for real? The interpersonal and and Social Psychology, 80, 152–165.
intrapersonal outcomes of perceived authenticity. International Journal of Sheldon, K. M., Ryan, R. M., Rawsthorne, L., & Ilardi, B. (1997). ‘‘True” self and ‘‘trait”
Work Organisation and Emotion, 1(3), 204–214. self: Cross-role variation in the big five traits and its relations with authenticity
Lopez, F. G., & Rice, K. G. (2006). Preliminary development and validation of a and well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 1380–1393.
measure of relationship authenticity. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 53, Simms, L. J., Goldberg, L. R., Roberts, J. E., Watson, D., Welte, J., & Rotterman, J. H.
362–371. (2011). Computerized adaptive assessment of personality disorder: Introducing
Lynch, M. F., & Sheldon, K. M. (2017). Conditional regard, self-concept, and the CAT–PD project. Journal of Personality Assessment, 93, 380–389.
relational authenticity: Revisiting some key Rogerian concepts cross-culturally, Slabu, L., Lenton, A. P., Sedikides, C., & Bruder, M. (2014). Trait and state authenticity
through multilevel modeling. Journal of Humanistic Psychology. across cultures. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 45, 1347–1373.
Machiavelli, N. (1513/1916). The Prince. G. Bull (Tr), London, UK: Penguin. Snyder, M. (1974). Self-monitoring of expressive behavior. Journal of Personality and
Maslow, A. H. (1968). Toward a Psychology of Being. New York, NY: John Wiley & Social Psychology, 30, 526–537.
Sons. Soldz, S., Budman, S., Demby, A., & Merry, J. (1995). A short form of the inventory of
Maltby, J., Wood, A. M., Day, L., & Pinto, D. (2012). The position of authenticity interpersonal problems circumples scales. Assessment, 2, 53–63.
within extant models of personality. Personality and Individual Differences, 52, Strack, F., & Deutsch, R. (2004). Reflective and impulsive determinants of social
269–273. behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 8, 220–247.
Marmarosh, C. L., Gelso, C. J., Markin, R. D., Majors, R., Mallery, C., & Choi, J. (2009). Sutton, A. (2018). Distinguishing between authenticity and personality consistency
The real relationship in psychotherapy: Relationships to adult attachment, in predicting well-being: A mixed method approach. European Review of Applied
working alliance, transference, and therapy outcome. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 68, 117–130.
Psychology, 56, 337–435. Theran, S. A. (2011). Authenticity in relationships and depressive symptoms: A
May, R. (1953). Man’s search for himself. New York, NY: Norton. gender analysis. Personality and Individual Differences, 51, 423–428.
Ménard, J., & Brunet, L. (2011). Authenticity and well-being in the workplace: A Theran, S. A., & Han, S. C. (2013). Authenticity as a mediator of the relation between
mediation model. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 26, 331–346. child maltreatment and negative outcomes for college women. Journal of
Mullins-Sweatt, S. N., Jamerson, J. E., Samuel, D. B., Olson, D. R., & Widiger, T. A. Aggression, Maltreatment, and Trauma, 22, 1096–1116.
(2006). Psychometric properties of an abbreviated instrument of the five-factor Thomaes, S., Sedikides, C., van den Bos, N., Hutteman, R., & Reijntjes, A. (2017).
model. Assessment, 13, 119–137. Happy to be ‘‘me?” Authenticity, psychological need satisfaction, and subjective
Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory. New York, NY: well-being in adolescence. Child Development, 88, 1045–1056.
McGraw-Hill. Vaidya, J. G., Latzman, R. D., Markon, K. E., & Watson, D. (2010). Age differences on
Patrick, C. J., Venables, N. C., Yancey, J. R., Hicks, B. M., Nelson, L. D., & Kramer, M. D. measures of Disinhibition during young adulthood. Personality and Individual
(2013). A construct-network approach to bridging diagnostic and physiological Differences, 48, 815–820.
domains: Application to assessment of externalizing disorders. Journal of von Rochau, A. L. (1853). Grundsätze der Realpolitik auf die staatlichen Zustände
Abnormal Psychology, 122, 902–916. Deutschlands. Stuttgart, Germany: K Göpel.
Pinto, D. G., Maltby, J., Wood, A. M., & Day, L. (2012). A behavioral test of Horney’s Wagner, J., Orth, U., Bleidorn, W., Hopwood, C., & Kandler, C. (2020). Towards an
linkage between authenticity and aggression: People living authentically are Integrative Model of Sources of Personality Stability and Change. Current
less-likely to respond aggressively in unfair situations. Personality and Individual Directions in Psychological Science.
Differences, 52, 41–44. White, N. J., & Tracey, T. J. G. (2011). An examination of career indecision and
Reinecke, L., & Trepte, S. (2014). Authenticity and well-being on social network application to dispositional authenticity. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 78,
sites: A two-wave longitudinal study on the effects of online authenticity and 219–224.

17
C.J. Hopwood, E.W. Good, A.A. Levendosky et al. Journal of Research in Personality 92 (2021) 104086

Winnicott, D. W. (1958). Through Pediatrics to Psychoanalysis. London, UK: Hogarth Zhang, C., Zhou, J., Dik, B. J., & You, X. (2019). Reciprocal Relation Between
Press. Authenticity and Career Decision Self-Efficacy: A Longitudinal Study. Journal of
Wood, A. M., Linley, P. A., Maltby, J., Baliousis, M., & Joseph, S. (2008). The authentic Career Development. 0894845319884641.
personality: A theoretical and empirical conceptualization and the Zanarini, M. C., & Frankenburg, F. R. (2007). The essential nature of borderline
development of the Authenticity Scale. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 55, psychopathology. Journal of Personality Disorders, 21, 518–535.
385–399.

18