Authenticity

Authenticity

0 It takes two to be yourself:

An integrated model of authenticity, its measurement, and its relationship to work-related variables

Michael Knoll1 Bertolt Meyer2 Nils B. Kroemer3 Michela Schröder-Abé4

1

Durham University Business School, Mill Hill Lane, Durham, DH1 3LB, United

Kingdom. Tel.: +44 (0) 191 3345374, Fax: +44 (0) 191 3345280, e-mail: [email protected] (Corresponding author) 2

Technische Universität Chemnitz, Department of Psychology, Business and

Organizational Psychology, Wilhelm-Raabe Str. 43, 09120 Chemnitz, Germany. Tel.: +49 (0)371 531-32972, e-mail: [email protected]. 3

Technische Universität Dresden, Faculty of Medicine Carl Gustav Carus, Department

of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Systems Neuroscience, Würzburger Str. 35, 01187 Dresden, Germany. Tel.: +49 (0)351 463-42206, e-mail: [email protected]. 4

Technische Universität Darmstadt, Department of Psychology, Diagnostics,

Evaluation, and Intervention, Alexanderstr. 10, 64283 Darmstadt, Germany. Tel.: +49 (0)6151 16-5115, e-mail: [email protected].

Note. We thank Oliver Weigelt and Karl-Heinz Renner for their help with the collection of data.

Authenticity

1 Abstract

Basic research suggests that authenticity is a potential important antecedent of responsible organizational behavior and occupational health. However, ambiguities concerning the concept‟s content and boundaries and measurement problems limit cumulative theory building and easy adaption in organizational research. We address these barriers by integrating existing conceptualizations into a two-dimensional model of authenticity comprising a self-directed and an expression-oriented dimension and developing and validating an instrument for organizational research. We furthermore use the newly developed scale to address two controversies in authenticity research: order of causality between authenticity and well-being and health and self-other agreement on authenticity and its correlates. Results from multiple samples provide evidence for content, discriminant, and criterion validity, as well as internal and temporal consistency of the integrated short scale. Self-reports and others‟ ratings support both dimensions‟ relevance for work-related variables and revealed insights into how others estimate authenticity. Longitudinal data provided evidence for antecedents and consequences and uncovered differences in the malleability of the dimensions.

Key words: authenticity, self-awareness, self-expression, organizational behavior, well-being, health

Authenticity

1

It takes two to be yourself: An integrated model of authenticity, its measurement, and its relationship to work-related variables Authenticity has a long past as a philosophical and psychological idea but a short history as an object of empirical research. The enduring interest is not surprising, considering that the dictums that stand behind the idea of authenticity – to “know thyself” and to “be thyself” (Harter, 2002) – are associated with a fulfilling and satisfying life (Rogers, 1961; Taylor, 1992). However, authentic individuals might also contribute to healthy social environments which rely on individuals who have acquired self-understanding and act in consistence with what they value instead of complying with situational and social pressures (Avolio & Gardner, 2005; Calhoun, 1995; Erickson, 1995; Guignon, 2004). Authenticity‟s short and contentious history in empirical research has been attributed to ambiguities regarding the construct‟s content and boundaries, a lack of adequate measures, and concerns about the reliability of self-reports and the accessibility of self-knowledge (Harter, 2002; Sheldon, 2004). Our research is based on the assumption that authenticity‟s potential value for understanding healthy individuals and environments justifies its use in empirical studies despite continuing debates on conceptual ambiguities and concerns regarding potential selfdeception and response biases (Nisbett, & Wilson, 1977; Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003; Wilson, 2009). We deem these debates fruitful and advocate an empirical approach to address these issues, however, we also argue for using what is already known on the nature and effects of authenticity to inform applied research and practical implementation. The studies presented in this paper aim at contributing to both of these strategies. We contribute to the debate on authenticity‟s content and boundaries by suggesting a twodimensional model of authenticity that integrates existing approaches from a broad range of disciplines due to their shared characteristics. To provide evidence for the model‟s usefulness

Authenticity

2

to enrich empirical research, we develop a short scale for assessing its underlying dimensions and provide evidence for its psychometric fitness and construct validity. We further provide evidence for the scale‟s usefulness by addressing two debates in authenticity research (Ryff & Singer, 2008; Schlegel & Hicks, 2011): We examine order of causality between authenticity and well-being and health, and we examine whether relationships hold if constructs are assessed by means of other reports and examine convergence of self-ratings and other ratings of authenticity and selected correlates. In our studies, we focus particularly on authenticity‟s potential for organizational research, because most people are employed in organizations or their well-being and health are somehow affected by organizations, be it as pupils in schools, as elderly or poorly people in caring organizations, or members of a party or club. So far, suggestions that authenticity might enrich current debates on occupational health and organizational behavior (Ilies, Morgeson, & Nahrgang, 2005; Roberts, Cha, Hewlin, & Settles, 2009) have not been met by considerable organizational research that included authenticity as an individual difference. However, authenticity has received much attention as an attribute of social influence processes in organizations with authentic leadership (Avolio & Gardner, 2005; Gardner, Cogliser, Davis, & Dickens, 2011) emerging as much-noticed approach to leadership in both the practitioner and academic literature. Notably, the conceptual basis and how to best measure authentic leadership remain contentious issues among leadership researchers as well (Gardner et al., 2011). Our research can inform these debates as authentic leadership research draw upon research on the authenticity construct, and individual authenticity functions as a basis for managers to exercise authentic leadership. Moreover, when it comes to sustainable organizational development, authenticity on the side of non-managerial employees is at least as important as authentic leadership (Algera & Lips-Wiersma, 2012; Leroy, Anseel, Gardner, & Sels, 2012). Our research might help examining these suggested effects.

Authenticity

3 Ambiguities in Current Conceptualizations of Authenticity

Authenticity‟s long tradition in psychology becomes apparent in approaches that emphasized that people achieve psychological health and fulfillment in life if they own their personal experiences − thoughts, emotions, needs, wants, preferences, or beliefs − and express themselves in ways that are consistent with inner thoughts and feelings (for reviews, see Harter, 2002; Sheldon, 2004). This argument was most prominently put forward by humanistic (Rogers, 1961) and existentialist approaches (May, 1981) and has been revisited recently in the positive psychology movement (Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi, 2000) and approaches to psychological well-being (Ryff & Singer, 2008; Waterman, 1993). However, a comprehensive body of research on authenticity is lacking; this has been attributed to conceptual obscurities and the lack of adequate measures (Harter, 2002; Sheldon, 2004). Ambiguities regarding the concept’s content and boundaries Until recently, empirical papers that examined authenticity used unidimensional measures equating authenticity with the feeling of being close to one‟s true self or expressing this true self. For example, Harter, Waters, and Whitesell (1997) showed that if environments ignore, reject or denigrate certain aspects of children‟s true self this results in a lack of voice in adolescence, the failure to express what one really thinks or believes. Sheldon, Ryan, Rawsthorne, and Ilardi (1997) found that individuals differ in the extent to which they experience their behavior as an expression of their true self in different contexts and that higher authenticity is related to well-being and health. These unidimensional conceptualizations draw upon the idea of a true self that needs to be known or understood before it can be expressed. Notably, to be able to examine authenticity and its effects, researchers circumvent the enduring debate on whether something like a true self exists or is needed (Gergen, 1991; Schlegel & Hicks, 2011) and draw upon the subjective experience of being (close to) oneself or not. While this short-cut is vulnerable to accusations of self-

Authenticity

4

deception and social desirability, the research provided insights of practical relevance. Its potential value for developing conditions for healthy individuals and environments resulted in the development of more elaborated concepts of authenticity. In a pioneering attempt, Kernis (2003) linked philosophical debates on authenticity to psychological research on optimal self-esteem and healthy psychological functioning. Drawing on this idea, Kernis and Goldman (2006) suggested four facets to be essential for trait authenticity: awareness (the extent of knowledge about one‟s self and the motivation to expand it and trust in that knowledge), unbiased processing (the relative absence of interpretative distortions in processing self-relevant information), behavior (acting in accordance with one‟s values, preferences, and needs), and relational orientation (valuing and achieving openness and truthfulness in close relationships). The four facets of authenticity can be assessed with the 45-item Authenticity Inventory 3 (AI3) which has one subscale per facet. Drawing on approaches from humanistic and existentialist psychology, Wood, Linley, Maltby, Baliousis, and Joseph (2008) presented an alternative conceptualization of authenticity. Wood et al. highlighted congruence as the central characteristic of their tripartite construct of authenticity as defined as “consistency between the three levels of (a) a person‟s primary experience, (b) their symbolized awareness, and (c) their outward behavior and communication” (Barrett-Lennard, 1998, p. 82). To assess the “authentic personality,” Wood et al. developed the Authenticity Scale (AS) with three subscales. The subscale SelfAlienation measures the mismatch between people‟s actual experience (including actual physiological states, emotions, and schematic beliefs) and aspects of experience that are represented in their conscious/cognitive awareness. The subscale Authentic Living measures the extent to which individuals behave and express their emotions “in such a way that is consistent with the conscious awareness of physiological states, emotions, beliefs, and cognitions” (Wood et al., 2008, p. 386). The third subscale, Acceptance of External Influence,

Authenticity

5

measures “the extent to which one accepts the influence of other people and the belief that one has to conform to the expectations of others” (p. 386). The reverse coding of this subscale associates higher authenticity with stronger refusal of external influence. Measurement concerns So far, direct adoptions of the AI3 (Kernis & Goldman, 2006) and the AS (Wood et al., 2008) to examine trait authenticity prove difficult in organizational research. To the best of our knowledge, only one study drew upon the AI3 to examine trait authenticity in work settings. Menard and Brunet (2011) used 25 out of the 45 items of the AI3 and found that authenticity was related to subjective well-being at work. Exploratory factor analysis revealed two factors that Menard and Brunet interpreted as a “cognitive dimension” that they called Unbiased Awareness and a “behavioral dimension” that they called Authentic Behavior. The only study we know that adapted the AS (Wood et al., 2008) to work settings was a cross-sectional study conducted by van den Bosch and Taris (2014). Notably, the authors found substantial relationships with work-related variables only for the subscales Authentic Living and Self-Alienation, whereas relationships were weaker or did not occur at all (e.g., for work engagement, job satisfaction) for the subscale Acceptance of External Influence. A possible explanation is that authenticity might not be incompatible with accepting external influence. This suggestion is in line with Self-Determination Theory‟s continuum model of internalized motivation (Deci & Ryan, 1995). According to this model, employees can internalize external demands if the latter represent their self-concept allowing employees to act on behalf of an external authority and be authentic at the same time. In addition to ambiguities in the concepts‟ content and boundaries, the application of the concept in organizational research seems to be limited by the (lack of) available measures. As indicated by Menard and Brunet‟s (2011) reduction of the AI3 from 45 to 25 items, researchers seem to be inclined not to use lengthy measures in organizational studies. In

Authenticity

6

addition, the AI3 showed some weaknesses with respect to psychometric standards. For example, Kernis and Goldman (2006) reported a Cronbach‟s alpha of .64 for the 10-item subscale Unbiased Processing. Wood et al.‟s (2008) scale does better with regard to length and internal consistency (alphas ranging from .70 to .84). However, its background in clinical psychology (especially in the case of the Self-Alienation subscale) seems to lead to skewed distributions which might result in decreased sensitivity in non-clinical samples. For example, van den Bosch and Taris (2014) report a mean value of 1.92 of the Self-Alienation subscale (range from 1 to 7) indicating that participants did not use the full scale range. Thus, a short scale with good psychometric properties is needed to examine authenticity at work. In sum, although Kernis and Goldman‟s (2006) and Wood et al.‟s (2008) approaches induced a new era of authenticity research, ambiguities concerning the concept‟s content and boundaries and its measurement remain controversial and limit their adoption especially for organizational research. To overcome these conceptual and measurement barriers, we suggest integrating previous approaches due their common characteristics. Such an integrated model could then function as the basis for a parsimonious yet valid assessment of authenticity. An Integrated Model of Authenticity The approaches by Kernis and Goldman (2006) and Wood et al. (2008) criticize a unidimensional conceptualization, that is, defining authenticity merely as “being true to oneself”. More likely, authenticity bears resemblances to multidimensional concepts like sense of coherence (Antonovsky, 1979) or hardiness (Kobasa, 1979). However, what dimensions constitute authenticity is contentious not just between Kernis and Goldman‟s and Wood et al.‟s approaches, but also in authentic leadership research (Gardner et al., 2011) and within and across a broad range of disciplines dealing with the concept, for example, psychology, sociology, philosophy, and management studies (Erickson, 1995; Guignon, 2004; Harter, 2002; Roberts et al., 2009; Sheldon, 2004). While approaches to authenticity differ,

Authenticity

7

there seem to be two dimensions, one self- and one expression oriented, that most conceptualizations share. After giving examples for their occurrence, we suggest these two dimensions as underlying dimensions for an integrated model of authenticity. A self- and an expression oriented dimension are visible in Sheldon‟s (2004, p.249) consensual definition that he suggested after reviewing several approaches from philosophy, sociology, and psychology. In particular, he refers to authenticity as “accurately representing – privately and publicly – (…) internal states, intentions, and commitments”. Susan Harter, a pioneer in research on authentic and false-self development during the life-span (e.g., Harter et al., 1997), refers to a self- and an expression oriented dimension when she draws upon the two dictums of “know thyself” and “be thyself” when introducing the authenticity concept in her review (Harter, 2002). In the domain of authentic leadership, Shamir and Eilam (2005, p.398) “define authentic leaders on the basis of their self-concepts and the relationships between their self-concepts and their actions” and highlight self-orientation in characteristics such as high levels of self-resolution and expression orientation in self-concordant goals and self-expressive behaviors. In another approach to define authentic leaders, Gardner, Avolio, Luthans, May and Walumbwa (2005) emphasize the two dimensions self-awareness and selfregulation. While the first dimension refers to authentic leaders having insight into their values, identity, emotions, and goals and is thus self-oriented; the second dimension is expression oriented as it refers to how those aspects of the self-concept drive or guide the leader‟s behavior and how he or she displays the self in relationships. Guignon (2004, p.150), based on a review of philosophical ideas of authenticity and self-help literature, notes that the ideal of authenticity comprises two components: “(1) knowing what you believe and feel and (2) honestly expressing those beliefs and feelings in what you do”. Notably, Guignon adds that “becoming an authentic individual is not a matter of recoiling from society in order to find and express the inner self. What it involves is the ability to be a reflective individual who

Authenticity

8

discerns what is genuinely worth pursuing within the social context in which he or she is situated” (p.155). Finally, self- and expression oriented dimensions are emphasized in both multidimensional approaches mentioned above that are the Authenticity Inventory 3 (AI3; Kernis & Goldman, 2006) and the Authenticity Scale (AS; Wood et al., 2008). Self-oriented dimensions are represented by the subscales Awareness and Unbiased Processing from the AI3 and the reverse-coded Self-Alienation subscale from AS. The expression-oriented facet of authenticity is represented by the Behavior and Relational Orientation subscales from the AI3 and the subscale Authentic Living from the AS. Drawing on these shared characteristics (and inevitably abandoning more specific ones) we suggest a two-dimensional model of authenticity comprising a self-directed dimension that we call authentic self-awareness and an expression oriented dimension that we call authentic self-expression. Authentic self-awareness is embodied in persons who perceive their self as a whole and are motivated to increase their knowledge about its constituting elements which are internal states (e.g., feelings), intentions (e.g., motives, desires), and commitments (e.g., one‟s identity). This implies that our concept of authenticity does not rely on a pre-given „true self‟ but on a temporary identity that is achieved via exploration and commitment (Luyckx, Vansteenkiste, Goossens, & Duriez, 2009; Marcia, 1966; Waterman, 1984). Exploration involves being aware of cues that are given from external (e.g., other people‟s responses to one‟s behavior; Fenigstein, Scheier, & Buss, 1975) and internal sources (e.g., feelings when achieving a goal or performing an activity; Sheldon & Elliot, 1999). Commitment means understanding what defines one‟s identity and integrating new information about oneself into the existing self-structure (Guignon, 2004; Ryan, La Guardia, & Rawsthorne, 2005). Authentic self-expression is embodied in persons who consistently represent their achieved identity in their behavior, clothing style, career decisions, and the like. Notably, as mentioned by Guignon (2004), Kernis and Goldman (2006), and Deci and Ryan (2000),

Authenticity

9

authentic self-expression is not interchangeable with honest, spontaneous, or impetuous expression and does not reject external influence. As Erickson (1995) and Salmela (2009) discussed for the work context, people may (autonomously) manage their expressions (e.g., emotions shown by a nurse) and still cohere with their commitments (e.g., the value of benevolence). Consequently, authentic self-expression is conceptualized as flexible to the extent that it allows individuals to find ways of expression that are consistent with their identity or stem from an integrated sense of self (Deci & Ryan, 2000) and still fulfill (work) roles that might demand self-regulation and self-presentation. The Present Research Overview In the theory part, we introduced a model of authenticity in which we suggest integrating existing approaches according to their overlapping elements into two broad dimensions: Authentic self-awareness and authentic self-expression. Based on this suggestion, our research has four objectives. Our first objective is to develop a short scale that preserves conceptual broadness of the authenticity construct while still guaranteeing good psychometric properties. Our second objective is to provide preliminary evidence for the usefulness of the scale. Therefore, we confirm findings that were achieved with prior conceptualizations and extend current knowledge by linking authenticity to processes that are related to responsible organizational behavior and employee well-being and health. Our third objective addresses questions regarding order of causality between authenticity and wellbeing and health. The forth objective addresses concerns regarding self-serving biases and the value of assessing self-other agreement on authenticity and its correlates. Samples We apply a multi-sample strategy to examine the four research objectives. Sample A (N = 313) comprised 240 undergraduate students at three German universities who took part

Authenticity

10

in this study in exchange for course credit. Participants were offered additional credit for sending the link to relatives and friends, which resulted in 61 employees and 12 high school students as additional participants. The mean age of the participants was 24.6 years (SD = 8.9), and 236 participants were women. Sample B comprised 844 participants (652 women; Mage = 33.9; SD = 8.8; ranged from 20 to 65) from a German distance-teaching university, where employees from a wide range of companies, areas, and work domains take courses. We used the complete sample for scale development and a subsample (B.1) that included employees only for examining the relationship between authenticity and employee health. Sample B.1 comprised 428 participants that were employed for more than six months at the time of the study, 64 were employed for less than six months, 194 were not employed at the time of the study but were employed at least six months previously, 130 were self-employed, and 28 had been previously self-employed. Of the currently employed participants, tenure was six months to 2 years (21%), 2 to 5 years (25%), 5-10 years (26%), and more than 10 years (28%). Different industries were represented in the sample, the most frequent of which were social and health care (20%), services (17%), education (14%), and administration (10%). To be able to conduct an additional test for potential self-deception and same source biases, we draw Subsample B.2 by matching Sample B with data from another research group that collected data at the same time at the same distant learning university. We achieved a subsample of 89 participants with characteristics similar to the overall sample (70 women, Mage = 33.5; SD = 8.8; ranged from 20 to 56). Samples C, D, and E were student samples. Sample C comprised 105 psychology undergraduates (89% women) with a mean age of 22.3 years (SD = 3.6) who studied at a German university. To test longitudinal effects, we asked participants in Sample C to take part in two additional data collections to examine retest reliability after six weeks (C.1) and

Authenticity

11

eight months (C.2). Subsample C.1 comprised 76 participants (Mage = 22.1; SD = 3.2; 88% women) and Subsample C.2 comprised 46 participants (Mage = 21.8; SD = 3.1; 87% women). Sample D comprised 104 undergraduates (Mage = 21.1; SD = 1.4; 78% women) studying diverse subjects (e.g., 48% sociology, 27% economics). Sample E comprised 49 psychology students (Mage 20.7 years, SD = 2.2, 90% women). Research objective 1: Scale development The two-dimensional model introduced above shall help integrating existing research, but it shall also function as a basis for a parsimonious yet reliable and valid assessment of authenticity. Therefore, our first research objective was to develop a short scale for measuring authenticity that might be particular useful in organizational research. Method Material. We used German translations of all 45 items of the AI3 (Kernis & Goldman, 2006) and 12 items of the AS (Wood et al., 2008) as item pool. The items were translated by the first author and back-translated into English by the forth author. The third author and an expert in English language compared item wordings to ensure accuracy. Items were phrased as statements, and participants indicated their agreement on a Likert-type scale from 1 (does not describe me at all) to 7 (describes me very well). The surveys were conducted online. Participants and Procedure. We used samples A, B, and C to test our model and develop the short scale. In order to avoid sample biases, we used separate samples for model testing and item selection. We used the 57 items of the two original instruments (AI3 and AS) to create our short scale. We first conducted an Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) with a forced two-factor solution representing the theoretically-derived two-dimensional structure of authenticity on the initial item pool with Sample A. Because we intend to create a scale for applied contexts, we subsequently maintained the items that exhibited a high loading on one factor, that did not

Authenticity

12

exhibit skewed distributions (skewness and kurtosis > |1.5|) and items that only differentiated in the low scale range for further use. We generated a reduced item pool of 18 items, nine items for each component. As a next step, we administered this reduced item pool to Sample B and conducted a second EFA. Based on these results, we selected eight items (four items per factor) that showed the best overall performance with respect to psychometric criteria in both samples while still maintaining conceptual breadth. Those eight items were presented to Sample C and were subjected to Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) with two factors corresponding to authentic self-awareness and authentic self-expression. Retest reliability was evaluated after six weeks and a second time after eight months using Samples C, C.1, and C.2. Results and discussion Table 1 shows the eight items that we selected to represent our two-factor model and to assess authenticity in form of the Integrated Authenticity Scale (IAS). Descriptive statistics were comparable across samples for the composite IAS and the subscales Authentic SelfAwareness (ASA) and Authentic Self-Expression (ASE). Factor loadings for ASA and ASE were all substantially higher than even the highest of all cross-loadings. Internal consistencies were satisfactory-to-good for both subscales (with slightly better results for the ASA) and for the composite scale. Correlations between ASA and ASE were comparable on a moderate level, suggesting that subscales are distinct but related to each other lending support to the idea that they are parts of an overall authenticity construct. The results of the CFA showed that the two-factor model as represented by the chosen items fit the data well, χ² (N =105) = 25.356; df = 19; p = .15; CFI = .98; RMSEA = .05; TLI = .97. We compared the two-factor solution to a single-factor model to examine whether it is useful at all to differentiate particular facets of authenticity instead of using a unidimensional model representing prior research that examined authenticity without considering potential

Authenticity

13

multidimensionality (e.g., Hochschild, 1983; Sheldon et al., 1997). The two-factor solution provided a better fit to the data than the single-factor model, χ² (N =105) = 90.639; df = 20; p < .01; CFI = .74; RMSEA = .18; TLI = .64. To examine stability, IAS‟ total scores and scores for both subscales at Time 1 were correlated with scores at Time 2 after six weeks and at Time 3 after eight months for sample C. Test-retest correlations were r = .67 and .71 for the IAS, r = .54 and .51 for ASA, and r = .78 and .72 for ASE. In sum, Study 1 illustrates that it is possible to integrate items from the two existing scales into a higher-order construct of authenticity that closely resemble the theoretic framing of knowing and understanding oneself (authentic self-awareness) and expressing that self consistently (authentic self-expression). Study 1 also demonstrated good psychometric qualities of our newly developed short scale. Notably, ASA exhibited slightly higher internal consistency but lower stability, whereas ASE showed slightly weaker internal consistency but higher stability over time. These findings already go beyond scale development, as they indicate that, on a state-trait continuum, ASA might change over time, whereas ASE is more trait-like. ASE‟s lower homogeneity, in turn, might be due to the fact that authentic expression comprises both avoiding suppressing emotions or deceiving others and actively advocating what one stands for as a person. Further elaboration of construct validity is our second research objective. Research objective 2: Establishing construct validity Due to its potential individual and social value, authenticity has been suggested to enrich organizational research and current debates on occupational health and responsible organizational behavior in particular (Ilies et al., 2005; Roberts et al., 2009). One relevant debate addresses factors that are not only relevant for the prevention of illness and suffering but also contribute to employee well-being and satisfaction (Schaufeli, 2004; Seligman &

Authenticity

14

Csikszentmihalyi, 2000). Another debate addresses factors that inhibit wrongdoing and promote ethical behavior in organizations (Gardner et al., 2011; Riggio, Chaleff, & LipmanBlumen, 2008). To underscore authenticity‟s relevance for organizational research, we examined construct validity by relating the IAS and its constituting components to constructs that are expected to be antecedents of responsible organizational behavior and employee health. Optimal self-esteem that is a positive self-evaluation that is stable and non-contingent with respect to external reinforcement (e.g., successful performance, acceptance from others) is associated with healthy psychological functioning (Deci & Ryan, 1995; Kernis, 2003). However, it may also provide the basis for functioning effectively in various behavioral and psychological domains which, in turn, provides the basis for taking responsibility for oneself and one‟s environment. We assumed that authenticity is associated with optimal self-esteem and examined this suggestion by relating the IAS to the concepts of contingent self-esteem (i.e., the degree to which a person‟s self-esteem depends on living up to some interpersonal or intrapsychic expectations; Deci & Ryan, 1995) and self-acceptance (i.e., a positive attitude to one‟s self including good and bad qualities and feeling positive about past life; Ryff, 1989). To test for the distinct contribution of IAS‟s two dimensions, we related ASA and ASE to concepts that are either self- or expression oriented. One such concept is Fenigstein et al.‟s (1975) concept of self-consciousness which addresses people‟s concern with their private self and their public appearance. We expect authenticity‟s self-oriented dimension ASA to be positively related to private self-consciousness (i.e., attending to one‟s inner thoughts and feelings), whereas the expression-oriented dimension ASE should be (negatively) related to public self-consciousness (i.e., being concerned about the recognition or reward one receives from others). Notably, ASA and ASE do not equate with private and public selfconscientiousness. This is important, because high values in private and low values in public

Authenticity

15

self-consciousness are neither conducive for well-being nor are they desirable when embodied by employees. Private self-consciousness is advantageous only insofar as it leads to insight (i.e., the clarity of understanding of one‟s thoughts, feelings and behavior; Grant, Franklin, & Langford, 2002). Self-focused attention that persists merely in self-reflection (i.e., “the inspection and evaluation of one‟s thoughts, feelings and behavior”; Grant et al., 2002, p. 821), in contrast, could be even maladaptive, if it results in rumination (which is associated with depressive symptoms and may inhibit action) and other-directedness (which is associated with social anxiety; Watson, Morris, Ramsey, Hickman, & Waddell, 1996). Authenticity should be related to insight, because, like insight, it has been associated with the ability to identify, integrate, and in the end to express thoughts, motives, and feelings and not linger in mere reflection (Kernis & Goldman, 2006; Ryan et al., 2005). Whereas clarity of feelings, thoughts, and motives should be more closely related to the self-oriented dimension ASA, questions concerning whether people express or suppress those inner processes are associated with ASE to a stronger extent. Emotion suppression constitutes an emotion regulation strategy that leads to diverging emotion experience and expression (Gross & John, 2003). As people with high values in authenticity strive for congruence between feeling and expression, we expected a negative correlation between the IAS (and the ASE in particular) and emotion suppression. To highlight authenticity‟s potential social value as an antecedent of responsible organizational behavior, we examined authenticity‟s relation to moral courage, that is the “perceived capacity to resist temptation or pressure to act unethically and to overcome challenges that may deter one from acting ethically (Hannah et al., 2013). Whether authenticity is linked to morality or is ethically neutral is contentious (e.g., Algera & LipsWiersma, 2012; Avolio & Gardner, 2005; Shamir & Eilam, 2005) and we do not claim to provide an answer to this issue. However, we think considering the specific influence of ASA

Authenticity

16

and ASE might enrich this debate. While we do not dare to hypothesize that authentic selfawareness is related to morality, because even people who conduct unethical acts might perceive their self as coherent and/or strive for self-understanding, we expect a positive relationship between ASE and moral courage. Our hypothesis is based on 1) the argument that valuing consistency in self-expression is a central characteristic for people who implement moral intentions into moral behavior (Blasi, 1980) and 2) on research that established links between authenticity and important antecedents for moral courage such as (non-contingent) self-esteem, a non-defensive personality, constructive coping styles, and self-determination (see Kernis & Goldman, 2006). Our assumption is furthermore supported by prior research that linked authentic functioning to employees‟ tendency to express rather than withhold critical views at work (Knoll & van Dick, 2013). In sum, we expected authenticity to be negatively related to contingent self-esteem and positively related to self-acceptance. Regarding to the specific contribution of the subscales, we expected ASA (but not ASE) to be related to private self-consciousness and insight (but not to self-reflection); ASE (but not ASA), should be negatively related to public self-consciousness, emotion suppression, and positively to moral courage. Method Participants and procedure. We used samples A, C, and D. To identify the specific influences of the two components of authenticity and control for their conceptual overlap, we computed multiple regression analyses with both the ASA and ASE subscales as predictors. Measures. Unless noted otherwise, all items were completed on seven-point scales ranging from 1 (does not apply to me at all) to 7 (applies to me entirely). Tables 1 and 2 show descriptive statistics, internal consistencies, and correlation and regression results. Authenticity was measured with the IAS developed in Study 1 (for Sample D, Cronbach‟s α was .82 for the IAS and .76 and .73 for ASA and ASE). Contingent self-esteem

Authenticity

17

was measured with the 15-item scale by Kernis and Paradise (1999) that measures contingencies in different life domains, such as successful performance and acceptance from others. Self-Acceptance was measured with the respective 7-item subscale from the 42-item version of Ryff‟s (1989) Psychological Well-Being scale. To measure private and public selfconsciousness, we used the 22-item Self-Consciousness Scale (Filipp & Freudenberg, 1989; Scheier & Carver, 1985). Self-reflection and insight were assessed with the respective scales (12 and eight items) by Grant et al. (2002). Emotion suppression was assessed with the respective 4-item subscale of the Emotion Regulation Questionnaire (Gross & John, 2003). Moral action was measured with the Munich Moral Courage Instrument (Kastenmüller, Greitemeyer, Fischer, & Frey, 2007). In the MMCI, 13 situations (e.g., “You learn that your neighbor, whom you have a good relationship with, abuses his wife.”) are presented to the participants, and they are asked to rate how likely it is that they would act in a specific way if the scenario happened to them. Scale range is 1 (very unlikely) to 7 (very likely). Results and Discussion As expected, authenticity was negatively related to contingent self-esteem and positively related to self-acceptance. Table 2 also shows that the IAS was positively related to insight, private self-consciousness, and moral courage and negatively related to public selfconsciousness and emotion suppression. On subscale level, we expected ASA (but not ASE) to be related to insight and private self-consciousness and to show discriminant validity to self-reflection. Regression analyses widely support our assumptions. However, the findings that the β-coefficient for the ASAprivate self-consciousness relationship was only marginally significant (when controlling for ASE) and that the relationship between ASE and insight remained significant (although on a low level) indicate that ASA is more important for explaining authenticity‟s relation to those concepts but that ASE contributes to those relationships as well. To further specify the kind of

Authenticity

18

self-attention that is represented by authentic self-awareness and to establish discriminant validity for ASA, we conducted two regression analyses with insight and self-reflection as criterion, respectively. As expected, ASA (but not ASE) predicted insight but not selfreflection supporting our hypothesis that authenticity (and ASA in particular) aims at selfunderstanding that goes beyond mere reflection. Regarding to ASE‟s specific influence, we expected distinct negative relations between ASE and public self-consciousness and emotion suppression and positive relations with moral courage. Results for moral courage support our hypothesis. Results for public self-consciousness and emotion suppression suggest that ASE holds the lion‟s share in explaining the respective relationships with ASA remaining influential. In combination, regression might underscore the interconnection of the two dimensions. Individuals with high values in authenticity seem to choose their expression based on their self-understanding and that expressing oneself authentically seems to be based on authentic self-awareness. However, the interplay between ASA and ASE requires further attention. In sum, our hypotheses concerning specific relations of authenticity and its components with other constructs were largely confirmed by the data. We reconfirmed established relations and enriched knowledge on authenticity‟s potential role in occupational health and as an antecedent of responsible organizational behavior. Research objective 3: Criterion validity – Authenticity and well-being and health Although direct tests of a relationship between authenticity and employee health are scarce, research using a wide variety of indicators ranging from psychological well-being and need satisfaction to physical symptoms indicates that authenticity could enrich knowledge of employee well-being and health (Ryff & Singer, 2008; Schlegel & Hicks, 2011). Consequently, we used our scale to confirm these findings and examined whether employees who score higher on the IAS also report less symptoms of physical illness. To be useful for

Authenticity

19

organizational research, the IAS should be able to provide evidence for intra-individual developments as well. We examined whether the IAS meets these requirements using the longitudinal relationship between authenticity and well-being and health. Existential, psychodynamic, and developmental approaches highlight inauthenticity as a cause for anxiety and distress (e.g., Harter et al., 1997; May, 1981). In a similar vein, research on emotional labor revealed that suppressing and faking emotions leads to emotional exhaustion (Hülsheger & Schewe, 2011), which ultimately may result in depression. We already showed that individuals high in authenticity are less likely to suppress emotions and hold fewer concerns regarding their public image (which may lead to lower social anxiety). Thus, authenticity should lead to lower strain over time. The direction of causality between authenticity and well-being is less obvious and merits attention (see Wood et al., 2008, for a detailed discussion). On the one hand, wellbeing might function as a precondition for being authentic to the extent that well-being indicates that one is close to one‟s true self (Waterman, 1993), which, in turn, indicates how to express this self. On the other hand, being authentic may also increase purpose in life and lead to self-actualization, which is represented in the concept of psychological well-being (Ryff, 1989). Finally, there could be a bidirectional relationship (Fredrickson, 2001) in which well-being facilitates expressing one‟s self and the resulting knowledge gains, in turn, lead to higher self-awareness. We used cross-lagged analysis to investigate the different possibilities. Method Participants and procedure. We used a heterogeneous employee sample (B) to test cross-sectional effects between the IAS and health. To test antecedents and consequences, we conducted cross-lagged panel analyses using Sample C.1 and regression using Sample C.2. Two path models were constructed for examining cross-lagged effects: Model 1 comprised the IAS and strain, and Model 2 comprised the IAS and psychological well-being. The

Authenticity

20

models included the variable‟s correlations at Time 1 (t1), their autocorrelations indicating stability, the two cross-lagged paths, one from IAS to strain/psychological well-being, and a second from strain/psychological well-being to IAS, and error correlations at Time 2 (t2). Measures. All items were completed on seven-point scales ranging from 1 (does not apply to me at all) to 7 (applies to me entirely). Table 3 shows descriptive statistics, internal consistencies, and the results of correlation analyses. Authenticity was measured with the IAS developed in Study 1. Health was measured by asking participants whether they experienced each of 15 symptoms of physical illness, which may indicate reasons for sick leave or even early retirement (e.g., difficulties to concentrate, apathetic mood, stomach complaints). Cognitive and emotional strain was measured with the 8-item Irritation Scale (Mohr, Müller, Rigotti, Aycan, & Tschan, 2006). Psychological well-being was measured with the 7-item Purpose in Life scale (Ryff, 1989). This subscale of Ryff‟s Psychological Well-Being scale has been found to best represent eudaimonic well-being (i.e., recognizing and realizing one‟s true potentials; Waterman, 1993), which is seen as an indicator for being close to one‟s true self. Results and Discussion Authenticity correlated negatively with the merged value of physical illness (IAS r = .26, ASA r = -.23, and ASE r = -.21, all p‟s < .01) supporting a positive relationship between authenticity and health. To test order of causality, we examined cross-lagged effects using strain as an indicator for (poor) health and purpose in life as an indicator of well-being. Results from Model 1 supported our hypothesis that authenticity increases health. IAS at t1 predicted strain at t2 (β = -.13; p = .05), but strain at t1 did not predict IAS at t2 (β = .02; p = .81). Stability coefficients were .77 for strain and .66 for the IAS. Examining crosslagged analyses at the subscale level (i.e., including ASA and ASE instead of IAS) revealed that authenticity‟s decreasing effect on strain is largely attributable to the expression

Authenticity

21

dimension: ASE (t1) predicted strain at t2 (β = -.14; p = .04), whereas ASA (t1) did not predict strain at t2 (β = -.07, p = .31). This finding supports and qualifies the assumption that a more authentic lifestyle conduces to less stress. Results from Model 2 revealed that purpose in life (t1) predicted IAS at t2 (β = .18; p = .04), and IAS (t1) tended to predict purpose in life at t2 (β = .14; p = .09). Stability coefficients were .68 for purpose in life and .62 for IAS. These findings indicate that experiencing fulfillment may give the confidence for being authentic. However, drawing on the marginally significant path from IAS (t1) to purpose in life (t2), it is also possible that being authentic leads to following goals that represent the true self, which in the end will result in higher self-actualization. To examine this seemingly increasing spiral (Fredrickson, 2001), we analyzed cross-lagged paths at the subscale-level. Notably, purpose in life (t1) predicted ASE at t2 (β = .18; p = .01), but ASE did not predict purpose in life (β = .10; p = .20) over six weeks. These findings support Kernis and Goldman‟s (2006) assumption that authentic behavior draws upon deliberate choice as to what represents best what one thinks of oneself as the true self. Psychological well-being (Ryff, 1989) is considered to be an indicator for being close to one‟s true self and thus seems to give the confidence for authentic selfexpression. However, psychological well-being does not necessarily increase ASA. Paths from ASA at t1 to purpose in life at t2 (β = .12; p = .16) and from purpose in life at t1 to ASA at t2 (β = .14; p = .17) were in the expected direction but not significant. Longitudinal data over a time period of eight months supported these findings. Purpose in life at t1 predicted only ASE at t3 (β = .25, p = .02) but not IAS (β = .14, p = .19) and ASA (β = .11, p = .42), when the respective initial authenticity scores were included as predictors in the regression. In sum, longitudinal data confirmed our hypotheses that authenticity decreases strain and (by tendency) increases well-being. Results also revealed that the absence of strain is not sufficient to promote authenticity. Increases in authenticity seem to require an impetus, such

Authenticity

22

as having purpose in life. Notably, even the non-significant paths between authenticity and purpose in life showed signs in the expected direction and often just failed significance. Given that we actually measured change within a short time period, we are careful to rule out that effects may occur for both directions. Research objective 4: Addressing concerns regarding self-serving biases, self-deception, and self-other agreement on authenticity and selected correlates Assessing subjectively experienced authenticity has been questioned due to concerns about the adequacy of self-reports in general and the accessibility of self-knowledge in particular (e.g., Nisbett & Wilson, 1977; Wilson, 2003). In addition, there are debates as to whether or not the positive effects of authenticity might be attributable to self-presentation biases that affect both authenticity and concepts such as self-esteem and health (Schlegel & Hicks, 2011). We employed several strategies to address these concerns. We started with a preliminary test of the IAS‟ relationship with a measure of desirable responding (Paulhus, 1984) and tested whether controlling for self-deceptive enhancement and impression management influences the relationship between authenticity and health that has been established above and a measure for quality of life (i.e., the WHOQOL-BREF), respectively. Then, we complemented self-reports with other reports to examine self-other agreement (Funder, 1999) and used other reports to examine in how far relationships already confirmed via self-report will hold when controlling for potential self-serving biases. In particular, we examined whether other rated authenticity is related to better health, lower anxiety, and high self-esteem. Given that the majority of findings on authentic leadership are based on follower ratings (Gardner et al., 2011), it is important to know about others‟ tendencies when judging a target‟s authenticity and about the nomological net of other-rated authenticity. Our study offers preliminary evidence for this neglected but emerging domain.

Authenticity

23

Method Participants and procedure. We used Sample B.2 to test whether the relationship between authenticity and health and quality of life holds when controlling for the influence of self-deception and impression management. Note that although data from Sample B.2 are self-reported, the variables were measured with independent surveys that were online in the same time interval along with several other surveys and participants could not expect that the data were matched afterwards. Survey 1 comprised the IAS and health and survey 2 comprised measures for quality of life and desirable responding. To obtain other reports, participants in Sample E were instructed to ask three individuals who knew them well to complete a questionnaire about them. Informants obtained access to the questionnaire through a hyperlink. Self-reports of authenticity and informant reports of authenticity, self-esteem, anxiety, and health were matched using codes that assured anonymity. Scores for other reports were aggregated across two to three raters. Measures. In Sample B.2, authenticity was measured with the IAS (Cronbach‟s α was .86 for the IAS and .86 and .78 for ASA and ASE), health was measured with the aggregated score of symptoms of impaired health (α = .84) that was used in research objective 3, and quality of life was measured with the WHOQOL-BREF (α = .89). The WHOQOL-BREF is a 26-item short version of the World Health Organization‟s Quality of Life scale that assesses “individuals‟ perceptions of their position in life in the context of the culture and value systems in which they live and in relation to their goals, expectations, standards and concerns” (WHOQOL Group, 1998, p. 551). Self-deception and impression management were assessed with the German version (Musch,, Brockhaus & Bröder, 2002) of Paulhus‟ (1984) Balanced Inventory of Desirable Responding (BIDR). This version of the BIDR assesses self-deception and impression management with 10 items each (Cronbach‟s α was .71 for self-deception and .76 for impression management).

Authenticity

24

To test self-other agreement, authenticity was measured with the IAS (Cronbach‟s α was .76 for the IAS and .62 and .76 for ASA and ASE) and other reports of authenticity were measured with an adaptation of the IAS in so far as the item wording was adapted to describe another person. Other reports of self-esteem were measured with an adaptation of the SelfRegard subscale of the Multidimensional Self-Esteem Scale (Schütz & Sellin, 2006). Responses were recorded on 7-point scales with one of two types of end points ranging from not at all to very much or never to always. To measure anxiety, the relevant others were asked to describe the participants using a list of 10 adjectives (e.g., anxious, nervous) that were rated on a 6-point scale with endpoints labeled not at all and very much. To measure health, we asked others to estimate how many days in the past year participants had been sick, did not feel well, or were in a bad mood. Because the distribution of this measure was skewed, we transformed the variable using the natural logarithm to approximate a normal distribution. Results and Discussion A first test of whether the relationship between authenticity and positive outcomes are attributable to desirable responding and same-source biases, we controlled for the influence of self-deception and impression management and measured the variables in separate surveys. Notably, the two authenticity dimensions ASA and ASE shared a considerable amount of variance with the self-deceptive enhancement (SDE) scale (r‟s = .60 and .53) whereas their relationships with impression management (IM) were moderate (r‟s = .33 and .31). A positive relationship between authenticity and social desirable responding has been found in prior studies (Randolph-Seng & Gardner, 2013), and it is not surprising given that both authenticity and self-deceptive tendencies are related to the adjusted personality (as indicated, for example, by internal locus of control) and some of the items that are used to measure SDE (e.g., “I always know why I like things”) are close to the items that are used to assess ASA and related concepts such as self-consciousness (e.g., “I‟m aware of the way my

Authenticity

25

mind works when I work through a problem”, Fenigstein et al., 1975). As we could not show that ASA is independent of self-deceptive tendencies, we examined whether the relationships between authenticity and health and well-being might diminish when controlling for the influence of self- and other-deceptive tendencies. Two multiple regression analyses were conducted including ASA and ASE (measured in survey 1) as predictors in Step 1 and SDE and IM (measured in survey 2) as predictors in Step 2. Outcomes were health (measured as symptoms of poor health in survey 1) in regression 1 and quality of live (measured in survey 2) in regression 2. Regression 1 showed that controlling for the influence of SDE and IM slightly weakened the relationship between ASA and ASE on the one hand and health on the other as shown by a decrease in β-values from - .32 (p = .01) to - .27 (p = .055) and from - .19 (p = .13) to - .15, (p = .25). Thus, although including SDE and IM explains some additional variance, ΔR2 = .03 (p = .34), the relationship between authenticity and health seems not to be reducible to self- or other deception. Regression 2 supported this conclusion. Including SDE and IM increased the explained variance (ΔR2 = .05, p = .09) and controlling for the influence of SDE and IM weakened the relationship between ASA and quality of life (β decreased from .38, p < .01, to .26, p < .05). Notably, ASE was not related to quality of life at all when ASA was taken into account and including SDE and IM did not change this pattern (β-values were .03 and - .06, respectively). Note that these results are only preliminary evidence and are based on a rather small sample. To investigate self-other agreement, we used self-reports of authenticity to predict other ratings. Table 4 provides descriptive statistics, internal consistencies, and the results of correlation and regression analyses. Interrater agreement was .53 for IAS, .44 for ASA, .39 for ASE, .70 for self-esteem, .52 for anxiety, and .64 for health. Regressions showed that selfreports on the IAS predicted other ratings of ASA (β = .40), ASE (β = .39), and IAS (β = .44; all ps < .01). At the subscale level, self-reports on ASE predicted other reports on ASA (β =

Authenticity

26

.46), ASE (β = .56), and IAS (β = .57; all ps < .01), but self-reports on ASA did not predict other reports on ASA (β = .18), ASE (β = .04), and IAS (β = .12; all ps > .20). Subscale level results indicate that others draw on information contained in the self-reported expression dimension to rate participant‟s authenticity (ASE and ASA). Thus, we cannot rule out that the low predictive power of the ASA dimension is caused by the subscale‟s vulnerability to selfdeception. However, moderate interrater agreement on a target person‟s ASA speak against this explanation. An alternative explanation could draw on the trait-visibility effect (e.g., John & Robins, 1993): Given that ASA refers to experience and ASE refers to behavior, the latter is more visible to observers than the former leading to higher self-other agreement for ASE than for ASA. As the only research on other-rated authenticity (Randolph-Seng & Gardner, 2013) did not report differentiated results for the dimensions of either the AI3 (Kernis & Goldman, 2006) nor the Authentic Leadership Questionnaire (ALQ; Walumbwa, Avolio, Gardner, Wernsing, & Peterson, 2008) our results are somewhat exploratory but have the potential to specify these prior findings. In sum, relationships between authenticity and health and quality of life hold (regarding the latter for ASA only) when controlling for self- and other deceptive tendencies, and, as Table 4 shows, self-reported authenticity predicted other reports of self-esteem, anxiety, and health indicating that these findings are not reducible to self-serving biases. When analyzing the data on subscale level, both ASA and ASE were positively related to other rated self-esteem and negatively related to anxiety. Notably, ASE was not related to other reports on health and self-reports on quality of life when we controlled for the influence of ASA. In sum, other reports support the positive effects of authenticity but do not support the suggestion that these results are attributable to self-presentation biases and self-deception alone. However, the relationship between authenticity and self-deception remains an interesting research topic and deserves further investigation.

Authenticity

27 General Discussion

This research was motivated by four objectives: (1) develop a parsimonious instrument based on theoretically-derived dimensions that are essential in the diverse conceptualizations of authenticity, (2) establishing construct validity of this scale and relate authenticity to concepts that might function as antecedents of responsible organizational behavior and occupational health, (3) provide evidence for criterion validity by clarifying order of causality for the relationship between authenticity and well-being and health, and (4) examine self-deceptive tendencies and self-other agreements on authenticity and selected correlates. Taken together, our findings indicate that the two-dimensional model that emerged from theoretical considerations and the derived short scale can enrich research on authenticity. The short scale we developed to represent our two-dimensional model exhibited good psychometric properties (i.e., internal consistency, stability, and factorial validity) across five samples. Construct validity was supported by linking the new instrument to a nomological net of antecedents of responsible organizational behavior and occupational health (e.g., self-acceptance, insight, moral action). Results also indicate that the two dimensions are distinct but related to each other. Findings from self-reports and other reports suggest that authentic self-awareness and authentic self-expression result not only in lower anxiety but also in a self-confident approach to life. This association between authenticity and healthy psychological functioning was confirmed by longitudinal data which revealed that authenticity decreases strain. The positive effect on health and self-esteem was also confirmed by other reports. With regard to possible antecedents, we found that purpose in life increases authenticity. Implications Using instruments that are based on different dimensional structures limits the

Authenticity

28

comparability of the results across studies and inhibits cumulative theory building. Our model consists of two components that are essential to most of the established conceptualizations of authenticity from diverse disciplines and thus might be able to integrate findings achieved with prior approaches. The short scale could be used to facilitate research that focuses on the nature and effects of these two core dimensions. We particularly hope that the integrated model and the short scale that we developed will function as useful tools in organizational research. As we provided evidence for authenticity‟s association with antecedents of responsible organizational behavior (e.g., insight, moral courage), we already extended the scope of how authenticity might contribute to understanding organizational phenomena beyond the domain of well-being and health and being a root concept of positive leadership (Avolio & Gardner, 2005). Our findings suggest that authenticity might be among the characteristics of proactive and courageous followers which are assumed to be at least as important as leaders are for healthy organizational development (Riggio et al., 2008). The brevity of our scale allows for including authenticity as additional variable in condensed surveys that examine more comprehensive models of organizational behavior without taking an additional toll on study participants. Organizational research that explicitly examines facets of authenticity is scarce (see Gardner et al., 2011, p. 1140, for a respective claim for research on the components of authentic leadership). Our research shows that distinguishing between the self- and the expression oriented facet could qualify prior research that treated authenticity as unidimensional. For example, Harter et al. (1997) showed that adverse conditions (e.g., an environment that denies experimenting and asks for predefined expressions) function as barriers to authenticity development in adolescents, and research on emotional labor revealed that role requirements can undermine service workers‟ experienced authenticity (Hochschild, 1983). Using our model and considering the specific configuration of ASA and ASE, their

Authenticity

29

interplay, and their interaction with context conditions over time may lead to a better understanding of the emergence and effects of authenticity. Our findings regarding to research objectives 3 and 4 contribute to enduring debates on authenticity‟s versatility and self-other agreement on authenticity and its effects. A certain degree of variance over time implies that authenticity does not rely on some kind of predefined self but is developing. Our findings based on longitudinal data suggest that it is especially the self-oriented facet of authenticity (i.e., ASA) that is versatile, whereas higher retest-reliability indicates that the tendency to express oneself in one‟s daily enterprise (i.e., ASE) is more trait-like. Although these results suggest that once people decide in favor of authentic expression, they hold on to this motive, it remains subject to additional research whether authentic expression is also stable over contexts, an assumption that was questioned in prior research (e.g., Sheldon et al., 1997). Thus, future research needs to consider time and situation/context as influences when answering whether authentic self-expression is a rather state- or trait-like personal characteristic. The situation might be even more complicated for authentic self-awareness. Although people who score high on ASA aim at self-understanding and perceive their self-concept as integrated at the time of measurement, they hardly stop exploring the accuracy of these self-views which, in turn, might result in temporary disturbances of their self-understanding but should result in more insight afterwards. Such reasoning is in contrast to ideas that authentic people draw upon strongly held values and opinions that appear completely stable over time (for examples from research on authentic leadership, see Gardner et al., 2011). We do not know whether stable values and self-views in general are characteristics of authenticity. Research that examines a greater number of measuring points and a longer time-span and that considers the role of potentially disturbing events might enrich the discussion on the malleability of ASA. Narrative approaches to authenticity (e.g., Shamir & Eilam, 2005) can also provide a developmental perspective,

Authenticity

30

however, they can only explain one‟s story till the point when the story is told and necessarily neglect upcoming changes or corrections in how we view our past selves. Through the conjunction of awareness and expression in one concept, it becomes clear that authenticity is neither an exclusively private affair nor just a social attribution. However, significant correlations between self-reported ASE and other ratings of both ASE and ASA imply that observers take ASE as indicative of a person‟s authenticity. Thus, they assume to understand a person‟s level of self-knowledge and insight from their appearance. Taking into account that people might mistake sincerity, self-deception, or impetuous self-expression for authenticity, these findings should be of interest for practitioners that are in charge of personnel selection and researchers interested in ratings of authentic leadership (e.g., the ALQ subscales self-awareness and internalized moral perspective; Walumbwa et al., 2008) as reported by followers. Limitations and directions for future research As results that are based on self-report are susceptible to be distorted by method variance and mono-method bias (Podsakoff et al., 2003), scale development should consider ways to reduce these biases. We addressed this issue by assessing data with supposedly separate surveys and at different time points, and we compared self-reports and other reports. Our results were mixed to some extent. We found considerable relationships between both ASA and ASE and a number of positive characteristics when assessing these constructs over time and via other reports and when controlling for each others‟ influence. We also found moderate to strong correlations between self-reports and other reports on the IAS. Although these findings speak in favor of our scale and the positive effects of authenticity, selfdeceptive enhancement and impression management loom as possible threats to the validity of the authenticity construct and thus also to the reliability of our scale. We think the fact that not all of our hypotheses are supported adds some impulses to this enduring debate. We will

Authenticity

31

discuss three of these issues briefly here. One point is that we found a considerable relationship between authenticity and selfdeceptive enhancement and impression management, and regression analyses showed that controlling for measures of self-deceptive enhancement (SDE) and impression management (IM) weakened the relationship between authenticity and health and quality of life. A second point is that self-other agreement was even higher for ASE, but did not reach significance for ASA. A third point is that ASE was more stable over time whereas ASA was more malleable (but showed still a considerable retest-reliability). It remains up to future research to clarify whether the relationships between authenticity and SDE and IM is indeed based on the intention to deceive or whether it is based on a) people‟s limited capability to know what constitutes a true or core self that might be permanently evolving as indicated by a greater malleability of the ASA, b) a “desire to construct and maintain a particular type of identity” (Schlenker & Weigold, 1990) that should be particularly strong for people high in authenticity which is indicated by high self-other agreement on the ASE dimension and higher retest-reliability for ASE. This desire, however, might have a downside as it might restrict the options that people who perceive themselves as authentic have for self-expression. This should be particularly the case in contexts that are sensitive to detect people‟s factual or putative failures in acting in line with their values and beliefs that are invisible to others (John & Robins, 1993) and behaviors or opinions that might have been expressed earlier. Some of our findings support the possibility of such a downside of authenticity. For example, our finding that ASE did not predict purpose in life over time and was not related to other reported health. Given that authenticity has been pedestalled as an ideal for leaders and achieving authentic leader-follower relationships are claimed to be an aim for leaders and followers (e.g., Hinjosa, McCauley, Randolph-Seng, & Gardner, 2014; Leroy et al., 2012), these potentially restricting effects of authenticity should require further research attention.

Authenticity

32

To examine when and why these effects might occur, future research can draw upon recent developments in applying alternative theories and measures to research on authenticity and authentic leadership. For example, Randolph-Seng and Gardner (2013) used indirect measures and related them to self- and other reports of authenticity and authentic leadership. Unfortunately, they did not provide information on the subscale level which might be helpful as we showed for the distinct effects of ASA and ASE. Besides including additional measures that allow for triangulation, another road to clarification might be to give more attention to the characteristics of the informants. We obtained other reports with ratings of two to three relatives or friends but we did not assess characteristics of the raters. Recent research showed that individual differences (e.g., attachment styles; Hinjosa et al., 2014) might influence both the perception of authenticity and the possibility to engage in authentic relationships. We also did not assess how close these raters were to the target person and in which contexts they perceived the target person. Research has shown that people‟s experience of authenticity differs regarding to the context in which they are situated (Sheldon et al., 1997). It might be interesting to compare inter-rater agreement when considering raters that know the person from the same context and raters that perceive the target in different contexts. Although we used longitudinal data to examine cross-lagged effects between authenticity and well-being and health, Sample C comprised undergraduates only. Our finding that authenticity (especially ASE) reduces undergraduates‟ strain is valuable, considering that most lifetime mental disorders have their first onset in late adolescence and early adulthood and that in higher education settings there are several threats to students‟ well-being and health (e.g., high workload, competition and peer pressure, drug abuse; Royal College of Psychiatrists, 2011). However, it is not self-evident that authenticity will also be beneficial for employees. For example, as compared to managers, non-managerial employees might be more concerned about authentic expression, because they feel more vulnerable. In

Authenticity

33

addition, employees might benefit from engaging in impression management in order to shape supervisors‟ evaluations (e.g., Blickle et al., 2011). Future research should examine whether authenticity increases employee well-being over time and whether the same behavior that improves supervisor‟ evaluations will also lead to greater well-being. Conclusion Authenticity‟s traditional association with well-being and health has been supported with a wide variety of indicators prompting occupational health researchers to unleash its positive potential for improving employee well-being. Findings that link authenticity to antecedents of responsible employee behavior such as optimal self-esteem and moral courage suggest that authenticity might also function as a characteristic of the proactive and courageous employee that is needed in today‟s participation oriented work forms and that is proclaimed as a barrier against destructive leaders. Hitherto, conceptual ambiguities and measurement problems limited authenticity‟s usefulness in organizational research. Our research aimed at overcoming these barriers. The two-dimensional model that we found fits well into the long philosophical tradition of authenticity but can also integrate existing conceptualizations in psychology and organizational research. The short scale can be recommended for future research on authenticity and its role in organizations. References Algera, P.M., & Lips-Wiersma, M.S. (2012). Radical authentic leadership: Co-creating the conditions under which all members of the organization can be authentic. Leadership Quarterly, 23, 118-131. Avolio, B.J., & Gardner, W.L. (2005). Authentic leadership development: Getting to the root of positive forms of leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 16, 315–338. Antonovsky, A. (1979). Health, stress, and coping: New perspectives on mental and physical well-being. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Authenticity

34

Barrett-Lennard, G.T. (1998). Carl Rogers’ helping system: Journey and substance. London: Sage. Blasi, A. (1980). Bridging moral cognition and moral action: A critical review of the literature. Psychological Bulletin, 88, 1-45. Blickle, G., Ferris, G. R., Munyon, T. P., Momm, T., Zettler, I., Schneider, P. B., & Buckley, M. R. (2011). A multi-source, multi-study investigation of job performance prediction by political skill. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 60, 449-474. Calhoun, C. (1995). Standing for something. Journal of Philosophy, 92, 235-260. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1995). Human agency: The basis for true self-esteem. In M. H. Kernis (Ed.), Efficacy, agency, and self-esteem (pp. 31-50). New York: Plenum. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55, 68-78. Erickson, R. J. (1995). The importance of authenticity for self and society. Symbolic Interaction, 18, 121–144. Fenigstein, A., Scheier, M. F., & Buss, A. H. (1975). Public and private self-consciousness: Assessment and theory. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 43, 522-527. Filipp, S.-H., & Freudenberg, E. (1989). Der Fragebogen zur Erfassung dispositionaler Selbstaufmerksamkeit (SAM-Fragebogen). Göttingen, Germany: Hogrefe. Fredrickson, B. L. (2001). The role of positive emotions in positive psychology: The broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions. American Psychologist, 56, 218-26. Funder, D. C. (1999). Personality judgment: A realistic approach to person perception. San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Gardner, W. L., Avolio, B. J., Luthans, F., May, D. R., & Walumbwa, F. O. (2005). “Can you see the real me?” A self-based model of authentic leader and follower development. Leadership Quarterly, 16, 343-372.

Authenticity

35

Gardner, W.L., Cogliser, C.C., Davis, K.M., & Dickens, M.P. (2011). Authentic leadership: A review of the literature and research agenda. Leadership Quarterly, 22, 1120-1145. Gergen, K. (1991). The saturated self: Dilemmas of identity in contemporary life. New York, NY: Basic Books. Grant, A. M., Franklin, J., & Langford, P. (2002). The self-reflection and insight scale: A new measure of private self-consciousness. Social Behavior and Personality, 30, 821-836. Gross, J. J., & John, O. P. (2003). Individual differences in two emotion regulation processes: Implications for affect, relationships, and well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 348-362. Guignon, C. B. (2004). On being authentic. New York, NY: Routledge. Hannah, S.T., Schaubroeck, J.M., Peng, A.C., Lord, R.G., Trevino, L.K., Kozlowski, S.J., Avolio, B., Dimotakis, N., & Doty, J. (2013). Joint influences of individual and work unit abusive supervision on ethical intentions and behaviors: A moderated mediation model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98, 579-592. Harter, S. (2002). Authenticity. In C. R. Snyder & S. J. Lopez (Eds.), Handbook of positive psychology (pp. 382-394). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Harter, S., Waters, P., & Whitesell, N. R. (1997). Lack of voice as a manifestation of false self behavior: The school setting as a stage upon which the drama of authenticity is enacted. Educational Psychologist, 32, 153-173. Hinojosa, A.S., McCauley, K.D., Randolph-Seng, B., & Gardner, W.L. (2014). Leader and follower attachment styles: Implications for authentic leader-follower relationships. Leadership Quarterly,25, 595-610. Hochschild, A. R. (1983). The managed heart: Commercialization of human feeling. Los Angeles, CA: University Press. Hülsheger, U. R., & Schewe, A. F. (2011). On the costs and benefits of emotional labor: A

Authenticity

36

meta-analysis of three decades of research. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 16, 361-389. Ilies, R., Morgeson, F.P., & Nahrgang, J.D. (2005). Authentic leadership and eudaemonic well-being: Understanding leader–follower outcomes. Leadership Quarterly, 16, 373394. John, O. P., & Robins, R. W. (1993). Determinants of interjudge agreement on personality traits: The Big Five domains, observability, evaluativeness, and the unique perspective of the self. Journal of Personality, 61, 521–551. Kastenmüller, A., Greitemeyer, T., Fischer, P., & Frey, D. (2007). Das Münchner Zivilcourage-Instrument (MüZI): Entwicklung und Validierung [The Munich Civil Courage Instrument: Development and validation]. Diagnostica, 53, 205-217. Kernis, M. H. (2003). Toward a conceptualization of optimal self-esteem.Psychological Inquiry, 14, 1-26. Kernis, M. H., & Goldman, B. M. (2006). A multicomponent conceptualization of authenticity: Research and theory. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology: Vol. 38 (pp. 284-357). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Knoll, M. & Van Dick, R. (2013). Authenticity, employee silence, prohibitive voice, and the moderating effect of organizational identification. Journal of Positive Psychology 8, 346-360. Kobasa, S. C. (1979). Stressful life events, personality, and health: An inquiry into hardiness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 1-11. Leroy, H., Anseel, F., Gardner, W. L., & Sels, L. (2012). Authentic leadership, authentic followership, basic need satisfaction, and work role performance: A cross-level study. Journal of Management. Online first, doi: 10.1177/0149206312457822. Luyckx, K., Vansteenkiste, M., Goossens, L., & Duriez, B. (2009). Basic need satisfaction

Authenticity

37

and identity formation: Bridging self-determination theory and process-oriented identity research. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 56, 276-288. Marcia, J. E. (1966). Development and validation of ego identity status. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 3, 551-558. May, R. (1981). Freedom and destiny. New York, NY: W.W. Norton & Company. Ménard, J., & Brunet, L. (2011). Authenticity and well-being in the workplace: A mediation model. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 26, 331-346. Mohr, G., Müller, A., Rigotti, T., Aycan, Z., & Tschan, F. (2006). The assessment of psychological strain in work contexts: Concerning the structural equivalency of nine language adaptations of the Irritation Scale. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 22, 198-206. Musch, J., Brockhaus, R., & Bröder, A. (2002). Ein Inventar zur Erfassung von zwei Faktoren sozialer Erwünschtheit. Diagnostica, 48, 121-129. Nisbett, R., & Wilson, T. (1977). Telling more than we can know: Verbal reports on mental processes. Psychological Review, 84, 231-259. Paradise, A. W., & Kernis, M. H. (1999). Development of the Contingent Self-Esteem Scale. Unpublished data, University of Georgia. Paulhus, D. L (1984). Two-component models of socially desirable responding. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 598-609. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. M., Lee, J., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method variance in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879-903. Randolph-Seng, B., & Gardner, W. L. (2013). Validating measures of leader authenticity: Relations between implicit/explicit self-esteem, situational cues, and leader authenticity. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 20, 214-231.

Authenticity

38

Riggio, R. E., Chaleff, I., & Lipman-Blumen, J. (Eds.) (2008). The art of followership: How great followers create great leaders and organizations. San Francisco, CA: JosseyBass. Roberts, L. M., Cha, S., Hewlin, P. F., & Settles, I. (2009). Taking off the mask: Authentic expressions in organizational life. In L. M. Roberts & J. Dutton (Eds.), Exploring positive identities and organizations: Building a theoretical and research foundation. Philadelphia, PA: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Rogers, C. R. (1961). On becoming a person: A therapist’s view of psychotherapy. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin. Royal College of Psychiatrists (2011). The mental health of students in higher education. College Report C166. London, England: Royal College of Psychiatrists. Ryan, R. M., La Guardia, J. G., & Rawsthorne, L .J. (2005). Self-complexity and the authenticity of self-aspects: Effects on well-being and resilience to stressful events. North American Journal of Psychology, 3, 431-447. Ryff, C. D. (1989). Happiness is everything, or is it? Explorations on the meaning of psychological well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 10691081. Ryff, C. D., & Singer, B. (2008). Know thyself and become what you are: A eudaimonic approach to psychological well-being. Journal of Happiness Studies, 9, 13-39. Salmela, M. (2009). Authenticity and occupational emotions: A philosophical study. In M. Salmela & V. Mayer (Eds.), Emotions, ethics, and authenticity (pp. 133-151). Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins Publishing. Schaufeli, W. B. (2004). The future of occupational health psychology. Journal of Applied Psychology: An International Review, 53, 502-517. Scheier, M. F., & Carver, C. S. (1985). The Self-Consciousness Scale: A revised version for

Authenticity

39

use with general populations. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 15, 687-699. Schlegel, R. J., & Hicks, J. A. (2011). The true self and psychological health: Emerging evidence and future directions. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 5, 9891003. Schlenker, B.R., & Weigold, M.F. (1990). Self-consciousness and self-presentation: Being autonomous versus appearing autonomous. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 820-828. Schütz, A., & Sellin, I. (2006). Multidimensionale Selbstwertskala (MSWS) [Multidimensional Self-Esteem Scale]. Göttingen, Germany: Hogrefe. Seligman, M. E. P., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000). Positive psychology: An introduction. American Psychologist, 55, 5-14. Shamir, B., & Eilam, G. (2005). “What's your story?”: A life-stories approach to authentic leadership development. The Leadership Quarterly, 16, 395–417. Sheldon, K. M. (2004). Integrity [Authenticity, Honesty]. In C. Peterson & M. E. P. Seligman (Eds.), Character strengths and virtues: A handbook of classification (pp. 249-271). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press, & Washington DC: APA. Sheldon, K.M. & Elliot, A.J. (1999). Goal striving, need satisfaction, and longitudinal wellbeing: The self-concordance model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 482-497. Sheldon, K. M., Ryan, R. M., Rawsthorne, L. J., & Ilardi, B. (1997). Trait self and true self: Cross-role variation in the Big Five personality traits and its relations with psychological authenticity and subjective well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 1380-1393. Silvia, P. J., & Gendolla, G. H. E (2001). On introspection and self-perception: Does selffocused attention enable accurate self-knowledge? Review of General Psychology, 5,

Authenticity

40

241-269. Taylor, C. (1992). The ethics of authenticity. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Van den Bosch, R., & Taris, T. W. (2014). Authenticity at work: Development and validation of an individual authenticity measure at work. Journal of Happiness Studies, 15, 1-18. Walumbwa, F. O., Avolio, B.J., Gardner, W.L., Wernsing, T.S., Peterson, S.J. (2008). Authentic leadership: Development and validation of a theory-based measure. Journal of Management, 34, 89-126. Waterman, A. S. (1984). Identity formation: Discovery or creation? Journal of Early Adolescence, 4, 329-341. Waterman, A. S. (1993). Two conceptions of happiness: Contrasts of personal expressiveness (eudaimonia) and hedonic enjoyment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 678-691. Watson, P. J., Morris, R. J., Ramsey, A., Hickman, S. E., & Waddell, M. G. (1996). Further contrasts between self-reflectiveness and internal state awareness factors of private selfconsciousness. Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary and Applied, 130, 183–192. WHOQOL Group (1998). Development of the World Health Organization WHOQOL-BREF quality of life assessment. Psychological Medicine, 28, 551-558. Wilson, T.D. (2009). Know thyself. Wilson, T. D. (2009). Know thyself [Special issue: Next big questions in psychology]. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 4, 384–389. Wood, A. M., Linley, P. A., Maltby, J., Baliousis, M., & Joseph, S. (2008). The authentic personality: A theoretical and empirical conceptualization, and the development of the Authenticity Scale. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 55, 385-399.

Authenticity

41

Table 1 Sample Characteristics, Varimax Rotated Factor Loadings for the Eight Items of the Integrated Authenticity Scale (IAS), Alpha Reliability, and Scale Intercorrelations Sample (Sample size)

Authentic Self-Awareness (ASA)

A

B

C

(313)

(844)

(105)

Factor loadings

1

Aw4 I understand why I think about myself as I do.

.78 (.18)

.82 (.16)

.78 (.17)

Aw3 For good or worse, I know who I really am.

.77 (.19)

.61 (.28)

.87 (.20)

Aw9 I understand well why I behave like I do.

.67 (.27)

.75 (.21)

.75 (.15)

SA7r I feel like I don’t know myself particularly well.

.39 (.33)

.62 (.24)

.54 (.15)

Scale descriptives and reliability M

5.31

5.40

5.30

SD

0.99

1.05

0.93

.78

.82

.84

Cronbach’s alpha Authentic Self-Expression (ASE)

Factor loadings1

AL8 I always stand up for what I believe in.

.51 (.41)

62 (.29)

.61 (.19)

AE3r I am easily influenced by others’ opinions.

.68 (.23)

.59 (.17)

.75 (.10)

B8r Sometimes I say nothing about issues or decisions or agree although don’t think it’s right.

.71 (.11)

.59 (.14)

.62 (.12)

B45 To express what I think I also bear negative consequences.

.46 (.19)

.64 (.20)

.58 (.19)

Scale descriptives and reliability M

4.83

4.99

4.86

SD

1.00

0.94

0.89

.72

.73

.74

Cronbach’s alpha Integrated Authenticity Scale (IAS)

Scale descriptives and reliability

M

5.07

5.20

5.01

SD

0.86

0.84

0.75

.81

.82

.80

.50

.43

.35

Cronbach’s alpha Intercorrelation of ASA with ASE subscale

Note. Item source: Items Aw3, Aw4, Aw9 and items B8 and B45 are originally from the Authenticity Inventory 3 by Kernis and Goldman (2006); items SA7, AE3, and AL8 are originally from the Authenticity Scale by Wood et al. (2008). 1

Cross-factor loadings in parentheses. α = internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha).

Authenticity

42

Table 2 Construct Validity M

SD

a

r IAS r ASA r ASE β ASA βASE

Construct Validity Contingent Self-EsteemD

3.25

0.56 .84 -.56** -.52** -.47** -.37** -.27**

Self-Acceptance (PWB)D

5.02

1.18 .91

.62**

.63**

.46**

.55**

.16†

Health (Symptoms of Illness)B.1 2.07

0.58 .86 -.26** -.22** -.22** -.15** -.16**

InsightA

5.27

1.04 .89

.61**

.64**

.42**

.58**

.12*

4.86

1.16 .93

.02

.04

-.01

.06

-.04

3.58

0.49 .79

.30**

.28**

.25**

.21†

.13

Public Self-ConsciousnessD

3.50

0.54 .84 -.34** -.29** -.31** -.17

-.21†

Emotion Suppression (ERQ)D

2.91

1.20 .80 -.42** -.35** -.38** -.21†

-.27*

Munich Civil Courage IndexC

3.31

0.54 .81

.33**

Self-ReflectionA Private Self-Consciousness

D

.21*

.05

.31** -.07

Note. α = internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha). β = standardized beta coefficients from multiple regression analyses with both ASA and ASE as predictors. Capital superscripts indicate which sample was used. Sample A N = 313; Sample B N = 844; Subsample B.1 (employees only) N = 428; Sample C N = 105; Sample D N =104. IAS = Integrated Authenticity Scale; ASA = Authentic Self-Awareness; ASE = Authentic Self-Expression; ERQ = subscale from Emotion Regulation Questionnaire; PWB = subscale from Psychological Well-Being. †

= p < .10.

* = p