Dispositional Authenticity

Definitions found in reviewed literature have a universal agreement that dispositional authenticity is a personality-based tendency ( Robinson, Lopez, Ramos, & Nartova-Bochaver, 2012) for someone to be aware of (Baker et al., 2017; Brunell et al., 2010; Green, 2017; Kernis

& Goldman, 2006; Kirillova et al., 2017; Leroy, Anseel, Dimitrova, & Sels, 2013; Wood et al., 2008) and act along with (Baker et al., 2017; Brunell et al., 2010; Green, 2017; Kernis &

25

Goldman, 2006; Kirillova et al., 2017; Leroy et al., 2013; Robinson et al., 2012; Theran, 2011;

Wang, 2016; Wood et al., 2008) one’s feelings, thoughts, and values in one’s daily life (Brunell et al., 2010; Kernis & Goldman, 2006; Kifer, Heller, Perunovic, & Galinsky, 2013; Robinson et al., 2012). Aside from these fundamental characteristics, some definitions conceptualize

dispositional authenticity with specific dimensions, which are most frequently borrowed from Kernis and Goldman (2005) (e.g., Baker et al., 2017; Brunell et al., 2010) and Wood et al. (2008) (e.g., Barnett & Deutsch, 2016) (Table 3).

26 Table 3

Definitions of Dispositional Authenticity

Author Definition

Kernis & Goldman (2005) “Accordingly, we…define authenticity as the unobstructed operation of one’s true or core self in one’s daily

enterprise…Specifically, we suggest that authenticity involves awareness, unbiased processing, behavior, and relational orientation (italicized in text)” (p. 32)

Wood et al. (2008) “In the person-centered conception, authenticity is a tripartite construct defined by Barrett-Lennard (1998, p. 82) as involving

‘consistency between the three levels of (a) a person’s primary experience, (b) their symbolized awareness, and (c) their outward behavior and communication’” (p. 386)

Brunell et al. (2010) “…Kernis and Goldman (2005, 2006) define dispositional

authenticity as ‘the unimpeded operation of one’s core or true self in one’s daily enterprise.’ More specifically, Kernis and Goldman suggest that authenticity is comprised of four distinct, but

interrelated, components: awareness, unbiased processing, behavior, and relational orientation.” (p. 901)

Theran (2011) “Authenticity in relationships [is]… the ability to be open and honest in meaningful relationships” (p. 423)

Robinson et al. (2012) “Authenticity can be operationalized as a trait-like tendency to behave in ways that represent or reflect deeply held feelings, values, aspirations, or opinions, irrespective of context” (p. 720) Kifer et al. (2013) “…feelings of authenticity [is] the degree to which individuals

connect with and enact their true selves in various situations” (p.

281)

Leroy et al. (2013) “Authentic functioning is being aware of one’s self and regulating oneself accordingly” (p. 240)

Barnett & Deutsch (2016) “Authenticity—who a person is, how they perceive themselves, and how they operate on those perceptions… There are three components to authenticity: self-alienation, authentic living, and accepting external influences” (p. 107)

Wang (2016) “A broad definition of authenticity is that it is a way of being that reflects one’s true self through the accurate portrayal of one’s thoughts, feelings, and emotions (p. 316).”

Baker et al. (2017) “Authenticity refers to an individual’s tendency to express and behave in accord with his or her true feelings, thoughts, and attitudes, and is composed of four factors: awareness, unbiased processing, behavior, and relational orientation” (p. 235)

Green (2017) “The fundaments of authenticity are to ‘know, accept, and remain true to one’s self’” (Avolio et al., 2004, p. 802)

Kirillova et al. (2017) “In psychology, existential authenticity is described as a true self-concept or the subjective feeling of knowing one’s true self and behaving in accordance with it” (p. 14)

27

Similar to its definitions, dispositional authenticity has been labeled and operationalized in high consistency across reviewed literature (Table 4). One of the two mostly utilized scales is Kernis and Goldman’s (2006), which developed a 45-item scale (5-point Likert) to measure authenticity with four dimensions: 1) awareness, “awareness and knowledge of, and trust in, one’s motives, feelings, desires, and self-relevant cognitions” (p. 302); 2) unbiased processing,

“minimal, if any, denial, distortion, exaggeration, or ignoring of private knowledge, internal experiences, and externally based self-evaluative information” (p. 302); 3) behavior, “actions congruent with one’s values, preferences, and needs” (p. 302); and 4) relational orientation,

“values and makes efforts to achieve openness and truthfulness in close relationships” (p. 302).

This scale has been widely adopted by many studies to measure dispositional authenticity (e.g., Brunell et al., 2010) (e.g., Brunell et al., 2010), self-authenticity (e.g., Didonato & Krueger, 2010) (e.g., Didonato & Krueger, 2010), authenticity (e.g., Wickham et al., 2016), and baseline authenticity (e.g., Baker et al., 2017).

28 Table 4

Operationalization of Dispositional Authenticity

Author(s) Terminology Dimensions Source of scale Number of items

& type of scale Wood et al.

(2008)

Authenticity - Self-alienation - Authentic living

- Accepting external influences

Self-developed 12, 7-point Likert

Brunell et al.

Self-authenticity - Awareness - unbiased processing

Theran (2011) Authenticity Authenticity (unidimension) TVQ, teenage voice questionnaire:

Authenticity - Self-alienation - Authentic living

- Accepting external influences

Wood et al. (2008) 12, 7-point Likert

Authenticity Authenticity (unidimension) Impett et al. (2012), Kogan et al. (2010) - Internalized moral perspective

Leroy et al. (2015) 16, 5-point Likert

Barnett &

Deutsch (2016)

Authenticity - Self-alienation - Authentic living

- Accepting external influences

Wood et al. (2008) 12, 7-point Likert

Wang (2016) Authenticity - Eco-centric authenticity - Other-distorted authenticity - Balanced authenticity

Wang (2016) 9, 5-point Likert

Wickham et al.

(2016)

Authenticity - Awareness

- Unbiased processing

- Accepting external influences

Wood et al. (2008) 12, 7-point Likert

29

The other most frequently borrowed scale is that of Wood et al. (2008), which is a 12-item scale (7-point Likert) to measure authenticity with three dimensions: 1) self-alienation, “the inevitable mismatch between the conscious awareness and actual experience” (p. 386); 2)

accepting external influence, “the congruence between experience as consciously

perceived…and behavior” (p. 386); and 3) authentic living, “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). This scale has been commonly utilized when measuring authenticity (Barnett & Deutsch, 2016; Robinson et al., 2012), general authenticity (Kifer et al., 2013), and existential authenticity (Kirillova et al., 2017). It must be noted that the usage of the term of existential authenticity is a misuse here. The term existential authenticity has primarily been used to describe a sense of autonomy or freedom experienced during a trip. That is, compared with dispositional

authenticity, both of them refer to a sense of autonomy, while dispositional authenticity refers to a stable, context-free inclination, and existential authenticity denotes a temporary, tourism-based inclination. The authors seemed to have confused about these two types of authenticity and adopted the term of existential authenticity because they were discussing tourism-induced sense of autonomy. However, it must be noted that the purpose of this study is not to investigate a temporary, during-the-trip autonomy, but whether that tourism-induced autonomy lasts beyond the trip and consolidates to someone’s permanent disposition. Therefore, the current research argues that despite the misuse of term, Kirillova et al. (2017) is really discussing dispositional authenticity.

Aside from Kernis and Goldman (2006) and Wood et al. (2008), there are many more scales that have been developed or employed for various purposes. For instance, Wang (2016) intended to measure dispositional authenticity on three levels of strength, and developed a 9-item

30

authenticity scale (7-point Likert) on three dimensions: 1) ego-centric authenticity, “the

unobstructed operation of one’s uncontrived inclinations” (p. 317); 2) balanced authenticity, “the reconciliation of one’s own inclinations and the inclinations of others” (p. 317); and 3) other-distorted authenticity, “striving for the approval of others while concealing one’s inner tendencies” (p. 317).

Besides dispositional authenticity as a static personality, some also attributed it to

specific contexts or populations. For instance, Leroy et al. (2013) measures authentic functioning with Leroy at al.’s (2015) scale (which was published later) the scale items reflect dispositional authenticity at workplace. This 16-item scale (5-point Likert) inquires respondents’ self-aligning experience at work on four dimensions: 1) self-awareness (e.g., “I am aware of why I do the things I do” (p. 1694)), 2) balanced processing (e.g., “When someone criticizes me, I try not to vest too much attention to it” (p. 1694)), 3) relational transparency (e.g., “I often pretend to be someone I am not” (p. 1694)), and 4) internalized moral perspective (e.g., “I stay true to my personal values” (p. 1694)). While Leroy et al. (2013) contend that this scale is workplace-specific, a closer look at the survey items reveals no contextualizing except for one sentence instructing respondents to answer thinking of their experience at work. Similarly, Theran (2011) measures authenticity, namely relationship authenticity specific to teenagers, with the 5-item teenage voice scale of Harter (1995) (4-point Likert) and the 10-item inauthentic self in

relationships scale of Tolman and Porche (2000) (4-point Likert). Similar to Leroy et al. (2013), the wording for these scales seem to be general enough and would apply to populations beyond teenagers. Likewise, Kifer et al. (2013) measures general authenticity and role authenticity, with the latter being dispositional authenticity specific to romantic partners, work colleagues, and friends. General authenticity is measured with the scale of Wood et al. (2008), while role

31

authenticity is determined with the scales of Fleeson and Wilt (2010) and Sheldon, Ryan, Rawsthorne, and Ilardi (1997). Again, wording for each of the three scales seem general enough to address any situations or counterparts and thus makes little sense of making a distinction.

Lastly, Le and Impett (2013) measures authenticity, post-sacrifice authenticity of people in a dating relationship, with a single-item scale (7-point Likert) borrowed from Impett et al. (2012) and Kogan et al. (2010). Consistent with all the scales discussed previously, this scale seems to be general and applicable to people regardless of their relationship status.

As can be seen from the above discussion, dispositional authenticity is a state of mind that is stable and context-free. The term dispositional authenticity is selected from the existing literature among multiple alternatives (e.g., authenticity, dispositional authenticity,

self-authenticity, general self-authenticity, authentic functioning, baseline self-authenticity, and existential authenticity) as it is a straightforward reflection of the personality-based nature of this type of authenticity. A comprehensive definition of dispositional authenticity can be summarized as:

Dispositional authenticity is a stable and context-free inclination of being aware of one’s feelings/thoughts and being able to behave accordingly.

32