Examining different definitions and measures of authenticity in literature reveals different types of authenticity, which can be grouped into four general types across two dimensions:
originality and participation (Figure 5). The first dimension pertains to originality of subjects or objects. At one end of the originality spectrum is subject originality, referring to humans’ free state of mind where one behaves according to his emotions and beliefs (Wood et al., 2008) or pursues one’s passion without being bound by mundane routines (Brown, 2013). At the other end of the originality spectrum is object originality, indicating places’ or objects’ historic accuracy (Waitt, 2000) or the faithful reflection of daily activities unaffected by modern forces such as industrialization, commercialization, or tourism (MacCannell, 1973); the accuracy or stability of places or objects could be further judged on criteria that are objective, scientific, and formal
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Number of Studies
Fields/Disciplines
17
(Cohen-Aharoni, 2017), or subjective, perceptive, and informal (Grayson & Martinec, 2004).
The second dimension corresponds to participation. On the one end of the participation
continuum is passive participation, which points to a minimal role of participation in prompting the formation of authenticity perceptions (Lu, Chi, & Liu, 2015). The other end of the
participation continuum is active participation, which is a required element for the formation of one’s authenticity perceptions (Szmigin, Bengry-Howell, Morey, Griffin, & Riley, 2017).
The two dimensions of originality and participation result in four general types of
authenticity. First, dispositional authenticity is characterized by humans’ feeling of being true to oneself (i.e. subject originality) without active participation in any activities; it is an idle
personality trait that remains largely stable despite immediate environmental changes. Second, subjective object-based authenticity features objects’ characteristics of being original or traditional. This sense of originality or tradition is determined based on the objects, settings, or events, without the need of actively interacting with them. Third, objective object-based authenticity is understood as objects’ trait of being original or traditional, and no active
participation is required for the formation of this perception. The difference between subjective heritage originality and objective object-based originality is that in the former case, the sense of originality or tradition is determined based on lay-persons’ criteria, while in the latter case is based on formal criteria. Fourth, hybrid/imaginary authenticity refers to humans’ feeling of being true to oneself (i.e. subject originality) with active participation in activities. Compared with dispositional authenticity that remains relatively stable across all social contexts, subjective object-based authenticity only occurs when people are immersing in a place with a traditional ambience (e.g., Cohen-Aharoni, 2017), or participating in extraordinary activities such as music festivals (e.g., Szmigin et al., 2017). While originality and participation has been the most
18
discussed dimensions of authenticity, some studies utilize enjoyment in their conceptualization of authenticity. This line of conceptualization originated in Kolar and Zabkar’s (2010)
authenticity scale and was later adopted by Bryce et al. (2015), Lu et al. (2015), and Ram et al.
(2016) in their measurement of authenticity. Enjoyment has not been widely acknowledged as the nature of authenticity, and is thus not recognized by the current study either.
Figure 5: Four types of authenticity
Different types of authenticity have attracted different levels of research attention.
Hybrid/imaginary authenticity, for example, has been the most heavily studied type among reviewed literature (e.g., Brown, 2013), followed by subjective object-based authenticity (e.g.,
19
Eggers, O’Dwyer, Kraus, Vallaster, & Güldenberg, 2013), dispositional authenticity (e.g., Wood et al., 2008), and objective object-based authenticity (e.g., Dudley, 1996) (Figure 6).
Figure 6: Research frequency of four types of authenticity
Different types of authenticity have captured the attention of different fields/disciplines to varying extent (Figure 7). For instance, hybrid/imaginary authenticity has been most popular in the field of tourism, followed by sociology, leisure, and anthropology. Subjective object-based authenticity has received most attention in tourism, followed by business, sociology, and earth, environmental, and geo sciences. Objective object-based authenticity is found sporadically in the fields of tourism, sociology, business, anthropology, cultural studies, fashion, and earth,
environmental, and geo sciences. Lastly, dispositional authenticity is most prevalent in
psychology, followed by tourism, organizational psychology/behavior, philosophy/ethics, and education. An overview of the above statistics reveals a varying diversity of types discussed by different fields/disciplines. In particular, tourism is the only field having examined all four types,
0
20
while sociology has examined three types. the rest of the fields have examined two or one type of authenticity.
Figure 7: Research frequency of four types of authenticity (by fields/disciplines)
Aside from the studies grounded on clear types of authenticity, some studies do not have a clear scope or preference for the types of authenticity they discuss. Some studies touch upon multiple types without clarifying a preference (e.g., Hughes, 1995; Knudsen, Rickly, & Vidon, 2016; Lau, 2010; Reisinger & Steiner, 2006; Yifei Wang, Huang, & Kim, 2015), while others are not applicable to any of the types proposed above (e.g., Bryce, Curran, O'Gorman, & Taheri,
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Number of studies
Types of authenticity
Number of Studies Examining Different Types of Authenticity (By Field of Study / Discipline)
Dispositional Authenticity Objective Object-based Authenticity Subjective Object-based Authenticity Hybrid/Imaginary Authenticity
21
2015; Cohen, 1979; Cranton, 2006; Graham, 2001; Kolar & Zabkar, 2010; Lu et al., 2015;
McIntosh & Prentice, 1999; Ram, Björk, & Weidenfeld, 2016; Redfoot, 1984). Among the studies that involve mixed types, Hughes (1995), for instance, begins with objective object-based authenticity by examining the official criteria for certifying authentic Scottish cuisine, but ends with dispositional authenticity by concluding that it is one’s personal identity and pursuits that define authenticity. In another study, Reisinger and Steiner (2006) focus on heritage authenticity in general, and while the main text implies both subjective and objective object-based
authenticity, the ending mark denies feasibility of both and advocates the abandonment of
heritage authenticity. Similarly, Lau (2010) also has a specific focus on heritage authenticity, but this study argues that the staging of authenticity, such as presenting an authentic traditional festival, relies on the proper integration of historically accurate cues (i.e. objective object-based authenticity) as well as cues that give a perceived sense of time (i.e. subjective object-based authenticity). Likewise, Wang et al. (2015) imply subjective based, objective object-based, and dispositional authenticity, but decides that it is the integration of all three types that constitute perceived authenticity. By the same token, Knudsen et al. (2016) presents a mix of dispositional and subjective object-based authenticity using Lacanian psychoanalysis but prefers neither type in particular.
Among the studies that are not applicable to any types, Cohen (1979) and Redfoot (1984), for example, both discussed different tourist experiences as different modes of tourists without directly addressing authenticity of a destination. Similarly, McIntosh and Prentice’s (1999) implied measures of authenticity draw on tourists’ thoughts, emotions, and perceived benefits, instead of authenticity itself. Graham (2001) discussed the evolution of Ireland’s destination image with the concept of authenticity without identifying any dimensions for
22
perceived authenticity. Likewise, Kolar and Zabkar (2010) operationalize dispositional and heritage authenticity in failed attempt as the scale essentially measures tourists’ enjoyment rather than authenticity; resultantly, later studies that used this scale (e.g., Bryce et al., 2015; Lu et al., 2015; Ram et al., 2016) are also examples that are inapplicable to specific types of authenticity.