Send

ESSENTIALIST AND EXISTENTIALIST: TWO VISIONS OF AUTHENTICITY
Thesis
Submitted to
The College of Arts and Sciences of the
UNIVERSITY OF DAYTON
In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for
The Degree of
Master of Arts in General Psychology
By
Colin Patrick Shanahan
UNIVERSITY OF DAYTON
Dayton, Ohio
August 2018
Name: Shanahan, Colin Patrick
APPROVED BY:
Jack J. Bauer, Ph.D.

Committee Chair
Professor
Erin M. O’Mara, Ph.D.

Faculty Advisor
Associate Professor
R. Matthew Montoya, Ph.D.

Faculty Advisor
Associate Professor
Lee J. Dixon, Ph.D.

Chair of the Department of Psychology
Associate Professor
ii
ABSTRACT
Name: Shanahan, Colin Patrick

University of Dayton
Advisor: Dr. Jack J. Bauer
The present study aims to examine two conceptions of what it means to live
authentically. Research in psychology suggests a divide between essentialist and
existentialist perspectives of what it means to be authentic. The present studies find
support for this two-factor model of authenticity, with a newly designed measure finding
a two-factor structure as well as convergent and discriminant validity. An essentialist
perspective of authenticity, or the belief that the “true self” is indelible and must be
discovered, is based on different conceptions of the self than an existentialist perspective
of authenticity, in which one chooses who they wish to be after critical examination. In
previous literature, authenticity has been considered a significant predictor of maturity,
prosocial behavior, and well-being. This new measure will help further understanding of
how authenticity predicts positive outcomes, and which beliefs promote human
flourishing.
iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to thank Dr. Jack Bauer, my advisor and supporter throughout my
time at the University of Dayton. His patience, encouragement, and expertise helped to
develop this thesis and bring it to its conclusion. In addition, I would like to thank my
committee members, Dr. Erin O’Mara and Dr. Matthew Montoya, whose feedback and
insight gave me assistance in both planning this project and preparing future studies.
I’m grateful to the entire psychology department for fostering an open and
welcoming environment, particularly Dr. Susan Davis, whose office door was always
open to my questions, concerns, and updates in my life.
I owe my opportunity to pursue this Master’s degree to the mentorship of my
undergraduate advisors, Dr. Jennifer Lodi-Smith and Dr. Stephen Chanderbhan of
Canisius College, Buffalo, NY. Their support helped me to reach new academic heights
in my undergraduate degree, and continues to fill me with determination.
Lastly, I want to thank my parents, Dr. Linda Shanahan and Mr. Kevin Shanahan,
for the encouragement and support they have given me in my pursuit of higher education.
I appreciate everything they have done for me – it has truly helped me get where I am
today.
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT…………………………………………………………………………...…iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS……………………………………………………………....iv
LIST OF TABLES..……………………………………………………………………...vii
CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION..……………………………………………….1
1.1 Authenticity……………………………………………………………..…....2
1.2 Hypotheses: Convergent and Discriminant Validity of EEAS ..…………… 7
CHAPTER II METHODS………………………………………………………14
2.1 Study 1 – Participants and Procedure………………………………………14
2.2 Study 2 – Participants and Procedure………………………………………14
2.3 Measures ……………………………………………………………………15
CHAPTER III RESULTS..………………………………………………………19
3.1 Principal Component Analysis..……………………………………………19
3.2 EEAS and Other Authenticity Measures ..…………………………………22
3.3 Discovery and Creation Metaphors ..………………………………………27
3.4 Implicit Theories of Self ……………………………………………………31
3.5 Identity Exploration ..………………………………………………………31
3.6 Political Beliefs..……………………………………………………………32
3.7 EEAS and Measures Related to Moral Concern……………………………32
CHAPTER IV DISCUSSION ……………………………………………………37
v
4.1 EEAS and Other Authenticity Measures...…………………………………37
4.2 Discovery and Creation Metaphors...………………………………………40
4.3 Implicit Theories of Self ……………………………………………………41
4.4 Identity Exploration...………………………………………………………41
4.5 Political Beliefs..……………………………………………………………42
4.6 Moral Concern...……………………………………………………………43
4.7 Summary……………………………………………………………………44
REFERENCES..…………………………………………………………………………45
APPENDICES
A. Essentialist versus Existentialist Scale of Authenticity...……………………49
B. Authenticity Scale ……………………………………………………………50
C. Authenticity Inventory – 3 (AI-3) ……………………………………………51
D. Discovery and Creation Metaphors………………………………………….53
E. Implicit Theories of Self..……………………………………………………54
F. Identity Style Inventory – 3 (ISI-3)………………………………………….55
G. Political Orientation.…………………………………………………………57
H. Moral Identification Scale (MIS).……………………………………………58
I. Quiet Ego Scale (QES)………………………………………………………59
J. Gratitude Questionnaire – 6 (GQ-6)...……………………………………….60
K. Demographics..………………………………………………………………61
vi
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Pattern Matrix of Essentialist verses Existentialist Authenticity Scale...………21
Table 2. Study 1 – Summary of Intercorrelations, Means, and Standard Deviations for

Authenticity Measures...…………………………………………………………25

Authenticity Measures...…………………………………………………………26
Table 4. Summary of Intercorrelations, Means, and Standard Deviations for Metaphor,

Mindset, Identity, and Political Measures..………………………………………30

Moral Identification...……………………………………………………………34

Measures of Moral Concern...……………………………………………………35
Table 7. Regressions of EEAS Subscales onto Moral Measures in Study 2.……………36
vii
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
Authenticity is the concept of being true to oneself. However, to which
characteristics of oneself should one be true? Should one be true to a concept of self
based on personality traits that are defined by one’s genes and social environment? Or
should one be true to one’s personally meaningful beliefs and values – perhaps of a self
not yet attained? The distinction between these has not yet been fully developed in the
scientific literature, even as study of authenticity continues. Drawing on research in
psychology, sociology, and philosophy, this study aims to further distinguish a trait-
focused, self-discovery concept of authenticity (essentialist authenticity), from a
belief/value focused, self-invention concept of authenticity (existentialist authenticity —
Bauer, in press). Specifically, this study attempts to validate and examine the Essentialist
versus Existentialist Authenticity Scale (EEAS). Participants were asked to complete
questionnaires, including assessments of interpersonal connectedness, Implicit theories of
self, identity exploration,, and authenticity. The results revealed differences in outcomes
between essentialist conceptions of authenticity and existentialist conceptions, across a
range of measures in different areas of life.
1
1.1 Authenticity
Authenticity, as currently measured, has been shown to correlate with a wide
range of positive outcomes, including higher levels of life satisfaction, self-esteem, well-
being within relationships, and perceptions of morality (Gino, Kouchaki, & Galinsky,
2015; Kernis, 2003; Kernis & Goldman 2006; Neff & Suizzo, 2006; Wood, Linley,
Maltby, Baliousis, & Joseph, 2008). Authenticity is tied to higher levels of self-
knowledge and meaning in life (Schlegel, Hicks, Arndt, & King, 2009) and of
perspective-taking, wisdom, and self-actualization (Bauer, 2016; Maslow, 1968). It has
been referred to as “the very essence of well-being and healthy functioning” (Wood et al.,
2008, p.386).
Essentialist authenticity. When people talk about authenticity, the type of
language used suggests two different folk psychology perceptions of authenticity. Some
people speak about a “true self” that always existed and that they are true to, such as in
the form of an inner soul or daimon (Waterman, 1984). This type of authenticity, being
true to some innate self, is an essentialist idea (Bauer, in press). Essentialism is a belief of
some underlying reality or true nature to a category (Martin & Sugarman, 2000; e.g.
binary categories of gender, innate potential at birth, and personality as an extension of
the inner soul). As related to authenticity, these notions insist on a belief in an underlying,
absolute truth to who someone is (Gelman, 2005). Several researchers have studied
authenticity as knowledge of the “true self” by asking participants to list traits that
describe the characteristics they possess but are not always able to express socially
(Schlegel et al., 2009; Schlegel, Hicks, King, & Arndt, 2011). Other researchers have
2
assumed this definition in approaching their research, adapting scales as forms of
measuring this type of self-knowledge (Williams & Vess, 2016).
The roots of authenticity as a concept seem to stem from this essentialist idea –
for example, in the writings of Rousseau during the Romantic Era, he describes a “state
of nature” existence that is more childlike, arguing that many of the challenges humanity
faces are due to civilization and rational reflection. If all humans existed in unreflective
harmony with nature, Rousseau suggests, inequality would not exist. Human suffering
arises because individuals are not being true to their fundamental nature, instead choosing
to entangle themselves in the complex social structures of society (Rousseau, 1761/1923).
A “natural” person, as removed from the social context surrounding them, is the “true
self” which essentialist authenticity identifies with. It is the reflection and self-
consciousness that comes from civilization that corrupts this authentic existence.
Rousseau himself tried to live his life fully in this idea of essentialist authenticity.
He felt that through “sincere, spontaneous, non-deceitful declaration” of his inner self,
true self-revelation would occur (Williams, 2002). The underlying motives revealed by
his living according to this true self were assumed to be consistent and coherent, despite
being subject to fluctuations in mood and circumstances. The variations of day to day
moods, in theory, would coalesce into a “true” identity. One way such stabilization
occurs is by the narrative an individual imposes on their actions and motivations
(Guignon, 2004). From these assumptions, an essentialist conception of the true self will
maintain that underlying the external influences and individual choices, there is a running
theme of an “inner self” which may be expressed or hidden throughout one’s life.
3
An essentialist view of authenticity prioritizes expressions of the immediate,
unreflected self – the feelings, reactions, and cognitions that one enacts in a given
moment – as an emanation of the “true self.” Through this perspective, authenticity
occurs when there is no need for a filter on these inner thoughts. In the same way that
Rousseau tried to make his inner self as transparent as possible, the underlying idea is
that the inner self has a consistent character that will be revealed to others over time.
With this belief, an individual is being inauthentic when they try to cover up who they are
inside. Filtering oneself, not sharing one’s honest opinions, and not holding to one’s
convictions are all inauthentic behaviors.
Existentialist authenticity. Opposite the essentialist conception that one’s inner
self is fixed, an existentialist conception of authenticity suggests that one can create the
self to which one wishes to be true. This “self-invention” approach involves the examined
construction of certain values, beliefs, and patterns of behavior that an individual defines
as their self-identity (Bauer, in press). Particularly for people who have conflicting parts
of their identity (e.g. gay orthodox Jews — Cohler & Hammack, 2006), a synthesis of a
new self which includes these contradictions within itself needs to emerge. This idea
carries existential concepts of transcendence – a moving beyond the confines of what the
self is and toward what can be (Erickson, 1995; Sartre, 1943/2003). In the rise of
existentialism as a school of thought during the early-20th century, the fundamental
freedom of the individual was paramount. Individuals do not have a “fixed” self. Rather,
at any moment, they choose the self they wish to be. In this sense, an “authentic” self is a
contextual and clear-sighted choice of who one wants to be, rather than an appeal to what
one once was (essentialist authenticity) or what society demands that one should be.
4
This self-invention as a form of authenticity has been studied to an extent in the
literature as well. Goldman and Kernis (2002) have developed their measure of
authenticity around these concepts of self-determination theory (Ryan & Deci, 2000).
Wood and colleagues’ (2008) Authenticity Scale includes a subscale for measuring
external influence. However, while forms of existentialist authenticity were considered in
the creation of these scales, both include a mixture of essentialist and existentialist
authenticity items that confuse any distinction.
When a person holding existentialist perceptions of authenticity fails to live out
their values and beliefs, they may identify this as being inauthentic. For example, John
may choose to quit drinking, because drinking does not align with his chosen true self; he
may not like who he is when he drinks or the amount of money he spends on alcohol. If
John breaks his commitment to stop drinking, he may feel that he has fallen short of his
“true self,” because he did not stick to his values but instead gave in to his desires.
Similarly, Sally could be inclined toward short-temperedness, yet place value on patience
as an important virtue. Acting out of impatience or becoming aggressive with others
would be inauthentic to her existential form of authenticity. Though these behaviors
come from her inner feelings, it isn’t the true self that she wants to be. When giving in to
impatience, Sally may feel inauthentic because she has not lived out her chosen virtues.
Existentialist authenticity has a distinctly moral and interpersonal component.
Whereas essentialist authenticity relates purely to what one believes oneself to be in
absence of any context (an introspective and solitary reflection), existentialist authenticity
involves a recognition of the choices one can make in becoming who they wish to be.
Because there is a freedom to choose one’s values and beliefs, one can choose how their
5
behavior will impact others. Rather than being impatient and rude to others because
“that’s simply who I am,” one with an existentialist authenticity recognizes that there is a
choice to value patience as a virtue, even if that virtue is not something one currently
possesses. The cultivation of virtues one freely chooses is an important part of deciding
who one’s “true self” truly is. These virtues are chosen, as one develops, in recognition of
the interdependence of society. Whereas an essentialist perspective privileges the
individual as the only authority on their “true self,” an existentialist perspective places the
individual in the context of a social web, with recognition that their choices for who they
become carry moral weight. And in contrast with an essentialist perspective that the self
is separate from society (while still shaped by it), existentialist perspectives of
authenticity should include awareness of the interplay between the self and the
surrounding culture, in that culture helps inform the virtues and beliefs chosen by the
individual.
In defining existentialist authenticity, this theory relies, in part, upon the
philosophical writings of Sartre, who emphasizes the importance of choice and
responsibility in a freely chosen life. The idea that “existence precedes essence” is a
central tenet of Existentialism (Sartre, 1948). If a person exists first, without a
predetermined future, then that person has the freedom (and responsibility) to choose
their own future. Existentialism, then, argues that people determine their own essence;
“purpose” and “self” is what people choose for it to be. Relating to the
essentialist/existentialist authenticity divide, existentialist authenticity is an essentialist
authenticity with a freely chosen “true self.” In practice, this means the “true self” is
6
determined by the individual, with values and beliefs as guiding principles by which one
sets their identity.
It is important to note that this paper’s use of “existential authenticity” does not
directly match the type of authenticity Sartre discusses in Being and Nothingness.
However, it does parallel his distinction of the two components of his idea of
authenticity. He argues that to be truly authentic, one must have both facticity (a
grounding in what physically limits individuals – weaknesses, past events, physical
circumstances), and transcendence (a recognition of the free choices one has, and the
ability to change; Sartre, 1943). In the distinction between essentialist and existentialist
authenticity, essentialist authenticity similarly grounds an individual in facticity while
existentialist authenticity emphasizes the freedom of choice in transcendence. Drawing
from Sartre, the theoretical model argues that both are necessary for a “true authenticity,”
with some degree of both elements needed for well-being and strong meaning making.
1.2 Hypotheses: Convergent and Discriminant Validity of EEAS
In addition to expecting a two-factor solution for the EEAS, these hypotheses
serve to establish the convergent and discriminant validity (Campbell & Fiske, 1959) of
the EEAS.
Previous measures of authenticity. Higher levels of authenticity in both
essentialist and existentialist authenticity, as measured by the EEAS, should correlate
with higher levels of trait authenticity as measured by other established authenticity
measures, such as the Authenticity Scale (Wood et al., 2008) and the Authenticity
Inventory (AI-3; Kernis & Goldman, 2006). Essentialist authenticity should positively
correlate particularly with “authentic behavior,” as measured by the AI-3, as these items
7
assess people’s likelihood to live out inner feelings and stay true to an innate and
unchanging self. Essentialist authenticity may also correlate with the relational
orientation subscale for similar reasons – when presenting themselves to other
individuals, those with essentialist perspectives of authenticity value a “what you see is
what you get” approach. While some chosen values of an existentialist perspective of
authenticity may include openness to others and vulnerability within relationships, a
fundamental component of essentialist authenticity should involve being brutally honest
with who one is.
Existentialist authenticity should positively correlate with the awareness and
unbiased processing subscales on the AI-3. While essentialist authenticity is grounded in
being true to something internal, it is typically an unreflective expression of inner
emotions or cognitions. Existentialist authenticity emphasizes stronger reflection on this
“internal self” and a commitment toward developing oneself. This requires a deeper
awareness and unbiased processing than essentialist authenticity, wherein one can simply
live out surface-level emotions and traits.
While essentialist authenticity and existentialist authenticity may correlate with
all measures on the AI-3 to some degree, they should be better indicators for the
subscales identified here. This will help to establish discriminant validity, as both
subscales of the EEAS will predict different outcomes on subscales of the AI-3.
Discovery and creation metaphors. Schlegel, Vess, and Arndt (2012) studied
the endorsement of metaphors describing personal development. They used the metaphor
of self-discovery, that individuals discover the true self within themselves, and the
metaphor of self-creation, that individuals create their true self. Participants with a sense
8
of essentialist authenticity should endorse a discovery metaphor while those supporting
existentialist authenticity may endorse both types of metaphors.
Those who endorse an essentialist mindset toward authenticity will undoubtedly
experience growth in their lives. Their conceptions of who they were and who they have
become may change over time. However, because essentialist views of authenticity hold
that the self is innate and unchanging, these new changes logically must have always
been “within” the individual. Hence the metaphor of “self-discovery” is particularly
applicable to such changes – individuals “discover” talents or characteristics which were
always buried deep within them. In support of this hypothesis that essentialist beliefs
about authenticity will correlate with discovery metaphors, previous research has found
discovery metaphor endorsement correlated with belief in a “real” true self, something
grounded within the individual (Schlegel et al., 2012).
Existentialist perspectives of authenticity are based on the ability to choose to
value certain traits and cultivate chosen virtues. This type of perspective on a chosen self
aligns well with self-creation metaphors – individuals who seek to become their chosen
authentic self may treat the process as a journey or a project, or paint themselves as the
artist of their idealized self. However, these beliefs may be also expressed as a self-
discovery project in which some negative traits are discovered within the self and
discarded, and their “sculpting” of themselves is the careful uncovering of a deeper
chosen identity (Bauer & Shanahan, in press). Hence, both metaphors can apply. In this
way, discriminant validity can be established for essentialist authenticity, which should
not correlate with creation metaphors, while existentialist authenticity should correctly
correlate with both.
9
Implicit theories of self. Previous research into mindsets revealed two
perspectives on the changeability of the self. Individuals with entity beliefs understand
the attributes of the self as unchangeable (Dweck & Leggett, 1988). These beliefs are
particularly salient to those with essentialist perspectives of authenticity, as both
emphasize an inborn, immutable self. Opposed to this is an incremental mindset, where
there is an opportunity for growth and change in the individual with effort. This closely
matches the conception that the “true self” may be something one aspires to become, and
acting inauthentically means one falls short of one’s ideal self.
Identity exploration. An important facet of identity is one’s approach toward
gathering information. The identity style inventory (Berzonsky, 1992) assesses
individuals’ approaches toward dealing with issues involving new information and
personal beliefs, as individuals with essentialist and existentialist perspectives of
authenticity will likely differ in their approaches to identity development. The identity
styles inventory was created in response to the Marcia (1966) identity status paradigm
involving crisis, exploration, and commitment. Information-oriented individuals, who
rely on exploration by gathering information to make decisions, should maintain an
existentialist perspective of authenticity while normative-oriented individuals, who rely
on previous established norms, should hold essentialist perspectives. This hypothesis
stems from the continued openness toward change held within those with existentialist
perspectives, who may not see their “journey” as complete, while essentialist
perspectives may lend a sense of completeness which would encourage a normative
approach to future decisions. However, Berzonsky notes that both normative and
10
information oriented approaches to identity can exist in individuals who have “achieved”
identity (Berzonsky, 1989).
Political beliefs. Essentialist and existentialist views of authenticity may also play
a strong role in political beliefs. While party platforms may not specifically speak to one
particular perspective of authenticity over another, support for candidates and
perspectives on issues may stem from a root belief in what it means to be an authentic
individual. Essentialist authenticity is something individuals care about not only in their
own life, but in the lives of those around them. “Political correctness” for example, often
appears to be used as a slur toward individuals who refuse to “say it like it is,” which
from the perspective of essentialist authenticity means “say whatever comes to mind.” On
the opposite side, individuals focused on cultural introspection and change (which would
be relevant for existentialist authenticity) are not nearly as homogenous as they are
presented. Because they are often seeking changes in culture which require individuals to
be self-reflective and identify problems with status quo cultural elements, they sometimes
go too far into questioning or attacking non-issues (e.g. “black” coffee as racist
terminology – Fairclough, 2003).
One element to the national political divide in the country seems to be a split in
perspectives of what certain concepts mean. What does it mean to be American? What
behaviors are appropriate forms of protest? Questions about what the nation needs to look
for in its politicians often involve some degree of “authenticity,” but if Americans differ
in their perspectives of authenticity, these embodiments of “political authenticity” could
vary along party lines as well. Elements of blunt communication styles can be seen in the
rise of Donald Trump in the Republican primaries as an “authentic candidate.” The open
11
communication of his identity may have appealed to essentialist perspectives of
authenticity. He was not “filtering” himself for the sake of the media. This reaction was
particularly pronounced following the release of the Access Hollywood tapes, where
Trump’s humor around sexual assault was downplayed as “locker room talk” and
evidence that he was a “real man.” Trump’s use of Twitter as a seemingly unfiltered
communication medium has continued this “authentic” portrayal of the president’s inner
thoughts and feelings.
At root, those with essentialist perspectives of authenticity may value finding
these essentialist perspectives in their candidates in the form of blunt statements which
resonate with individual’s lived experiences, such as with more populist, Trump-like
candidates or Tea Party Republican candidates. Those with existentialist views of
authenticity also value finding existential authenticity in their candidates, but in the form
of a progressive vision of the future aligning with the chosen virtues and values of the
individual, as typically portrayed by Democratic candidates. This could be represented by
the slogans of the two campaigns in 2016 – “Make America Great Again,” a more
nostalgic and past-oriented slogan looking to return to the inner greatness once had, and
“Stronger Together,” a call for strength through unity of diversity, a more progressive
value. As such, existential authenticity should correlate with more liberal political views,
while essentialist authenticity should correlate with more conservative views. This is a
more exploratory claim, as there are most likely existentialist and essentialist perspectives
on both sides of the political divide.
Interpersonal connectedness. One of the critical differences between essentialist
and existentialist authenticity is the interpersonal concern of existentialist perspectives.
12
While authenticity may appear to be self-focused and deeply personal, the choices which
are involved with an existentialist perspective of authenticity are inherently social. As
discussed earlier, these social elements draw heavily from the writings of 20th century
Existentialist philosophers such as Sartre, who emphasized that the freedom to choose
and create one’s own future is not done in a vacuum. Rather, personal choices have
effects on others. Any choice is a moral choice, which affects not only one’s personal
existence but that of those around them as well. Furthermore, those who hold existential
views of authenticity must recognize the influence of others in their own lives, both
positively and negatively, in that a societal structure also structures value systems and
makes the project of authenticity possible (Guignon, 2004).
To the extent that existential authenticity involves a moral element in
interpersonal dynamics and a recognition of others in the form of gratitude (Bauer &
Shanahan, in press), measures assessing perspective taking, connection with others, and
overall gratitude in life will be helpful in differentiating the two types of authenticity. For
the Moral Identification Scale (Aquino & Reed, 2002), the Quiet Ego Scale (Wayment,
Bauer, & Sylaska, 2015), and the Gratitude Questionnaire (McCullough, Emmons, &
Tsang, 2002), existentialist perspectives of authenticity are expected to correlate
positively with these interpersonal concepts while essentialist perspectives will either
have no correlation or a negative correlation.
13
CHAPTER II
METHODS
2.1 Study 1 – Participants and Procedure
Participants for Study 1 were drawn from the University of Dayton mass testing
sample. The sample of Study 1 consisted of 270 students between the ages of 18 and 23
(M = 18.99, SD = 0.98), with 183 students identifying as female (68%). They were
compensated with course credit. Participants completed an online survey, consisting of
the Essentialist versus Existentialist Authenticity Scale (EEAS), Authenticity Scale,
Metaphor Endorsement, Implicit Theories of Intelligence, Identity Styles Inventory,
Moral Identification Scale (MIS), and other measures not included in the analysis. In
total, participants completed 103 questions. A power analysis showed that a sample size
of 270 would have appropriate power for correlations of r = .22 and higher.
2.2 Study 2 – Participants and Procedure
Participants for Study 2 were drawn from Amazon Mechanical Turk. The sample
consisted of 256 workers, between the ages of 18 and 77 (M = 36.47, SD = 12.50), 112 of
whom were female (44%). Amazon Turk workers were compensated with $0.90 for
completing a 10-20 minute survey. Participants volunteered for the survey online, and
completed the following measures: EEAS, Authenticity Inventory, Authenticity Scale,
Metaphor Endorsement, Implicit Theories of Intelligence, Quiet Ego Scale, MIS,
14
Gratitude Questionnaire, and demographic questions including political beliefs. In total,
participants completed 96 questions. A power analysis showed that a sample size of 256
would have appropriate power for correlations of r = .22 and higher.
2.3 Measures
All reliability information can be found in the corresponding table of correlations
found in the results section. Unless otherwise noted, the measure was included in both
studies.
Essentialist versus existentialist authenticity scale. (EEAS; Appendix A;
developed for this project). This measure in development is intended to be a means by
which researchers can distinguish between existentialist and essentialist perspectives of
authenticity. This scale represents a self-reporting quantitative measurement of
perspectives on authenticity. This measure originally had 13 items assessing essentialist
(e.g. To be authentic, I must speak or act what I feel inside, regardless of how it may
affect others.) and existentialist (e.g. My true self is who I want myself to be, as defined
by careful reflection that I have done.) perspectives of authenticity. Participants
responded on a scale from 1 (Disagree Strongly) to 7 (Agree Strongly). Through a
principal component analysis and confirmatory factor analysis, the scale was cut to eight
items.
Authenticity scale. (Appendix B; Wood et al., 2008). Twelve item measure
designed to assess three components of authenticity: authentic living (e.g. , I live in
accordance with my values and beliefs.), self-alienation (reversed; e.g. I feel out of touch
with the “real me.”), and accepting external influence (reversed; e.g. I usually do what
other people tell me to do). Participants responded on a scale of 1 (Does not describe me
15
at all) to 7 (Describes me very well). The researchers designing this measure made no
explicit distinction between essentialist and existentialist perspectives of authenticity.
Authenticity inventory. (AI-3; Unbiased processing and behavior subscales;
Appendix C; Kernis & Goldman, 2006). This 45 item measure was designed to measure
the four components of authenticity established by Goldman and Kernis (2002):
awareness, relational orientation, unbiased processing, and behavioral (e.g. I rarely, if
ever, put on a “false face” for others to see). Participants respond on a scale of 1
(Strongly Disagree) to 5 (Strongly Agree). The unbiased processing and behavioral
subscales were used in Study 2, a total of 21 items. The researchers viewed authenticity
as a type of optimal self-esteem, and this measure makes no explicit distinction between
essentialist and existentialist types of authenticity.
Discovery and creation metaphors. (Appendix D; Schlegel et al., 2012). Two
items were used in previous research to study endorsement of the concept of a “true self.”
These items, rated 1 (strongly disagree) to 6 (strongly agree), ask whether participants
believe the self is “discovered” within themselves (The true self is something that people
discover about themselves.), or whether it is “created” (The true self is something people
must create for themselves).
Implicit theories of self. (Appendix E; Dweck, 1999). The measure of entity or
incremental theories of selfhood should demonstrate convergent and discriminant validity
for essentialist and existentialist authenticity. Eight items are rated on a 1 (strongly agree)
to 6 (strongly disagree) scale, which was then reversed so that higher values implied
more agreement. The entity subscale should correlate with essentialist authenticity (e.g.
You have a certain amount of intelligence, and you can't really do much to change it.),
16
while those with existentialist perspectives of authenticity should endorse items from the
incremental subscale, (e.g. I can change even my most basic qualities).
Identity style inventory. (Information orientation subscale; Appendix F;
Berzonsky, 1992).The information orientation subscale measures the extent to which one
seeks to gather relevant information before making a decision (e.g. I’ve spent a lot of time
reading and trying to make some sense of political issues.) assessed on a scale of 1
(Uncharacteristic of me) to 5 (Characteristic of me). This measure was included only in
Study 1.
Political orientation. (Appendix G). This measure will test the possibility that the
political right is more essentialist in its perspectives of authenticity while the left is more
existentialist. It will use a single item, How would you identify your political beliefs? 1 –
Very Liberal, 7 – Very Conservative. This item was included only in Study 2.
Moral identification scale. (Appendix H; Aquino & Reed, 2002). This is a ten
item measure of the level to which participants identify with a list of nine “moral” traits
(e.g. caring, fair, friendly). It consists of a “symbolized” and “internalized” subscale
differentiating between associating oneself with symbols of holding moral traits (e.g. I
am actively involved in activities that communicate to others that I have these
characteristics.) and actual desire to have those traits (e.g. Being someone who has these
characteristics is an important part of who I am). Participants respond to items on a scale
from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 5 (Strongly Agree).
Quiet ego scale. (Appendix I; Wayment et al., 2015). The Quiet Ego measure
consists of 14 questions which will help to assess the moral component of existentialist
authenticity by measuring the extent to which one feels interpersonally connected with
17
others. It includes questions about perspective taking (e.g. Before criticizing someone, I
try to imagine how I would feel if I were in their place.) and feelings of connection (e.g. I
feel a connection to all living things). Participants answer these items on a scale of 1
(Strongly Disagree) to 5 (Strongly Agree). Essentialist perspectives on authenticity
should play no role in the level of interconnectedness one feels or one’s ability for
perspective taking, but those with existentialist perspectives of authenticity should, in
part, base conceptions of “the self” on the impact of one’s choices on others. This
measure was included only in Study 2.
Gratitude questionnaire. (GQ-6; Appendix J; McCullough et al., 2002). This
measure will assess gratitude with six items (e.g. I am grateful to a wide variety of
people.) on a scale of 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 7 (Strongly Agree). Gratitude is an
interpersonal disposition toward one who has given a benefit, and increased gratitude has
been shown to increase well-being in prior research (Emmons & McCullough, 2003).
This measure was included only in Study 2.
Demographics. (Appendix K). Six items were included in Study 2 to identify
gender, age, ethnicity, level of education, relationship status, and religious beliefs, all of
which may have a relation to a participant’s conception of authenticity. These were not
included in the analyses.
18
CHAPTER III
RESULTS
3.1 Principal Component Analysis
A principal component analysis (PCA) was conducted on the data from the first
study (n = 266). To determine the hypothesized factors, all items were subjected to a
maximum likelihood extraction with a Promax rotation. This analysis resulted in a four
factor model (eigenvalues >1) that explained 57.8% of the variance. Upon examination of
the structure, it was found that the third factor was predominantly driven by item four
(.812 loading on factor three), which was eliminated as an overly complex, wordy, and
ultimately unsuccessful item. Items three and five were eliminated due to being too
similar to another measure in the study on creation and discovery. Running the analysis
again found a three factor solution. Item one was evenly split on the existential and
essentialist factors and was removed. The extra factor appeared to be driven by the
“moral” questions, six and thirteen (loadings of -.755 and .786). Because item six and
item thirteen appropriately fell into a two-factor solution when its counterpart was
removed, item six was retained to establish two four question subscales.
The final PCA on the eight item measure resulted in a two factor solution
(eigenvalues >1) explaining 48.7% of the variance. Examination of the resulting
correlations and the scree plot suggested that the existentialist and essentialist subscales
were two distinct, but significantly correlated (r = .19), factors. When reducing the
19
measure, items were considered to be associated with a factor if they loaded greater than
.50 on the hypothesized factor and less than .30 on the other factor. Cronbach’s alpha for
the existentialist subscale was .664 and for the essentialist scale was .606. A pattern
matrix can be found in Table 1.
A confirmatory factor analysis was run on a separate sample (n = 256). Following
the recommendations of Bollen and Long (1993) and Kline (2011), multiple global fit
indices were used including the traditional overall Chi square test of model fit (which
should be non-significant), a favorable χ2:df ratio (3 or less), the root mean square error
of approximation (RMSEA; .08 or less), the comparative fit index (CFI; .95 or greater),
the Bentler–Bonett non-normed fit index (NNFI; .95 or greater), and the Goodness of Fit
Index (GFI; .95 or greater). This model, developed based on the successful PCA, allowed
for two factors, “essentialist” and “existentialist” correlating freely with each other and
with each factor’s respective subscale. The CFA was conducted using the SAS statistical
program.
Although the chi-square was significant, χ2 with 40.91, df = 19, p = .003, ratio of
chi-square to degrees of freedom was favorable, χ2:df = 2.153, as were other indices of
fit, CFI = .947, NNFI = .948, RMSEA = .068, GFI = .962. The factor loadings for both
factors were significant at p < .001. The two factors correlated significantly, r = .32, p <
.001. A reliability analysis for the entire measure using Cronbach’s alpha showed α =
.741, with the essentialist subscale reliability α = .741 and the existentialist subscale
reliability α = .687.
20
Table 1
Pattern Matrix of Essentialist verses Existentialist Authenticity Scale
PCA Factors
Item M SD 1 2
7. My self-identity and beliefs are evolving. They are the
5.68 0.93 .761 -.039
foundation of my authentic self.
11. An authentic person builds on their best traits while working on
5.41 1.12 .692 .056
changing their worst traits.
2. My true self is who I want myself to be, as defined by careful
5.36 1.13 .692 -.055
reflection that I have done
8. When I am being authentic, I am being the person I have decided
5.15 1.32 .687 -.007
to become.
12. My soul or inner essence is unchanging. It is the foundation of
4.14 1.52 -.009 .788
my authentic self
9. My true self is who I was meant to be, as defined by my divinely
4.93 1.42 .138 .727
created soul.
10. My true self is who I was born to be, as defined by my genetics. 4.18 1.49 -.083 .626
6. To be authentic, I must speak or act what I feel inside, regardless

4.48 1.53 -.070 .564
of how it may affect others
Note. Factor 1 = Existentialist Authenticity; Factor 2 = Essentialist Authenticity. PCA n=266. Boldface indicates
highest factor loadings.
21
3.2 EEAS and Other Authenticity Measures
As this measure is intended to assess the perspective of authenticity an individual
endorses, I believed that it would correlate with existing scales of authenticity. However,
as it is an assessment of particular folk psychology views of authenticity, these
correlations also represent the degree to which individuals who endorse essentialist or
existentialist authenticity report their level of authenticity on established measures.
Essentialist versus existentialist authenticity scale. While some level of both
beliefs of authenticity would likely be present in individuals (as both involve belief in
some form of authenticity), ultimately they represent different beliefs about the true self.
Therefore, it was important that the essentialist and existentialist subscales correlated
with each other, but did not exhibit collinearity. In the present samples, existentialist and
essentialist perspectives of authenticity showed a significant correlation in both Study 1,
r(266) = .17, p = .006, and Study 2, r (249) = .32, p < .001. These correlations indicate
that beliefs in essentialist and existentialist authenticity are related, but not the same
construct.
Authenticity scale. In both studies, I used the Authenticity Scale (Wood et al.,
2008) to measure levels of authenticity according to established measures. I predicted
that both existentialist and essentialist perspectives of authenticity would correlate with
established measures of authenticity. However, only existentialist authenticity correlated
with the Authenticity Scale in both Study 1, r(263) = .20, p = .001, and Study 2, r(232) =
.14, p = .032. (Table of means, standard deviations, and correlations for authenticity
measures found in Table 2 and Table 3.) Within the Authenticity Scale, the only
significant result that replicated across studies was between the EEAS existentialist
22
subscale and the authentic living subscale. Essentialist perspectives of authenticity also
correlated with authentic living in Study 2, but not Study 1. In Study 1, existentialist
authenticity negatively correlated with self-alienation, a reversed subscale where low
values represent increased authenticity, r(264) = -.14, p = .028, but this result did not
replicate in Study 2. Instead, essentialist authenticity positively correlated with self-
alienation in Study 2, r(245) = .13, p = .036 where it was non-significant in Study 1.
In order to better explore the essentialist correlation with self-alienation in Study
2, I ran a post hoc analysis. Due to the larger age range in Study 2, I expected that an age
effect would reveal differences in the effect of essentialist beliefs on self-alienation.
When running a regression of age and essentialist beliefs, an interaction was found, B = -
.01, SE = .01, β = -.16, t(232) = -2.55, p = .012. (An unstandardized beta with standard
error, followed by standardized beta, are reported for regressions henceforth.) This
interaction revealed that younger individuals with essentialist perspectives of authenticity
were more likely to also feel self-alienation, B = .31, SE = .10, β = .27, t(232) = 2.99, p =
.003. However, for older individuals with essentialist authenticity, the effect was no
longer significant, B = -.04, SE = .10, β = -.04, t(232) = -0.43, p = .671.
Authenticity inventory. In Study 2, I incorporated two subscales from the
Authenticity Inventory 3 (AI3; Kernis & Goldman, 2003): authentic behavior and
unbiased processing. I had predicted that existentialist perspectives of authenticity would
correlate with unbiased processing, while essentialist perspectives would correlate with
authentic behavior. While the results did suggest that essentialist perspectives of
authenticity correlated with lower levels of unbiased processing, r(245) = -.26, p < .001,
there was no significant correlation between unbiased processing and existentialist
23
perspectives. Contrary to the hypothesis, authentic behavior correlated with existentialist,
rather than essentialist, perspectives of authenticity, r(240) = .19, p = .003. Full
correlations can be found in Table 3.
24
Table 2
Study 1 - Summary of Intercorrelations, Means, and Standard Deviations for Authenticity Measures
Study 1
Measure α M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6
1. EEAS - Essentialist .606 4.43 1.01 -
2. EEAS - Existentialist .664 5.40 0.80 .167** -
3. AS (Aggregate) .672 4.83 0.92 -.036 .204** -
4. AS - Authentic Living .783 5.48 0.90 .034 .280** .691** -
5. AS - External Influence .872 3.86 1.28 .052 -.108 -.823** -.406** -
6. AS - Self-Alienation .859 3.15 1.32 .046 -.135* -.816** -.363** .462** -
Note. For the external influence and self-alienation subscales of the Authenticity Scale, higher scores represent
lower levels of authenticity. EEAS = Essentialist versus Existentialist Authenticity Scale; AS = Authenticity
Scale. * p < .05; ** p < .01
25
Table 3
Study 2 - Summary of Intercorrelations, Means, and Standard Deviations for Authenticity Measures
Study 2
Measure α M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
3. AS (Aggregate) .694 5.28 1.12 .025 .141* -
4. AS - Authentic Living .845 5.70 1.08 .340** .428** .727** -
5. AS - External Influence .900 3.32 1.54 .055 .049 -.848** -.443** -
6. AS - Self-Alienation .894 2.58 1.53 .134* -.075 -.834** -.407** .532** -
7. AI (Aggregate) .526 3.31 0.56 -.073 .089 .732** .499** -.601** -.646** -
8. AI - Behavioral .781 3.45 0.60 .065 .192** .719** .616** -.626** -.521** .837** -
9. AI - Unbiased Processing .831 3.13 0.74 -.225** -.061 .544** .221** -.445** -.604** .870** .459**
Note. For the external influence and self-alienation subscales of the Authenticity Scale, higher scores represent lower levels of
authenticity. EEAS = Essentialist versus Existentialist Authenticity Scale; AS = Authenticity Scale; AI = Authenticity Inventory.
26
3.3 Discovery and Creation Metaphors
I had predicted that when describing the process of developing and understanding
oneself, individuals with an essentialist perspective of authenticity would describe the
true self as “discovered” within themselves. However, I believed that those with an
existentialist perspective of authenticity would endorse both self-discovery and self-
creation metaphors, as their development of their “true self” would be more intentionally
driven. The results of Studies 1 and 2 confirmed these hypotheses. Bivariate correlations
can be found in Table 4. Existentialist authenticity correlated with both discovery and
creation metaphors in both Study 1 and 2. Essentialist authenticity correlated only with
discovery in Study 1, but correlated with both metaphors in Study 2.
Essentialist authenticity on metaphors. Essentialist authenticity significantly
correlated with discovery metaphors in both studies. However, while essentialist
authenticity did not correlate with creation metaphors in Study 1, it did significantly
correlate with creation metaphors in Study 2. To determine the relative role of discovery
and creation metaphors in predicting essentialist authenticity, I ran a multiple regression
for Study 2. When entered into a regression, only the discovery metaphor was significant,
B = .36, SE = .08, β = .29, t(246) = 4.61, p < .001, not the creation metaphor, B = .06, SE
= .06, β = .06, t(246) = 1.00, p = .319. In other words, those with essentialist perspectives
of authenticity were more likely to endorse discovery metaphors, but when controlling
for the overlap between discovery and creation metaphors, essentialist authenticity no
longer correlated with the self-creation metaphor.
Existentialist authenticity on metaphors. Contrary to essentialist authenticity, I
predicted that existentialist authenticity would correlate with both types of metaphor. To
determine the relative role of discovery and creation metaphors in predicting existentialist
27
authenticity, I ran a multiple regression for each study. In Study 1, when regressing
existentialist authenticity on discovery, B = .12, SE = .04, β = .15, t(264) = 2.72, p = .007,
and creation metaphors, B = .21, SE = .03, β = .39, t(264) = 6.92, p < .001,
simultaneously, both metaphors predicted existentialist authenticity significantly and
independently. This finding was replicated in Study 2 – discovery metaphors significantly
predicted existentialist perspectives, B = .35, SE = .05, β = .37, t(243) = 7.12, p < .001, as
did creation metaphors, B = .29, SE = .04, β = .40, t(243) = 7.54, p < .001. In other words,
those who endorsed existentialist perspectives of authenticity were also likely to endorse
both the metaphor that the true self is “discovered” as well as the metaphor that the true
self is “created,” even accounting for the overlap between discovery and creation
metaphor endorsement.
Discovery metaphor on essentialist versus existentialist authenticity. While
the previous two analyses controlled for the correlation between the metaphors, I also
wanted to determine the relative role of essentialist and existentialist authenticity in
predicting each metaphor. For discovery metaphors, I ran a multiple regression for each
study. In Study 1, discovery metaphor endorsement was independently and significantly
predicted by essentialist, B = .18, SE = .06, β = .18, t(262) = 2.89, p = .004, and
existentialist perspectives of authenticity, B = .19, SE = .08, β = .15, t(262) = 2.43, p =
.016. This pattern was repeated in Study 2 – essentialist perspectives of authenticity
predicted discovery metaphor endorsement, B = .15, SE = .05, β = .18, t(241) = 3.13, p =
.002 and existentialist perspectives of authenticity also independently predicted discovery
metaphor endorsement, B = .46, SE = .06, β = .42, t(241) = 7.20, p < .001. This pattern of
28
results shows that those with existentialist perspectives of authenticity do endorse both
discovery metaphors, even when controlling for accompanying essentialist perspectives.
Creation metaphor on essentialist versus existentialist authenticity. To
determine the relative role of essentialist and existentialist authenticity in predicting
creation metaphors, I ran a multiple regression for Study 2, where essentialist authenticity
correlated with creation metaphors. This regression revealed existentialist perspectives, B
= .68 SE = .08, β = .50, t(241) = 8.41, p < .001, but not essentialist authenticity, B = -.01,
SE = .06, β = .01, t(241) = -0.14, p= .886, to be the significant predictor of creation
metaphors. In other words, essentialist authenticity was no longer associated with
creation metaphor endorsement when controlling for existentialist perspectives of
authenticity, but existentialist authenticity continued to correlate with both discovery and
creation metaphors.
29
Table 4
Summary of Intercorrelations, Means, and Standard Deviations for Metaphor, Mindset, Identity, and Political Measures
Study 1 Study 2
Measure Subscale α M SD α M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
EEAS
1. Essentialist .606 4.43 1.01 .687 4.52 1.31 - .167** .200** -.022 .137* .048 .013
2. Existentialist .664 5.40 0.80 .741 5.38 0.98 .317** - .183** .399** -.114 .111 .213**
Metaphor Endorsement
3. Discovery - 4.90 1.02 - 4.68 1.06 .305** .479** - .081 -.041 .126* .168**
4. Creation - 4.06 1.48 - 3.91 1.33 .138* .495** .256** - -.073 .085 .185**
Implicit Theories
5. Entity .887 4.20 1.05 .956 3.13 1.52 .264** -.099 -.089 -.047 - -.734** -.095
6. Incremental .890 2.74 0.98 .928 4.00 1.35 .003 .277** .232** .229** -.720** - .068
Identity Exploration
7. Information .781 4.89 0.79 - - - - - - - - - -
Political Beliefs
8. Politics - - - - 3.58 1.78 .260** -.022 .035 .072 .233** .015 -
Note. Study 1 (n = 270) is above the diagonal; Study 2 (n = 256) is below the diagonal. EEAS = Essentialist versus Existentialist Authenticity Scale.
Metaphor endorsements and political beliefs included only one item each. Identity Exploration was not included in Study 2. Political Beliefs was not
included in Study 1. Greater scores on politics indicate greater conservatism. * p < .05; ** p < .01.
30
3.4 Implicit Theories of Self
Given that existentialist perspectives of authenticity emphasize self-creation and
active self-discovery, I hypothesized that these individuals would have growth-oriented,
incremental mindsets, whereas those who endorsed essentialist beliefs about authenticity
would endorse entity mindsets. Study 2 found the predicted pattern of results. All
correlations can be found in Table 4. Incremental mindsets correlated significantly with
existentialist perspectives of authenticity, r(243) = .28, p < .001, but not essentialist
authenticity, and entity mindsets correlated significantly with essentialist perspectives of
authenticity, r(247) = .26, p < .001, but not existentialist authenticity. Study 1 found the
same directions of results but with lesser magnitudes. Incremental mindsets marginally
correlated with existentialist authenticity, r(262) = .11, p = .072, but not essentialist
authenticity. Entity mindsets positively correlated with essentialist authenticity, r(262) =
.14, p = .026, and marginally correlated in a negative direction with existentialist
authenticity, r(264) = -.11, p = .064.
3.5 Identity Exploration
My conceptualization of existentialist perspectives of authenticity required an
individual to reflect, on some level, about the values and beliefs they were choosing in
their life. Berzonsky’s Identity Style Inventory allowed the testing of this hypothesis by
correlating the information orientation subscale—which corresponds to Eriksonian
(1968) identity exploration—with the existentialist subscale of the EEAS. The pattern of
results in Study 1, where the ISI-3 information subscale was included, matched the
hypothesis. Existentialist perceptions of authenticity correlated with an information
orientation, r(263) = .21, p < .001. Essentialist perspectives of authenticity did not
31
correlate with the information subscale, r(261) = .01, p = .838. These results are included
in Table 4.
3.6 Political Beliefs
Looking at some of the political rhetoric used in the Democrat and Republican
party platforms in the United States, there was evidence that recent Republican beliefs
aligned with essentialist authenticity while Democratic beliefs aligned closer to
existentialist authenticity. When running a correlation between both types of authenticity
and political beliefs (1 – Very Liberal, 7 – Very Conservative), I found no relation to
existential perspectives of authenticity, r(245) = -.02, p = .728, but did find that
essentialist perspectives of authenticity were connected to conservative views, r(248) =
.26, p < .001. These results are included in Table 4.
3.7 EEAS and Measures Related to Moral Concern
I had hypothesized that because those with existentialist perspectives of
authenticity necessarily take the impact of their chosen beliefs and values on others into
account, they may have higher levels of connection to other people. While I removed
some items that more explicitly addressed this assumption during the PCA, the
hypotheses were still supported by the findings. In Study 1, I included the Moral
Identification Scale, while in Study 2 I included the Quiet Ego and Gratitude
Questionnaire as well. The full table of correlations for Study 1 can be found in Table 5,
Study 2 can be found in Table 6, and a table of regressions can be found in Table 7.
Moral identification scale. The moral identification scale is divided into
symbolized and internalized subscales. First, I analyzed the symbolized moral
identification subscale (MIS-symbolized), which represents the extent to which people
32
identify with symbols of morality such as types of clothing or participation in
organizations that represent moral traits. In both Study 1 and Study 2, this symbolized
identification with morality correlated with both essentialist and existentialist
perspectives of authenticity. When the MIS-symbolized subscale was regressed onto both
subscales of the EEAS, the subscales both remained significant predictors of symbolized
identification (see Table 7), meaning that even when controlling for the overlap between
essentialist and existentialist authenticity, both perspectives still significantly correlated
with MIS-symbolized.
Whereas both essentialist and existentialist authenticity correlated with MIS-
symbolized, only existentialist perspectives of authenticity correlated with the
internalization of moral identifications (MIS-internalized). The subscale for MIS-
internalized measures the degree to which one identifies with internal and behavioral
characteristics of moral virtues. While direct correlations between essentialist authenticity
and internalized moral identification were significant in Study 2, r(247) = .14, p = .025,
this did not replicate in Study 1, r(265) = -.05, p = .441. When using regressions to
control for essentialist and existentialist authenticity, existentialist perspectives of
authenticity explained the correlation between essentialist authenticity and internalized
moral identification. When regressing MIS-internalized on essentialist and existentialist
authenticity simultaneously, essentialist authenticity was no longer a significant
predictor, B = .04, SE = .05, β = .04, t(239) = 0.68, p = .497, while existentialist
authenticity remained significant, B = .38, SE = .07, β = .34, t(239) = 5.28, p < .001.
Gratitude. As measured by the GQ-6, gratitude initially correlated with both
essentialist and existentialist perspectives of authenticity. However, a regression of
33
gratitude onto both essentialist and existentialist authenticity found that essentialist
authenticity was on the borderline of significance, B = .13, SE = .07, β = .13, t(226) =
1.97, p = .050, while existentialist authenticity continued to significantly predict
gratitude, B = .37, SE = .09, β = .27, t(226) = 4.03, p < .001.
Quiet ego. The third interconnectedness measure continued the pattern of results
from the previous two. Both essentialist and existentialist perspectives of authenticity
directly correlated with the Quiet Ego Scale (QES). When entered into a simultaneous
regression, however, the relationship between essentialist authenticity and the QES
became nonsignificant. Regressing the QES onto both existentialist and essentialist
authenticity found that existentialist authenticity continued to predict QES, B = .24, SE =
.04, β = .39, t(224) = 6.14, p < .001, but essentialist authenticity did not, B = .03, SE =
.03, β = .07, t(224) = 1.08, p = .283.
Table 5
Study 1 - Summary of Intercorrelations, Means, and Standard Deviations for
Moral Identification
Study 1
Measure α M SD 1 2 3
3. MIS - Symbolized .824 4.73 1.00 .235** .223** -
4. MIS - Internalized .768 6.09 0.86 -.053 .309** .191**
Note. EEAS - Essentialist versus Existentialist Authenticity Scale. MIS = Moral

Identification Scale. * p < .05; ** p < .01
34
Table 6
Study 2 - Summary of Intercorrelations, Means, and Standard Deviations for
Measures of Moral Concern
Study 2
Measure α M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6
3. MIS - Symbolized .916 4.33 1.49 .511** .372** -
4. MIS - Internalized .817 5.95 1.10 .142* .363** .249** -
5. GQ-6 .884 5.43 1.36 .206** .316** .328** .527** -
6. QES .839 3.71 0.60 .194** .419** .383** .523** .662** -
Note. EEAS - Essentialist versus Existentialist Authenticity Scale; MIS = Moral Identification Scale; GQ-6
= Gratitude Questionnaire; QES = Quiet Ego Scale. * p < .05; ** p < .01
35
Table 7
Regressions of EEAS Subscales onto Moral Measures in Study 2
Measure EEAS Subscale B SE β t p
MIS - Symbolized
Existentialist 0.37 0.09 0.24 4.21 <.001
Essentialist 0.50 0.06 0.44 7.77 <.001
MIS - Internalized
Existentialist 0.38 0.07 0.34 5.28 <.001
Essentialist 0.04 0.05 0.04 0.68 .497
Quiet Ego Scale
Existentialist 0.24 0.04 0.39 6.14 <.001
Essentialist 0.03 0.03 0.07 1.08 .283
Gratitude Questionnaire
Existentialist 0.37 0.09 0.27 4.03 <.001
Essentialist 0.13 0.07 0.13 1.97 .050
36
CHAPTER IV
DISCUSSION
The present studies support the hypothesis that people identify with different
conceptions of what it means to be authentic. Some people believe that to be authentic,
one must remain true to an internal and unchanging self, a self that is only discovered but
not created, and a self that should be expressed regardless of its effect on others. This
essentialist authenticity is in contrast to an existentialist, choice-driven, reflective, true
self. These different conceptions of authenticity correlate with different personality
metrics and different moral and interpersonal perspectives. These findings provide a
strong framework upon which to explore essentialist and existentialist perspectives of
authenticity.
4.1 EEAS and Other Authenticity Measures
To establish construct validity, EEAS was compared to two other measures of
authenticity. These measures represent previously established methods of assessing
authenticity, but they do not measure the distinction between essentialist and existentialist
authenticity. As such, relations between these scales give insight into whether the
Authenticity Scale (Wood et al., 2008) and the Authenticity Inventory (Kernis &
Goldman, 2006) assess authenticity through a more existentialist or essentialist lens. In
addition, relations between EEAS and these two measures of authenticity show that
37
people’s folk-philosophical beliefs about authenticity (as essentialist or existentialist) are
related to self-assessments that one exhibits authenticity in their lives.
Authenticity scale. I had expected to find a stronger correlation between both of
the conceptions of authenticity and other measures of authenticity. The Authenticity
Scale (Wood et al., 2008) uses three subscales of “authentic living,” “accepting external
influence” (reversed), and “self-alienation” (reversed). While existentialist authenticity
correlated with the scale as a whole, essentialist authenticity did not, suggesting that the
Authenticity Scale is more specifically a scale of existentialist but not essentialist
authenticity. Considering the subscales of the Authenticity Scale, in Study 2, essentialist
authenticity correlated with authentic living but also correlated with self-alienation,
particularly for younger individuals (self-alienation was reverse-scored for the aggregate
measure of the Authenticity Scale). While this finding did not replicate in Study 1 (the
student sample), it is possible that essentialist perspectives of authenticity facilitate
feelings of self-alienation in individuals who believe that they have an innate self but do
not really know who that innate self is. A repeat study with wider age range could help to
clarify this.
Contrary to essentialist authenticity’s correlation with self-alienation in Study 2,
Study 1 found that individuals with an existentialist perspective of authenticity reported
significantly lower levels of self-alienation, suggesting that they did not experience as
much of a disconnect between their perceptions of who they are and their experience of
who they are. This could be due to an active choice on the part of the participants who
endorse existentialist authenticity to choose who they want to be rather than to divine
some “true, essential nature.” Across both studies, authentic living was consistently
38
correlated with existentialist perspectives of authenticity, suggesting that strong beliefs in
reflected and chosen values correspond with living out those changing values and beliefs.
Authenticity inventory. I had hypothesized that essentialist authenticity would
correlate with the behavioral subscale of the Authenticity Inventory (Kernis & Goldman,
2006), because I felt that those with an essentialist perspective of authenticity would be
more likely to live out their inner feelings and be true to an innate and unchanging self.
Contrary to this hypothesis, existentialist authenticity correlated with the authentic
behavior subscale. However, this may be in keeping with existentialist authenticity’s
correlation with authentic living in the Authenticity Scale, suggesting that those with
existentialist perspectives of authenticity identify more with behaving in ways
corresponding to chosen values and beliefs, whereas those with essentialist perspectives
of authenticity, where such values and beliefs are perceived more as “given,” do not feel
as compelled to act out their “true self.”
While I had predicted that existentialist authenticity would positively correlate
with unbiased processing, I found that essentialist authenticity negatively correlated with
unbiased processing. This is consonant with the hypothesis: essentialist conceptions of
authenticity require less internal reflection, such that perceptions of the self do not need
to be analyzed as thoroughly. It was surprising that the existentialist items regarding
“careful reflection” and “evolving” beliefs did not result in a subscale that correlated with
unbiased processing. Those with existentialist perspectives of authenticity were as likely
as not to engage with items referring to participants’ “darkest thoughts and fears” (item
19). However, perhaps a telling difference is items like #30, “I’d rather feel good about
myself than objectively assess my personal limitations and shortcomings” (reversed), the
39
subscale of which significantly correlated with essentialist but not existentialist
perspectives. Further study into some of the individual items of the unbiased processing
subscale could provide insight into where essentialist and existentialist perspectives differ
on this measure.
4.2 Discovery and Creation Metaphors
The metaphors of self-discovery and self-creation each paint a different, but vivid,
picture of how the self changes over time. I hypothesized that individuals who believe the
self is innate and preordained in some way would perceive personal growth and
development to be a matter of self-discovery – that the “true self” was being “uncovered”
as they learned more about themselves (Schlegel et al., 2012). This self-discovery was
not a focused and self-directed discovery, but more of a passive discovery. Finding an
ability to sing is likened to “uncovering something that was always there, but never
explored.” Meanwhile, those with an existentialist perspective of authenticity would
endorse a more reflective metaphor. Self-creation is more explicitly self-driven, but self-
discovery can also be driven by reflective and conscientious refining of the self.
Extending the discovery metaphor – those with essentialist authenticity uncover things by
chance while those with existentialist authenticity may be more akin to an archeological
dig site on a particular chosen area of their life.
These hypotheses were borne out in the data in both studies. In Study 1,
existentialist authenticity correlated with both discovery and creation metaphors, but
essentialist authenticity only correlated with discovery metaphors. In a series of
regressions, these correlations were confirmed to be significant even when controlling for
other metaphor endorsement and scores on the other perspective of authenticity. In Study
40
2, essentialist authenticity correlated with creation metaphors, but regression models
demonstrated the same underlying relations among variables as in Study 1. When
controlling for discovery metaphors, creation metaphors no longer corresponded to
essentialist authenticity, and when controlling for existentialist authenticity, creation
metaphors, again, were no longer significantly correlated with essentialist authenticity.
However, existentialist authenticity remained a significant predictor of both discovery
and creation metaphors.
4.3 Implicit Theories of Self
I hypothesized that, given the changeable nature of the self in existentialist
perspectives of authenticity and the more unchanging essence of the essentialist view,
existentialist authenticity would correlate with an incremental mindset (Dweck, 1999),
whereas essentialist authenticity would correlate with an entity mindset. This pattern of
results was found, however it was only marginally significant (p = .07) for existentialist
authenticity in Study 1. In addition, Study 1 found a marginally significant negative
correlation (p = .06) between existentialist authenticity and entity mindsets. While not
significant, this may reflect a more idealistic form of existentialist authenticity, without a
corresponding essentialist grounding, as reflected by the lower correlation between
essentialist and existentialist authenticity in the student sample.
4.4 Identity Exploration
Identity exploration describes the level of commitment and exploration expressed
through behavioral pursuit of identity goals. Marcia (1966) developed initial descriptions
of these two dimensions of identity, and Berzonsky’s Identity Styles Inventory (1992)
describes a more developmental process toward identity achievement (high exploration
41
and high commitment). I predicted that individuals who believe that their “true self” is
changing and reflective would be more likely to have high levels of identity exploration,
using information gathering methods to explore their identity, rather than relying on what
had worked before or what is traditionally expected. A significant correlation between the
information subscale of the identity style inventory and the existentialist authenticity
subscale of the EEAS supported this hypothesis, with discriminant validity established in
the lack of correlation with the essentialist subscale. In a future study, with a longer
survey, these results could be replicated and compared to normative and diffuse identity
subscales as well.
4.5 Political Beliefs
I predicted, based on the United States Democrat and Republican party platforms,
that essentialist perspectives of authenticity would correlate with more conservative
beliefs. Given a sense of a “true self” as innate and unchanging, I hypothesized that
people who endorse essentialist authenticity would identify more with maintaining the
status quo, with nativist beliefs, expressing one’s underlying beliefs without filtering
them, and the conservative ideal of returning to a fabled, previous period of greatness—
all characteristics of the Trump campaign. This hypothesis did match the data, which
show that essentialist authenticity correlated with conservative beliefs. However, the
corresponding hypothesis, that existentialist perspectives of authenticity would correlate
with liberal beliefs, was not supported. One explanation of this discrepancy could be the
recent rise of the Tea Party and the Freedom Caucus in Congress, which differ in many
ways from more moderate Republicans. Given that those with existentialist perspectives
of authenticity are as likely as not to be conservative, they may make up more moderate
42
Republicans while essentialist perspectives are more likely to be found in Tea Party or
nationalist elements of the Republican party. This hypothesis would require a deeper
understanding of participants’ political beliefs than the single item provided.
4.6 Moral Concern
The results of several interpersonal and moral measures included in Study 2, as
well as the Moral Identification Scale (Aquino & Reed, 2002) included in both studies,
support the hypothesis that existentialist perspectives of authenticity, not essentialist
perspectives, correspond to interpersonal and moral concerns. Both essentialist and
existentialist authenticity correlated with symbolic moral identification, suggesting that
both perspectives of authenticity are associated with practices that communicate to others
that one has moral traits. However, in a simultaneous regression, only existentialist
perspectives correlated with internalized moral identification, or the desire to actually
have the moral traits listed. These results were replicated in Study 2.
A similar pattern of results was found for both the Gratitude Questionnaire (GQ-
6; McCullough et al., 2002) and the Quiet Ego Scale (Wayment et al., 2014). The
correlation between the GQ-6 and essentialist authenticity did remain significant (p = .05)
when entered into a regression, however existentialist authenticity correlated more
strongly with the GQ-6. Despite the removal of questions intended to place a greater
distinction on moral differences between essentialist and existentialist perspectives of
authenticity, the results revealed that those who more critically reflect on their true self
feel more gratitude and have a quieter ego than those who believe that their true self is an
unchanging inner essence and that “what you see is what you get.”
43
4.7 Summary
Through establishing a measure to differentiate two perspectives of authenticity
and the true self, a finer distinction can be made in the authenticity literature between a
reflective and chosen “true self” as opposed to a less examined and innate “true self.”
Across several metrics, existentialist and essentialist authenticity show discriminant and
convergent validity – correlating with metrics such as identity exploration, mindsets,
moral identification, and metaphor endorsements. Because the Essentialist versus
Existentialist Authenticity Scale has only been run with two studies and with limited
measures, more research is needed to validate the measure, but initial findings are
encouraging, suggesting real differences in the subscales and future avenues for research.
In particular, future studies may focus on the effects of religiosity, the difference between
authenticity and self-esteem, and the effect of age on some of the measures, which could
help to identify some discrepancies in the results.
44
REFERENCES
Aquino, K., & Reed, I. I. (2002). The self-importance of moral identity. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 83(6), 1423-1440.
Bauer, J. J. (2016). Eudaimonic growth: The development of the goods in personhood
(or: cultivating a good life story). In J. Vittersø (Ed.), Handbook of eudaimonic
well-being (pp. 147-174). Cham, Switzerland: Springer.
Bauer, J. J. (in press). The transformative self: Identity, growth, and a good life story.
Oxford University Press.
Bauer, J. J. & Shanahan, C. P., (in press). Gratitude, authenticity, and self-authorship. In
R. Roberts and D. Telech (Eds.), The moral psychology of gratitude. University of
Chicago.
Berzonsky, M. D. (1989). Identity style: Conceptualization and measurement. Journal of
Adolescent Research, 4(3), 268-282.
Berzonsky, M. D. (1992). Identity style and coping strategies. Journal of Personality,
60(4), 771-788.
Bollen, K. A., & Long, J. S. (1993). Testing structural equation models. Newbury Park,
CA: Sage.
Campbell, D. T., & Fiske, D. W. (1959). Convergent and discriminant validation by the
multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 56(2), 81.
45
Cohler, B. J., & Hammack, P. L. (2006). Making a gay identity: Life story and the
construction of a coherent self. In D.P. McAdams (Ed.), Identity and story:
Creating self in narrative. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Dweck, C. S. (1999). Self-theories: Their role in motivation, personality, and
development. Ann Arbor, MI: Edwards Brothers.
Dweck, C. S., & Leggett, E. L. (1988). A social-cognitive approach to motivation and
personality. Psychological Review, 95(2), 256–273.
Erickson, R. J. (1995). The importance of authenticity for self and society. Symbolic
Interaction, 18(2), 121–144. doi:10.1525/si.1995.18.2.121
Erikson, E. H. (1968/1994). Identity: Youth and crisis. New York: Norton.
Fairclough, N. (2003). Political correctness: The politics of culture and language.
Discourse & Society, 14(1), 17-28.
Gelman, S. A. (2005). Essentialism in everyday thought. Retrieved from
http://www.apa.org/science/about/psa/2005/05/gelman.aspx
Gino, F., Kouchaki, M., & Galinsky, A. D. (2015). The moral virtue of authenticity: How
inauthenticity produces feelings of immorality and impurity. Psychological
Science, 26(7), 983–996.
Goldman, B. M., & Kernis, M. H. (2002). The role of authenticity in healthy
psychological functioning and subjective well-being. Annals of the American
Psychotherapy Association, 5(6), 18–20.
Guignon, C. B. (2004). On being authentic. Psychology Press.
Kernis, M. H. (2003). Optimal self-esteem and authenticity: Separating fantasy from
reality. Psychological Inquiry, 14(1), 83–89.
46
Kernis, M. H., & Goldman, B. M. (2006). A multicomponent conceptualization of
authenticity: Theory and research. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology,
38, 283–357.
Kline, R. B. (2011). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (3rd ed.).
New York: Guilford Press.
Marcia, J. E. (1966). Development and validation of ego-identity status. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 3(5), 551.
Martin, J., & Sugarman, J. (2000). Between the modern and the postmodern: The
possibility of self and progressive understanding in psychology. American
Psychologist, 55, 397-406.
Maslow, A. H. (1968). Toward a psychology of being. New York: Van Nostrand.
McCullough, M. E., Emmons, R. A., & Tsang, J.-A. (2002). The grateful disposition: A
conceptual and empirical topography. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 82(1), 112–127.
Neff, K. D., & Suizzo, M.-A. (2006). Culture, power, authenticity and psychological
well-being within romantic relationships: A comparison of European American
and Mexican Americans. Cognitive Development, 21(4), 441–457.
Rousseau, J., (1923). The social contract and discourses by Jean-Jacques Rousseau.
(G.D. H. Cole, Trans.). London and Toronto: J.M. Dent and Sons. (Original work
published 1761).
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of
intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist,
55(1), 68–78.
47
Sartre, J. P. (1948). Existentialism and humanism (1947). Philosophy: Key Texts, 115.
Sartre, J.-P. (2003). Being and nothingness: An essay on phenomenological ontology. (H.
E., Warnock, M., & Eyre, R, Trans.). London: Routledge. (Original work
published 1943)
Schlegel, R. J., Hicks, J. A., Arndt, J., & King, L. A. (2009). Thine own self: True self-
concept accessibility and meaning in life. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 96(2), 473–490.
Schlegel, R. J., Hicks, J. A., King, L. A., & Arndt, J. (2011). Feeling like you know who
you are: Perceived true self-knowledge and meaning in life. Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin, 37(6), 745–756.
Schlegel, R. J., Vess, M., & Arndt, J. (2012). To discover or to create: Metaphors and the
true self. Journal of Personality, 80(4), 969–993.
Waterman, A. S. (1984). Identity formation: Discovery or creation? The Journal of Early
Adolescence, 4, 329-341.
Wayment, H. A., Bauer, J. J., & Sylaska, K. (2015). The quiet ego scale: Measuring the
compassionate self-identity. Journal of Happiness Studies, 16(4), 999-1033.
Williams, B. A. O. (2002). Truth & truthfulness: An essay in genealogy. Princeton
University Press.
Williams, H., & Vess, M. (2016). Daydreams and the true self. Imagination, Cognition
and Personality, 36(2), 128–149.
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(3), 385–399.
48
APPENDIX A
Essentialist versus Existentialist Scale of Authenticity
Please consider what “authenticity” means in your life, and respond to the following
statements by indicating how much you disagree or agree, according to the following
scale.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Disagree Disagree Disagree Neither Agree Agree Agree
Strongly Slightly Agree nor Slightly Strongly
Disagree
1. When I am being authentic, I am being the person that I was destined to become.
2. My true self is who I want myself to be, as defined by careful reflection that I
have done.
3. I become authentic or true to myself by discovering who I truly am.
4. A person’s worst traits (like being short-tempered or rude) are just as much a part
of their authentic self as their best traits are, and when they act on the worst traits,
they are acting authentically.
5. I become authentic or true to myself by creating who I truly am.
6. To be authentic, I must speak or act what I feel inside, regardless of how it may
affect others
7. My self-identity and beliefs are evolving. They are the foundation of my authentic
self.
8. When I am being authentic, I am being the person that I have decided to become.
9. My true self is who I was meant to be, as defined by my divinely created soul.
10. My true self is who I was born to be, as defined by my genetics.
11. An authentic person builds on their best traits while working on changing their
worst traits.
12. My soul or inner essence is unchanging. It is the foundation of my authentic self.
13. To be authentic, I must consider how my words or actions may harm or hurt
others.
Essentialist Authenticity: (1), (3), (4), 6, 9, 10, 12

Existentialist Authenticity: 2, (5), 7, 8, 11, (13)
The crossed off items, placed in parentheses in the key, were removed during the PCA.
49
APPENDIX B
Authenticity Scale (Wood et al., 2008)
Please rate the degree to which you agree with the following statements
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Does not Describes
describe me very
me at all well
______ 1. “I think it is better to be yourself, than to be popular.”

______ 2. “I don’t know how I really feel inside.”
______ 3. “I am strongly influenced by the opinions of others.”
______ 4. “I usually do what other people tell me to do.”
______ 5. “I always feel I need to do what others expect me to do.”
______ 6. “Other people influence me greatly.”
______ 7. “I feel as if I don’t know myself very well.”
______ 8. “I always stand by what I believe in.”
______ 9. “I am true to myself in most situations.”
______ 10. “I feel out of touch with the ‘real me.’”
______ 11. “I live in accordance with my values and beliefs.”
______ 12. “I feel alienated from myself.”
50
APPENDIX C
Authenticity Inventory - 3 (Kernis & Goldman, 2006)
The following measure has a series of statements that involve people’s perceptions about
themselves. There are not right or wrong responses, so please answer honestly. Respond
to each statement by writing the number from the scale below, which you feel most
accurately characterizes your response to the statement.
1 – Strongly Disagree
2 – Disagree
3 – Neither Agree Nor Disagree
4 – Agree
5 – Agree Strongly
1. I am often confused about my feelings.

2. I frequently pretend to enjoy something when in actuality I really don’t.
3. For better or for worse I am aware of who I truly am.
4. I understand why I believe the things I do about myself.
5. I want people with whom I am close to understand my strengths.
6. I actively try to understand which of my self-aspects fit together to form my core- or
true-self.
7. I am very uncomfortable objectively considering my limitations and shortcomings.
8. I’ve often used my silence or head-nodding to convey agreement with someone else’s
statement or position even though I really disagree.
9. I have a very good understanding of why I do the things I do.
10. I am willing to change myself for others if the reward is desirable enough.
11. I find it easy to pretend to be something other than my true-self.
12. I want people with whom I am close to understand my weaknesses.
13. I find it very difficult to critically assess myself.
14. I am not in touch with my deepest thoughts and feelings.
15. I make it a point to express to close others how much I truly care for them.
16. I tend to have difficulty accepting my personal faults, so I try to cast them in a more
positive way.
17. I tend to idealize close others rather than objectively see them as they truly are.
18. If asked, people I am close to can accurately describe what kind of person I am.
19. I prefer to ignore my darkest thoughts and feelings.
20. I am aware of when I am not being my true-self.
51
21. I am able to distinguish those self-aspects that are important to my core- or true-self
from those that are unimportant.
22. People close to me would be shocked or surprised if they discovered what I keep
inside me.
23. It is important for me to understand my close others’ needs and desires.
24. I want close others to understand the real me rather than just my public persona or
‘‘image.’’
25. I try to act in a manner that is consistent with my personally held values, even if
others criticize or reject me for doing so.
26. If a close other and I are in disagreement I would rather ignore the issue than
constructively work it out.
27. I’ve often done things that I don’t want to do merely not to disappoint people.
28. I find that my behavior typically expresses my values.
29. I actively attempt to understand myself as best as possible.
30. I’d rather feel good about myself than objectively assess my personal limitations and
shortcomings.
31. I find that my behavior typically expresses my personal needs and desires.
32. I rarely if ever, put on a ‘‘false face’’ for others to see.
33. I spend a lot of energy pursuing goals that are very important to other
people even though they are unimportant to me.
34. I frequently am not in touch with what’s important to me.
35. I try to block out any unpleasant feelings I might have about myself.
36. I often question whether I really know what I want to accomplish in my lifetime.
37. I often find that I am overly critical about myself.
38. I am in touch with my motives and desires.
39. I often deny the validity of any compliments that I receive.
40. In general, I place a good deal of importance on people I am close to understanding
who I truly am.
41. I find it difficult to embrace and feel good about the things I have accomplished.
42. If someone points out or focuses on one of my shortcomings I quickly try to block it
out of my mind and forget it.
43. The people I am close to can count on me being who I am regardless of what setting
we are in.
44. My openness and honesty in close relationships are extremely important to me.
45. I am willing to endure negative consequences by expressing my true beliefs about
things.
Subscales
Awareness: 1R, 3, 4, 6, 9, 14R, 20, 21, 29, 34R, 36R, 38
Unbiased Processing: 7R, 13R, 16R, 19R, 30R, 35R, 37R, 39R, 41R, 42R
Behavioral: 2, 8R, 10R, 11R, 25, 27R, 28, 31, 32, 33R, 45
Relational Orientation: 5, 12, 15, 17R, 18, 22R, 23, 24, 26R, 40, 43, 44
52
APPENDIX D
Discovery and Creation Metaphors (Schlegel et al., 2012)
Please rate the degree to which you agree with the following statements from 1 (strongly
disagree) to 6 (strongly agree).
1. The true self is something people discover about themselves.
2. The true self is something people must create for themselves.
53
APPENDIX E
Implicit Theories of Self (Dweck, 1999)
This questionnaire has been designed to investigate ideas about intelligence. There are no right or
wrong answers. We are interested in your ideas.
Using the scale below, please indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with each of the
following statements by writing the number that corresponds to your opinion in the space next to
each statement.
1 2 3 4 5 6
Strongly Agree Mostly Mostly Disagree Strongly
Agree Agree Disagree Disagree
1. You have a certain amount of intelligence, and you can’t really do much to
change it.
2. Your intelligence is something about you that you can’t change very much.
3. No matter who you are, you can significantly change your intelligence level.
4. To be honest, you can’t really change how intelligent you are.
5. You can always substantially change how intelligent you are.
6. You can learn new things, but you can’t really change your basic intelligence.
7. No matter how much intelligence you have, you can always change it quite a bit.
8. You can change even your basic intelligence level considerably.
54
APPENDIX F
Identity Style Inventory – 3 (Berzonski, 1992)
INSTRUCTIONS
You will find a number of statements about beliefs, attitudes, and/or ways of dealing with
issues. Read each carefully, then use it to describe yourself. On the answer sheet, bubble
in the number which indicates the extent to which you think the statement represents you.
There are no right or wrong answers. For instance, if the statement is very much like you,
mark a 5, if it is not like you at all, mark a 1. Use the 1 to 5 point scale to indicate the
degree to which you think each statement is uncharacteristic (1) or characteristic (5) of
yourself.
(NOT AT ALL LIKE ME) 1 2 3 4 5 (VERY MUCH LIKE
ME)
1. I've spent a great deal of time thinking seriously about what I should do with my
life. (INFO)
2. I've more-or-less always operated according to the values with which I was
brought up. (NORM)
3. I've spent a good deal of time reading and talking to others about religious ideas.
(INFO)
4. When I discuss an issue with someone, I try to assume their point of view and see
the problem from their perspective. (INFO)
5. I've always had purpose in my life; I was brought up to know what to strive for.
(NORM)
6. I've spent a lot of time reading and trying to make some sense out of political
issues. (INFO)
7. I've spent a lot of time and talked to a lot of people trying to develop a set of
values that make sense to me. (INFO)
8. Regarding religion, I've always known what I believe and don't believe; I never
really had any serious doubts. (NORM)
9. I've known since high school that I was going to college and what I was going to
major in. (NORM)
10. I think it's better to have a firm set of beliefs than to be openminded. (NORM)
11. When I have a personal problem, I try to analyze the situation in order to
understand it. (INFO)
12. I find it's best to seek out advice from professionals (e.g., clergy, doctors,
lawyers) when I have problems. (INFO)
55
13. I think it's better to have fixed values, than to consider alternative value systems.
(NORM)
14. I find that personal problems often turn out to be interesting challenges. (INFO)
15. Once I know the correct way to handle a problem, I prefer to stick with it.
(NORM)
16. When I have to make a decision, I like to spend a lot of time thinking about my
options. (INFO)
17. I prefer to deal with situations where I can rely on social norms and standards.
(NORM)
18. I like to have the responsibility for handling problems in my life that require me
to think on my own. (INFO)
19. When making important decisions I like to have as much information as possible.
(INFO)
20. I find it's best for me to rely on the advice of close friends or relatives when I
have a problem. (NORM)
56
APPENDIX G
Political Orientation
How would you identify your political beliefs? 1 – Very Liberal, 7 – Very Conservative.
57
APPENDIX H
Moral Identification Scale (Aquino & Reed, 2002)
Here are some characteristics that might describe a person:

Caring, Compassionate, Fair, Friendly, Generous, Helpful, Hardworking, Honest, Kind
The person with these characteristics could be you or it could be someone else. For a
moment, visualize in your mind the kind of person who has these characteristics. Imagine
how that person would think, feel, and act. When you have a clear image of what this
person would be like, rate the following questions accordingly.
Scale:
1 – Disagree Strongly
2 – Disagree
3 – Disagree Slightly
4 – Neither Disagree nor Agree
5 – Agree Slightly
6 – Agree
7 – Agree Strongly
1. It would make me feel good to be a person who has these characteristics.

2. Being someone who has these characteristics is an important part of who I am.
3. I often wear clothes that identify me as having these characteristics.
4. I would be ashamed to be a person who had these characteristics.
5. The types of things I do in my spare time (e.g., hobbies) clearly identify me as having
these characteristics.
6. The kinds of books and magazines that I read identify me as having these
characteristics.
7. Having these characteristics is not really important to me.
8. The fact that I have these characteristics is communicated to others by my
membership in certain organizations.
9. I am actively involved in activities that communicate to others that I have these
characteristics.
10. I strongly desire to have these characteristics.
58
APPENDIX I
Quiet Ego Scale (Wayment, et al., 2015)
Please rate the degree to which you disagree or agree with each of the following
statements about yourself. The rating scale is:
1 2 3 4 5
Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly
Disagree agree
1. I think it is important to have new experiences that challenge how you think about
yourself and the world.
2. I find myself doing things without paying much attention.*
3. I feel a connection to all living things.
4. Before criticizing somebody, I try to imagine how I would feel if I were in their
place.
5. For me, life has been a continuous process of learning, changing, and growth.
6. I do jobs or tasks automatically, without being aware of what I'm doing.*
7. I feel a connection with strangers.
8. When I'm upset at someone, I usually try to put myself in his or her shoes for a
while.
9. I have the sense that I have developed a lot as a person over time.
10. I rush through activities without being really attentive to them.*
11. I sometimes find it difficult to see things from another person's point of view.*
12. I feel a connection to people of other races.
13. I try to look at everybody's side of a disagreement before I make a decision.
14. When I think about it, I haven't really improved much as a person over the years.*
59
APPENDIX J
The Gratitude Questionnaire–6 (GQ-6; McCullough, et al., 2002)
1. I have so much in life to be thankful for.

2. If I had to list everything that I felt grateful for, it would be a very long list.
3. When I look at the world, I don’t see much to be grateful for.
4. I am grateful to a wide variety of people.
5. As I get older I find myself more able to appreciate the people, events, and
situations that have been part of my life history.
6. Long amounts of time can go by before I feel grateful to something or someone.
All items are presented on a 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree) scale. Items 3 and
6 are reverse scored.
60
APPENDIX K
Demographics
1. Gender: [drop-down: male, female, other]

2. Age: [open field]
3. Ethnicity: [check all that apply – American Indian/Alaskan Native, Asian, Pacific
Islander, Black or African American, Hispanic, White/Caucasian, Other (please
specify)]
4. What is the highest level of education that you have attained? [drop-down: Some
High School, High School, Associate’s Degree or Some College, Bachelor’s Degree,
Master’s or Equivalent Degree, Doctoral (Ph.D., M.D., J.D., etc.) or Equivalent
Degree]
5. How would you describe your relationship status? [Drop-down: Single / Married /
One committed partner / Divorced / Widowed / Dating, not committed to one person /
Engaged / Other
6. With which religious group do you identify most? [select one – Christian (Protestant),
Christian (Catholic), Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Atheist, Agnostic, Other
(please specify)]
7. Do you consider yourself an evangelical or born-again Christian? [drop-down: yes,
no]
61

Send

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Send

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ESSENTIALIST AND EXISTENTIALIST: TWO VISIONS OF AUTHENTICITY

The College of Arts and Sciences of the

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for

Master of Arts in General Psychology

Colin Patrick Shanahan

Name: Shanahan, Colin Patrick

Jack J. Bauer, Ph.D.

Erin M. O’Mara, Ph.D.

R. Matthew Montoya, Ph.D.

Lee J. Dixon, Ph.D.

ESSENTIALIST AND EXISTENTIALIST: TWO VISIONS OF AUTHENTICITY

Name: Shanahan, Colin Patrick

Advisor: Dr. Jack J. Bauer

authentically. Research in psychology suggests a divide between essentialist and

existentialist perspectives of what it means to be authentic. The present studies find

a two-factor structure as well as convergent and discriminant validity. An essentialist

discovered, is based on different conceptions of the self than an existentialist perspective

previous literature, authenticity has been considered a significant predictor of maturity,

open to my questions, concerns, and updates in my life.

I owe my opportunity to pursue this Master’s degree to the mentorship of my

undergraduate advisors, Dr. Jennifer Lodi-Smith and Dr. Stephen Chanderbhan of

in my undergraduate degree, and continues to fill me with determination.

1.2 Hypotheses: Convergent and Discriminant Validity of EEAS ..…………… 7

2.1 Study 1 – Participants and Procedure………………………………………14

2.2 Study 2 – Participants and Procedure………………………………………14

2.3 Measures ……………………………………………………………………15

CHAPTER III RESULTS..………………………………………………………19

3.1 Principal Component Analysis..……………………………………………19

3.2 EEAS and Other Authenticity Measures ..…………………………………22

3.3 Discovery and Creation Metaphors ..………………………………………27

3.4 Implicit Theories of Self ……………………………………………………31

3.5 Identity Exploration ..………………………………………………………31

3.6 Political Beliefs..……………………………………………………………32

3.7 EEAS and Measures Related to Moral Concern……………………………32

CHAPTER IV DISCUSSION ……………………………………………………37

4.2 Discovery and Creation Metaphors...………………………………………40

4.3 Implicit Theories of Self ……………………………………………………41

4.4 Identity Exploration...………………………………………………………41

4.5 Political Beliefs..……………………………………………………………42

4.6 Moral Concern...……………………………………………………………43

A. Essentialist versus Existentialist Scale of Authenticity...……………………49

B. Authenticity Scale ……………………………………………………………50

C. Authenticity Inventory – 3 (AI-3) ……………………………………………51

D. Discovery and Creation Metaphors………………………………………….53

E. Implicit Theories of Self..……………………………………………………54

F. Identity Style Inventory – 3 (ISI-3)………………………………………….55

H. Moral Identification Scale (MIS).……………………………………………58

I. Quiet Ego Scale (QES)………………………………………………………59

J. Gratitude Questionnaire – 6 (GQ-6)...……………………………………….60

Table 1. Pattern Matrix of Essentialist verses Existentialist Authenticity Scale...………21

Table 2. Study 1 – Summary of Intercorrelations, Means, and Standard Deviations for

Table 3. Study 2 – Summary of Intercorrelations, Means, and Standard Deviations for

Table 4. Summary of Intercorrelations, Means, and Standard Deviations for Metaphor,

Table 5. Study 1 – Summary of Intercorrelations, Means, and Standard Deviations for

Table 6. Study 2 – Summary of Intercorrelations, Means, and Standard Deviations for

Table 7. Regressions of EEAS Subscales onto Moral Measures in Study 2.……………36

Authenticity is the concept of being true to oneself. However, to which

scientific literature, even as study of authenticity continues. Drawing on research in

focused, self-discovery concept of authenticity (essentialist authenticity), from a

belief/value focused, self-invention concept of authenticity (existentialist authenticity —

versus Existentialist Authenticity Scale (EEAS). Participants were asked to complete

questionnaires, including assessments of interpersonal connectedness, Implicit theories of

between essentialist conceptions of authenticity and existentialist conceptions, across a