ABSTRACT
We want our chocolate to be authentic (“made with real milk chocolate”). We want our pasta to be authentic (“authentic Italian recipe”). We want our leather to be authentic (“100% cowhide leather”). But, do we want our “selves” to be authentic? On the one hand, a vast literature documents people’s willingness to profess opinions, modulate their emotional expressions, and tailor their behaviors to audiences, seemingly with little regard for the truth (Schlenker, 2002). The more skillful the portrayal, the more interpersonally successful the messenger is said to be (Snyder, 1987). Those most skillful at strategic fabrications of the truth are likely to be revered as television or film celebrities, or perhaps reviled as con or scam artists. On the other hand, many philosophers and psychologists place great value on acting in accord with one’s true inclinations and place this type of congruence at the core of an individual’s well-being and interpersonal functioning (Rogers, 1961). From this perspective, actions that do not resonate with one’s true self, no matter how skillfully they are performed, will undermine one’s well-being and erode one’s interpersonal relationships over time. How can we account for these seemingly disparate views? We believe that one factor that may contribute to ambivalence about the value of authenticity is that it has both costs and benefits. Depending upon one’s vantage point, the costs may appear to outweigh the benefits, or vice versa.
