Perceived authenticity in romantic partners

Highlights

• Authenticity in romantic partners signals trustworthiness and stability.

• Perceiving romantic partners as more authentic should promote non-defensiveness.

• Correlational and experimental methods were applied in a sample of couples.

• Perceived partner authenticity was associated with more adaptive relationship goals.

• Perceiving partners as authentic led to greater trust, satisfaction, and commitment.

Abstract

The notion of authenticity, or a state of being in which one's behavior is motivated by genuine, internal forces, has long been of interest to philosophers and social thinkers. Previous research on authenticity has examined the association between an individual's self-reported evaluations of his/her own authenticity and measures of well-being or relationship quality. The present work provides a new perspective by casting light on an interpersonal aspect the construct, namely, the extent to which an individual believes his or her romantic partner is authentic. Using correlational and experimental methods in a sample of dating and married couples, the present work found strong associations between perceived partner authenticity, relationship goals, interpersonal trust, and relationship outcomes.

Introduction

The notion of authenticity, or a state of being in which one's behavior is motivated by genuine, internal forces, has long been of interest to philosophers and social thinkers (Harbus, 2002). Since the 1960s humanistic theorists have argued that behaving in a manner that is consistent with one's core beliefs allowed for the development of a more integrated self (Maslow, 1968, Rogers, 1961), and more recently social and personality psychologists have added considerable breadth and depth to this concept. Indeed, the concept of authenticity now pertains to aspects of self-awareness, openness in interpersonal relationships, and self-evaluation. Though much of this work has focused on the association between an individual's self-reported evaluations of his/her own authenticity and measures of general well-being or psychological functioning (Heppner et al., 2008, Kernis and Goldman, 2006, Ryan et al., 2005, Wood et al., 2008), researchers have also examined the consequences of authenticity across different life roles (e.g., student, child, friend; Sheldon, Ryan, Rawsthorne, & Ilardi, 1997). One domain that has received specific attention is the extent to which individuals feel authentic in their close relationships (Brunell et al., 2010, Lopez and Rice, 2006, Neff and Harter, 2002). Examining the implications of authenticity in the interpersonal, specifically dyadic, context takes the construct in an especially compelling direction. The present work delves further into the interpersonal aspect of authenticity in close relationships by examining the consequences of perceived authenticity in romantic partners.

Interest in the correlates and consequences of authenticity has increased considerably over the past decade. For example, Kernis and Goldman (2006) identified four related components of authenticity, including an awareness of one's internal state, unbiased processing of self-relevant information, behavior that is consistent with one's uncoerced desires, and an orientation towards others that is free from deception or exploitation. Greater authenticity is generally thought to be beneficial as it relates to a host of positive outcomes. For instance, Kernis and Goldman (2006) found that self-reported authenticity predicted more adaptive coping styles four weeks later, and higher levels of authenticity were associated with greater self-concept clarity and self-actualization, lower contingent self-worth, higher levels of life satisfaction, positive affect, autonomy, environmental mastery, and general well-being. Sheldon et al. (1997) found that when college students were asked to reflect on five primary life roles (e.g., student, romantic partner), the roles in which they reported greater authenticity were rated as more satisfying and less stressful. Moreover, individuals who reported higher average levels of authenticity across all life roles reported higher overall self-esteem, and lower levels of anxiety, depression, perceived stress, and physical symptomatology.

More recently, Wood et al. (2008) introduced a tripartite model of authenticity focusing on authentic living, accepting external influence, and self-alienation. Correlational analysis across multiple samples indicated that greater authenticity was associated with higher levels of self-esteem, life satisfaction, positive affect, and lower levels of negative affect, stress, and anxiety. Finally, Heppner et al. (2008) found that participants reported higher levels of self-esteem on days in which they felt more authentic, and this finding remained significant after controlling for daily positive and negative affect, as well as autonomy, competence, and relatedness need satisfaction.

Though much of the prior work related to authenticity has explored the consequences of feeling authentic, recent work by Gillath, Sesko, Shaver, and Chun (2010) examined the potential antecedents of authenticity. Using a cross-sectional design, they found that even after controlling for all Big Five personality traits, attachment anxiety and avoidance were significant (negative) predictors of authenticity. A series of experiments also provided evidence of a possible causal relationship between attachment security and state authenticity. Specifically, both subliminal and supraliminal priming of attachment security led participants to report a greater number of embarrassing or shameful acts, a proxy for authentic self-expression.

Prior studies consistently find that higher levels of authenticity are associated with more adaptive functioning and greater well-being. Although much of the prior work on authenticity has focused on global self-evaluations, specifically, how authentic a person generally feels across different social contexts and opportunities for self-expression, a pair of recent studies describes the implication of authenticity that is specific to close relationships. For example, in their validation of a measure of relationship authenticity, Lopez and Rice (2006) obtained self-reports of participants own authenticity, which were correlated with measures of subjective well-being and relationship satisfaction. Results suggested that higher levels of authenticity were associated with greater self-esteem, relationship satisfaction, attachment security, and lower levels of depression, self-concealment, and self-concept splitting. It is important to note that while the subject of inquiry is interpersonal (i.e., the role of authenticity in close relationship functioning), the methodological approach used in these studies was predominately intrapersonal. In other words, an individual's own authenticity was specified as the predictor variable and the same individual's self-reports of well-being or relationship functioning were designated the criterion variables.

More recently, Brunell et al. (2010) adopted a more relational, or interpersonal approach to examining the role of authenticity in close relationships by obtaining self-reports of general authenticity from both members of dating and married couples. The study featured a 3-wave panel design in which a person's own authenticity, as well as the authenticity of his or her romantic partner predicts relationship well-being at a later time. The authors found that individuals who scored higher on a general authenticity measure at baseline reported more positive relationship behaviors two weeks later, as well as better relationship outcomes and general well-being four weeks later. Though the work by Brunell et al. (2010) represents significant progress in the study of authenticity in the context of close relationships, a crucial component of the authenticity remains unaddressed by prior investigations, specifically the extent to which an individuals' beliefs about their romantic partner's authenticity shape their perceptions of the relationship.

Prior work examining the interpersonal correlates of authenticity has focused solely on the extent to which an individual's self reported authenticity is associated with relationship outcomes. However, researchers have yet to consider the extent to which individuals value authenticity in their romantic partners. Because the interpersonal components of authenticity center on aversion to deception and an openness to intimacy (Lopez & Rice, 2006), the present work takes the position that perceiving one's romantic partners as more authentic serves as an indicator of trustworthiness, and ultimately relationship quality.

Resolving ambiguity in the motives that underlie partner behavior is essential in the development and maintenance of close relationships. Indeed, prior work demonstrates that deception undermines feelings of trust and stability in close relationships, and is associated with less satisfying relationships (Cole, 2001, DePaulo and Kashy, 1998). Moreover, the motivation management theory of mutual responsiveness described by Murray and Holmes (2009) specifies uncertainty regarding partners' motives as a central structural barrier to responsiveness (Murray, Holmes, & Collins, 2006), and ultimately intimacy and satisfaction. Murray and Holmes (2009) identified four principles of motivation management that describe the process of risk regulation and the development of intimacy. The first principle holds that the short-term goals pursued by each individual in mixed-motive (i.e., conflict of interest) situations (Kelly et al., 2003) inform partners' perceptions of risk. The second principle holds that to achieve the optimal joint outcome, partners must resist the temptation to protect themselves from exploitation, which involves interpersonal trust (Rempel, Holmes, & Zanna, 1985). The third principle describes the mechanisms responsible for automating affect, cognition and behavior, which take the form of a network of procedural “if-then” rules that inform trust and commitment. Finally, the accessibility of the procedural if-then rules varies across persons in relationships as a function of the risk profile, or type and structure of the conflicts that partners encounter.

The principles of the motivation management theory (Murray & Holmes, 2009) describe how perceptions of partner trustworthiness and riskiness are estimated based on situational experiences. However, it seems likely that individuals will also draw conclusions regarding a partner's trustworthiness and riskiness based on more global appraisals of partner attributes. In fact, the theory acknowledges that personality attributes such as attachment style or global self-esteem may also influence the level of trust in one's romantic partner because they serve as indirect cues that indicate the likelihood of their continued value to their partner. In addition to the factors mentioned by Murray and Holmes (2009), the present work contends that more authentic individuals should be less likely to deceive other people or attempt to conceal their true feelings. Specifically, the transparency in motives (Lopez & Rice, 2006) associated with perceived partner authenticity may lead individuals to view their partners as more trustworthy because they feel that their partner is less likely to deceive or take advantage of them (Rempel et al., 1985). Greater perceived partner authenticity may also influence the accessibility of the if-then rules (i.e., the forth principle), such that individuals who believe their partner to be authentic will be less sensitive to situational contingencies.

The risk regulation component (Murray et al., 2006) of the motivation management theory (Murray & Holmes, 2009) describes how relationship partners' estimates of partner's riskiness are reflected in the goal frameworks adopted by individuals in their romantic relationship. This risk regulation model (see also Murray et al., 2006) conceptualizes two distinct, but correlated types of goals: self-protection and connectedness. Self-protection goals are concerned with insulating one's self from the threat of abandonment or rejection, and they arise when romantic partners are perceived as unstable. In contrast, connectedness goals are associated with seeking to increase closeness and intimacy with one's romantic partner. Given that authenticity is defined by an orientation toward others that is free from deception and ulterior motives (Lopez & Rice, 2006), individuals who perceive their partners as highly authentic should feel less defensive and more open in their relationships. As a result, perceiving one's partner as more authentic should increase the likelihood that an individual adopts connectedness goals, and decrease the likelihood of endorsing self-protection goals.

It is important to understand that perceptions are distinct from partner's self-reported authenticity, and that discrepancies between perceived and partner-reported authenticity are non-trivial. Indeed, perceived partner authenticity ratings are comprised of many distinct sources of variability. Specifically, Jack's perception of Jill's authenticity is likely comprised of some “truth” or accuracy, which is reflected in the shared variance between Jack's perceived partner authenticity and Jill's self reported authenticity. Additionally, Jack's perception may also be influenced by “assumed similarity” bias (Kenny & Acitelli, 2001), which is reflected in the overlap between Jack's perceived partner authenticity and his own self reported authenticity. Finally, some component of Jack's perceived partner authenticity will be driven by pure inaccuracy or misperception. For instance, some of the inaccuracy in Jack's perception of Jill's authenticity arises because he has no direct access to her inner thoughts or feelings. Unfortunately for Jack, Jill may not be nearly as authentic in her orientation toward him as he thinks (i.e., she is actually motivated by the resources he can provide). Misperceptions may also be motivated by a Pollyannaish bias that is distinct from assumed similarity (e.g., he wants to believe that Jill is authentic), or perhaps by information provided by a third party (e.g., Sally tells Jack that Jill is authentically invested in the relationship). Regardless of the underlying cause(s), misperceptions represent a distinct and theoretically compelling aspect of perceived partner authenticity because they reflect an aspect of the construct that is entirely of the perceiver's construal. Measuring self and perceived partner reports from both members of a couple makes it possible to partial or remove the accuracy and bias components in individual's ratings of perceived partner authenticity, allowing one to examine the extent to which simply believing one's partner is authentic (or not) predicts relationship outcomes.