Personality and Individual Differences 113 (2017) 235–239

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Personality and Individual Differences

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/paid

Short Communication

Authenticity and well-being: Exploring positivity and negativity in

interactions as a mediator☆

Zachary G. Baker a,⁎, Reese Y.W. Tou a, Jennifer L. Bryan b,c,d, C. Raymond Knee a
a
Department of Psychology, University of Houston, United States
b
VA HSR&D Center for Innovations in Quality, Effectiveness and Safety, Michael E. DeBakey VA Medical Center, Houston, TX, United States
c
South Central Mental Illness Research, Education and Clinical Center, Houston, TX, United States
d
Baylor College of Medicine, Department of Psychiatry, Houston, TX, United States

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Personality-level authenticity is a robust predictor of both well- and ill-being. Recent research has explored the
Received 8 November 2016 ways in which this element of personality is associated with interpersonal relationships and interactions. The
Received in revised form 4 March 2017 present study examines the valence of interpersonal interactions (i.e., positivity and lack of negativity) as a me-
Accepted 8 March 2017
diator of the associations between authenticity and well-/ill-being. Participants reported authenticity at baseline,
Available online 22 March 2017
recorded their perceptions of valence for each interaction in which they participated for two weeks, and reported
Keywords:
several indicators of well- and ill-being at follow-up. We then averaged each interaction valence report within
Authenticity participants to get a participant-level (i.e., chronic) measurement of interaction valence. Results revealed that au-
Interaction thenticity positively predicted well-being and that interaction valence mediated these associations. These same
Valence mediation analyses were not significant for ill-being, though all results were in the predicted directions. Results
Well-being were interpreted as evidence suggesting that the personality trait of authenticity has implications for interaction
Ill-being with others and that these interactions, in turn, may have implications for one's state of being.
© 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction weaknesses, desires and needs, and dispositional characteristics thus

enables an individual to integrate one's various self-aspects. Unbiased
1.1. Authenticity, well-being, and ill-being processing addresses an individual's ability to view one's positive and
negative aspects more objectively, rather than denying or distorting in-
Authenticity refers to an individual's tendency to express and be- formation about the self. Such relative objectivity reduces tendencies to
have in accord with his or her true feelings, thoughts, and attitudes, engage in self-serving biases following success or failure, promotes a
and is composed of four factors: awareness, unbiased processing, be- more non-defensive view of one's performance, and improves an
havior, and relational orientation (Kernis & Goldman, 2006). Awareness individual's long-term functioning. Behavior focuses on the extent to
emphasizes one's motivation to increase self-relevant knowledge, be- which an individual acts based on his or her awareness, rather than to
coming more in touch with one's feelings, thoughts, and desires. The acquire rewards or avoid punishments. Finally, relational orientation re-
learning process of understanding and accepting one's strengths and flects individuals' motivation to express and share their true-self within
close relationships, with the motivation to increase openness, sincerity,
and trust in close relationships (Kernis & Goldman, 2006). When re-
searchers are interested in individual components of authenticity as op-
posed to the overall personality construct, these components may be
☆ This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public,
examined separately (e.g., Wickham, Williamson, Beard, Kobayashi, &
commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. This material is the result of work supported by
the South Central Mental Illness Research, Education and Clinical Center and the Hirst, 2015). When researchers are interested in an overall authenticity
resources and use of facilities at the Houston VA Health Services Research and personality construct, these components have been shown to collective-
Development Center for Innovations in Quality, Effectiveness and Safety (CIn13-413). ly represent this construct well (Brunell et al., 2010; Bryan, Baker, & Tou,
The opinions expressed reflect those of the authors and not necessarily those of the 2015; Tou, Baker, Hadden, & Lin, 2015).
Department of Veterans Affairs, the U.S. government or Baylor College of Medicine.
⁎ Corresponding author at: Department of Psychology, University of Houston, 3695
Authenticity is positively associated with well-being and negatively
Cullen Boulevard Room 126, Houston, TX 77204-5022, United States. associated with ill-being. It predicts higher levels of self-actualization
E-mail address: [email protected] (Z.G. Baker). and vitality (Kernis & Goldman, 2006), greater subjective well-being

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2017.03.018
0191-8869/© 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
236 Z.G. Baker et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 113 (2017) 235–239

and more positive affect (Wood, Linley, Maltby, Baliousis, & Joseph, 2. Method
2008), and higher levels of life satisfaction (Brunell et al., 2010). In ad-
dition, authenticity is related to greater self-esteem at both between- 2.1. Procedures
and within-person levels (Heppner et al., 2008; Kernis & Goldman,
2006). Authenticity is negatively associated with psychological stress The present data were collected at a large southwestern university
and physical symptomatology (Kernis & Goldman, 2006), and is pre- and represent supplementary hypotheses for that data collection. The
dictive of fewer depressive and anxiety symptoms among college stu- present analyses make use of data from each set of time points collected
dents (Bryan et al., 2015). Given evidence of associations between but are looking at between-, rather than within-person effects. After at-
authenticity, well-being, and ill-being, we wished to explore underly- tending an orientation session in the laboratory that explained proce-
ing mechanisms. We propose that the positivity, and lack of negativity dures, informed consent was obtained and participants were emailed
of one's interpersonal interactions, may account for some of these a baseline survey. Once the baseline survey had been completed, they
associations. made two weeks of diary entries (MEntries = 10.43)1 in line with recom-
mendations that in studies of social participation 2 weeks of entries is
1.2. Authenticity and interpersonal interactions sufficient to capture meaningful variation (Reis, Gable, & Maniaci,
2014). Participants answered a series of survey questions via an online
Researchers have begun to examine how authenticity benefits not link every time they had an interaction as soon as possible after the in-
only the individual, but also interpersonal relationship functioning. teraction. They could access these links with any internet-connected
More authentic individuals are able to consider their true needs in a computer or mobile device they had at their disposal. Following meth-
more realistic way, resulting in willingness to take others' needs into odology of past research (Reis & Wheeler, 1991; Reis, Gable, Maniaci,
consideration when conflicts arise. Tou et al. (2015) examined the strat- Reis, & Judd, 2014) an interaction was defined as any instance in
egies that more authentic individuals take during conflict with friends, which participants were actively following the conversation and could
and found that individuals with higher levels of authenticity tended to enter the conversation when they wished. They were given examples
choose strategies that harmoniously took one's own and the other's of interactions including “Someone says something to you, you respond,
needs into consideration (i.e., integrating and compromising strate- and so forth,” as well as non-interactions, “Sitting side-by-side watching
gies). The authors demonstrated that one reason for taking others' television.” To qualify, a situation had to contain at least 20 min of con-
needs into consideration along with one's own may be that one's tinuous interaction in the hope of reducing participant burden. It was
goals align with consideration of both sets of needs. In the context of ro- expected that significantly fewer interactions would have to be record-
mantic relationships, more authentic individuals are more likely to ex- ed when the limit was set at 20 min as opposed to the more typical 10-
hibit positive relationship functioning behaviors, consisting of minute span (Reis & Wheeler, 1991). Qualitative examination of our
accommodation, self-disclosure, and trust in one's partner (Brunell et findings found that a random sample of 245 interactions took place in
al., 2010). Furthermore, feeling authentic was found to be key in reaping the following contexts: 18% Family, 7% Work, 25% Friends, 27% Other,
positive personal and relationship outcomes from sacrifice behaviors 19% Unclear, and 4% Classmates. Finally, after the two weeks of surveys,
(Le & Impett, 2013). participants were emailed an additional link to a follow-up survey. Par-
Given that more authentic individuals tend to consider both their ticipants were compensated with extra credit for participating in this
own and others' needs and prefer engaging in pro-relationship behav- study at the discretion of their instructors.
iors in interpersonal interactions, more positive and less negative
interactions may result. Wickham, Reed, and Williamson (2015) inves- 2.2. Participants
tigated whether authenticity buffered the effects of negatively valenced
interactions. They found that negatively valenced interactions were Of 143 students who completed the baseline survey, 98 (78%) com-
negatively associated with well-being, but such a relationship was not pleted both diary entries and follow-up surveys. All analyses and de-
observed for those with higher levels of authenticity. scriptive statistics reported in this paper include only those final 98
participants. Participants were 23.56 years old on average (SD =
1.3. The present study 7.42), 78% female, and ethnically diverse: 19% Caucasian, 14% African-
American, 29% Asian, 2% Middle Eastern, 34% Hispanic/Latino, and 2%
We propose that the valence (i.e., felt positivity and lack of negativ- Other.
ity) of interpersonal interactions is one mechanism by which associa-
tions between authenticity and well-/ill-being may be explained. Here, 2.3. Measures
we examine naturally occurring interpersonal interactions, instead of
specific contexts, such as friendships and close relationships, in order All estimates of internal consistency were calculated with the pres-
to increase the generalizability of our findings. Similarly, we studied ent sample. For each measure, higher scores reflect higher levels of
broad conceptualizations of well-/ill-being in line with past research that construct.
(Uysal, Lin, & Knee, 2010) with the desire that our findings may be
Baseline Authenticity. The Authenticity Inventory–3 (Kernis &
able to generalize to many kinds of both.
Goldman, 2006; α = 0.86) was used to examine trait authenticity
Hypothesis 1. Authenticity would be (a) positively associated with at time 1. The assessment consists of 45 items (e.g., I find that my be-
well-being indices, (b) negatively associated with ill-being indices, havior typically expresses my values.) rated from 1 (Strongly Dis-
and (c) positively associated with the valence of interpersonal agree) to 5 (Strongly Agree).
interactions.
Interaction Valence. The extent to which individuals perceived their
Hypothesis 2. The valence of interpersonal interactions would be (a) interactions to be less negative and more positive was assessed
positively associated with well-being indices, and (b) negatively associ- with a single item, following each qualifying interaction. This item
ated with ill-being indices. was “How did you feel about this interaction?” rated from − 3

Hypothesis 3. The valence of interpersonal interactions would (a) pos- 1

One helpful reviewer noted that we could examine the correlation between our mea-
itively mediate the association between authenticity and well-being in-
sure of the number of interactions and authenticity. This correlation demonstrated that
dices, and (b) negatively mediate the association between authenticity reporting oneself as more authentic was related to reporting fewer interactions of
and ill-being indices. N20 min over two weeks (r = −0.21, p = 0.041).
 Z.G. Baker et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 113 (2017) 235–239 237

(Negative) to 3 (Positive). This item was then averaged across all in- frequency with which they were caused problems by a number of
teractions to represent chronic interaction valence. Past research states and experiences (e.g., Faintness or dizziness) rated from 0
(e.g., Crocker & Canevello, 2008) has demonstrated this to be an ef- (Not at all) to 4 (Extremely).
fective way to examine between-persons differences in variables
that might change quite regularly while avoiding retrospective
3. Results
biases. We rescaled perceived interaction valence to range from 1
to 7 in order to be in a more similar metric with the rest of our var-
Our sample was collected throughout the course of a single semes-
iables in the present manuscript.
ter, obtaining as many participants as we were able in that time. Post-
hoc, we determined that assuming power of 0.8, a minimum of 71 par-
2.4. Follow-up well-being
ticipants are needed to detect indirect effects when both included direct
effects have medium effect sizes (Fritz & MacKinnon, 2007). Using
Mental Health was assessed with the mental health inventory
Mplus version 6 we specified a model in which latent variables of
(Stewart, Hays, & Ware, 1988; α = 0.85), which includes 5 items
well-being and ill-being were indicated by mental health, self-esteem,
that ask how frequently individuals experienced different mental
satisfaction with life, and vitality as well as depressive symptoms, stress,
health outcomes (e.g., How much of the time were you a happy per-
and physical symptoms, respectively. These latent variables were then
son) from 1 (All of the time) to 6 (None of the time).
regressed onto observed indicators of authenticity and valence while
Self-Esteem was measured with the Rosenberg Self-Esteem scale
valence was also regressed onto authenticity.
(Rosenberg, 1965; α = 0.92), which assesses self-esteem via 10
Means, standard deviations, and Pearson correlations between all
items (e.g., I feel that I have a number of good qualities) rated from variables from the study are included in Table 1. Notably, time 1 authen-
1 (Strongly Agree) to 4 (Strongly Disagree). ticity was positively related to valence and all well-being indicators and
Satisfaction with Life was assessed with the Satisfaction with Life negatively related to ill-being indicators. Valence was similarly positive-
scale (Diener, Emmons, Larsen, & Griffin, 1985; α = 0.88) Partici- ly related to well-being and negatively related to ill-being. Each of these
pants rated 5 items (e.g., I am satisfied with my life) from 1 (Strongly correlations was in the small to moderate range (Cohen, 1992).
disagree) to 7 (Strongly agree). Primary analyses testing whether valence of interactions mediated
Subjective Vitality was assessed with the Subjective Vitality scale associations between authenticity and both well-being and ill-being, re-
(Ryan & Frederick, 1997; α = 0.92) in which participants rated 6 vealed largely consistent relationships. Fig. 1 presents our model and
standardized (partially-standardized) coefficients for all parameters es-
items (e.g., I feel energized) from 1 (Not at all true) to 7 (Very true).
timated. Partially standardized estimates, standard errors, test statistics,
and exact p-values may also be viewed in the Online supplementary
2.5. Follow-up ill-being
materials.
Overall, the model fit statistics were somewhat contradictory with a
Depressive Symptoms were assessed with the Center for Epidemio-
significant χ2 (23) = 53.14, p b 0.001, a higher than desirable RMSEA
logical Studies Depression Scale – Revised (Van Dam & Earleywine,
(Root Mean Square Error of Approximation; 0.12, 90% CI [0.08, 0.16]),
2011; α = 0.93). Participants rated the frequency of their experi-
an acceptable CFI (Comparative Fit Index; 0.92), and a good SRMR
ence of 20 items (e.g., I felt like a bad person) from 1 (Not at all or
(Standardized Root Mean Square Residual; 0.05). Because SRMR is the
b1 day) to 5 (Nearly every day for 2 weeks).
least sensitive of these measures to sample size, we think this presents
Stress was measured with the Perceived Stress Scale (Cohen,
positive preliminary support for the fit of our model to the data.
1988; α = 0.88), which includes 10 items like “How often have Examining local fit revealed that our model accounted for 39% and
you felt nervous or stressed?” over the course of the past month 28% of the variance in well−/ill-being, respectively. Variance explained
rated for frequency from 0 (Never) to 4 (Very Often). in each of the endogenous variables may be viewed in the Online sup-
Symptoms were assessed with the 18 items from the Brief Symptom plementary table. All pathways were significant and in their hypothe-
Inventory (Derogatis, 2001; α = 0.94). Participants rated the sized directions with the exception of the direct effect of valence on

Table 1
Means, standard deviations, and Pearson correlations among study variables.

Mean (SD) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

1. Authenticity 3.59 –
(0.39)
2. Valence 5.97 0.40⁎⁎⁎ –
(0.72)
3. Mental health 4.31 0.34⁎⁎⁎ 0.32⁎⁎ –
(0.92)
4. Self-esteem 3.01 0.34⁎⁎⁎ 0.30⁎⁎ 0.34⁎⁎⁎ –
(0.67)
5. Satisfaction with life 4.52 0.34⁎⁎⁎ 0.39⁎⁎⁎ 0.43⁎⁎⁎ 0.25⁎ –
(1.35)
6. Vitality 4.54 0.46⁎⁎⁎ 0.40⁎⁎⁎ 0.53⁎⁎⁎ 0.33⁎⁎⁎ 0.65⁎⁎⁎ –
(1.36)
7. Depressive 1.88 −0.36⁎⁎⁎ −0.29⁎⁎ −0.61⁎⁎⁎ −0.31⁎⁎ −0.44⁎⁎⁎ −0.48⁎⁎⁎ –
symptoms (0.72)
8. Stress 2.30 −0.51⁎⁎⁎ −0.31⁎⁎ −0.64⁎⁎⁎ −0.34⁎⁎⁎ −0.51⁎⁎⁎ −0.58⁎⁎⁎ 0.67⁎⁎⁎ –
(0.70)
9. Symptoms 1.75 −0.41⁎⁎⁎ −0.27⁎⁎ −0.67⁎⁎⁎ −0.34⁎⁎⁎ −0.35⁎⁎⁎ −0.46⁎⁎⁎ 0.77⁎⁎⁎ 0.63⁎⁎⁎
(0.70)
⁎ p b 0.05.
⁎⁎ p b 0.01.
⁎⁎⁎ p b 0.001.
238 Z.G. Baker et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 113 (2017) 235–239

Fig. 1. Model and standardized (partially standardized) coefficients. Note. Standardized coefficients are presented first, followed by partially standardized coefficients in parentheses. *p b
0.05, **p b 0.01, ***p b 0.001.

ill-being. In line with these direct paths, we found that the indirect path- be individualistic, has wider implications for interpersonal behavior.
way from authenticity to well-being through valence was significant, These findings extend the work of Tou et al. (2015) by demonstrating
whereas the same indirect pathway to ill-being was not. This path was another way that authenticity and interpersonal behaviors are intimate-
in the hypothesized direction, though with a relatively small effect ly related. Tou et al. (2015) found that authenticity helps to inform upon
size (βStandardized = − 0.07, t = − 1.40, p = 0.140) compared to that the goals we have in interpersonal situations and how those goals lead
of the indirect path to well-being (βStandardized = 0.14, t = 2.37, p = to different forms of interaction, specifically with regard to conflict.
0.018). While authenticity helps individuals to deal with conflict in more adap-
tive ways, Wickham et al. (2015) have also shown that it moderates re-
sponses to conflict. Specifically, the authors found that when individuals
4. Discussion are low in authenticity, conflict is injurious to well-being, while higher
levels of authenticity attenuated this relationship.
These findings extend previous research by providing evidence for These findings also fit nicely with those of Sandstrom and Dunn
the valence of one's interactions as a mediator between authenticity (2014a, 2014b) in which the frequency with which people interact
and well-being. Consistent with Hypothesis 1, authenticity was a) pos- with others was uniquely predictive of well-being. Our results demon-
itively associated with well-being indices, b) negatively associated strate that more positive interactions lead to more well-being down
with ill-being indices and c) positively associated with the valence of in- the road. This demonstrates one way in which interactions may be ben-
terpersonal interactions. Consistent with Hypothesis 2, more positive eficial: through their valence. Moreover, our findings reveal that posi-
interpersonal interactions were a) positively associated with well- tive interaction valence may have a lasting effect on well-being
being indices and b) negatively associated with ill-being indices. Consis- beyond the duration of those interactions. Sandstrom and Dunn's find-
tent with Hypothesis 3a), the association between authenticity and ings were specific with regard to interactions with weak and close ties
well-being indices was significantly mediated by interpersonal interac- separately. This may suggest a future avenue of research in which va-
tions. However, inconsistent with Hypothesis 3b), the association be- lence is explored and compared with regard to both weak and strong
tween authenticity and ill-being indices was not significantly ties explicitly.
mediated by interpersonal interactions, though all effects were in the While the predicted patterns were seen throughout the majority of
predicted directions. this study, the association between authenticity and ill-being was not
Our findings build on a strong literature demonstrating the benefits statistically significantly mediated by valence of one's interactions in
of authenticity (e.g., Bryan et al., 2015; Heppner et al., 2008; Kernis & our study. While this association was insignificant, all direct and indirect
Goldman, 2006; Schlegel & Hicks, 2011; Wood et al., 2008). The results paths were in the predicted directions. This seems to suggest that inter-
are consistent with past research and provide new evidence for a poten- action valence, at least as we measured it, may elevate the good in one's
tial mechanism (i.e., the valence of one's interactions) through which life more than it buffers against the bad.
high levels of authenticity lead to these benefits. In addition, our find-
ings extend previous literature exploring the interplay between inter- 4.1. Limitations and future directions
personal behavior and authenticity (i.e., Brunell et al., 2010; Le &
Impett, 2013). The strengths of this study should be considered in light of the lim-
Moreover, our results build on a burgeoning literature that demon- itations. The sample was relatively homogenous as it was comprised
strates the ways in which this construct, that may appear to some to of college students who volunteered to participate. However, our
 Z.G. Baker et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 113 (2017) 235–239 239

sample was older than the typical college age as well as racially and eth- Crocker, J., & Canevello, A. (2008). Creating and undermining social support in communal
relationships: The role of compassionate and self-image goals. Journal of Personality
nically diverse which does lend to greater generalizability. Another lim- and Social Psychology, 95, 555–575.
itation was that these data only looked at one person in an interaction Derogatis, L. R. (2001). BSI 18, Brief Symptom Inventory 18: Administration, scoring and
and was unable to parse out positivity and negativity of interactions procedures manual. NCS Pearson, Incorporated.
Diener, E. D., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, S. (1985). The satisfaction with life
separately. Future studies may wish to explore dyadic responses to in- scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49, 71–75.
teractions. Moreover, it is unclear if interactions with two relatively au- Fritz, M. S., & MacKinnon, D. P. (2007). Required sample size to detect the mediated effect.
thentic members of a dyad lead to more well-being and less ill-being, Psychological Science, 18, 233–239.
Heppner, W. L., Kernis, M. H., Nezlek, J. B., Foster, J., Lakey, C. E., & Goldman, B. M. (2008).
though we would expect this to be the case. Finally, along with its Within-person relationships among daily self-esteem, need satisfaction, and authen-
strengths, diary data do have weaknesses. Diary data suffer from ticity. Psychological Science, 19, 1140–1145.
many of the same costs of any self-report study and the act of recording Kernis, M. H., & Goldman, B. M. (2006). A multicomponent conceptualization of authen-
ticity: Theory and research. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 38, 283–357.
responses and thinking so much about interactions may produce reac-
Le, B. M., & Impett, E. A. (2013). When holding back helps suppressing negative emotions
tance, which could alter the experience of those interactions (Bolger, during sacrifice feels authentic and is beneficial for highly interdependent people.
Davis, & Rafaeli, 2003). Psychological Science, 24, 1809–1815.
Reis, H. T., & Wheeler, L. (1991). Studying social interaction with the Rochester Interaction
Record. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 24, 269–318.
5. Conclusion Reis, H. T., Gable, S. L., & Maniaci, M. R. (2014). Methods for studying everyday experience
in its natural context. In H. T. Reis, & C. M. Judd (Eds.), Handbook of Research Methods
in Social and Personality Psychology. (pp. 373–403)New York, NY: Cambridge Univer-
The present research explored the associations between authentici- sity Press.
ty, a chronic indicator of valence of one's interactions across 2 weeks, Reis, H. T., Gable, S. L., Maniaci, M. R., Reis, H. T., & Judd, C. M. (2014). Methods for studying
everyday experience in its natural context. Handbook of Research Methods in Social
and several well-/ill-being outcomes. We were able to demonstrate, and Personality Psychology, 373–403.
with temporal precedence, that authenticity predicted well-/ill-being Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Uni-
and that in the case of well-being, this association was significantly me- versity Press.
Ryan, R. M., & Frederick, C. (1997). On energy, personality, and health: Subjective vitality
diated by one's interaction valence. Findings were interpreted as further as a dynamic reflection of well-being. Journal of Personality, 65, 529–565.
evidence that authenticity (a construct that lay-people may think of as Sandstrom, G. M., & Dunn, E. W. (2014a). Social interactions and well-being: The surpris-
individualistic) has downstream consequences for both the individual ing power of weak ties. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 40, 910–922.
Sandstrom, G. M., & Dunn, E. W. (2014b). Is efficiency overrated?: Minimal social interac-
(in the form of well- and ill-being) and those with whom the individual
tions lead to belonging and positive affect. Social Psychological and Personality Science,
interacts (in terms of the valence of those interactions). 5, 437–442.
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at http://dx. Schlegel, R. J., & Hicks, J. A. (2011). The true self and psychological health: Emerging evi-
doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2017.03.018. dence and future directions. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 5, 989–1003.
Stewart, A. L., Hays, R. D., & Ware, J. E. (1988). The MOS short-form general health survey:
Reliability and validity in a patient population. Medical Care, 724–735.
Tou, R. W., Baker, Z. G., Hadden, B. W., & Lin, Y. (2015). The real me: Authenticity, inter-
Acknowledgment personal goals, and conflict tactics. Personality and Individual Differences, 86, 189–194.
Uysal, A., Lin, H. L., & Knee, C. R. (2010). The role of need satisfaction in self-concealment
The authors thank Drs. Clayton Neighbors and Suzanne Kieffer for and well-being. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36(2), 187–199. http://dx.
doi.org/10.1177/0146167209354518.
their aid in the design of this project. We also thank Kiana Wall and Van Dam, N. T., & Earleywine, M. (2011). Validation of the Center for Epidemiologic Stud-
Christopher Gallagher for their instrumental aid in data collection. ies Depression Scale—Revised: Pragmatic depression assessment in the general pop-
ulation. Psychiatry Research, 186, 128–132.
Wickham, R. E., Williamson, R. E., Beard, C. L., Kobayashi, C. L. B., & Hirst, T. W. (2015). Au-
References thenticity Attenuates the Negative Effects of Interpersonal Conflict on Daily Well-
being. Journal of Research in Personality, 60, 56–62. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.
Bolger, N., Davis, A., & Rafaeli, E. (2003). Diary methods: Capturing life as it is lived. Annual
2015.11.006.
Review of Psychology, 54, 579–616.
Wickham, R. E., Reed, D. E., & Williamson, R. E. (2015). Establishing the psychometric
Brunell, A. B., Kernis, M. H., Goldman, B. M., Heppner, W., Davis, P., Cascio, E. V., & Webster,
properties of the Self and Perceived-partner Authenticity in Relationships Scale-
G. D. (2010). Dispositional authenticity and romantic relationship functioning.
Short Form: Measurement invariance, reliability, and incremental validity.
Personality and Individual Differences, 48, 900–905.
Personality and Individual Differences, 77, 62–67.
Bryan, J. L., Baker, Z. G., & Tou, R. Y. W. (2015). Prevent the blue, be true to you: Authen-
Wood, A. M., Linley, P. A., Maltby, J., Baliousis, M., & Joseph, S. (2008). The authentic per-
ticity buffers the negative impact of loneliness on alcohol related problems, physical
sonality: A theoretical and empirical conceptualization and development of the Au-
symptoms, and depressive and anxiety symptoms. Journal of Health Psychology, 1–12.
thenticity Scale. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 55, 385–399.
Cohen, S. (1988). Perceived stress in a probability sample of the United States.
Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 155–159.