Essentialist and Existentialist: Two Visions of Authenticity

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

Colin Patrick Shanahan

UNIVERSITY OF DAYTON

Dayton, Ohio

August 2018

ESSENTIALIST AND EXISTENTIALIST: TWO VISIONS OF AUTHENTICITY

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

ABSTRACT

ESSENTIALIST AND EXISTENTIALIST: TWO VISIONS OF AUTHENTICITY

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.

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

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

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

Table 3. Study 2 – Summary of Intercorrelations, Means, and Standard Deviations for Authenticity Measures...…………………………………………………………26

Table 4. Summary of Intercorrelations, Means, and Standard Deviations for Metaphor, Mindset, Identity, and Political Measures..………………………………………30

Table 5. Study 1 – Summary of Intercorrelations, Means, and Standard Deviations for Moral Identification...……………………………………………………………34

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

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.

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.

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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,

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

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.),

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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

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 1. EEAS - Essentialist .687 4.52 1.31 - 2. EEAS - Existentialist .741 5.38 0.98 .317** - 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.

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

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.

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.

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

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

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

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 1. EEAS - Essentialist .606 4.43 1.01 - 2. EEAS - Existentialist .664 5.40 0.80 .167** - 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

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

1. EEAS - Essentialist .687 4.52 1.31 -

2. EEAS - Existentialist .741 5.38 0.98 .317** -

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.”

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.”

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.

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

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.

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.

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)

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)

APPENDIX G

Political Orientation

How would you identify your political beliefs? 1 – Very Liberal, 7 – Very Conservative.

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.

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.*

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.

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]