ESSENTIALIST AND EXISTENTIALIST: TWO VISIONS OF AUTHENTICITY Thesis Submitted to The College of Arts and Sciences of the UNIVERSITY OF DAYTON In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for The Degree of Master of Arts in General Psychology By Colin Patrick Shanahan UNIVERSITY OF DAYTON Dayton, Ohio August 2018 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 ii 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. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT…………………………………………………………………………...…iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS……………………………………………………………....iv LIST OF TABLES..……………………………………………………………………...vii CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION..……………………………………………….1 1.1 Authenticity……………………………………………………………..…....2 1.2 Hypotheses: Convergent and Discriminant Validity of EEAS ..…………… 7 CHAPTER II METHODS………………………………………………………14 2.1 Study 1 – Participants and Procedure………………………………………14 2.2 Study 2 – Participants and Procedure………………………………………14 2.3 Measures ……………………………………………………………………15 CHAPTER III RESULTS..………………………………………………………19 3.1 Principal Component Analysis..……………………………………………19 3.2 EEAS and Other Authenticity Measures ..…………………………………22 3.3 Discovery and Creation Metaphors ..………………………………………27 3.4 Implicit Theories of Self ……………………………………………………31 3.5 Identity Exploration ..………………………………………………………31 3.6 Political Beliefs..……………………………………………………………32 3.7 EEAS and Measures Related to Moral Concern……………………………32 CHAPTER IV DISCUSSION ……………………………………………………37 v 4.1 EEAS and Other Authenticity Measures...…………………………………37 4.2 Discovery and Creation Metaphors...………………………………………40 4.3 Implicit Theories of Self ……………………………………………………41 4.4 Identity Exploration...………………………………………………………41 4.5 Political Beliefs..……………………………………………………………42 4.6 Moral Concern...……………………………………………………………43 4.7 Summary……………………………………………………………………44 REFERENCES..…………………………………………………………………………45 APPENDICES A. Essentialist versus Existentialist Scale of Authenticity...……………………49 B. Authenticity Scale ……………………………………………………………50 C. Authenticity Inventory – 3 (AI-3) ……………………………………………51 D. Discovery and Creation Metaphors………………………………………….53 E. Implicit Theories of Self..……………………………………………………54 F. Identity Style Inventory – 3 (ISI-3)………………………………………….55 G. Political Orientation.…………………………………………………………57 H. Moral Identification Scale (MIS).……………………………………………58 I. Quiet Ego Scale (QES)………………………………………………………59 J. Gratitude Questionnaire – 6 (GQ-6)...……………………………………….60 K. Demographics..………………………………………………………………61 vi LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Pattern Matrix of Essentialist verses Existentialist Authenticity Scale...………21 Table 2. Study 1 – Summary of Intercorrelations, Means, and Standard Deviations for Authenticity Measures...…………………………………………………………25 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 1.1 Authenticity Authenticity, as currently measured, has been shown to correlate with a wide range of positive outcomes, including higher levels of life satisfaction, self-esteem, well- being within relationships, and perceptions of morality (Gino, Kouchaki, & Galinsky, 2015; Kernis, 2003; Kernis & Goldman 2006; Neff & Suizzo, 2006; Wood, Linley, Maltby, Baliousis, & Joseph, 2008). Authenticity is tied to higher levels of self- knowledge and meaning in life (Schlegel, Hicks, Arndt, & King, 2009) and of perspective-taking, wisdom, and self-actualization (Bauer, 2016; Maslow, 1968). It has been referred to as “the very essence of well-being and healthy functioning” (Wood et al., 2008, p.386). Essentialist authenticity. When people talk about authenticity, the type of language used suggests two different folk psychology perceptions of authenticity. Some people speak about a “true self” that always existed and that they are true to, such as in the form of an inner soul or daimon (Waterman, 1984). This type of authenticity, being true to some innate self, is an essentialist idea (Bauer, in press). Essentialism is a belief of some underlying reality or true nature to a category (Martin & Sugarman, 2000; e.g. binary categories of gender, innate potential at birth, and personality as an extension of the inner soul). As related to authenticity, these notions insist on a belief in an underlying, absolute truth to who someone is (Gelman, 2005). Several researchers have studied authenticity as knowledge of the “true self” by asking participants to list traits that describe the characteristics they possess but are not always able to express socially (Schlegel et al., 2009; Schlegel, Hicks, King, & Arndt, 2011). Other researchers have 2 assumed this definition in approaching their research, adapting scales as forms of measuring this type of self-knowledge (Williams & Vess, 2016). The roots of authenticity as a concept seem to stem from this essentialist idea – for example, in the writings of Rousseau during the Romantic Era, he describes a “state of nature” existence that is more childlike, arguing that many of the challenges humanity faces are due to civilization and rational reflection. If all humans existed in unreflective harmony with nature, Rousseau suggests, inequality would not exist. Human suffering arises because individuals are not being true to their fundamental nature, instead choosing