Content uploaded by Yinan Wang
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Yinan Wang on Jan 11, 2021
Content may be subject to copyright.
Balanced authenticity predicts optimal well-being: Theoretical
conceptualization and empirical development of the authenticity in
relationships scale
Yi Nan Wang ⁎
School of Psychology, Beijing Normal University, Beijing 100875, China
abstractarticle info
Article history:
Received 14 November 2015
Received in revised form 30 January 2016
Accepted 1 February 2016
Available online xxxx
This paper describes the theoretical development and validation of the authenticity in relationships scale (AIRS),
and tests whether balanced authenticity predictsoptimal well-beingand simultaneous gains of agency andcom-
munion. Sixindependent adult samples (N= 1115; Mage = 31.75; female= 642) completed the AIRS and mea-
sures used to establish construct validity, psychological well-being (PWB), and subjective well-being (SWB).
Exploratory and multigroup confirmatory factor analysis supported a tripartite conception of authenticity
(ego-centric authenticity, other-distorted authenticity, and balanced authenticity), and this was shown to be in-
variant across samples and gender groups. With good reliability and test–retest stability, subscale scores com-
posed of factor-unique items were found to correlate with criterion-related constructs in the directions
predicted. Specifically, ego-centric authenticity was related to unmitigated agency and low relationshipsatisfac-
tion. Other-distorted authenticity was related to unmitigated communion and low autonomy. Balanced authen-
ticity was shown to predict both agency and communion, and was positively correlated with SWB, even when
social desirability was controlled for. These findings contribute to our understanding of the relational essence
of authenticity and its subsequent association with well-being.
© 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords:
Balanced authenticity
Relationship
Optimal well-being
Dialecticism
1. Introduction
The concept of “authenticity”has its roots in ancient Greek philoso-
phy, as illustrated by well-known phrases such as “To thine own
self be true”(Harter, 2002). In recent years, individual differences in au-
thenticity have begun to be viewed as essential to understanding the
human condition from a range of psychological perspectives, including
positive (Horney, 1950; Kernis, 2003), developmental (Harter, Marold,
Whitesell, & Cobbs, 1996), interpersonal (Lopez & Rice, 2006; Wang,
2014), and clinical (Joseph & Wood, 2010) psychology.
Abroaddefinition of authenticity is that it is a way of being that re-
flects one's true self through the accurate portrayal of one's thoughts,
feelings, and emotions (Kernis & Goldman, 2006; White, 2011). To
date, 3 measures examining dispositional authenticity (Goldman &
Kernis, 2002; Lopez & Rice, 2006; Wood, Linley, Maltby, Baliousis, &
Joseph, 2008) all consider authenticity as a reflection of the true self
that must overcome the influence of others. However, humans are fun-
damentally social beings, and the authentic living is bound to be affect-
ed by the social environment (Schmid, 2005b). In another word, the
true self coexists with the relational self (Brewer, 1991; Chen,
Boucher, & Tapias, 2006; Sedikides & Brewer, 2001). The most challenge
is not to realize one's inner thoughts through eliminating others' influ-
ences, but rather how to obtain one's goal in the enviromental restric-
tions and then to achieve harmonious unity between true self and
relational self. Given this, we proposed theconceptualization of authen-
ticity in relationships to show only the balanced authenticity would lead
to high global well-being: both personal and relational satisfaction.
2. Balancing the true self with external influences
Throughout people's daily lives there is an ongoing conflict between
one's inner through and the dictates of the environment. When
confronted with external forces, individuals have two spontaneous
options—conceal the truth (inauthenticity) or speak out (authenticity).
Inauthentic actions frequently occur when people are concerned about
social disapproval (Leary, 2003), which has been shown to increase the
risk for low well-being (Bettencourt & Sheldon, 2001; Neff & Harter,
2002; Sheldon, Ryan, Rawsthorne, & Ilardi, 1997). At the other extreme,
when the authenticity is characterized by inadequate consideration for
others' perspectives (known as egocentric authenticity) (Davis &
Oathout, 1987; Schmid, 2005a), it may lead to inharmonious interper-
sonal relationships and lower levels of well-being (Chen, Lee-Chai, &
Bargh, 2001; Helgeson, 1994; Kwan, Bond, & Singelis, 1997; Wang,
2015b).
Personality and Individual Differences 94 (2016) 316–323
⁎Room 1424, Back of Main Building, 19 Xinjiekouwa i St, Haidian Di strict, Beiji ng
100875, China.
E-mail address: yynnwang@gmail.com.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.02.001
0191-8869/© 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Personality and Individual Differences
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/paid
The deficiencies associated with both egocentric authenticity and in-
authenticity may be captured via the constructs of unmitigated agency
and unmitigated communion, respectively. Both agency and communion
are required for optimal well-being (high subjective well-being (SWB)
and psychological well-being (PWB) (Bakan, 1966; Keyes, Shmotkin, &
Ryff, 2002). Any focus on the self resulting in the exclusion of others (un-
mitigated agency), or any focus on others resulting in the exclusion of the
self (unmitigated communion), will incur a wide range of health hazards
(Bem, 1974; Helgeson, 1994; Helgeson & Fritz, 1998, 1999).
With this in mind, several paradigms have attempted to explain how
best to deal with the challenge of striking a healthy balance between
agency and communion. Subsequent theories on the topic include opti-
mal distinctiveness theory (Brewer, 1991), functional flexibility theory
(Paulhus & Martin, 1988), and Eastern dialectical thinking (Cheung
et al., 2003; Peng & Nisbett, 1999). Dialecticism, rooted in Eastern cul-
ture, advocates the mutual consideration of opposites and contradic-
tions in order to gain optimal results (Cheung et al., 2003; Nisbett,
Peng, Choi, & Norenzayan, 2001). In this perspective, authenticity is a
process term that encompasses unity and plurality, which ultimately
contributes to the “fully functioning person”(Schmid, 2001). When
confronted with a conflictbetween agency and communion, highly dia-
lectical individuals will neither stand by their own ideas to maximize
self-interests, nor easily abandon their own opinions to meet the expec-
tations of others. Instead, they will maintain a balance between internal
and external pressure and find a solution that will be broadly accepted
(Yang & Chiu, 1997). It is not a coincidence that theperson-centered ap-
proach argues that “there is no authenticity, no presence in relationship
without mutuality”(Rogers, 1962).
Although authenticity requires the ability to both understand one-
self and to be influenced by others (Schmid, 2001), little previous re-
search has empirically investigated whether and how maintaining
balanced authenticity will satisfy both SWB and PWB. In order to fill
this gap, we propose a novel conceptualization of balanced authenticity
that refers to giving consideration to the interests of both oneself and
others. Furthermore, this study will examine whether balanced authen-
ticity predicts optimal well-being via an increase in both agency and
communion in order to enhance our understanding of authenticity
and how this concept contributes to overall well-being.
3. Conceptualization of balanced authenticity
We hypothesized that only balanced authenticity will lead to high
global well-being, and then developed a theoretical schema for thepro-
posed model (see Fig. 1). Inspired by Brewer's (1991) optimal distinc-
tiveness model, authenticity is conceptualized as increasing with self-
oriented behaviors and decreasing with other-oriented behaviors.
Ego-centric behaviors are characterized by the unobstructed operation
of one's uncontrived inclinations, whereas other-oriented behaviors
are characterized by striving for the approval of others while concealing
one's inner tendencies. The two orientations work in opposing direc-
tions as motivators of individual behavior, and the result of this conflict
predicts individual well-being. It is proposed that optimal well-being
will be achieved through balanced authenticity, so that the reconcilia-
tion of one's own inclinations and the inclinations of others in order to
achieve one's aim will occur naturally within the constraints of any
given situation. Individuals high in balanced authenticity will choose
the middle ground in order to maximize this outcome, and will thereby
ultimately gain the advantages of both agency and communion.
Any deviations from balanced authenticity in either direction may
reduce individual well-being. When people stubbornly pursue personal
autonomy without empathy with others, thus demonstrating ego-
centric authenticity, their well-being will typically decline as a result
of poorerinterpersonal relationships. Conversely, those who completely
inhibit their inner desire to meet the expectations of others, thus dem-
onstrating other-distorted authenticity, will be more likely to report di-
minished well-being due to lower levels of autonomy.
In sum, we proposed a tripartite conception of authenticity that rep-
resents the three distinct dimensions of authenticity. Every person
might possess the three dimensions of authenticity to some extent.
While a typical individual with high balanced authenticity, but low
ego-centric and other-distorted authenticities, would neither deny
their own natural inclinations in return for the approval of others
(unmitigated communion), nor rigidly adhere to uncontrived inclina-
tions at the expense of others (unmitigated agency). Hence, he or she
will profit from the advantages of both agency and communion via
exercising balanced authenticity.
4. Overview of the present research
Two studies across 6 samples were conducted in order to test the
theoretical construct of balanced authenticity through a comparison
with ego-centric authenticity and other-distorted authenticity. Study 1
involved the development of the authenticity in relationships scale
(AIRS) through the measurementof a tripartite conception of authentic-
ity in order to quantify balanced authenticity. An initial examination of
the scale's factor structure was also performed. Study 2 confirmed the
factor structure, investigated the measure's psychometric properties,
and tested whether balanced authenticity predicted global well-being
and a simultaneous gain in agency and communion.
5. Study 1
The aim of Study 1 was the initial development of the AIRS through
standard psychometric procedures (Clark & Watson, 1995), and to mea-
sure the tripartite conception of Authenticity in the Relationshipsas de-
scribed inthe introduction. We aimed to develop a short scale to reduce
the cognitive load on respondents and emphasize brevity and clarity of
wording and instructions.
5.1. Method
5.1.1. Development of item pool
We developed a pool of 17 items that addressed experiences of ego-
centric authenticity, other-distorted authenticity, and balanced authen-
ticity. Each item was expressed as a statement, with which participants
rated their level of agreement on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = does not de-
scribe me at all,5=describes me very well).
5.1.2. Sample and procedure
We recruited 191 Chinese participants from a professional website
that offers financial reward for completing online tasks. Participants
(male =95,Mage = 33.26, SD = 6.04) each received RMB 10 for par-
ticipation. Participants varied considerably in profession (for example,
10.1% were college students and, 26.4% were technical personnel),
Fig. 1. The balanced authenticity leading to optimal well-being model.
317Y.N. Wang / Personality and Individual Differences 94 (2016) 316–323
socioeconomic status, and education (ranging from high school degree
to master's degree).
5.1.3. Measures
All instruments were administered in Chinese. Following standard
guidelines (Beaton, Bombardier, Guillemin, & Ferraz, 2000), measures
originally written in English that were not available in Chinese were
translated by a native Chinese speakerwhose second language was En-
glish. For each measure, all items were rated on a 5-point Likert scale,
ranging from 1 (disagree)to5(strongly agree).
5.1.3.1. Authenticity in relationships item pool. All participants completed
the full item pool of 17 items.
5.1.3.2. General authenticity. The authenticity scale developed by Wood
et al. (2008; e.g., “I live in accordance with my values and beliefs”)
was to assess participants' general authenticity. Cronbach's alphas for
authentic living, self-alienation and accepting external influence were
.68, .73, and .77, respectively.
5.1.3.3. Satisfaction with life. Life satisfaction was assessed by asking
participants to estimate the extent to which they agreed with each of
the 5 items on the Satisfaction with Life Scale (e.g., “In most ways my
life is close to my ideal”)(Diener, Emmons, Larsen, & Griffin, 1985).
Cronbach's alpha for the current SWB survey was .88.
5.1.3.4. Self-esteem. The self-esteem was assessed with Rosenberg Self-
Esteem Scale (Rosenberg, 1965). The scale contains ten items to assess
one's global self-worth (e.g., “On the whole, I am satisfied with myself”).
Cronbach's alpha was .78.
5.2. Results
5.2.1. Factor analysis of the initial item pool
We conducted principal axis exploratory factor analysis (EFA) using
the whole pool of 17 items with initial communalities generated using
squared multiple correlations. Bartlett's test suggested that the data
were suitable for an EFA (χ
2
(136) = 1100.74, pb.001), and the
Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (.82) measure indicated that the sample size was
adequate for this specific analysis. The first 3 factors had eigenvalues
of 4.63, 2.70, and 1.63, and accounted for 27.27%, 15.86%, and 9.57% of
the variance, respectively.
A scree plotsuggested that there were 3 meaningful factors. Further-
more, based on parallel analysisand the MAP method (Velicer, Eaton, &
Fava, 2000), we extracted an optimal 3-factor structure that underwent
an oblique rotation (Fabrigar, Wegener, MacCallum, & Strahan, 1999).
Table 1 shows the initial and extracted communalities and all factor
loadings, although the little degree of difference between these commu-
nalities lends support to the notion that a sufficient number of factors
were extracted. Thus, the factor analysis supported thestructure we ex-
pected to find and suggested that the items we had developed mapped
the conception as predicted.
The authenticity in relationships scale (AIRS) was developed from
the results of the EFA, which indicated that factor loadings dropped off
markedly after the third or fourth item for each subscale. As a result,
we formed three subscales, which are called as ego-centric authenticity
subscale, other-distorted authenticity subscale, and balanced authentic-
ity subscale, that were each comprised of 3 items.
5.2.2. Balanced authenticity, general authenticity, and subjective well-
being
Table 2 shows the preliminary correlations found between the bal-
anced authenticity scale and SWB. Balanced authenticity was positively
correlated with SWB, while other-distorted authenticity was negatively
correlated with SWB. Although ego-centric authenticity was positively
correlated with Wood et al.’s(2008)Authentic Living Subscale, this con-
cept was not correlated with SWB.
5.3. Discussion
In Study 1, the AIRS was developed, and initial evidence supported
the existence of the hypothesized factor structure of ego-centric au-
thenticity, other-distorted authenticity, and balanced authenticity.
Given that balanced authenticity was expected to be associated with
SWB, this finding provides preliminary evidence for the validity of the
scale.
6. Study 2
6.1. Introduction
Study 2 aimed to (a) confirm the factor structure of the AIRS using
new samples, (b) test whether the factor structure remained invariant
across different sample and gender groups; (c) investigate thetemporal
stability of the subscales through assessment of test–retest reliability;
Table 1
Communalities and factor loadings from the exploratory factor analysis (Study 1).
Item Factor h
2
123
7. I always hide my true thoughts for fear of others' disapproval.
a
.82 .01 −.29 .68
11. I usually try to cater to others.
a
.81 −.10 −.23 .66
10. I do not dare to tell others the truth due to caring for their feelings.
a
.79 −.08 −.30 .63
12. I am used to compromise to fulfill others' expectations. .78 −.20 −.25 .63
9. Others' opinions always have a big impact on me. .68 −.40 −.16 .46
8. Before speaking, I always think over other's possible reaction. .55 .37 −.41 .51
15. I am fully aware of when to insist on myself and when to compromise.
a
−.03 .78 −.08 .60
16. I always find the ways to reconcile my need and other's requirements.
a
−.18 .67 −.22 .50
14. I would neither give up the real me nor make others hard to accept.
a
−.16 .59 −.07 .36
17. I select to insist on or abandon my opinions according to the actual situation. .18 .51 −.04 .32
5. I try to express my true idea in the way that others can accept. .04 .34 −.39 .24
2. I usually tell the truth without concerning how others will think of me.
a
−.27 −.04 .84 .71
1. I just speak my mind without taking care of others' feelings.
a
−.23 −.20 .82 .68
3. I always offend people by speaking frankly.
a
−.25 −.34 .69 .55
6. As long as I disagree, I would deny others' request directly. −.34 .01 .64 .44
4. I always insist what I believe, no matter what others think. −.23 .26 .62 .49
17. No matter when, I would like to insist on being myself. −.50 .50 .27 .50
Note. N = 191. Principal axis exploratory factor analysis with oblique rotation; loadings over .35 in bold type.
Factor 1 represents other-distorted authenticity, Factor 2 represents balanced authenticity, and Factor 3 represents ego-centric authenticity.
a
Item included in final 9-item scale.
318 Y.N. Wang / Personality and Individual Differences 94 (2016) 316–323
(d) assess discriminant validity by calculating correlations with the Big
Five factors, social desirability, and several measures used to establish
construct validity, and (e) examine whether only the subscale of bal-
anced authenticity was strongly related to aspects of both psychological
well-being (PWB) and SWB. As far as the discriminate validity of AIRS is
concerned, we predict that other-distorted authenticity will correlate
with low autonomy and relationship-contingent self-esteem, while
ego-centric authenticity will correlate with negative relationship satis-
faction and low empathy. By contrast, balanced authenticity will corre-
late with global well-being, high self-esteem and empathy.
6.2. Method
6.2.1. Participants and procedure
Participants of Study 2 was 924 Chinese adult volunteers (Mage =
30.23, SD = 6.28; Range =19–64; Men = 378) who were recruited on-
line via a Chinese advertising portal of psychological research (http://
www.sojump.com/). Participants varied considerably in profession
(for example, 15% were college students, 23% were technical personnel,
and13% were managerial personnel), socioeconomic status, education
(5% had only a high school while 10% had a master's degree), and pro-
fessional seniority (24% were junior and 35% were senior).
Sample 1 was comprised of 198 people (Mage = 30.54, SD = 6.48;
Men = 79). The participants completed the 9-item AIRS, measures
of PWB (autonomy, environmental mastery, positive relations with
others, and self-acceptance) (Ryff, 1989) and need satisfaction
(Sheldon, Elliot, Kim, & Kasser, 2001), and Relationship Contingent
Self-esteem Scale (Knee, Canevello, Bush, & Cook, 2008).
Sample 2 was comprised of 103 people (Mage = 30.07, SD =5.80;
Men = 37). The participants completed the 9-item AIRS and measures
of Big Five (Costa & McCrae, 1995).
Sample 3 was comprised of 216 people (Mage = 30.65, SD =6.87;
Men = 102). Participants completed the 9-item AIRS and measures
of satisfaction with life (Diener et al., 1985), and socially desirable
responding (Paulhus, Bruce, & Trapnell, 1995). Of these initial partici-
pants, 85 (Men = 40) were willing to complete a second questionnaire
five weeks later and they completed 9-item AIRS (to establish test–
retest reliability) and dispositional Empathy Scale (Davis, 1983).
Sample 4 was comprised of 200 people (Mage = 29.96, SD = 6.14;
Men = 79). The participants completed the 9-item AIRS and measures
of self-esteem (Rosenberg, 1965), SWB (Diener et al., 1985; Watson,
Clark, & Tellegen, 1988), fear of negative evaluation (Leary, 1983), and
Balanced Inventory of Desirable Responding (Paulhus, 1984). Of these
initial participants, 91 (Men = 29) were willing to complete a second
questionnaire in a couple of weeks and they completed 9-item AIRS
(to establish test–retest reliability) and dispositional Empathy Scale
(Davis, 1983).
Sample 5 was comprised of 207 people (Mage = 29.82, SD =5.81;
Men = 81) The participants completed the9-item AIRS and measures of
SWB(Diener et al., 1985; Watson et al., 1988), Extended Version of the
Personal Attributes Questionnaire (Spence, Helmreich, & Holahan,
1979), the Unmitigated Communion Scale (Helgeson & Fritz, 1998),
SWLS (Diener et al., 1985), PANAS (Watson et al., 1988), and Wood
et al.'s (2008) Authenticity Scale.
6.2.2. Measures
All instruments were administered in Chinese. For each scale, all
items were rated on a 5-point scale: 1 (disagree)to5(strongly agree).
6.2.2.1. Socially desirable responding. The full 40-item Balanced Inventory
of Desirable Responding (Paulhus, 1984) including impression manage-
ment [IM] subscale and self-deceptive enhancement[SDE] subscale was
used to measure socially desirable responding. In the current study,
Cronbach's alphas have been shown to range from .84 to .86 for both
subscales.
6.2.2.2. Big Five. The Big Five personality traits of extraversion, neuroti-
cism, agreeableness, openness, and conscientiousness were assessed
with the Big Five Inventory (John & Srivastava, 1999). The Big Five
was used to assess whether or not the AIRS can be reducible to a linear
combination of the general personality dispositions of Big Five. In the
current study, Cronbach's alphas ranged from .71 to .87.
6.2.2.3. Scales of PWB. We selected 4 subscales (autonomy, environmen-
tal mastery, positive relations with others, and self-acceptance) that
were related to current topic from Ryff's (1989) scales of PWB. In the
current study, Cronbach's alphas for the seven-item subscales ranged
from .76 to .80.
6.2.2.4. Self-esteem. Rosenberg's (1965) 10-item self-esteem scale
assessed global self-esteem. In the current study, Cronbach's alpha
was .87.
6.2.2.5. Satisfaction with life. In the Satisfaction with Life Scale (Diener
et al., 1985), participants rate their agreement with five statements re-
garding how satisfied they are with their life. In the current study,
Cronbach's alpha was .86.
6.2.2.6. Affect. The frequency of positive and negative affect was mea-
sured with the 20-item Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (Watson
et al., 1988). In the current study, Cronbach's alphas for the positive af-
fect and negative affect were.91, and .90, respectively.
6.2.2.7. Dispositional empathy. The disposition toward empathy was
measured with the Interpersonal Reactivity Index (Davis, 1983). The
measure has 4 subscales that are the fantasy, personal distress, empath-
ic concern and perspective-taking subscales each made up of 7 different
items. In the current study, Cronbach's alphas for the four subscales
ranged from .71 to .79.
6.2.2.8. Fear of negative evaluation. Seven positively keyed items were se-
lected from the brief version of fear of negative evaluation scale (Leary,
1983) to measure participants' levels of evaluative concern. The current
Cronbach's alpha was .94.
6.2.2.9. Relationship contingent self-esteem. The relationship-contingent
self-esteem scale (Knee et al., 2008) included 11 items wasused to mea-
sure how much an evaluation of self was based on one's relationship
with others in general. In the current study, Cronbach's alpha was .78.
Table 2
Preliminary correlations between the authenticity in relationships scale (AIRS) and subjective well-being (SWB) (Study 1).
Subscale Self-esteem SWLS Authentic living Accepting external influence Self-alienation
Ego-centric authenticity −.01 .08 .37⁎⁎⁎ −.15⁎.01
Other-distorted authenticity −.39⁎⁎⁎ −.24⁎⁎ −.39⁎⁎⁎ .60⁎⁎⁎ .45⁎⁎⁎
Balanced authenticity .47⁎⁎⁎ .39⁎⁎⁎ .40⁎⁎⁎ −.16⁎−.47⁎⁎⁎
Note. SWLS = Satisfaction with Life Scale.
⁎pb.05.
⁎⁎ pb.01.
⁎⁎⁎ pb.001.
319Y.N. Wang / Personality and Individual Differences 94 (2016) 316–323
6.2.2.10. Agency and communion. The participants' personality traits of
agency and communion were measured by the agency and communion
subscales of extended version of the personal attributes questionnaire
(Spence et al., 1979). Each subscale consists of eight items. In the current
study, Cronbach's alphas for agency and communion subscales were .88
and .82, respectively.
6.2.2.11. Unmitigated agency and unmitigated communion. The unmiti-
gated agency was measured by the unmitigated agency subscale of ex-
tended version of the personal attributes questionnaire (Spence et al.,
1979). Unmitigated communion was assessed by the Unmitigated Com-
munion Scale (Helgeson & Fritz, 1998). The current Cronbach's alphas
for unmitigated agency and unmitigated communion were .81 and
.80, respectively.
6.3. Results
6.3.1. Descriptive statistics
Table 3 shows the descriptive statistics and subscale intercorrela-
tions for all samples. Of note are the relatively weak intercorrelations
between the three subscales, as these support their discriminant valid-
ity. Internal consistency coefficients ranged from .59 to .83.
6.3.2. Multigroup confirmatory factor analysis
Multigroup covariance structural equation modeling was performed
with AMOS software (Byrne, 2004), using the maximum likelihood
model of estimation. Data pertaining to the individual fit of samples 1,
2, 3, 4, and 5 following separate confirmatory factor analyses are pre-
sented in Table 4.Hu and Bentler (1999) suggested that good model
fit is individually indicated with approximate values of RMR ≤.08,
CFI ≥.95, and RMSEA ≤.08. On the basis of these values, the 3-factor
model had a good fit for all of the individual samples. We thencombined
the samples and split them according to gender (546 women and 378
men). As shown in Table 4, the 3-factor model had a good fit for both
genders.
6.3.3. Test–retest reliability
Table 5 highlights the 2-week and 5-week test–retest reliability. For
each of the subscales, responses at time 1 were correlated with re-
sponses at time 2, with correlation coefficients ranging between .60
and .79. Additionally, each of the subscales showed group-level stability
at both time intervals, with only small and non-significant mean level
differences between the two time points.
6.3.4. Discriminant validity from the Big Five
None of Big Five variables significantly predicted the variance in ego-
centric authenticity. The strongest unique Big Five predictor for other-
distorted authenticity was neuroticism (β= .36), whereas the strongest
unique Big Five predictor of balanced authenticity was agreeableness
(β= .34). Despite these differences, the Big Five accounted for only a
small, though significant, proportion of the variance in other-distorted
authenticity and balanced authenticity (18%–38%). This finding shows
that the AIRS is not reducible to a linear combination of the Big Five.
6.3.5. Discriminant validity from social desirability
As shown in Table 6, egocentric authenticity demonstrated very
weak and non-significant correlations with impression management
(IM) and self-deceptive enhancement (SDE; r= .07 to .14). Other-
distorted authenticity was positively correlated with IM, but negatively
correlated with SDE. In contrast, balanced authenticity was positively
correlated with SDE, but negatively correlated with IM. This findingsug-
gests that individuals characterized by balanced authenticity have a
positive self-image and will be unlikely to try to please others just to
elicit a positive reaction.
6.3.6. Discriminant validity from relationship-contingent self-esteem, fear
of negative evaluation, and dispositional empathy
As predicted, other-distorted authenticity was positively correlated
with both relationship-contingent self-esteem (r= .36, pb.001) and
fear of negative evaluation (r= .55, pb.001), while egocentric authen-
ticity and balanced authenticity were negatively correlated with
these factors. As Table 7 shows, egocentric authenticity was negatively
correlated with the positive dimension of empathy (range of absolute
r=−.29 to −.55), while other-distorted authenticity was positively
Table 3
Descriptive statistics and subscale of airs intercorrelations (Study 2).
Subscale αCentral
tendency
Intercorrelations
MSD23
Sample 1 (n= 198)
1 Ego-centric authenticity .83 7.29 2.49 −.33⁎⁎⁎ −.15⁎
2 Other-distorted authenticity .85 9.69 2.60 –−.12
3 Balanced authenticity .59 12.19 1.37 ––
Sample 2 (n= 103)
1 Ego-centric authenticity .61 7.27 2.32 −.40⁎⁎⁎ −.17
2 Other-distorted authenticity .79 9.20 2.83 –−.20⁎
3 Balanced authenticity .65 11.41 1.93 ––
Sample 3 (n= 216)
1 Ego-centric authenticity .75 7.40 2.40 −.19⁎⁎ −.46⁎⁎⁎
2 Other-distorted authenticity .72 8.99 2.54 –−.07
3 Balanced authenticity .80 11.80 1.78 ––
Sample 4 (n= 200)
1 Ego-centric authenticity .84 7.26 2.55 −.35⁎⁎⁎ −.26⁎⁎⁎
2 Other-distorted authenticity .81 9.19 2.52 –−.04
3 Balanced authenticity .68 11.91 1.64 ––
Sample 5 (n= 207)
1 Ego-centric authenticity .83 7.46 2.57 −.35⁎⁎⁎ −.22⁎⁎
2 Other-distorted authenticity .87 8.84 2.68 –−.03
3 Balanced authenticity .76 11.87 1.85 ––
⁎pb.05.
⁎⁎ pb.01.
⁎⁎⁎ pb.001.
Table 4
Results from the multigroup confirmatory factor analysis for AIRS (Study 2).
Group n χ
2
(24) RMR CFI RMSEA (90% CI)
Between sample comparisons
1. Sample 1 198 39.29⁎.04 .97 .06 (.02, .09)
2. Sample 2 103 35.38 .07 .95 .07 (.00, .11)
3. Sample 3 216 55.22⁎⁎⁎ .05 .95 .08 (.05, .11)
4. Sample 4 200 37.29⁎.04 .98 .05 (.01, .08)
5.Sample 5 207 56.98⁎⁎⁎ .05 .96 .08 (.05, .11)
Between gender group comparisons
6. Men only 378 64.00⁎⁎⁎ .04 .96 .07 (.05, .09)
7. Women only 546 47.07⁎⁎ .03 .99 .04 (.02, .06)
Note. RMR = root-mean-square residual; CFI = comparative fit index; RMSEA = root-
mean-square error of approximation.
⁎pb.05.
⁎⁎ pb.01.
⁎⁎⁎ pb.001.
Table 5
Test–retest reliability at 2 weeks and 5 weeks.
Subscale
Time 1 Time 2 Mean
change
Stability
r
MSDMSDt p
2 weeks (from sample 4, n = 91)
Ego-centric authenticity 7.14 2.62 7.33 2.36 1.08 .28 .79
Other-distorted authenticity 9.35 2.50 9.41 2.70 .31 .76 .79
Balanced authenticity 12.15 1.39 12.05 1.55 −.72 .48 .60
5 weeks (from sample 3, n = 85)
Ego-centric authenticity 7.07 2.21 7.13 2.93 .86 .39 .71
Other-distorted authenticity 9.21 2.67 9.41 2.85 −1.57 .12 .70
Balanced authenticity 12.08 1.74 11.81 2.22 .26 .80 .70
Note. For each r,pb.001.
320 Y.N. Wang / Personality and Individual Differences 94 (2016) 316–323
correlated with both the positive and negative dimensions of empathy
(range of absolute r=−.22 to .45). In contrast, balanced authenticity
was positively correlated with the positive dimension of empathy, but
was not correlated with the negative dimension.
6.3.7. Correlations with (unmitigated) agency and (unmitigated)
communion
Consistent with optimal well-being theory (Bakan, 1966), SWB was
positively related to both agency (r= .76, pb.001) and communion
(r= .27, pb.001). As predicted, balanced authenticity was also found
to be positively correlated with both agency (r= .45, pb.001) and com-
munion (r=.32,pb.001), while ego-centric authenticity was signifi-
cantly correlated with unmitigated agency (r= .51, pb.001). In
contrast, other-distorted authenticity was significantly correlated with
unmitigated communion (r= . 43, pb.001). These results are presented
in Table 8.
Wood et al.’s(2008)Authenticity Scale was shown to be negatively
correlated with both unmitigated agency (r=−.26, pb.001) and un-
mitigated communion (r=−.47, pb.001), but was significantly related
only to agency (r=.49,pb.001), not communion (r=−.13). Thus, bal-
anced authenticity may be considered to be a better predictor than
general authenticity of optimal well-being (including agency and
communion).
6.3.8. Correlations with PWB and SWB
As predicted, ego-centric authenticity was positively correlated with
autonomy (r= .33, pb.001), but negatively correlated with relations
with others (r=−.24, pb.01), while other-distorted authenticity
was negatively correlated with all 4 aspects of PWB. More importantly,
balanced authenticity was positively correlated with all 4 factors (see
Table 9).
In addition, a distinctive correlation pattern was seen to emerge be-
tween the AIRS and needs satisfaction. Egocentric authenticity and
other-distorted authenticity were found to be negatively correlated
with self-esteem and SWB, while balanced authenticity was positively
correlated with both self-esteem and SWB, even after social desirability
was controlled for (see Table 10).
7. General discussion
Based largely on the Eastern concept of dialecticism (Cheung et al.,
2003), the current study theoretically conceptualized and empirically
developed the AIRS in order to quantify the novel conceptualization of
balanced authenticity. Study 1 developed the AIRS based on a tripartite
conception of authenticity in relationships, and Study 2 confirmed the
scale's factor structure, tested its reliability and validity, and presented
the first evidence that balanced authenticity predicts optimal well-
being through the achievement of both agency and communion.
The AIRS appears to have sound psychometric properties. First, the
2-week and 5-week test–retest reliability coefficients ranged from .60
to .79, suggesting that scale responses are stable across short intervals,
as would be expected for a trait measure. Second, the AIRS demon-
strates an empirical distinction in variance from both the B ig Five factors
and social desirability. A linear combination of the Big Five factors ex-
plained only a maximum of 38% of the variance in the subscales of the
AIRS. This finding suggests that the scale is more than just a reflection
of these traits. As expected, egocentric authenticity had only a weak,
non-significant correlation with social desirability, while other-
distorted authenticity and balanced authenticity were significantly cor-
related with social desirability. However, the relational patterns be-
tween these variables were shown to be completely independent of
each other, as other-distorted authenticity was positively correlated
with SDE but was negatively correlated with IM. This suggests that indi-
viduals characterized by other-distorted authenticity deliberately at-
tempt to manipulate others' impressions of them, but subconsciously
consider themselves to be inferior. However, balanced authenticity
was positively correlated with SDE and negatively correlated with IM.
This finding implies that individuals characterized by balanced authen-
ticity have a positive self-image and will be unlikely to try to please
others just to elicit a positive reaction.
Table 6
Correlations between AIRS and social desirability (Study 2).
Subscale Social desirability
SDE IM
Sample 3 (n = 216)
Ego-centric authenticity .07 .12
Other-distorted authenticity −.27⁎⁎⁎ .47⁎⁎⁎
Balanced authenticity .31⁎⁎⁎ −.20⁎⁎
SWLS .44⁎⁎⁎ −.37⁎⁎⁎
Sample 4 (n = 200)
Ego-centric authenticity .14⁎.13
Other-distorted authenticity −.38⁎⁎⁎ .43⁎⁎⁎
Balanced authenticity .33⁎⁎⁎ −.24⁎⁎
Self-esteem .50⁎⁎⁎ −.51⁎⁎⁎
SWLS .55⁎⁎⁎ −.49⁎⁎⁎
Note. SWLS = Satisfaction with Life Scale; SDE = self-decep tive enhancement; IM =
impression management.
⁎pb.05.
⁎⁎ pb.01.
⁎⁎⁎ pb.001.
Table 7
Correlations between AIRS and empathy (Study 2).
Subscale Fantasy Empathic
concern
Personal
distress
Perspective
taking
Participants from sample 4, n = 91
Ego-centric authenticity −.27⁎−.29⁎⁎ −.02 −.55⁎⁎⁎
Other-distorted authenticity .22⁎.16 .45⁎⁎⁎ .25⁎
Balanced authenticity .22⁎.25⁎⁎ −.15 .40⁎⁎⁎
Self-esteem .20 .20 −.43⁎⁎⁎ .36⁎⁎
SWLS .14 .22⁎−.44⁎⁎ .30⁎⁎
Participants from sample 3, n = 85
Ego-centric authenticity −.37⁎⁎ −.36⁎⁎ −.10 −.47⁎⁎⁎
Other-distorted authenticity .37⁎⁎⁎ .30⁎⁎ .56⁎⁎⁎ .27⁎
Balanced authenticity .21⁎.22⁎−.23⁎.54⁎⁎⁎
SWLS .17 −.02 −.12 .30⁎⁎
Note. SWLS = Satisfaction with Life Scale.
⁎pb.05.
⁎⁎ pb.01.
⁎⁎⁎ pb.001.
Table 8
AIRS, authenticityscale, SWB, agency(or unmitigatedagency) and communion (or unmit-
igated communion) (Study 2).
Subscale Agency Communion Unmitigated
agency
Unmitigated
communion
AIRS
Ego-centric authenticity .11 −.20 .51⁎⁎⁎ −.16⁎
Other-distorted authenticity −.27⁎⁎⁎ .23⁎⁎ .09 .43⁎⁎⁎
Balanced authenticity .45⁎⁎⁎ .32⁎⁎⁎ −.23⁎⁎ .09
SWB .76⁎⁎⁎ .27⁎⁎⁎ −.34⁎⁎⁎ .05
Authenticity scale
Authentic living .45⁎⁎⁎ .07 −.02 −.21⁎⁎
Accepting external influence −.43⁎⁎⁎ .01 .28⁎⁎⁎ .23⁎⁎
Self alienation −.27⁎⁎⁎ .29⁎⁎⁎ .24⁎⁎ .58⁎⁎⁎
Total .49⁎⁎⁎ −.13 −.26⁎⁎⁎ −.47⁎⁎⁎
Note. SWB = Subjective Well-being. Participants are from sample 5 (n=207).
⁎pb.05.
⁎⁎ pb.01.
⁎⁎⁎ pb.001.
321Y.N. Wang / Personality and Individual Differences 94 (2016) 316–323
Third, correlations with (unmitigated) agency, (unmitigated) com-
munion, empathy, relationship-contingent self-esteem, and fear of neg-
ative evaluation provided evidence that the AIRS has good discriminant
validity. Egocentric authenticity was found to correlate with both un-
mitigated agency and low empathy. Other-distorted authenticity was
found to correlate with unmitigated communion, relationship-
contingent self-esteem, and fear of negative evaluation. More impor-
tantly, balanced authenticity was shown to correlate with agency, com-
munion, and empathy, but demonstrated no correlation with unstable
self-esteem.
Finally, balanced authenticity was found to be significantly correlat-
ed with both SWB and PWB. This is particularly notable since there was
no item overlap between the measures assessing balanced authenticity
and the variables related to well-being. Authenticity is considered to be
central to well-being (Goldman & Kernis, 2002; Kifer, Heller, Perunovic,
& Galinsky, 2013; Wood et al., 2008), however our study is the first to
reveal that balanced authenticity, not ego-centric authenticity, is re-
sponsible for the predictive power of this factor. This finding will con-
tribute to our understanding of the relational essence of authenticity
and its subsequent relationship with well-being.
8. Issues for future research
The theoretical and empirical development of the AIRs allows for
further theoretical testing, in addition to addressing various questions
raised in this article. First, previous theories have tended to view au-
thenticity as an internal phenomenon that reflects one's inner experi-
ence and true self (Goldman & Kernis, 2002; Wang, 2015a; Wood
et al., 2008). This view has limited the scope and effectiveness of psy-
chotherapy. The present study suggests that only balanced authenticity
is capable of maximizing the adaptive value of authenticity, so balanced
authenticity may be considered to be superior to Wood et al. (2008)’s
general authenticity in predicting well-being. Specifically, Study 1
showed that general authenticity positively influenced both self-
esteem andwell-being through balanced authenticity. More important-
ly, Study 2 revealed thatgeneral authenticity was only related toagency,
but had no association with communion, which is also an important
prerequisite for well-being. Third, the negative effect of egocentric au-
thenticity on relationship satisfaction shows that general authenticity
will not lead to well-being when others' influence is taken into consid-
eration. Thus, Wood et al.’s (2008) conceptualization of authentic living
and accepting external influence as components of authenticity may be
questionable. The current study shows that authenticity is a better pre-
dictor than general authenticity of global well-being. This finding is like-
ly to have considerable and wide-ranging therapeutic implications.
Second, the concept of balanced authenticity could illuminate fur-
ther waysin which the true selfmay be both differentiated and integrat-
ed with external influences when acting as a predictor of well-being, as
it has been implied that it is necessary to maintain a balance between
self-consistency and interpersonal flexibility in order to achieve high
levels of well-being.
Finally, given the important contribution of balanced authenticity to
optimal well-being, it is necessary to identify the specific mechanisms
that may mediate this relationship. One likely candidate is androgyny
(Bem, 1974, 1978; Lubinski, Tellegen, & Butcher, 1981; Woodhill &
Samuels, 2003), as balanced authenticity may reasonably be expected
to predict higher well-being as a result of an increase in such behavior.
9. Limitations and conclusion
The present study had several limitations. First, all participants were
Chinese, and thus, the generalizability of these results to different cul-
tures mustbe established. Second, our primary finding needs to be rep-
licated by questionnaire surveys. Experimental manipulation or
context-specific research needs to be conducted in order to move be-
yond the reliance on self-report data. Third, longitudinal studies should
be conducted in order to better illustrate thereciprocal relationship be-
tween balanced authenticity and well-being.
Despite these limitations and noted areas for further exploration, our
findings strongly indicate that the AIRS is psychometrically sound and
that balanced authenticity makes a comprehensive contribution to the
prediction of well-being. The AIRS may facilitate future research on
the role of balanced authenticity across Western populations.
References
Bakan, D. (1966). The duality of human existence. Chicago: Rand McNally.
Beaton, D. E., Bombardier, C., Guillemin, F., & Ferraz, M. B. (2000). Guidelines for the pro-
cess of cross-cultural adaptation of self-report measures. Spine,25(24), 3186–3191.
Bem, S. L. (1974). The measurement of psychological androgyny. Journal of Consulting and
Clinical Psychology,42,155–162.
Bem, S. L. (1978). Beyond androgyny: Some presumptuous prescriptions for a liberated sex-
ual identity. The psychology of women: Future directions in research. New York: Psycho-
logical Dimensions, 1–23.
Bettencourt, B., & Sheldon, K. (2001). Social roles as mechanisms for psychological need
satisfaction within social groups. Journal of personality and social psychology,81(6),
1131–1143.
Brewer, M. (1991). The social self: On being the same and different at the same time.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,5,475–482.
Table 9
AIRS and psychological well-being (PWB) (Study 2).
Subscale Psychological well-being Need satisfaction
Autonomy Mastery Positive relations Self-acceptance Autonomy Competence Relationship
Ego-centric authenticity .33⁎⁎⁎ −.07 −.24⁎⁎ −.09 .35⁎⁎⁎ .16⁎−.21⁎⁎
Other-distorted authenticity −.60⁎⁎⁎ −.37⁎⁎⁎ −.17⁎−.31⁎⁎⁎ −.27⁎⁎⁎ −.17⁎−.03
Balanced authenticity .23⁎⁎ .54⁎⁎⁎ .47⁎⁎⁎ .51⁎⁎⁎ .31⁎⁎⁎ .51⁎⁎⁎ .48⁎⁎⁎
Note. Participants are from Sample 1 (n=198).
⁎pb.05.
⁎⁎ pb.01.
⁎⁎⁎ pb.001.
Table 10
AIRS and SWB (Study 2).
Subscale Self-esteem SWLS Positive
affect
Negative
affect
Sample 4 (n = 200)
Ego-centric authenticity −.13 .04 .05 .20⁎⁎
Other-distorted authenticity −.29⁎⁎⁎ −.21⁎⁎ −.17⁎.34⁎⁎⁎
Balanced authenticity .52⁎⁎⁎ .38⁎⁎⁎ .29⁎⁎⁎ −.25⁎⁎⁎
When controlling for social desirability
Ego-centric authenticity −.16⁎.02 .01 .18⁎
Other-distorted authenticity −.04 .07 .05 .18⁎
Balanced authenticity .43⁎⁎⁎ .24⁎⁎ .15⁎−.16⁎
Sample 5 (n = 207)
Ego-centric authenticity –−.01 .07 .18⁎
Other-distorted authenticity –−.05 −.14⁎.32⁎⁎⁎
Balanced authenticity –.41⁎⁎⁎ .35⁎⁎⁎ −.23⁎⁎
Note. SWLS = Satisfaction with Life Scale.
⁎pb.05.
⁎⁎ pb.01.
⁎⁎⁎ pb.001.
322 Y.N. Wang / Personality and Individual Differences 94 (2016) 316–323
Byrne, B. M. (2004). Testing for multigroup invariance using AMOS graphics: A road less
traveled. Structural Equation Modeling,11(2), 272–300.
Chen, S., Boucher, H. C., & Tapias, M. P. (2006). The relational self revealed: Integrative
conceptualization and implications for interpersonal life. Psychological bulletin,
132(2), 151–179.
Chen, S., Lee-Chai, A. Y., & Bargh, J. A. (2001). Relationship orientation as a moderator of
the effects of social power. Journal of personality and social psychology,80,173–187.
Cheung, T. S., Chan, H., Chan, K., King, A., Chiu, C., & Yang, C. (2003). On Zhongyong ratio-
nality: The Confucian doctrine of the mean as a missing link between instrumental
rationality and communicative rationality. Asian Journal of Social Scienc e,31(1),
107–127.
Clark, L. A., & Watson, D. (1995). Constructing validity: Basic issues in objective scale de-
velopment. Psychological assessment,7(3), 309.
Costa, J. P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1995). Domains and facets: Hierarchical personality assess-
ment using the revised NEO personality inventory. Journal of personality assessment,
64(1), 21–50.
Davis, M. H. (1983). Measuring individualdifferences in empathy: Evidence for a multidi-
mensional approach. Journal of personality and social psychology,44(1), 113.
Davis, M. H., & Oathout, H. A. (1987). Maintenance of satisfaction in romantic relation-
ships: Empathy and re lational compet ence. Journal of personality and social
psychology,53(2), 397.
Diener, E., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R., & Griffin, S. (1985). The satisfaction with life scale.
Journal of Personality Assessment,49,71–75.
Fabrigar, L. R., Wegener, D. T., MacCallum, R. C., & Strahan, E. J. (1999). Evaluating the use
of exploratory factor analysis in psychological research. Psychological methods,4(3),
272.
Goldman, B. M., & Kernis, M. H. (2002). The role of authenticity in healthy psychological
functioning and subjective well-being. Annals of the American Psychotherapy Associa-
tion,5(6), 18–20.
Harter, S. (2002). Authenticity. In C. R. Snyder, & S. J. Lopex (Eds.), Handbook of positive
psychology (pp. 382–394). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
Harter, S., Marold, D. B., Whitesell, N. R., & Cobbs, G. (1996). A model of the effects of per-
ceived parent and peer support on adolescent false self behavior. Child development,
67(2), 360–374.
Helgeson, V. S. (1994). Relation of agency and communion to well-being: Evidence and
potential explanations. Psychological bulletin,116(3), 412–428.
Helgeson, V. S., & Fritz, H. L. (1998). A theory of unmitigated communion. Personality and
Social Psychology Review,2(3), 173–183.
Helgeson, V. S., & Fritz, H. L. (1999). Unmitigated agency and unmitigated communion:
Distinctions from agency and communion. Journal of Research in Personality,33(2),
131–158.
Horney, K. (1950). Neurosis and human growth: The struggle towards self-realization. New
York: Norcross.
Hu, L. T., & Bentler,P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteriafor fit indices in covariance structure anal-
ysis: Conventional criteria versusnew alternatives. StructuralEquation Modeling,6(1),
1–55.
John, O. P., & Srivastava, S. (1999). The Big Five trait taxonomy: History, measurement,
and theoretica l perspectives . Handbook of personality: Theory and research,2,
102–138.
Joseph, S., & Wood, A. (2010). Assessment of positive functioning in clinical psychology:
Theoretical and practical issues. Clinical psychology review,30(7), 830–838.
Kernis, M. H. (2003). Toward a conceptualization of optimal self-esteem. Psychological
Inquiry,14(1), 1–26.
Kernis, M. H., & Goldman, B. M. (2006). Assessing stability of self-esteem and contingent
self-esteem. Se lf-esteem issu es and answers: A so urcebook of cur rent perspecti ves
(pp. 77–85).
Keyes, C. L., Shmotkin, D., & Ryff, C. D. (2002). Optimizing well-being: The empirical en-
counter of two traditions. Journal of personality and social psychology,82(6), 1007.
Kifer, Y., Heller, D., Perunovic, W., & Galinsky, A. D. (2013). The good life of the powerful:
the experience of p ower and authenti city enhances subjective well-b eing.
Psyhological Science,24(3), 280–288.
Knee, C. R., Canevello, A., Bush, A. L., & Cook, A. (2008). Relationship-contingent self-
esteem and the ups and downs of romantic relationships. Journal of personality and
social psychology,95(3), 608.
Kwan, V., Bond, M., & Singelis, T. (1997). Pancultural explanations for life satisfaction:
Adding relationship harmony to self-esteem. Journal of person ality and social
psychology,73(5), 1038–1051.
Leary, M. R. (1983). A brief version of the fear ofnegative evaluation scale. Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin,9(3), 371–375.
Leary, M. R. (2003). Interpersonal aspects of optimal self-esteem and the authentic self.
Psychological Inquiry,52–54.
Lopez, F. G., &Rice, K. G. (2006). Preliminary development and validation of a measure of
relationship authenticity. Journal of Counseling Psychology,53(3), 362.
Lubinski , D., Telleg en, A., & Butcher, J. N. (1981). The relationshipbetween androgyny and
subjective indicators of emotional we ll-being. Journal of personality and social
psychology,40(4), 722.
Neff, K. D., & Harter, S. (2002). The role of power and authenticity in relationship styles
emphasizing autonomy, connectedness, or mutuality among adult couples. Journal
of Social and Personal Relationships,19(6), 835–857.
Nisbett, R. E., Peng, K., Choi, I., & Norenzayan, A. (2001). Culture and systems of thought:
Holistic versus analytic cognition. Psychological review,108(2), 291.
Paulhus, D. L. (1984). Two-component models of socially desirable responding. Journal of
personality and social psycholo gy,46(3), 598.
Paulhus, D. L., & Martin, C. L. (1988). Functional flexibility: A new conception of interper-
sonal flexibility. Journal of personality and social psychology,55(1), 88.
Paulhus, D. L., Bruce, M. N., & Trapnell, P. D. (1995). Effects of self-presentation strategies
on personality profiles and their struc ture. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,
21(2), 100–108.
Peng, K., & Nisbett, R. E. (1999). Culture, dialectics, and reasoning about contradiction.
American Psychologist,54(9), 741.
Rogers, C. (1962). The interpersonal relationship: The core of guidance. HarvardEducational
Review.
Rosenberg, M. (1965). Rosenberg self-esteem scale (RSE). Acceptance and Commitment
Therapy. Measures Package,61.
Ryff, C. D. (1989). Happiness is everything, or is it? Explorations on the meaning of psy-
chological well-being. Journal of personality and social psychology,57(6), 1069.
Schmid, P. F. (2001). Authenticity: The person as his or her own author. Dialogical and
ethical perspectives on therapy as an encounter relationship. And beyond. Rogers’
therapeutic conditions: Evolution, theory and practice,1,213–228.
Schmid, P. F. (2005a). Authenticity and alienation: Towards an understanding of the per-
son beyond the categories of order and disorder. Person-centred psychopathology: A
positive psychology of mental health,75–90.
Schmid, P. F. (2005b). Authenticity and alienation: Towards an understanding of the per-
son beyond the categories of order and disorder. Person-centred psychopathology,
75–90.
Sedikides, C., & Brewer, M. B. (2001). Individual self, relational self, collective self. Psychol-
ogy Press.
Sheldon, K., Elliot, A. J., Kim, Y., & Kasser, T. (2001). What is satisfying about satisfying
events? Testing 10 candidate psychological needs. Journal of personality and social
psychology,80(2), 325.
Sheldon, K., Ryan, R. M., Rawsthorne,L. J., & Ilardi, B. (1997). Trait self and true self: Cross-
role variation in the Big-Five personality traits and its relations with psychological au-
thenticity and subjective well-being. Journal of personality and social ps ychology,
73(6), 1380–1393.
Spence, J. T., Helmreich, R. L., & Holahan, C. K. (1979). Negative and positive components
of psychological masculinity and femininity and their relationships to self-reports of
neurotic and acting out behaviors. Journal of personali ty and social psychol ogy,37(10),
1673.
Velicer, W. F., Eaton, C. A., & Fava, J. L. (2000). Construct explication through factor or com-
ponent analysis: A review and evaluation of alternative procedures for determining the
number of factors or components problemsand solutions in human assessment. Springer,
41–71.
Wang, Y. N. (2014). Power, communion and satisfaction: Authenticity as a common me-
diator in China. Asian Journal of Social Psychology.
Wang, Y. N. (2015a). Authentici ty and relationship sati sfaction: two distinct ways of
directing power to self-esteem. PloS One,10(12), e0146050.
Wang, Y. N. (201 5b). Two mediators of power on sub jective well- being in China.
Personality and Individual Differences,77,22–26.
Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief mea-
sures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Jou rnal of personality and
social psychology,54(6), 1063.
White, N. (2011). An examination of dispositional authenticity. Arizona State University.
Wood, A., Linley, P., Maltby, J., Baliousis, M., & Joseph, S. (2008). The authenticpersonality:
A theoretical and empirical conceptuliztion and the development of the authenticity
scale. Journal of Counseling Psychology,55(3), 385–399.
Woodhill, B. M., & Samuels, C. A. (2003). Positive and negative androgyny and their rela-
tionship with psychological health and well-being. Sex Roles,48(11/12), 555–565.
Yang, C., & Chiu, C. (1997). Unpublised data.
323Y.N. Wang / Personality and Individual Differences 94 (2016) 316–323
