Twice-Told Tales: Self-Repetition Decreases Observer Assessments of Performer Authenticity

Abstract

People often engage in self-repetition — repeating the same story, joke, or presentation across different audiences. While behaving consistently has generally been found to enhance perceptions of authenticity, ten studies demonstrate that performers who are revealed to be self-repeating are perceived as less authentic. We find convergent evidence that this effect is driven by observers’ implicit assumption that social interactions are unique. Self-repetitions violate this assumption, leading observers to judge performers as inauthentic because they are thought to be falsely presenting their performance as unique when it is not. We demonstrate this effect across multiple contexts (politics, entrepreneurship, tour guiding, and comedy), finding that observer awareness of self-repetition decreases perceived authenticity even in situations in which it is normative to repeat a performance and in which performers are required to repeat. The decrease in authenticity is eliminated only when performers overtly acknowledge that they are self-repeating, as performers are no longer viewed as falsely presenting themselves. We further show that performers who fail to acknowledge their self-repetition are penalized similarly to those who explicitly lie that the performance is unique — an unacknowledged self-repetition is thus seen as a lie by omission. Finally, we recorded repeated job interview responses and found that observers who were unaware of the self-repetition could not discern tangible differences between un-repeated and repeated responses. However, when observers believed that they were viewing a self-repetition, they judged the interviewees as less authentic. Together, our findings provide insight into how people assess the authenticity of self-presentational behaviors and the implicit assumptions that influence social judgments.

Full text

SELF-REPETITION DECREASES AUTHENTICITY
1
1
2
3
4
5
6
Twice-Told Tales:
7
Self-Repetition Decreases Observer Assessments of Performer Authenticity
8
9
Rachel Gershon
10
Washington University in St. Louis
11
12
Rosanna K. Smith
13
University of Georgia
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Rachel Gershon (rachelgershon@wustl.edu) is a PhD candidate in Marketing at Olin Business
21
School, Washington University in St. Louis, One Brookings Dr. St. Louis, MO 63130. Rosanna
22
K. Smith (rosanna.smith@uga.edu) is an Assistant Professor at the Terry Business School,
23
University of Georgia, 630 South Lumpkin Street. Athens, GA 30602. Correspondence
24
concerning this article should be addressed to Rachel Gershon (rachelgershon@wustl.edu).
25
 joint first-author
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3212778

SELF-REPETITION DECREASES AUTHENTICITY
2
Abstract
1
People often engage in self-repetition—repeating the same story, joke, or presentation across
2
different audiences. While behaving consistently has generally been found to enhance
3
perceptions of authenticity, ten studies demonstrate that performers who are revealed to be self-
4
repeating are perceived as less authentic. We find convergent evidence that this effect is driven
5
by observers’ implicit assumption that social interactions are unique. Self-repetitions violate this
6
assumption, leading observers to judge performers as inauthentic because they are thought to be
7
falsely presenting their performance as unique when it is not. We demonstrate this effect across
8
multiple contexts (politics, entrepreneurship, tour guiding, and comedy), finding that observer
9
awareness of self-repetition decreases perceived authenticity even in situations in which it is
10
normative to repeat a performance and in which repetition is required. The decrease in
11
authenticity is eliminated only when performers overtly acknowledge self-repetition, as
12
performers are no longer viewed as falsely presenting themselves. Moreover, performers who
13
fail to acknowledge their self-repetition are penalized similarly to those who explicitly lie that
14
the performance is unique—an unacknowledged self-repetition is thus seen as a lie by omission.
15
Finally, we recorded repeated job interview responses and found that observers who were
16
unaware of the self-repetition could not discern tangible differences between un-repeated and
17
repeated responses. However, when observers believed that they were viewing a self-repetition,
18
they judged the interviewees as less authentic. Together, our findings provide insight into how
19
people assess the authenticity of self-presentational behaviors and the implicit assumptions that
20
influence social judgments.
21
22
Keywords: self-repetition, authenticity, self-presentation, uniqueness, interpersonal perception
23
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3212778

SELF-REPETITION DECREASES AUTHENTICITY
3
We don’t do retakes. If I have to repeat something, I am completely insincere and this entire
1
enterprise is false.
2
— Anthony Bourdain
3
Many arenas of life involve self-repetition. Teachers often give the same lectures to
4
different classes. Politicians deliver the same stump speech to many crowds. Tour guides follow
5
virtually the same script across numerous groups. Comedians perform the same routines to
6
several audiences. A friend may repeat a fitting story or joke across different situations. How
7
does awareness of self-repetition in others—the saying or doing of what one has already said or
8
done (Webster’s Revised Unabridged Dictionary, 1913)—influence observer assessments of
9
their authenticity?
10
One might predict that awareness of self-repetition in others would enhance perceptions
11
of their authenticity. After all, consistent behavior is typically viewed positively (Suh, 2002),
12
often serving as a marker of an individual’s authenticity (Kraus, Chen, & Keltner, 2011;
13
Sheldon, Ryan, Rawsthorne, & Ilardi, 1997). Those who behave consistently demonstrate less
14
susceptibility to situational influence (Kraus, et al., 2011; Sheldon et al., 1997) and more
15
commitment to their stated values and beliefs (Cialdini, 2003). Those who behave inconsistently
16
appear two-faced and willing to change their tune in order to please whichever audience is
17
present (Cross, Gore, & Morris, 2003; Kreps, Laurin, & Merritt, 2017). Thus, awareness of self-
18
repetition in others may enhance their perceived authenticity due to the consistency reflected in
19
the repetition. In addition, self-repetition is often necessary and even beneficial as people
20
potentially improve their performances with repetition. However, anecdotal evidence suggests
21
people dislike when others self-repeat. People who fear getting caught self-repeating may
22
preface their statements with, “Stop me if I’ve told you this before” (Gopie & MacLeod, 2009).
23
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3212778

SELF-REPETITION DECREASES AUTHENTICITY
4
Moreover, in some professional contexts, self-repetition can cause reputational damage, even
1
leading to accusations of “self-plagiarism” (e.g., Wasserman, 2012). What is curious about the
2
aversion to self-repetition is that people are not stealing from someone else, as is the case with
3
standard plagiarism (Shaw & Olson, 2015; Yang, Shaw, Garduno, & Olson, 2014), but rather,
4
they are merely repeating what they themselves have already said or done. In the present
5
research, we examine observer perceptions of self-repetition by others, specifically in relation to
6
judgments of authenticity.
7
We propose that witnessing an individual self-repeating reveals an implicit unwarranted
8
assumption held by observers—that interactions, even those that are typically repeated, are
9
assumed to be unique. In turn, individuals who self-repeat are subsequently viewed as
10
inauthentic because they are thought to be falsely presenting their performance1 to observers as
11
unique when it is not. Importantly, individuals are seen as inauthentic even if they do not
12
explicitly misrepresent their repeated performance—in other words, an unacknowledged self-
13
repetition is seen as a lie by omission.
14
In the following sections, we review prior literature that has examined the relationship
15
between authenticity and self-presentation. We then outline our predictions and provide an
16
overview of our empirical work.
17
Authenticity and Self-Presentation
18
People are motivated to be seen positively by others (Baumeister, 1982; Leary &
19
Kowalski, 1990; Tetlock, 2002) as these positive impressions often determine significant social
20
and material rewards (Gilmore & Ferris, 1989; Leary, 1996; Schlenker, 1975). Our ability to
21
attract a romantic partner, maintain friendships, and succeed at work often depends on how
22
successfully we have presented ourselves to others—to some degree regardless of the match
23
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3212778

SELF-REPETITION DECREASES AUTHENTICITY
5
between the real and presented self (Goffman, 1959). Because being seen in a particular way
1
(e.g., likable and competent) leads people to gain social and material rewards, people are tempted
2
to manipulate or even misrepresent their image to others (Eastman, 1994; Giacalone &
3
Rosenfeld, 1986)—for instance, by amplifying their positive traits and hiding their negative ones
4
(Leary & Allen, 2011; Paulus & Reid, 1991; Turnley & Bolino, 2001). Thus, self-presentational
5
acts are often subject to assessments of authenticity (Buss & Briggs, 1984; Leary, 1993;
6
Schlenker, 1986; Tesser & Morre, 1986)—are people presenting their true or core self (Deci &
7
Ryan, 2000, 2002; Kernis & Goldman, 2006; Lenton, Bruder, Slabu, & Sedikides, 2013;
8
Sedikides, Slabu, Lenton, & Thomaes, 2017)?
9
Assessments of authenticity are far from trivial in their effects. For instance, concerns
10
about an individual’s authenticity can influence judgments of warmth and competence
11
(Brambilla, Sacchi, Castellini, & Riva, 2010; Crant, 1996; Eastman, 1994; Giacalono &
12
Rosenfeld, 1986; Sezer, Gino, & Norton, 2018; Swencionis & Fiske, 2016). Efforts to come
13
across as both likable and competent through self-presentation strategies such as humblebragging
14
have been found to backfire due to questions of the person’s sincerity (Sezer et al., 2018).
15
Research on perceptions of donors finds that the reputational benefits from donating are reduced
16
or even reversed when people believe that donors had ulterior motives for behaving charitably
17
(e.g., to gain financial or social rewards; Berman, Levine, Barasch, & Small, 2015; Koschate-
18
Fischer, Stefan, & Hoyer, 2012; Wagner, Lutz, & Weitz, 2009; Yoon, Gürhan-Canli, & Schwarz,
19
2006). Thus, efforts at projecting a competent or likable image are potentially discounted as false
20
if an individual is suspected as having self-presentational motives. Paradoxically, successfully
21
managing authenticity judgments may hinge on not being seen as managing one’s self-
22
presentation (Eastman, 1994; Sedikides et al., 2017).
23
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3212778

SELF-REPETITION DECREASES AUTHENTICITY
6
Although observer perceptions of an individual’s authenticity have been found to be
1
consequential, the way in which these impressions are formed is less well understood (Beverland
2
& Farrelly, 2009; Carroll, 2015; Grayson & Martinec, 2004; Kernis & Goldman, 2006; Lenton et
3
al., 2013; Newman & Smith, 2016; Reisinger & Steiner, 2006; Wang, 1999). While judgments of
4
authenticity often follow from perceiving that people are acting in accordance with their true
5
selves (Kernis & Goldman, 2006; Wood, Linley, Maltby, Baliousis, & Joseph, 2008)2, observers
6
often do not have access to the inner states of others. Thus, observers tend to rely on external
7
behavior to form authenticity judgments, unless explicitly given information about the
8
individuals’ mental states (Johnson, Robinson, & Mitchell, 2004). What kind of behaviors
9
suggests that an individual is behaving authentically? As noted earlier, consistent behavior
10
usually leads to positive authenticity perceptions because it is associated with the stability of an
11
individual’s personality or self-concept (Kraus, et al., 2011; Sheldon et al., 1997) and can signal
12
an individual’s commitment to a set of values or beliefs (Beverland, Lindgreen, & Vink, 2008;
13
Morhart, Malär, Guèvremont, Girardin, & Grohmann, 2015). In contrast, inconsistent behavior
14
usually dampens authenticity perceptions because it suggests ulterior motives (Eastman, 1994;
15
Kreps et al., 2017). For instance, in organizational behavior contexts, inconsistent “positive”
16
behaviors (only praising superiors or only participating in extra role behaviors prior to promotion
17
assessments) tend to lead people to discount the behavior as inauthentic as it seems strategic
18
(Eastman, 1994).
19
How would the awareness that individuals are engaging in self-repetition—the saying or
20
doing what they have already said or done—influence observer assessments of their authenticity?
21
We propose that while in many cases consistency enhances authenticity, consistent performances
22
in social interactions (i.e., self-repetitions) decrease authenticity perceptions. In the following
23
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3212778

SELF-REPETITION DECREASES AUTHENTICITY
7
section, we draw further from self-presentation theory to examine potential mechanisms for this
1
prediction.
2
Self-Repetition: Unveiling the Backstage
3
Why would witnessing individuals self-repeating lower perceptions of their authenticity?
4
Drawing from self-presentation theory (Baumeister & Hutton, 1987; Goffman, 1959; Leary &
5
Kowalski, 1990), we propose that self-repetitions are in line with Goffman’s notion of an
6
“inopportune intrusion” to the performance (1959, p. 209). In day-to-day life, people are
7
constantly managing the way in which they present themselves to others (Baumeister & Hutton,
8
1987; Goffman, 1959; Leary & Kowalski, 1990)—in other words, in social life, we are all
9
“performers.” Observers, in turn, tend to be motivated to view performers as they present
10
themselves to be (Goffman, 1959). However, despite the mutual back and forth nature of self-
11
presentational actions, certain behaviors can “break the spell” of the impression being conveyed
12
by the social interaction. For instance, if the music skips during a wedding ceremony, guests may
13
be taken out of the grandeur of the ceremony and become more aware of the constructed nature
14
of the event—the music skipping has become an inopportune intrusion. We argue that observers
15
who happen upon performers self-repeating have “inadvertently entered [their] backstage”
16
(Goffman, 1959, p. 209), in that they become aware that performers are managing their self-
17
presentation for the audience (Leary & Allen, 2011; Vohs, Baumeister, & Ciarocco, 2005). In
18
other words, we propose that self-repetition confronts observers with the performative nature of
19
the interaction and reveals an implicit, unwarranted assumption held by observers: social
20
interactions, even those that are typically performed and repeated, are assumed to be unique.
21
Thus, observers see a performer who self-repeats as violating this assumption. Performers who
22
self-repeat are subsequently viewed as inauthentic because they are thought to be falsely
23
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3212778

SELF-REPETITION DECREASES AUTHENTICITY
8
presenting their performance as unique when it is not. It is important to highlight here that
1
performers who self-repeat are often not explicitly misrepresenting their performance as unique,
2
but observers may perceive that performers have misrepresented the situation by omission.
3
In sum, we predict that observer awareness that performers have repeated their own
4
material will decrease perceptions of their authenticity due to an inconsistency between the
5
audience’s implicit assumption (i.e., performances are unique) and reality (i.e., performances
6
usually do have repeated elements). This framework leads to several predictions. First, because
7
we theorize that this effect is driven by an implicit assumption, we predict performers who fail to
8
acknowledge that they are self-repeating will be penalized similarly to those who explicitly lie
9
that their performance is unique—in other words, an unacknowledged self-repetition is seen as a
10
lie by omission. Furthermore, this implicit assumption is also often unwarranted such that, we
11
predict that even when observers are aware that a performance is typically repeated (for instance,
12
in contexts like tour guiding and stand-up comedy), performers who self-repeat will be seen as
13
inauthentic. Finally, because we theorize that the negative effect of self-repetition is driven by
14
the belief that a performer violated the assumed uniqueness of the interaction, we predict that
15
awareness of the self-repetition, but not the actual properties of a repeated performance, will
16
drive authenticity assessments.
17
Overview of Studies
18
Ten studies examined observer assessments of performers who self-repeat. Studies 1a-c
19
tested the robustness of our main prediction that observers perceive performers who self-repeat
20
as less authentic by investigating it across the domains of entrepreneurship, politics, and tour
21
guiding. Study 2 further tested the effect by using a naturalistic paradigm involving two comedy
22
YouTube clips, in addition to measuring the behavioral consequences of self-repetition. In Study
23
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3212778

SELF-REPETITION DECREASES AUTHENTICITY
9
3, we specifically tested the proposed perceived uniqueness mechanism via a mediation analysis.
1
Study 4a also tested the uniqueness mechanism by manipulating observers’ expectation of the
2
uniqueness of the performance by varying whether the performer did or did not overtly
3
acknowledge they were self-repeating. Study 4b then compared the effects of self-repetition on
4
perceived authenticity when performers explicitly lie about the performance versus when they
5
merely omit information about whether they are self-repeating. Study 5 tested an additional
6
boundary condition of the negative effect of self-repetition by manipulating whether or not the
7
repetition was due to a performance constraint (i.e., whether the performer had control over the
8
choice to repeat). In Study 6a, we generated self-repetitions by recording performers repeating
9
answers to job interview questions and had a set of unaware observers assess the authenticity of
10
those performances. Finally, in Study 6b, we used the same interview clips to test our prediction
11
that the negative effect of self-repetition on authenticity is driven by the belief that a performer is
12
self-repeating, rather than by discernible differences between repeated and non-repeated content.
13
Studies 1a-c: Self-Repetition Decreases Observer Assessments of Performer Authenticity
14
Studies 1a-c tested our core prediction—that performers, revealed to be self-repeating,
15
are seen as less authentic—across the domains of entrepreneurship, politics, and tour guiding,
16
respectively. We chose domains and contexts in which it is normative to repeat and in which
17
observers would not reasonably expect the performance to change between deliveries.
18
Study 1a: Self-Repetition of an Entrepreneur Business Pitch
19
In Study 1a, participants read a vignette in which an entrepreneur delivered a business
20
pitch at a networking event and then either inadvertently learned that the entrepreneur repeated a
21
part of the pitch or received no additional information. We chose this context because it is
22
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3212778

SELF-REPETITION DECREASES AUTHENTICITY
10
common practice for entrepreneurs to deliver the same business pitch to multiple potential
1
investors.
2
Method
3
For all studies in this article, sample size and exclusion criteria were determined by an a
4
priori power analysis. Following recommendations from Simmons, Nelson, and Simonsohn
5
(2011), we report data exclusions and measures for all studies. Studies that exclude participants
6
using attention checks are pre-registered and the results are consistent when all participants are
7
included. Study materials and data for each study are available on OSF (open science
8
framework).
9
We recruited 200 participants (51.39% female, Mage = 35.73) from Amazon’s Mechanical
10
Turk and removed 56 participants for failing the attention check as outlined in our pre-registered
11
research plan (available at https://osf.io/jtcve/). In a between-subjects design, participants were
12
randomly assigned to the no-repeat or repeat condition. In both conditions, they read, “Imagine
13
that you are at a networking event for entrepreneurs to pitch their business ideas.” They then
14
viewed a picture of an entrepreneur in a business setting and read the following:
15
An entrepreneur named David is pitching his idea for a product service. He makes the
16
following pitch,
17
‘HoneyBee would deliver local honey products to customers’ homes. Consumers are
18
increasingly looking for nutritional yet still delicious substitutes for sugar. Honey is a
19
natural sweetener with a host of other health benefits including its ability to alleviate the
20
unpleasant symptoms of seasonal allergies.’
21
22
At the end David says,
23
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3212778

SELF-REPETITION DECREASES AUTHENTICITY
11
‘If you are interested, here is my business card, give me a call and I can tell you what all
1
the buzz is about.’
2
3
Participants in the repeat condition went on to view the following:
4
Later at the event, you hear David pitching his idea again and he repeats,
5
‘If you are interested, here is my business card, give me a call and I can tell you what all
6
the buzz is about.’
7
8
Following the business pitch description, participants in both conditions rated the
9
entrepreneur on the following three-item authenticity scale used throughout the article (adapted
10
from Barasch, Levine, Berman, & Small, 2014): How authentic was this entrepreneur? (1 = Not
11
at all Authentic, 7 = Very Authentic); How sincere was this entrepreneur? (1= Not at all Sincere,
12
7 = Very Sincere); and How genuine was this entrepreneur? (1 = Not at all Genuine, 7 = Very
13
Genuine). Responses to these items were highly correlated (α = .91) and were averaged to create
14
a single composite measure of authenticity.
15
Results
16
As predicted, participants in the repeat condition perceived the entrepreneur as
17
significantly less authentic (Mrepeat = 4.78, SD = 1.27) than those in the no-repeat condition (Mno-
18
repeat = 5.34, SD = 1.11), t(142) = 2.81, p =.006, d = .47.
19
Discussion
20
These results demonstrated that self-repetition can decrease observer perceptions of a
21
performer’s authenticity. Participants perceived the entrepreneur who repeated part of his pitch
22
as less authentic than those who did not view the repetition. To further test the robustness of this
23
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3212778

SELF-REPETITION DECREASES AUTHENTICITY
12
effect, in Study 1b we examined self-repetition in another domain and used a different repeat
1
performance.
2
Study 1b: Self-Repetition of a Political Speech
3
Politics is another area in which it is common for people to self-repeat and is also a
4
domain in which authenticity perceptions have increasingly become recognized as critical to
5
political success (e.g., Hillary Clinton’s “authenticity problem,” Nyhan, 2015). In Study 1b,
6
participants read a scenario in which a politician told her campaign origin story (why she decided
7
to run for office) at a political rally. Then, we varied whether or not participants learned that she
8
subsequently repeated the story again over the radio. While prior work has found that politicians
9
who are inconsistent in their messaging are usually perceived negatively (Kreps et al., 2017)—
10
suggesting that self-repetition could be desirable as the politician is behaving consistently—we
11
predicted that observers who witnessed the self-repetition would view the politician as less
12
authentic.
13
Method
14
We planned for the recruitment of 300 participants from Amazon’s Mechanical Turk as
15
outlined in our pre-registered research plan (available at https://osf.io/k8ume/). 301 participants
16
completed the study, of which 34 failed the attention check, leaving us with 267 eligible
17
participants (49.25% female, Mage = 36.49). Participants were randomly assigned to either the
18
no-repeat or repeat condition. All participants viewed a photo of a politician and read the
19
following:
20
An acquaintance has taken you to a political rally to hear a local individual named Jamie
21
Lewis speak about why she is running for congress. Jamie Lewis told the following story,
22
“My daughter was born with a disability. Recently, healthcare costs have gotten so high
23
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3212778

SELF-REPETITION DECREASES AUTHENTICITY
13
for my family that my daughter brought her piggy bank out to me and said: 'Mommy
1
maybe this can help with the hospital bills?' It was in that moment that I realized what I
2
needed to do.... I turned to her and I said: 'Honey, put your quarters away, I'm running
3
for Congress!'"
4
5
Those in the repeat condition viewed the politician repeat the story with the following
6
preface:
7
The next morning, you are listening to the radio and hear Jamie Lewis being interviewed.
8
You hear her repeat the same story.
9
10
All participants reported their perceptions of the politician’s authenticity using the three-
11
item scale from the previous study (α = .97).
12
Results
13
Consistent with Study 1a, participants perceived the politician as less authentic in the
14
repeat condition (Mrepeat = 4.80, SD = 1.60) compared to the no-repeat condition (Mno-repeat = 5.28,
15
SD = 1.61), t(264) = 2.45, p = .015, d = .30.
16
Discussion
17
Using a different domain and different repeated performance, these results offer a
18
conceptual replication of the findings of Study 1a. When participants viewed the politician
19
repeating the campaign origin story, they perceived the politician as less authentic compared to
20
when they did not view the self-repetition. These findings are curious in light of the fact that a
21
politician’s campaign origin story would not be expected to vary between tellings, and yet, self-
22
repetition still decreased observer perceptions of performer authenticity.
23
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3212778

SELF-REPETITION DECREASES AUTHENTICITY
14
Study 1c: Self-Repetition of a Tour
1
One question that arose from the initial studies is whether observers reacted negatively to
2
self-repetition because they had assumed that the performances were unplanned or spontaneous
3
in nature, and had thus felt deceived when the repeated performances revealed that they were in
4
fact planned or scripted. While assumed spontaneity may play a role in decreased authenticity
5
judgments for self-repetitions, we propose that this effect holds even in contexts in which
6
observers are aware that the performances are planned. Therefore, Study 1c tested the effect in a
7
third domain in which it is especially normative for performances to be both planned beforehand
8
and repeated: tour guiding. People who go on tours are likely aware that a tour guide is repeating
9
the performance and that tours are often scripted and prepared in advance. Indeed, we ran a
10
separate test on 215 participants (46.89% Female, Mage=19.59) in which 96.28% of the
11
participants reported that it was normal for tour guides to repeat the same content across tours.
12
Thus, in Study 1c, we were interested in whether observers would continue to view a performer
13
as less authentic with self-repetition in a context in which they are explicitly aware that self-
14
repetition is normative.
15
In addition to manipulating whether participants did or did not read that a tour guide
16
repeated part of the tour to another audience, we also varied the nature of the content of the self-
17
repetition—participants either witnessed the tour guide repeat a joke or a fact. Spontaneity may
18
be more expected for jokes than for facts, and so adding the fact condition allowed for us to test
19
whether the negative effect of self-repetition extends to content that is less associated with
20
spontaneity. Consistent with Studies 1a and 1b, we predicted that the tour guide would be seen as
21
less authentic when viewed self-repeating regardless of the nature of the content. Finally, we
22
included a measure of liking toward the performer, in addition to measuring the behavioral costs
23
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3212778

SELF-REPETITION DECREASES AUTHENTICITY
15
associated with self-repetition (i.e., likelihood of choosing to take another tour by the tour-
1
guide). While we expected that liking would also decrease with self-repetition, we predicted that
2
decreased authenticity perceptions would be stronger and would be more consequential in their
3
effects on behavioral intentions towards the performer.
4
Method
5
We recruited 214 participants from an undergraduate subject pool. 5 participants failed
6
the attention check and, as outlined in our pre-registered research plan (available at
7
https://osf.io/43xga/), were removed. The remaining 209 participants (46.89% Female,
8
Mage=19.59) were randomly assigned to one of three conditions: (1) no-repeat, (2) repeat-fact, (3)
9
repeat-joke. In all conditions, they read, “Imagine that you are visiting a new city and decide to
10
take a historical tour.” They then viewed a picture of a tour guide in front of the Brandenburg
11
Gate and read:
12
Your tour guide, Hollie, begins the tour at the Brandenburg Gate. She states,
13
"And here is the Brandenburg Gate, which was built in the late 1700s. The columns of the
14
gate form five roadways. Originally, citizens were only allowed to use the outer two
15
roadways, while the middle was reserved for royals who passed through with less delay."
16
17
At the end of the tour, Hollie jokes,
18
"Now don't forget, if you liked my tour you can leave me a review on TripAdvisor, my
19
name is Hollie. If you didn't like my tour, my name is Margaret."
20
21
Participants in the repeat-fact condition viewed the following:
22
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3212778

SELF-REPETITION DECREASES AUTHENTICITY
16
Later that day, you pass Hollie giving the same tour to another tour group. You overhear
1
her repeating the statement:
2
"And here is the Brandenburg Gate, which was built in the late 1700s. The columns of the
3
gate form five roadways. Originally, citizens were only allowed to use the outer two
4
roadways, while the middle was reserved for royals who passed through with less delay."
5
6
Those in the repeat-joke condition read:
7
Later that day, you pass Hollie giving the same tour to another tour group. You overhear
8
her repeating the joke:
9
"Now don't forget, if you liked my tour you can leave me a review on TripAdvisor, my
10
name is Hollie. If you didn't like my tour, my name is Margaret."
11
12
All participants then answered the following question designed to capture behavioral
13
intentions: “This same tour guide, Hollie, is giving another tour later in the day of a different
14
area of Berlin. How likely are you to choose her tour again (rather than looking for another tour
15
guide)?” (1 = Not likely at all, 7 = Extremely likely). Next, they rated the authenticity of the tour
16
guide using the same items from the first two studies (averaged to create a single composite
17
measure of authenticity, (α = .89)). To capture liking, participants responded to the following
18
question “How much do you like this tour guide?” (1 = Not at all, 7 = Very much), which was
19
counterbalanced with the authenticity measures.
20
Results
21
A one-way between-subjects ANOVA on behavioral intentions revealed a significant
22
effect of condition, F(2, 206) = 8.94, p < .001. Planned contrasts found that participants were
23
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3212778

SELF-REPETITION DECREASES AUTHENTICITY
17
more willing to attend a future tour with the tour guide in the no-repeat condition (Mno-repeat = 5.17,
1
SD = 1.18) compared to either the repeat-joke condition (Mrepeat-joke = 4.34, SD = 1.27), t(206) =
2
3.66, p < .001, d = .68, or repeat-fact condition (Mrepeat-fact = 4.32, SD = 1.61), t(206) = 3.58, p <
3
.001, d = .60, suggesting that repetition decreased behavioral intentions toward the performer
4
regardless of the nature of the content. The two repeat conditions, t(206) = -.09, p = .44, did not
5
differ from each other.
6
Consistent with our predictions, we found a similar pattern for authenticity judgments,
7
with the omnibus test revealing a significant effect of condition, F(2, 206) = 13.80, p < .001.
8
Participants viewed the tour guide as more authentic in the no-repeat condition (Mno-repeat = 4.93, SD
9
= 1.10) compared to either the repeat-joke (Mrepeat-joke = 4.18, SD = 1.13), (206) = 4.84, p < .001, d =
10
.68 or repeat-fact condition (Mrepeat-fact = 4.04, SD = .98), t(206) = 4.20, p < .001, d = .85, with a
11
non-significant difference between the two repeat conditions, t(206) = -.77, p = .44. We indeed
12
found that the same pattern held for the liking of the performer, F(2, 206) = 6.71, p = .002.
13
Participants rated the tour guide as more likeable in the no-repeat condition (Mno-repeat = 5.20, SD =
14
.93) compared to either the repeat-joke (Mrepeat-joke = 4.65, SD = 1.15), t(206) = 3.12, p = .002, d =
15
.53, or repeat-fact condition (Mrepeat-fact = 4.65, SD = .97), t(206) = 3.23, p = .001, d = .58. There was
16
a non-significant difference between the two repeat conditions, t(206) = .02, p = .99. While we
17
found a positive correlation between perceived authenticity and liking of the performer (r = .65,
18
p < .001), the effect size for the decrease in authenticity between the no-repeat and combined
19
repeat conditions, d = 0.77, was descriptively larger than that for liking, d = .54.
20
We also predicted that perceived authenticity would mediate the effect of self-repetition
21
on behavioral intentions. For this analysis, we also combined the two repeat conditions. A
22
bootstrapping analysis (Hayes, 2013 - 10,000 resamples) with self-repetition as the independent
23
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3212778

SELF-REPETITION DECREASES AUTHENTICITY
18
variable and behavioral intentions as the dependent variable revealed that perceptions of
1
authenticity significantly mediated the relationship (indirect effect = -.39, SE = .11, 95% CI = [-
2
.63, -.21]). Specifically, repeating a performance decreased authenticity perceptions (a = -.82, p
3
< .001), which then decreased behavioral intentions (b = .47, p <.001). Building on the model
4
above, we added liking as a second mediator to test which construct, authenticity or liking, is the
5
more dominant mediating variable. We found that, when including both authenticity and liking
6
in the model, authenticity significantly mediated the effect (indirect effect = -.26, SE = .11, 95%
7
CI = [-.52, -.09]), while liking did not act as a significant mediator (indirect effect = -.14, SE =
8
.09, 95% CI = [-.35, .002]).
9
Discussion
10
Study 1c replicated the core effect in a new domain: participants who viewed a tour guide
11
self-repeating either a joke or a fact perceived the tour guide as less authentic, and were, in turn,
12
less likely to express interest in going on a different tour with that tour guide. Both liking and
13
authenticity perceptions decreased with self-repetition (the decrease in authenticity perceptions
14
being larger in magnitude descriptively), but only authenticity mediated the relationship between
15
repetition and lower behavioral intentions towards the performer in a parallel mediation.
16
It is worth emphasizing that these results are surprising in the context of tour guiding, a
17
domain in which, as noted above, performers are often expected to repeat performances that are
18
primarily scripted and planned. The parallel decrease in authenticity across the no-repeat and
19
joke and fact conditions provides further support that notions of spontaneity are unlikely to be
20
driving the effect. Indeed, in a post-test assessment of the joke used in the study, we recruited a
21
separate group of participants (N = 199, 51.76% female, Mage = 35.24) who were randomly
22
assigned to either the no-repeat or repeat-joke conditions as specified in the main study. All
23
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3212778

SELF-REPETITION DECREASES AUTHENTICITY
19
participants in the post-test answered one question: “Do you think the tour guide’s joke was
1
spontaneous or planned?” After reading the question, they selected one of the following options:
2
(1) Joke was spontaneous or (2) Joke was planned (order of choices was counterbalanced). The
3
majority of participants in both conditions believed the joke was planned beforehand (rather than
4
spontaneous) and there was a non-significant difference between conditions (no-repeat = 84.04%
5
planned vs. repeat = 88.25% planned), χ2(1) = .77, p = .38.
6
Overall, these results suggest that self-repetition decreases perceptions of authenticity for
7
reasons beside the planned nature of the observed performance. Even though observers are aware
8
that tour guides plan the tour beforehand and that tours are repeated to other audiences, the
9
negative reaction to self-repetition suggests that during the performance, observers are to some
10
extent unreasonably expecting some degree of uniqueness. Witnessing the self-repetition
11
confronts them with the obvious fact that the original performance was not unique, and yet,
12
observers appear to feel deceived by the performer, leading to lower ascriptions of authenticity.
13
Study 2: The Behavioral Costs of Self-Repetition in a Naturalistic Paradigm
14
Studies 1a-c provided convergent evidence across three different domains that performers
15
observed self-repeating are seen as less authentic. In Study 2, our aim was to conceptually
16
replicate the core effect using a more naturalistic paradigm (watching a comedian’s performance
17
on YouTube) in addition to testing more substantive behavioral consequences of self-repetition.
18
We mirrored a feature of YouTube in which viewers are directed to similar videos after the one
19
they are watching ends. We selected two YouTube clips of a famous comedian telling the same
20
comedic story in different contexts and randomly assigned participants to watch one or both of
21
the clips. We predicted that people who viewed the comedian repeating the story would judge the
22
comedian as less authentic than those who only viewed the performer delivering the story once.
23
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3212778

SELF-REPETITION DECREASES AUTHENTICITY
20
Of note, while in the previous studies, the delivery of the content was repeated verbatim, the
1
YouTube clips possessed variation between the two deliveries. Thus, this design also allowed us
2
to examine whether the negative effect of self-repetition on authenticity is not just limited to
3
verbatim delivery but holds even when there is some variation between the original and the
4
repeated performance. Lastly, we predicted that lower authenticity perceptions of the performer
5
would subsequently result in lower interest in viewing the comedian’s new material.
6
Method
7
We recruited 273 participants (51.1% female, Mage = 19.57) from an undergraduate
8
subject pool. All participants passed the attention check and completed the study. Participants
9
were randomly assigned to one of two conditions in which they either watched one clip
10
(randomly assigned to Clip A = stand-up comedy or Clip B = talk show interview) or both clips
11
consecutively (in randomized order). In both clips, the comedian tells a minute and half long
12
story about witnessing a celebrity order food in a restaurant. However, the delivery of the
13
repeated content was varied: in one of the clips, the comedian tells the story uninterrupted in the
14
context of a stand-up show, while in the other clip, the performance is broken up in the context
15
of a talk show interview. Data and study materials, including these clips, are available online
16
(https://osf.io/pxc4s/).
17
After watching the clip(s), all participants were told, “The following questions will ask
18
about your thoughts on attending a performance featuring Aziz Ansari. Note this performance
19
will feature new content that has not yet been performed.” Participants answered three questions
20
regarding their behavioral intentions: “Given the material you just viewed, how likely are you to
21
attend a performance by this comedian?” (1 = Not Likely at all, 7 = Extremely Likely); “Given
22
the material you just viewed, how likely are you to purchase a ticket to see this comedian
23
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3212778

SELF-REPETITION DECREASES AUTHENTICITY
21
perform?” (1 = Not Likely at all, 7 = Extremely Likely); and “Given the material you just viewed,
1
what is the most you would be willing to pay for a ticket to see this comedian perform?” (0% of
2
the retail value to 120% of the retail value). These three measures were then converted to z-
3
scores and averaged to create a combined measure of behavioral intentions (α = .82). Participants
4
then rated the comedian on the three-item authenticity scale (α = .91) used in the previous
5
studies. Finally, participants reported whether they were previously familiar with the comedian,
6
and if so they additionally reported liking of the comedian.
7
Results
8
In line with our prediction, participants who saw both clips had lower behavioral
9
intentions towards watching the comedian perform (Mrepeat = -.11, SD = .93) than those who saw
10
only one clip (Mno-repeat = .11, SD = .84), t(271) = 2.04, p = .042, d =.25. Consistent with the
11
previous studies, self-repetition decreased perceptions of authenticity: participants who watched
12
both clips rated the comedian as significantly less authentic (Mrepeat = 4.27, SD = 1.25) than those
13
who watched only one clip (Mno-repeat = 5.03, SD = 1.27), t(271) = 4.99, p < .001, d =.60. A
14
bootstrapping analysis (Hayes, 2013 – 10,000 resamples) with self-repetition as the independent
15
variable and behavioral intentions as the dependent variable revealed that perceptions of
16
authenticity significantly mediated this relationship (indirect effect = -.27, SE = .06, 95% CI = [-
17
.41, -.16]). Specifically, self-repetition decreased authenticity perceptions (a = -.76, p <.001),
18
which then decreased behavioral intentions (b = .35, p <.001). Including perceived authenticity
19
in the model made the relationship between repetition and behavioral intentions non-significant
20
(c′ = .05, p = .61).3
21
Discussion
22
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3212778

SELF-REPETITION DECREASES AUTHENTICITY
22
Study 2 again replicated our core finding that self-repetition reduces observer
1
perceptions of the performer’s authenticity. Participants who viewed the comedian repeating the
2
comedic story judged him as less authentic than those who viewed only one performance.
3
Repetition also reduced willingness to pay and interest in buying a ticket to see a future
4
performance by the comedian, even if the performance would consist of new material. This
5
decrease in behavioral intentions was mediated by authenticity perceptions. Additionally, in
6
contrast to the previous studies, the comedian’s repeat performance was not an exact repetition
7
of the first performance viewed. This suggests that self-repetition decreases authenticity
8
judgments even when portions of the repetition are not verbatim.
9
Studies 1a-c and Study 2 demonstrated, across four domains and two different
10
methodological approaches, consistent and broad evidence that self-repetition leads observers to
11
assess performers as less authentic. These studies also provide evidence that this decrease in
12
authenticity mediates a corresponding decrease in behavioral intentions towards the performer.
13
In the following studies, we examine the proposed process underlying this effect.
14
Study 3: Uniqueness Mechanism
15
While people are explicitly aware that performances such as tours, stump speeches,
16
comedy routines are often repeated, we propose that observers hold an implicit assumption that
17
such performances are unique. Witnessing a self-repetition confronts observers with the
18
unsettling reality that the first performance they viewed was not uniquely performed for them,
19
leading to lower ascriptions of performer authenticity. Specifically, observers perceive the
20
performer as trying to pass off a performance as unique when it is not even if the performer does
21
not explicitly misrepresent the performance. In Study 3, we test for the role of perceived
22
uniqueness by using procedures similar to those used in Studies 1a-c and also incorporating a
23
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3212778

SELF-REPETITION DECREASES AUTHENTICITY
23
measure of the perceived uniqueness of the performance. Our items were designed to capture
1
specifically the extent to which observers perceived the event as being performed uniquely for
2
them. We predicted that self-repetition would dampen perceptions of uniqueness, which, in turn,
3
would decrease the perceived authenticity of the performer.
4
Method
5
Study 3 used the materials from Studies 1a (entrepreneur) and 1c (tour guide) to test the
6
mediating role of uniqueness on the effect of repeat performances in two different domains. We
7
recruited 400 participants from Amazon’s Mechanical Turk and removed 47 participants for
8
failing the attention check as outlined in our pre-registered research plan (available at
9
https://osf.io/mwbc7/). The remaining 353 participants (49.72% female, Mage = 37.83) were
10
randomly assigned to one of four conditions in a 2 (self-repetition: no-repeat vs. repeat) x 2
11
(domain: tour guide vs. entrepreneur) between-subjects design. Like Studies 1a and 1c, they
12
viewed the entrepreneur [tour guide] either giving the performance once (no-repeat) or they
13
viewed a second performance (repeat). As an added test of robustness of the effect, we used a
14
similar tour guide scenario as in Study 1c, but altered the location and wording of the tour
15
guide’s tour. Specifically, participants viewed a picture of a tour guide in front of Big Ben and
16
read the following,
17
Imagine that you are visiting London and decide to take a historical tour. Your tour
18
guide, Joanne, begins the tour at Big Ben. She states,
19
‘We will begin our tour at London's most iconic landmark, the House of Parliament and
20
Elizabeth Tower, commonly called Big Ben. I suggest coming back at night, as the clock
21
tower looks spectacular when the four clock faces are illuminated.’
22
23
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3212778

SELF-REPETITION DECREASES AUTHENTICITY
24
Later in the tour, Joanne says,
1
‘We're lucky to have nice weather today, because typically England is a very wet country.
2
Maybe it's because the queen has reigned here for so many years.’
3
4
Those in the repeat condition subsequently viewed:
5
Later that day, you pass Joanne giving the same tour to another tour group. You
6
overhear her repeating the joke:
7
‘We're lucky to have nice weather today, because typically England is a very wet country.
8
Maybe it's because the queen has reigned here for so many years.’
9
10
Across all conditions, we then measured perceptions of the performer on the three-item
11
authenticity scale (α = .94) as well as a new, three-item scale measuring uniqueness (α = .87):
12
“How unique did you perceive the entrepreneur’s delivery of the pitch to be? [tour guide’s
13
delivery of the tour to be?]” (1 = Not at all Unique, 7 = Very Unique), “To what extent, do you
14
see the entrepreneur’s pitch [tour guide's tour] to be delivered just for you?” (1= Not at all, 7 =
15
Very much so), and “To what extent did the entrepreneur’s pitch [tour guide's tour] make you
16
feel unique or special?” (1 = Not at all, 7 = Very much so).
17
Results
18
Authenticity. A between-subjects ANOVA revealed the predicted significant main effect
19
of repeated performance, F(1, 352) = 34.12, p < .001, in addition to a non-significant main effect
20
of domain, F(1, 352) = 1.17, p = .281, and non-significant two-way interaction, F(1, 352) = .03,
21
p = .868. Replicating Studies 1a and c, participants rated the performers across both domains as
22
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3212778

SELF-REPETITION DECREASES AUTHENTICITY
25
less authentic when they viewed a self-repetition (Mrepeat = 4.21, SD = 1.39) versus when they
1
only viewed one performance (Mno-repeat = 5.02, SD = 1.31), t(398) = 5.97, p < .001, d = .60.
2
Uniqueness. We found a similar pattern for uniqueness. A between-subjects ANOVA
3
revealed only a significant main effect of repeated performance, F(1, 352) = 32.30, p < .001.
4
Participants rated the experience with the performers across both domains as less unique when
5
they viewed a self-repetition (Mrepeat = 2.85, SD = 1.33) versus when they only viewed one
6
performance (Mno-repeat = 3.69, SD = 1.47), t(398) = 5.95, p < .001, d = .60.
7
Mediation Analysis. We conducted a mediation analysis to examine the role of
8
uniqueness in the effect of repeat performance on perceived authenticity. This analysis (10,000
9
resamples) revealed that perceptions of uniqueness significantly mediated this relationship
10
(indirect effect = -.49, SE = .09, 95% CI = [-.67, -.31]). We found that repeating a performance
11
decreased uniqueness perceptions (a = -.84, p <.001), which then decreased judgments of
12
authenticity (b = -.36, p <.001). The relationship between repetition and authenticity remained
13
significant when uniqueness was included in the model (c′ = -.36, p = .004).
14
Discussion
15
Consistent with our predictions, self-repetition decreased the perceived uniqueness of the
16
performance in both the context of the entrepreneur and tour guide. Lower uniqueness ratings
17
subsequently mediated the lower authenticity ratings for the respective performers. These results
18
are in keeping with our theorizing that observers view self-repetition as violating their
19
assumption that performances, even those that are routinely repeated, are uniquely performed for
20
them.
21
Study 4a: Moderation by Expectations of Uniqueness
22
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3212778

SELF-REPETITION DECREASES AUTHENTICITY
26
While the previous study measured participants’ perceptions of the uniqueness of the
1
performance and found that they mediated the relationship between self-repetition and
2
authenticity, in Study 4a, we tested our proposed process via a moderation approach by directly
3
manipulating observers’ expectations of uniqueness. Specifically, we theorize that observers
4
implicitly assume social interactions are unique, and, in turn, performers who self-repeat are
5
judged as inauthentic because they are seen as falsely presenting their performance as unique
6
when it is not. Thus, Study 4a manipulated uniqueness expectations by varying whether
7
performers openly acknowledge that they are self-repeating (low expectations for performance
8
uniqueness) versus make no mention of self-repetition (high expectations for performance
9
uniqueness, consistent with the paradigms in Studies 1a-c). We predicted that when performers
10
openly acknowledge to observers that they are self-repeating, the negative effect on authenticity
11
would attenuate. This is because performers have explicitly addressed the implied, unspoken
12
assumption that their performance is unique and subsequently will not be seen as falsely
13
presenting themselves. In contrast, lack of acknowledgment (consistent with our previous
14
studies) will lead self-repetition to be judged as inauthentic because the performers are seen as
15
falsely presenting the performance as unique.
16
Method
17
We planned for the recruitment of 400 participants from Amazon’s Mechanical Turk as
18
outlined in our pre-registered research plan (available at https://osf.io/mw5ra/). 408 participants
19
completed the study, of which, 56 failed attention checks, leaving us with 352 eligible
20
participants (52.84% female, Mage = 35.86). We used the same tour guide scenario as in Study 3.
21
In a 2 (self-repetition: no-repeat vs. repeat) x 2 (performer statement: control vs.
22
acknowledge) between-subjects design, participants viewed the tour guide telling the joke either
23
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3212778

SELF-REPETITION DECREASES AUTHENTICITY
27
once or twice. We also varied whether or not the tour guide acknowledged that she repeats this
1
joke on the tour. Those in the acknowledge condition viewed the same joke but prefaced with:
2
“Now for the joke I always tell on the tour.” We then measured perceptions of the tour guide’s
3
authenticity using the three-item scale used in previous studies (α = .95).
4
Results
5
A 2 (self-repetition: no-repeat vs. repeat) x 2 (performer statement: control vs.
6
acknowledge) between-subjects ANOVA revealed a significant two-way interaction of self-
7
repetition and performer statement, F(1, 351) = 3.92, p = .048. There was also a significant main
8
effect of self-repetition, F(1, 351) = 4.16, p = .042, and a marginally significant main effect of
9
performer statement, F(1, 351) = 2.82, p = .094. As with previous studies, in the control
10
condition participants rated the tour guide as less authentic when they viewed a self-repetition
11
(Mrepeat = 4.05, SD = 1.53) versus when they only viewed one performance (Mno-repeat = 4.69, SD
12
= 1.50), F(1, 351) = 8.86, p = .003, d = .42. However, when the tour guide acknowledged that
13
she repeats her performance, there was no difference in perceived authenticity (Mrepeat = 4.63, SD
14
= 1.49, Mno-repeat = 4.64, SD = 1.45), F(1, 351) = .002, p = .97 (see Figure 1).
15
Discussion
16
Study 4a reinforced the findings of Study 3 and provided moderation evidence for the
17
role of uniqueness expectations in the relationship between self-repetitions and performer
18
authenticity. Consistent with Studies 1a-c, when performers omitted information that they were
19
self-repeating, they were seen as less authentic. However, when they explicitly acknowledged
20
that they were self-repeating, there was no difference in authenticity between the no-repeat and
21
repeat conditions. We conducted another study using a more subtle acknowledgment (The tour
22
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3212778

SELF-REPETITION DECREASES AUTHENTICITY
28
guide prefaced the self-repetition with, “As I always say”) and found consistent results (see
1
Appendix, Study 1).
2
These results raise a number of points worth emphasizing. First, they reveal that
3
observers are not equating authenticity with its association with originality (Bruhn,
4
Schoenmüller, Schäfer, & Heinrich, 2012; Moulard, Garrity, & Rice, 2015; Newman & Bloom,
5
2012). In our previous studies, there could be a question of whether our measurement of
6
performer authenticity is actually capturing the extent to which observers perceive the
7
performance itself to be original or “not a copy.” However, the fact that performer authenticity
8
did not decrease when self-repetition was overtly acknowledged suggests that observers do not
9
view self-repetition as inauthentic in and of itself. In other words, when the tour guide
10
acknowledged to the audience that she was self-repeating, participants were directly aware that
11
the tour guide was delivering unoriginal content, and yet, authenticity judgments stayed
12
consistent between the no-repeat and repeat conditions. Thus, it is specifically the accurate
13
expectation of the uniqueness of a performance that drives authenticity judgments, as opposed to
14
observers necessarily viewing unique or original performances as authentic. Second, the fact that
15
it is necessary for performers to explicitly acknowledge that they are self-repeating in order to
16
maintain their authenticity, suggests that the unspoken assumption between audience and
17
performer is that performance is unique unless otherwise specified.
18
These findings also address a number of potential alternative explanations. First,
19
consistent with the results of Study 1c, the moderation by acknowledgement suggests that
20
notions of spontaneity are unlikely to be driving the decrease in authenticity. When performers
21
acknowledge that they are self-repeating, it is clear that the performance is not spontaneous, and
22
yet, assessments of authenticity do not decrease between the no-repeat and repeat conditions.
23
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3212778

SELF-REPETITION DECREASES AUTHENTICITY
29
Second, these results also are inconsistent with the alternative explanation that self-repetition
1
leads to negative assessments because performers are seen as not putting enough effort per
2
performance. While inferences of effort might be lower when performers acknowledge that they
3
are self-repeating, our results show that this does not negatively influence authenticity
4
assessments. Additionally, this moderation also rules out other negative inferences about the
5
performer that might come with self-repetition and subsequently dampen authenticity judgments.
6
For instance, performers who self-repeat may be seen as overall less talented, competent, or
7
creative. However, given that open acknowledgement of the self-repetition leads to consistent
8
authenticity assessments, it is unlikely that general negative inferences about the performer are
9
driving the decrease in authenticity. Rather, these results are consistent with the notion that
10
observers implicitly assume social interactions are unique and feel somewhat deceived by
11
performers who do not explicitly acknowledge when they self-repeat. An open acknowledgment
12
of self-repetition subsequently eliminates the decrease in authenticity as performers are no longer
13
viewed as falsely presenting themselves.
14
Study 4b: Replication with Explicit Lie about Self-repetition
15
Study 4b directly tested whether performers who self-repeat without acknowledging it are
16
judged as having lied by omission to the audience. We added a third condition to the previous
17
paradigm used in Study 4a in which we compare performers who omit the fact that they are self-
18
repeating—an implicit false self-presentation—to those who repeat and lie to observers that their
19
performance is unique—an explicit false self-presentation.
20
Method
21
We planned for the recruitment of 600 participants from Amazon’s Mechanical Turk as
22
outlined in our pre-registered research plan (available at https://osf.io/urz5g/). 601 participants
23
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3212778

SELF-REPETITION DECREASES AUTHENTICITY
30
completed the study, of which, 69 failed attention checks, leaving us with 532 eligible
1
participants (56.21% female, Mage = 35.68). This study uses the design of Study 4a with the
2
addition of a condition in which the repeating tour guide explicitly lies about the uniqueness of
3
the event.
4
In a 2 (self-repetition: no-repeat vs. repeat) x 3 (performer statement: control vs. lie vs.
5
acknowledgment) between-subjects design, participants watched the tour guide telling the same
6
joke either once or twice. In the lie condition, the tour guide ended the joke by saying, “I have
7
actually never told that joke on tour before.” As in Study 4a, in the acknowledgment condition,
8
before each telling of the joke the tour guide said, “Now for the joke I always tell on the tour.”
9
We measured perceptions of the tour guide’s authenticity using the three-item scale used in
10
previous studies (α = .94).
11
Results
12
A 2 (self-repetition: no-repeat vs. repeat) x 3 (performer statement: control vs. lie vs.
13
acknowledgment) between-subjects ANOVA revealed a significant interaction between
14
repetition and performer statement, F(2, 531) = 4.05, p = .018 (see Figure 2). To explore this
15
interaction, we first tested whether repetition decreased authenticity at each level of the
16
performer statement. As in the prior study, there was no effect of repetition in the
17
acknowledgment condition, (Mno-repeat = 4.81, SD = 1.42 vs. Mrepeat = 4.74, SD = 1.35), F(1, 526)
18
= .09, p = .76. Also, consistent with previous studies, when the tour guide omitted information
19
about self-repetition in the control condition, she was rated as significantly less authentic in the
20
repeat condition (Mrepeat = 3.98, SD = 1.46) compared to the no-repeat condition (Mno-repeat = 4.68,
21
SD =1.30), F(1, 526) = 11.35, p = .001, d = .51. Similarly, we found a significant decrease in
22
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3212778

SELF-REPETITION DECREASES AUTHENTICITY
31
authenticity when the tour guide lied with self-repetition, (Mrepeat = 3.33, SD = 1.53 vs. Mno-repeat
1
= 4.23, SD = 1.35), F(1, 526) = 18.91, p < .001,
2
d = .62.
3
Additionally, we ran a 2 (repetition: no-repeat vs. repeat) by 2 (performer statement:
4
control vs. lie) ANOVA and found a non-significant interaction between repetition and statement
5
F(1, 366) = .56, p = .56, further suggesting that the negative effect of self-repetition on
6
authenticity behaved similarly in the control and lie conditions.
7
Discussion
8
Study 4b replicated the findings of Study 4a: when performers acknowledged that they
9
were self-repeating, their authenticity did not significantly differ between the no-repeat and
10
repeat conditions. Strikingly, the significant negative effect of self-repetition on authenticity
11
occurred for both the control and the explicit lie conditions. Together these findings provide
12
strong evidence for the notion that observers come to interactions implicitly assuming that
13
performers are delivering a unique performance, such that failing to overtly acknowledge a self-
14
repetition is analogous to performers explicitly lying that their performance is unique. In other
15
words, when performers fail to acknowledge a self-repetition, it is viewed as a lie by omission.
16
Study 5: Performance Constraint as Cause of Self-Repetition
17
The aim of Study 5 was to test another boundary condition of the negative effect of self-
18
repetition on authenticity perceptions. In Studies 4a and 4b, observer assessments of self-
19
repetition depended on the uniqueness expectations that the performers themselves set (e.g., the
20
acknowledgment vs. omission of the self-repetition). In Study 5, we examined whether
21
highlighting an external cause of the performer’s self-repetition (i.e., the requirements or
22
constraints of the performance domain) would similarly attenuate the negative effect of self-
23
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3212778

SELF-REPETITION DECREASES AUTHENTICITY
32
repetition on authenticity. Specifically, we manipulated whether participants were told that a
1
company requires tour guides to stick to a planned script or were not informed about this
2
performance constraint, in addition to manipulating whether participants viewed a tour guide
3
repeat content or not. We predicted that highlighting this performance constraint would reduce
4
the negative effect of self-repetition on authenticity, as it would decrease the extent to which
5
observers attribute the uniqueness violation to the agency of the performer.
6
Method
7
We recruited 400 participants from Amazon’s Mechanical Turk as outlined in our pre-
8
registered research plan (available at https://osf.io/2a57x/). We removed 57 participants who
9
failed attention checks, leaving us with 343 eligible participants (48.40% female, Mage = 37.79).
10
This study used the same stimuli from the no-repeat and repeat-joke conditions in Study 1c and
11
additionally manipulated whether observers were told explicitly that the tour guide was required
12
to follow a script or not told about this constraint, resulting in a 2 (self-repetition: no-repeat vs.
13
repeat) x 2 (performance constraint: control vs. required script) between-subjects design.
14
Specifically, participants in the scripted condition read the following prior to viewing the tour,
15
“Each of the tour guides with this company are required to stick to a planned script while giving
16
their tours.” Those in the control condition proceeded directly to the tour. After either viewing
17
the tour guide repeat or not repeat, we then asked all participants to rate the tour guide on the
18
three-item scale of authenticity (α = .95).
19
Results
20
A between-subjects ANOVA revealed a marginally significant two-way interaction of
21
self-repetition and performance requirement, F(1, 342) = 3.67, p = .056. There was a significant
22
main effect of repetition: the tour guide who was viewed self-repeating was rated as significantly
23
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3212778

SELF-REPETITION DECREASES AUTHENTICITY
33
less authentic compared to when the tour guide did not self-repeat, F(1, 342) = 33.31, p <.001.
1
There was also a significant main effect of performance requirement: the tour guide in the
2
scripted condition was viewed as less authentic compared to the tour guide in the control
3
condition, F(1, 342) = 9.22, p = .003.
4
Consistent with the previous studies, simple slopes analysis revealed that when
5
participants were not told that the tour was scripted, they rated the tour guide as less authentic
6
when they viewed a self-repetition (Mrepeat = 3.89, SD = 1.43) versus when they only viewed one
7
performance (Mno-repeat = 5.08, SD = 1.19), F(1, 339) = 32.93, p < .001, d = .91. Awareness that
8
the company requires the tours to be scripted did indeed significantly attenuate the effect. The
9
effect size of the decrease in authenticity between the no-repeat and repeat conditions in the
10
scripted condition was significantly lower, d = .31, [95% CI = .16, .56], compared to that in the
11
control condition, d = .91, [95% CI = .73, 1.09]. However, interestingly, though the effect
12
decreased, repetition still had a significant negative effect on authenticity. That is, participants in
13
the scripted conditions viewed the tour guide as less authentic when they viewed a repeat
14
performance (Mrepeat = 3.71, SD = 1.59) compared to those in the no-repeat condition (Mno-repeat =
15
4.29, SD = 1.66), F(1,339) = 5.93, p = .015, d = .36 (see Figure 3).
16
Discussion
17
Study 5 demonstrated that highlighting a performance constraint that removes agency
18
from the performer does attenuate the extent to which performer authenticity decreases with self-
19
repetition. When participants were told that the company requires performers to follow a script,
20
the drop in authenticity with self-repetition was significantly reduced compared to when the
21
performance constraint was not highlighted.
22
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3212778

SELF-REPETITION DECREASES AUTHENTICITY
34
However, the negative effect of repetition on authenticity, while reduced, was still
1
significant for those that were told that the company requires performers to stick to a planned
2
script. This suggests the robustness of the negative reaction to self-repetition, such that,
3
observers penalize performers for repetition even when they are aware of an external reason for
4
the repetition. These results are in line with previous work that has found that even when people
5
are aware of external constraints on an individual’s behavior, they still ascribe the behavior to
6
some degree to the individual’s internal preference. For example, in the seminal work by Jones
7
and Harris (1967), individuals randomly assigned by a coin toss to write in support of a political
8
figure were still ascribed higher positive attitudes towards the politician relative to those that
9
were randomly assigned to write against. Thus, while highlighting a performance constraint as
10
the cause of the self-repetition attenuates the decrease in authenticity with self-repetition, we
11
found that the establishment of uniqueness expectations by performers themselves (Study 4a and
12
4b) plays a more consequential role in ameliorating the negative effect of violating the
13
uniqueness assumption.
14
Study 6a: Can Observers tell if a Performer is Self-repeating?
15
In our final set of studies, our aim was to explore one additional question: does self-
16
repetition have an actual effect on the discernible authenticity of the performer? While our theory
17
predicts that observer awareness of self-repetition, as opposed to the inherent features of the
18
repeated performance, drives authenticity judgments, it could be the case that self-repetition does
19
indeed have a discernible effect on the perceived authenticity of the performer. In order to test
20
this, in Study 6a, we created the repeated performances by recording individuals answering the
21
same interview question three times. We chose the interview context because it is common for
22
job candidates to give similar responses across prospective employer interviews. Also, this
23
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3212778

SELF-REPETITION DECREASES AUTHENTICITY
35
paradigm allowed us to generate self-repetitions that have both external validity (the
1
interviewees came up with and repeated their own interview responses) but also have features
2
that afford us a degree of control (interviewees answered the same question and were given
3
standardized instructions). We then used these stimuli to examine whether a separate group of
4
unaware observers could perceive differences in authenticity between the non-repeated versus
5
repeated job interview responses.
6
Method
7
Creation of stimuli. We created the study stimuli for Studies 6a and 6b in a controlled
8
setting by recording videos of participants repeating the same answers to a job interview question
9
three separate times. We recruited 44 participants (39.54% female, Mage =19.79) from an
10
undergraduate subject pool.
11
These participants first met with a researcher who told them that they would be
12
videotaped while responding to a job interview question. Specifically, we had interviewees
13
answer the question “tell me about yourself” in order to have them generate original content
14
about themselves. They were also provided a structured set of elements that they would discuss
15
in their response: their name, why they chose their university, and a fun fact about themselves.
16
This was in service of ensuring that the content of the response would be consistent across the
17
three recordings as we wanted to isolate the effect of repetition in particular. Participants were
18
told the following:
19
In this study, we’re interested in how people assess interviewees. Imagine that you are at
20
an interview and the interviewer asks, “tell me about yourself.” We would like you to
21
answer with your first name, why you chose [your university], and a fun fact about
22
yourself. These are listed on the wall as a reminder. You will be asked this question and
23
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3212778

SELF-REPETITION DECREASES AUTHENTICITY
36
recorded three separate times. For each recording, try your best to give a complete
1
response that you would actually give an interviewer. We will then ask you a few
2
questions about your experience. Importantly, your responses should be very brief, about
3
20 seconds or less.
4
5
Participants were given a couple minutes to think about their answers before beginning.
6
To standardize the process across all participants, the interviewer simply said, “tell me about
7
yourself,” prior to each recording. We also asked the participants a series of follow up questions
8
for exploratory purposes (see Appendix, Study 2).
9
Main Study. Study 6a used a separate sample of participants. We planned for the
10
recruitment of 280 participants from Amazon’s Mechanical Turk as outlined in our pre-
11
registered research plan (available at https://osf.io/7krn5/). A total of 288 participants completed
12
the survey (46.1% female, Mage = 35.22). In a 3-level between-subjects design, all participants
13
were asked to imagine that they were looking to hire a student and would watch a video of the
14
student’s interview:
15
Imagine you are interested in hiring a student to work in the university. As part of the
16
interview procedure, the student has to record themselves responding to a set of
17
questions. The following clip is a student's response to the question ‘tell me about
18
yourself’ in which they had to state their name, why they chose the university, and a fun
19
fact about themselves.
20
21
Participants were randomly assigned to watch either a 1st, 2nd, or 3rd take of an
22
interview. Importantly, each condition contained all 44 interviewees’ responses (a total of 132
23
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3212778

SELF-REPETITION DECREASES AUTHENTICITY
37
clips across the three conditions). Within each condition, participants were also randomly
1
assigned to watch one interviewee’s clip. They then judged the interviewee on the three
2
measures of authenticity from previous studies (α = .94). Next, we revealed to the participants
3
that the interviewees had repeated their interview answers three times and asked them to guess
4
whether they had viewed a 1st, 2nd, or 3rd take of the interview responses.
5
Results
6
A one-way between-subjects ANOVA tested whether there were any differences in
7
perceived authenticity between participants who viewed the 1st, 2nd, or 3rd performance. In line
8
with our predictions, when observers were unaware of repetitions, we found no significant
9
differences across the three conditions in perceived authenticity, F(2, 285) = .88, p = .41 (see
10
Figure 4). We ran the same analysis controlling for interviewee as a covariate and the results
11
were consistent, F(2, 284) = .89, p = .41.
12
We were then interested in testing whether participants were accurate in guessing which
13
performance they viewed. A test of proportion on their choices found that participants were no
14
better than chance at guessing which clip they had watched: overall 31.2% guessed correctly
15
(compared to 33.33%), z = .77, p = .44. Participants in the 1st clip condition were not
16
significantly more accurate than chance (38.14% correct), z = 1.02, p = .31. The same was true
17
for participants in the 2nd clip condition (40.22% correct), z = 1.42, p = .16, while participants in
18
the 3rd clip condition were even worse than chance at guessing which clip they had watched
19
(15.05% correct), z = 3.76, p <.001.
20
Discussion
21
Study 6a found that unaware observers were not able to discern a difference in
22
authenticity between repeated and non-repeated performances and were unable to guess which
23
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3212778

SELF-REPETITION DECREASES AUTHENTICITY
38
take they had watched. This suggests the inherent features of the self-repetition itself do not drive
1
authenticity judgments. Rather, it is the observer’s belief that performers are self-repeating, and
2
subsequent knowledge that performers are violating the assumed uniqueness of the interaction,
3
that drive authenticity assessments.
4
Study 6b: Observer Perceptions of Actual versus Believed Self-repetition
5
Study 6b directly tested our prediction that the decrease in perceived authenticity of the
6
performer is driven by observers’ belief that a performance has been repeated, rather than by
7
discernible differences between repeated and non-repeated performances. We used the stimuli
8
mentioned in Study 6a to provide participants with either a non-repeated or repeated
9
performance. Additionally, we varied whether participants were told accurate or inaccurate
10
information about whether the performance was a repeat.
11
Method
12
We planned for the recruitment of 480 participants from Amazon’s Mechanical Turk as
13
outlined in our pre-registered research plan (available at https://osf.io/6cd57/). 484 participants
14
completed the study, of which, 35 failed attention checks, leaving us with 449 eligible
15
participants (40.5% female, Mage = 36.0). Participants were asked to imagine that they were in
16
the process of hiring a student. They were also told that, as part of the interview procedure, the
17
student could record themselves multiple times responding to interview questions before
18
submitting. Specifically, they were told the following:
19
Imagine you are interested in hiring a student to work in the university. As part of the
20
interview procedure, the student has to record themselves responding to a set of
21
questions. They can record themselves multiple times before submitting. The following
22
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3212778

SELF-REPETITION DECREASES AUTHENTICITY
39
clip is a student's response to the question "tell me about yourself" in which they had to
1
state their name, why they chose the university, and a fun fact about themselves.
2
3
Participants watched a randomly selected interviewee from either the no-repeat clip set
4
(1st take) or the repeat clip set (3rd take) collected and used in Study 6a. They were told either
5
correct or incorrect information about the clip (i.e., “This is this person's 1st time recording their
6
answer to this question.” versus “This is this person's 3rd time recording their answer to this
7
question.”). This resulted in a 2 (belief: no-repeat vs. repeat) x 2 (actual: no-repeat vs. repeat)
8
between-subjects design.
9
After viewing the clip, participants rated the authenticity of the interviewee using the
10
same three-item scale (α = .94) as in previous studies.
11
Results
12
A 2 (belief: no-repeat vs. repeat) x 2 (actual: no-repeat vs. repeat) between-subjects
13
ANOVA revealed a significant main effect of belief, F(1, 445) = 6.32, p = .012. Participants
14
rated the interviewee as less authentic when they believed that the clip was a repeat (Mbelief-repeat =
15
5.17, SD = 1.23) versus when they believed the clip was not a repeat (Mbelief-no-repeat = 5.44, SD =
16
1.12), F(1, 448) = 6.48, p = .011, d = .23. In line with our predictions, there was no main effect
17
of whether the clip was an actual no-repeat (Mactual-no-repeat = 5.37, SD = 1.11) versus an actual
18
repeat clip (Mactual-repeat = 5.25, SD = 1.23), F(1, 445) = 1.06, p = .31. In addition, the two-way
19
interaction was not significant, F(1, 445) = .04, p = .84. We ran the same analysis controlling for
20
interviewee as a covariate and the results were consistent.
21
Discussion
22
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3212778

SELF-REPETITION DECREASES AUTHENTICITY
40
Study 6b demonstrated that whether observers believe they are watching a repeat
1
performance has a greater impact on assessments of authenticity than whether a performance is
2
actually a repeat. When told that a performance was a repeat (vs. not), participants rated the
3
interviewee as less authentic. However, there were no differences in perceived authenticity
4
between responses that were actually repeated versus not.
5
These results also speak to the question of whether it is necessary for observers to witness
6
a verbatim repeated performance for them to react negatively to self-repetition. In contrast to
7
Studies 1a-4b, participants did not actually view a self-repetition in the repeat condition, but
8
were just told that a clip was a repeat. The belief that it was the interviewee’s 3rd recording led to
9
lower authenticity ratings irrespective of whether the recording was an actual repeat and
10
regardless of knowing the nature of the earlier recordings (i.e., participants did not know if the
11
repeated version was verbatim or had some variation with the earlier recordings). Thus,
12
observers need not witness a verbatim delivery or repeated performance more generally to
13
perceive the performer as less authentic, but merely possess the belief that a performer is self-
14
repeating.
15
In sum, Studies 6a and 6b, in addition to demonstrating another non-scenario-based
16
replication of the effect of self-repetition on perceptions of performer authenticity, provide
17
converging evidence that this effect is driven by the belief that the performer is self-repeating
18
rather than by discernible differences between repeated and non-repeated performances.
19
General Discussion
20
Self-repetition is a common behavior in social life. Many professions from pedagogy to
21
politics require individuals to repeat themselves to different audiences. Despite the ubiquity and
22
even necessity of self-repetition, we find that observers perceive performers who they believe to
23
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3212778

SELF-REPETITION DECREASES AUTHENTICITY
41
be self-repeating as less authentic. These studies demonstrated the robustness of this effect across
1
a variety of contexts (entrepreneurship, politics, tour guiding, comedy, job interviews).
2
Moreover, the effect persisted in contexts in which observers are typically aware that the
3
performance is planned beforehand and in which it is normative and even required that
4
performers self-repeat. In addition, Studies 1c and 2 found that this decrease in authenticity
5
results in potential costs to the performer (e.g., participants were less likely to want to attend
6
future performances by the performer). We found convergent evidence that this decrease in
7
authenticity is driven by the implicit assumption held by observers that social interactions are
8
unique. Performers known to be self-repeating are seen as violating this assumption and hence,
9
are seen as falsely presenting their performance as unique when it is not.
10
Studies 3, 4a, and 4b offered both mediation and moderation evidence in support of this
11
proposed process. Specifically, Study 3 found that self-repetition decreased the perceived
12
uniqueness of the performance between the no-repeat and repeat conditions, and that this
13
discrepancy subsequently mediated the relationship between self-repetition and authenticity
14
perceptions of the performer. Study 4a found that when observer expectations of the
15
performance’s uniqueness were manipulated via having the performer acknowledge the self-
16
repetition, authenticity perceptions varied with those expectations. Not acknowledging the self-
17
repetition decreased performer authenticity, but acknowledgment led authenticity perceptions to
18
be consistent between the no-repeat and repeat conditions. Study 4b replicated this finding and
19
also showed that a performer who fails to acknowledge self-repetition experiences the same
20
negative effect on authenticity as a performer who explicitly lies about whether the performance
21
is unique. Study 5 further showed that while highlighting a performance constraint as the cause
22
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3212778

SELF-REPETITION DECREASES AUTHENTICITY
42
of a performer’s self-repetition (i.e., the company requires tour guides to stick to a script)
1
attenuated the drop in authenticity, the decrease itself remained significant.
2
Finally, in Study 6a, we generated repeated performances and found that observers could
3
not perceive any actual differences in authenticity with repetition. However, in Study 6b, when
4
observers were told that a job interview response had been repeated, observers perceived a
5
difference in authenticity regardless of whether or not it was actually a repeat. This demonstrated
6
that observers are reacting to their belief that the response is a self-repetition as opposed to the
7
inherent qualities of the response, suggesting repetition is violating an assumption as opposed to
8
being inherently less authentic in nature.
9
Theoretical Contributions
10
The current research demonstrates that performers who are revealed to be self-repeating
11
are perceived as less authentic. Beyond documenting a new phenomenon, these findings hold
12
several important theoretical implications. First, while prior research has established that
13
individuals are averse to the plagiarism of others’ material (Yang et al., 2014), our work shows
14
that people are also averse to individuals “copying” themselves—in other words, “self-
15
plagiarism.” Self-plagiarism has been decried in many contexts such as entertainment (Levy,
16
2017), academia (Lusher, 2015), and journalism (Wasserman, 2012). However, the dislike of
17
self-plagiarism has not been studied empirically. Our findings suggest that people perceive
18
individuals who self-repeat as less authentic because they are thought to be violating the implicit
19
assumption that they are delivering unique content to an audience. In some sense, just as
20
individuals must cite the work of other people that they reference, they must also “self-cite”
21
when they may be observed self-repeating—even in contexts where self-repetition is routine—
22
otherwise they are likely to risk negative inferences from others and related potential costs.
23
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3212778

SELF-REPETITION DECREASES AUTHENTICITY
43
Our findings also contribute to the broader question of how authenticity judgments arise
1
in the context of self-presentational behavior. Prior work has noted that there is often a tension
2
between the tactical nature of self-presentation and the importance of being perceived as
3
authentic or sincere (Eastman, 1994; Sedikides et al., 2017). We identify a cue that leads to
4
different assessments of performer authenticity—self-repetition. In contrast to work that has
5
found that consistency tends to be viewed positively (Cross et al., 2003; Morhart et al., 2015;
6
Suh, 2002), we find that the behavioral consistency of self-repetition can lead to decreased
7
perceptions of authenticity. Additionally, we show that reduced authenticity perceptions can
8
arise even when the performer does not explicitly lie or misrepresent the performance. These
9
findings highlight the tricky, sometimes contradictory nature of authenticity assessments in the
10
context of self-presentation. In particular, our findings reinforce prior work that has found
11
uniqueness to be an important dimension along which authenticity judgments may be assessed
12
(Carroll & Wheaton, 2009; Moulard et al., 2015). In some ways, uniqueness can be seen as at
13
odds with the notion of consistency, which has also been found to be associated with authenticity
14
(Beverland et al., 2008; Morhart et al., 2015). On one hand people desire consistency, and yet
15
uniqueness and originality are also signals of a performer’s authenticity. Thus, in addition to
16
drawing attention to the importance of uniqueness judgments, our findings also contribute to
17
nascent work on authenticity that has identified the contradictory meanings embedded in the
18
term (Carroll, 2015; Reisinger & Steiner, 2006).
19
Our work is consistent with Goffman’s notion of an “inopportune intrusion” to a
20
performance (1959). Specifically, self-repetitions appear to “break the spell” of the social
21
interaction by violating an implicit, unwarranted assumption embedded in social life—that the
22
audience expects unique interactions even in contexts where they know that self-repetition must
23
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3212778

SELF-REPETITION DECREASES AUTHENTICITY
44
occur. Our results revealed that audiences, to some extent, compulsively expect uniqueness, such
1
that reminders of the lack of uniqueness (i.e., self-repetition) lead to negative reactions and
2
inferences about the performer. This suggests that people presenting themselves in day-to-day
3
life might be upheld to a set of unspoken assumptions and expectations, which the audience
4
themselves might not even be aware that they possess. In many ways, succeeding in social life is
5
a delicate dance of performing, but not revealing that one is performing to the audience. As
6
Goffman (1959) noted, while we are motivated to accept performers’ need to manage their
7
impression in an interaction, we are also “always ready to pounce on chinks in [their] symbolic
8
armor in order to discredit [their] pretensions (p. 59).” Witnessing a performer self-repeating
9
seems to operate like a “chink” that leads observers to feel that they have unveiled the
10
performer’s pretensions.
11
Limitations and Future Directions
12
Our work provides some initial insights into people’s attitudes toward self-repetition;
13
however, there are important limitations to address that have implications for future research.
14
First, while we showed that self-repetition clearly has an effect on authenticity judgments and
15
compared its effect on authenticity to that on liking in Study 1c, self-repetition undoubtedly
16
influences other observer perceptions of the performer. For instance, in Study 4B we find a
17
parallel drop in authenticity for an unacknowledged self-repetition and for an explicit lie, which
18
suggests that self-repetition likely decreases perceptions of morality or honesty in addition to
19
authenticity. Indeed, authenticity is often directly associated with trustworthiness, honesty, and
20
credibility (Avolio & Gardner, 2005; Beverland & Farrelly, 2009; Boyle, 2004; Morhart et al.,
21
2014). Although it is not within the scope of this paper to thoroughly disentangle authenticity
22
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3212778

SELF-REPETITION DECREASES AUTHENTICITY
45
from morality in the context of self-repetition, we think differentiating these two constructs more
1
generally would be a generative avenue for future research.
2
Relatedly, an extension of our work could examine why, in addition to repetition,
3
perceived effort or preparation put into a performance may affect observers’ authenticity
4
judgments of a performer. For example, throughout her political career, Hillary Clinton has often
5
been described as inauthentic, in part because she seemed practiced, polished, and even “over-
6
prepared” in debates, speeches, and interviews (Cillizza, 2016; Foran, 2016; Nyhan, 2015).
7
While past work has found that people often perceive effort positively (i.e., the “effort heuristic,”
8
Kruger et al., 2004), the concept of “over-preparation” suggests that effort can potentially hurt
9
observer evaluations. Indeed, one other curious feature of observers’ negative reaction to self-
10
repetition is that presumably the perceived quality of the performances is likely to improve with
11
repetition. Future work could explore other cues related to the history of the performance (like
12
preparation) that may influence judgments of performer authenticity.
13
Moreover, while we found that observers unreasonably expect uniqueness in domains in
14
which self-repetition is standard, we did not examine the psychological origins of this uniqueness
15
assumption. We speculate that this assumption may be derived from the more general
16
phenomenon of self-serving biases (Alicke, 1985; Brown, 1986; Mezulis, Abramson, Hyde, &
17
Hankin, 2004). For instance, a body of work has found that most people believe that they are
18
above average across a range of positive qualities like intelligence and humor (i.e., the better-
19
than-average effect, Alicke & Govoron, 2005). In light of this prior work, the audience’s
20
assumption that interactions are unique may be rooted in the more general tendency to view
21
oneself as more special than one really is (e.g., “I would be more likely to be treated uniquely
22
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3212778

SELF-REPETITION DECREASES AUTHENTICITY
46
than other people”). Empirical exploration into the motivation behind the uniqueness assumption
1
and the assumptions of the audience more generally could be fruitful.
2
Although we found that a strong, explicit acknowledgment eliminated the negative effect
3
of self-repetition, future research could identify other boundary conditions. For instance,
4
although we found that highlighting that a company requires tour guides to stick to a script
5
attenuated the negative effect of self-repetition in Study 5, even stronger external constraints
6
(like a newscaster required to read repeated segments from a teleprompter) could also serve as
7
key moderators and may have the potential to extinguish the negative effect entirely. Future
8
work could also examine cases in which the audience actually prefers self-repetition. For
9
example, people may actually prefer the repetition of certain performances at concerts or
10
theatrical settings. However, even in these domains, there is evidence of a premium placed on the
11
original or first performance. For instance, the opening night of a play is often highly celebrated
12
(Collins-Hughes, 2015) relative to the subsequent repeated performances. Similarly, in the music
13
domain, there is a premium placed on original recordings of performances or even albums
14
thought to have been printed earlier rather than later (Smith, Newman, & Dhar, 2016).
15
Potentially, self-repetition could be desired when the audience specifically demands it (e.g., an
16
encore performance). More generally, future work could continue to unpack this complex
17
relationship between performer and audience.
18
Conclusion
19
We identify and offer empirical and theoretical insight into a behavior that influences
20
assessments of a performer’s authenticity—self-repetition. The negative reaction to this
21
prevalent and often necessary behavior demonstrates the challenge of impression management in
22
everyday life where the ethos of authenticity is often at odds with the aims of self-presentation.
23
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3212778

SELF-REPETITION DECREASES AUTHENTICITY
47
Further, one’s image can increasingly be easily recorded and reproduced on social media via
1
devices like smartphones. Performers from politicians to entertainers are increasingly aware of
2
the cost of having their image recorded. Dave Chappelle for instance has instituted a “no phone-
3
zone” policy at his shows in part because his “well-honed material plummets in street value once
4
posted to YouTube” (Abramovitch, 2015). Our work suggests that performers are right to control
5
the reproduction of their content not only in order to maintain the value of their material, but also
6
to manage how often they are shown repeating performances, as this may negatively impact their
7
reputation. The negative effect of self-repetition suggests that maintaining authenticity in an age
8
of easily shareable and reproducible content is a challenge that will only increase.
9
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3212778

SELF-REPETITION DECREASES AUTHENTICITY
48
References
1
Abramovitch, S. (2015, December 1). How Dave Chappelle is creating a “no-phone zone” for his
2
Chicago shows (exclusive). The Hollywood Reporter. Retrieved from
3
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/how-dave-chappelle-is-creating-844886.
4
Alicke, M. D. (1985). Global self-evaluation as determined by the desirability and controllability
5
of trait adjectives. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49(6), 1621-1630.
6
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.49.6.1621
7
Alicke, M. D., & Govorun, O. (2005). The Better-Than-Average Effect. In M. D. Alicke, D. A.
8
Dunning, & J. I. Krueger (Eds.), Studies in self and identity. The Self in Social
9
Judgment (pp. 85-106). New York, NY, US: Psychology Press.
10
Avolio, B. J., & Gardner, W. L. (2005). Authentic leadership development: Getting to the root of
11
positive forms of leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 16(3), 315-338.
12
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2005.03.001
13
Barasch, A., Levine, E. E., Berman, J. Z., & Small, D. A. (2014). Selfish or selfless? On the
14
signal value of emotion in altruistic behavior. Journal of Personality and Social
15
Psychology, 107(3), 393-413. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0037207
16
Baumeister, R.F. (1982). Self-esteem, self-presentation, and future interaction: A dilemma of
17
reputation. Journal of Personality, 50(1), 29-45. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-
18
6494.1982.tb00743.x
19
Baumeister, R. F., & Hutton, D. G. (1987). Self-presentation theory: Self-construction and
20
audience pleasing. In B. Mullen & G.R. Goethals (Eds.), Theories of group
21
behavior (pp. 71-87). New York, NY: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4612-
22
4634-3_4
23
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3212778

SELF-REPETITION DECREASES AUTHENTICITY
49
Berman, J. Z., Levine, E. E., Barasch, A., & Small, D. A. (2015). The braggart's dilemma: On
1
the social rewards and penalties of advertising prosocial behavior. Journal of Marketing
2
Research, 52(1), 90-104. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmr.14.0002
3
Beverland, M.B., & Farrelly, F.J. (2009). The quest for authenticity in consumption: Consumers’
4
purposive choice of authentic cues to shape experienced outcomes. Journal of Consumer
5
Research, 36(5), 838-856. https://doi.org/10.1086/615047
6
Beverland, M.B., Lindgreen, A., & Vink, M.W. (2008). Projecting authenticity through
7
advertising: Consumer judgments of advertisers' claims. Journal of Advertising, 37(1), 5-
8
15. https://doi.org/10.2753/JOA0091-3367370101
9
Bourdain, A. (2018, May 28). ‘Secrets from the set’ section in long form article: Anthony
10
Bourdain would rather ‘die in the saddle’ than ever retire: Inside his wild life on the road.
11
People Magazine, May Issue.
12
Boyle, D. (2004). Authenticity brands, fakes, spin and the lust for real life. London: Harper
13
Perennial.Brambilla, M., Sacchi, S., Castellini, F., & Riva, P. (2010). The effects of status
14
on perceived warmth and competence. Social Psychology, 41, 82-87.
15
http://doi.org/10.1027/1864-9335/a000012
16
Brown, J. D. (1986). Evaluations of self and others: Self-enhancement biases in social
17
judgments. Social Cognition, 4(4), 353-376. https://doi.org/10.1521/soco.1986.4.4.353
18
Bruhn, M., Schoenmüller, V., Schäfer, D., & Heinrich, D. (2012). Brand authenticity: Towards a
19
deeper understanding of its conceptualization and measurement. In Z. Gürhan-Canli, C.
20
Otnes, & R. Zhu (Eds.), Advances in Consumer Research Volume 40 (pp. 567-576).
21
Duluth, MN: Association for Consumer Research. https://ssrn.com/abstract=2402187
22
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3212778

SELF-REPETITION DECREASES AUTHENTICITY
50
Buss, A.H., & Briggs, S.R. (1984). Drama and the self in social interaction. Journal of
1
Personality and Social Psychology, 47(6), 1310-1324. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-
2
3514.47.6.1310
3
Carroll, G.R. (2015). Authenticity: Attribution, value, and meaning. In R. A. Scott, S. M.
4
Kosslyn, & M. Buchmann (Eds.), Emerging Trends in the Social and Behavioral
5
Sciences: An Interdisciplinary, Searchable, and Linkable Resource (pp. 1-13). John
6
Wiley (online). https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118900772.etrds0020
7
Carroll, G. R., & Wheaton, D. R. (2009). The organizational construction of authenticity: An
8
examination of contemporary food and dining in the US. Research in Organizational
9
Behavior, 29, 255-282. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.riob.2009.06.003
10
Cialdini, R. B. (2003). Crafting normative messages to protect the environment. Current
11
Directions in Psychological Science, 12(4), 105-109. http://doi.org/10.1111/1467-
12
8721.01242
13
Cillizza, C. (2016, May 12). Jon Steward perfectly diagnosed the problem with Hillary Clinton’s
14
candidacy. The Washington Post. Retrieved from
15
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/05/12/jon-stewart-perfectly
16
diagnosed-the-problem-with-hillary-clintons-candidacy/?utm_term=.3a1baf2e5776.
17
Collins-Hughes, L. (2015, March 26). Stage shows are most alive at the first preview. The
18
New York Time. Retrieved from
19
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/29/theater/stageshows-are-most-alive-at-the-first-
20
preview.html.
21
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3212778

SELF-REPETITION DECREASES AUTHENTICITY
51
Crant, J.M. (1996). Doing more harm than good: When is impression management likely to
1
evoke a negative response? Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 26(16), 1454-1471.
2
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.1996.tb00080.x
3
Cross, S.E., Gore, J.S., & Morris, M.L. (2003). The relational interdependent self-construal, self-
4
concept consistency, and well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
5
85(5), 933-944. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.85.5.933
6
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and
7
the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11, 227–268.
8
https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_01
9
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (Eds.). (2002). Handbook of self-determination research. Rochester,
10
NY: University Rochester Press.
11
Eastman, K.K. (1994). In the eyes of the beholder: An attributional approach to ingratiation and
12
organizational citizenship behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 37(5), 1379-1391.
13
http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/256678
14
Foran, C. (2016, September 27). Hillary Clinton shouldn’t be faulted for her relentless
15
preparation. The Atlantic. Retrieved from
16
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/09/clinton-trump-debate
17
overprepared/501899/.
18
Giacalone, R.A., & Rosenfeld, P. (1986). Self-presentation and self-promotion in an
19
organizational setting. The Journal of Social Psychology. 126(3), 321-326.
20
https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.1986.9713592
21
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3212778

SELF-REPETITION DECREASES AUTHENTICITY
52
Gilmore, D.C., & Ferris, G.R. (1989). The effects of applicant impression management tactics on
1
interviewer judgments. Journal of Management, 15(4), 557-564.
2
https://doi/abs/10.1177/014920638901500405
3
Goffman, E. (1959). The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. New York: Doubleday Anchor.
4
Gopie, N., & MacLeod, C.M. (2009). Destination memory: Stop me if I've told you this before.
5
Psychological Science, 20(12), 1492-1499. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-
6
9280.2009.02472.x
7
Grayson, K., & Martinec, R. (2004). Consumer perceptions of iconicity and indexicality and
8
their influence on assessments of authentic market offerings. Journal of Consumer
9
Research, 31(2), 296-312. https://doi.org/10.1086/422109
10
Hayes, A.F. (2013). Introductions to mediation, moderations, and conditional process analysis:
11
A regression-based approach. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
12
Kernis, M.H., & Goldman, B.M. (2006). A multicomponent conceptualization of authenticity:
13
Theory and research. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 38, 283-357.
14
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(06)38006-9
15
Koschate-Fischer, N., Stefan, I. V., & Hoyer, W. D. (2012). Willingness to pay for cause-related
16
marketing: The impact of donation amount and moderating effects. Journal of Marketing
17
Research, 49(6), 910-927. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmr.10.0511
18
Kraus, M.W., Chen, S., & Keltner, D. (2011). The power to be me: Power elevates self-concept
19
consistency and authenticity. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47(5), 974-980.
20
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2011.03.017
21
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3212778

SELF-REPETITION DECREASES AUTHENTICITY
53
Kreps, T.A., Laurin, K., & Merritt, A.C. (2017). Hypocritical flip-flop, or courageous evolution?
1
When leaders change their moral minds. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
2
113(5), 730-752. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000103
3
Kruger, J., Wirtz, D., Van Boven, L., & Altermatt, T. W. (2004). The effort heuristic. Journal of
4
Experimental Social Psychology, 40(1), 91-98.
5
https://doi.org/10.1016/S00221031(03)00065-9
6
Leary, M.R. (1993). The interplay of private self-processes and interpersonal factors in self-
7
presentation. Psychological Perspectives on the Self, 4, 127-155.
8
Leary, M.R. (1996). Self-presentation: Impression management and interpersonal behavior.
9
Boulder, CO: Westview Publisher.
10
Leary, M.R., & Allen, A.B. (2011) Personality and persona: Personality processes in self‐
11
presentation. Journal of Personality, 79(6), 1191-1118. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-
12
6494.2010.00704.x
13
Leary, M.R., & Kowalski, R.M. (1990). Impression management: A literature review and two-
14
component model. Psychological Bulletin, 107(1), 34-47. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-
15
2909.107.1.34
16
Lenton, A. P., Bruder, M., Slabu, L., & Sedikides, C. (2013). How does “being real” feel? The
17
experience of state authenticity. Journal of Personality, 81(3), 276-289.
18
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2012.00805.x
19
Levy, P. (2017, March 11). With old jokes, Jerry Seinfeld is doing his fans a disservice.
20
Journal Sentinel. Retrieved from
21
https://www.jsonline.com/story/entertainment/music/2017/03/11/old-jokes-jerry-seinfeld-
22
doing-his-fans-disservice/99041720/.
23
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3212778

SELF-REPETITION DECREASES AUTHENTICITY
54
Lusher, A. (2015, August 20). Zygmunt Bauman: World’s leading sociologist accused of
1
copying his own work. Retrieved from
2
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/homenews/zygmunt-bauman-worlds-leading-
3
sociologist-accused-of-copying-his-own-work10464486.html.
4
Mezulis, A. H., Abramson, L. Y., Hyde, J. S., & Hankin, B. L. (2004). Is There a Universal
5
Positivity Bias in Attributions? A Meta-Analytic Review of Individual, Developmental,
6
and Cultural Differences in the Self-Serving Attributional Bias. Psychological Bulletin,
7
130(5), 711-747. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.130.5.711
8
Morhart, F., Malär, L., Guèvremont, A., Girardin, F., & Grohmann, B. (2015). Brand
9
authenticity: An integrative framework and measurement scale. Journal of Consumer
10
Psychology, 25(2), 200-218. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcps.2014.11.006
11
Moulard, J.G., Garrity, C.P., & Rice, D.H. (2015). What makes a human brand authentic?
12
Identifying the antecedents of celebrity authenticity. Psychology & Marketing, 32(2),
13
173-86. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.20771
14
Newman, G. E., & Bloom, P. (2012). Art and authenticity: The importance of originals in
15
judgments of value. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 141(3), 558-569.
16
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0026035
17
Newman, G.E., & Smith, R.K. (2016). Kinds of authenticity. Philosophy Compass, 11(10), 609-
18
618. https://doi.org/10.1111/phc3.12343
19
Nyhan, B. (2015, October 1). Hillary Clinton’s authenticity problem, and ours. The New York
20
Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/02/upshot/hillary-clintons-
21
authenticity-problem-and-ours.html
22
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3212778

SELF-REPETITION DECREASES AUTHENTICITY
55
Paulhus, D. L., & Reid, D. B. (1991). Enhancement and denial in socially desirable
1
responding. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60(2), 307-
2
317. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.60.2.307
3
Reisinger, Y., & Steiner, C.J. (2006). Reconceptualizing object authenticity. Annals of Tourism
4
Research, 33(1), 65-86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2005.04.003
5
Schlenker, B.R. (1975). Self-presentation: Managing the impression of consistency when reality
6
interferes with self-enhancement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32(6):
7
1030-1037. http://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.32.6.1030
8
Schlenker, B.R. (1986). Self-identification: Toward an integration of the private and public self.
9
In R. F. Baumeister (Ed.), Public Self and Private Self (pp. 21-62). New York: Springer-
10
Verlag.
11
Sedikides, C., Lenton, A. P., Slabu, L., & Thomaes, S. (2018). Sketching the contours of state
12
authenticity. Review of General Psychology. Advance online publication.
13
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/gpr0000156
14
Sedikides, C., Slabu, L., Lenton, A., & Thomaes, S. (2017). State authenticity. Current
15
Directions in Psychological Science, 26(6), 521-525.
16
https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721417713296
17
“Self-repetition.” (1913). Webster’s Revised Unabridged Dictionary, C. and G. Merriam
18
Company, www.thefreedictionary.com/Self-repetition.
19
Sezer, O., Gino, F., & Norton, M.L. (2018). Humblebragging: A distinct—and ineffective—self-
20
presentation strategy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 114(1), 52-75.
21
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000108
22
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3212778

SELF-REPETITION DECREASES AUTHENTICITY
56
Shaw, A., & Olson, K. (2015). Whose idea is it anyway? The importance of reputation in
1
acknowledgement. Developmental Science, 18(3), 502-509.
2
https://doi.org/10.1111/desc.12234
3
Sheldon, K. M., Ryan, R. M., Rawsthorne, L. J., & Ilardi, B. (1997). Trait self and true self:
4
Cross-role variation in the Big-Five personality traits and its relations with psychological
5
authenticity and subjective well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
6
73(6), 1380-1393. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.73.6.1380
7
Simmons, J. P., Nelson, L. D., & Simonsohn, U. (2011). False-positive psychology: Undisclosed
8
flexibility in data collection and analysis allows presenting anything as
9
significant. Psychological Science, 22(11), 1359-1366.
10
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0956797611417632
11
Smith, R.K., Newman, G.E., & Dhar, R. (2015). Closer to the creator: Temporal contagion
12
explains the preference for earlier serial numbers. Journal of Consumer Research, 42(5),
13
653-668. https://doi.org/10.1093/jcr/ucv054`
14
Suh, E. M. (2002). Culture, identity consistency, and subjective well-being. Journal of
15
Personality and Social Psychology, 83(6), 1378-1391. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-
16
3514.83.6.1378
17
Swencionis, J.K., & Fiske, S.T. (2016). Promote up, ingratiate down: Status comparisons drive
18
warmth-competence tradeoffs in impression management. Journal of Experimental
19
Social Psychology, 64, 27-34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2016.01.004
20
Tesser, A., & Moore, J. (1986). On the convergence of public and private aspects of self. In R. F.
21
Baumeister (Ed.), Public Self and Private Self (pp. 99-116). New York: Springer-Verlag.
22
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3212778

SELF-REPETITION DECREASES AUTHENTICITY
57
Tetlock, P.E. (2002). Social functionalist frameworks for judgment and choice: intuitive
1
politicians, theologians, and prosecutors. Psychological Review, 109(3), 451-471.
2
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.109.3.451
3
Turnley, W. H., & Bolino, M. C. (2001). Achieving desired images while avoiding undesired
4
images: exploring the role of self-monitoring in impression management. Journal of
5
Applied Psychology, 86(2), 351-360. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.86.2.351
6
Vohs, K. D., Baumeister, R. F., & Ciarocco, N. J. (2005). Self-regulation and self-presentation:
7
regulatory resource depletion impairs impression management and effortful self-
8
presentation depletes regulatory resources. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
9
88(4), 632-657. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.88.4.632
10
Wagner, T., Lutz, R.J., & Weitz, B.A. (2009). Corporate hypocrisy: Overcoming the threat of
11
inconsistent corporate social responsibility perceptions. Journal of Marketing, 73(6), 77-
12
91. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.73.6.77
13
Wang, N. (1999). Rethinking authenticity in tourism experience. Annals of Tourism Research,
14
26(2), 349-370. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0160-7383(98)00103-0
15
Wasserman, E. (2012, July 5). What’s wrong with “plagiarizing” your own work? Huffinton
16
Post, Retrieved from: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/edwardwasserman/jonah-lehrer-
17
plagiarism_b_1643381.html
18
Wood, A. M., Linley, P. A., Maltby, J., Baliousis, M., & Joseph, S. (2008). The authentic
19
personality: A theoretical and empirical conceptualization and the development of the
20
Authenticity Scale. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 55(3), 385-399.
21
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.55.3.385
22
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3212778

SELF-REPETITION DECREASES AUTHENTICITY
58
Yang, F., Shaw, A., Garduno, E., & Olson, K.R. (2014). No one likes a copycat: A cross-cultural
1
investigation of children’s response to plagiarism. Journal of Experimental Child
2
Psychology, 121, 111-119. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2013.11.008
3
Yoon, Y., Gürhan-Canli, Z., & Schwarz, N. (2006). The effect of corporate social responsibility
4
(CSR) activities on companies with bad reputations. Journal of Consumer Psychology,
5
16(4), 377-390. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327663jcp1604_9
6
7
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3212778

SELF-REPETITION DECREASES AUTHENTICITY
59
Footnotes
1
1We draw from Goffman’s definition of performance to refer to “all activity of an
2
individual which occurs during a period marked by [the individual’s] continuous presence before
3
a particular set of observers and which has some influence on observers.” (1959, p. 22)
4
2Our focus is on how lay people (i.e., observers) form assessments of an individual’s
5
authenticity. However, authenticity can be examined in other ways, such as a self-perceived trait
6
(Kernis & Goldman, 2006; Sheldon et al., 1997; Wood et al., 2008) or as a state (Sedikides et al.,
7
2017; Sedikides, Lenton, Slabu, & Thomaes, 2018). We acknowledge that these prior
8
conceptualizations of authenticity might differ from how lay people form impressions of others.
9
Individuals could feel authentic as they express themselves, while observers might fail to reach
10
the same conclusion, as the internal cues that provide valid inferences within the individuals may
11
correspond imperfectly with the external cues to which observers respond. Conversely, an
12
individual could feel inauthentic or even knowingly convey a misrepresentation of self that
13
observers may perceive as an authentic presentation. In this article, we focus on how observers
14
infer the authenticity of a performer when they observe the performer repeat a performance.
15
3Because this study used a well-known comedian, we also performed the mediation
16
analysis including familiarity with the comedian as a covariate and found the same pattern
17
(indirect effect = -.23, SE = .06, 95% CI = [-.35, -.13]). When controlling for previous liking of
18
the comedian (contingent on already being familiar with the comedian), the mediating role of
19
authenticity on behavioral intentions also remained significant (indirect effect = -.17, SE = .05,
20
95% CI = [-.29, -.08]).
21
22
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3212778

SELF-REPETITION DECREASES AUTHENTICITY
60
Figure 1. Authenticity perceptions by repetition and statement by performer (control vs.
acknowledgment).
4.69 4.64
4.05
4.63
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Control Acknowledge
Authenticity (1-7)
No-Repeat
Repeat
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3212778

SELF-REPETITION DECREASES AUTHENTICITY
61
Figure 2. Authenticity perceptions by repetition and statement by performer (control vs. lie vs.
acknowledgment).
4.68
4.24
4.81
3.98
3.33
4.74
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Control Lie Acknowledge
Authenticity (1-7)
No-Repeat
Repeat
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3212778

SELF-REPETITION DECREASES AUTHENTICITY
62
Figure 3. Authenticity perceptions by repetition and performance constraint (control vs. required
script).
5.08
4.29
3.89 3.71
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Control Required Script
Authenticity (1-7)
Performance Constraint
No-Repeat
Repeat
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3212778

SELF-REPETITION DECREASES AUTHENTICITY
63
Figure 4. Authenticity judgments of participants who viewed 1st, 2nd, and 3rd performance in
Study 6a.
5.28 5.14 5.39
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
1st 2nd 3rd
Authenticity (1-7)
Takes Viewed by Unaware Observers
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3212778

SELF-REPETITION DECREASES AUTHENTICITY
64
APPENDIX: ADDITIONAL STUDIES
Appendix Study 1:
Study 4a Replication
Method
We recruited 398 participants from Amazon’s Mechanical Turk. 74 failed attention
checks, leaving us with 324 eligible participants (45.99% Female, Mage = 36.17). We used the
same tour guide scenario as in Study 3, except we varied whether the tour guide acknowledged
that she repeats the jokes on the tour or omitted that information.
In a 2 (repetition: no-repeat vs. repeat) x 2 (statement by performer: control vs.
acknowledgement) between-subjects design, participants viewed the tour guide telling a joke
either once or twice. In both the control and acknowledgement conditions, participants viewed
the same picture of a tour guide in front of Big Ben and wording as used in Study 3. Those in the
acknowledgement condition additionally viewed the tour guide prefacing her joke with, “As I
always say,” as opposed to “Now for the joke I always tell on tour”. We measured participants
perception of the tour guide’s authenticity using the three-item scale (α = .96).
Results
A between-subjects ANOVA revealed a marginally significant two-way interaction of
repeated performance and statement by performer, F(1, 323) = 3.36, p = .068. There was also a
significant main effect of repeated performance, F(1, 323) = 10.62, p = .001, and a
nonsignificant main effect of statement by performer, F(1, 323) = 2.44, p = .119. As with
previous studies, in the control condition participants rated the tour guide as less authentic when
they viewed a self-repetition (Mrepeat = 4.58, SD = 1.47) versus when they only viewed one
performance (Mno-repeat = 5.35, SD = 1.29), F(1, 320) = 14.24, p < .001, d = .56. However, when
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3212778

SELF-REPETITION DECREASES AUTHENTICITY
65
the tour guide acknowledged that she repeats her performance, there was no difference in
perceived authenticity (Mrepeat = 5.09, SD = 1.28, Mno-repeat = 5.31, SD = 1.32), F(1, 320) =
.93, p = .34 (see Figure A1).
Figure A1. Authenticity perceptions by repetition and statement by performer (control vs.
acknowledge).
Discussion
In line with our predictions and with the results from Study 4, when performers openly
acknowledged that they were self-repeating (i.e., As I always say), the negative effect of self-
repetition on authenticity attenuated. In contrast, when performers omitted this information,
consistent with previous studies, self-repetition decreased authenticity assessments.
Appendix Study 2:
Performer Perceptions from Interview Clips used in Studies 6a and 6b
Method
5.25 5.31
4.58
5.09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Control Acknowledge
Authenticity (1-7)
No-Repeat
Repeat
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3212778

SELF-REPETITION DECREASES AUTHENTICITY
66
Following the interview, interviewees were then asked the following questions in random
order. To measure authenticity perceptions, we used three items that paralleled the composite
measure of authenticity in Study 1 (e.g., With each recording, did you feel you got more or less
authentic? (1 = Definitely Less Authentic, 4 = No Difference; 7 = Definitely More Authentic); α =
.85). We also asked interviewees to make a categorical judgment of authenticity with the
following two questions: Which response do you think was your most authentic?
(First/Second/Third) and Which response do you think was your least authentic?
(First/Second/Third).
As exploratory measures, we also asked: With each recording, did you feel you got better
or worse? (1 = Definitely Worse, 4 = No Difference; 7 = Definitely Better); Which response do
you think was your best? (First/Second/Third); Which response do you think was your worst?
(First/Second/Third). We also asked two additional questions about the experience: How much
effort did you put into your responses? (1= Very Little Effort, 7= Very Much Effort) and How
uncomfortable were you as you gave your responses? (1= Not at all Uncomfortable, 7 =
Extremely Uncomfortable).
Results
We were first interested in the interviewees’ perceptions of their own authenticity. A one
sample t-test against the midpoint of the scale (4) of the continuous authenticity composite
revealed that interviewees felt that with each recording they became less authentic (M = 3.13, SD
= 1.03, mid-point = 4), t(43) = -5.62, p < .001. Further, using a likelihood ratio test on the
categorical measures of authenticity, we found that significantly more participants (81.8%)
believed their 1st take was the most authentic (2nd = 13.6%; 3rd = 4.5%), χ2(2) = 45.96, p <
.001. Consistent with these results, we also found that significantly more participants (75%)
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3212778

SELF-REPETITION DECREASES AUTHENTICITY
67
believed their 3rd take was the least authentic (1st = 11.4%; 2nd = 13.6%), χ2(2) = 32.03, p <
.001 (see Figure A2 for categorical results).
To note, interviewees reported that their performance became directionally better as they
repeated their responses (M = 4.40, SD = 1.50, mid-point = 4), t(39) = 1.69, p = .10. However,
we found no reliable difference among which of the three takes interviewees believed was their
best take (1st = 29.5%, 2nd = 40.9%, 3rd = 29.5%), χ2(2) = 1.10, p = .58. We also found no
difference among which of the three takes interviewees believed was their worst take (1st
=29.5%, 2nd = 38.6%, 3rd = 31.8%), χ2(2) = .58, p = .75.
We also note that interviewees felt less than moderate levels of discomfort during this
experience (M = 3.38, SD = 1.75, mid-point = 4), t(39) = -2.26, p = .03 and reported that they put
a moderate level of effort into their responses (M = 3.63, SD = 1.46, mid-point = 4), t(38) = -
1.64, p = .11.
Figure A2. Categorical results for authenticity by interviewees in study 6a.
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
Most Authentic Least Authentic
% of Interviewees
1st 2nd 3rd
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3212778