Authenticity

Authenticity can be defined as “expressing one’s true self by acting in accordance with one’s true desires, motives, ideals, and beliefs” (Varga & Guignon, 2023)1. Following Heidegger, it is something like “owning what one is and does” (Varga & Guignon, 2023). Trilling (1972)2 simply defined it as staying “true to oneself.” For practical reasons, the following definition is used within the Social 5:

Authenticity is saying and doing what one truly thinks and feels is the right thing to say or do.

It is common for people to deviate from being authentic depending on the situation.

The Asch Line-Judgment Studies (1951)3, for example, demonstrated how people often conform to a group’s incorrect judgments even when the correct answer is completely obvious. The Stanford Prison Experiment (1971)4 illustrated how easily people abandon their normal and authentic understanding of appropriate behavior and live out the roles assigned to them, even when it means dehumanizing others. The Milgram Experiment (1963)5 showed how people were willing to follow external authority figures over their own consciences (i.e., their authentic points of view), even to the extent of administering painful and potentially deadly electric shocks to others.

Groupthink refers to a common way of thinking in which maintaining group cohesion and solidarity is more important than realistically considering the facts. Marques et al.’s (1988)6 “Black Sheep Effect” shows that individuals who conform strongly to a group’s values are often evaluated more positively by the group, whereas those who deviate—even slightly—are judged more harshly.

Aligning our words, behaviors, and even values with those of a group—while neglecting our own—has adaptive value in some sense. In our evolutionary past, being an integral part of a group enhanced our chances for survival and reproduction (e.g., Lidfors, 2021)7. However, being an integral part of a group usually means adjusting (often copying) the group’s behaviors and values. Even nowadays, groups often punish and ostracize people who don’t play by their rules (Marques et al., 20018; Schachter, 19519), which in less civilized times could have meant nothing less than death. No wonder the emotional pressure to conform to a group can be enormous, pushing completely normal people to take part in—or stay silent about—horrendous acts of cruelty (just think about the Holocaust).

Therefore, authenticity can be viewed as one antidote to groupthink, external manipulation, and maybe even a dystopian future in general. Keep in mind: it can be polarizing when you express your honest point of view. Don’t be surprised when people take offense, especially when your honest expression conflicts with the prevalent status quo. Some people might judge you, ignore you, or even try to ostracize you in extreme cases. Yet—and this is important—others will like you a lot more than if you had not expressed yourself openly.

One cognitive distortion is believing that people already have a good sense of who we are. This is a form of personalization, and the idea that the world revolves around us and everyone surely knows and sees us, while in reality, it seems more accurate that everyone is often so busy with themselves that they hardly see our “real selves.” When you express yourself openly and freely, you at least give people a better chance to get to know your true self. Expressing yourself openly is an antidote to loneliness because if you do not reveal your true self, it will likely feel as though nobody is close to you—simply because nobody can be. If you prevent people from coming close to you by hiding yourself, your relationships will likely lack depth and may feel unfulfilling.

If you had to decide between being tolerated by almost everyone but not feeling acknowledged, or being dismissed by some people but feeling better understood and seen by others, which option would you take? Decide for yourself—though this is an overdramatized black-and-white example, it’s worth considering the very real risks of being inauthentic and not expressing your “true self.”

Exercises to practice authenticity

1.

For the next week, whenever someone asks you something or says or does something to you, pause for a moment and ask yourself: “What do I really think about this? What would I truly like to say or do right now?” Then say or do it unless it is obviously hurtful.

When you notice that your authentic expressions are often aggressive and tend to hurt others, the other Social 5 exercises can help, especially the ones relating to empathy, appreciation, and confrontational ability.

Count the times when you didn’t say or do what you truly wanted, and track the number somewhere. Aim to reduce it day by day.

Reflect on the situations in which you were inauthentic and ask yourself why. Are there underlying issues causing your inauthenticity? If so, address them—when needed with the support of a psychological counselor or therapist.

2.

Ask yourself with everything you do: “Why am I doing this? Is this aligned with what I want to achieve, with my values and beliefs?”

If it’s not, stop doing it. It’s as simple as that. However, sometimes addiction, trauma, and difficult life situations pose a serious challenge to this. A helpful way to deal with resistance and manage the urge to engage in behaviors that clash with our core values is by using the naming and breathing meditations mentioned in the Quick Aid section. Practicing these exercises the moment we feel the pull to do something that wouldn’t be fully authentic can help break reactive behavioral patterns and empower us to choose more freely what we are going to do.

How much suffering, depression, and regret do you have to live through until you finally say, “Enough is enough—I’m done hurting and neglecting myself”?

← Back: Social Skills

Next: Self-Fulfillment →

Sources
  1. Varga, S., & Guignon, C. (2023). Authenticity. In E. N. Zalta & U. Nodelman (Eds.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2023 Edition). Retrieved from https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2023/entries/authenticity/ ↩︎
  2. Trilling, L. (1972). Sincerity and authenticity. Harvard University Press. ↩︎
  3. Asch, S. E. (1951). Effects of group pressure upon the modification and distortion of judgments. In H. Guetzkow (Ed.), Groups, leadership and men; research in human relations (pp. 177–190). Carnegie Press. ↩︎
  4. Haney, C., Banks, W. C., & Zimbardo, P. G. (1973). “Interpersonal dynamics in a simulated prison.” International Journal of Criminology and Penology, 1, 69-97. ↩︎
  5. Milgram, S. (1963). Behavioral Study of obedience. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67(4), 371–378. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0040525 ↩︎
  6. Marques, J.M., Yzerbyt, V.Y. and Leyens, J.-P. (1988), The “Black Sheep Effect”: Extremity of judgments towards ingroup members as a function of group identification. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol., 18: 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2420180102 ↩︎
  7. Lidfors, L.M. (2021). Living in Groups. In: Shackelford, T.K., Weekes-Shackelford, V.A. (eds) Encyclopedia of Evolutionary Psychological Science. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-19650-3_2698 ↩︎
  8. Marques, J. M., Abrams, D., & Serĵdio, R. G. (2001). Being better by being right: subjective group dynamics and derogation of in-group deviants when generic norms are undermined. Journal of personality and social psychology, 81(3), 436–447. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.81.3.436 ↩︎
  9. Schachter, S. (1951). Deviation, rejection, and communication. Journal of abnormal psychology, 46(2), 190–207. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0062326 ↩︎
Scroll to Top