An Investigation of the Predictive Role of Authenticity on Subjective Vitality.

AbstractThis study aims to determine the relationship between authenticity and subjective vitality among university students in Turkey. The study was carried out with 284 university students (164 female, 120 male, M age = 19.91 years, SD = 1.79, and age range: 17-30). Participants completed the Turkish version of the Authenticity Scale and Subjective Vitality Scale. To test the relationships between authenticity arid subjective vitality, Pearson product-moment correlation and hierarchical regression analyses, as well as bootstrapping, were applied. In the correlation analysis, subjective vitality was negatively associated with the accepting external influences and self-alienation dimensions of authenticity and positively associated with the authentic living dimension of authenticity. The hierarchical regression analysis involved authentic living, self-alienation, and accepting external influence as predictors of subjective vitality and accounted for 31 % of the variance in subjective vitality; results were discussed in related previous authenticity and subjective vitality literature.KeywordsAuthentic Living, Accepting External Influence, Bootstrapping, Self-Alienation, Subjective Vitality.The idea of the true self and authenticity has long been of interest to philosophers, psychologists, and sociologists. But only in recent years has the concept of authenticity received significant attention from researchers due to the rise of positive psychology. Positive psychology attaches particular importance to the concept of authenticity for understanding a meaningful life, since it is seen as one of the most important forms of an optimally functioning person. Scholars have posited a number of definitions for authenticity over the years. The statement of ££to thine own self be true" was point of departure for the conception of authenticity in ancient Greek philosophy (Harter, 2002). Kernis (2003) defines authenticity as the unobstructed operation of one's true or core self in one's daily enterprise and specified four discriminable components of authenticity: action, awareness, unbiased processing, and relational orientation. Authenticity can also be defined as approving and representing one's true self, values, beliefs, and behaviors to oneself and others, representing oneself sincerely (Snyder & Lopez, 2009), and speaking truthfully; but more precisely, it means presenting oneself in a genuine way, behaving honestly; being truthful; and taking responsibility for one's emotions and actions (Peterson & Park, 2004). According to Bialystok (2009), authenticity can be defined as concord between how someone presents himself and what he actually is. Harter (2002) defines authenticity as an individual's ability to understand and own his or her thoughts, emotions, needs, wants, beliefs, and preferences, while behaving consistently with his or her inner thoughts and feelings.Expressing oneself in a confident and sincere manner in interpersonal relationships has been accepted as adaptive behavior for a long time (Harbus, 2002). In this respect, authenticity is seen as a lifelong process in which individuals becomes aware of their personal potential and behave in accordance with their potential (Starr, 2008). Following Barrett-Lennard's (1998) conceptualization, Wood, Linley, Maltby, Baliousis, and Joseph (2008) defined authenticity along with self-alienation, accepting external influence, and authentic living. According to Wood et al., people who accept external influences more readily have a tendency to become detached and self-alienated, while those who admit fewer external influences lead more authentic lives.In the early development of authenticity, Avolio, Gardner, Walumbwa, Luthans, and May (2004) defined authenticity as being loyal to oneself; they introduced a set of behavioral characteristics of authenticity that include transparency, altruistic actions, and behavioral consistency. Woodand at al. …