Objective We propose that the experience of state authenticity—the subjective sense of being one's true self—ought to be considered separately from trait authenticity as well as from prescriptions regarding what should make people feel authentic. Methods In Study 1 (N = 104), online participants rated the frequency of and motivation for experiences of authenticity and inauthenticity. Studies 2 (N = 268) and 3 (N = 93) asked (local or online, respectively) participants to describe their experiences of authenticity or inauthenticity. Participants in Studies 1 and 2 also completed measures of trait authenticity, and participants in Study 3 rated their experience with respect to several phenomenological dimensions. Results Study 1 demonstrated that people are motivated to experience state authenticity and avoid inauthenticity and that such experiences are common, regardless of one's degree of trait authenticity. Coding of Study 2's narratives identified the emotions accompanying and needs fulfilled in each state. Trait authenticity generally did not qualify the nature of (in)authentic experiences. Study 3 corroborated the results of Study 2 and further revealed positive mood and nostalgia as consequences of reflecting on experiences of authenticity. Conclusions We discuss implications of these findings for conceptualizations of authenticity and the self.

Three longitudinal studies examine a fundamental question regarding adjustment of personal values to self-chosen life transitions: Do values fit the new life setting already at its onset, implying value-based self-selection? Or do values change to better fit the appropriate and desirable values in the setting, implying value socialization? As people are likely to choose a life transition partly based on their values, their values may fit the new life situation already at its onset, leaving little need for value socialization. However, we propose that this may vary as a function of the extent of change the life transition entails, with greater change requiring more value socialization. To enable generalization, we used 3 longitudinal studies spanning 3 different life transitions and different extents of life changes: vocational training (of new police recruits), education (psychology vs. business students), and migration (from Poland to Britain). Although each life transition involved different key values and different populations, across all 3 studies we found value fit to the life situation already early in the transition. Value socialization became more evident the more aspects of life changed as part of the transition, that is, in the migration transition. The discussion focuses on the implications of these findings for research on values and personality change, as well as limitations and future directions for research.

We examined the components and situational correlates of state authenticity to clarify the construct's meaning and improve understanding of authenticity's attainment. In Study 1, we used the day reconstruction method (participants assessed real‐life episodes from ‘yesterday’) and in Study 2 a smartphone app (participants assessed real‐life moments taking place ‘just now’) to obtain situation‐level ratings of participants' sense of living authentically, self‐alienation, acceptance of external influence, mood, anxiety, energy, ideal‐self overlap, self‐consciousness, self‐esteem, flow, needs satisfaction, and motivation to be ‘real’. Both studies demonstrated that state authentic living does not require rejecting external influence and, further, accepting external influence is not necessarily associated with state self‐alienation. In fact, situational acceptance of external influence was more often related to an increased, rather than decreased, sense of authenticity. Both studies also found state authentic living to be associated with greater, and state self‐alienation with lesser: positive mood, energy, relaxation, ideal‐self overlap, self‐esteem, flow, and motivation for realness. Study 2 further revealed that situations prioritizing satisfaction of meaning/purpose in life were associated with increased authentic living and situations prioritizing pleasure/interest satisfaction were associated with decreased self‐alienation. State authenticity is best characterized by two related yet independent components: authentic living and (absence of) self‐alienation. Copyright © 2015 European Association of Personality Psychology

State authenticity is the sense that one is currently in alignment with one’s true or real self. We discuss state authenticity as seen by independent raters, describe its phenomenology, outline its triggers, consider its well-being and behavioral implications, and sketch out a cross-disciplinary research agenda.

This manuscript has been accepted for publication at Cognition and Emotion. It has yet to go through editorial proofing and, as such, we ask that you do not quote text. The article may be cited however. RUNNING HEAD: Mood and State Authenticity 2 AbstractAlthough the literature has focused on individual differences in authenticity, recent findings suggest that authenticity is sensitive to context; that is, it is also a state. We extended this perspective by examining whether incidental affect influences authenticity. In three experiments, participants felt more authentic when in a relatively positive than negative mood. The causal role of affect in authenticity was consistent across a diverse set of mood inductions, including explicit (Experiments 1 and 3) and implicit (Experiment 2) methods.The link between incidental affect and state authenticity was not moderated by ability to down-regulate negative affect (Experiments 1 and 3) nor was it explained by negative mood increasing private self-consciousness or decreasing access to the self system (Experiment 3).The results indicate that mood is used as information to assess one's sense of authenticity.Keywords: authenticity, self, mood, personality systems interaction theory, affect infusion model, mood as information. Testing the Causal Influence of Mood on State AuthenticityAuthenticity-the sense or belief that one is 'real' or 'true'-is a central construct in the field of positive psychology (Gable & Haidt, 2005;Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi, 2000), as it is thought to confer a variety of psychological benefits (Rogers, 1961;Wood, Linley, Maltby, Baliousis, & Joseph, 2008). Indeed, authentic individuals possess greater self-esteem and positive affect, lesser negative affect (Goldman & Kernis, 2002;Ito & Kodama, 2007; Stephan, , and higher subjective well-being and lower stress (Wood et al., 2008). Clearly, authenticity is associated with a positive affect profile (Lenton, Bruder, Slabu, & Sedikides, 2012).The vast majority of published work views authenticity from a trait perspective. That is, authenticity is typically conceptualized as a stable individual difference, such that some persons are consistently more authentic than others (Goldman & Kernis, 2002;Ito & Kodama, 2005;Kernis & Goldman, 2006;Wood et al., 2008). Supporting this view, variability in dispositional authenticity is in part predicted by variability in the Big Five (especially extraversion, agreeableness, and [inversely] neuroticism; Wood et al., 2008). As a consequence of the dispositional perspective's dominance in the literature, the relation between affect and authenticity has been investigated from a correlational perspective only, with these correlations typically interpreted so that affect is viewed as an outcome of, rather than as input to, authenticity.The aim of the present research was to test directly the converse proposition: that affect can be an input to authenticity. In particular, across three experiments, we investigated the influence of incidental affect or mood 1 on the se...