Not Simply in the Eye of the Beholder: Authenticity as a Product of Candidate Preference and Unfettered Speech

Abstract

Authenticity has emerged over recent decades as a prominent theme in both the press and in political research-and peaked in the 2016 presidential contest that pitted Donald Trump against Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, Marco Rubio, and Ted Cruz. In this context, we attempted to answer the question: How do voters judge a presidential candidate's authenticity? Here we use motivated reasoning and correspondent inference theory as theoretical frameworks to examine how partisan preference combines with perceptions of unfettered speech and strategic impression management to influence voter judgments of a candidate's authenticity. An online survey of 525 respondents demonstrated that individuals' partisan preferences influenced both judgments of a candidate's authenticity and their perceptions of behaviors signifying authenticity (use of unfettered speech versus strategic impression management). These behavioral signals partially mediated the relation between candidate preferences and authenticity judgments. Moreover, voters, given their partisan preferences, differentially weighted candidates' use of unfettered speech and strategic impression management tactics in their judgments of authenticity. Finally, unfiltered/politically incorrect speech was found to have both positive and negative effects on authenticity judgments. Findings further elucidate the nature of authenticity as perceived in others and identify intermediary variables and boundary conditions that influence those perceptions.

Political Authenticity: Conceptualization of a Popular Term

“…Other online or offline authenticity strategies intend to create an image of the politician as a normal person like you and me, whose actions appear spontaneous, intimate, and ordinary (Coleman and Firmstone 2017;Dumitrica 2014;Enli 2015;Gurevitch et al 2009;Sheinheit and Bogard 2016). Most of these strategies have in common that they can help politicians to appear as nonstrategic and non-performative as possible (Pillow et al 2018;Sorensen 2018).…”

“…Perceived political authenticity differs between individuals even when it is based on the same performance (Hahl et al 2018). Scholars have identified political ideology and attitudes (Becker 2018;Brewer et al 2014;Pillow et al 2018;Rosenblum et al 2020), candidate characteristics (Enli and Rosenberg 2018), and media use (Brewer et al 2014) as reasons for intersubjective differences in perceived political authenticity. If people like a given politician, if they are members of the same party or have the same ideology, they are more likely to perceive him or her as authentic (Becker 2018;Brewer et al 2014;Pillow et al 2018;Rosenblum et al 2020).…”

“…Political campaigns aim to establish a consistent political narrative, such as Get Brexit Done, 1 which helps candidates to perform their messages and actions consistent across time and contexts like social media posts, parliament speeches, and TV appearances. Research has shown that performed consistency increases perceived authenticity of politicians (Gaden and Dumitrica 2015;Gilpin et al 2010;Hahl et al 2018;Parry-Giles 2001;Pillow et al 2018;Sheinheit and Bogard 2016;Theye and Melling 2018). Politicians are perceived as authentic if they perform a certain degree of consistency in their personality, opinions, or character (Enli 2015).…”

“…Intimacy is a quality of social relationships that is traditionally associated with the distinction between a private and a public sphere (Ferrara 1993;Raun 2018). In line with this dichotomy, the intimacy dimension of political authenticity corresponds with the metaphor of a politician's backstage persona (Goffman 1959;Pillow et al 2018;Sheinheit and Bogard 2016). Performed or perceived intimacy construct authenticity because one is less subject to public expectations in private settings, making it more likely that people show their real and authentic self (Ferrara 1993;Hans 2017).…”

“…The desire for authenticity also holds true for the political sphere, where it constitutes a prominent narrative in modern political communication. Politicians, the media, and the public refer to the concept of authenticity when they discuss if politicians are true to themselves (Fordahl 2018;Louden and McCauliff 2004;Manning et al 2016;Pillow et al 2018;Potter 2010). While some scholars interpret authenticity as a normative ideal to judge whether politicians are real or fake (Ferrara 1998;Jamieson and Waldman 2003;Jones 2016;Shane 2018), others contest this idealistic notion of authenticity and characterize it as a nostalgic delusion or an indicator of superficiality in the political discourse (Hardt 1993;Serazio 2015).…”