From Authenticity to Dark Authenticity

Being authentic is typically idealized in our culture, and it is generally associated with notions of goodness, purity, self-actualization, and other virtues. However, this conceptualization leaves room for unease, because there are plenty of people who are on the dark spectrum—sociopathic or psychopathic, narcissistic, Machiavellian, or sadistic. They aren't being inauthentic.

Au contraire, we may wish they were less authentic, and to at least pretend to be more interested in others' well-being and the common good. Behaving more agreeably, in fact, over time may reduce dark traits. Walking around knowing there are plenty of wolves dressed as sheep isn't comfortable. On the other hand, for someone who is exploitative and manipulative, being inauthentic may be diabolically, exactly, authentic.

I started thinking about the concept of "dark authenticity", echoing work on "dark empathy." Lo and behold, I found research on just this topic from psychologist Laura Visu-Petra of Babes-Bolyai University in Romania and Ph.D. student Alexandra-Andreea Bulbuc. Visu-Petra studies how individual differences in dark personality traits relate to both authenticity, and the development of prosocial behaviors.

She discussed some of her findings with me.

GHB: What is authenticity? How is it defined, and what are the main elements?

LVP: The very short answer would be that we have not yet agreed on a straightforward definition of authenticity, given its inherently elusive nature. If you stare for a few minutes at your reflection in a large mirror placed in a dimly lit room, you will probably experience what the Italian psychologist Giovanni Caputo termed the strange-face illusion, with bizarre perceptual distortions and a sensation of otherness emanating from your own mirrored image. In a similar vein, if we take a thorough look at our self using our own cognitive abilities, it will most likely elude our grasp and morph into a dissociated mix of our perceptions, ideas, and desires connected to ourselves. Socrates urged us to nevertheless persevere in this inherently distorted self-awareness quest, because “an unexamined life is not worth living."

Besides the purely epistemic motivation (Nosce te ipsum, or know thyself, a prime directive from the Temple of Apollo at Delphi) we have enough evidence by now that an enhanced feeling of connectedness to our self—broadly known as authenticity— supports healthy functioning, from better meditation practices (enhanced nonjudgmental attention) to improved psychological well-being. However, even for the most devout seekers of an authentic life, our moment-to-moment experience of the self is not easily translatable into words and is extremely volatile: “I have already lost touch with a couple of people I used to be" (Joan Didion).

GHB: Is authenticity as simple is being in touch with one's "true self"—or is there more to the story?

LVP: Psychologists have attempted to identify the building blocks that qualify an experience of the self as being authentic by typically asking questions about an individual's self-concept while attempting to uncover their true self. When participants respond to questionnaire items about authenticity, they reflect on their own understanding of themselves, their identity, and their preferences (e.g. “In general, I have a clear sense of who I am and what I am”; “I prefer to ignore my darkest thoughts and feelings”).

Perceiving that one is acting congruently with personal beliefs and intuitions about their true core characteristics is considered one of the main ingredients of authenticity. Besides congruence, the research points to consistency (congruence between internal and external aspects), continuity (across self in time), self-understanding, and self-presentation as important dimensions of authenticity.

Michael H. Kernis and Brian M. Goldman proposed a complex view of authenticity that involves multiple components:

1. Awareness. Becoming aware and accepting the multifaceted, potentially conflicting aspects of self.
2. Unbiased processing. Interpreting self-relevant information without lying to ourselves.
3. Behavior. Relying less on social comparisons and refraining from altering our behavior just to appease others.
4. Relational orientation. Allowing close ones to see the real, unpolished version of ourselves without strategically distorting our behavior to impress others.

This multifaceted model suggests that authenticity is more than finding the perfect match between the external presentation of self and the inner perception of it. Mastering these skills actually allows the individual to maintain a fluent stream of consciousness between the inner and the outer world and to experience a more cohesive personal identity. A previous post of yours has already done a fantastic job of introducing Kernis & Goldman’s model to the readers, so we won't further present it here. This seminal model was also inspirational for our own work on “dark authenticity."

Authenticity Essential Reads

I Hope Brat Summer Never Ends

Change Isn't Always Good for You

Before moving on, a cautionary note about self-proclaimed "highly authentic" people whom we might think aren't affected by biases in how they see or present themselves or are less prone to self-serving distortions. Recent research by William Hart and collaborators challenges that and shows that self-reported highly authentic people can also manipulate their behavior to appear more authentic while feeling completely genuine in this attempt. The authors point to the “moral hypocrisy," with roots in socially (and even evolutionarily) adaptive processes of self-deception and impression management, that characterizes the “authentic hypocrite" who is difficult to expose via conscious self-scrutiny alone.

GHB: What does this moral dilemma mean when it comes to dark personalities?

LVP: Your question brought to mind the inspirational poem titled “The Guy in the Glass," written by the American radio artist and writer Peter Dale Wimbrow in the early 1930s:

When you get what you want in your struggle for self,

And the world makes you King for a day,

Then go to the mirror and look at yourself,

And see what that guy has to say. ....

You can fool the whole world down the pathway of years,

And get pats on the back, as you pass,

But your final reward will be heartaches and tears,

If you’ve cheated the guy in the glass.

The poem uses the same “look in the mirror” metaphor to portray the popular, idealized view of authenticity as the inner moral compass, the virtuous voice that holds us true to our innermost good inclinations. This conveys the humanistic bias that has been pervasive in the literature and research on authenticity, promoting the development of human potential and emphasizing positive mental states, personal strengths, and moral virtues that support personal happiness and communal well-being (the positive psychology bias). Authentically happy individuals, according to psychologist Martin Seligman, are those who develop their distinctive talents and strengths and live a life of higher meaning and purpose within their communities.

GHB: Where does positive psychology potentially miss the mark?

LVP: This skewed view seems to overlook a wide variety of equally powerful inner drives and relevant rewards specific to dark(er) personalities, individuals who display what psychologist Morten Moshagen coined as the "dark factor" of personality: “the tendency to maximize one’s individual utility—disregarding, accepting, or malevolently provoking disutility for others—accompanied by beliefs that serve as justifications." For these individuals, being true to themselves may entail a wide repertoire of morally questionable behaviors, often deemed antisocial, which might lead to an equally strong feeling of authenticity and congruence with their innermost utilitarian drives.

If we fail to acknowledge that individuals can harbor malevolent tendencies within them, we might acquiesce to a widespread, socially-sanctioned epidemic of self-deception. This is what motivated us to consider the concept of “dark authenticity”¹—a term introduced in our recent article to describe the inherently agentic (self-interested, non-communal) tendencies within some individuals.

Laura Visu-Petra coordinates the Research in Individual Differences and Legal Psychology (RiddleLab) and the Legal Psychology Master program at Babes-Bolyai University, Romania. Her research focuses on two converging directions: the development of emotion-cognition interactions across the lifespan and the ways individual differences in dark personality traits relate to deceptive/antisocial acts or can foster authenticity/prosocial behavior. She developed the idea of “dark authenticity” together with Ph.D. student Alexandra-Andreea Bulbuc, whom she co-supervises with Prof. Kimberly Wade from the University of Warwick as part of an EUTOPIA alliance grant. Bulbuc was also involved in elaborating the responses to this interview.