Being Your Actual or Ideal Self? What It Means to Feel Authentic in a Relationship

Abstract

Relational authenticity—which refers to subjective feelings of authenticity in a specific relationship—confers well-being; yet little is known about what gives rise to it. The present research tested competing hypotheses about the basis of relational authenticity, whether it arises from being one’s actual self in a relationship (actual–relational selves overlap), ideal self (relational–ideal selves overlap), or both. A pilot study examined lay beliefs about the basis of relational authenticity. Study 1 then showed that relational–ideal, but not actual–relational, overlap predicts relational authenticity. The remaining studies experimentally manipulated relational–ideal overlap, and showed that low overlap reduced relational authenticity compared with a control condition (Study 2), with varying actual–relational overlap (Study 3), and with varying actual–ideal overlap (Study 4). Several alternative accounts (e.g., negative general relationship perceptions) were addressed. We conclude that relational authenticity emanates largely from being one’s ideal self in the relevant relationship, and discuss implications and future directions.

Keywords

relational authenticity relational self ideal self actual self

Look, in my opinion, the best thing you can do is find a person who loves you for exactly what you are. Good mood, bad mood, ugly, pretty, handsome, what have you . . .

—Mac in Juno (2007)

Relational selves refer to the specific people—our thoughts, feelings, goals, and behaviors—we are in our relationship with particular significant others, such as a romantic partner, friend, or sibling (Andersen & Chen, 2002; Chen, Boucher, & Tapias, 2006; see also Brewer & Gardner, 1996; Klohnen, Weller, Luo, & Choe, 2005; Linardatos & Lydon, 2011; Overall, Fletcher, & Friesen, 2003). As captured in the quote above, conventional wisdom upholds that good relationships rest in finding significant others with whom we can be our actual selves—that is, relationships in which who we are and how we act in general (Higgins, 1987) overlap with the relevant relational self. The present research puts this popular sentiment to test. In doing so, we looked to a small but growing literature on relational authenticity, which refers to subjective feelings of authenticity in a given relationship. Substantial theory and research indicate that the impact of relational selves on day-to-day functioning is wide-ranging (Chen, Boucher, & Kraus, 2011; Chen, Boucher, & Tapais, 2006), and that relational authenticity has many benefits, including greater relationship satisfaction and self-disclosure (Lopez & Rice, 2006), less depression (Theran, 2011), and higher self-esteem (Impett, Sorsoli, Schooler, Henson, & Tolman, 2008).¹ Yet, little is known about what promotes or undermines relational authenticity. By tackling this important question, the present research helps to fill important gaps, as well as raise novel questions, in the literatures on authenticity, the self-concept, and close relationships.

Relational Selves Matter

Most people would agree that they behave differently with their parents than with their friends, with their friends than with their romantic partner, with their older brother than with their younger brother, and so on. When Joe visits his domineering parents, the assertiveness he shows around his friends and colleagues is replaced by a more submissive demeanor. When Sarah is with her best friend, she “lets her hair down,” revealing thoughts, feelings, and behaviors reserved just for this friend. It is not uncommon for people to believe that a particular significant other brings out the best or worst in them. These examples speak to the special nature of who we are when interacting with specific significant others. Aspects of the self that come into play in such interactions constitute what are known as relational selves (Andersen & Chen, 2002; Chen et al., 2006).

The notion that the self is fundamentally social is as old as the discipline of psychology itself (James, 1890; Rosenberg, 1973), but it was not until the 1990s (Markus & Cross, 1990), spurred on by the rise of cultural perspectives on the self-concept (Brewer & Gardner, 1996; Markus & Kitayama, 1991) and cross-fertilization between the close relationships and social cognition literatures (Baldwin, 1992; Chen & Andersen, 1999), that social psychologists began to explore the impact of significant others on the self in earnest. The upshot of what is now a large literature is that relational selves are frequently active, shaping our thoughts, feelings, goals, and behaviors not only in interactions with significant others but also in interactions with people who somehow remind us, often nonconsciously, of these others (Chen, Boucher, Andersen, & Saribay, 2013; Chen, Fitzsimons, & Andersen, 2006). Thus, in daily life, the working self-concept (Markus & Wurf, 1987) is often infused with aspects of the selves we are with our significant others, making the study of processes and phenomena related to relational selves essential for obtaining a full understanding of the self.

The present research focused on the authenticity people experience with regard to their relational selves. Relational authenticity refers to subjective feelings of authenticity in the context of a specific relationship. How authentic does Joe feel with his parents? Does Sarah feel a sense of authenticity when with her best friend? Substantial theory and research exist on authenticity in general (e.g., Deci & Ryan, 1985; Harter, 2002; Kernis & Goldman, 2005; Swann, De La Ronde, & Hixon, 1994), but far less attention has been given to relational authenticity. Although relational authenticity has been shown to contribute to general authenticity, it is also regarded as a distinct construct. Kernis and Goldman (2006) conceptually (and in their measurement tool, the “Authenticity Inventory”) view authenticity as composed of four components—awareness, unbiased processing, behavior, and relational orientation—the last of which pertains explicitly to relational authenticity. They show that authenticity has multiple facets, which are correlated but empirically separable, implying that although the different components of authenticity may typically go hand in hand, theoretically one can be both high and low on different components of authenticity. For instance, someone might score high on the awareness component (i.e., possess a high level of self-understanding), but be low in behavior (i.e., low in actual enactment of authentic behavior) or relational orientation (i.e., low in being authentic in the context of one’s close relationships). In short, relational authenticity (or “relational orientation” to use Kernis and Goldman’s term) typically contributes to a person’s dispositional level of authenticity, but is not the sole determinant of trait authenticity.

In addition to its contributions to general authenticity, it is important to study relational authenticity because of its potential downstream effects on well-being. First, wide-ranging theory and research indicate that general (trait) authenticity leads to a broad range of positive well-being consequences. From Kernis and Goldman’s (2006) perspective, as one of four contributors to general authenticity, relational authenticity should have bearing on well-being outcomes. Focusing specifically on relational orientation, Kernis and Goldman (2006) argue that “we would expect that high relational orientation relates to valuing and behaviorally engaging in intimate self-disclosures with partners . . . less game-playing (ludus) and manipulativeness in close relationships, and less idealization of one’s relationship or relationship partner” (p. 343). Empirically, Kernis and colleagues (as reported in Kernis & Goldman, 2006) show that higher scores on the Relational Orientation subscale of the Authenticity Inventory are linked to more adaptive relationship tendencies, including higher secure attachment and lower rejection sensitivity. Although the causal direction of these links was not established in this work, it seems reasonable to surmise that, for instance, having a secure attachment makes one more inclined to be authentic with significant others, just as relational authenticity likely breeds a sense of attachment security. However, before research delves further into how relational authenticity can contribute to greater general authenticity and its implications for well-being, it is important to obtain a clearer understanding of the basis of relational authenticity—that is, what enhances or detracts from subjective feelings of authenticity in one’s relationships in the first place.

Relational Authenticity: Rooted in Overlap Between Actual and Relational Selves or Between Relational and Ideal Selves?

As suggested at the outset, a strong contender for what it means to feel relationally authentic is when a person’s relational self approximates his or her actual self—who he or she is in general, across most contexts. In colloquial terms, relational authenticity may arise from being able to “be yourself” with a significant other. The items in existing scales that assess relational authenticity support this view. For example, the Authenticity in Relationships Scale (Lopez & Rice, 2006) includes the item “I am basically the same person with my partner as I am with other people I care about.” Also suggesting that relational authenticity hinges on alignment between one’s relational and actual selves, Sheldon, Ryan, Rawsthorne, and Ilardi (1997) find that people reported greater authenticity within each of their life roles (e.g., student, friend) to the extent that their self in each role matched their general personality traits. To the best of our knowledge, however, these correlational findings stand alone on the question of what constitutes the basis of relational authenticity. In the present research, we experimentally tested whether people experience greater (lesser) relational authenticity when there is more (less) overlap between their actual and relational selves.

At the same time, we explored a competing perspective—that relational authenticity is derived from feeling like a relationship brings out one’s ideal self, the self that embodies one’s hopes, aspirations, and wishes (Higgins, 1987). This hypothesis may seem less intuitive, but various strands of theory and evidence lend credence to it. In particular, humanistic theories (Maslow, 1968; Rogers, 1961) posit that behaviors that produce growth increase authenticity. Relationships constitute a key forum for growth insofar as they provide the resources, perspectives, and identities of relationship partners (Aron & Aron, 1986). Research showing that romantically involved individuals report greater proximity to their ideal selves than their counterparts who are not in a romantic relationship (Campbell, Sedikides, & Bosson, 1994) also suggests that relationship partners have the capacity to enhance growth. Finally, Fleeson and Wilt’s (2010) work on what contributes to feelings of general authenticity is applicable. They showed that feelings of authenticity correlated more with behaving in line with what is regarded as a “positive” trait profile (e.g., behaving in an extroverted fashion) than with behaving consistently with one’s own trait profile (e.g., an introvert behaving in an introverted fashion). Together, these various strands of research bolster the possibility that relational authenticity arises from feeling like the person one is in a relationship approaches one’s ideal self.

Thus, we tested competing hypotheses about the basis of relational authenticity—that it emerges from overlap between one’s actual and relational selves (i.e., when one is able to be his or her actual self in the relevant relationship) versus overlap between one’s relational and ideal selves (i.e., when one is able to be his or her ideal self in the relevant relationship). Although both forms of overlap may increase relational authenticity, we disentangled the two so as to examine the unique role of each form of overlap.

Related Literatures

The present studies are theoretically related to, but distinct from, research on self-discrepancy theory, self-verification theory, and the Michelangelo phenomenon. Self-discrepancy theory (Higgins, 1987) posits that discrepancies between ideal (self-aspects that embody one’s hopes and aspirations) and actual selves, as well as between ought (self-aspects that embody one’s duties and obligations) and actual selves, have specific emotional and motivational consequences. For example, when actual–ideal discrepancies are made salient—a person is thinking about how his actual self falls short of his hopes and aspirations—dejection-related emotions such as disappointment ensue. In the present studies, we examined overlap between relational selves and other aspects of the self. Such overlap can be understood in discrepancy terms (e.g., high overlap corresponds to a small discrepancy), but the present focus was on the implications of overlap/discrepancy for relational authenticity, not for particular emotions or motivational orientations. The notion that discrepancies involving relational selves may exist and carry psychological weight certainly suggests novel questions about possible emotional and motivational implications associated with relational selves, but again, such questions depart from the current focus.

Self-verification theory argues that people want others, especially long-term, close relationship partners, to see them the way they see themselves, even for negative self-views (Swann, 1983). Among married couples, for those with negative self-views, the more negatively their partner viewed them, the more intimate they felt in that relationship (Swann et al., 1994). Based on such findings, one might posit that the more one’s own and one’s partner’s perceptions of the self overlap, the more relationally authentic people feel. This is an interesting hypothesis,² but it is not our focus. Rather, we examined self-perceptions exclusively and how self-perceived overlap between various self-aspects (i.e., actual–relational overlap vs. relational–ideal overlap) affects relational authenticity. Theory and research on self-verification (e.g., Swann, 1990; Swann, Bosson, & Pelham, 2002; Swann et al., 1994) do, however, speak to the basic importance of studying relational authenticity. This body of work suggests that feeling authentic (or not) in relation to one’s significant others has consequences for relationship intimacy and longevity. The majority of work on self-verification theory has focused not on “relational selves” or “relational authenticity” per se, but on people’s subjective sense that significant others view them authentically—that is, as they view themselves. Given that the selves that significant others observe and interact with often reflect relational selves (e.g., Andersen & Chen, 2002), this would imply that, in fact, it may often be relational authenticity in the form of relational self-verification—feeling as if one’s relational self is being seen authentically by significant others—that bears on relationship intimacy and longevity.

The Michelangelo phenomenon refers to processes by which relationship partners bring one another closer to their ideal self (Drigotas, Rusbult, Wieselquist, & Whitton, 1999). The idea is that when relationship partners perceive us in a manner congruent with our ideal selves, they behave toward us in ways that elicit these ideal versions of ourselves. For example, imagine Alex’s ideal self is to be self-sufficient, and his partner Jamie actually sees him as in this way. When Alex asks Jamie for help on tasks Jamie believes Alex can manage on his own, Jamie is likely to encourage Alex to do the tasks independently. Accordingly, Alex does more on his own and, over time, comes to feel more self-sufficient. Applied to the current studies, the Michelangelo phenomenon informs the processes through which people’s relational and ideal selves, or actual and ideal selves, might come to overlap. Again, however, the present focus is on the implications of such overlap or lack thereof for one’s relational authenticity.

Overview of Studies

Across five studies, we examined the basis of relational authenticity: being one’s actual self (i.e., actual–relational selves overlap, hereafter referred to as actual–relational overlap) or ideal self (i.e., relational–ideal selves overlap, hereafter referred to as relational–ideal overlap) in the relevant relationship. To provide some initial assurance of the viability of both hypotheses, but particularly the latter given the lack of precedence for it, we conducted a pilot study that assessed lay beliefs about the basis or bases of relational authenticity. Then, in Study 1, participants rated how similar their actual, ideal, and relational selves were to one another and reported their relational authenticity. Building on Study 1, the remaining studies experimentally tested the hypothesis that relational–ideal overlap affects relational authenticity. Study 2 experimentally manipulated relational–ideal overlap and measured state relational authenticity. Study 3 crossed a low- versus high-overlap manipulation with a manipulation of overlap between actual and relational selves versus relational and ideal selves to address the notion that overlap between any pair of self-aspects elicits positivity that is then reflected in greater relational authenticity. Finally, Study 4 replicated and extended Studies 2 and 3 by examining whether relational authenticity is derived uniquely from one’s relational self matching one’s ideal self, as opposed to having any self-aspect match one’s ideals.

Across studies, we aimed for a minimum of 75 participants per condition, 1.5 times the recommended minimum of 50 per condition given concerns about the replicability of underpowered research (Simmons, Nelson, & Simonsohn, 2013). We included attention-check questions (e.g., Please leave the answer to this question blank or please select “strongly disagree,” for quality assurance purposes) to weed out inattentive participants. Across studies, we excluded participants who failed more than half³ of attention-check questions from our analyses. Factoring in that, on average, 15% of Amazon’s Mechanical Turk (MTurk; see Buhrmester, Kwang, & Gosling, 2011) participants from published papers are excluded for attention reasons (Chandler, Mueller, & Paolacci, 2014); we adjusted the number of participants we recruited accordingly. Finally, Studies 1 to 4 included various exploratory measures that are not discussed further as they are not central to the main hypotheses. A complete list of all measures can be found in the Online Supplementary Materials.

Pilot Study: What Are Lay Beliefs About the Basis of Relational Authenticity?

Participants in this pilot study rated how important they believe actual–relational overlap, as well as relational–ideal overlap, are for relational authenticity. As noted, the goal was to obtain preliminary support for the viability of both actual–relational and relational–ideal overlap as bases of relational authenticity. Although our hunch was that relational–ideal overlap is as likely a basis as actual–relational overlap, we speculated that lay beliefs may show greater support for the more culturally popular notion that relational authenticity arises from overlap between actual and relational selves.

Method

Participants

Three hundred fourteen participants were recruited online via Amazon’s MTurk for a study on “beliefs about romantic relationships,” and were compensated for their participation (see Buhrmester et al., 2011, on the adequacy of using MTurk). Across all studies, we asked that only those who were currently in an exclusive romantic relationship participate. We embedded an attention-check question (i.e., Please select “not at all important” for this question) and excluded the 25 participants (8% of the overall sample) who failed this attention check. The remaining 289 participants (163 females) ranged in age from 18 to 75 years (M = 34.44, SD = 10.61). The length of participants’ romantic relationships ranged from 0.08 to 42.08 years (M = 6.54, SD = 7.11), and 42.4% reported being married.

Procedure

Participants read,

What contributes to your feeling authentic in your romantic relationship? That is, how much does each of the following contribute to you feeling like who you are around your romantic partner is an expression of your true inner feelings, attitudes, and beliefs? For each item below, please rate the extent to which it contributes to you feeling authentic in your romantic relationship.

In a randomized order, participants rated each of nine aspects on a 9-point Likert-type scale (1 = not at all important for feeling authentic in your relationship to 9 = extremely important for feeling authentic in your relationship).

Among these nine aspects, actual–relational overlap was assessed with “Being able to be your general, everyday self (outside of your relationship) with your partner,” “Being able to more or less be the same person with your partner as you are with other people,” and “Being able to express who you are on a daily basis (outside of your relationship) within your relationship” (α = .78). The items used to measure relational–ideal overlap were “Being closer to your ideal self—who you wish and hope to be in general (outside of your relationship)—with your partner,” “Being the best version of yourself with your partner,” and “Being more like your ideal self when you’re with your partner” (α = .84). These items were embedded among three appreciation fillers (e.g., “Being appreciated by your partner” and “Being acknowledged by your partner for the nice things you do for him/her”). After rating the nine aspects, participants were asked to directly compare what is more important to them for feeling authentic in their romantic relationship: being closer to one’s ideal self with one’s partner or being able to be one’s general, everyday self with one’s partner. Upon completion, participants reported their demographics and were debriefed.

Results and Brief Discussion

A paired samples t test revealed that actual–relational overlap (M = 8.00, SD = 1.11) was judged to be significantly more important than relational–ideal overlap for relationship authenticity (M = 7.61, SD = 1.45), t(288) = 5.00, p < .001, d = 0.30, 95% confidence interval [CI] of the difference [0.24, 0.54]. In addition, in the forced-choice comparison between actual–relational versus relational–ideal overlap, a one-sample binomial test revealed that there was a significant difference in what participants chose to be more important for relational authenticity (p < .001). Viewed another way, 70% of participants picked actual–relational overlap as more important for relational authenticity than relational–ideal overlap. All of the above said, the mean rating of the importance of relational–ideal overlap for relational authenticity was in and of itself quite high (M = 7.61 on a 9-point scale), giving merit to the notion that relational authenticity has some basis in one’s ideal self, even though the prevailing lay belief appears to be that such overlap is less important for relational authenticity than being able to express one’s actual self in a relationship. The remaining studies directly tested the role of each form of overlap in relational authenticity.

Study 1: What Predicts Relational Authenticity?

In Study 1, participants described their actual, ideal, and relational selves and then rated the similarity among these selves. Then, they completed a measure of relational authenticity alongside a set of relationship well-being measures, which were included to distinguish relational authenticity from general relationship well-being.

Method

Participants

Two hundred eighty-six participants were recruited via MTurk for a study on “beliefs about yourself, your romantic relationship, and your life” (we used this same study title in all subsequent studies), and were compensated for their participation. Given the lengthy number of items in this study, we embedded seven attention-check questions (e.g., Please leave the answer to this question blank, please select “strongly disagree” for quality assurance purposes). As stated in the Introduction, we excluded participants who failed more than half of the attention checks—in this case, 14 participants (4.9% of the overall sample) who failed four or more attention checks. The remaining 272 participants (167 females) ranged in age from 18 to 73 years (M = 35.25, SD = 11.84). The length of participants’ romantic relationships ranged from 0.25 to 52.25 years (M = 8.54, SD = 9.13), and 50.4% reported being married (see Online Supplementary Materials for analyses examining moderation effects of relationship length or type). Two hundred six participants were European American, 19 African American, 16 Asian American, seven Latino/a, two Native American, and 22 reported they were mixed and/or “Other” ethnicities.

Procedure

To prepare participants to rate the similarity among their actual, ideal, and relational selves, we first prompted them to think about and describe each self. Specifically, participants were asked to list six aspects of their actual self, which we defined as “who you really are and/or how you act” (adapted from Higgins, 1987). Then, we randomized the order in which participants listed six aspects of their ideal self—“who you would ideally like to be (i.e., hope or wish to be)” (adapted from Higgins, 1987) and six aspects of their relational self—“who you are and/or how you act with your romantic partner” (Andersen & Chen, 2002).

Next, in a randomized order, participants rated the similarity of their three selves to one another. Using a scale anchored at 1 = very similar and 9 = very different, we measured relational–ideal overlap with “How similar or different is who you are and/or how you act with your romantic partner from who you would ideally like to be in general?” (range = 1.00-9.00, M = 6.37, SD = 2.08), actual–relational overlap with “How similar or different is who you really are and/or how you act from who you are and/or how you act with your romantic partner?” (range = 1.00-9.00, M = 6.75, SD = 2.02), and actual–ideal overlap with “How similar or different is who you really are and/or how you act from who you would ideally like to be in general?” (range = 1.00-9.00, M = 5.90, SD = 2.14). Responses were reverse-scored so that higher numbers indicated greater overlap.

Finally, in randomized order, participants responded to a measure of relational authenticity and three relationship well-being measures. Relational authenticity was adapted from a general authenticity measure (English & John, 2013; α = .86, range = 1.00-7.00, M = 5.94, SD = 1.12), wherein we substituted “with my partner” for “with others” (e.g., “I can be myself with my partner”; 1 = completely disagree to 7 = completely agree). Relationship satisfaction and commitment were assessed with standard measures (Rusbult, Martz, & Agnew, 1998). For relationship satisfaction, participants responded to five statements like “Our relationship makes me very happy” on 9-point Likert-type scale (1 = do not agree at all to 9 = agree completely; α = .95, range = 1.00-9.00, M = 7.28, SD = 1.78). Relationship commitment consisted of seven items such as “I want our relationship to last for a very long time” and “I would not feel very upset if our relationship were to end in the near future” (reverse-scored; 1 = do not agree at all to 9 = agree completely; α = .90, range = 2.00-9.00, M = 8.06, SD = 1.42). Finally, relationship closeness was assessed with the single-item Inclusion of Other in the Self (IOS) scale (Aron, Aron, & Smollan, 1992; M = 5.28, SD = 1.47), in which participants selected from seven pairs of differentially overlapping circles, with one circle in each pair representing the self and the other one’s relationship partner, the pair that best described their relationship. Finally, participants reported their demographics, were probed for suspicion, and were debriefed. No participants were aware of our hypothesis in this and all subsequent studies.

Results and Brief Discussion

Correlations among participant scores on the above measures are displayed in Table 1. We included actual–ideal overlap in the analyses to cover all possible forms of overlap. But most relevant to our hypothesis, both actual–relational and relational–ideal overlap were positively correlated with relational authenticity (and were substantially correlated with one another, r = .61). After checking that there was no multicollinearity in our data (the variance inflation factors [VIFs] were all less than 3), we conducted regression analyses to examine the unique association of actual–relational, relational–ideal, and actual–ideal overlap with relational authenticity (see Table 2). These analyses revealed that greater relational–ideal overlap uniquely predicts greater relational authenticity, whereas neither actual–relational nor actual–ideal overlap does. Moreover, this association was not due to relational–ideal overlap being redundant with relationship well-being. As shown in Table 3, relational–ideal overlap predicts relational authenticity, even when controlling for all three measures of relationship well-being. This assures us that relational–ideal overlap is not simply another measure of relationship well-being, which has previously been shown to be associated with relational authenticity. In sum, Study 1 showed that greater relational–ideal overlap is uniquely associated with enhanced relational authenticity, whereas actual–relational overlap is not.

Table 1.

Summary of Study 1 Zero-Order Correlations.

Measure	1	2	3	4	5	6
1. Relational–ideal selves overlap	—
2. Actual–ideal selves overlap	.65*	—
3. Actual–relational selves overlap	.61*	.54*	—
4. Relational authenticity	.44*	.33*	.34*	—
5. Relationship commitment	.27*	.20*	.20*	.50*	—
6. Relationship satisfaction	.41*	.29*	.31*	.61*	.67*	—
7. IOS scale	.28*	.25*	.24*	.41*	.58*	.59*

Note. df = 271. IOS scale = Inclusion of Other in the Self scale.

p < .001.

Table 2.

Summary of Study 1 Multiple Regressions.

Predictors	Relational authenticity
Predictors	β	t value	p value	95% CI
1. Relational–ideal selves overlap	.34	4.36	<.001	[.10, .27]
2. Actual–ideal selves overlap	.05	0.71	.48	[−.05, .10]
3. Actual–relational selves overlap	.10	1.44	.15	[−.02, .13]

Note. Predictors were entered simultaneously; displayed betas are standardized. df = 268. CI = confidence interval.

Table 3.

Summary of Study 1 Multiple Regressions.

Predictors	Relational authenticity
Predictors	β	t value	p value	95% CI
1. Relational–ideal selves overlap	.17	2.51	.01	[.02, .16]
2. Actual–ideal selves overlap	.04	0.56	.57	[−.05, .08]
3. Actual–relational selves overlap	.05	0.89	.37	[−.04, .10]
4. Relationship commitment	.16	2.52	.01	[.03, .23]
5. Relationship satisfaction	.40	5.76	<.001	[.16, .33]
6. IOS scale	.01	0.18	.86	[−.08, .10]

Note. Predictors were entered simultaneously; displayed betas are standardized. df = 265. IOS scale = Inclusion of Other in the Self scale.

Study 2: Does Relational–ideal Overlap Affect Relational Authenticity?

Extending Study 1, in Study 2, we experimentally manipulated whether participants perceived high, low, or baseline levels of relational–ideal overlap and measured their state relational authenticity. We expected high, relative to low, relational–ideal overlap to result in greater relational authenticity and that this would not simply reflect a halo effect whereby high relational–ideal overlap elicits more positive feelings in general about one’s relationship.

Method

Participants

Two hundred thirty participants were recruited via MTurk and compensated for their participation. Sixteen participants (7%) were excluded from analyses: 13 for failing more than half of attention checks—in this case, two or more of three attention-check questions that were embedded in the study (e.g., Please leave the answer to this question blank), and three for not following instructions for the manipulation (e.g., only describing their relational self). The remaining 214 participants (131 females) ranged in age from 19 to 65 years (M = 33.90, SD = 10.25). Relationship length ranged from 0.17 to 45.67 years (M = 7.75, SD = 7.82), and 52.8% of participants were married. One hundred eighty-three were European American, 12 African American, four Latino/a, four Asian American, two Native American, and nine reported being mixed and/or “Other” ethnicities.

Procedure

Participants were randomly assigned to a low, high, or control relational–ideal overlap conditions. All participants first read, “Everyone has various aspects to who they are. For example, people behave a certain way with their friends, romantic partner, colleagues, parents, etc.” Then, those in the low (high) overlap condition responded to the prompt,

We would like you to think about ways in which who you are and/or how you act with your romantic partner is DIFFERENT FROM (SIMILAR TO) who you would ideally like to be in general (that is, the type of person you hope, wish, or aspire to be). For example, a person may be passive (assertive) with their romantic partner but (and also) ideally, want to be assertive in general. After having thought about this, please describe 3 aspects of who you are with your romantic partner that are DIFFERENT FROM (SIMILAR TO) who you would ideally like to be in general.

Participants in the control condition were asked to think about and list six aspects of their relational self and then six aspects of their ideal self, as defined in Study 1.

As a manipulation check, all participants responded to the following item using a 9-point scale (1 = very similar to 9 = very different):

Right now, how similar or different do you feel like who you are and/or how you act with your romantic partner is from who you would ideally like to be in general—that is, the type of person you hope, wish, or aspire to be?

Responses were reverse-scored so that higher numbers indicated greater overlap (i.e., more similarity between relational and ideal selves.

Next, in a randomized order, participants responded to the same relational authenticity and two of the same relationship well-being measures used in Study 1, with the wording tweaked to reflect current states rather than chronic perceptions. Specifically, we assessed state relational authenticity (e.g., “Right now, I feel like I can be myself with my partner”; α = .80, range = 1.00-7.00, M = 5.64, SD = 1.14), state relationship satisfaction (e.g., “Right now, our relationship makes me very happy”; α = .97, range = 1.00-9.00, M = 7.02, SD = 2.01), and state relationship commitment (e.g., “At this moment, I would not feel very upset if our relationship were to end in the near future”; reverse-scored; α = .92, range = 2.00-9.00, M = 8.09, SD = 1.47). Ratings of relationship satisfaction and commitment were included to show that thinking about how one’s relational self differs from (is similar to) one’s ideal self does not simply increase general negative (positive) feelings about one’s relationship. Finally, participants reported their demographics, were probed for suspicion, and were debriefed.

Results and Brief Discussion

Relational–ideal overlap manipulation check

An ANOVA revealed a significant condition effect for the manipulation check, F(2, 213) = 8.31, p < .001, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .07. Planned comparisons showed that low-overlap participants (M = 5.51, SD = 2.14, 95% CI = [5.03, 5.98]) reported more discrepant relational and ideal selves than their high-overlap (M = 6.83, SD = 1.95, 95% CI = [6.36, 7.31]), t(143) = 3.91, p < .001, d = 0.65, and control counterparts (M = 6.52, SD = 2.06, 95% CI = [6.04, 7.00]), t(140) = 2.89, p < .01, d = 0.49. Control and high-overlap participants did not differ, t < 1. Thus, the manipulation was effective insofar as participants in the low-overlap condition reported less relational–ideal overlap compared with those in the other conditions. However, the manipulation did not increase high-overlap participants’ feeling of relational–ideal overlap relative to the control, perhaps suggesting that, on average, people experience a fairly high baseline degree of overlap between their relational and ideal selves.

State relational authenticity

An ANOVA revealed a significant condition effect for state relational authenticity, F(2, 213) = 7.62, p = .001, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .07. As hypothesized, planned contrasts revealed that low-overlap participants (M = 5.24, SD = 1.13, 95% CI = [4.98, 5.49]) reported less relational authenticity than their counterparts in the high-overlap (M = 5.76, SD = 0.98, 95% CI = [5.50, 6.02]), t(143) = 2.97, p < .01, d = 0.50, and control conditions (M = 5.93, SD = 1.20, 95% CI = [5.67, 6.19]), t(140) = 3.54, p = .001, d = 0.60. Given that control and high-overlap conditions did not differ on relational–ideal overlap, we did not expect these two conditions to differ in state relational authenticity. Indeed, they did not, t < 1.

Assessing halo effects

A MANOVA showed no condition effect for either state relationship satisfaction (F = 1.82, p = .17) or commitment (F < 1). These results minimize a halo effect interpretation of our findings. Moreover, the condition effect on state relational authenticity remained significant controlling for state relationship satisfaction and commitment, F(2, 213) = 6.46, p < .01, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .06. Relative to low-overlap participants (adjusted M = 5.37, SD = 0.80, 95% CI = [5.18, 5.55]), high-overlap (adjusted M = 5.73, SD = 0.80, 95% CI = [5.55, 5.92]), t(143) = 2.94, p < .01, d = 0.49, and control participants (adjusted M = 5.82, SD = 0.80, 95% CI = [5.63, 6.01]), t(140) = 3.02, p < .01, d = 0.51, reported more relational authenticity. Again, high-overlap and control conditions did not differ, t < 1.

In sum, compared with greater relational–ideal overlap (i.e., high-overlap and control conditions), making salient low overlap between one’s relational and ideal selves reduced momentary feelings of relational authenticity. This link between relational–ideal overlap and relational authenticity could not be attributed to a halo effect.

Study 3: What Affects Relational Authenticity—Relational–ideal or Actual–relational Overlap?

In Study 3, we again examined whether relational authenticity is driven by a sense that one’s relational self brings out ideal self-aspects (relational–ideal overlap), as Studies 1 and 2 suggest, or by one’s relational self matching one’s actual self (actual–relational overlap)—this time using a manipulation of actual–relational overlap as well. Specifically, we crossed our low- versus high-overlap manipulation with a manipulation of actual–relational versus relational–ideal overlap, resulting in a 2 (degree of overlap: low vs. high) × 2 (type of overlap: actual–relational vs. relational–ideal) between-subjects design. We expected that, replicating Study 2’s finding, low, relative to high, relational–ideal overlap would reduce state relational authenticity. In contrast, based on the null association between actual–relational overlap and relational authenticity in Study 1, we anticipated that low and high actual–relational overlap conditions would not differ in state relational authenticity. Including low and high actual–relational overlap conditions allowed us to rule out that low relative to high overlap of any kind diminishes relational authenticity.

Method

Participants

Four hundred four participants were recruited via MTurk and were compensated for their participation. Fifty participants (12.4%) were excluded from analyses: 27 who failed more than half of the attention checks—in this case, failing both of the embedded attention-check questions, and 23 for not following manipulation instructions. Specifically, three participants described only themselves, eight participants described only their partner, five participants described qualities they and their partner share, one participant described qualities they and their partner differ on, two participants described ideal qualities they’d like their partners to have, one participant described how their self-view differed from how their partner viewed them, one participant responded to the opposite of their assigned condition, and the remaining two provided incoherent responses (e.g., describing the same aspect 3 times). The remaining 354 participants (229 females) ranged in age from 18 to 82 years (M = 33.65, SD = 11.27). Relationship length ranged from 0.08 to 40.67 years (M = 6.92, SD = 7.04). Two hundred seventy were European American, 31 African American, 20 Latino/a, 10 Asian American, two Native American, and 21 reported being mixed and/or “Other” ethnicities.

Procedure

Participants were randomly assigned to one of four conditions in our 2 (degree of overlap: low vs. high) × 2 (type of overlap: actual–relational vs. relational–ideal) between-subjects design. Across conditions, participants first read, “Everyone has various aspects to who they are. For example, people behave a certain way with their friends, romantic partner, colleagues, parents, etc.” Then, those in the low and high relational–ideal overlap conditions were given the same instructions as in Study 2. Participants in the low (high) actual–relational overlap condition responded to the prompt,

We would like you to think about ways in which who you are and/or how you act with your romantic partner is DIFFERENT FROM (SIMILAR TO) who you are and/or how you act in general.⁴ For example, a person may be passive (assertive) with their romantic partner but (and also) is assertive in general. After having thought about this, please describe 3 aspects of who you are with your romantic partner that are DIFFERENT FROM (SIMILAR TO) who you are in general.

As a manipulation check, all participants responded to the following item using a 9-point scale (1 = very similar to 9 = very different):

Right now, how similar or different do you feel like who you are and/or how you act with your romantic partner is from who you are and/or how you act in general (from who you would ideally like to be in general—that is, the type of person you hope, wish, or aspire to be)?

Responses were reverse-scored so that higher numbers indicated greater overlap. Next, participants responded to the same state relational authenticity measure used in Study 2 and then reported their demographics, were probed for suspicion, and were debriefed.

Results and Brief Discussion

Relational–ideal and actual–relational overlap manipulation checks

For participants in the relational–ideal conditions, an independent samples t test revealed that low-overlap participants (M = 5.00, SD = 2.20, 95% CI = [4.58, 5.42]) reported more discrepant relational–ideal selves than high-overlap participants (M = 7.02, SD = 1.79, 95% CI = [6.60, 7.44]), t(173) = 6.66, p < .001, d = 1.01. For participants in the actual–relational conditions, an independent samples t test revealed that low-overlap participants (M = 5.82, SD = 2.04, 95% CI = [5.40, 6.23]) reported more discrepant actual–relational selves than high-overlap participants (M = 7.36, SD = 1.66, 95% CI = [6.96, 7.76]), t(177) = 5.53, p < .001, d = 0.83. Thus, our manipulation had its intended effect within both the relational–ideal and actual–relational overlap conditions.⁵

State relational authenticity

Both main effects were significant in a 2 (degree of overlap: low vs. high) × 2 (type of overlap: actual–relational vs. relational–ideal) ANOVA. Participants who thought about similarity between pairs of selves (M = 5.89, SD = 1.09, 95% CI = [5.71, 6.07]) reported higher state relational authenticity than those who were induced to think about discrepant selves (M = 5.35, SD = 1.37, 95% CI = [5.17, 5.53]), F(1, 353) = 17.16, p < .001, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .05. Participants in the actual–relational conditions (M = 5.82, SD = 1.09, 95% CI = [5.64, 6.00]) reported feeling more relationally authentic than those in the relational–ideal conditions, (M = 5.42, SD = 1.40, 95% CI = [5.23, 5.60]), F(1, 353) = 9.81, p < .001, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .03. More importantly, though, the predicted Degree of Overlap × Type of Overlap interaction was significant, F(1, 353) = 3.78, p = .05, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .01. Simple effects analyses revealed that for relational–ideal conditions, low overlap (M = 5.02, SD = 1.50, 95% CI = [4.76, 5.28]) led to less relational authenticity than high overlap (M = 5.81, SD = 1.17, 95% CI = [5.55, 6.07]), F(1, 350) = 18.21, p < .001, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .05. In contrast, for actual–relational conditions, low overlap (M = 5.68, SD = 1.15, 95% CI = [5.42, 5.94]) and high overlap (M = 5.96, SD = 1.01, 95% CI = [5.71, 6.21]) did not differ on state relational authenticity, F(1, 350) = 2.64, p = .11. Finally, planned contrasts revealed that only the low relational–ideal overlap condition differed in relational authenticity from the other three conditions, all contrast ps < .01, which explains the finding noted above that actual–relational conditions reported greater relational authenticity than relational–ideal conditions (see Figure 1). This suggests that people experience relatively high levels of relational authenticity, regardless of what is brought to mind. It is mainly when there is a discrepancy between one’s relational and ideal selves that feelings of relational authenticity diminish.

Figure 1.

Study 3: Relational authenticity by condition.

Overall, Study 3 supported the relational–ideal overlap hypothesis—that the more an individual feels like they are their ideal self in a relationship, the more relationally authentic they feel. This finding cannot be interpreted simply as a valence effect (i.e., low overlap is negative whereas high overlap is positive) in that low and high actual–relational overlap conditions did not differ in state relational authenticity. This lack of a difference in the actual–relational overlap conditions also suggests that relational authenticity does not hinge on the degree to which one feels like one’s relational self is consistent with one’s actual self.

Study 4: Does Proximity to One’s Ideal Self in General Affect Relational Authenticity?

To further test the relational–ideal overlap hypothesis, Study 4 examined whether relational authenticity is derived uniquely from one’s relational self matching one’s ideal self, as opposed to having any self-aspect match one’s ideals. To do so, we crossed our low- versus high-overlap manipulation with a manipulation of overlap between actual and ideal selves versus relational and ideal selves. Thus, the study used a 2 (degree of overlap: low vs. high) × 2 (type of overlap: actual–ideal vs. relational–ideal) between-subjects design. First, we aimed to replicate Studies 2 and 3’s finding that low, relative to high, relational–ideal overlap reduces feelings of relational authenticity. Second, we predicted that low and high actual–ideal overlap conditions would not differ in relational authenticity, arguing against the notion that general distance from one’s ideal self, rather than relational–ideal overlap per se, lowers relational authenticity.

Method

Participants

Four hundred five participants were recruited via MTurk and compensated for their participation. Twenty-two participants (5.4%) were excluded from analyses: 13 who failed more than half of the attention checks—in this case, failing both of the embedded attention-check questions, and nine for not following manipulation instructions. Specifically, two of the nine participants responded to the opposite of their assigned condition, and the remaining seven provided incoherent responses (e.g., describing the same aspect 3 times). The remaining 383 participants (259 females) ranged in age from 18 to 82 years (M = 35.43, SD = 11.73). Relationship length ranged from 0.17 to 38.92 years (M = 7.97, SD = 8.39). Two hundred ninety were European American, 29 African American, 24 Asian American, 11 Latino/a, and 29 reported they were mixed and/or “Other” ethnicities.

Procedure

Participants were randomly assigned to one of four conditions: 2 (degree of overlap: low vs. high) × 2 (type of overlap: actual–ideal vs. relational–ideal) in a between-subjects design. Across conditions, participants first read, “Everyone has various aspects to who they are. For example, people behave a certain way with their friends, romantic partner, colleagues, parents, etc.” Then, those in the low and high relational–ideal conditions were given the same instructions as in Studies 2 and 3. Participants in the low (high) actual–ideal overlap condition responded to the prompt,

We would like you to think about ways in which who you are and/or how you act generally is DIFFERENT FROM (SIMILAR TO) who you would ideally like to be in general. For example, a person may be passive (assertive) but (and also) ideally, want to be assertive in general. After having thought about this, please describe 3 aspects of who you are generally that are DIFFERENT FROM (SIMILAR TO) who you would ideally like to be in general.

As manipulation checks, all participants responded to the same question used in Study 2, as well as “Right now, how similar or different do you feel like who you are and/or how you act in general is from who you would ideally like to be in general?” (1 = very similar to 9 = very different). Responses were reverse-scored so that higher numbers indicate greater overlap. Next, participants responded to the same state relational authenticity measure used in Studies 2 and 3. Finally, participants reported demographics, were probed for suspicion, and were debriefed.

Results and Brief Discussion

Relational–ideal and actual–ideal overlap manipulation checks

For participants in the relational–ideal conditions, an independent samples t test revealed that low-overlap participants (M = 5.15, SD = 1.90, 95% CI = [4.73, 5.56]) reported more discrepant relational–ideal selves than high-overlap participants (M = 6.87, SD = 1.87, 95% CI = [6.47, 7.26]), t(184) = 6.21, p < .001, d = 0.92. For participants in the actual–ideal conditions, an independent samples t test revealed that low-overlap participants (M = 5.13, SD = 1.94, 95% CI = [4.74, 5.52]) reported more discrepant actual–ideal selves than high-overlap participants (M = 6.60, SD = 1.86, 95% CI = [6.21, 6.99]), t(195) = 5.43, p < .001, d = 0.78. Thus, the manipulation had its intended effect within both the relational–ideal and actual–ideal overlap conditions.⁶

State relational authenticity

A 2 (degree of overlap: low vs. high) × 2 (type of overlap: actual–ideal vs. relational–ideal) ANOVA revealed a main effect of overlap such that participants who thought about similar selves (M = 5.71, SD = 1.22, 95% CI = [5.53, 5.90]) reported higher state relational authenticity than those who thought about discrepant selves (M = 5.21, SD = 1.47, 95% CI = [5.00, 5.38]), F(1, 382) = 14.68, p < .001, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .04 (see Figure 2). There was a marginal main effect of overlap type, F(1, 382) = 3.16, p = .08, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .01, such that actual–ideal participants (M = 5.57, SD = 1.35, 95% CI = [5.39, 5.76]) reported higher state relational authenticity than their relational–ideal counterparts (M = 5.35, SD = 1.38, 95% CI = [5.14, 5.52]). But more importantly, the Predicted Overlap × Selves interaction was significant, F(1, 382) = 11.38, p = .001, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .03. Simple effects analyses revealed that for relational–ideal conditions, low overlap (M = 4.84, SD = 1.46, 95% CI = [4.57, 5.12]) led to less relational authenticity than high overlap (M = 5.82, SD = 1.12, 95% CI = [5.56, 6.09]), F(1, 379) = 24.68, p < .001, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .06. For actual–ideal conditions, low overlap (M = 5.54, SD = 1.40, 95% CI = [5.28, 5.80]) and high overlap (M = 5.60, SD = 1.32, 95% CI = [5.34, 5.87]) did not differ on state relational authenticity, F < 1.

Figure 2.

Study 4: Relational authenticity by condition.

Overall, replicating Studies 2 and 3, Study 4 found that low relative to high relational–ideal overlap led to less relational authenticity. Study 4 also showed that general closeness to one’s ideal self is not what informs relational authenticity as low and high actual–ideal overlap conditions did not differ in state relational authenticity.

General Discussion

To be your general, everyday self or to be the best version of yourself, what matters more for promoting subjective feelings of authenticity in a relationship? Contrary to popular opinion, we find that people feel more relationally authentic to the extent that their relational self approximates their ideal self, rather than when they are able to be their actual self in a relationship. More specifically, one hypothesis consistent with some theory and research, as well as popular cultural beliefs, is that relational authenticity hinges on how much an individual’s relational self aligns with his or her actual self. Indeed, the results of our pilot study suggest that lay beliefs about the basis of relational authenticity cohere with this viewpoint. However, extant evidence in line with this hypothesis is correlational in nature and minimal in amount. Thus, one aim of the present research was to put this hypothesis to experimental test. At the same time, we sought to significantly extend the literature on relational authenticity by testing a competing hypothesis—that people derive a sense of relational authenticity from feeling like their relational self approximates their ideal self.

Consistent with correlational findings from Sheldon et al. (1997), Study 1 found that the more an individual’s actual and relational selves overlapped, the more relationally authentic they felt (r = .34, p < .001). However, this study showed that the association between actual–relational overlap and relational authenticity was attributable to other factors. Namely, when relational–ideal overlap and relationship well-being were entered into a regression alongside actual–relational overlap, the latter was no longer a significant predictor of relational authenticity. Further calling into question the notion that relational authenticity is grounded in actual–relational overlap, Study 3 experimentally manipulated low versus high overlap between one’s actual and relational selves—and found no differences in state relational authenticity as a function of this manipulation. Together, these studies contradict the popular sentiment that relational authenticity lies in “being yourself” in the relationship.

So, what is the basis of relational authenticity? Our studies support the hypothesis that overlaps between one’s relational and ideal selves is a primary basis for relational authenticity. Specifically, even when controlling for actual–relational overlap and relationship well-being, relational–ideal overlap uniquely predicted feelings of relational authenticity (β = .17, p = .01; Study 1). Using Study 1 as a springboard, we then showed repeatedly that low, compared with high, relational–ideal overlap reduced state relational authenticity (Studies 2-4). Critically, we ruled out multiple alternative explanations for this finding. Low relational–ideal overlap did not elicit more negative feelings in general about one’s relationship (Study 2), nor did varying overlap between actual–relational (Study 3) and actual–ideal (Study 4) selves affect relational authenticity. Moreover, consistent across Studies 2 to 4, we found that the low relational–ideal overlap condition led to less state relational authenticity relative to the other conditions, suggesting that people’s feelings of relational authenticity suffer when they do not feel like their relational and ideal selves overlap (vs. that relational authenticity is boosted when people feel like their relational and ideal selves overlap).

It may be worth noting that the evidence we found for the negative impact of low relational–ideal overlap on relational authenticity emerged even though the level of overlap in the low relational–ideal overlap condition was not especially low (i.e., all of the means for the relational–ideal overlap manipulation check in Studies 2 to 4 were around the scale midpoint). Thus, not feeling like one’s relational self approximates one’s ideal self can be detrimental for relational authenticity even if the lack of overlap is not especially low in absolute terms.

Implications and Contributions to the Literature

By identifying a barrier to relational authenticity—a relative lack of overlap in one’s relational and ideal selves—our findings offer a fuller portrait of what does and does not stand in the path of reaping the benefits of relational authenticity. To feel relationally authentic, and to enjoy the benefits of such authenticity, only feeling like one can be one’s actual self in the relationship appears to be insufficient, whereas feeling like one’s ideal self comes to the fore in the relationship is crucial. That said, we do not mean to suggest that feeling like one can express one’s actual self with a relationship partner is entirely insignificant. Indeed, actual–relational overlap may well be influential in other ways, ones not related to relational authenticity, which is a question for future research.

On a broader note, our results significantly contribute to the close relationships, self-concept, and authenticity literatures. Regarding the first, our findings contest the fairly pervasive belief that feeling like one can be one’s actual self in a relationship is paramount to relational authenticity. A majority of participants (70% in our pilot study) believed actual–relational overlap to be more important for relational authenticity than relational–ideal overlap. The present findings suggest that these lay beliefs do not align with the reality of what promotes or detracts from feeling relationally authentic. Our results also suggest that, in the phrasing of Authenticity in Relationships Scale items, researchers should take into account that assessing actual–relational overlap is not a proxy for measuring relational authenticity. Finally, our findings highlight the importance of the Michelangelo phenomenon—the process by which relationship partners shape an individual, bringing him or her closer to his or her ideal self (Drigotas et al., 1999)—for relational authenticity. That is, they suggest that individuals who do not feel like their relationship partners help sculpt them into their ideal selves are likely to experience less relational authenticity.

Regarding the self-concept literature, our studies signal the potential importance of examining discrepancies between different facets of the self in the context of specific relationships. An overwhelming majority of work on self-discrepancies has focused on discrepancies between one’s ideal and ought selves with one’s actual self (Higgins, 1987). But given the increasingly recognized importance of relational selves (e.g., Andersen & Chen, 2002), it is critical to incorporate the relational self in understanding the implications of self-discrepancies. By showing the consequences (and lack thereof) of relational–ideal (actual–relational) discrepancies for relational authenticity, our studies shed light on how alignment of one’s relational self with other important self-aspects affects personal and relationship well-being.

Finally, our studies contribute to the broader authenticity literature insofar as relational authenticity is an important, yet understudied, component of general authenticity. In this vein, by understanding what does and does not affect people’s feelings of relational authenticity, we may shed new light on the underpinnings of general authenticity. For example, our findings raise the question of whether proximity of one’s actual self to one’s ideal self would increase general feelings of authenticity, analogous to our finding that relational–ideal selves overlap predicts relational authenticity. Alternatively, two components of authenticity, awareness and unbiased processing (Kernis & Goldman, 2006), rest on the notion that accurate self-views, which invariably will include shortcomings, contribute to growth and authenticity. This suggests that accurately perceiving oneself as falling short of one’s ideals (i.e., discrepant actual–ideal selves) could result in greater, not less, feelings of authenticity. Addressing such questions will clearly require additional research.

Limitations and Future Directions

Our studies examined how an individual’s relational–ideal overlap affects their own feelings of relational authenticity—but what are the implications for that individual’s partner’s feelings of relational authenticity? It may be the case that people who have a relational-interdependent self-construal (Cross, Bacon, & Morris, 2000)—a tendency to define oneself in terms of one’s close relationships—base their feelings of relational authenticity in part on bringing their partners closer to their partner’s ideal selves. Such lines of inquiry await future research.

Another interesting question that the current data do not address pertains to the behavioral implications and downstream effects of relational authenticity. If relational authenticity arises, at least in considerable part, from overlap between one’s relational and ideal selves, does this imply then that people are more apt to actually enact their ideal selves in the context of their relationships? That is, is the core phenomenon we have demonstrated limited to the realms of subjective perceptions and experiences, or does it manifest itself concretely in actual behaviors? Moreover, relational–ideal self overlap may have downstream effects on relationship outcomes. Although we controlled for relationship satisfaction and commitment in Studies 1 and 2 to demonstrate that our key relational authenticity findings cannot simply be attributed to positive perceptions of one’s relationship in general, we also tested for the possibility that relational–ideal overlap predicts greater state relational authenticity, which in turn predicts greater relationship satisfaction and commitment. Although we did not find evidence of mediation (see Online Supplementary Materials for a full reporting of these additional analyses), our studies were not set up to test for this—indeed, our measures of relationship satisfaction, relationship commitment, and relational authenticity were administered in a randomized order rather than a sequential order which would be preferred for mediation testing.

Future research might also explore whether relational authenticity has any basis in the extent to which self- and partner-perceptions overlap. On one hand, self-verification theory (Swann, 1983, 1990) might predict that individuals will feel relationally authentic to the extent that their partner sees them as they see themselves. On the other hand, the Michelangelo phenomenon (Drigotas et al., 1999) suggests that more idealized partner perceptions benefit individuals and their relationships. Indeed, Swann et al. (2002) find that people preferred their romantic partners to view them as being more physically attractive than they saw themselves to be. This suggests that there may be conditions under which accurate versus rosier partner perceptions differentially affect relational authenticity.

Factors that can influence the preference for accuracy versus rosier partner perceptions, as shown by self-verification work, are relationship type and length (e.g., married vs. nonmarried, long term vs. short term). Relationship type and length may thus affect the basis of relational authenticity. To speculate, actual–relational overlap might be a stronger predictor of relational authenticity for married relative to dating couples. Although we did not find consistent moderation patterns across our studies regarding relationship length or type (see Online Supplementary Materials), this remains an interesting question to explore.

Finally, future research would benefit from examining the downstream consequences of relational–ideal selves overlap. For instance, it would be worthwhile to empirically test prior theorizing on the link between relational authenticity and more intimate self-disclosures with one’s partner and less idealization of one’s relationship and one’s partner (Kernis & Goldman, 2006). It may be the case that greater relational–ideal overlap ultimately opens the door to more self-disclosure to one’s partner and having a more honest perspective regarding one’s partner and relationship.

All in all, the present studies further both lay and empirical understandings of what achieving a sense of relational authenticity necessitates. Perhaps, in the future, a movie character will dispense advice more along the lines of, “Look, in my opinion, the best thing you can do is find a person who you feel like you are your ‘best you’ with.”

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The authors thank YiJing Lin for her research assistance and members of the Self, Identity, and Relationships (SIR) Lab at University of California, Berkeley for their helpful comments on earlier versions of this article. The authors also thank the editor and three reviewers for their comments and suggestions on this article, which helped to substantially improve this work.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Supplemental Material

The online supplemental material is available at .

Notes

References

Andersen

S. M.

Chen

(2002). The relational self: An interpersonal social-cognitive theory. Psychological Review, 109, 619-645.

Aron

E. N.

(1986). Love and the expansion of self: Understanding attraction and satisfaction. New York: Hemisphere Publishing.

Aron

E. N.

Smollan

(1992). Inclusion of Other in the Self scale and the structure of interpersonal closeness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 596-612.

Baldwin

M. W.

(1992). Relational schemas and the processing of social information. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 461-484.

Brewer

M. B.

Gardner

(1996). Who is this “we”? Levels of collective identity and self representations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 83-93.

Buhrmester

Kwang

Gosling

S. D.

(2011). Amazon’s Mechanical Turk: A new source of inexpensive, yet high-quality, data? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6(1), 3-5.

Campbell

W. K.

Sedikides

Bosson

(1994). Romantic involvement, self-discrepancy, and psychological well-being: A preliminary investigation. Personal Relationships, 1, 399-404.

Chandler

Mueller

Paolacci

(2014). Nonnaïveté among Amazon Mechanical Turk workers: Consequences and solutions for behavioral researchers. Behavior Research Methods, 46, 112-130.

Chen

Andersen

S. M.

(1999). Relationships from the past in the present: Significant-other representations and transference in interpersonal life. In Zanna

M. P.

(Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 31, pp. 123-190). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

10.

Chen

Boucher

Kraus

M. W.

(2011). The relational self. In Schwartz

S. J.

Luyckx

Vignoles

V. L.

(Eds.), Handbook of identity theory and research (pp. 149-175). New York, NY: Springer.

11.

Chen

Boucher

H. C.

Andersen

S. M.

Saribay

S. A.

(2013). Transference and the relational self. In Simpson

J. A.

Campbell

(Eds.), Handbook of close relationships (pp. 281-305). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

12.

Chen

Boucher

H. C.

Tapias

M. P.

(2006). The relational self revealed: Integrative conceptualization and implications for interpersonal life. Psychological Bulletin, 132, 151-179.

13.

Chen

Fitzsimons

G. M.

Andersen

S. M.

(2006). Automaticity and close relationships. In Bargh

J. A.

(Ed.), Social psychology and the unconscious: The automaticity of higher mental processes (pp. 133-172). New York, NY: Psychology Press.

14.

Cross

S. E.

Bacon

P. L.

Morris

M. L.

(2000). The relational-interdependent self-construal and relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 791-808.

15.

Deci

E. L.

Ryan

R. M.

(1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. New York, NY: Plenum.

16.

Drigotas

S. M.

Rusbult

C. E.

Wieselquist

Whitton

S. W.

(1999). Close partner as sculptor of the ideal self: Behavioral affirmation and the Michelangelo phenomenon. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 293-323.

17.

English

John

(2013). Understanding the social effects of emotion regulation: The mediating role of authenticity for individual differences in suppression. Emotion, 13, 314-329.

18.

Fleeson

Wilt

(2010). The relevance of Big Five trait Content in behavior to subjective authenticity: Do high levels of within-person behavioral variability undermine or enable authenticity achievement? Journal of Personality, 78, 1353-1382.

19.

Harter

(2002). Authenticity. In Snyder

C. R.

Lopez

S. J.

(Eds.), Handbook of positive psychology (pp. 382-394). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

20.

Higgins

E. T.

(1987). Self-discrepancy: A theory relating self and affect. Psychological Review, 94, 319-340.

21.

Impett

E. A.

Sorsoli

Schooler

Henson

J. M.

Tolman

D. L.

(2008). Girls’ relationship authenticity and self-esteem across adolescence. Developmental Psychology, 44, 722-733.

22.

James

(1890). The Principles of Psychology. New York: Henry Holt and Company.

23.

Kernis

M. H.

Goldman

B. M.

(2005). Authenticity: A multicomponent perspective. In Tesser

Wood

Stapel

(Eds.), On building, defending, and regulating the self: A psychological perspective (pp. 31-52). New York, NY: Psychology Press.

24.

Kernis

M. H.

Goldman

B. M.

(2006). A multicomponent conceptualization of authenticity: Theory and research. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 38, 283-357.

25.

Klohnen

E. C.

Weller

J. A.

Luo

Choe

(2005). Organization and predictive power of general and relationship-specific attachment models: One for all, and all for one? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31, 1665-1682.

26.

Linardatos

Lydon

J. E.

(2011). Relationship-specific identification and spontaneous relationship maintenance processes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101, 737-753.

27.

Lopez

F. G.

Rice

K. G.

(2006). Preliminary development and validation of a measure of relationship authenticity. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 53, 362-371.

28.

Markus

Cross

(1990). The interpersonal self. In Pervin

(Ed.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (pp. 576-608). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

29.

Markus

Kitayama

(1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98, 224-253.

30.

Markus

Wurf

(1987). The dynamic self-concept: A social psychological perspective. Annual Review of Psychology, 38, 299-337.

31.

Maslow

A. H.

(1968). Toward a psychology of being. New York, NY: John Wiley.

32.

Overall

N. C.

Fletcher

G. J.

Friesen

M. D.

(2003). Mapping the intimate relationship mind: Comparisons between three models of attachment representations. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 1479-1493.

33.

Rogers

(1961). On becoming a person. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.

34.

Rosenberg

(1973). Which significant others? American Behavioral Scientist, 16, 829-860.

35.

Rusbult

C. E.

Martz

J. M.

Agnew

C. R.

(1998). The investment model scale: Measuring commitment level, satisfaction level, quality of alternatives, and investment size. Personal Relationships, 5, 357-387.

36.

Sheldon

K. M.

Ryan

R. M.

Rawsthorne

L. J.

Ilardi

(1997). Trait self and true self: Cross-role variation in the big-five personality traits and its relations with psychological authenticity and subjective well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 1380-1393.

37.

Simmons

J. P.

Nelson

L. D.

Simonsohn

(2013, January 17-19). Life after P-Hacking. Paper presented at the Fourteenth Annual Meeting of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, New Orleans, LA.

38.

Swann

W. B.

Jr. (1983). Self-verification: Bringing social reality into harmony with the self. Social Psychological Perspectives on the Self, 2, 33-66.

39.

Swann

W. B.

Jr. (1990). To be adored or to be known: The interplay of self-enhancement and self-verification. In Sorrentino

R. M.

Higgins

E. T.

(Eds.), Foundations of social behavior (Vol. 2, pp. 408-448). New York: Guilford.

40.

Swann

W. B.

Jr. Bosson

J. K.

Pelham

B. W.

(2002). Different partners, different selves: The verification of circumscribed identities. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 1215-1228.

41.

Swann

W. B.

Jr. De La Ronde

Hixon

J. G.

(1994). Authenticity and positivity strivings in marriage and courtship. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 857-869.

42.

Theran

S. A.

(2011). Authenticity in relationships and depressive symptoms: A gender analysis. Personality and Individual Differences, 51, 423-428.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.72 MB