The authors responded to criticisms raised recently by Giannini (2010) of the authors' 2009 study in which cross-age differences were examined in the sense of authenticity. Comments address three aspects of the criticism, interpretation of the results, and misunderstanding of the method used as well as the concepts. In particular, future research likely needs to focus on the subjective aspects of sense of authenticity.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
GianniniA. J. (2010) Semiotic and semantic implications of “authenticity.”Psychological Reports, 106, 611–612.
2.
ItoM.HorikoshiM., & KodamaM. (2009) A cross-sectional survey of age and sense of authenticity among Japanese. Psychological Reports, 105, 575–581.
3.
ItoM., & KodamaM. (2005a) Sense of authenticity, self-esteem, and subjective and psychological well-being. Japanese Journal of Educational Psychology, 53, 74–85.
4.
ItoM., & KodamaM. (2005b) The relationships of sense of authenticity with stress-responses and stress-copings. Japanese Journal of Health Psychology, 18, 24–34.
5.
ItoM., & KodamaM. (2007) Sense of authenticity, affectivity and cultural construal of the self among Japanese university students. Psychological Reports, 100, 83–86.
6.
KernisM. H., & GoldmanB. M. (2006) A multicomponent conceptualization of authenticity: theory and research. In ZannaM. P. (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology.San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Pp. 283–357.
7.
LearyM. R. (2003) Interpersonal aspects of optimal self-esteem and the authentic self. Psychological Inquiry, 14, 52–54.
8.
RosenbergM. (1965) Society and the adolescent self-image.Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univer. Press.
9.
WoodA. M.LinleyP. A.MaltbyJ.BaliousisM., & JosephS. (2008) The authentic personality: a theoretical and empirical conceptualization, and the development of the Authenticity Scale. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 55, 385–399.
