Refining the self-congruency hypothesis of state authenticity: A self-threat model

Abstract

The self-congruency hypothesis predicts that experienced authenticity (i.e., state authenticity) depends on behaving in alignment with one's self. While this idea is linked to extensive research on the effects of self-confirming and self-threatening information, empirical findings on the self-congruency hypothesis have been mixed. To address this inconsistency in the literature, we argue that the self-congruency hypothesis holds only when a number of preconditions are simultaneously met. We introduce a new theoretical model of state authenticity that outlines these hypothesized preconditions and integrates them into a comprehensive theoretical framework. Specifically, we argue that self-congruency only affects state authenticity when (a) the (in)congruent behavior refers to the individual's subjective true self-concept, (b) the relevant attributes are cognitively activated, and (c) the (in)congruent behavior is perceived as a diagnostic indicator of the attributes in question. Furthermore, we argue that biased processing critically affects the likelihood of these three preconditions being met. To amplify authenticity and protect against inauthenticity, biased processing increases the likelihood of these preconditions being met in the case of self-congruent behavior while decreasing it in the case of self-incongruent behavior. Consequently, biased processing significantly distorts self-congruency effects. As the three preconditions and the influence of biased processing have not been systematically considered in previous research on state authenticity, previous studies have sometimes failed to support the self-congruency hypothesis.