Attribution of Authenticity:The Benefits of Self-Disclosure of Unfavorable Information

In the 2016 U.S. presidential election, questions of authenticity loomed large (Sergent, 2016; Szalai, 2016; Talbot-Zorn & Marz, 2016; Zimmer, 2016; Zogby, 2016). We suggest that when a person voluntarily discloses her/his weaknesses, because disclosing one’s weaknesses is costly, this costly behavior can be only interpreted as that the target truly embraces his/her true self, and therefore, observers will view the person as an authentic individual who has embraced both negative and positive aspects of the self. Moreover, we suggest the effect of disclosing unfavorable information relies on voluntary self-disclosure. When disclosure of unfavorable information is not voluntary, the lack of information about the target’s intention or willingness to disclose unfavorable information will prevent the recipient from making dispositional inferences about his/her authenticity. In Study 1a, participants (n = 200) were asked to imagine they were on an interview and met a CEO of the company. The CEO introduced himself. We randomly assigned participants to one of two conditions: The CEO either disclosed an unfavorable piece of information (being nervous about public speaking) or not. Afterward, we measured participants’ impressions of the CEO on three dimensions: perception of authenticity (six items, α = .93: e.g., authentic, genuine, adapted from Hahl & Zuckerman, 2014, and Ridgeway & Correll, 2006), competence (four items, α = .89: e.g., competent, skillful), and warmth (four items, α = .87, e.g., kind, friendly) on a scale from “not at all” (1) to “very much” (7). Each of these scales was randomly mixed in with other scales. We also measured individuals’ overall impression of the CEO on a scale from “very negative” [-5] to “very positive” [5]).