As authenticity and inauthenticity rise in prominence during adolescence, and authenticity is considered important for wellbeing throughout the lifespan, it is necessary to understand the phenomena and their place in adolescent’s lives. This is the first scoping review focused on research regarding adolescents’ authenticity and inauthenticity, and has identified how authenticity and inauthenticity have been understood, defined, and characterized in this field, what is known about authenticity and inauthenticity, the contexts authenticity and inauthenticity have been investigated in, and methodological approaches used to ascertain this knowledge.

Understandings, Definitions, and Characterizations of Authenticity and Inauthenticity in Adolescents (RQ1)

Many understandings derived from literature focused on a specific aspect of authenticity and inauthenticity (e.g., true/false-self behavior; Harter et al., 1996) or processes surrounding authenticity and inauthenticity within a larger theoretical framework (e.g., self-determination theory; Ryan & Deci, 2017). There were three likely reasons for the prominence of Harter et al.’s (1996) framework: adolescents qualitatively contributed to the evolution of ideas and their words are embedded in it (e.g., “behaving the way I want to behave and not how someone else wants me to be”; Harter et al., 1996, p. 360); the framework is practical and not complex; and the accompanying measure is short with three items, contextualized per relationship. Comprehensive theoretical constructs of authenticity (e.g., Kernis & Goldman, 2006) infrequently formed the basis for understanding adolescents’ authenticity and inauthenticity. Frameworks which are less complex are beneficial for targeting specific aspects of phenomena, however, phenomena exist within greater psychological and sociocultural ecological systems and, in the case of authenticity and inauthenticity, span a lifetime. Each of the ways adolescents’ authenticity and inauthenticity have been understood so far are valuable, as some frameworks were focal, some theories were life-time oriented, and others resided within sociocultural worldviews. However, some perspectives primarily prioritized adulthood with little attention given to adolescent developmental progressions of identities, transitional identity exploration, and increasingly diverse social connections that occur during adolescence. As awareness of one’s own capacity to be inauthentic only emerges during early adolescence (Harter et al., 1997), it suggests that trait-like dispositional perspectives of authenticity and inauthenticity need to be theoretically reframed for younger adolescents. While most research was quantitative, it was encouraging to see qualitative research prioritizing adolescents’ own understandings and experiences, as both methodological approaches are necessary to understand aspects of authenticity across cultures and generations, with new insights gleaned by hearing adolescents’ voices.

Definitions and operationalizations of authenticity and inauthenticity used in studies in this review were typically characterized by two conceptual features (Table 4). The first feature of congruence/incongruence/self-coherence/disruption has overt elements readily recognized as ways to describe being true to oneself or not, such as thoughts, feelings, behavior, an overall sense, and sometimes awareness. In essence, this feature represents the how process—how individuals sense, express, and usually identify authenticity and inauthenticity. The second feature of self-determination/self-creation/hindrance taps into elements such as motivation, intention, degree of psychological need satisfaction, and support. This feature represents the why process—psychological reasons why people tend to be or feel more or less authentic or inauthentic. A less common feature was self-consistency/inconsistency, which might be broadly simplified to when and where—this feature helps people infer whether a person’s degree of authenticity and inauthenticity remain consistent within or across contexts, situations, or roles, or tend to vary. Its less frequent use across definitions and measures suggests self-consistency may not be an essential element of authenticity and inauthenticity for adolescents, as variability while experimenting with roles (Harter et al., 1997) and identities (Erikson, 1970) is a normative process during adolescence. Further, while some adolescents indicate they are their true selves all the time (Nartova-Bochaver et al., 2021), other adolescents feel it is “desirable and appropriate to be different in different relational contexts”, and “you can’t always be the same person and probably shouldn’t be” (Harter, 2012, p. 385). Results of this review demonstrate two conceptual features of authenticity and inauthenticity—functionality/dysfunctionality and self-discovery/stalling—are not theoretically relevant during adolescence, as only one item in one measure related to functionality, and there was no evidence in qualitative studies of either feature. The absence of material representing authenticity as a lifelong process involving discovering one’s essential self, indicates a contemporary sociocultural shift away from a worldview generated during eras where beliefs regarding divine predestination and biological determinism were being explored (see Golomb, 1995).

Increased clarity regarding antonyms of authenticity and their meaning is required to facilitate expansion of theoretical and applied knowledge, as half of the reviewed studies assessing inauthenticity omitted defining it and there was insufficient alignment between theories or frameworks and operationalizations for more than one third of studies. While inauthenticity can be challenging to define, clarity could be achieved when creating initial working definitions by reversing bipolar measure items oriented to authenticity and describing their conceptual opposite. Additional research with adolescents is required to answer Wood et al.’s (2008) question regarding whether certain antonyms are “part of the same higher order factor as [dispositional, personality-oriented] authenticity” (p. 397). Peterson and Seligman’s (2004) list of measures used to assess authenticity, honesty, and integrity may be a helpful starting point to begin identifying differentiating antonyms.

Most studies investigated dispositional perspectives of authenticity (Table 5). State authenticity is a newer type being explored with adolescents, being defined “conceptually and operationally, as the subjective sense of being one’s true self” (Thomaes et al., 2017, p. 1053), and is currently being approached as conceptually distinct from existing dispositional conceptualizations (see Sedikides et al., 2019 for an overview of their approach). Considering authenticity and inauthenticity from a state-based viewpoint opens new avenues for research, such as investigating facilitating, enabling, affordance, inhibiting, and disinhibiting (e.g., Suler, 2005) factors influencing authenticity and inauthenticity in the here-and-now. A state-based viewpoint could help researchers investigate the transient involvement of specific character strengths, values, and morality as antecedents to the expression or suppression of authenticity and inauthenticity. Characterizing state authenticity and inauthenticity experiences based on patterns of state psychological phenomena may be helpful, as research with adults showed that patterns of relationships between authenticity experiences and psychological phenomena, when compared to inauthenticity experiences, are not necessarily linear; and, not all experiential patterns involve the same constructs (Lenton et al., 2014). Not all prescriptive criteria considered essential for dispositional authenticity or inauthenticity showed ecological validity in adults’ state experiences (e.g., value-behavior violations were often connected with feeling inauthentic, whereas value-consistent behavior was rarely mentioned when feeling authentic; Lenton et al. 2013a). While some researchers are approaching state authenticity/inauthenticity as conceptually distinct from dispositional constructs (see Sedikides et al., 2019 for an overview; Schmader & Sedikides, 2017, for an example of a model), there are additional ways states and their connection (if any) to dispositions can be approached in psychology more generally, that may be appropriate (see Chen, 2019; Endler & Kocovski, 2001; Endler et al., 1991; Fridhandler, 1986; Kiken et al., 2015; Nezlek, 2007; Ruch et al., 1997). State authenticity and state inauthenticity have not been investigated as unipolar concepts with adolescents.

Knowledge About Authenticity and Inauthenticity in Adolescents (RQ2)

This review revealed this field of research is emergent, as many variables related to authenticity and inauthenticity were only investigated once and only two variables were analyzed in more than three studies (Fig. 2). It also revealed adolescents’ dispositional authenticity generally increased or remains stable across time, although within-person variability can occur where some become less authentic/more inauthentic. The increasing trajectory aligns with the developmental process of gradually resolving the identity versus identity confusion task (Erikson, 1968) and moving from introjection to integration (Ryan & Deci, 2017). Understanding what positively influences authenticity early in adolescence and facilitating increasing those positive influences may have a beneficial effect on other developmental outcomes (Impett et al., 2008). A mixed-methods approach which adds qualitative research at various time-points in longitudinal quantitative studies may help researchers gain greater insight into what aspects of adolescents’ lives (e.g., developmental, social, identity, environmental, motivational, medical) adolescents’ think are continuing to support, hinder, or changed their authenticity and inauthenticity. Future longitudinal research may consider incorporating state and dispositional measures to explore whether frequency or degree of state authenticity and inauthenticity across time, or in certain contexts, predicts dispositional authenticity (bipolar) or alterations to dispositional authenticity (unipolar). Knowing whether longitudinal changes in dispositional authenticity/inauthenticity in specific contexts (e.g., parents, friends, online) coincide with longitudinal changes in autonomy satisfaction or frustration within those contexts may provide areas of focus where supportive programs may be helpful. Further, adding qualitative exploration to state-based phases across longitudinal investigations may help identify what adolescents think is enabling their authenticity at specific time points across adolescence, contributing to a positive stream of research aimed toward understanding longer-term links with wellbeing and flourishing. Key findings relating to specific types/forms/contexts of authenticity and inauthenticity are discussed next, and are followed by topic-based subsections which provide an integrated discussion of results across all types/forms/contexts of authenticity and inauthenticity.

State Authenticity/Inauthenticity

A critical finding in this review was that autonomy satisfaction causally influences state authenticity/inauthenticity (Thomaes et al., 2017). To some extent this is unsurprising, as part of how autonomy is defined in self-determination theory (Ryan & Deci, 2017) is inherent in several definitions of authenticity presented in the introduction—both ideas involve thoughts, feelings, and volitional behaviors which represent the true self. Autonomy satisfaction is therefore part of the experience of authenticity. A psychologically healthy developmental trajectory requires an increase in autonomy as adolescents move toward adulthood, so environments where carers and significant adults continue to be overprotective or controlling, or where autonomy regarding identity choices is restricted (e.g., vocational, intimate relationships, interests, religious, political), will inevitably affect adolescents’ overall sense of authenticity.

Dispositional Authenticity/Inauthenticity, General

The finding that greater dispositional inauthenticity was predicted by negative personality factors (narcissism and psychopathy; Kurek et al., 2019), and predicted greater moral disengagement (Abraham et al., 2018a) and not being disciplined at school (Gueta & Berkovich, 2022) suggests that some adolescents may be adopting a negative identity. Negative identity is a psychologically detrimental resolution to the developmental identity task (Erikson, 1968), but may be necessary for survival to alleviate identity distress when adolescents have extensive exposure to many negative adult role models (e.g., violent or lazy; Hihara et al., 2018), so adopt similar negative elements.

Dispositional Authenticity/Inauthenticity with Parents and Authority Figures

Erikson’s approach to development across the lifespan has an intergenerational developmental component where generative (in contrast to stagnating) adults help adolescents flourish by “fostering, recognizing, and affirming the development of [adolescents’] identities” (Schacter, 2018, p. 317) and provide opportunities for them to explore “tentative identities” (Schacter, 2018, p. 318) safely. Even though role experimentation is one motive for false-self behavior, an important finding was that adolescents themselves are appreciative of parents who encourage role experimentation, as this motive was aligned with higher authenticity with parents (Harter et al., 1996).

Dispositional Authenticity/Inauthenticity with Peers and Friends

Gender orientation is an important part of identity exploration during adolescence, however, of all studies in this review, only Harter et al.’s (1998) study investigated gender orientation, and drew on questionnaires published between 1975 and 1991 to identify masculine, feminine, or androgenous characteristics. They described femininity as including “sensitivity, warmth, empathy, expressions of affection, enjoyment of babies and children, gentleness, and concern for others” (p. 895). Masculinity included “competitiveness, ability to make decisions, independence, risk taking, confidence, athleticism, mechanical aptitude, individualism, leadership, and enjoyment of math and science” (p. 895). Adolescents were classified as androgenous if they scored high on femininity and masculinity measures. Although this research is dated with regard to descriptions of gender orientations, it is important to recognize that social constructions of gender impact developmentally important relationships with friends and peers (as adolescents rely more on peers than parents for social support in late adolescence; Bokhorst et al., 2010). In particular, as boys with an androgenous orientation reported more authenticity with close friends than boys with a masculine orientation (Harter et al., 1998), inclusive social contexts where features of Harter et al.’s descriptors of femininity are encouraged or normalized may support more boys to experience greater authenticity in close relationships, thereby increasing opportunities for improved wellbeing through greater social support. The opposite pattern was found for classmates, which suggests school contexts may be less supportive for boys who equally value masculine and feminine characteristics. Gender conceptualizations have expanded since 1998 and contemporary adolescents’ views regarding gender orientations and expressions in relation to their sense of authenticity and inauthenticity remain unexplored.

Dispositional Authenticity/Inauthenticity in Romantic Relationships

Too few studies have investigated this context, and both studies reported several unexpected results in relation to gendered predictions (Shulman et al., 2009; Sippola et al., 2007). Of note, for girls and boys, having the skill of managing conflict well in other-sex non-romantic relationships meant they could be more like their true selves in romantic relationships (Sippola et al., 2007), however, the genders involved in romantic dyads (i.e., other-sex or same-sex) were not identified.

Dispositional Authenticity (Unipolar)

A key overall finding for this form is that having a lower level of an authentic personality (which is not necessarily equated to inauthenticity; Wood et al., 2008) predicted negative interpersonal, intrapersonal, and behavioral outcomes, which were similarly evident for dispositional authenticity/inauthenticity constructs (non-context specific; see Fig. 2). Figure 2 shows this unipolar form was predicted by similar categories of concepts as for conceptually bipolar forms (state, dispositional general, and dispositional with parents) which implies they are tapping into the same underlying latent principle.

The following subsections provide an integrated discussion of results for RQ2 across all types/forms/contexts of authenticity and inauthenticity. They are structured around themes displayed in the overall nomological network in Fig. 2: relationships/social and psychological; wellbeing and ill-being; and other (gender, behavior).

Relationships/Social and Psychological

A very important finding across studies was the influence of social support. Concepts reflecting social support, autonomy, acceptance, and inclusion (versus lack of support, excessive control, social isolation, or loneliness) were recurring themes across studies in the review. Perceived social support or hope about future support predicted authenticity (bipolar) and mediated (Harter et al., 1996; Wang et al., 2019; Xie et al., 2018) or moderated (Wang et al., 2018) relationships between authenticity (bipolar) and other variables, suggesting that even though adolescents may not frequently mention the involvement of other people (Nartova-Bochaver et al., 2021), the support they feel those people provide or are likely to provide is important to their overall experience. In studies where dispositional authenticity/inauthenticity was operationalized as context-specific, the antecedent link between level of support and authenticity/inauthenticity was fully mediated by hope about future social support (Harter et al., 1996), which may function similarly to how dispositional optimism moderated the impact of social support in the consequential relationship between general dispositional authenticity/inauthenticity and depressive symptoms (Xie et al., 2018). A key developmental task during young adulthood involves resolution of intimacy versus isolation—that is, to have a strong network of fulfilling and close relationships, rather than being disconnected (Erikson, 1968). Successful resolution of that task depends on experiences of giving and receiving social support (for true intimacy) as well as resolution of the identity task during the prior developmental period of adolescence (Årseth et al., 2009). That is, an adolescent’s developing sense of self and experiences of authenticity associated with that self are formative processes closely linked to social connectedness which are vital during later adolescence and young adulthood. Based on the findings for state authenticity/inauthenticity and dispositional authenticity (unipolar), it is reasonable to assume the degree of satisfaction or frustration of autonomy (beyond the school environment), competence, and relatedness needs may also predict general and context-specific dispositional authenticity/inauthenticity. Further research is required into the effects of social support from parents versus friends on authenticity/inauthenticity for 16–18 year old adolescents specifically; as this is the only age group where the level of support from friends may exceed that of parents, rather than being similar (Bokhorst et al., 2010) and coincides with the final developmental transition toward emerging adulthood where new vocational identities are being considered (e.g., career). Finally, although adolescent romantic relationships may sometimes be short and the role of hope of future support likely tenuous, it may be helpful to assess the degree of autonomy and relatedness satisfaction and frustration adolescents experience in the relationship and its predictive effects on authenticity and inauthenticity.

Motives

Few studies investigated motives associated with adolescents’ authenticity and inauthenticity, possibly due to the dispositional and reflective nature of research operationalizations used. As adolescents’ most important motive for inauthentic behavior involved a desire to please others (Harter et al., 1996), researchers developing studies involving self-reported inauthenticity may need to structure research so potential effects of acquiescence bias are minimized. Given 31% of adolescents rated devaluation of self as an important motive for being inauthentic (dispositional, bipolar) with peers (Harter et al., 1996), future research should explore this concept in state authenticity/inauthenticity settings. Hope about future support is a reaction to previous support received (level or quality) and serves as a motivator for dispositional authenticity/inauthenticity (Harter et al., 1996). Adolescents were less authentic with parents and more authentic with peers when devaluation of self was the motive (which adolescents noted was the second most important reason for inauthenticity), but more authentic with parents and less authentic with peers when role experimentation was the motive (Harter et al., 1996). So, despite devaluing oneself in peer relationships, risks of being authentic may be less when adolescents are with their peers than parents. Further research is needed to establish whether adolescents a) feel they can experiment with roles more safely with parents than peers, or b) experiment with a wider variety of roles with peers than parents.

Ryan and Deci’s (2017) self-determination theory offers two useful levels for investigating motivation in adolescents: specific types, and causality orientations. Specific types of motivation are intrinsic, extrinsic, and amotivation. Intrinsic motivation occurs when an activity (social or physical) is naturally interesting to an individual, perceived as inherently enjoyable or aligns with their values, the social context is supportive, and a person autonomously engages in it. It is likely part of the experience of authenticity. Extrinsic motivation occurs when an activity appears likely to offer useful benefits, rather than being inherently beneficial (e.g., social approval or achieving a goal). The more autonomous extrinsic motivation feels (internalized), the more it aligns with one’s own values and beliefs for the situation (identified). The more those values and beliefs are embedded in one’s broader values and beliefs (integrated), the more it is perceived as authentic in a situation. If extrinsic motivation feels imposed (external regulation), or is reluctantly adopted (introjected), this feels external to the self and inauthentic. This suggests some extrinsic motivations may be associated with authenticity, and others with inauthenticity. According to Ryan and Deci, amotivation is when a person lacks motivation. They may feel completely ineffective, helpless, indifferent, or resistant (choosing non-action, despite having competence). These feelings and expectations can occur just prior to behavior and continue during behavior, so are essential to the phenomenological experience of authenticity and inauthenticity and may interest researchers investigating state authenticity and inauthenticity.

The other level Ryan and Deci (2017) offer is causality orientations, which are “individual differences in, and priming of, motivational orientations … [arising from] … persistent differences in contextual supports versus deprivations … over time” (p. 216). There are three orientations: autonomy, controlled, and impersonal. People “high in the autonomy orientation … tend to use the identified and integrated styles of regulation and to have a high level of intrinsic motivation” (p. 217). People “high in the controlled orientation … tend to use the external and introjected styles of regulation and to have a low level of intrinsic motivation [and be] acutely occupied with ‘what others might think’ and/or with what external judgments or contingencies might attend their actions” (p. 218). People high in impersonal orientation tend to be “relatively passive and are easily overwhelmed by environmental forces and by their own internal drives and emotions” (p. 218). All three are developmental in form, so may interest researchers investigating adolescents’ dispositional authenticity and inauthenticity.

Morality

Studies revealed moral identity is important for dispositional authenticity (Morgan & Fowers, 2022), and self-alienation predicted moral disengagement (Abraham et al., 2018a, 2018b). Connections between morality and general dispositional authenticity/inauthenticity have not been investigated, despite the theoretical relevance (see Kernis & Goldman, 2006). Additional research is required to investigate adolescents’ state-based experiences of inauthenticity, as when adults recalled an instance of inauthenticity, they “felt more impure and less moral, and experienced a greater desire for physical cleanliness… [which] made them more likely to behave prosocially” (Gino et al., 2015, p. 994). However, if they used hand sanitizer, “the relationship between inauthenticity and prosocial behavior was eliminated” (Gino et al., 2015, p. 994) which suggests while experiences of inauthenticity may lead to prosocial outcomes, they may contribute to maladaptive behaviors (i.e., cleansing as a frequent compensatory activity). Adolescents have an “authentic inner compass … [which helps them resist] … peer-pressure to engage in antisocial behaviors” (Assor et al., 2020, p. 346), however, the relationship of this construct to adolescents’ authenticity and inauthenticity remains unexplored.

Values

While theoretical literature emphasizes values as integral for authenticity (Kernis & Goldman, 2006), few value-oriented antecedents had been explored with adolescents in this review, particularly as predictors or in the context of authenticity/inauthenticity with parents, or in everyday experiences for state authenticity/inauthenticity. Some authenticity and inauthenticity measures refer to values and beliefs in a general sense (e.g., Thomaes et al., 2017; Wood et al., 2008), however, adolescents may not know what values actually are, so lists of behavior- and goal-oriented values (e.g., Rokeach, 1973) may be helpful.

Being Alone or with Others

The finding that adolescents frequently mentioned experiencing the same feelings of authenticity when they were alone as with others (Nartova-Bochaver et al., 2021) suggests this is a variation of authenticity (social versus non-social) requiring qualitative exploration with adolescents who experience different feelings of authenticity when they are alone. It is possible some adolescents may feel more authentic during solitude (as opposed to loneliness). In adults, the level of trait authenticity moderated the likelihood of experiencing state authenticity in social (higher trait authenticity) and non-social (lower trait authenticity) situations (Ito & Kodama, 2007).

Sexual Orientation

Sexual orientation is a facet of identity development which becomes salient during adolescence around age 13 (Hall et al., 2021) but was not investigated in studies in this review. Adolescents who face cultural or social resistance (reduced or no autonomy, or little social support) in this regard are likely to experience inauthenticity (Son & Updegraff, 2023). If adolescents lack opportunities to consider orientation, so commit to an orientation on the basis of other peoples’ perspectives rather than their own, the status for that part of their identity becomes foreclosed (Marcia, 1980).

Wellbeing and Ill-being

Two more recurring themes across studies were wellbeing and ill-being, with greater authenticity (bipolar and unipolar) predicting greater wellbeing, which parallels adult literature (Sutton, 2020). Only two variables (depression and self-esteem) were analyzed in four or more studies, which means more research is required to determine whether the remaining variables are connected to authenticity and inauthenticity for most adolescents worldwide. The current review’s scope was broader than Sutton’s (2020) meta-analysis and consequentially identified additional studies where wellbeing measures had been used in relation to authenticity in adolescent samples. Only one article was identical in both reviews (being Thomaes et al., 2017), as the other studies in Sutton’s review contained samples which exceeded the age parameters of this current review.

Wellbeing was operationalized as self-esteem, positive mental wellbeing (e.g., feeling calm, active, interested; Aktar et al., 2021), or positive affect across dispositional authenticity/inauthenticity studies, although one study used a composite which included ill-being (depressive symptoms; Theran, 2010). Self-esteem was the main form of wellbeing investigated as an outcome of dispositional authenticity/inauthenticity with parents, and while positive relations with others (such as friends) reflect an element of Ryff’s (2014) eudaimonic psychological wellbeing construct, it may be valuable to explore to what degree adolescents feel their ability to be authentic with their parents relates to life satisfaction more generally. Life satisfaction has not been investigated in conjunction with adolescents’ dispositional authenticity/inauthenticity. For state authenticity/inauthenticity, only affect and life satisfaction have been explored. Wellbeing was also operationalized as positive affect and life satisfaction for dispositional authenticity (unipolar) in studies in this review. There is a partial gap in knowledge regarding how authenticity (bipolar or unipolar) relates to adolescent wellbeing in terms of flourishing and thriving, not merely as an absence of ill-being (e.g., lower depressive symptoms). Ryff’s (2014) perspective of eudaimonic psychological wellbeing is broader than has been explored in studies in this review, and includes “autonomy”, “environmental mastery” (including competence), “personal growth”, “positive relations with others”, “purpose in life” (meaning), and “self-acceptance” (p. 12). Wood et al.’s (2008) measure of authentic personality has shown significant correlations with these aspects of eudaimonic wellbeing for adults. In this review, antecedents and outcomes which reflect some of Ryff’s principles of eudaimonic wellbeing are spread across the overall nomological network for authenticity and inauthenticity (see Fig. 2); and, items reflecting some of those principles appear within some measures of authenticity (bipolar and unipolar) used in studies in this review (Table 3). Together, this suggests certain aspects of eudaimonic wellbeing and authenticity are closely intertwined.

The Warwick Edinburgh Mental Wellbeing Scale (NHS Health Scotland, 2008) is likely valuable for investigating adolescents’ wellbeing in conjunction with state authenticity, as it contains 14 simply worded items which tap into wellbeing ideas such as optimism about their future, confidence, thinking clearly, feeling cheerful, relaxed, interested, useful, and close to others. Many of those items align well with variables in the nomological network (Fig. 2), such as antecedents involving relationships and hope, the moderating influence of dispositional optimism, and outcomes such as loneliness, anxiety, positive mental wellbeing, and affect. Flourishing (conceptualized by Seligman, 2011; operationalized in the PERMA-Profiler by Butler & Kern, 2016) has not been explored, and has indirect conceptual links to variables in the nomological network (Fig. 2), such as affect, anxiety, positive mental wellbeing, loneliness, competency, and relationships, but extends those ideas further into concepts such as flow (feeling absorbed in an activity), purpose, meaning, and sense of direction in life. The relationship between adolescents’ authenticity and inauthenticity and seeking, understanding, or discovering a meaningful purpose in life (e.g., Steger et al., 2006) remains unexplored.

Indicators of ill-being across studies included negative affect, depressive symptoms, anxiety symptoms, self-silencing (the broader conceptualization by Jack & Dill, 1992), and internet addiction. As foreshadowed in the results section, hope of and perceptions of higher social support connected with dispositional authenticity/inauthenticity may function as preventative buffers against emotional, social, and behavioral issues, and depressive symptoms. In adults, a self-alienation component of dispositional authenticity (unipolar) has been associated with stress (Wood et al., 2008), although it is unknown whether this applies for adolescents. It is recommended that researchers remain aware of the intersection between distress symptoms and discrete and chronic stressors when determining whether their research is focused on state-based situations, cumulations across time, or dispositional orientations (Núñez-Regueiro et al., 2022). Negative affect was the only indicator of ill-being investigated in conjunction with adolescents’ state authenticity/inauthenticity. State-based research into ill-being, especially when using mixed-methods approaches, may provide greater insight into whether and why other indicators of ill-being (e.g., anxiety) may function as predictors, outcomes, or covariates of authenticity and inauthenticity within certain contexts. In adults, the Self-Alienation subscale for dispositional authenticity (unipolar) usually showed the strongest relationships with ill-being and wellbeing indicators of anxiety, stress, negative affect, positive affect, self-esteem, and satisfaction with life (Wood et al., 2008). This suggests feeling confused, uncertain about, and disconnected from one’s true self is particularly pertinent to wellbeing and ill-being, however, this subscale has to date, only been linked to internet addiction in adolescents (Anli, 2018).

Behavior

The scarcity of behavioral outcomes investigated across studies indicates more research is required to better understand what behaviors are likely to be predicted or influenced by dispositional authenticity and inauthenticity. Ryan and Ryan (2019) proposed authenticity can come into existence simultaneously with behavioral experiences, rather than functioning as an antecedent; so future state-based research is likely to shed light on the finer distinctions between general dispositional tendencies and state-based here-and-now experiences of authenticity and inauthenticity.

Gender

For studies involving contexts where gender differences in authenticity (unipolar, online) and authenticity/inauthenticity were found (parents, mother, close friends, best friends, romantic relationships) girls reported greater authenticity than boys (Goldner & Berenshtein-Dagan, 2016; Harter et al., 1996; Peets & Hodges, 2018; Shulman et al., 2009; Sippola et al., 2007; Wang et al.,