Authentic Psychosocial Functioning of the Individual [TOP]

Artists, clergy, philosophers, psychologists and psychotherapists have long sought to define who one "really" is in his/her psychosocial functioning as an individual nested in social groups, organizations, communities and society. According to Baumeister (1987), concern over distinguishing between private concealment of one’s self from that which was observable in others emerged as an area of interest around the XVI-th century. Ensuing themes depicting “true” versus “false” selves of people provided a varied range of possibilities for characterizing one’s real self. Determining whether one’s self was in fact true or false ranged from numerous considerations of evaluative referents that included, but were not limited to, one’s faith, piety, heart, or virtue (Heidegger, 1962; Kernis & Goldman, 2005, 2006; Mills, 1997; Taylor, 1992).

Although the construct of one’s true self has been conceptualized in diverse ways, many historical and contemporary perspectives consider knowledge of one’s self as a meaningful component of one’s true self (Harter, 2002; Park, 1999). For instance, the playwright Anton Chekhov once stated “Man is what he believes.” From this perspective one’s true self is intimately linked with his/her self-knowledge, private self-identity and his/her self-reflective capacity (Ferrara, 2004; Guignon, 1993). But, this is not a case for accuracy per se. It is a case for the impact of one’s perceptions, self-understanding and self-reflection, irrespective of accuracy.

To further complicate accuracy in conceptualizing one’s true self, early psychodynamic perspectives championed by Freud (1901) and psychoanalysis affirmed the role of unconscious motives and ego-defense mechanisms in shaping the authentic vs. inauthentic psychosocial functioning of the individual. In this view, one’s true self may even be obscured by one’s own neurotically driven self-deceptions and ego-defensive distortions of internal and external realities (Mills, 1997).

Subsequently, existential and humanistic psychologists highlighted the role of one’s true self and authentic experiences, behaviors and interactions of the individual in illuminating healthy personality adjustment, psychosocial functioning and life-span development of people (Guignon, 1993; Heidegger, 1962; Park, 1999). Maslow (1968) suggested that athenticity occured when individuals discovered their true inner nature and actualized their inherent potentialities by sufficiently satisfying higher order psychological needs. That is, after gratifying their physiological needs, individuals then turn toward satisfying their “being” or growth-oriented needs. Focusing on one’s psychosocial growth-oriented needs presumably results in fuller knowledge and acceptance of one’s true, or intrinsic nature, furthering one’s path toward self-actualization (Maslow, 1968).

In this view, authenticity depends upon knowledge and understanding of one’s core needs, coupled with self-actualizing tendencies to actively fulfill them in all aspects of individual’s psychosocial functioning. Similarly, Rogers (1961) emphasized that authenticity emerges when congruence is achieved between one’s private self-concept and immediate experiences, behaviors, and interactions with others in group, organizational and social contexts. Thus, being one’s true self involves a sense of connectedness between one’s self-knowledge and attendant experiences, behaviors and interactions of individual in his/her group, organizational and social settings. Accordingly, authenticity is rooted in one’s self, but not as a static privately accessible self-representation. Rather, authenticity may be conceptualized as a ongoing psychodynamic process whereby one’s potentials, characteristics, emotions, values, motivation, and so forth are discovered and explored, accepted, imbued with meaning or purpose, and expressed and actualized. When experiences, behaviors and social interactions of the individual are congruent with the true self, he/she becomes healthier and fully functional in psychosocial and mental health terms. In this view, healthy adjustment and development of the individual, both intrapersonally and interpersonally, may be the best markers for the presence of vital authenticity in individuals, and constructive climates (conditions, spaces, cultures) for authenticity expression and development in human groups, organizations and society.

Although much has been written about authenticity historically, very little empirical research has examined it and its determining forces directly. However, some research has focused on establishing what outcomes emerge when false or inauthentic selves are functioning. This research has typically examined behavioral and relational aspects of relatively inauthentic, self-alienating experiences in daily life. For example, false self inauthentic behaviors and interactions have been examined with respect to such varied topics as self-monitoring (Snyder, 1974), strategic self-presentations (Goffman, 1959, 1963) and voice (Gilligan, 1982; Harter, Waters, & Whitesell, 1997).

These areas of social psychological research share a common orientation in examining circumstances when individuals’ own needs or motives are characteristically incongruent with the prevailing environmental context, climate or culture of their group, organizational and social settings. In addition, congruence between one’s core self-aspects and his/her psychosocial functioning has been examined in various ways.

Self-Determination Theory (Deci & Ryan, 1985), for instance, has spawned research demonstrating the importance of need satisfaction in examining authenticity (Deci & Ryan, 2000). It proposed that individuals possess three fundamental intrinsic needs: autonomy (i.e., choice), competence (i.e., mastery) and relatedness (i.e., connectedness with others). These intrinsic needs are conceptualized as being most central to one’s core or true self. Therefore, when these needs are satisfied (as opposed to being thwarted) in group, organizational and social context individuals will experience greater authenticity and healthier psychosocial adjustment and development. In support of this contention, Sheldon and Kasser (1998) reported that individuals whose life goals were highly concordant (i.e., congruent with their core needs, values, and interests) scored higher on a variety of psychosocial adjustment and mental health indices (incl., self-actualization, positive mood, vitality, self-esteem) than did individuals whose life goals were less concordant. In two independent longitudinal research projects, Sheldon and Kasser (1998), and Dimitrov and Mateeva (in press) found that individuals’ psychosocial functioning and adjustment increased over time when life goals were high but not low in self-concordance, and people felt that their life planning was really functioning as an expression of their true selves, helping them “to enact their core experiences, values and desires on the psychosocial stage of their life dramas.”

Similarly, Goldman, Kernis, Piasecki, Hermann, and Foster (2003) found that individuals’ psychosocial functioning, adjustment and development, as measured by autonomy, environmental mastery, personal growth, purpose in life, self-acceptance, and positive relationships, increased to the extent that their life goals “reflected who they really are as a person” (p. 3). Such findings suggest that the immediate and long-term benefits of life goal pursuits are enhanced when these life goals and life scripts represent one’s authentic or core self. Taken together, these findings indicate that authenticity is linked to effective and healthy psychosocial functioning, adjustment and development of human beings (Dimitrov & Mateeva, 2012a, 2012b, 2012c; Mateeva, 2011, 2012а, 2012b; Mateeva & Dimitrov, 2012a, 2012b, 2012c, 2012d).

However, as a distinct personality variable authenticity has not received much attention before year 2000. To fill this gap, Kernis and Goldman (2005, 2006) and Wood, Linley, Maltby, Baliousis, and Joseph (2008) developed the first two psychometric tools to measure individual differences in authenticity. These inventories were based on multicomponent conceptions of authenticity of psychosocial functioning of the individual. Authenticity, finally, has been operationalized as “the unobstructed operation of one’s core or true self in one’s daily enterprise” (Goldman & Kernis, 2002, p. 18; Kernis, 2003, p. 1). Specifically, authenticity involves the following discriminable components: 1) self-awareness, 2) unbiased processing, 3) authentic behavior or action, and 4) relational authenticity.

The first component, self-awareness, refers to having maximal knowledge, recognition and trust of one’s own motives, feelings, desires, and self-relevant feelings and cognitions. It includes, but is not limited to, being aware of one’s strengths, weaknesses, trait characteristics, emotions, inner conflicts, and their roles in behavior. An important aspect of this component is that awareness is not reflected in self-concepts wherein inherent polarities are unrecognized or denied (i.e., that have been characterized as internally consistent; Campbell, 1990). That is, self-awareness does not simply reflect recognition of one’s self as “introverted” or “neurotic”, for example. Rather, self-awareness represents recognition of existing polarities inherent in one’s self-concept, or, as Perls put it, being aware of both "figure" and "ground" in one's personality aspects (Perls, Hefferline, & Goodman, 1951). Therefore, self-awareness involves knowledge and acceptance of one’s multifaceted and potentially contradictory self-aspects (i.e., being both introverted and extraverted, neurotic and emotionally stable), as opposed to rigid acceptance of only those self-aspects deemed internally consistent with one’s overall self-concept.

The second component of authenticity involves the unbiased processing of self-relevant information. Unbiased processing reflects objectivity in assessing one's positive and negative self-aspects, attributes, qualities, and potentials. Stated differently, unbiased processing involves "not denying, distorting, exaggerating, or ignoring private knowledge, internal experiences, and externally based evaluative information" (Kernis, 2003, p. 14). Deviations from objective self-reflections are considered to largely involve ego-defense mechanisms and may therefore be a marker for maladjustment. For instance, Dimitrov (2008), Dimitrov & Mateeva (2012b), and Ungerer, Waters, Barnett, and Dolby (1997) found that maladaptive or immature ego defenses that involve greater reality distortion and/or failure to acknowledge and resolve distressing emotions relate to numerous psychological and interpersonal difficulties, including poor adjustment to work and family roles. Similarly, it was found that individuals who repressed traumatic events, felt less authentic and experienced lower levels of psychological health than did those who actively talked/wrote about their troubling experiences. Thus, sustained tendencies to process self-relevant information without openly, objectively and honestly attending to it is likely to result in diminished psychosocial adjustment and mental health.

The third component of authenticity involves authentic behavior or action. Authenticity reflects acting in accord with one's values, preferences, and needs as opposed to acting merely to please others or to attain rewards or avoid punishments, or acting "falsely". Theoretically, authentic behavior involves behavior that reflects self-determination (i.e., autonomy and choice), as opposed to controlled and conformistic behavior that is contingent upon meeting introjected or external goals and demands (Kernis, 2000). Kernis (2003) suggests that authentic behavior reflects sensitivity to the fit (or lack of) between one's true self, the dictates of the group, organizational and social environments, and an awareness of the potential implications of one's behavioral and sometimes, really existential choices. Moreover, authenticity is not reflected in a compulsion to be one's true self at all costs, but rather in the free, spontaneous and natural expression of one’s core feelings, motives, and inclinations in the environmental contexts one encounters (Deci & Ryan, 2000).

And finally, the fourth component of authenticity involves one’s relational orientation toward others. That is, relational authenticity involves the extent to which one values and achieves openness and truthfulness in one’s interpersonal and social relationships, in one’s social roles enactments. Relational authenticity also entails wanting and allowing others to see one’s true self, both the good and bad qualities. Toward that end, an authentic relational orientation involves an effective process of self-disclosure such that others learn who you really are (Kernis & Goldman, 2005, 2006). An authentic relational orientation should therefore foster the development of mutual intimacy and trust (e.g., more secure attachment). In short, relational authenticity means being genuine and not fake in one’s social roles and relationships with others.

Recent investigations have demonstrated that individual’s situational and dispositional authenticity appears to be linked pervasively to greater psychosocial adjustment, well-being and mental health. Goldman and Kernis (2002) found that higher scores in personal authenticity related to higher levels of global self-esteem and lower levels of contingent self-esteem.

Authenticity was also linked with hedonic benefits, in that higher authenticity scores were associated with greater subjective well-being, as measured by greater reported levels of life-satisfaction and positive affectivity and lower negative affectivity. In a longitudinal study examining dispositional authenticity, life goal pursuits, and adjustment, Goldman et al. (2003), hypothesized that higher authenticity scores would be related to healthier life goal pursuits, subjective well-being, psychological well-being, and personality and interpersonal adjustment. Goldman et al. (2003) proposed that individuals’ life goal pursuits would provide opportunities for competence, self-determination, expressing one’s true self, and positive feelings, especially for individuals who are high in authenticity. These researchers found that higher authenticity scores were related to life goal pursuit ratings that reflected greater self-concordance, self-worth benefit, fun, relative importance, efficacy, absorption and lower reported levels of pressure.

With respect to subjective and psychological well-being, Goldman et al. (2003) found also that higher authenticity ratings were positively correlated with all six subscales of Ryff’s (1989) multicomponent measure of well-being. Specifically, higher authenticity scores were related to greater autonomy, environmental mastery, personal growth, positive relationships with others, purpose and meaning in life, and self-acceptance. Furthermore, the pattern of findings concerning subjective well-being replicated Goldman and Kernis (2002) by linking higher authenticity ratings with greater life-satisfaction and positive affectivity, and less negative affectivity. In addition, authenticity was related to healthier personality and interpersonal adjustment. For instance, authenticity was positively correlated with global self-esteem and a secure attachment style, but negatively related to preoccupied and fearful attachment styles.

Other findings indicated that higher authenticity scores related to less self-enhancement and self-serving motives for social comparison, self-monitoring, and contingent self-esteem (Goldman et al., 2003; Wood et al., 2008). Consequently, greater levels of authenticity seem to reflect a "stronger sense of self" (Kernis, Paradise, Whitaker, Wheatman, & Goldman, 2000). That is, higher authenticity scores were linked with more secure (Kernis & Goldman, 1999) forms of self-esteem (high general self-esteem level coupled with low contingent self-esteem). In addition, greater authenticity in individuals was related to less dependence on others as a source for self-evaluation (i.e., lower social comparison and contingent self-esteem) and in determining what behaviors one should consider enacting (i.e., low self-monitoring and higher spotaneity).

Consistent with the notion of authenticity being related to a stronger sense of a free self, authenticity has also been found to relate to indices of self-organization that affirm efficacy and adaptability in one’s self-concept. Specifically, Goldman et al. (2003), found that higher authenticity scores were positively related to the identity integration scale of O’Brien and Epstein’s (1988) multidimensional measure of self-esteem. This finding indicated that higher levels of authenticity was associated with individuals' beliefs that they were efficacious, autonomous and self-reflective at assimilating new information and directing life experiences and existential choices.

Similarly, Kernis & Goldman (2005, 2006) found that authenticity was related to interpersonal behavioral aspects of self-organization, as assessed by Paulhus and Martin's (1988) measure of functional flexibility. Specifically, participants rated eight trait pairs that were derived from the interpersonal circumplex (Wiggins & Holzmuller, 1978, 1981), and reflected bipolar semantic opposites (e.g., warm and cold). Each trait attribute was evaluated separately on a unidimensional scale assessing the extent to which one feels (1) capable of being …(e.g., warm) when the situation requires it, (2) difficulty in enacting the behavior, (3) anxiety in performing the behavior, and (4) the tendency to avoid situations demanding such behaviors.

Kernis et al. (2000) found that higher authenticity scores were related to greater psychosocial functional flexibility. Specifically, participants with higher authenticity scores were more likely to report that they were capable of enacting these interpersonal and social role behaviors, and perceived less difficulty, anxiety, and avoidance of these interpersonal and social behaviors in different organizational and social contexts. Thus, greater personal authenticity may perhaps foster unique adaptive benefits in overall psychosocial functioning of individuals in groups, organizations and society (Dimitrov & Mateeva, 2012a, in press; Mateeva, 2011, 2012а; Mateeva & Dimitrov, 2012a, 2012b; Wood et al., 2008).

That is, possessing an organized set of self-knowledge for a repertoire of potential interpersonal and social roles behaviors can inform one’s decision to enact a particular behavior in different and dynamic sitiations in the group, organizational, and social contexts. Similarly, individuals’ awareness of how much difficulty and anxiety they experience when they enact certain behaviors may enhance their interpersonal and social adjustment by enabling behavioral choices to be made on well-informed self-knowledge.

In sum, authenticity has been pervasively linked with broad indices of interpersonal and social adjustment of the individual, and it appears to involve aspects of self-esteem and self-organization that are characterized by a stronger sense of being an autonomous self. Research in the USA and Bulgaria clearly demonstrated that authenticity was linked with meaningful aspects of healthy psychosocial functioning and development of the individual. Specifically, higher personal authenticity was associated with diverse markers of (1) a stronger sense of self (e.g., secure and high self-esteem, clarity and consistency in one’s self-concept organization), (2) global psychosocial adjustment (e.g., role experiences that are satisfying and expressive of one’s true self), and (3) psychological adjustment to existential challenges (e.g., greater life satisfaction and psychological adjustment to developmental tasks of human life at all stages of the life course) (Dimitrov & Mateeva, in press; Wood et al., 2008).

All these empirical evidences suggest that personal authenticity influences psychological and social adjustment, functioning and development both directly and indirectly by its effects on either a stronger sense of free and effective (autonomous) self or one’s own social roles experiences. However, the big question remained unanswered so far, is what factors in one’s life and social environment influence the authentic psychosocial functioning of the individual, and how exactly.

Ingroup Dynamics and Intergroup Relations and Their Influence on Authentic Psychosocial Functioning [TOP]

Modern social psychology is commonly defined as the study of the ways that people interact with and are influenced by others in their lives. Traditionally, social psychology has made the individual the primary focus of analysis, examining the processes within a person that shape the way he or she behaves in response to others, real or imagined, in group, organizational and social settings. Even the area of intergroup relations has largely emphasized the role of intrapsychic processes, such as individuals’ stereotypes and prejudice (Dovidio, Newheiser, & Leyens, 2012). Steiner (1974) observed that for a long period of time and to a great extent social psychology had “turned inward”. It had largely renounced or postponed its concern for studying how larger social systems (society, communities, and organizations) influence the individual, and had centred its attention on internal states and processes: dissonance, attitudes, attributions, but at same time lacked any insight on the importantance of key intrapersonal variables like self-congruity, authentic vs. inauthentic (self-alienated) experiences, behaviors and interactions of people in groups, organizations and society.

Interest in the dynamics of larger groups as a system of nested subgroups and its influence on its individual members had waned and research was generally focused on intraindividual events or processes that mediated responses to social situations in groups, organizations and broader social contexts. Since then, new theoretical developments, such as Social Identity Theory (Tajfel & Turner, 1979) and Self-Categorization Theory (Turner, Hogg, Oakes, Reicher, & Wetherell, 1987), have transformed the study of intergroup relations, bringing the group dynamics back into prominence as a source of powerful effects on authentic vs. inauthentic psychosocial functioning of people in groups, organizations and societies.

This article considers a particular aspect of the role of groups in intergroup relations and intragroup dynamics in organizations and society for the individual’s authentic psychosocial functioning, one that goes even beyond the collective processes highlighted by work in social categorization and identity (Dovidio & Gaertner, 2010; Yzerbyt & Demoulin, 2010) - the relationship between intragroup dynamics and intergroup relations as factors influencing individual’s authenticity.

Traditionally, and still currently, the study of intergroup relations represents one of the most vibrant topics in social psychological research. Research on intergroup relations in organizational and social context focuses on social identity formation, symbolic and realistic conflict between groups in organizational and social meta-systems, and interventions that can reduce intergroup conflicts in organizations and society, which are one of the major factors for inauthentic feelings, actions, and communication of their individual members (LeVine & Campbell, 1972; Pettigrew & Tropp, 2006; Sidanius & Pratto, 1999; Tajfel & Turner, 1979).

The study of intragroup dynamics of interpersonal processes and relations - within-group dynamics - continues to be an active and productive area of research in social psychology of small groups and applied research on effectiveness of group work (e.g., teamwork, group training and group psychotherapy). Work on intragroup dynamics in small groups has emphasized the importance of group-dynamics transformative factors, group leadership, influence and power within the group, interpersonal attractiveness, loyalty, group cohesiveness, cooperation, sense of group belongingness, and performance for understanding the individual member’s authentic or inauthentic (self-alienating, depersonalized) psychosocial functioning (Dimitrov & Mateeva, 2012a, 2012b; Levine & Moreland, 2002).

Yet, despite the fact that many research projects claim they are devoted to studying intergroup relations and group dynamics effects on intrapersonal processes and behavior, cross - fertilization between fields of research has been limited. Only 365 articles retrieved in Google Scholar include both terms, intergroup and intragroup, in the paper abstract, and only 138 in the title - a small fraction of the research in these two areas. And none of them (!) is addressing the question, how intergroup relations and group dynamics in organizations and larger social systems (communities, large social groups, and societies) contribute to the dynamics of individual’s authentic psychosocial functioning. Indeed, the scholarly traditions in the areas of intergroup and intragroup processes have developed in distinctive directions. Two recent chapters on the history of psychology, one on intergroup relations research (Dovidio et al., 2012) and one on small group dynamics research (Levine & Moreland, 2012), that appeared back to back in the same volume had only five common references out of a total of 464 works cited. The different conceptual and empirical trajectories of these areas of study may have occurred as a consequence of a number of factors. Current work in these areas reflects the dominant influence of different historical figures in social psychology. The popularity of different paradigms (e.g., the minimal group paradigm, group analysis, psychodrama, group psychotherapy and group relations) may seem, at least on the surface, more appropriate for one topic rather than the other. The historical emphasis in the social-psychological study of intergroup relations influence on intra-individual processes, such as attitudes and stereotypes, may have deflected research on this topic from the types of relational processes that are critical to authentic vs. inauthentic (self-alienated) functioning of the individuals in group, organizational and social settings.

Also, as the areas diverged, researchers studying either intergroup or intragroup dynamics may have developed different assumptions about the priority of these processes. For example, in contexts that emphasize intergroup comparisons in organizations and society, people tend to direct their attention to between-group distinctions and functional intergroup relations. Researchers who are primarily interested in this phenomenon may then, either consciously or inadvertently, see intragroup dynamics, studied in depth predominantly in psychotherapeutic and organizational contexts as of limited importance. Nevertheless, there are obvious links between the areas in the context of our research interest to transformative factors which influence individual’s authentic vs. inauthentic functioning in group, organizational and social contexts (Dimitrov & Mateeva, 2012a, 2012b, in press; Mateeva & Dimitrov, 2012a, 2012b). Processes such as social identity (Tajfel & Turner, 1979) and social justice (Tyler & Blader, 2000) are fundamental to psychosocial functioning of humans and thus to both intergroup relations and intragroup dynamics in organizations and society.

This article contends that understanding the reciprocal relationship between intragroup dynamics and intergroup relations, as containing complex transformative factors influencing person’s authentic vs. inauthentic psychosocial functioning, offers valuable new insights into both topics and suggests new, productive avenues for psychological research, theory and practice development using the multicomponent concept of authenticity. Admittedly, this work draws on existing major social-psychological theories (e.g., Self-Categorization Theory, Social Dominance Theory) and selectively on empirical research evidence supporting this perspective.

The purpose of this article is also to serve as a reminder of the untapped potential, practically and theoretically, of integrating intragroup dynamics and intergroup relations perspectives in understanding how authenticity/inauthenticity of individual’s intrapersonal experiences, behavior and communication with others is shaped in group, organizational, and social settings. The article builds upon previous research to illustrate how the fusion of intragroup and intergroup dynamics offers unique contributions to the study of authentic psychosocial functioning of the individuals and identifies new scholarly and professional practice directions. The article next briefly reviews key findings from dominant conceptual frameworks in the field of intergroup relations in organizations and society: social cognition, social identity, and functional relations. It then discusses the complementary role of intergroup and intragroup dynamics, reviewing how intergroup relations in organizations and society can affect small group dynamics, and then discussing how intragroup dynamics can shape both individual’s psychosocial functioning and intergroup relations in his/her organizational and social settings. The final section of the article considers the implications, theoretical and practical, of the proposed reciprocal relationships between intragroup dynamics and intergroup processes as containing key transformative forces influencing person’s authenticity or self-alenation in organizational and social contexts.

Conclusions [TOP]

Considering the role of intragroup dynamics offers additional insights in the intergroup relations that complement the invaluable perspectives of social cognition, social identity, and self-categorization as part of authenticity psychodynamics of individual’s psychosocial functioning. How people interact with members of their own group, as individuals or as subgroups, critically determines the experience and expression of their authentic feelings, thoughts, needs and goals, and likely their orientations towards other people and groups. How people think and feel about other groups and perceive intergroup relations can shape intragroup dynamics involving group identity, feeling of belongingness, and leadership choice, and dynamics of interactions of group members.

Our study was intended to draw attention to the relationships between intergroup processes and intragroup dynamics as factors influencing authentic vs. inauthentic personal psychosocial functioning and to stimulate greater conceptual and empirical integration of these related but still too - often disconnected fields of research.

The idea that intergroup and intragroup dynamics are highly relevant to each other is far from novel. The new aspect in our reflection on them is the finding that they affect, separately and in combination, the authenticity of individual’s psychosocial functioning. For instance, although specific findings (Green, Glaser, & Rich, 1998) and theoretical accounts (Glick, 2005) related to scapegoating in groups, organizations and societies have been challenged and debated, there is converging evidence that aspects of intragroup dynamics associated with collective frustration shape intergroup stereotyping and prejudices, perceived by many individuals in these groups, organizations and societies as inauthentic compared to their own authentic personal attitudes, beliefs, and evaluation.

Tajfel (1981) hypothesized that whereas individual frustrations lead people to blame other individuals for their problems shared frustrations among members of a group produce blame directed at other groups through “social attribution” processes. One mechanism by which shared frustrations promote scapegoating through social attribution processes is the adoption of inauthentic (“false”) group ideologies, myths, theories and mentality directed at specific groups – Roma people in central and south-eastern Europe, for example.

Drawing on work on the Stereotype Content Model (Cuddy, Fiske, & Glick, 2008; Fiske, Cuddy, Glick, & Xu, 2002), Glick (2005) proposed that groups that have been previously stereotyped in ways that acknowledge their power and influence and have aroused envy are most likely to be the target of the emerging ideologies and theories that justify negative social action - e.g., “we are protesting against all politicians, because all they are corrupted”. These inauthentic ideologies, self-deceptive myths, theories and mentalities often directly involve attitudes, beliefs and behavioral models relating to the dehumanization of the other group (Prunier, 2001) and the moral or psychosocial superiority of the ingroup - something observed often in partisan public policy debates of Bulgarian political parties, for example.

Thus, whereas classic views of scapegoating focused on individual frustration and action, more recent conceptualizations suggest the reciprocal relationship between intragroup dynamics and intergroup processes in larger groups, organizations and societies as determinants of authentic vs. inauthentic personal psychosocial functioning. Several theories of general group, organizational and societal organization, functioning, and bias, such as System Justification Theory (Jost & Hunyady, 2002) and Social Dominance Theory (Sidanius & Pratto, 1999) consider both intergroup processes and intragroup dynamics of authentic vs. inauthentic psychosocial functioning of individuals in group, organizational and social settings. These theories, in fact, suggest that the boundary between intergroup research and group dynamics research may be artificial, unnecessary, and conceptually misleading.

Social Dominance Theory, for instance, makes foundational assumptions about the universality of differentiation and hierarchy between groups as an essential element of organizational and societal functioning.

Self-Categorization Theory (Abrams & Hogg, 2010; Turner et al., 1987) represent an even broader framework encompassing intergroup relations and intragroup dynamics as key determinants of individual’s psychosocial functioning - being more or less authentic. It not only builds upon research demonstrating the roles of social categorization and social identity in intergroup bias, but also reveals how categorizing oneself as a member of a group (e.g., political party member, corporate citizen, or just football club fan) activates group prototypes and depersonalized attraction and loyalty to other members of the group.

Self-Categorization Theory therefore offers novel insights into authentic vs. inauthentic phenomena of individual’s psychosocial functioning and adjustment that have typically been considered solely within the field of intragroup dynamics, such as the effects of conformity, norms, and leadership on individual’s authenticity. Moreover, focusing on the relation between intergroup processes and intragroup dynamics in groups, organizations, and societies suggests at least three new directions for understanding and improving intergroup relations to enhance more authentic psychosocial functioning and adjustment of people.

First, much of the research on intergroup relations considers the ingroup in a relatively static way. Indeed, when minimal group designs are used, this is intentional - the purpose of the minimal group paradigm is to strip the situation of functional relations. While researchers commonly focus on the absence of functional relations (e.g., cooperative or competitive) between groups, the minimal group paradigm also restricts relations within groups - it is as much a minimal intragroup paradigm as it is a minimal intergroup paradigm. Thus, as valuable as the minimal intergroup research has been in so many ways, it obscures the role of intragroup dynamics in determining both intergroup bias and authentic vs. inauthentic individual psychosocial functioning. Indeed, Gaertner, Iuzzini, Witt, and Oriña (2006) found that even while maintaining the minimal nature on intergroup relations and limiting the feasibility of intergroup comparisons, increasing intragroup elements, such as the perceived entitativity of the ingroup and attractiveness of the ingroup to its members, was sufficient to promote inauthentic ingroup favouritism and as a result inauthentic personal experiences and behaviours (Rabbie & Horwitz, 1988).

In addition, one of the most robust findings in the group dynamics literature involves are the stages of group development that apply to a wide range of groups. Building on the classic work on stages of group development by Bennis and Shepard (1956), Agazarian and Gantt (2003) developed a comprehensive framework that can be applied to groups ranging size, task, and complexity. The first phase involves the development of group authority. This phase is generally stressful, involving challenges in communication among members, the development of roles and acceptance or resistance to them, and the emergence of leadership and authority, which are not equally distributed across members. The second phase emphasizes the development of intimacy and trust within the group. The group prototype is securely formed, and group identity and membership are highly valued, while individuation and authenticity are discouraged. The third phase represents a focus on group interdependence. Members direct the energy to interdependence within the group, resisting influences from outside of the group. In this stage, the social reality defined by the group is relied on more than “objective” facts and personal authenticity. Where a group is in its stage of development can systematically affect the degree and nature of intergroup bias and inauthentic personal experiences and behaviors of group members. For instance, Agazarian and Gantt (2003) propose that group members communication in the first phase of group development, in which they strive to bond with the group and its members, often leads to members “externalizing conflicts onto 'them'” (p. 241). In the second phase, in which the goal is to develop intimacy within the group, group members emphasize similarities to other members of the group. In this stage, group members may be particularly likely to make the kinds of intergroup social comparisons, described in Social Identity Theory, that create feelings of positive distinctiveness and promote bias. When a group is in the third phase, in which interdependence is emphasized, group members may feel both empowered and psychosocially and morally superior, which can lead to overt discrimination towards other groups and towards subgroups that are viewed as deviant and obstacles to efficient group functioning (Haslam & Reicher, 2007).

Stages of group development (evolution of intragroup processes and relations) likely critically influence how the group and its members relate both to other groups (intergroup relations) and to their individual members’ authenticity. In addition, intergroup orientations can systematically influence processes associated with stages of within-group dynamics and development. For example, intergroup circumstances that allow groups in the first, authority stage of development to identify (more or less inauthentically) a threatening outgroup can accelerate groups into the intimacy and interdependence stages. Of course, it is also possible that these intragroup processes related to stages of group development and intergroup relations in organizational and social settings can have reciprocal effects, increasing group cohesion and allegiance, and then reinforcing these by stimulating competition and conflict between groups in an organization or a society.

A second basic implication of considering both intergroup relations and intragroup dynamics as a tandem of authenticity building or breaking factors is that acceptance of subgroups seen as non-normative may be enhanced by framing difference as a benefit to group functioning.

In general, members of high-status subgroups in larger groups, organizations and societies tend to favour inauthentic assimilations of other subgroups and application of colour-blind standards for all (Verkuyten, 2006). Part of the reason may be that adopting this inauthentic social perspective legitimizes the privileged position of the high-status subgroups and reduces the likelihood of collective action by members of low-status subgroups if they are more aware about their authentic private or subgroup identities (Dovidio, Gaertner, & Saguy, 2007).

A seeming advantage of this perspective is that inauthenticity looks like facilitating efficient group, organizational and social functioning while minimizing social discord. Indeed, groups, organizations, and societies that adopt a colour-blind, inauthentic perspectives do perform well on tasks representing a clearly articulated problem and an obviously correct solution (social puzzles). However, groups, organizations, and societies that recognize and value the distinctive authentic perspectives and contributions of individuals and small subgroups that would otherwise be seen as low-status more effectively address complex tasks (social problems) characterized by many possible solutions (Alexander, Chizhik, Chizhik, & Goodman, 2009).

Diverse groups, organizations and societies which value and encourage authenticity of their members are better at solving complex problems that require divergent thinking (Antonio et al., 2004) and attending to a broader range of relevant information in analysis of issues (Sommers, 2006). Thus, when the focus is on intergroup relations, group differences on the basis of the room they make for expressing authentic experiences and attitudes of their individual members (organizational and social climates of authenticity) are typically threatening and anxiety provoking. However, when performance by the group, organization and society on complex problems is a primary concern, diversity and authenticity can be seen as group, organizational and societal assets. Intergroup interactions then represent opportunities for learning, understanding and development, rather than being realistically or symbolically threatening and inducing inauthentic experiences and social identities functioning as individual, group, organizational and social defences. In addition, successful, cooperative interdependence represents one of the most effective ways not only of improving intergroup attitudes but also of maintaining stable positive relations within groups, organizations and societies.

A third implication for analyses integrating intragroup dynamics and intergroup processes as factors for authentic vs. inauthentic psychosocial functioning of the individuals involves identifying more effective interventions to improve both intergroup relations and intragroup dynamics, and in such a way to affect positively the authentic psychosocial functioning of individuals.

Much of research on improving intergroup relations has been guided by Intergroup Contact Theory (Pettigrew & Tropp, 2006, 2011; Tausch & Hewstone, 2010). According to Allport’s (1954) formulation, for intergroup contact to be successful at reducing intergroup conflict and inauthenticity of intergroup perceptions and relations, and ultimately achieving real intergroup harmony, the contact must involve (1) equal status within the contact situation; (2) authentic intergroup cooperation; (3) authentic common goals; and (4) authentic support of authorities, law, or custom.

Additional work has also emphasized the importance of authentic personalized interaction and the development of authentic cross-group friendships. There is extensive evidence for what is now termed Intergroup Contact Theory for improving personal attitudes towards a range of stigmatized groups, including homosexuals, people with psychiatric disorders, as well as racial and ethnic minorities (Pettigrew & Tropp, 2006, 2008, 2011). Nevertheless, despite these impressive results, the effects of contact for improving intergroup relations may be limited. Meta-analytic reviews reveal that intergroup prejudice is only a modest predictor of intergroup discrimination (r = .26 to .32; Dovidio, Brigham, Johnson, & Gaertner, 1996; Talaska, Fiske, & Chaiken, 2008). Dixon, Durrheim, and Tredoux (2007) have questioned the traditional focus of social psychological research on intergroup attitudes as the ultimate measure of positive intergroup relations without adequate attention to the impact of authentic attitudes on actual structural change towards equality. Dixon, Durrheim, and Tredoux accept that contact between subgroups in larger groups, organizations and societies may transform the interpersonal attitudes and stereotypes, but caution that it may leave unaltered the self-serving beliefs and self-deceptions that sustain mentality of racial and ethnic discrimination (Dixon, Durrheim, & Tredoux, 2007, p. 868).

Appreciating the role of intragroup dynamics suggests alternative ways of improving intergroup relations in groups, organizations and society efficiently, effectively, ethically and, well…authentically. Building on Self-Categorization Theory (Turner et al., 1987), Haslam, Reicher, and Platow (2011) considered how authentic vs. inauthentic social identity representations can be critical to both leadership and followership in groups, organizations and societies. They proposed, based on Self-Categorization Theory, that people are perceived to be qualified for group, organizational or social leadership positions to the extent that they are seen to be representative (or prototypical) of the ingroup, which quite often has nothing to do with their authentic personal qualities and self-identity.

Consistent with this proposition, empirical evidence demonstrates that only when a leader has a history of representing and advancing the interests of a contextually defined ingroup are followers highly motivated to help translate the leader’s vision for the group into reality (e.g., Haslam & Platow, 2001). Particularly relevant to intergroup relations is the finding that when leaders in groups, organizations, and societies are viewed as ingroup prototypical, they are given greater latitude to display creativity by moving the group in new directions - directions that might otherwise be seen as inappropriate, objectionable or disloyal, never mind their authentic self-identities (Platow, van Knippenberg, Haslam, van Knippenberg, & Spears, 2006). Thus, in contrast to the kinds of individual - to - individual intergroup contact that is central to interventions based on Contact Theory or involving cooperative learning, leaders can have a profound, cascading influence in representing and potentially changing prototypic intergroup relations. While the change in intergroup orientation advocated by leaders may be limited to some degree by original prototypic intergroup relations, leaders can have substantial influence redefining not only intergroup attitudes but also the nature of intergroup relations.

Support for this perspective comes from Kalev, Dobbin, and Kelly’s (2006) analysis of the effectiveness of various interventions for facilitating the advancement of women and ethnic minorities in business setting. They found that interventions aimed at developing authentic individuals’ attitudes (e.g., diversity training) had minimal long-term effect, but visible (more or less inauthentic) endorsements of diversity by organizational and social leaders (e.g., in establishing a diversity office, committee or employment and staff promotion policies) produced significant increases over time of both women and ethnic minorities in management positions.

While the three examples just presented derive from existing bodies of work, bridging intergroup relations and intragroup dynamics can be even more transformative to authenticity of individual’s psychosocial functioning by identifying the value of new perspectives and paradigms.

Such an approach is timely, practically as well as theoretically. Immigration, which nowadays is occurring at an unprecedented rate world-wide, involves complex issues of social identity transformation among members of immigrant groups and members of the host countries (Sam & Berry, 2010), as well as the relationship between the authentic values and attitudes held within the different groups (Bourhis, Montreuil, Barrette, & Montaruli, 2009; Pfafferott & Brown, 2006). Immigration essentially involves both intergroup relations and intragroup dynamics, and understanding these processes jointly can help inform social policies that benefit societies, organizations and groups within those societies, and individuals within those groups and organizations.

Integrating intragroup dynamics and intergroup processes as determining factors of authentic vs. inauthentic psychosocial functioning of people requires conceptual analyses that recognize and embrace the nested nature of these dynamic processes. New conceptual lenses also need to consider and theoretically exploit the bidirectional nature of intragroup dynamics and intergroup relations.

As discussed earlier, external threat (real, symbolic or even imagined) can change intragroup dynamics, increasing the salience of inauthentic social identity, promoting conformity to group standards, and decreasing authentic personal tollerance for deviance. Such intragroup processes may further facilitate the development of inauthentic group ideologies, myths, self-deceptive theories and mentality that justify antipathy and aggression towards members of other group while cloaking these actions with moral and normative justifications (Glick, 2005). Moreover, through the process of social identification, even members of the group who personally possessed other authentic orientations may be ‘transformed’ by such group-based ideologies and beliefs systems to engage actively in harm directed towards members of other groups (Haslam & Reicher, 2007).

Adopting this perspective highlights the importance of longitudinal analyses, which have been surprisingly rare in the study of intergroup relations and intragroup dynamics. Besides expanding traditional paradigms analytically and methodologically, a broader consideration of intragroup dynamics and intergroup processes in determining authentic psychosocial functioning of people can stimulate the adoption of new paradigms to study groups, organizations, and communities.

Much of social life of humans now occurs in electronically mediated ways. People are increasingly initiating and sustaining relationships with others ‘on-line’; over 70% of respondents in a recent survey reported that had explored a relationship with someone they first met over the Internet (Stephure, Boon, MacKinnon, & Deveau, 2009). Developments in communication technology and in social networking media have profoundly changed the way people interact and the nature and authenticity of their social relationships. The meaning of ‘friend’ has been transformed (including making it a verb: ‘to friend’ someone), and electronic media have allowed social movements, including political revolutions, to develop with unprecedented rapidity. The study of ‘virtual’ social interactions is worthy of study in its own right and has many implications (e.g., for close relationships). However, it may be particularly relevant to study of group processes because of the likely amplification of more or less authentic social identity influences as the ‘social glue’ of on-line communities.

While people may display inauthenticity and strong conformity to the norms of the on-line community, they may be largely freed from the social and reality constraints of their authentic self-identity imposed by the larger society that exists outside the virtual community. Communication technology allows members of affinity groups who are geographically isolated to interact regularly and act collectively, accelerates the development of intimacy, facilitates social coordination, and limits personal identifiability (Bargh & McKenna, 2004).

Consequently, electronic communication represents a particularly fertile area for studying the integrated dynamics of intergroup and intragroup processes and relations. Methodologically, investigating the joint operation of intergroup relations and intragroup dynamics as authenticity determinants in electronically mediated communication offers the advantages of a social petri dish, in which social relationships grow unusually rapidly, but in a domain that is increasingly expanding and natural (in vivo).

Examination of these processes over the Internet has precedent. Over a decade ago, Glaser, Dixit, and Green (2002) participated in exchanges in a White racist chat room on the Internet, experimentally manipulating the nature and proximity of racial threats (e.g., information about Blacks moving into white neighbourhoods). Inauthentic threats involving greater intimacy, for example relating to interracial marriage compared to job competition, aroused stronger advocacy of violence. This research illustrates the potential value of Internet-based research for reaching populations rare among traditional college participant pools and studying more consequential outcomes.

Nevertheless, much of the current research on intragroup dynamics and, particularly, intergroup relations continues to focus on traditional forms of social exchange, leaving socially - mediated exchanges outside of the mainstream of work on these topics. The study of intergroup relations and intragroup dynamics in electronic media and their effect on authenticity of online behavior and interactions still has substantial unrealized potential. The combination of increasing practical relevance and the opportunity to discover the generalizability or boundaries of existing theory to electronically mediated social relationships makes this an exceptionally promising new research direction. It also permits the study of longitudinal processes with the kinds of populations (such as blatant racists) that have been traditionally limited in typical social psychological research samples consisting of college introductory psychology students. Thus, the seeming challenges to conventional paradigms and resources of studying the ways intergroup relations and intragroup dynamics relate over time can help accelerate the adoption new paradigms and the development of more comprehensive frameworks that address the current (and future) realities of authentic vs. inauthentic psychosocial life of people.

In conclusion, despite their shared focus on groups, research bridging intragroup dynamics and intergroup relations as factors of psychosocial functioning of individuals is surprising rare. The goal of this article was to highlight the value of research integrating these areas, particularly for understanding and improving intergroup and intragroup human relations which create climates of authenticity and space for self-reflection on related topics like self-alienating, false group, organizational and social identities of people in modern society. Moreover, the academic partitioning of these subdisciplines in research practice obscures the fact that intragroup dynamics commonly inherently involve intergroup dynamics.

Groups, organizations and societies are hierarchically organized and differentiated, with different subgroups occupying different statuses and roles. Also, identity representations (authentic vs. inauthentic) play a critical role in both intragroup dynamics and intergroup relations and thus offer an integrative perspective, conceptually, and new insights into improving both intragroup processes and intergroup relations, practically. Marrying research on intergroup relations and intragroup dynamics as factors for authentic vs. inauthentic (self-allienated) psychosocial functioning of people in groups, organizations and society can therefore stimulate the development of more comprehensive theories, facilitate the adoption of new paradigms, and expand the scope of research to encompass rapid and unprecedented changes in the human relations.