A critique of authenticity: how psychology can help

Abstract

Purpose

Authenticity has been studied from a variety of disciplinary perspectives, leading to a rich but confused literature. This study, a review, aims to compare the psychology and sociology/tourism definitions of authenticity to clarify the concept. From a psychological perspective, authenticity is a mental appraisal of an object or experience as valued leading to feelings and summative judgements (such as satisfaction or perceived value). In objective authenticity, a person values the object due to belief in an expert’s opinion, constructive authenticity relies on socially constructed values, while existential authenticity is based on one’s self-identity. The resultant achievement of a valued goal, such as seeing a valued object, leads to feelings of pleasure. Sociological definitions are similar but based on different theoretical antecedent causes of constructed and existential authenticity. The paper further discusses the use of theory in tourism and the project to develop tourism as a discipline. This project is considered unlikely to be successful and in turn, as argued, it is more useful to apply theory from other disciplines in a multidisciplinary manner. The results emphasise that it is necessary for tourism researchers to understand the origins and development of the concepts they use and their various definitions.

Citation

Scott, N. and Campos, A.C. (2024), "A critique of authenticity: how psychology can help", Tourism Critiques, Vol. ahead-of-print No. ahead-of-print. https://doi.org/10.1108/TRC-10-2023-0027

Introduction

Tourism is a field of study (Tribe, 1997) where researchers draw theories and concepts from multiple disciplines (Jafari, 2001). These disciplines often use the same terms to denote concepts with quite different definitions and assumptions [an example of the jingle fallacy (Corsini, 1991, p. 514)]. They are characterised by selecting an epistemological object and adherence to different ontological assumptions about the basic nature underlying the concept (Goertz and Mahoney, 2012). For those researchers unaware of those definitions and assumptions, this can lead to considerable confusion in a field of study characterised by multi-disciplinarity, such as the case of tourism. For example, sociologists investigate the structure and functioning of groups, organisations and societies, and how people interact within these contexts (Ferris and Stein, 2014). The science of sociology presents the perspective of human interaction and behaviour based on its social roots and causes. On the other hand, psychologists study the individual and assume that human behaviour proceeds from their mental processes occurring in the brain (Jarvis and Okami, 2019). As individuals develop within societies and acquire affective and cognitive competences through interaction with others, psychology is seen to overlap with sociology, attempting to examine the social forces shaping the human mind and its processes of perception, memory or emotion (Hewstone et al., 2012). Tourism researchers have primarily adopted a sociological perspective when using the concept of authenticity.

Authenticity is linked to a wide variety of people’s experiences and activities, including dining or watching TV, and to the way they connect to objects, whether a piece of art or expensive jewellery (Newman, 2019). Gilmore and Pine (2007) consider that, as consumers, individuals crave authenticity above all other attributes and this very claim has become the pillar of contemporary marketing theory (Nunes et al., 2021). Authenticity has become a key concept applied in the study of tourism (Gilmore and Pine, 2007; MacCannell, 1976), and more specifically in the study of tourism experience (Olsen, 2002). In tourism studies, four literature reviews have been conducted on authenticity (Kim and So, 2022; Olsen, 2002; Rickly and McCabe, 2017; Wang, 1999), as well as one on existential authenticity (Steiner and Reisinger, 2006). Rickly (2022) summarised the tourism literature on authenticity to identify 19 themes, and research topics include customer experience (Cohen, 1979; CoŞKun, 2021; Kim and So, 2022; Pearce and Moscardo, 1986), loyalty (Yin and Dai, 2021), heritage (Kolar and Zabkar, 2010; Park et al., 2019) and architecture (Yabanci, 2022), restaurants (Le et al., 2022) and food (Prayag et al., 2022), dark tourism, (Heuermann and Chhabra, 2014), film tourism (Rittichainuwat et al., 2018) and souvenirs (Li, 2023). By adopting the sociological perspective on authenticity, tourism researchers are implicitly accepting the assumptions upon which it is based.

The seminal review of authenticity in the tourism literature was conducted by Wang (1999), which discussed three different approaches to the concept based on a sociological approach, distinguishing between objective, constructed and existential authenticity. More recently, Rickly (2022) identified a number of concepts used in authenticity studies originating from different disciplines (Table 1). Some of these concepts are associated with a particular sub-discipline. For example, simulacra and hyperreality are used primarily in postmodernist sociological studies of authenticity. Other concepts are used by different disciplines, e.g. anxiety or alienation are derived from a psychoanalytic approach (Rickly, 2022). This multidisciplinary usage of the same term introduces both a rich literature and the option for confusion in definitions and theoretical assumptions related to the tourism experience.

The aim of this critique is to clarify this confusion by identifying (unrecognised or implicit) commonalities between the various definitions of authenticity; comparing psychological and sociology/tourism definitions of authenticity to identify similarities and differences; and identifying where psychological theory may augment the mainstream sociological discussions of authenticity. The paper also discusses the general project that some researchers ascribe to the development of specific tourism theory.

The paper argues that all definitions of “authenticity” share the ontological premise of an authentic object “being what it appears or is claimed to be” but differ in the object that is being examined (object, personal state of being) and epistemological assumptions about how to identify authenticity. Definitions proposed in psychology and tourism studies are broadly similar but differ for existential authenticity in what a person’s “state of being” is. In psychology and tourism studies, researchers discuss similar concepts when studying authenticity. Psychology provides theoretical support for how objective and constructed authenticity are recognised, appraised and elicit feelings and emotions, resulting in a judgement of authenticity. Further, for existential authenticity, the psychological literature of self-identity and personal goals provides insight into the nature of an authentic “state of being”. As a result, a parsimonious conceptual framework is developed. Lastly, the article discusses the feasibility of development of specific tourism theory.

Methodology

This paper provides a critique of the concept of authenticity bringing together results from prior reviews of authenticity with an examination of the assumptions and definitions used in them. There are a variety of methods on which a typical review may be constructed (Snyder, 2019). Commonly, systematic literature reviews are based on use of keywords to query scientific article databases and select in-scope papers (Pickering and Byrne, 2014). Most such reviews, such as that by Rickly (2022), use keywords that are common in many different disciplines (see Table 1). This is because tourism is a field of study where researchers from many different disciplines work. One problem with this approach is that each discipline (and subdiscipline) may make different assumptions and definitions of key concepts. Such systematic literatures are useful to develop an understanding of the scope of literature on a topic. However, further analysis is required to analyse the in-scope papers to make sense of the various disciplinary perspectives used, as well as of the accepted assumptions and definitions.

As a result, this study provides a different type of method from any other type of formal review (see Snyder, 2019) and better qualifies as a critique. It is a form of meta-review that connects research articles to other scientific works by placing “texts against texts” (Gillen, 2006). As such, this critique contrasts the multidisciplinary review conducted by Rickly (2022) with the sociological study of Wang (1999) and those in psychology on the topic of authenticity, such as Newman (2019), Ryan and Ryan (2019) or Nunes et al. (2021). The reason behind this methodological option is that the reviews by Rickly (2022) and Wang (1999) examined only papers written in hospitality, leisure, sport and tourism journals. This decision has the advantage of focusing on a limited number of papers in the field of study but risks missing relevant papers published in the disciplinary field of interest (psychology journals). These missing papers can provide a different perspective that can contrast and inform that used in tourism. In general, this procedure of reviewing papers from outside the established tourism literature has the advantage of inspiring debate. In particular, the critique is useful in the study of authenticity as it allows the dominant sociological/tourism perspective to be contrasted with that found in psychology.

Based on the studies included in this review, a number of psychological concepts are identified that are related to authenticity. As discussed below, these concepts are seen as characteristics of an individual’s authentic experiences. These concepts are related here into a cohesive framework. This approach highlights that a topical review across many disciplines may fail to see the results for each discipline as part of an integrated disciplinary nomological net.

Definitions of authenticity

A point of departure for this critique is the observation that, over the past 100 years, the concept of authenticity has been based on the same everyday definition: that an object is authentic if it “is what it appears to be or is claimed to be” (Trilling, 1972, p. 93). Notwithstanding this commonality, authenticity has been studied in a variety of contexts and from different disciplines, leading to different definitions and claims about what it applies to (external object or internal experience or “state of being”, i.e. what is being evaluated), whether an authentic object can exist, and, epistemologically, where the evidence of value comes from (i.e. who makes the judgement of authenticity and on what evidence). This has led to claims that authenticity is too unstable to be considered a concept (Steiner and Reisinger, 2006) as there is a lack of definitional and conceptual clarity (Newman, 2019) or consensus (Nunes et al., 2021). Baumeister (2019, p. 143) states that “authenticity research is plagued by ambiguous and conflicting concepts, slippery and unconvincing methods, and confounded findings”. In turn, Burks and Robbins (2012), while acknowledging that scientific research on authenticity is characterised by many theoretical and empirical gaps, state that research must persevere in the endeavour of systematic examination and operationalisation. Similarly, authenticity, in consumer behaviour and tourism, has conceptual ambiguity and elusiveness (Newman, 2019; Nunes et al., 2021), and in the case of tourism, has failed to become “the anchor of a general paradigm” for its study (Moore et al., 2021).

Objective authenticity definition

As mentioned above, the early discussion of the concept of “authenticity” adopted an everyday definition, originally applied to objects, such as art (Trilling, 1972). According to this everyday usage, “authentic” denotes “what is original, genuine; sincere; or truthful” (Lawler and Ashman, 2012, p. 332–333). This is an objective meaning of the term “authentic”, which carries the sense of being “of undisputed origin or authorship” (Varga and Guignon, 2023, p. 1), “original and one who does a thing himself” (Burks and Robbins, 2012, p. 76). In this type of definition, the judgement of authenticity is made by an expert, and thus placed in the context of some type of scientific investigation (Lawler and Ashman, 2012). Wang (1999, p. 351) uses the term objective authenticity linked to “original” museum objects that are “of undisputed origin” (Laceulle, 2018, p. 971). Objective authenticity involves the “correct identification of the origin, authorship or provenance of an object” (Dutton, 2003, p. 259) where there are “unbroken commitments to tradition and place of origin” (Beverland et al., 2008, p. 7). Similarly, Wang (1999) considers objective authenticity as referring to an object that has a particular, verifiable history.

Additional assumptions of the objective authenticity definition

Tourism authors using this definition of objective authenticity make a series of implicit assumptions. Firstly, while not necessary, objective authenticity is normally applied to objects whose authenticity can be measured and which are valued on that basis (Li and Li, 2022; Rickly, 2022). This perspective has been said to capture the purest meaning of authenticity (Li and Li, 2022), and it takes on the ontological paradigm of realism (or essentialism) and the corresponding epistemological view of “knowing the real thing”. Thus, it may be that some museum object is authentic, but people do not take much notice of it if it is one of many thousands of similar objects. An object that is judged as especially valued or valuable will be paid more attention (Newman, 2019). Concerning an objectively authentic object as found in a museum or similar heritage site (Wood, 2020), its value is judged by the visitor based on their knowledge and the acknowledgement that an expert has already given their opinion. However, while the evidence may come from an expert, attribution of objective authenticity by an individual is still a personal judgement that the object “is or appears to be what is claimed”. Further, this judgement is also associated in the person with cognitive and affective responses (Newman, 2019). In tourism, the concept of objective authenticity was applied by Boorstin (1964), acting as an expert, to provide a value judgement on real and “pseudo-events”.

Objective authenticity definition used to describe “pseudo-events”

Boorstin (1964) studied the growth of mass tourism and noted the development of commoditised, homogenised and standardised tourist experiences, which he termed “pseudo-events”. In his analysis, Boorstin (1964) and later authors in this stream of literature clearly assume that authentic objects can exist and should be valued. However, mass tourism events were judged by Boorstin (acting as an expert) as not meeting the criteria of “being or appearing to be what is claimed”. Thus “contrived attractions”, and indeed modern leisure and mass tourism experiences, were considered not to be valued and were inauthentic, shallow and meaningless. This judgement was based on Boorstin’s theoretical position that authentic travel is motivated by a “search for the real”, although he does not specifically clarify what this means. MacCannell (1973) was more specific on the proper motivations for travel seeing it as a quest, a search for sacredness with quasi-pilgrimage significance. MacCannell (1973) considered tourists sought authentic travel experiences but might be fooled by staged “non-authentic” historic and cultural sites (Lu et al., 2015). Hence, researchers using objective sociological/tourism definitions implicitly adopt these explanations for why authenticity is sought. This idea that tourism must be motivated by a search for authenticity was disputed by Cohen (1979) who identified several motivations for travel. This heralded the constructivist perspective where authenticity is a relative concept. This new approach was however also based on certain theoretical assumptions about the nature of modern society and its detrimental effect on its members.

Constructive authenticity definition

The earliest source of the constructed authenticity concept in tourism comes from MacCannell (1973) who calls this “staged authenticity” (Wang, 1999, p. 352). This reflects the original context, the study of created experiences where the visitor may attribute authenticity to an objectively non-authentic site or attraction. For these reasons, constructed authenticity was seen as the result of “social construction, not an objectively measurable quality of what is being visited” (Wang, 1999, p. 351). Thus “things appear authentic not because they are inherently authentic but because they are constructed as such in terms of points of view, beliefs, perspectives, or powers” (Wang, 1999, p. 351). Hence:

Constructive authenticity refers to the authenticity projected onto toured objects by tourists or tourism producers in terms of their imagery, expectations, preferences, beliefs, powers, etc. There are various versions of authenticities regarding the same objects (Wang, 1999, p. 352).

The constructivist definition is therefore, like objective authenticity, also based on the original meaning as objects that “are what they appear to be or are claimed to be”, but in this case society and cultures are seen as the sources of evidence for attributing value. Constructivists also implicitly assume that an authentic object is valued, and that a judgement is required as to whether an object is or appears to be what is claimed. However, constructivists generally consider that the judgement of authenticity cannot be based on objective criteria, as the meaning of an object is socially (i.e. symbolically) constructed. Indeed, constructivists question the notion that objectively authentic objects can exist or perhaps assume instead that any object can be authentic if the attribution of authenticity is based on societal beliefs. This is because the knowledge used to judge authenticity is context-bound (Wang, 1999, p. 355). Constructivists assume that there is no unique “real world” that pre-exists and is independent of human mental activity and human symbolic language:

For constructivists, multiple and plural meanings of and about the same things can be constructed from different perspectives, and people may adopt different constructed meanings dependent on the particular contextual situation or intersubjective setting (Wang, 1999, p. 355).

Thus, all authenticity judgements are constructed by people and “projected” onto an object based on the socially constructed meanings of objects. These constructions about experience in other cultures may be based on stereotypes or perhaps “a projection from Western consciousness” (Wang, 1999, p. 355). Experiences are used rather than objects to judge authenticity because the focus of this approach is on an individual’s interpretation of social values. For constructivists, tourists are still in search of authenticity as “on a quest” (Wang, 1999, p. 356). However, what they quest for is not objective authenticity (i.e. authenticity as originals) but symbolic authenticity, which is the result of social construction. One assumption of constructivists is that meaning is socially constructed, and this, if not limiting opportunities for an individual ascription of the authentic, certainly presents challenges to assert it – in the shape of personal power, confidence and self-reliance (Burks and Robbins, 2012). Note again that this constructivist perspective assumes that tourists pursue a quest and is embedded in a particular sociological theory.

Postmodernist definitions of authenticity

Postmodernists also use the same original sense of authenticity as “original” and a type of existential approach (Gao et al., 2022). However, they have changed the goal posts by arguing that inauthenticity is not problematic (Wang, 1999, p. 356). For postmodernists, the “authenticity of the original” is desired but not possible. The concept of “hyperreality” means that the difference between real and fake is blurred, and authenticity is a matter of technique. For postmodernists, authenticity is not a relevant concept as “world is a simulation which admits no originals, no origins, […].” (Wang, 1999, p. 356). Tourists are still “on a quest – in search of authenticity” (Ritzer and Liska, 1997, p. 107; Wang, 1999, p. 356), but “inauthenticity is justifiable in postmodern conditions” (Wang, 1999, p. 357). They may judge if an object or experience is authentic based on their fantasy and imagination. Tourism provides exposure to constructed attractions (such as Disneyland).

Existential authenticity definition

Lastly, existential European philosophers, such as Sartre or Heidegger (Golomb, 1995), also adopted the concept of authenticity as “original” but applied it not to external objects but to a person’s internal states (of being). This latter view led to the concept of existential authenticity (Wang, 1999). Wang (1999, p. 351) considers that “existential authenticity refers to a potential existential state of being that is to be activated by tourist activities”.

Again, existential authenticity, like constructed authenticity, is unrelated to the objective authenticity of objects. Instead, it is related to oneself. It is “a special state of being in which one is true to oneself” (Wang, 1999, p. 358). Existential authenticity still carries the same original meaning of authenticity as “original”. However, what is being evaluated is not an object or experience but a person’s internal “state of being”. Achieving an authentic “state of being” is seen as valuable. This is due to the importance of the authentic self. The relevant sociological theory indicates that the “true self” is threatened or lost “in public roles and public spheres in modern Western society” (Wang, 1999, p. 358) due to “the disintegration of sincerity”. An inauthentic self arises when the balance between two parts of one’s being (rational and non-rational) is broken down in such a way that rational factors overcontrol non-rational factors (emotion, bodily feeling, spontaneity, etc.) and leave too little space for satisfaction of the latter. Thus, people quest for an authentic self and a balance between emotions, feelings, spontaneity, etc. Despite being a subjective (or intersubjective) feeling, it is real to a tourist and thus accessible to him or her in tourism. This notion is related to criticisms of modernity and the loss of a person’s authentic self in, for example, a service role where flight attendants are required to smile.

Interestingly, existential sociologists appear to be making claims about concepts normally considered to be within the domain of psychology, such as states of being, emotion, bodily feeling, etc. It is here that the blurring of sociological and psychological discussions become clear. Sociological researchers seek to explain the way people think, emote and behave. They however adopt dated ideas, such as that emotion being non-rational. Instead, psychological research suggests that emotions are rational, in that a particular emotion derives from appraisals of goal achievement (Ma and Scott, 2015; Ma and Scott, 2017).

Wang (1999, pp. 361–3) distinguishes between four forms of existential authenticity, intra-personal authenticity as bodily feelings, intra-personal authenticity as self-identity, inter-personal authenticity as family ties and inter-personal authenticity as communitas. These are associated with intensely authentic, natural and emotional bonds, high emotion, feelings and sensual pleasure, self-making and self-identity. Interestingly, Wang (1999) describes different causes for each of these states of being, such as reassertion of the authentic self (bodily feelings), ritual (family ties), escape from modernity (self-identity), escape from inauthentic social hierarchy and status distinctions (communitas). Thus, each type of existential authenticity is explained by different aspects of the sociological theory.

Common characteristics of definitions of authenticity in sociology/tourism

Based on the above discussion, it can be noted that the types of authenticity discussed share the following aspects:

• a focus on an object, because whatever the type of authenticity, they all apply to an object that “is what it appears to be or is claimed to be”; and

• an attribution of authenticity, which involves in all cases an evaluation or judgement of that object. Authenticity is an evaluative judgment that pertains to tourist experiences regarding a certain site, culture, object or destination (Kolar and Zabkar, 2010), or experience (Paulauskaite et al., 2017). Such an evaluative judgement does not provide one universal outcome, which instead depends on a person’s motivation and past experiences (Kolar and Zabkar, 2010, p. 660). Authenticity is not a tangible asset but, instead, a judgement or value placed on the setting or product by its observers (Moscardo and Pearce, 1999).

According to Trilling (1972), the original objective definition was used in the museum setting, where experts in heritage or art test whether objects are what they appear to be or are claimed to be, and therefore worth the price that is asked for them or, if this has already been paid, worth the admiration they are being given (Wang, 1999, p. 350). Thus, authenticity is an evaluation of value to a person. While an object may be merely recognised unemotionally as authentic (Wang, 1999, p. 351), this is not usually the outcome discussed in tourism settings:

• an attribution of value, which concerns something that is valued and often personally meaningful (Figure 1). Thus, it is argued that all definitions of authenticity are based on the “everyday” meaning of the term, and also that the development of the intellectual landscape is based on these common assumptions, albeit the different definitions put forward. Authenticity is the result of a person evaluating an object, and it may be assumed that the evaluation process is similar to that used by people in other aspects of their lives. For example, in some contexts, an object may be intellectually evaluated as authentic. This was termed “cool authenticity” by Cohen and Cohen (2012). In this sense, the authenticity of an object may not be personally relevant and hence not important or meaningful. Alternatively, an authentic object may be valued and sought because of its meaning. Wang (1999, p. 351) notes that experiences of the “real” self (“hot authenticity”) are emotional. Here the “normal” appraisal theory of emotions can be evoked, according to which, an object is appraised based on its personal importance, among other appraisal dimensions (Ma and Scott, 2017).

For constructed authenticity, the authentic nature of an object is said to be relative to the meaningful use through which a person encounters the object within a particular activity (Moore et al., 2021). This process of constructing authenticity is more easily seen in the case of heritage attractions that are perceived in their physicality, in combination with intangible acts of performing and the processes of negotiation of values and meanings (Smith, 2006). Authenticity here refers to a cultural process of “meaning and memory making and remaking rather than a thing” (Smith, 2006, pp. 74–75) (Tiberghien et al., 2023, p. 3). Thus, an object is valued because of its meaning, which is socially constructed.

For existential authenticity, value comes from identity construction (Rickly-Boyd, 2012). Certain heritage sites provide the raw material (experiences) to “construct a sense of identity, meaning, attachment, and stability” (Rickly-Boyd, 2012, p. 141). Authenticity is a relational concept that functions to interlace notions of originality, genuineness, symbolism, encounter and experience (Rickly and McCabe, 2017, p. 55). As we shall see below, an individual’s self-identity is personally very important, and therefore, an experience reinforcing one’s self-identity is valued.

Definitions from psychology compared to sociology

This paper draws from a review by Newman (2019) to compare psychological with sociological definitions of authenticity used by Wang (1999), as shown in Table 2. Both in the sociological/tourism and psychology literatures, authenticity is related to whether objects “are what they appear to be or are claimed to be”. Thus, as in sociology, psychologists consider all types of authenticity involve some evaluation (Newman, 2019, p. 9). In addition, authenticity comprehends an evaluation or judgement of value: “indeed, what makes the object valuable (and authentic) in the first place, is that it is perceived to possess the essence of a valued source” (Newman, 2019, p. 16). However, there are subtle differences between the concept of authenticity in psychology as compared to those in tourism. Newman (2019) identifies historical, categorical and values authenticity as discussed below.

Objective

A comparison of psychological and sociological/tourism approaches to types of authenticity shown in Table 2 indicates that objective authenticity is similar in both literatures. Historical authenticity, like objective authenticity, requires observers to evaluate that an item or experience physically embodies the “essence” of a particular person, place or event. This is the equivalent of objective authenticity. However, the psychology and tourism definitions of objective authenticity differ, in that Newman (2019) adds the requirement that the object is “connected” to some valued person, place or event. Thus, a museum may display authenticated objects that have no value to the visitor. A visitor’s psychological evaluation of such objects may be that they are authentic (because they are valued by others) but are unimportant.

There are parallels between such important and unimportant authentic objects and hot and cool interpretation (Ballantyne and Uzzell, 1993; Cohen and Cohen, 2012). Ballantyne and Uzzell (1993) indicate that “hot interpretation” focuses on the subjective emotional or affective dimension of human experience with an object. “Cool interpretation”, on the other hand, provides a certification of authenticity without further elaboration. However, while an object is merely presented (cool), it may have some special importance (high value) for a particular visitor. In this case, an objectively authentic object “coolly interpreted” may still be associated with a highly emotional state for a particular person. This heightened emotion for a particular visitor is due to the value (significance and meaning) that the object has for that particular visitor. This is what is meant by a personally “valued” object (Newman, 2019).

Further, “hot” interpretation will easily evoke an emotional reaction for people for whom the object is already personally “valued” and explains why some local residents may become emotional at an interpretive site. For example, a study in a “hot” interpretation site on Juju Island (Kang et al., 2012) found that the emotionality of a visit to a dark tourism site varied with the relationship of the site to the visitor. While the site was perceived as objectively authentic by all, those who had family connections with the victims experienced more profound emotional experiences than those for whom the site was known through reports and books. Thus, the same objectively authentic site can lead to different emotional outcomes depending on the significance and meaning to the visitor. This may explain differences in emotional outcome for hot interpretation sites a well. For example, Ballantyne and Uzzell (1993) discuss that hot interpretation in the District Six Museum affected residents and visitors differently.

Categorical

In essence, the sociological definition of constructed authenticity used in tourism is the same as the term “categorical authenticity” of Newman (2019). However, Newman (2019) uses the term “categorical” because attribution of this type of authenticity to an object is considered a process of categorisation. In determining this attribution, “individuals are sensitive to the extent to which an entity conforms to their existing beliefs about a particular category or type” (Newman, 2019, p. 10). This may explain why individual visitors do or do not ascribe authenticity to certain objects. Objects have multiple and plural meanings of and about the same things (Wang, 1999, p. 351). Therefore, a person may categorise an object as authentic depending on their past experience and current situation. Categorical authenticity requires observers to evaluate that an item or experience embodies the essence of a “type of object”.

Values authenticity

Lastly, Newman (2019, p. 16) names existential authenticity as “values authenticity”, but it may also be called self-authenticity. Values authenticity means one acts consistent with one’s values. Values are an important part of one’s identity. Self-authenticity is a characteristic attributed to human beings and describes being truly oneself (Varga and Guignon, 2023) and may also be understood as “self-congruency” of an individual (Ferrara, 1998, p. 70). In psychology and social psychology, self-authenticity concerns the true’ or “authentic” self (Moore et al., 2021). Work on the psychology of the self has focused on the personal experiential/existential aspects indicative of an “authentic self” (i.e. a true, yet hidden, self that has stability over time despite being uncovered via “growth”, “actualization” and “becoming”).

The concept of self-identity is relevant to tourism as it is seen as a context where tourists can experience the “creation and reaffirmation” of their identity by using insights gathered about a different culture to understand their own place in time and space (McIntosh and Prentice, 1999, p. 590). Tourism provides a place for self-discovery and self-expressive experiences (Steiner and Reisinger, 2006), a context for self-actualisation (Kolar and Zabkar, 2010, p. 655), which may have cognitive or emotional basis.

Interestingly, from a psychological perspective, the self can be authentic for historical reasons or because of conformation to some category. Gender is a familiar example of conformity to a category. Thus, in still many traditional societies, any girl who grows up “naturally” becomes a woman, she is expected to fit herself into the options for women’s roles. However, most discussion in tourism concerns values authenticity, meaning that current actions and experiences are consistent with the self’s core values.

One psychological issue concerning values authenticity is to what extent there is only “one true self” (Baumeister, 2019, p. 147). Some psychologists consider the self a consistent trait, but research shows a variety of selves that are context dependent. In fact, it seems reasonable to conclude that there is no such thing as one true self. Instead, a person may have:

Many non-false selves, of which the pragmatically most important is the desired reputation, given the social-cultural orientation of humankind. Desired reputation is more a guide and goal than a reality, but successes and failures at achieving that reputation will produce welcome and unwelcome feelings that are likely reported as feeling authentic and inauthentic (respectively) (Baumeister, 2019, p. 143).

In this way, authenticity is a state, not a trait, and “people have multiple non false ones [selves], none of which is entirely true” (Baumeister, 2019, p. 143). In this sense, values authenticity may involve knowing, being consistent with or cultivating/fulfilling the true self (Baumeister, 2019), and people may evaluate this on the extent to which an experience reflects the essential values of the (contextual) self. This may be what is meant as an authentic state of being.

Feelings of existential authenticity in tourism are common possibly because that the traveller chooses to put themselves in an exotic experiential landscape:

Travel often provides situations and contexts where people confront alternative possibilities for belonging to the world and others that differ from everyday life. Indeed, part of the promise of travel is to live and know the self in other ways (Neumann, 1992 in Wang, 1999).

Travel is mostly about dreams—dreaming of landscapes or cities, imagining yourself in them, murmuring the bewitching place names, and then finding a way to make the dream come true (Paul Theroux, 2009 in Potts, 2022).

Lessons from psychology

We have noted above that there is substantial overlap in the definitions and approaches to authenticity in sociology and psychology but also that many of the tourist definitions are underpinned by sociological theory of modernity and post modernity. Here we look at how the psychological theory may help to inform our understanding of authenticity, drawing upon the categorisation theory and the appraisal theory of emotion and subsequent feelings.

Categorisation theory

From a psychological perspective, attributions of authenticity are examples of categorisation. Categorical thinking defines the ability of individuals to simplify and structure their perception process in face of cognitive limitations and a profuse and multi-sensory world, responding to the need to balance the facets of stability and novelty one encounters in it (Macrae and Bodenhausen, 2000). It denotes the capacity of humans to adapt to the world by simplifying it. Social categorisation is a facet of categorical thinking, defined as “the process by which people categorize themselves and others into differentiated groups” (Krueger, 2001). Research in psychology has suggested that the processes of impression and judgement formation during categorisation can become automatic and may take place at the subconscious level (Brewer, 1988). Categorisation is also influenced by stereotyping and attitude structures spontaneous activation (Stolier and Freeman, 2016). This means that authentic experiences may be related to cultural or other social group membership.

Cognitive appraisal theory

Wang (1999, p. 364) writes that “looking for the center that is endowed with most sacred values and charged with high emotions”. Clearly authenticity is valued and goal related. Kolar and Zabkar (2010, p. 660) assert that both objective and existential authenticity are largely emotionally based constructs. “Authenticity means to feel something with honesty, integrity, and vitality and to express in one's life the truth of one's personal insights and discoveries” (McCarthy, 2009, p. 243). In psychology, the cognitive appraisal theory is one of the mainstream theories of the elicitation of emotion. Appraisal theorists assume that the quality and intensity of an emotional response depend on an individual’s assessment of an event or situation (Lazarus, 1991; Roseman, 1991; Scherer, 1984; Scherer et al., 2001). Appraisals are defined as:

The results of the information-processing tasks that indicate the implications of the situation for the interests and goals of the individual and therefore determine the form that emotional reaction takes in a given situation (Johnson and Stewart, 2005, p. 5).

The appraisal process implies a cognitive mechanism, a subjective construal of personally relevant information that generates the variability in emotional reactions (Frijda et al., 1989; Lazarus, 1998; Moors et al., 2013; Ortony and Clore, 2015; Ortony et al., 1988; Roseman et al., 1990; Scherer, 2022). The cognitive appraisal theory indicates that a person will experience strong positive emotions if they achieve a personally important goal in a given situation (Lazarus, 1991).

As discussed above, authenticity is related to valued objects or outcomes. For example, one feels authentic if the environment is a good fit to salient or important aspects of one’s identity (Schmader and Sedikides, 2018). Existential or self-authenticity involves knowing, being consistent with or cultivating/fulfilling the true self (Baumeister, 2019). Therefore, it is likely that authentic experiences are related to stronger positive emotions. Clearly emotions are central to authentic “experiences”, but as Rickly and McCabe (2017, p. 57) note, “there has been too much focus on understanding the role of emotion in experiences, leaving unanswered questions about how to elicit emotions in the design of experiences”. Use of the appraisal theory allows the possibility to better design emotional authentic experiences.

Feelings

An evaluation of authenticity may result in feelings of pleasure. Often the terms “feeling” and “emotion” are used interchangeably, but there are differences that are accepted here (Shouse, 2005). In the psychological information theory, feelings are the result of an appraisal process triggering the production of neurotransmitters leading to an “emotional body state”.

In this way, feelings provide information to the brain (Avnet et al., 2012; Schwarz, 2011). This may explain why bodily sensations have been discussed in relation to authentic experiences.

A model of evaluation of authenticity

By drawing upon the mainstream psychological theory, we can now develop a conceptual model of the psychological process of evaluation of authenticity. Figure 2 shows a representation of the process that leads to the individual attribution of authenticity, beginning with perception of the object (whatever the type). According to the psychology perspective, perception is shaped by the situation of the individual, influencing what is perceived (Jhangiani and Tarry, 2022). Previous experience allows anticipation of consistency (Macrae and Bodenhausen, 2000) and thus is also active in perceptive processes. Cognitive psychology explains the interference of previous experience in perception with the concept of mental model (Rasmussen, 1987). Human interaction with the world balancing familiar (e.g. trend) with novel information and forces (e.g. emergent new trend) is a widely researched topic in psychology (social and cognitive) and recognised as critical to human adaptation to the everchanging environment. Previous experience, in the shape of stable internal representations, provides constancy to interpretation of perceptual data; however, simultaneously, by combining old and new data, it prompts adaptive behavioural responses. Appraisals, as discussed above, are evaluations produced by the individual on the stimuli in the environment, which are seen to elicit specific affective responses (Frijda, 1993; Shweder, 1993). Differences in affective responses have been explained through the differences found in dimensions of appraisal, such as goal importance and congruence (Frijda, 1987; Ruth et al., 2002) and novelty (Scherer, 1993). These feelings then form the criteria on which judgements of authenticity are made (Fredrickson, 2000),

The feelings resulting from an appraisal of emotion provide the evidence that one has experienced something important and valued. This allows an attribution of authenticity to be made.

Discussion

The aim of this critique was firstly to identify commonalities between the various definitions of authenticity in tourism. This review has shown firstly that all definitions of authenticity refer to the property of something being genuine, real and/or true (Beverland and Farrelly, 2010). However, they differ in whether the real really exists or what real relates to: an external object of some sort (e.g. a heritage attraction) or an internal mental state. A second commonality is that all definitions of authenticity implicitly involve a judgement about the object based on some categorisation criteria. The criteria used in each definition varies, but the categorisation process is the same. Thirdly, all definitions implicitly imply that the object is valued. Table 2 shows the comparison of those definitions and highlights the alignment around the three main types of authenticity.

A second aim was to compare sociological/tourism and psychology definitions of authenticity in tourism and between tourism and psychology. Tourism definitions of authenticity are based on the sociological theory, while as may be expected, psychological definitions are based on psychological theories. The sociological theory highlights the broad trends that individuals may experience, such as alienation, search for meaning, hierarchical power, etc. These are the causes of travel and why people judge an object as valuable and authentic. For psychologists, the cause of a judgement of authenticity of an object is the knowledge and values that a person holds. For psychologists, escape from inauthentic social hierarchy and status distinctions are not conscious concerns of a person. Instead, existential authenticity (for example) is ascribed to situations where there is consistency between a person’s internal states (self-identity) and their current experience (Newman, 2019, p. 10). This kind of authenticity has been referred to as expressive (Dutton, 2003), or moral authenticity (Beverland et al., 2008; Carroll, 2015). Here it is termed self-authenticity.

Such differences in the assumptions underlying a definition of authenticity have important implications and must be understood by scholars using them. At issue is that social forces are interpreted by individuals. Thus, sociology assumes people travel on a quest for authenticity, and this may lead to a desire for existential experiences and self-identity construction. The psychology theory on the other hand considers that people seek various types of meaningful experiences depending on their own values, and that these lead to consequent emotion and feelings. This suggests that any review of the concept should separate psychological studies of authenticity from those using tourism definitions.

A third aim of this paper is to examine how psychological theory may augment the mainstream tourism discussions of authenticity. These contributions are show in Figure 2, which highlights that attribution of authenticity, as a judgement, is an outcome of a mental process well discussed in the psychology literature (Ma et al., 2013; Ma and Scott, 2017). In particular, the association of emotion with judgements of authenticity indicates that the participants value the experience.

The findings of this paper also suggest a need to examine the possibility of tourism-specific theory. Tourism is a complex and multi-layered phenomenon (Okumus and van Niekerk, 2015). Its understanding is seen to emerge from the contribution of different disciplines applied to tourism phenomena, but adopting different ontological and epistemological lenses, thus displaying “an open and indefinitely relationally constructed field” (Darbellay and Stock, 2012, p. 448). Multidisciplinary approaches seem to be common in tourism studies, which are often informed by a combination of concepts and theories drawn from different disciplines. A discipline is considered “a branch of knowledge, instruction, or learning” (Choi and Pak, 2008, p. 42) which agrees upon an epistemology. It counts as “a detailed knowledge area with distinct borders, a shared ‘language’ among its academic members, and widely shared paradigms” (Okumus and van Niekerk, 2015, p. 1). For Mulkay (1974, p. 229), a discipline “has its own language, techniques, legitimate research goals, training procedures, scientific societies and so on”.

Disciplinary boundary determines distances among disciplines and therefore explains their proximity relationships. In principle, tourism as a complex applied field of study benefits from a multiple disciplinary approach of proximity disciplines. There appears a discussion on the applications of different disciplinary theory to study tourism-related phenomena would be useful to the academia. Choi and Pak (2006) have provided definitions of multi-disciplinarity, interdisciplinarity and trans-disciplinarity. According to Choi and Pak (2006), multi-disciplinarity “draws on knowledge from different disciplines but stays within the boundaries of those fields”, interdisciplinarity “analyses, synthesizes and harmonizes links between disciplines into a coordinated and coherent whole” and trans-disciplinarity “integrates the natural, social and health sciences in a humanities context, and in so doing transcends each of their traditional boundaries”. In practice, it is not always clear what scholars end up doing or to which degree the specifics of their discipline are contributing to a research outcome, especially in a field of study acknowledged as complex and requiring insights from varied perspectives. Multi-disciplinarity has been advocated in tourism as a suitable approach for research (García and Schenkel, 2015; Jacob et al., 2015; Jafari, 2001). Use of a single discipline studies may be an extreme form of multi-disciplinarity (Okumus and van Niekerk, 2015). In fact, much research draws conceptual and theoretical frameworks from multiple disciplines without a critical analysis of why those frameworks are considered fundamental to the study of a phenomenon as found in the realm of tourism or even to which extent they conform to the latest knowledge in the foundational discipline. Overall, we suggest that pursuit of a project to develop tourism as a discipline is likely to be unsuccessful, and it is better to apply theory from other disciplines in a multidisciplinary way.

Lastly, the authors reflect on the difficulties of reconciling differences in definitions used in tourism research. Disciplines are characterised by a specific language, composed of terms, meant to cover and describe the realm of phenomena they aim studying (Shneider, 2009). Language construction is part of the scientific work and development, and concepts are said to shape how scientists interpret the world (Mulkay, 1974; Petersen, 1968). However, many terms are derived from natural languages, and others migrate from one discipline to another, being displaced from the original one. Conceptual displacement, or the metaphoric extension of ideas (Mulkay, 1974), is commonplace in research and can be seen as a driver of scientific advancement (Dias and Nassif, 2013). The process is represented as a projection that extends concepts in many directions beyond the original scope (Mulkay, 1974; Schon, 1963). It is vital for tourism researchers to understand the origins and development of the concepts they use and their various definitions.

Limitations and areas for further research

This study has reviewed definitions of authenticity from tourism (Wang, 1999) and psychology (Newman, 2019). These definitions may vary, and there is an ongoing need to discuss and examine different definitions to ensure the validity of research conducted. This is also true of other concepts used in tourism, such as subjective well-being (Liang et al., 2020), the gaze (Samarathunga and Cheng, 2020; Urry, 1990; Zheng et al., 2021), flow (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990; deMatos et al., 2021) and place attachment (Ramkissoon et al., 2013). It is recommended that researchers critically examine the concepts they use and their definitions as a basis for applying theories from other disciplines into tourism.

Managerially, the implications for research revolve around considering the importance of identity construction through tourism. Bond and Falk (2013), for example, consider that “all tourist experiences are in some way motivated by the individual’s self-perceived identity related needs and their perceptions of destinations and experiences that afford satisfaction of those needs” (p. 439). Thus, tourism allows exploration of the authentic self from a sociological perspective or engaging in activities related to a valued self-identity from a psychological perspective. Understanding and segmenting types of identities associated with tourism activities and experiences appears a useful direction for future research.

Figures

Figure 1.

Perspectives on authenticity as found in tourism literature

Figure 2.

A conceptual model of the psychological process of evaluation of authenticity

Table 1.

Concepts used in authenticity research as identified by Rickly (2022)

Disciplines	Authenticity-related concepts
Consumer behaviour and marketing	Motivation Satisfaction Perceived value Perceived quality Behavioural intention Loyalty Segmentation Destination image
Sociology and social psychology	Sense of place Social status Social interaction Involvement
Philosophy, phenomenology and postmodernism	Well-being Embodiment Staged authenticity Simulacra Hyperreality Atmospherics
Psychoanalysis	Identity Alienation Anxiety
Psychology	Feelings Emotions Memory Memorability
Heritage studies	Original Genuine Authorized

Source: Tables by the authors

Table 2.

Disciplinary approaches to types of authenticity

Authenticity type	Psychology (Newman, 2019)	Authenticity type	Tourism (Wang, 1999)
Historical	Authenticity is evaluated through an object’s history and its connection to a valued person, place or event	Objective	Objective authenticity refers to the authenticity of originals
Categorical	Authenticity is evaluated by the extent to which an entity conforms to their existing beliefs about a particular category or type	Constructed	Constructive authenticity refers to the authenticity projected onto toured objects by tourists or tourism producers
Values	Authenticity is evaluated by the consistency between a person’s internal states and its external expressions	Existential	Existential authenticity refers to a potential existential state of being that is activated by tourist activities

Source: Tables by the authors