Americans misperceive the frequency and format of political debate.

Disagreement over divergent viewpoints seems like an ever-present feature of American life-but how common is debate and with whom do debates most often occur? In the present research, we theorize that the landscape of debate is distorted by social media and the salience of negativity present in high-profile spats. To understand the true landscape of debate, we conducted three studies (N = 2985) across online and lab samples. In contrast to the high-profile nature of negative debates with strangers, we found that people most commonly debate close contacts, namely family members and good friends. In addition, they often report feeling positive after engaging in debate. We then directly measured misperceptions regarding debate in a representative sample of Americans (N = 1991). We found that Americans systematically overestimated how often others engage in debate. This overestimation extended across debate partners (family members, good friends, acquaintances, coworkers, and strangers) and contexts (in-person and online; p's < 0.001, d's > 0.98), most strongly overestimating how often Americans debate strangers online. This misprediction may be psychologically costly: overestimating how often Americans debate strangers online significantly predicted greater hopelessness in the future of America. Together, our findings suggest that Americans may experience a false reality about the landscape of debate which can unnecessarily undermine their hope about the future.

Positive-More than unbiased-Self-perceptions increase subjective authenticity.

Authenticity is often described using terms like "real," "genuine," and "true" suggesting that unbiased and objective self-perception is a core component of the construct. However, people tend to view themselves in an overly positive way. Therefore, we propose that experiencing a positive self-versus an unbiased self-will increase authenticity. We find support for this in seven studies (Ntotal = 1,795) with two operationalizations of self-rated authenticity: attributed and state authenticity. We find that authenticity emerges from positive self-beliefs (Study 1), positive personality assessments (Study 2), and positive self-expressions (Study 3a and b). Further, we find that these effects are not driven only by positivity, but positive selves (Study 4), and mediated by the identity centrality (Study 5). Finally, Study 6 finds that this positivity bias does not extend to other-rated authenticity: People who present an overly positive self seem less authentic to others relative to a mixed or negative self-presentation. Taken together, these findings suggest that being "unreal" through positive self-illusions can, paradoxically, make one feel more real. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

Yours truly: On the complex relationship between authenticity and honesty.

Authenticity is defined as being true to yourself, but does being true to yourself always mean being truthful? The apparent similarity between authenticity and honesty has obscured directly scrutinizing possible tension between the two constructs. In the current paper, we review recent research which reveals their orthogonality, highlighting how honesty can decrease authenticity and dishonesty can increase authenticity. In addition, we delineate between honesty with the self and self-rated authenticity, as well as honesty with others and perceived authenticity. Finally, we propose the importance of coherence and morality which describe when honesty will serve (or harm) authenticity both intra- and interpersonally, illuminating avenues for future research.

Are You for Real? Perceptions of Authenticity Are Systematically Biased and Not Accurate.

Can people accurately perceive who is authentic? Laypeople believe they can tell who is authentic, and they report that authenticity is an important attribute in others (Studies 1a and 1b; N = 369). However, when we directly tested the accuracy of perceived authenticity, we found no significant correlation between self- and other-rated authenticity in two cohorts of adult students in randomly assigned teams (Studies 2 and 3; 4,040 self-other observations). In addition, we found that perceived authenticity was biased in two ways: (a) Other-rated authenticity showed a positivity bias compared with self-ratings, and (b) other-rated authenticity was biased by the rater's own authenticity. In Study 3, we also investigated authenticity meta-perceptions; although people expect their authenticity to be accurately perceived by others, their meta-perceptions did not correlate with other-rated authenticity. That is, beliefs about the visibility of one's authenticity are similarly not accurate. Overall, we found no evidence that people can accurately identify who is authentic.

Authentic self-expression on social media is associated with greater subjective well-being.

Social media users face a tension between presenting themselves in an idealized or authentic way. Here, we explore how prioritizing one over the other impacts users' well-being. We estimate the degree of self-idealized vs. authentic self-expression as the proximity between a user's self-reported personality and the automated personality judgements made on the basis Facebook Likes and status updates. Analyzing data of 10,560 Facebook users, we find that individuals who are more authentic in their self-expression also report greater Life Satisfaction. This effect appears consistent across different personality profiles, countering the proposition that individuals with socially desirable personalities benefit from authentic self-expression more than others. We extend this finding in a pre-registered, longitudinal experiment, demonstrating the causal relationship between authentic posting and positive affect and mood on a within-person level. Our findings suggest that the extent to which social media use is related to well-being depends on how individuals use it.

Why grit requires perseverance and passion to positively predict performance.

Prior studies linking grit-defined as perseverance and passion for long-term goals-to performance are beset by contradictory evidence. As a result, commentators have increasingly declared that grit has limited effects. We propose that this inconsistent evidence has occurred because prior research has emphasized perseverance and ignored, both theoretically and empirically, the critical role of passion, which we define as a strong feeling toward a personally important value/preference that motivates intentions and behaviors to express that value/preference. We suggest that combining the grit scale-which only captures perseverance-with a measure that assesses whether individuals attain desired levels of passion will predict performance. We first metaanalyzed 127 studies (n = 45,485) that used the grit scale and assessed performance, and found that effect sizes are larger in studies where participants were more passionate for the performance domain. Second, in a survey of employees matched to supervisor-rated job performance (n = 422), we found that the combination of perseverance, measured through the grit scale, and passion attainment, measured through a new scale, predicted higher performance. A final study measured perseverance and passion attainment in a sample of students (n = 248) and linked these to their grade-point average (GPA), finding that the combination of perseverance and passion attainment predicted higher GPAs in part through increased immersion. The present results help resolve the mixed evidence of grit's relationship with performance by highlighting the important role that passion plays in predicting performance. By adequately measuring both perseverance and passion, the present research uncovers grit's true predictive power.