The Concept of Authenticity - What It Means To Consumers-1

Article
Journal of Marketing
2021, Vol. 85(4) 1-20
The Concept of Authenticity: ª American Marketing Association 2021
Article reuse guidelines:
What It Means to Consumers sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/0022242921997081
journals.sagepub.com/home/jmx
Joseph C. Nunes , Andrea Ordanini, and Gaia Giambastiani
Abstract
The literature is filled with numerous idiosyncratic definitions of what it means for consumption to be authentic. The authors
address the resulting conceptual ambiguity by reconceptualizing authenticity, defining it as a holistic consumer assessment
determined by six component judgments (accuracy, connectedness, integrity, legitimacy, originality, and proficiency) whereby
the role of each component can change according to the consumption context. This definition emerges from a two-stage,
multimethod concept reconstruction process leveraging data from more than 3,000 consumers across no fewer than 17 types
of consumption experiences. In stage one, the authors take a qualitative approach employing both in-depth interviews and
surveys (one conducted on a nationally representative sample) to identify authenticity’s six constituent components. The final
components are based on themes emerging from consumer data that were integrated and reconciled with existing definitions in
the literature. In stage two, quantitative analyses empirically estimate the six components and support the composite formative
nature of the construct. The authors document how certain components contribute to assessments of authenticity differently
across contexts; in addition, they show that authenticity has consumer-relevant downstream consequences while being con-
ceptually distinct from consumer attitudes. Their findings offer practitioners direction regarding what to emphasize to convey
authenticity to consumers.
Keywords
authenticity, consumption, composite construct, concept reconstruction, multimethod
Online Supplement: https://doi.org/10.1177/0022242921997081
Consumers crave authenticity—so much so that their quest for to develop definitions expressly for the particular context under
authenticity is considered “one of the cornerstones of contem- investigation, be it advertising (Becker, Wiegand, and Reinartz
porary marketing” (Brown, Kozinets, and Sherry 2003, p. 21). 2019; Stern 1994), brands (Holt 2002; Morhart et al. 2015),
This has created an enormous challenge for the field, consid- tourist sites (Grayson and Martinec 2004), reality television
ering that marketing itself is typically considered inherently (Rose and Wood 2005), classic car ownership (Leigh, Peters,
inauthentic (Deibert 2017). To overcome consumer cynicism, and Shelton 2006), brand extensions (Spiggle, Nguyen, and
it has been argued that firms must learn to understand, manage, Caravella 2012), employee service encounters (Sirianni et al.
and excel at rendering authenticity (Gilmore and Pine 2007). 2013), creative goods (Valsesia, Nunes, and Ordanini 2016),
The critical question is: how? In an effort to better understand culture (Vredeveld and Coulter 2018), alcoholic beverages
the role of authenticity in consumption, academic research on (Beverland 2005), social media influencers (Audrezeta,
the topic has flourished in marketing and related fields during De Kervilerb, and Moulard 2020), or consumer products such
the past 20 years. An unintended consequence of this prolifera- as blue jeans and chocolate (Newman and Dhar 2014).
tion of research, however, has been the creation of numerous
idiosyncratic definitions of what it means to be authentic, some
loosely connected to one another and often capturing only a Joseph C. Nunes is Professor of Marketing and holds the Joseph A. DeBell
part of a complex phenomenon. What is clear is that “despite Endowed Professorship in Business Administration, Marshall School of
widespread agreement about authenticity’s importance as a Business, University of Southern California, USA (email: jnunes@marshall
concept, no commonly accepted definition exists” (Becker, .usc.edu). Andrea Ordanini is BNP Paribas Endowed Chair in Marketing &
Service Analytics, Department of Marketing, Bocconi University, Italy (email:
Wiegand, and Reinartz 2019, p. 25). andreaordanini@unibocconi.it). Gaia Giambastiani is Assistant Professor of
The absence of a shared definition of authenticity is due, at Marketing, School of Business and Economics, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam,
least in part, to the fact that historically researchers have tended Netherlands (email: g.giambastiani@vu.nl).
2 Journal of Marketing 85(4)
In addition, most marketing scholars who define what the consumption context. By placing our definition in the
they mean by “authenticity” have ended up introducing a context of consumption, we provide a conceptual understand-
specific subtype of authenticity to the literature (see Tables ing of authenticity that is “indigenous” (Rust 2006, p. 2) and
A and B in the Web Appendix). This includes, but is not “organic” (Kohli 2009, p. 1) to marketing. This definition of
limited to, indexical authenticity (Grayson and Martinec authenticity stems from our conceptualization of authenticity
2004), hyperauthenticity (Rose and Wood 2005), con- as a “composite formative construct,” which is an entity
structed authenticity (Leigh, Peters, and Shelton 2006), defined entirely by its components (Bollen and Diamantopo-
brand extension authenticity (Spiggle, Nguyen, and Cara- lous 2017). The reasoning for conceptualizing authenticity this
vella 2012), employee authenticity (Sirianni et al. 2013), way is as follows.
brand authenticity (Schallehn, Burmann, and Riley 2014; First, the rationale underlying why authenticity is conceived
Morhart et al. 2015; Dwivedi and McDonald 2018; Cinelli of as a formative rather than reflective construct is straightfor-
and LeBoeuf 2019), creative authenticity (Valsesia, Nunes, ward. Consumers make multiple judgments (e.g., Is this orig-
and Ordanini 2016), cultural authenticity (Vredeveld and inal? Is this accurate?) that correspond to the indicators we
Coulter 2018), and passionate authenticity (Audrezeta, De identify (e.g., originality, accuracy). These judgments are not
Kervilerb, and Moulard 2020). In general, the literature pro- interchangeable (e.g., originality is not a substitute for accu-
vides an insightful yet fragmented picture of what it means racy); it is only a combination of these judgments that jointly
for consumption to be authentic. This fragmentation creates determines whether consumers consider a consumption expe-
problems because when a single term such as "authenticity" rience more or less authentic. When changes in a construct
acquires a variety of meanings, the inevitable result is con- depend on changes in its indicators, as opposed to vice versa,
ceptual ambiguity (Teas and Palan 1997). the construct is formative as opposed to reflective (Jarvis,
Conceptual ambiguity creates challenges for academics MacKenzie, and Podsakoff 2003).
because the lack of shared meaning makes it difficult to Second, authenticity is conceived of as a composite rather
develop coherent theory (MacKenzie 2003; Suddaby 2010). than causal formative construct. As a composite construct,
What was evident 50 years ago is still true today; progress in authenticity is defined entirely by its components instead of
consumer behavior research depends on standardized defini-
existing on its own as a latent construct. This means “the indi-
tions, and this should be a priority for scholars in marketing
cators, as a group, jointly determine the conceptual and empiri-
(Kollat, Engel, and Blackwell 1970). In addition, marketing
cal meaning of the construct” (Jarvis, MacKenzie, and
researchers have made calls for an “increase in the conceptual
Podsakoff 2003, p. 201) rather than simply providing a way
rigor with which we define our constructs” (Williams and
of gauging the degree to which it is present (Bollen and Dia-
Poehlman 2017, p. 245) and for more attention to be given to
mantopoulos 2017). This is consistent with “authenticity” lin-
“construct validity in general and more rigorous assessments of
guistically being a “dimension word,” its specific meaning
the measurement properties of constructs” (Jarvis, MacKenzie,
uncertain until one knows which of its dimensions are being
and Podsakoff 2003, p. 199). Conceptual ambiguity also cre-
ates challenges for practitioners who would benefit from discussed (Dutton 2003). The critical point is that, for consu-
clearer guidance regarding ways to enhance consumers’ assess- mers, authenticity derives its full meaning from its dimensions.
ments of the authenticity of their offerings. In fact, when they describe what makes something authentic,
The goal of this research is to reconceptualize authenticity they do so only through some combination of the six compo-
in marketing such that its definition provides a cohesive, com- nents we identify. An example of a composite formative con-
prehensive understanding of its meaning and specifies the construct in marketing is brand equity (Aaker 1991), a construct
cept’s defining characteristics as well as the extent to which it made up of brand awareness, brand associations, brand quality,
is generalizable, or at least adaptive, across contexts brand loyalty, and other proprietary assets (Henseler 2017).
(Podsakoff, MacKenzie, and Podsakoff 2016). Critically, rather The fact that composite indicators can consist of dissimilar
than introducing a new construct, the process followed here is variables that do not need to have “conceptual unity” (i.e.,
one of concept reconstruction, which entails evaluating the direct correspondence) except in the loosest sense of the word
state of the existing concept by reviewing its usage in prior (Bollen and Bauldry 2011) has two implications for our con-
research and using evidence from fieldwork to rework and ceptualization. First, composite indicators need not covary,
revise how the construct is defined (Welch, Rumyantseva, and allowing for potential trade-offs between them (e.g., originality
Hewerdine 2016). entails deviating from the mainstream, while legitimacy entails
adhering to certain standards or norms). Second, composite
indicators can contribute differently in different contexts
A General Definition of Authenticity (e.g., proficiency may be more important when assessing the
Anticipating our findings, we define authenticity as it pertains authenticity of hedonic products than utilitarian products).
to consumption as follows: a holistic consumer assessment Thus, our approach helps explain and integrate the fragmented
determined by six component judgments (accuracy, connected- literature in which researchers frequently have selected one or
ness, integrity, legitimacy, originality, and proficiency) more components of authenticity to investigate separately in
whereby the role of each component can change according to different contexts.
Nunes et al. 3
Table 1. Overview of Qualitative Studies.
Study 1 Study 2a Study 2b

Music Consumers Representative Sample Executives
Sampling Relevant Representative Emergent

Context(s) Single, purposeful Multiple, theory-driven Multiple, self-generated
(music) (e.g., craft beer, metro rides) (e.g., yoga classes, handbags)
Sample size Small (N ¼ 30) Large (N ¼ 1,011) Small (N ¼ 73)
Method In-depth interviews Survey, defined scenarios Survey, open-ended, discussion
Data Low breadth, high depth High breadth, low depth Medium breadth, medium depth
Purpose(s) Preliminary identification of themes Generalizability of themes across multiple Generalizability of themes to broader
theory-driven contexts and consumers set of consumption contexts
Table 2. Components of Authenticity.
Component Definition
1. Accuracy The extent to which a provider is perceived as transparent in how it represents itself and its products and/or services and,
thus, reliable in terms of what it conveys to customers.
2. Connectedness The extent to which a customer feels engaged, familiar with, and sometimes even transformed by a source and/or its
offering.
3. Integrity The extent to which a provider is perceived as being intrinsically motivated, not acting out of its own financial interest,
while acting autonomously and consistently over time.
4. Legitimacy The extent to which a product or service adheres to shared norms, standards, rules, or traditions present in the market.
5. Originality The extent to which a product or service stands out from mainstream offerings present in the market and does so without
unnecessary embellishments.
6. Proficiency The extent to which a provider is perceived as properly skilled, exhibiting craftsmanship and/or expertise.
Methodological Approach (product vs. service), its main consumption benefit (hedonic vs.
utilitarian), the life cycle of the products (consumable vs. dur-
Our approach to conceptualizing authenticity does not entail
able), and the extent of consumers’ cocreation of value in the
defining a new construct per se, but instead entails concept
services (high vs. low coproduction). In Study 2b, we surveyed
reconstruction leading to the redefinition of an existing con-
a more homogeneous sample whereby respondents
struct (Welch, Rumyantseva, and Hewerdine 2016). Concept
self-generated the consumption contexts (included in the Web
reconstruction is founded on the idea that, as building blocks of
theory, concepts need to be tested, challenged, and revised to Appendix). Table 1 presents an overview of how these studies
ensure clarity and consistency as the number of varied inter- are distinct, yet complementary; the diversity in data collection
pretations accumulate (Blumer 1969). The reconstruction pro- methods is key to ensuring meaningful and robust results. The
cess commences with a critical review of the concept’s use in final step in stage one involves reconciling the themes drawn
existing research. Therefore, we begin by identifying how from consumer data, used to identify the component indicators
authors have defined authenticity in the past, which reveals a that define authenticity, with themes drawn from existing def-
range of meanings and little effort directed at pinpointing com- initions in the literature. Doing so marries evidence from field-
monalities or ensuring consistency. work with existing theory about what it means for consumption
Next, successful concept reconstruction is predicated on to be authentic and provides the main conceptual outcome of
taking a grounded theory approach (Strauss and Corbin the reconstruction process: the final set of authenticity’s con-
1990). This means the concept is subjected to scrutiny through stituent components and their definitions (see Table 2).
qualitative fieldwork examining data collected directly from In stage two, we augment stage one with a quantitative
consumers applying the concept within various empirical analysis in which we investigate the applicability of the com-
instances of the phenomenon (Blumer 1969). Thus, in stage ponent indicators identified across a variety of consumption
one, we let consumers themselves describe how they form their contexts. We do so by using a scenario-based study that
assessments of authenticity, doing so across a wide variety of includes the same theory-driven variation in consumption con-
consumption contexts. We collected data across three qualita- texts as Study 2a. Using partial least squares (PLS) modeling
tive studies. In Study 1 we conducted in-depth interviews (Hair, Howard, and Nitzl 2020), we estimate authenticity as a
focusing on a single relevant domain (music). In Study 2a, composite formative construct, while documenting heteroge-
we conducted a survey of a nationally representative sample neity across contexts among select component indicators in
of consumers focusing on a variety of theory-driven consump- terms of their impact on consumers’ overall assessments. The
tion contexts. These contexts differ in the nature of the offering data also allow us to investigate a broader nomological network
that documents the effect of consumers’ assessments of authen- construct with its constituent components contributing differ-
ticity on downstream consequences relevant to marketers. ently across different contexts. Conceptualizing authenticity in
In summary, with very few exceptions (e.g., Williams and this way helps connect and make sense of the numerous
Poehlman 2017), little work in marketing of which we are aware idiosyncratic definitions in the literature. Knowing how differ-
engages in a systematic process of concept reconstruction. ent component judgments apply in different contexts is also
Against this backdrop, we employ a unique process that takes important for practitioners who benefit from guidance about
a two-stage multimethod (qualitative and quantitative) approach, what to emphasize for different types of offerings to render
leveraging responses from more than 3,000 consumers across 17 authentic experiences.
theoretically driven, and nearly 200 self-generated, consumption
experiences.
The Literature on Authenticity
As a first step in our conceptual reconstruction effort, we con-
Summary of Main Findings ducted a comprehensive review of the literature examining how
To anticipate the outcome of our endeavor, the fieldwork in authenticity has been defined in the past as it relates to con-
stage one facilitates identifying six components of authenticity. sumption. Unlike a typical literature review, our goal here is to
As mentioned previously, these include accuracy, connected- identify those characteristics of authenticity that prior research-
ness, integrity, legitimacy, originality, and proficiency. Accu- ers have considered essential, something that should be speci-
racy refers to being transparent and reliable in what is conveyed fied in any concept definition (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, and
to consumers. Connectedness describes feelings of engagement Podsakoff 2016). The search for definitions involved collecting
and at times a sense of transformation. Integrity means the all articles including the words “authenticity” and/or
source is intrinsically motivated, while acting autonomously “authentic” in the title, abstract, or as a keyword in the top
and consistently. Legitimacy refers to conformity in terms of 25 marketing journals as well as the top journals of related
adhering to norms, standards, rules or traditions, while origin- fields including management, organization, psychology,
ality refers to a product or service standing out from the main- sociology, and anthropology (the Web Appendix provides
stream. Finally, proficiency refers to the display of skills, details of the procedure we followed). This resulted in 436
craftsmanship and/or expertise in the offering. We defined articles from 61 journals (see Table C in the Web Appendix),
these components when reconciling our consumer data with including 153 (35%) from marketing. We further expanded our
the existing literature (see Table 2 and Figure 1), and they bibliographic search to include articles and books that were
help clarify and structure the diverse themes collected from well cited in the articles collected. We scoured these articles
definitions in the extant literature (see Table A in the Web for explicit and distinct definitions of what the authors meant
Appendix). when using the words “authenticity” or “authentic.” Articles
Stage two provides empirical estimates of the six compo- with definitions too far removed from consumers or tangential
nent indicators identified as contributing to consumers’ assess- to consumption were excluded (e.g., articles examining authen-
ments of authenticity across a wide range of consumption tic leadership, authentic emotions) as were articles that pro-
contexts, including some studied previously in the literature vided definitions taken directly from prior work already
(e.g., chocolates, restaurants) and some that, at first glance, identified.
seem to be unlikely candidates for studying authenticity At the end of this process, we identified 63 distinct defini-
(e.g., washing machines, utility services). We find that when tions from 46 different articles (see Table A in the Web Appen-
assessing authenticity, all six components contribute signifi- dix). Forty-five of these definitions (71%) introduce specific
cantly across contexts, although proficiency routinely appears subtypes of authenticity (e.g., “constructed authenticity,”
to be the most important and legitimacy the least important. In “moral authenticity”) instead of defining authenticity more
addition, judgments of proficiency appear more important for generally (see Table B in the Web Appendix). Within the
hedonic than utilitarian products, while judgments of legiti- marketing literature, 23 of 28 definitions (82%) were of sub-
macy appear to matter for utilitarian but not hedonic products. types. Put another way, only five articles in marketing
It also appears integrity matters more for durable products than (Beverland and Farrelly 2010; Holt 2002; Moulard, Raggio,
for consumable products. Turning to services, originality mat- and Folse 2021; Newman and Dhar 2014; Schallehn, Burmann,
ters more for low- than for high-consumer-coproduction and Riley 2014) attempted to define what it means to be
services, while conversely, legitimacy matters more for high- authentic in a general sense.
than for low-coproduction services. The results also show how If we look more closely at these five articles, we find Holt’s
authenticity relates to individuals’ consumption intentions, as it (2002, p. 83) work on consumer culture and branding claims
is associated with information search, purchase intentions, and that to be authentic, brands must “be perceived as invented and
word of mouth, with consumer attitudes partially mediating disseminated by parties without an instrumental economic
this association. Notably, tests of discriminant validity support agenda, by people who are intrinsically motivated by their
authenticity and attitudes as distinct constructs. inherent value.” Beverland and Farrelly (2010, p. 839) are more
These findings are important for academics as they support general, concluding that “despite the multiplicity of terms and
conceptualizing authenticity as a composite formative interpretations applied to authenticity, ultimately authenticity
Study 1 “different from the crowd,” “is completely different,” “is unique,” “is the first” “cultural context is reflected,” “uses sounds from his culture and tradition,”
Study 1 “maintains a certain style,” “without continually changing genres”
Originality Legitimacy
“One of a kind...to be rare,” “offers new and different,” “rare,” “no evidence of being refers to the extent to which refers to the extent to “made with all traditional methods,” “if it contains key ingredients, good and
Study 2 Study 2 bad,” “meets state law requirements,” “bank…supported by the FDIC act”
refurbished,” “unique and fresh,” “being different from all the others” a product or service stands which a product or
out from mainstream service adheres to
offerings present in the shared norms, “commitments to traditions (including production methods, product styling, firm values, and/or
“thought not to be a copy or an imitation” (Grayson and Martinec 2004, p. 297) location)” (Beverland 2005, p. 1008)
market and does so without standards, rules, or
“ability to break established cultural canons” (Delmestri, Montanari, and Usai 2005, p. 976) “performed in adherence to local cultural genres” (Delmestri, Montanari, and Usai 2005, p. 976)
unnecessary traditions present in the
“an experience without contamination” (Vredeveld and Coulter 2018, p. 283) “true to its associated type (or category or genre)” (Carroll and Wheaton 2009, p. 255)
embellishments. market.
“conforms to their existing beliefs about a particular category or type” (Newman 2018, p. 3)
“corresponds with the actual state of affairs” (Moulard, Raggio, and Folse 2021, p. 99)
“I feel that I have a relationship with this person,” “the fact that I feel you are mine; I
Study 1 feel you are close to me,” “creates this relationship” “if the artist himself wrote it,” “not insert himself into doing things that he has not
Study 1 completely mastered,” “achieves a musical sophistication that not everyone has”
“How does it make me feel,” “for a moment you are taken to another place,” “to be Connectedness Proficiency
Study 2 treated with respect,” “where you can act like a child again” refers to the extent to which refers to the extent “long lasting craftsmanship,” “top quality employees and ingredients,” “the know-
a customer feels engaged, to which a provider Study 2 how of the employees,” “quality production,” “operators…trained properly”
familiar with, and is perceived as
“owner authenticates his or her identity through role performance and communal commitment”
(Leigh, Peters, and Shelton 2006, p. 481)
sometimes even properly skilled,
transformed by a product or exhibiting “if it broaches an ideal standard” (Leigh, Peters, and Shelton 2006, p. 481)
“conveying distinctive interpersonal closeness to customers” (Yagil and Medler-Liraz 2013, p. 473)
service. craftsmanship “whether something is made using the appropriate techniques and ingredients” (Carroll and
“to achieve this activated existential state of Being within the liminal process” (Wang 1999, p. 352) Wheaton 2009, p. 255)
and/or expertise.
“passion for craft and production excellence” (Beverland 2005, p. 1008)
“free to…make his own choices” “does not sell out” “has her own style and carries
Study 1 on with consistency” “without thinking only about the goal of selling” “say how she thinks and to show herself as she is,” “tells true stories,” “super
“reflects the value and standards of the [source]” “owners are passionate about
Study 1 truthful, super direct and not this prepackaged image”
Study 2 their product” “pride” “interested in the customers’ best interest and not out to just “delivered on all its claims,” “gives a very detailed description of what [it] does,”
make money” “is sincere…instead of being treated as a cash cow” Integrity Accuracy “Shows events as they would really happen,” “trust and honesty, you get what
Study 2
refers to the extent to refers to the extent to you’re expecting with no surprises,” “shows up when it says it’s going to”
“a true expression of individual or social values and beliefs” (Dutton 1994, p. 1) which a provider is which a provider is
“behavior that is phenomenally experienced as being authored by the self” (Sheldon et al. 1997, p. perceived as being perceived as “credible and convincing” (Bruner 1994, p. 399)
1381) intrinsically motivated, transparent in how it “the correct identification of an object” (Dutton 1994, p. 1)
“without an instrumental economic agenda...intrinsically motivated” (Holt 2002, p. 83) not acting out its own represents itself, and “the reality of ordinary life in reference to a consumption situation” (Stern 1994, p. 388)
“acting in accord with the true self across many different situations” (Schlegel et al. 2009, p. 474) financial interest, while its products and/or “the expectation of truthful representation” (Theodossopoulos 2013, p. 339)
“whether the decisions behind the enactment and operation of an entity reflect sincere choices (i.e., acting autonomously services, and thus “uncalculated honesty” (Yagil and Medler-Liraz 2013, p. 475)
choices true to one’s self) rather than socially scripted responses” (Carroll and Wheaton 2009, p. 255) “Is it true with respect to some property or dimension?” (Newman and Dhar 2014, p. 372)
and consistently over reliable in terms of
“maintaining brand standards and style,” “avoiding brand exploitation” (Spiggle, Nguyen, and “true to its consumers (credibility)” (Morhart et al. 2015, p. 203)
Caravella 2012, p. 967) time. what it conveys to
customers. “expressing his/her true emotions versus attempting to ‘mislead another person into thinking an
“degree to which customers have confidence in the sincerity of an [employee]” (Sirianni et al. 2013, p.
emotion is felt when it is not’” (Wang et al. 2017, p. 111)
111)
“is what it (or its owner) claims (it) to be” (Hahl, Zuckerman, and Kim 2017, p. 831)
“motivated by caring and responsibility (integrity)” (Morhart et al. 2015, p. 203)
“whether a sign-vehicle truthfully represents its respective object” (Kreuzbauer and Keller 2017,
“a faithful execution of the creator’s vision” (Valsesia, Nunes, and Ordanini 2016, p. 897)
p. 418)
“an assessment of values…consistency between an entity’s internal states and its external
“verifying an object’s history and its connection to certain people, places or events” (Newman
expressions” (Newman (2019, p. 3)
2018, p. 3)
“having a clear philosophy; one with a sense of what it stands for” (Dwivedi and McDonald 2018, p.
“when the experience…aligns with the organization’s identity claims” (Demetry 2019, p. 938)
1388)
“assessment of the veracity of the brand’s image” (Cinelli and LeBoeuf 2019, p. 42)
“intrinsically motivated rather than extrinsically motivated” (Audrezeta, De Kervilerb, and Moulard
2020, p. 565) “providing fact-based information” (Audrezeta, De Kervilerb, and Moulard 2020, p. 565)
“corresponds with its intrinsic motivations as opposed to extrinsic motivations” (Moulard, Raggio, and “entity corresponds with the actual state of affairs” (Moulard, Raggio, and Folse 2021, p. 99)
Folse 2021, p. 100)
Figure 1. Convergence between definitions based on qualitative studies and core elements of definitions from prior literature.
5
encapsulates what is genuine, real, and/or true” with each syno- (Patton 2015, p. 174). Music is especially well-suited as a critical
nym left to the reader to interpret. Moulard, Raggio, and Folse case study because authenticity is a dominant topic studied exten-
(2021, p. 99) focus on truth and define authenticity as “the sively in this domain (Grazian 2004; McLeod 1999; Peterson
degree to which an entity in one’s environment (e.g., object, 1997). Moreover, claims of being authentic play a major role
person, performance) is perceived to be true to or match up in how music is marketed (Barker and Taylor 2007). In an effort
with something else.” Newman and Dhar (2014, p. 372) con- to be methodical in capturing how consumers describe what
sider the act and not the outcome, stating that “authenticity makes the consumption of music authentic, we employed the
describes a verification process—the evaluation of some truth repertory grid technique (RGT) to collect and analyze the data
or fact.” In contrast, Schallehn, Burmann, and Riley (2014, (Goffin and Koners 2011). The RGT is a cognitive mapping tool
p. 194) focus on individuals and not artifacts to “define authen- that has been utilized widely in consumer research, including
ticity as the degree to which personal identity is causally linked successfully being employed to discover how consumers con-
to individual behavior.” It is interesting to note that while all of struct the concept of “customer experience quality” (Lemke,
these are put forth as “general” definitions, each raises distinct Clark, and Wilson 2011). Its elicitation procedure is particularly
features, and only a few loosely align with each other. useful for explaining abstract terms from the point of view of
Surveying the full set of articles that we compiled, several respondents.
key insights emerge. First, only about 11% of the 436 articles
we identify as expressly involving authenticity provide what Method. We selected 30 respondents prescreened for an
could be considered a definition, and fewer still utilize a single interest in music to participate as informants. They varied
definition taken from prior literature. Instead, the vast majority in gender (50% female), age (50% under 30), and nationality
either summarize how prior literature has varied in its inter- (22 European, eight non-European). Informants were assigned
pretation of authenticity’s meaning or presume the meaning of to one of two interviewers. Each interview was conducted on an
authenticity is understood. Second, most authors, when they do individual basis. During the initial elicitation stage, each infor-
provide a definition, do so for a specialized subtype of authen- mant provided a set of five artists whose music they felt
ticity that they create. Yet even researchers who label subtypes particularly well-informed about. Of the 150 artists provided,
similarly (e.g., brand authenticity) tend to define them some- 126 were unique (see Table D in the Web Appendix).
what differently. For example, consider brand authenticity. At the onset, we asked each informant to identify features
Cinelli and LeBoeuf (2019, p. 42) “conceptualize brand important to them when they evaluate the artists and their
authenticity as a judgment about the genuineness of a brand’s output. For each informant, authenticity emerged as a relevant
image” while Schallehn, Burmann, and Riley (2014, p. 193) feature, reaffirming the concept’s importance in the domain
claim “an authentic brand is clear about what it stands for. It is under investigation. Next, informants were presented with
a brand which positions itself from the inside out versus one various combinations of three artists drawn from those they
that panders to the latest trend.” Morhart et al. (2015, p. 203) go provided and were asked to identify ways in which the music
further, conceptualizing perceived brand authenticity as a mul- of two is similar yet different from the third in terms of authen-
tidimensional construct that includes the extent to which a ticity. The same procedure was applied using a common set of
brand is “true to its consumers” (similar to Cinelli and five artists popular at the time (Beyoncé, Pink, Katy Perry,
LeBoeuf) as one of four dimensions, and the extent to which Justin Bieber, and Enrique Iglesias), pretested to ensure hetero-
“consumers perceive a brand to be faithful toward itself” (more geneity in terms of assessments of authenticity (see “Study 1
similar to Schallehn, Burmann, and Riley) as another dimen- Artist Pretest” details in the Web Appendix).
sion. Overall, the key takeaway is that the literature presents an
important but fragmented picture of what it means for Raw descriptors. The resulting discussions produced a total of
consumption to be authentic. The evidence of conceptual 225 meaningful descriptors (e.g., “follow their own style,”
ambiguity makes authenticity ripe for concept reconstruction, “lyrics are introspective and personal”) used to create opposing
prompting the qualitative fieldwork we undertake to under- construct/contrast poles on a five-point bipolar scale in line
stand how consumers themselves interpret the concept. with the RGT methodology. One scale, for example, was
anchored by “follow their own style” and “follow current tren-
ds” (informant #18). Figure A in the Web Appendix includes a
Stage One: Grounded Theory Fieldwork— sample repertory grid of construct/contrast poles generated by a
A Consumer’s View of Authenticity single informant (informant #10) for illustrative purposes.
Using their own self-generated construct/contrast poles
Study 1: Identification of Conceptual Themes (which represent our elementary data), informants rated the
The fieldwork in Study 1 examines consumers’ interpretation of work of the five artists they provided as well as the common
the meaning of authenticity using a critical case sampling method set of five artists.
involving in-depth interviews. A critical case reflects a context
that is particularly important because it permits logical general- Results. From the 225 construct/contrast poles, after a series of
ization and maximum application of the information to other thorough coding and refinement efforts, we identified 243
cases because “if it happens there, it will happen anywhere” themes associated with the meaning of authenticity in music.
Nunes et al. 7
No systematic differences in terms of counts or types of themes “dimension word,” its meaning depending on those dimensions
emerged based on gender, age, or nationality. Using an discussed. This is indicative of how assessments of authenticity
approach to inductive research rooted in the literature (Gioia, depend on a set of distinct judgments in the minds of consu-
Corley, and Hamilton 2012), after a series of iterations and mers. This is compelling initial evidence that authenticity is a
interpretation efforts, similar clusters of themes emerged that complex, composite construct that should be defined with
were grouped into six different categories. These six reflect the “each dimension representing a unique content domain of the
preliminary list of authenticity component judgments. These broader construct” (Polites, Roberts, and Thatcher 2011, p. 1).
components (ultimately labeled accuracy, connectedness, Taken together, these results are indicative of the formative
integrity, legitimacy, originality, and proficiency) reflect the composite nature of authenticity as a construct.
conceptual dimensions informants expressed when assessing
the authenticity of an artist and their music. Table E in the Web Preliminary content validity assessment. Recall that we ran a sep-
Appendix provides a sample of themes derived from the con- arate pretest that measured the perceived authenticity of the
struct/contrast poles and categorized within the different com- music of five common artists presented to respondents. We
ponent judgments. Table F in the Web Appendix presents also had each informant rate these artists on their own set of
excerpts of what some respondents said makes music authentic, five-point bipolar scales. We then ran a multidimensional scal-
aligned with each of the six components. ing analysis using the average score at the component level for
Eliminating redundancies at the individual level, the 243 the music of each artist on the full set (Beyoncé, Pink, etc.)
themes and their associated component judgment were reduced derived from these ratings (see Table G in the Web Appendix).
to 117 unique instantiations used to calculate counts at the Results reveal that artists’ authenticity, measured as a compo-
informant level. While two informants did not raise any rele- site score of respondents’ evaluations, is in line with the eva-
vant themes/components, among the remaining 28 the compo- luations these artists received in the pretest (see the horizontal
nent judgments raised by the greatest number of informants positioning of the artists in Figure B in the Web Appendix).
was integrity (86%), followed by originality (82%), connected- This provides initial support for the content validity of our
ness (71%), proficiency (68%), accuracy (64%), and legitimacy findings. Moreover, some artists reached a similar level of
(46%). It is important to highlight a few things about the six authenticity with different contributions from the six compo-
components identified. nent judgments. For example, Beyoncé and Pink received simi-
First, inspecting the results more closely, there appears to be larly high authenticity scores—the former due mainly to high
significant breadth in terms of what drives consumers’ assess- levels of connectedness and integrity, the latter due to a high
ments of authenticity at the individual level. Informants did not level of originality (see the vertical positioning of artists and
simply use descriptors that were synonyms or different ways of components in Web Appendix Figure B). This suggests that the
representing the same thing. Instead, they point to different six themes are dissimilar in the way they contribute to consu-
themes and ultimately different components of a broader mers’ assessments of authenticity, providing further support for
concept. For example, one informant described authentic the composite nature of the construct.
experiences as those produced by artists who “have the ability In summary, in Study 1 we identify six component judgments
to create something new” (originality), “engage with fans” related to authenticity in music that define it as a concept in the
(connectedness), “write their own songs” (proficiency), and minds of consumers. The results suggest that authenticity is a
“are free to choose what to sing” (integrity). Another informant collection of judgments consumers make that capture different
spoke of artists who “talk about what they have really experi- dimensions of the concept, providing preliminary evidence that
enced” (accuracy), have “respect for traditions and styles of a authenticity is a composite formative construct. Recall that our
certain genre” (legitimacy), “are unique” (originality), “are concept reconstruction process is intended to incorporate con-
consistent” (integrity), and “show a desire to have a dialogue sumer data collected using different qualitative methods (see
with the listener” (connectedness). This breadth in dimensions Table 1), involving different populations of consumers, and cov-
that are not substitutes for one another is consistent with ering a wide range of consumption contexts. In the next study,
authenticity being a formative as opposed to a reflective we broaden our inquiry substantially on all three fronts.
construct.
Second, informants discussed authenticity as a multidimen-
Study 2a: Evidence of Generalizability and Heterogeneity:
sional concept. More specifically, no informant described just
one type of component judgment (“component” hereinafter).
A Nationally Representative Sample
Among the 28 who raised relevant themes, only one person Study 2a builds on the results of Study 1 in three important
brought up themes associated with just two components, while ways. First, the method we employ has changed. In lieu of
21% of respondents raised three, 39% four, 25% five, and 11% in-depth interviews, we survey consumers. Second, we expand
discussed all six. Further, we emphasize that informants did not and extend the sample significantly. We enlisted a nationally
describe what makes music authentic in ways unrelated to its representative sample of consumers to ensure that we capture
components. No informant presented a single, rudimentary the views of a broad cross-section of the population, increasing
description; instead, they raised specific dimensions (compo- the generalizability of our findings. Third, whereas Study 1
nents) of the concept consistent with authenticity being a focuses exclusively on music, in Study 2a we include a wide
Table 3. Specific Consumption Contexts of Study 2a and Study 3.
Study 2a
Product Service
Hedonic Utilitarian Hedonic Utilitarian
High Low High Low

Durable Consumable Durable Consumable Coproduction Coproduction Coproduction Coproduction
Sports car Craft beer Vacuum Laundry Toy store Movie Banking services Train/metro
cleaner detergent ride
Study 3
Product Service
High Low High Low

Durable Consumable Durable Consumable Coproduction Coproduction Coproduction Coproduction
Gaming Chocolates Washing Toilet paper Restaurant dining Sporting event Health services Utility services
console machine
variety of theoretically driven consumption contexts. This between services in line with the extent to which consumers
helps address potential limitations inherent in a single typically contribute to the coproduction of the service experience
case-study approach (see Schau, Muñiz, and Arnould 2009) (high vs. low coproduction; see Yim, Chan, and Lam 2012).
and allows us to consider the extent to which consumer
judgments might change across contexts.
Design
Consumption contexts. One theory-driven distinction in contexts Stimuli. Leveraging these distinctions enables us to investigate
we draw is between products and services. This dichotomy is how authenticity is thought of across several meaningful con-
important because marketing exchanges that do not result in a sumption contexts: hedonic products, hedonic services, utilitar-
transfer of ownership from seller to buyer (services) are funda- ian products, utilitarian services, consumable products, durable
mentally different from those that do (products) (Lovelock and products, high-coproduction services, and low-coproduction ser-
Gummesson 2004). Further, services differ from products in vices (see Table 3). We arrived at the specific experiences used
terms of other characteristics, including tangibility, perishability, in each context drawing on the results of a pretest that ensured
the simultaneity of production and consumption, and the relative that they differed significantly on all dimensions (for details, see
uniformity of consumers’ experiences (Parasuraman, Zeithaml, “Study 2a Consumption Context Pretest” in the Web Appendix).
and Berry 1985). These differences necessitate distinct con-
sumer evaluation processes, which may lead to differences in Sample and data. We recruited a sample of 1,011 U.S. citizens
what consumers emphasize when assessing authenticity. certified as nationally representative in terms of gender (52%
Another theory-driven distinction we draw is between female), age (Mage ¼ 45 years), education, and ethnicity
hedonic and utilitarian offerings. Hedonic offerings are char- through Qualtrics International. Each respondent was presented
acterized by an affective and sensory experience of pleasure with four products and/or services drawn randomly from the set
and fun, whereas utilitarian offerings are more cognitively and was asked to express, in their own words, the criteria they
driven, instrumental, and goal-oriented, helping the consumer would use when forming a judgment of authenticity. Next, they
accomplish a functional or practical task (Dhar and Werten- were asked to describe a highly authentic experience of that
broch 2000). Hedonic and utilitarian motives comprise the particular product or service category (e.g., a sports car, a toy
“two basic reasons” consumers purchase products and services: store). This resulted in a total of 4,044 statements, of which
(1) the affective gratification from sensory attributes and 3,955 (98%) were interpretable. Of these, 1,513 (37%)
(2) instrumental reasons concerned with expectations of con- provided sound descriptors considered useful in terms of devel-
sequences (Batra and Ahtola 1991). We anticipate that these oping themes regarding authenticity. Statements considered
different motives might also lead to differences in how nonuseful were categorized as such for multiple reasons.
consumers form their assessments of authenticity. Further, Consider the context of a sports car used in this study. Exam-
we distinguish between products on the basis of differences ples of nonuseful statements include those that are overly broad
in their life cycle (durable vs. consumable). We also distinguish (“great features”), focus on individual preferences (“they are
Nunes et al. 9
way too fast”), and identify specific examples instead of each consumption context provided, although some compo-
general criteria (e.g., “a Dodge Challenger”). Simply put, nents appear to matter more in some contexts than others
nonuseful responses fail to provide a solid-enough basis on (e.g., accuracy was raised in 31% of descriptions for bank-
which authenticity could or would be assessed. By avoiding ing services, but only 8% for craft beer, while originality
making inferences based on ambiguous descriptors, we believe was raised in 36% of descriptions for craft beer, but only
our conservative approach leads to results that are more robust. 3% for banking services). This type of variability across
In coding the data, we developed and refined a coding contexts prompted the additional investigation into hetero-
scheme in line with conventional grounded theory by “breaking geneity we conduct in Study 3. We did not observe systema-
down, examining, comparing, conceptualizing, and tic differences in components based on gender or age,
categorizing” the data (Strauss and Corbin 1990). Each author although integrity was raised somewhat more often by
individually read each response line by line in an attempt to younger respondents.
identify key words or phrases belonging to, representing, or In a separate study (Study 2b, included in the Web Appendix
being an example of a more general meaning (Spiggle 1994). for brevity), we expanded the set of consumption contexts even
The sizable amount of entries required several rounds of further by asking 73 executives working on a master of
coding. Initially, all three authors coded the first 100 entries business administration degree at a major business school to
with the goal of identifying interpretational alignment. After identify those types of experiences in which they see authenti-
conferring to resolve discrepancies in coding, each author city applying. This encouraged respondents to focus on the
separately coded the remaining entries. As coding progressed, most accessible authentic experiences in memory. This was
each entry was compared with other entries appearing to intended to ensure that our reconceptualization effort was not
belong to the same category to identify similar patterns of limited to evidence gathered only from predefined experiences
responses (Martin and Turner 1986). in terms of context. Participants were then asked to list specific
The coding procedure began initially by drawing from the qualities of those experiences that contribute to making it more
themes and six components identified in Study 1, which were or less authentic. Respondents provided 192 distinct consump-
considered provisional, allowing for new themes and dimen- tion experiences, ranging from “do it yourself” items purchased
sions (components) to emerge. The 1,512 useful responses ulti- on Etsy to taking a yoga class, which were accompanied by a
mately included 1,917 themes (23% of descriptions included description of one or more qualities that impacted their percep-
more than one theme). Table H of the Web Appendix presents tions of authenticity. The authors examined each description to
illustrative verbiage associated with each component in each determine whether any part aligned with the themes associated
context. We then calculated the reliability of our coding using with one or more of the six components identified in Studies 1
the proportional reduction in loss approach (Rust and Cooil and 2a. As in Study 2a, each author was also receptive to
1994), which involves the calculation of an overall proportion identifying any new themes or components observed in the
of interjudge agreement. Across consumption contexts, the data. From the 192 descriptions, we identified 234 descriptors
interjudge reliability score ranged from .69 to .80, correspond- that were categorized into themes and subsequently into one of
ing to an alpha of .92 to .97. After confirming reliability, we the six components that emerged in Study 1 and were corrobo-
resolved all remaining inconsistencies through discussion. rated in Study 2a. Again, no evidence of new components
surfaced from the data.
Results. In the end, we were able to categorize all 1,917 Integrating themes from Studies 1 and 2a (2b) and reconcil-
themes into a clearer and enriched version of the six com- ing them with the extant literature forms the basis for the
ponents identified in Study 1. We did not find evidence that definitions of the six constituent components of authenticity
supported adding new components, despite the diverse sam- (see Table 2). The key takeaway thus far is that, regardless of
ple population and varied contexts, thus corroborating the the method employed, the same six component judgments
findings from the critical case approach. We want to high- consistently seem to jointly determine consumers’ assessments
light that respondents’ descriptions were distributed fairly of authenticity. Next, in the final step in the process of concept
evenly across components as follows: accuracy (20%), con- reconstruction, we look for convergence among the themes
nectedness (15%), integrity (12%), legitimacy (20%), origin- identified in our qualitative studies and themes present in the
ality (16%), and proficiency (17%). Despite the nature of prior literature.
the study, which encouraged short responses, nearly one in
four of the useful statements included more than one theme.
Reconciling Previous Literature
Notably, as in Study 1, respondents did not provide a single,
rudimentary description of what would make a particular
with Grounded Evidence
product or service category experience authentic. Instead, Reconciling the findings from our consumer data with themes
they raised specific dimensions (components) of the concept already present in prior literature is the final step in deriving
consistent with authenticity’s meaning depending on the precise definitions for the six components to form a holistic,
dimension(s) discussed. This, again, is consistent with general concept of authenticity as it pertains to consumption (see
authenticity emerging as a composite formative construct. Figure 1). Moreover, consistent with the goal of concept recon-
Importantly, we find evidence for all six components in struction, it helps make sense of the existing fragmented
knowledge on the topic by providing a conceptual scheme (our Another component judgment that emerges from the quali-
set of six component indicators) that can accommodate and tative data is accuracy, defined as describing the extent to
integrate the disparate perspectives in the authenticity literature. which a source is transparent in how it represents itself, while
Here, we briefly summarize our reconciliation effort. what is conveyed to consumers is reliable. Consumers describe
Consider the originality component. The definition we propose authentic experiences as “delivering on all its claims,” “super
integrates what consumers reported in stage one and converges truthful, super direct,” and getting “what you’re expecting with
with themes drawn from definitions of authenticity from prior no surprises.” This meaning has historical roots in philosophy,
literature. Consumers describe authentic experiences as those with French philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712–1778)
judged to be “unique,” “different from the crowd,” and “new arguing that to be authentic, one must be transparent (Guignon
and different” (for illustrative consumer quotes associated with 2004, p. 30). In line with this interpretation, prior literature
each of the six components, see Tables F and H in the Web has described something authentic as that which is “true”
Appendix). Consumers also point out that distinguishing (e.g., Beverland and Farrelly 2010; Morhart et al. 2015;
factors should involve the essence of an experience, free from Theodossopoulos 2013), “credible and convincing” (Bruner
unnecessary embellishments. These descriptors are consistent 1994, p. 399), exhibiting “uncalculated honesty” (Yagil and
with descriptors derived from different definitions in the extant Medler-Liraz 2013, p. 475), being verifiable (Newman 2019),
literature, such as “not being a copy or an imitation” (Grayson “providing fact-based information” (Audrezeta, De Kervilerb,
and Martinec 2004, p. 297), “breaking cultural canons” and Moulard 2020, p. 565), and communication matching “the
(Delmestri, Montanari, and Usai 2005, p. 976), and being actual state of affairs” (Moulard, Raggio, and Folse 2021,
“without contamination” (Vredeveld and Coulter 2018, p. 99). Like Rousseau, Lehman et al. (2019, p. 2) discuss a
p. 283). A judgment of originality also reflects a common view “consistency between an entity’s internal values and its exter-
in the literature that assessments of authenticity involve nal expression.” It is critical, we believe, to distinguish between
comparisons with reference points that exist within space and being true to others, what we label “accuracy,” and being true
time (Grayson and Martinec 2004; Moulard, Raggio, and to oneself, which is captured in what we call “integrity.”
We define integrity as the source of a consumption experi-
Folse 2021).
ence being perceived as intrinsically motivated and not acting
Similarly, consumers describe authentic experiences as
out of one’s own financial interest, while behaving autono-
those that adhere to some shared norms, standards, rules, or
mously and consistently over time. Here consumers describe
traditions present in the marketplace, which constitutes our
a source being “free” to make its own choices, “not selling
definition of the component of legitimacy. They said things
out,” and “passionate” about its endeavors. Related meanings
such as “I would look at safety standards,” the extent to which
in the literature include authenticity being an “assessment of
it “meets state law requirements,” and uses “all traditional
values” (Newman 2019, p. 3), and the notions of being
methods.” Similar ideas have emerged in prior literature and
“intrinsically motivated” as opposed to “extrinsically
have been described as “commitments to tradition” (Beverland
motivated” (Audrezeta, De Kervilerb, and Moulard 2020,
2005, p. 1008), being “true to its associated type (or category or
p. 565, Moulard, Raggio, and Folse 2021, p. 100), and acting
genre)” (Carroll and Wheaton 2009, p. 255), and corresponding “without an instrumental economic agenda” (Holt 2002, p. 83).
“with a socially determined standard” (Moulard, Raggio, and Trilling (1972) characterizes authenticity as staying “true to
Folse 2021, p. 99). This component judgment of legitimacy, oneself” to distinguish it from sincerity. These themes are, not
like originality, requires a comparison to external referents. Yet surprisingly, raised in the literature frequently (see Figure 1), as
in contrast to originality, the central idea of legitimacy is com- they have direct ties to the etymology of the word. The Greek
pliance. As mentioned previously, consumer judgments of word authenteo is often translated as “to have full power” or
authenticity may depend on cues that create tension, for exam- “acting on one’s own authority” in the sense of autonomy
ple, between conformity (legitimacy) and nonconformity (ori- (Pederson 2015, p. 48).
ginality). This tension is made apparent in research by Another component referencing a quality of the source in
Corciolani, Grayson, and Humphreys (2020) that highlights assessing authenticity is proficiency, which we define as being
how music critics prioritize one of two subtypes of authenticity properly skilled and exhibiting craftsmanship and/or expertise.
proposed by Carroll and Wheaton (2009). In their analysis of Consumers referred to “quality production,” employee
Rolling Stone music reviews, they find that critics with lower “know-how,” “mastery,” “sophistication,” and top-quality
cultural capital (domain-specific knowledge) prioritize adher- “employees and ingredients” as criteria they frequently use
ence to expectations (i.e., type authenticity), whereas critics when assessing authenticity. Similar themes in the extant liter-
with more cultural capital prioritize the inherent motivation ature have included “using the appropriate techniques” (Carroll
(i.e., moral authenticity) that often results in greater originality. and Wheaton 2009, p. 255) and “passion for craft and produc-
Defining authenticity as a composite formative construct tion excellence” (Beverland 2005, p. 1008). Note the latter
allows for different components (legitimacy, integrity, and author may be seen as conflating passion, indicative of the
originality, in this case) to have independent effects on assess- source’s values, with excellence in execution. We disentangle
ments of authenticity. This reinforces the decision to concep- these ideas by separating integrity (motives) from proficiency
tualize authenticity as a composite construct, as we do. (abilities). There is also a subtle distinction between
Nunes et al. 11
legitimacy, which addresses whether the source adheres to distinct from, albeit associated with, consumers’ attitudes
prevailing standards, and proficiency, which addresses the use toward an offering.
of “appropriate techniques” (Carroll and Wheaton 2009,
p. 255). What are “appropriate techniques”? Here, again, one Design. As in Study 2a, we created different scenarios that
might also observe consistency between the component varied the nature of the consumption experience (product vs.
judgments or tension, depending on the consumption context. service), the main consumption benefit (hedonic vs. utilitarian),
Finally, the component of connectedness is something that the life cycle for products (consumable vs. durable), and the
emerged quite emphatically among consumers in terms of a extent of consumer cocreation of value for services (high vs.
sense of intimacy, psychological and physical closeness, and, low coproduction). Note that life cycle and value cocreation are
at times, a feeling of transformation. Consumers referenced nested, and the design is not fully orthogonal. The specific
feelings of “having a relationship” with the source, and some- experiences employed were derived from the results of two
times feelings of “transcendence,” as in “being taken to another pretests: the first designed to elicit exemplars of hedonic and
place.” This relates to another specific theme in the literature, utilitarian products and experiences and the second to ensure
albeit from a different vantage point, that of “interpersonal they differed significantly on all dimensions of interest (details
closeness with the customer” (Yagil and Medler-Liraz 2013, of both pretests are in the Web Appendix). Table 3 provides the
p. 473). Connectedness may also be linked to what has been specific experiences employed in each context. This study,
described as “intrapersonal authenticity” (Leigh, Peters, and though exploratory in nature, was preregistered on AsPre
Shelton 2006, p. 483), involving “both physical (i.e., relaxa- dicted.org (https://aspredicted.org/blind.php?x¼7wa87v).
tion, reinvigoration) and psychological (i.e., self-discovery,
self-realization) aspects.” In one sense, connectedness would Model. The proposed model (illustrated in Figure 2) includes
seem to contribute to what has been referred to as the focal construct of Authenticity, measured as a composite of
“self-authenticating experiences” (Arnould and Price 2000). the six formative indicators identified in stage one. Authenti-
Reconciling themes from the consumer data with prior lit- city is expected to affect consumers’ Behavioral Intentions,
erature (Figure 1) reinforces the conclusion that the things that measured as a reflective construct, both directly and indirectly
make a consumption experience authentic are jointly deter- through Attitudes, also measured as a reflective construct. The
mined by a variety of distinct and loosely related judgments. model is then estimated across different groups of respondents
These judgments constitute the component indicators of randomly assigned to one of the eight consumption contexts
authenticity in our proposed composite construct. By describ- (see Table 3).
ing how the six constituent components of authenticity inte-
grate several disparate themes currently present in the Method. Each respondent read what they believed was a review
literature, we are able to take stock of, digest, and synthesize of a consumption experience in which clear evidence of all six
the literature on authenticity in a way that allows consumer components was present. First, respondents reported their over-
researchers to see the forest for the trees (MacInnis 2011). In all assessment of the Authenticity of the offering reviewed
the next stage, we provide an empirical investigation of using direct measures (two items). These measures were taken
our conceptualization of authenticity as well as a broader for instrumental purposes, to conduct the redundancy analysis
framework in which consumer assessments of authenticity prescribed as part of the method for evaluating composite for-
have important downstream consequences for marketing. mative measurement models in PLS (see Hair, Howard, and
Nitzl 2020). Second, they rated the extent to which each of the
six component judgments (e.g., originality, accuracy) contrib-
Stage Two: Quantitative Analysis—Concept uted to their overall assessment of Authenticity (six items). The
Structure and Heterogeneity definition of each was provided. This type of measurement
Study 3: Validating the Reconstructed Concept instrument was used to directly capture the association between
the components and the composite in the minds of respondents.
of Authenticity Across Consumption Contexts We chose the wording intentionally as a result of the purpose of
Study 3 accomplishes three things. First, it validates the set of the study and its concomitant design; the study was intended to
six components identified in stage one as composite indicators validate the structure of the concept and the role of its compo-
of authenticity, doing so across different consumption contexts. nents, rather than to develop a scale. Moreover, the scenarios
Second, it documents heterogeneity in the roles played by dif- provided clear evidence that all six components were present
ferent components. Evidence of heterogeneity is important the- (e.g., in terms of originality each product or service was
oretically, as it helps explain the fragmentation observed in the described as “one-of-a-kind”). We reasoned a priori that asking
literature. It is also important practically, as it provides man- respondents simply to assess the presence of each component
agers an indication of different “routes” to follow in marketing would have resulted in inflated and relatively homogenous
for different products and services that deliver authentic con- ratings. Third, respondents reported their overall Attitude
sumption experiences. Finally, Study 3 documents how consu- toward the product or service (three items) using conventional
mers’ assessments of authenticity have important downstream measures. Finally, they indicated their Behavioral Intentions
consequences while showing that authenticity is conceptually with respect to their willingness to seek more information
Consumption Context
Originality
Legitimacy Proficiency
Integrity Information Search
Behavioral
Connectedness Authenticity Purchase
Intentions
Accuracy Word of Mouth
Attitudes
Attitude 1
Attitude 2
Attitude 3
Figure 2. Study 3: the empirical model.
about the offering, purchase the offering, and share information variance. Being a nonparametric technique, PLS works well
about it via word of mouth (three items). We provide the com- with nonnormal data. We estimated our model using the PLS
plete stimuli along with the specific measurement instruments consistent algorithm, which balances the tendency of PLS to
in the Web Appendix. magnify measurement loadings while downplaying structural
relations (Dijkstra and Henseler 2015). Notably, the key results
Sample. The target sample was 300 respondents per scenario, and estimates obtained using the consistent PLS alogrithm (see
which, allowing for exclusions, we predicted to be adequate to Tables 4, 5 and 6) are similar to those obtained applying the
ensure a minimum number of quality responses with which to traditional PLS analysis. The Web Appendix details further
estimate the model. We recruited 2,419 respondents (53% specifics of the PLS implementation.
female; Mage ¼ 35 years) on Prolific Academic. We excluded
491 respondents (20.3%) who failed an instructional manipula-
tion check (Oppenheimer, Meyvis, and Davidenko 2009), Measurement Validity
leaving 1,928 usable responses. The number of respondents Validation of reflective measures. Following Hair et al.’s (2020)
who failed the manipulation check did not vary across condi- guidelines, the measurement instruments used for Attitudes and
tions (w2(7) ¼ 9.44, p ¼ .22). Behavioral Intentions appear good, with outer loadings that are
never below .60 (and in the vast majority of cases, >.70). Both
Analysis. We performed all of the analyses using PLS structural constructs always exhibit values of composite reliability and
equation modeling in line with the guidelines proposed by Hair average variance extracted (AVE) greater than threshold levels
et al. (2020) for its use. First and foremost, our modeling of .70 and .50, respectively, across the different consumption
approach was motivated by the composite formative nature contexts (see Table I in the Web Appendix).
of our focal construct and the inclusion in the model of both
reflective and formative constructs, which PLS can estimate Validation of the formative measure of authenticity. First, we con-
appropriately. Second, our model is exploratory in its investi- ducted a redundancy analysis inspecting the correlation
gation of the components of authenticity, which fits with the between the composite measure of Authenticity based on the
epistemological premise and underlying features of a model six components and two highly correlated general measures of
tested using PLS. Third, the data come from scenarios (simu- authenticity (reflective items). Results reveal that the six
lated authentic experiences) in which all cues were intended to indicators exhibit a fair level of convergent validity. The cor-
signal high levels of authenticity; this led to the data distribu- relation with the overall measure ranges from .65 to .77 across
tion of all six components being left-skewed with limited consumption contexts (see Table J in the Web Appendix) and
Nunes et al. 13
in the majority of cases is above the critical value of .70. Table 4. Study 3: Outer Weights for Components of Authenticity
Second, an analysis of the variance influence factors of the six (Full Sample).
indicators excludes collinearity issues in the estimation of the Bias-Corrected
composite measure of Authenticity. Despite being fairly corre- Boostrap CI
lated (average interitem correlation ¼ .45) due in part to study Outer
design choices, the greatest variance inflation factor across all Weights 2.5% 97.5%
contexts is 2.02, which is below the critical value of 3.0 (see Accuracy ! Authenticity .217 .143 .291
Table K in the Web Appendix). Third, given that our composite Connectedness ! Authenticity .237 .163 .311
includes more than four indicators, we can empirically test Integrity ! Authenticity .213 .142 .281
whether our data fit better with a formative versus reflective Legitimacy ! Authenticity .078 .019 .138
measurement model. A confirmatory tetrad analysis (Gudergan Originality ! Authenticity .248 .172 .323
et al. 2008) reveals that five out of the nine nonvanishing Proficiency ! Authenticity .330 .249 .403
tetrads in the full sample are different from zero. Across Notes: CI ¼ confidence interval.
contexts, the same analysis reveals two nonzero nonvanishing
tetrads for products and four for services, supporting the
formative nature of our construct. In most of the consumption contexts (see Table 5), one
observes that Proficiency appears to be the most important
Discriminant validity. We ensure discriminant validity between component while Legitimacy is routinely the least important,
our composite construct of authenticity and the reflective mea- and the other four typically fall somewhere in between. When
sures of attitude and behavioral intentions in two ways. First, outer weights are compared within each context for statistical
according to the Fornell and Larcker (1981) criterion, the square differences (Streukens and Leroi-Werelds 2016), the six
root of AVE values should be greater than the bivariate correla- components seem to play a similar role in some contexts
tions for all of the constructs under investigation. In all cases (see (e.g., utilitarian products, hedonic services) and a more dissim-
Table L in the Web Appendix), each set of items loads more ilar role in others (e.g., hedonic products). In certain cases, such
strongly with their correspondent construct than with any other as for low-coproduction services, components seem to inform
construct in the model, suggesting that Attitudes and Behavioral the perceptions of authenticity in an idiosyncratic way (e.g.,
Intentions measures are empirically distinct from those belong- originality is more important than proficiency, accuracy, and
ing to our composite measure of Authenticity and also distinct legitimacy).
from one another. Note, however, that the traditional Fornell and Comparing outer weights across contexts, certain compo-
Larcker criterion uses AVE as a baseline for comparison, and for nents appear as more or less important to consumers’ assess-
formative constructs the AVE is not relevant. Therefore, we also ment of Authenticity, the specifics of which are worth
apply the approach from Klein and Rai (2009), according to examining more closely as they are highly informative and
which discriminant validity for a formative construct is estab- particularly relevant for practitioners. First, for products spe-
lished when the average intraconstruct correlation (among the cifically, we find that Proficiency is more important to assess-
six component indicators for Authenticity in this case) is greater ments of authenticity for hedonic than for utilitarian products
than the interconstruct correlations among its items and those of (b ¼ .489 > b ¼ .217, p ¼ .02). It seems the skill and artisan-
other constructs involved in the model. We find that the average ship of the provider matter more when the primary benefit is
intraconstruct correlation is greater than all interclass correla- affective or sensory pleasure. In addition, Legitimacy matters
tions across all contexts (differences range from .03 to .15; see for utilitarian products but does not matter for hedonic products
Table M in the Web Appendix), thus ensuring the discriminant (b ¼ .028, p ¼ .65, factor loading < .5). It appears that adhering
validity of the composite Authenticity construct. to standards is unimportant when assessing authenticity unless
the product is instrumental and intended to help reach a prac-
tical goal. It also appears that Integrity plays a more important
Structure of the Concept of Authenticity role for durable than consumable products (b ¼ .289 >
The relationships between the component indicators and the b ¼ .124, p ¼ .11). Although only directional, this result
composite Authenticity construct are represented by the outer suggests the source’s motives may matter more for authenticity
weights estimated by the PLS consistent analysis (see Table 4, assessments when a product is expected to have a longer
full sample). The outer weights are indicative of the relative life cycle.
role played by each of the six proposed indicators for the Turning our attention to services, we find that Originality
Authenticity composite construct. Examining the outer weights matters more when assessing the authenticity of low- (vs. high-)
enables us to determine whether the full set of six indicators is coproduction services (b ¼ .411 > b ¼ .116, p < .01). It may be
appropriate when conceptualizing authenticity, as well as if and that when consumers contribute less in the cocreation of value,
how an individual component’s role might differ within and and thus perhaps fail to personalize the experience, the distinc-
across contexts. What is clear from Table 4 is that all six, tiveness of the offering itself contributes more to authenticity
when present as they are in this case, can be considered valid assessments. Conversely, Legitimacy matters more when asses-
indicators of the composite measure of Authenticity. sing the authenticity of high- (vs. low-) coproduction services
Table 5. Study 3: Outer Weights for Components of Authenticity.
Aggregated
Nature of the Experience Consumption Benefit
Products Services Hedonic Utilitarian
Authenticity b p b p b p b p
Accuracy .247 .00 .165 .00 a .279 .00 B .187 .00

Connectedness .219 .00 A .232 .00 B .129 .01 a .244 .00 A
Integrity .196 .00 .237 .00 C .177 .00 a .275 .00
Legitimacy .085 .04 a .077 .09 abc .049 .31 ab .114 .00 abc
Originality .238 .00 .261 .00 .267 .00 a .246 .00 B
Proficiency .349 .00 .331 .00 A .407* .00 A .261* .00 C
Disaggregated
Products Services
Accuracy .291 .00 A .247 .00 .220 .01 .129 .07

Connectedness .105 .15 b .220 .00 .157 .04 .238 .00
Integrity .140 .00 b .277 .00 .215 .00 .280 .00 A
Legitimacy .028^ .65 ab .139^ .01 .094 .19 .091 .13 ab
Originality .239 .00 b .252 .00 .289 .00 .233 .00
Proficiency .489** .00 B .217** .01 .342 .00 .326 .00 B
Products Services
Consumable Durable Low Coproduction High Coproduction
Accuracy .245 .00 .257 .00 .097 .25 b .201 .00

Connectedness .212 .00 .248 .00 .236 .01 C .197 .00
Integrity .124 .06 .289 .00 .276 .00 .233 .00
Legitimacy .094 .12 .049 .37 –.033** .63 abc .178** .00
Originality .268 .00 .205 .01 .411** .00 B .116** .12 a
Proficiency .392 .00 .268 .00 .271 .00 Ab .385 .00 A
*p < .10.
**p < .05.
^
Indicates that legitimacy matters for utilitarian but not hedonic products (b ¼ .028, p ¼ .65, factor loading < .5).
Notes: Differences across contexts. Within contexts, components with a capital letter differ from components with the same letter that is lowercase at p < .01.
(b ¼ .178 > b ¼ .033, p ¼ .02). Consumers more involved in The Downstream Market Consequences of Authenticity
cocreating value appear to care more about whether an offering
adheres to specific standards. We consider the implications of We next turn to the structural part of the model, the relation-
these findings shortly. We should also mention that, at a general ships involving Authenticity and the other constructs. Recall
level, we find no clear evidence of heterogeneity based on gen- that the framework in Figure 2 includes the extent to which
der or age. Authenticity predicts Attitudes and Behavioral Intentions.
The key takeaway here is these results support the intuition Table 6 includes the path coefficients associated with the total
that authenticity should be conceptualized as a composite con- effect of Authenticity on Behavioral Intentions. This is further
struct, and all indicators can matter, yet certain indicators mat- decomposed into the direct effect and the indirect effect
ter more or less and sometimes not at all depending on the mediated by Attitudes, presented separately for the different
particular consumption context. Understanding the heterogene- contexts of interest.
ity amongst the indicators forms one of the central managerial Across products and services, and hedonic and utilitarian
contributions of this research, a discernible set of prescriptions offerings, Authenticity exhibits a similar, sizable association
for marketers that we discuss in more detail subsequently. with Behavioral Intentions (squared coefficients range from
Nunes et al. 15
Table 6. Study 3: Path Coefficients.
Aggregated
Products Services Hedonic Utilitarian
b p b p b p b p
Authenticity ! Behavioral Intentions .626 .00 .666 .00 .584 .00 .680 .00
(Total effect)
(Direct effect)
Authenticity ! Attitudes ! Behavioral Intentions .184 .00 .285 .00 .250 .00 .146 .00
(Indirect effect)
Disaggregated
Products Services
b p b p b p b p
(Total effect)
(Direct effect)
(Indirect effect)
Products Services
Consumable Durable Low Coproduction High Coproduction
b p b p b p b p
(Total effect)
(Direct effect)
(Indirect effect)
39% to 52%). This implies that when evaluating a consumption result as it is not supported by full compositional invariance
experience, there is a positive association between the assess- (Henseler, Hubona, and Ray 2016).
ment of authenticity and a consumer’s inclination to search for Focusing on the indirect effect, we observe that Attitudes
further information, purchase the offering, and spread positive only partially mediates the effect of Authenticity on Behavioral
information via word of mouth. Simply put, the composite Intentions. This result further supports the notion that authen-
measure of Authenticity with the six indicators we identify ticity is conceptually and empirically distinct from attitudes.
appears to be a predictor of consumers’ Behavioral Intentions Indeed, attitudes, as learned predispositions (Fishbein 1967)
across various types of consumption experiences. The disag- typically vary along an evaluative continuum from strongly
gregated results in Table 6 show that the association of Authen- positive to strongly negative, while authenticity as we define
ticity with Behavioral Intentions is stronger for utilitarian (vs. it is neither inherently positive nor negative. Consider, for
hedonic) services (b ¼ .537 > b ¼ .237, p ¼ .02) and is stronger example, that different individuals may like or dislike highly
for high- (vs. low-) coproduction services (b ¼ .724 > authentic Thai food (as accurately reflecting how it is made in
b ¼ .599, p ¼ .04). The implication is that authenticity matters Thailand). Given the objectives of Study 3, we constructed
more to consumers when the consumption goal for a service is descriptions of experiences expecting greater authenticity to
instrumental and goal-oriented and when customers are more contribute to more positive attitudes. While we suspect that
hands-off in terms of cocreating the service experience. How- naive theory would predict that consumers typically prefer the
ever, some care should be taken when interpreting the latter authentic to the inauthentic (e.g., brands accurately reflecting
manufacturers, original as opposed to derivative works of art), word, with its meaning remaining uncertain until one knows
this need not be the case (e.g., covers of songs that exceed the which of its dimensions are being discussed (Dutton 2003).
original in popularity). This type of reconceptualization might prove useful to improv-
The results also suggest that authenticity can affect beha- ing the understanding of other marketing constructs that may
vioral intentions through routes other than those associated be conceptually ambiguous.
with positive attitudes. This raises the specter of other reasons Conceptualizing authenticity as we have done has important
Authenticity and Behavioral Intentions might be linked, such implications for researchers interested in studying the concept
as purely economic interests (e.g., as an investment), or a in a consumption context. In addition to providing a fuller
purely emotional response (e.g., nostalgia). Practically speak- understanding of what it means for a consumption experience
ing, these results imply consumers can be inclined to buy prod- to be authentic, our work helps delineate aspects of an offering
ucts and services deemed authentic even if they do not that might be manipulated with the intention of changing per-
especially “like” them, which underscores the importance of ceptions of authenticity. Past work in marketing has manipu-
considering authenticity as a semi-autonomous driver of lated certain qualities of an offering presumed to impact
consumer decision making. perceptions of authenticity (e.g., whether a product is from a
company’s original manufacturing location; Newman and Dhar
2014). We suspect being associated with the original manufac-
Implications for Theory turing location reflects a history of consistency, which, in our
What does it mean for a consumption experience to be broad conceptualization, is associated with the component of
“authentic”? The answer depends on how one conceptualizes integrity. In this vein, this research offers guidance on how
authenticity. The marketing literature provides no straightfor- researchers might systematically identify other specific quali-
ward answer, as it is replete with varying definitions of what it ties of an offering that impact assessments of authenticity (e.g.,
means to be authentic. Researchers seem to have little trouble features related to the source’s proficiency). For example, one
generating new definitions related to authenticity. However, might predict that consumers will consider food cooked by a
until now there has been no attempt to evaluate, deconstruct, more recognized chef as more authentic because that chef is
or synthesize what is commonly known about what makes perceived as more proficient. Manipulating cues related to
consumption authentic. In this research, we engage in a these six components could shed further light on how exactly
systematic and comprehensive concept reconstruction effort, to measure the components we identify and would provide
in which we identify the component indicators that define further insight into how marketers can effectively influence
authenticity as it applies to consumption, reconcile consumers’ assessments of authenticity.
them with the existing literature, and provide the first detailed Given the evidence of heterogeneity we observe among the
investigation into the higher-order conceptual structure various components, it would be interesting to examine the
(i.e., the relationship between authenticity as a construct and relationship between the various components more thoroughly.
its components), setting this work apart from previous research. Consider proficiency, the component that seems to matter
To illustrate how this work can extend current knowledge, most, and legitimacy, the component that seems to matter least.
consider Morhart et al. (2015), who developed and validated It would seem that skillfulness and artisanship are appreciated
scales measuring consumers’ perceived brand authenticity without necessarily needing to adhere to tradition (Beverland
along four distinct dimensions. In doing so, they provide initial 2005), keep to specific genres (Delmestri, Montanari, and Usai
evidence that these four dimensions do not align into a 2005), or fit neatly within a category (Carroll and Wheaton
higher-order reflective construct. Our findings may help 2009; Newman 2019). Thinking about how different compo-
explain their results; it may be that their four brand authenticity nents relate reinforces the need to reconsider the meaning of
dimensions are composite indicators as well. concepts periodically and highlights the benefit of concept
A distinguishing feature of this work is that we take a reconstruction. From our reading of the authenticity literature,
multimethod approach, utilizing qualitative methods to derive historically, far less attention has been paid to qualities of the
authenticity’s composite set of indicators and quantitative source (e.g., proficiency, accuracy, integrity) than to qualities
methods to empirically investigate how these indicators of the output (originality, legitimacy). Our holistic conceptua-
contribute to authenticity judgments across different consump- lization takes both into account as well as a sense of connect-
tion contexts. In addition, the reconciliation with existing edness between the consumer and the source.
literature and evidence of heterogeneity help make sense of the The six components we identify also reveal underlying ten-
disparate ways in which authenticity has been defined in the sions with respect to how authenticity is appraised (e.g., legiti-
extant literature. Note that the heterogeneity detected across macy means conforming to standards, whereas originality
contexts is consistent with a “family resemblance” concept means standing out). Recall, for example, that legitimacy
structure, according to which a concept (authenticity, in this matters more for high-coproduction services while, conversely,
case) may be qualified by different subsets of its dimensions originality matters more for low-coproduction services. It
across different contexts, and not always by all of them in the would seem that consumers who are highly involved hedge the
same way (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, and Podsakoff 2016). risk of reducing authenticity with their participation and
Again, this is consistent with authenticity being a dimension idiosyncrasies by weighting the service’s adherence to
Nunes et al. 17
standards (legitimacy) more heavily. Conversely, when consu- than if they are numbered (e.g., Spider-Man 2) precisely
mers are less involved, they put greater weight on the firm’s because they are perceived as more dissimilar from their
ability to make its offering distinct (originality) when assessing predecessor (Sood and Drèze 2006). The success of emphasiz-
authenticity. This example reveals how much context matters ing originality for services such as movies is consistent with
when considering a concept such as authenticity. our findings, as is the fact Bank of America (2021, p. 5) makes
This research also contributes to our understanding of it abundantly clear that it maintains a culture committed to
authenticity’s broader role in consumer decision making. ethical behavior and “complying with applicable laws, rules,
Unlike any prior research of which we are aware, we show regulations and policies.” Although we do not have direct evi-
how authenticity is connected to consumers’ behavioral inten- dence of the efficacy of these actions in terms of advancing
tions both directly and indirectly through attitudes. We do so perceptions of authenticity per se, the real-world examples
while ensuring discriminant validity between authenticity, atti- presented here are intended to show how managers can empha-
tudes, and behavioral intentions. Thus, this research enhances size and act on different components of authenticity. Managers
our understanding of the role of authenticity in consumer may want to remember the apocryphal yet prescient words of
decision making and offers a more complete picture of the Coco Chanel, who is quoted as saying, “Hard times arouse an
importance of authenticity to the field. instinctive desire for authenticity.”
Associate Editor
Insights for Practitioners
Karen Winterich
For practitioners, this work provides valuable insights to
marketing managers aiming to enhance the authenticity of their Declaration of Conflicting Interests
offerings, something that should be of concern to all managers
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to
in an environment in which being seen as authentic is increas- the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
ingly considered table stakes. First, we identify a comprehen-
sive set of judgments consumers make when assessing the Funding
authenticity of a consumption experience. Knowing that
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, author-
judgments of accuracy, connectedness, integrity, legitimacy,
ship, and/or publication of this article.
originality, and proficiency are key components when asses-
sing authenticity, managers can more efficiently and effec-
ORCID iD
tively deduce actionable strategies in terms of positioning.
How consumers themselves express these judgments is evident Joseph C. Nunes https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1812-5042
in the verbiage in Tables F and H in the Web Appendix.
Managers may also identify where there are shortfalls in their References
offerings on these fronts. In addition, they now also have an Aaker, David A. (1991), Managing Brand Equity. New York: The
initial roadmap with respect to which judgments are more or Free Press.
less important in line with certain characteristics of their offer- Arnould, Eric J. and Linda L. Price (2000), “Authenticating Acts and
ings. For example, companies selling hedonic products should Authoritative Performances: Questing for Self and Community,” in
see relatively large returns, perception-wise, from emphasizing The Why of Consumption: Contemporary Perspectives on
proficiency. The mattress company Tuft & Needle (what is Consumer Motives, Goals, and Desires, S. Ratneshwar, David
more hedonic that sleep?) leverages on this by making it very Glen Mick, and Cynthia Huffman, eds. London: Routledge,
clear on its website that it believes in “quality craftsmanship 140–63.
without the gimmicks” (www.tuftandneedle.com/about/story). Audrezeta, Alice, Gwarlann de Kervilerb, and Julie Guidry Moulard
Knowing the six components enables managers to assess how (2020), “Authenticity Under Threat: When Social Media Influen-
competitors currently signal authenticity and presents alterna- cers Need to Go Beyond Self-Presentation,” Journal of Business
tive routes to signal the authenticity of their own offerings. Research, 117, 557–69.
Another example of how managers might leverage the find- Bank of America (2021), “2021 Code of Conduct,” (accessed May 5,
ings presented here includes using them to better understand 2021), https://d1io3yog0oux5.cloudfront.net/bankofamerica/files/
the role of the consumption context. Consider how originality pages/corporate-governance/governance-library/code-of-conduct/
is more important for low-coproduction services, whereas 2021þADAþCodeþofþConductþ%28English%29.pdf.
legitimacy is only important for high-coproduction services. Barker, Hugh and Yuval Taylor (2007), Faking It: The Quest for
If we consider the services utilized in our studies for illustra- Authenticity in Popular Music. New York: Norton.
tion, it is important for movies and sporting events to be dis- Batra, Rajeev and Olli T. Ahtola (1991), “Measuring the Hedonic and
tinctive (original) to be deemed authentic, while banking and Utilitarian Sources of Consumer Attitudes,” Marketing Letters,
health services should ensure that they are seen as adhering to 2 (2), 159–70.
recognized standards (legitimate). With respect to movies, con- Becker, Maren, Nico Wiegand, and Werner J. Reinartz (2019), “Does
sider previous research showing that film sequels are more It Pay to Be Real? Understanding Authenticity in TV Advertising,”
successful if named (e.g., Bridget Jones: The Edge of Reason) Journal of Marketing, 83 (1), 24–50.
Beverland, Michael B. (2005), Crafting Brand Authenticity: The Case Perceptions of Brand Marketing Communications,” European
of Luxury Wines,” Journal of Management Studies, 42 (5), Journal of Marketing, 52 (7/8), 1387–411.
1003–29. Fishbein, Martin (1967), “A Consideration of Beliefs and Their Role
Beverland, Michael B. and Francis J. Farrelly (2010), “The Quest for in Attitude Measurement,” in Readings in Attitude Theory and
Authenticity in Consumption: Consumers’ Purposive Choice of Measurement, Martin Fishbein, ed. New York: John Wiley & Sons,
Authentic Cues to Shape Experienced Outcomes,” Journal of 257–66.
Consumer Research, 36 (5), 838–56. Fornell, Claes and David F. Larcker (1981), “Evaluating Structural
Blumer, Herbert G. (1969), Symbolic Interactionism: Perspective and Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement
Method. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Error,” Journal of Marketing Research, 18 (1), 39–50.
Bollen, Kenneth A. and Shawn Bauldry (2011), “Three Cs in Mea- Gilmore, James H. and B. Joseph Pine (2007), Authenticity: What
surement Models: Causal Indicators, Composite Indicators, and Consumers Really Want. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business
Covariates,” Psychological Methods, 16 (3), 265–84. Review Press.
Bollen, Kenneth A. and Adamantios Diamantopolous (2017), “In Gioia, Dennis A., Kevin G. Corley, and Aimee L. Hamilton (2012),
Defense of Causal-Formative Indicators: A Minority Report,” “Seeking Qualitative Rigor in Inductive Research: Notes on the
Psychological Methods, 22 (3), 581–96. Gioia Methodology,” Organizational Research Methods 16 (1),
Brown, Stephen, Robert V. Kozinets, and John F. Sherry Jr. (2003), 15–31.
“Teaching Old Brands New Tricks: Retro Branding and the Goffin, Keith and Ursula Koners (2011), “Tacit Knowledge, Lessons
Revival of Brand Meaning,” Journal of Marketing, 67 (3), 19–33. Learnt, and New Product Development,” Journal of Product
Bruner, Edward M. (1994), “Abraham Lincoln as Authentic Repro- Innovation Management, 28 (2), 300–318.
duction: A Critique of Postmoderism,” American Anthropologist, Grayson, Kent and Radan Martinec (2004), “Consumer Perceptions of
96 (2), 397–415. Iconicity and Indexicality and Their Influence on Assessments of
Carroll, Glenn R. and Dennis Ray Wheaton (2009), “The Organiza-
Authentic Market Offerings,” Journal of Consumer Research, 31
tional Construction of Authenticity: An Examination of Contem-
(2), 296–312.
porary Food and Dining in the U.S.,” Research in Organizational
Grazian, David (2004), “The Symbolic Economy of Authenticity in
Behavior, 29, 255–82.
the Chicago Blues Scene,” in Music Scenes: Local Translocal, and
Cinelli, Melissa D. and Robyn A. LeBoeuf (2019), “Keeping It Real:
Virtual, Andy Bennett and Richard A. Peterson, eds. Nashville,
How Perceived Brand Authenticity Affects Product Perceptions,”
TN: Vanderbilt University Press, 31–47.
Journal of Consumer Psychology, 30 (1), 40–59.
Gudergan, Siegfried P., Christian M. Ringle, Sven Wende, and
Corciolani, Matteo, Kent Grayson, and Ashlee Humphreys (2020),
Alexander Will (2008), “Confirmatory Tetrad Analysis in PLS
“Do More Experienced Critics Review Differently? How Field-
Path Modeling,” Journal of Business Research, 61 (12), 1238–49.
Specific Cultural Capital Influences the Judgments of Cultural
Guignon, Charles (2004), On Being Authentic. London: Routledge.
Intermediaries,” European Journal of Marketing, 54 (3), 478–510.
Hahl, Oliver, Ezra W. Zuckerman, and Minjae Kim (2017), “Why
Deibert, Ashley (2017), “Why Authenticity in Marketing Matters Now
Elites Love Authentic Lowbrow Culture: Overcoming High-
More than Ever,” Forbes (May 26), https://www.forbes.com/sites/
Status Denigration with Outsider Art,” American Sociological
forbescommunicationscouncil/2017/05/26/why-authenticity-in-
marketing-matters-now-more-than-ever/#28be854d7982. Review, 82 (4), 828–56.
Delmestri, Giuseppe, Fabrizio Montanari, and Alessandro Usai Hair, Joe F., Matt C. Howard, and Christian Nitzl (2020), “Assessing
(2005), “Reputation and Strength of Ties in Predicting Commercial Measurement Model Quality in PLS-SEM Using Confirmatory
Success and Artistic Merit of Independents in the Italian Feature Composite Analysis,” Journal of Business Research, 109, 101–10.
Film Industry,” Journal of Management Studies, 42 (5), 975–1002. Henseler, Jörg (2017), “Bridging Design and Behavioral Research
Demetry, Daphney (2019), “How Organizations Claim Authenticity: with Variance-Based Structural Equation Modeling,” Journal of
The Coproduction of Illusions in Underground Restaurants,” Advertising, 46 (1), 178–92.
Organization Science, 30 (5), 937–60. Henseler, Jörg, Geoffrey Hubona, and Pauline Ash Ray (2016),
Dhar, Ravi and Klaus Wertenbroch (2000), “Consumer Choice “Using PLS Path Modeling in New Technology Research:
Between Hedonic and Utilitarian Goods,” Journal of Marketing Updated Guidelines,” Industrial Management & Data Systems,
Research, 37 (1), 60–71. 116 (1), 2–20.
Dijkstra, Theo K. and Jörg Henseler (2015) “Consistent and Asymp- Holt, Douglas B. (2002), “Why Do Brands Cause Trouble?
totically Normal PLS Estimators for Linear Structural Equations,” A Dialectical Theory of Consumer Culture and Branding,”
Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, 81 (1), 10–23. Journal of Consumer Research, 29 (1), 70–90.
Dutton, Denis (1994), “Authenticity in the Art of Traditional Jarvis, Cheryl Burke, Scott B. MacKenzie, and Philip M. Podsakoff
Societies,” Pacific Arts, (9/10), 1–9. (2003), “A Critical Review of Construct Indicators and Measure-
Dutton, Denis (2003), “Authenticity in Art,” in The Oxford Handbook ment Model Misspecification in Marketing and Consumer
of Aesthetics, Jerrold Levinson, ed. New York: Oxford University Research,” Journal of Consumer Research, 30 (2), 199–218.
Press, 258–74. Klein, Richard and Arun Rai (2009), “Interfirm Strategic Information
Dwivedi, Abhishek and Robert McDonald (2018), “Building Brand Flows in Logistics Supply Chain Relationships,” Management
Authenticity in Fast-Moving Consumer Goods via Consumer Information Systems Quarterly, 33 (4), 735–62.
Nunes et al. 19
Kohli, Ajay K. (2009), “From the Editor,” Journal of Marketing, Pederson, Hans (2015), “Introduction,” in Horizons of Authenticity in
73 (1), 1–2. Phenomenology, Existentialism, and Moral Psychology: Essays in
Kollat, David T., James F. Engel, and Roger D. Blackwell (1970), Honor of Charles Guignon, Hans Pederson and Megan Altman,
“Current Problems in Consumer Behavior Research,” Journal of eds. Amsterdam: Springer, 1–12.
Marketing Research, 7 (3), 327–32. Peterson, Richard A. (1997), Creating Country Music: Fabricating
Kreuzbauer, Robert and Joshua Keller (2017) “The Authenticity of Authenticity. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Cultural Products: A Psychological Perspective,” Current Podsakoff, Philip M., Scott B. MacKenzie, and Nathan P. Podsakoff
Directions in Psychological Science, 26 (5), 417–21. (2016), “Recommendations for Creating Better Concept Defini-
Lehman, David W., Kieran O’Connor, Balázs Kovács, and George E. tions in the Organizational, Behavioral, and Social Sciences,”
Newman (2019), “Authenticity,” Academy of Management Annals, Organizational Research Methods, 19 (2), 159–203.
13 (1), 1–42. Polites, Greta L., Nicholas Roberts, and Jason Thatcher (2011),
Leigh, Thomas W., Cara Peters, and Jeremy Shelton (2006), “The “Conceptualizing Models Using Multidimensional Constructs:
Consumer Quest for Authenticity: The Multiplicity of Meanings A Review and Guidelines for Their Use,” European Journal of
Within the MG Subculture of Consumption,” Journal of the Acad- Information Systems, 20 (1), 1–27.
emy of Marketing Science, 34 (4), 481–93. Rose, Randall L. and Stacy L. Wood (2005), “Paradox and the Con-
Lemke, Fred, Moira Clark, and Hugh Wilson (2011), “Customer sumption of Authenticity Through Reality Television,” Journal of
Experience Quality: An Exploration in Business and Consumer Consumer Research, 32 (2), 284–96.
Contexts Using Repertory Grid Technique,” Journal of the Rust, Roland T. (2006), “From the Editor: The Maturation of Market-
Academy of Marketing Science, 39 (6), 846–69. ing as an Academic Discipline,” Journal of Marketing, 70 (3), 1–2.
Lovelock, Christopher and Evert Gummesson (2004) “Whither Rust, Roland T. and Bruce Cooil (1994), “Reliability Measures for
Services Marketing? In Search of a New Paradigm and Fresh Qualitative Data: Theory and Implications,” Journal of Marketing
Perspectives,” Journal of Service Research, 7 (1) 20–41. Research, 31 (1), 1–14.
MacInnis, Deborah J. (2011), “A Framework for Conceptual Contri- Schallehn, Mike, Christoph Burmann, and Nicola Riley (2014),
butions in Marketing,” Journal of Marketing, 75 (4), 136–54. “Brand Authenticity: Model Development and Empirical Testing,”
MacKenzie, Scott B. (2003), “The Dangers of Poor Construct Journal of Product & Brand Management, 23 (3), 192–99.
Conceptualization,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Schau, Hope Jensen, Albert M. Muñiz Jr., and Eric J. Arnould (2009),
31 (3), 323–26. “How Brand Community Practices Create Value,” Journal of
Martin, Patricia Yancey and Barry A. Turner (1986), “Grounded Marketing, 73 (5), 30–51.
Theory and Organizational Research,” The Journal of Applied Schlegel, Rebecca J., Joshua A. Hicks, Jamie Arndt, and Laura A.
Behavioral Science, 22 (2), 141–57. King (2009), “Thine Own Self: True Self-Concept Accessibility
McLeod, Kembrew (1999), “Authenticity Within Hip-Hop and Other and Meaning in Life,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-
Cultures Threatened with Assimilation,” Journal of Communica- ogy, 96 (2), 473–90.
tion, 49 (4), 134–50. Sheldon, Kennon M., Richard M. Ryan, Laird J. Rawsthorne, and
Morhart, Felicitas, Lucia Malär, Amélie Gu èvremont, Florent Barbara Ilardi (1997), “Trait Self and True Self: Cross-Role
Girardin, and Bianca Grohmann (2015), “Brand Authenticity: An Variation in the Big-Five Personality Traits and Its Relations with
Integrative Framework and Measurement Scale,” Journal of Psychological Authenticity and Subjective Well-Being,” Journal
Consumer Psychology, 25 (2), 200–218. of Personality and Social Psychology, 73 (6), 1380–93.
Moulard, Julie Guidry, Randle D. Raggio, and Judith Anne Garretson Sirianni Nancy, J., Mary Jo Bitner, Stephen W. Brown, and Naomi
Folse (2021), “Disentangling the Meanings of Brand Authenticity: Mandel (2013), “Branded Service Encounters: Strategically Align-
The Entity-Referent Correspondence Framework of Authenticity,” ing Employee Behavior with the Brand Positioning,” Journal of
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 49 (1), 96–118. Marketing, 77 (6), 108–23.
Newman, George E. (2019), “The Psychology of Authenticity,” Sood, Sanjay and Xavier Drèze (2006), “Brand Extensions of Experi-
Review of General Psychology, 23 (1), 8–18. ential Goods: Movie Sequel Evaluations,” Journal of Consumer
Newman, George E. and Ravi Dhar (2014), “Authenticity Is Conta- Research, 33 (3), 352–60.
gious: Brand Essence and the Original Source of Production,” Spiggle, Susan (1994), “Analysis and Interpretation of Qualitative
Journal of Marketing Research, 51 (3), 371–86. Data in Consumer Research,” Journal of Consumer Research, 21
Oppenheimer, Dabier M., Tom Meyvis, and Nicolas Davidenko (3), 491503.
(2009), “Instructional Manipulation Checks: Detecting Satisficing Spiggle, Susan, Hang T. Nguyen, and Mary Caravella (2012), “More
to Increase Statistical Power,” Journal of Experiment Social Than Fit: Brand Extension Authenticity,” Journal of Marketing
Psychology, 45 (4), 867–72. Research, 49 (6), 967–83.
Parasuraman, A., Valarie A. Zeithaml, and Leonard L. Berry (1985), Stern, Barbara (1994), “Authenticity and the Textual Persona: Post-
“A Conceptual Model of Service Quality and Its Implication for modern Paradoxes in Advertising Narrative,” International
Future Research,” Journal of Marketing, 49 (4), 41–50. Journal of Research in Marketing, 11 (4), 387–400.
Patton, Michael Quinn (2015), Qualitative Research & Evaluation Strauss, Anselm and Juliet M. Corbin (1990). Basics of Qualitative
Methods: Integrating Theory and Practice, 4th ed. Thousand Oaks, Research: Grounded Theory Procedures and Techniques. New-
CA: SAGE Publications. bury Park, CA: SAGE Publications.
Streukens, Sandra and Sara Leroi-Werelds (2016), “Bootstrapping Vredeveld, Anna J. and Robin Coulter (2018), “Cultural Experiential
and PLS-SEM: A Step-by-Step Guide to Get More out of Your Goal Pursuit, Cultural Brand Engagement, and Culturally Authen-
Bootstrap Results,” European Management Journal, 34 (6), tic Experiences: Sojourners in America,” Journal of the Academy
618–32. of Marketing Science, 47 (2), 274–290.
Suddaby, Roy (2010), “Construct Clarity in Theories of Organization,” Wang, Ning (1999), “Rethinking Authenticity in Tourism Experi-
Academy of Management Review, 35 (3), 346–357. ence,” Annals of Tourism Research, 26(2), 349–70.
Teas, R. Kenneth and Kay M. Palan (1997), “The Realms of Scientific Welch, Catherine, Maria Rumyantseva, and Lisa Jane Hewerdine
Meaning Framework for Constructing Theoretically Meaningful (2016), “Using Case Research to Reconstruct Concepts:
Nominal Definitions of Marketing Concepts,” Journal of Marketing, A Methodology and Illustration,” Organizational Research Methods,
61 (2), 52–67. 19 (1), 111–30.
Theodossopoulos, Dimitrios (2013), “Laying Claim to Authenticity: Williams, Lawrence E. and T. Andrew Poehlman (2017),
Five Anthropological Dilemmas,” Anthropological Quarterly, “Conceptualizing Consciousness in Consumer Research,” Journal
86 (2), 337–60. of Consumer Research, 44 (2), 231–51.
Trilling, Lionel (1972), Sincerity and Authenticity. Cambridge, MA: Yagil, Dana Y. and Hana Medler-Liraz (2013), “Moments of Truth:
Harvard University Press. Examining Transient Authenticity and Identity in Service
Valsesia, Francesca, Joseph C. Nunes, and Andrea Ordanini Encounters,” Academy of Management Journal, 56 (2), 473–97.
(2016), “What Wins Awards Is Not Always What I Buy: How Yim, C.K. (Bennett), Kimmy Wa Chan, and Simon S.K. Lam (2012),
Creative Control Affects Authenticity and Thus Recognition “Do Customers and Employees Enjoy Service Participation?
(But Not Liking),” Journal of Consumer Research, 42 (6), Synergistic Effects of Self- and Other-Efficacy,” Journal of
897–914. Marketing, 76 (6), 121–40.

The Concept of Authenticity - What It Means To Consumers-1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Concept of Authenticity - What It Means To Consumers-1

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Concept of Authenticity - What It Means To Consumers-1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Article

What It Means to Consumers sagepub.com/journals-permissions

Joseph C. Nunes , Andrea Ordanini, and Gaia Giambastiani

Table 1. Overview of Qualitative Studies.

Study 1 Study 2a Study 2b

Sampling Relevant Representative Emergent

Table 2. Components of Authenticity.

Table 3. Specific Consumption Contexts of Study 2a and Study 3.

Hedonic Utilitarian Hedonic Utilitarian

High Low High Low

Hedonic Utilitarian Hedonic Utilitarian

High Low High Low

Integrity Information Search

Accuracy Word of Mouth

Figure 2. Study 3: the empirical model.

Table 5. Study 3: Outer Weights for Components of Authenticity.

Nature of the Experience Consumption Benefit

Products Services Hedonic Utilitarian

Accuracy .247 .00 .165 .00 a .279 .00 B .187 .00

Hedonic Utilitarian Hedonic Utilitarian

Accuracy .291 .00 A .247 .00 .220 .01 .129 .07

Consumable Durable Low Coproduction High Coproduction

Accuracy .245 .00 .257 .00 .097 .25 b .201 .00

Table 6. Study 3: Path Coefficients.

Products Services Hedonic Utilitarian

Hedonic Utilitarian Hedonic Utilitarian

Consumable Durable Low Coproduction High Coproduction

You might also like