The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

https://www.emerald.com/insight/2633-1225.htm

TRC
5,1 A critique of authenticity:
how psychology can help
Noel Scott
SBL Centre for Tourism Research, Edith Cowan University,
44 Joondalup, Australia and Sustainability Research Centre,
University of the Sunshine Coast, Sunshine Coast, Australia, and
Received 30 October 2023
Revised 5 January 2024
Accepted 6 January 2024
Ana Claudia Campos
Faculty of Economics, University of Algarve, Faro, Portugal and
CinTurs, Research Centre for Tourism, Sustainability and Well-being,
University of Algarve, Faro, Portugal

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

Introduction
Tourism is a field of study (Tribe, 1997) where researchers draw theories and concepts from
multiple disciplines (Jafari, 2001). These disciplines often use the same terms to denote
concepts with quite different definitions and assumptions [an example of the jingle fallacy
(Corsini, 1991, p. 514)]. They are characterised by selecting an epistemological object and
adherence to different ontological assumptions about the basic nature underlying the
concept (Goertz and Mahoney, 2012). For those researchers unaware of those definitions and
assumptions, this can lead to considerable confusion in a field of study characterised by
multi-disciplinarity, such as the case of tourism. For example, sociologists investigate the

© Noel Scott and Ana Claudia Campos. Published in Tourism Critiques: Practice and Theory. Published by
Emerald Publishing Limited. This article is published under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0)
Tourism Critiques: Practice and
Theory
licence. Anyone may reproduce, distribute, translate and create derivative works of this article (for both
Vol. 5 No. 1, 2024 commercial and non-commercial purposes), subject to full attribution to the original publication and authors.
pp. 44-64
Emerald Publishing Limited The full terms of this licence may be seen at http://creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0/legalcode
e-ISSN: 2633-1233
p-ISSN: 2633-1225
This work is financed by National Funds financed by FCT – Foundation for Science and
DOI 10.1108/TRC-10-2023-0027 Technology (Portugal) through project UIDB/04020/2020.
structure and functioning of groups, organisations and societies, and how people interact Authenticity
within these contexts (Ferris and Stein, 2014). The science of sociology presents the
perspective of human interaction and behaviour based on its social roots and causes. On the
other hand, psychologists study the individual and assume that human behaviour proceeds
from their mental processes occurring in the brain (Jarvis and Okami, 2019). As individuals
develop within societies and acquire affective and cognitive competences through
interaction with others, psychology is seen to overlap with sociology, attempting to examine
the social forces shaping the human mind and its processes of perception, memory or
45
emotion (Hewstone et al., 2012). Tourism researchers have primarily adopted a sociological
perspective when using the concept of authenticity.
Authenticity is linked to a wide variety of people’s experiences and activities, including
dining or watching TV, and to the way they connect to objects, whether a piece of art or
expensive jewellery (Newman, 2019). Gilmore and Pine (2007) consider that, as consumers,
individuals crave authenticity above all other attributes and this very claim has become the
pillar of contemporary marketing theory (Nunes et al., 2021). Authenticity has become a key
concept applied in the study of tourism (Gilmore and Pine, 2007; MacCannell, 1976), and more
specifically in the study of tourism experience (Olsen, 2002). In tourism studies, four literature
reviews have been conducted on authenticity (Kim and So, 2022; Olsen, 2002; Rickly and
McCabe, 2017; Wang, 1999), as well as one on existential authenticity (Steiner and Reisinger,
2006). Rickly (2022) summarised the tourism literature on authenticity to identify 19 themes,
and research topics include customer experience (Cohen, 1979; CoS  Kun, 2021; Kim and So, 2022;
Pearce and Moscardo, 1986), loyalty (Yin and Dai, 2021), heritage (Kolar and Zabkar, 2010; Park
et al., 2019) and architecture (Yabanci, 2022), restaurants (Le et al., 2022) and food (Prayag et al.,
2022), dark tourism, (Heuermann and Chhabra, 2014), film tourism (Rittichainuwat et al., 2018)
and souvenirs (Li, 2023). By adopting the sociological perspective on authenticity, tourism
researchers are implicitly accepting the assumptions upon which it is based.
The seminal review of authenticity in the tourism literature was conducted by Wang
(1999), which discussed three different approaches to the concept based on a sociological
approach, distinguishing between objective, constructed and existential authenticity. More
recently, Rickly (2022) identified a number of concepts used in authenticity studies originating
from different disciplines (Table 1). Some of these concepts are associated with a particular
sub-discipline. For example, simulacra and hyperreality are used primarily in postmodernist
sociological studies of authenticity. Other concepts are used by different disciplines, e.g.
anxiety or alienation are derived from a psychoanalytic approach (Rickly, 2022). This
multidisciplinary usage of the same term introduces both a rich literature and the option for
confusion in definitions and theoretical assumptions related to the tourism experience.
The aim of this critique is to clarify this confusion by identifying (unrecognised or
implicit) commonalities between the various definitions of authenticity; comparing
psychological and sociology/tourism definitions of authenticity to identify similarities and
differences; and identifying where psychological theory may augment the mainstream
sociological discussions of authenticity. The paper also discusses the general project that
some researchers ascribe to the development of specific tourism theory.
The paper argues that all definitions of “authenticity” share the ontological premise of an
authentic object “being what it appears or is claimed to be” but differ in the object that is
being examined (object, personal state of being) and epistemological assumptions about how
to identify authenticity. Definitions proposed in psychology and tourism studies are broadly
similar but differ for existential authenticity in what a person’s “state of being” is. In
psychology and tourism studies, researchers discuss similar concepts when studying
authenticity. Psychology provides theoretical support for how objective and constructed
TRC Disciplines Authenticity-related concepts
5,1
Consumer behaviour and marketing Motivation
Satisfaction
Perceived value
Perceived quality
Behavioural intention
46 Loyalty
Segmentation
Destination image
Sociology and social psychology Sense of place
Social status
Social interaction
Involvement
Philosophy, phenomenology and postmodernism Well-being
Embodiment
Staged authenticity
Simulacra
Hyperreality
Atmospherics
Psychoanalysis Identity
Alienation
Anxiety
Psychology Feelings
Emotions
Memory
Table 1. Memorability
Heritage studies Original
Concepts used in Genuine
authenticity research Authorized
as identified by
Rickly (2022) Source: Tables by the authors

authenticity are recognised, appraised and elicit feelings and emotions, resulting in a
judgement of authenticity. Further, for existential authenticity, the psychological literature
of self-identity and personal goals provides insight into the nature of an authentic “state of
being”. As a result, a parsimonious conceptual framework is developed. Lastly, the article
discusses the feasibility of development of specific tourism theory.

Methodology
This paper provides a critique of the concept of authenticity bringing together results
from prior reviews of authenticity with an examination of the assumptions and
definitions used in them. There are a variety of methods on which a typical review may
be constructed (Snyder, 2019). Commonly, systematic literature reviews are based on use
of keywords to query scientific article databases and select in-scope papers (Pickering
and Byrne, 2014). Most such reviews, such as that by Rickly (2022), use keywords that are
common in many different disciplines (see Table 1). This is because tourism is a field of
study where researchers from many different disciplines work. One problem with this
approach is that each discipline (and subdiscipline) may make different assumptions and
definitions of key concepts. Such systematic literatures are useful to develop an
understanding of the scope of literature on a topic. However, further analysis is required
to analyse the in-scope papers to make sense of the various disciplinary perspectives Authenticity
used, as well as of the accepted assumptions and definitions.
As a result, this study provides a different type of method from any other type of formal
review (see Snyder, 2019) and better qualifies as a critique. It is a form of meta-review that
connects research articles to other scientific works by placing “texts against texts” (Gillen,
2006). As such, this critique contrasts the multidisciplinary review conducted by Rickly
(2022) with the sociological study of Wang (1999) and those in psychology on the topic of
authenticity, such as Newman (2019), Ryan and Ryan (2019) or Nunes et al. (2021). The 47
reason behind this methodological option is that the reviews by Rickly (2022) and Wang
(1999) examined only papers written in hospitality, leisure, sport and tourism journals. This
decision has the advantage of focusing on a limited number of papers in the field of study
but risks missing relevant papers published in the disciplinary field of interest (psychology
journals). These missing papers can provide a different perspective that can contrast and
inform that used in tourism. In general, this procedure of reviewing papers from outside the
established tourism literature has the advantage of inspiring debate. In particular, the
critique is useful in the study of authenticity as it allows the dominant sociological/tourism
perspective to be contrasted with that found in psychology.
Based on the studies included in this review, a number of psychological concepts are
identified that are related to authenticity. As discussed below, these concepts are seen as
characteristics of an individual’s authentic experiences. These concepts are related here into
a cohesive framework. This approach highlights that a topical review across many
disciplines may fail to see the results for each discipline as part of an integrated disciplinary
nomological net.

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

Objective authenticity definition

As mentioned above, the early discussion of the concept of “authenticity” adopted an
everyday definition, originally applied to objects, such as art (Trilling, 1972). According to
this everyday usage, “authentic” denotes “what is original, genuine; sincere; or truthful”
(Lawler and Ashman, 2012, p. 332–333). This is an objective meaning of the term “authentic”,
TRC which carries the sense of being “of undisputed origin or authorship” (Varga and Guignon,
5,1 2023, p. 1), “original and one who does a thing himself” (Burks and Robbins, 2012, p. 76). In
this type of definition, the judgement of authenticity is made by an expert, and thus placed in
the context of some type of scientific investigation (Lawler and Ashman, 2012). Wang (1999,
p. 351) uses the term objective authenticity linked to “original” museum objects that are “of
undisputed origin” (Laceulle, 2018, p. 971). Objective authenticity involves the “correct
48 identification of the origin, authorship or provenance of an object” (Dutton, 2003, p. 259)
where there are “unbroken commitments to tradition and place of origin” (Beverland et al.,
2008, p. 7). Similarly, Wang (1999) considers objective authenticity as referring to an object
that has a particular, verifiable history.

Additional assumptions of the objective authenticity definition

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

Objective authenticity definition used to describe “pseudo-events”

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

Constructive authenticity definition

The earliest source of the constructed authenticity concept in tourism comes from
MacCannell (1973) who calls this “staged authenticity” (Wang, 1999, p. 352). This reflects the
original context, the study of created experiences where the visitor may attribute 49
authenticity to an objectively non-authentic site or attraction. For these reasons, constructed
authenticity was seen as the result of “social construction, not an objectively measurable
quality of what is being visited” (Wang, 1999, p. 351). Thus “things appear authentic not
because they are inherently authentic but because they are constructed as such in terms of
points of view, beliefs, perspectives, or powers” (Wang, 1999, p. 351). Hence:
Constructive authenticity refers to the authenticity projected onto toured objects by tourists or
tourism producers in terms of their imagery, expectations, preferences, beliefs, powers, etc. There
are various versions of authenticities regarding the same objects (Wang, 1999, p. 352).
The constructivist definition is therefore, like objective authenticity, also based on the original
meaning as objects that “are what they appear to be or are claimed to be”, but in this case
society and cultures are seen as the sources of evidence for attributing value. Constructivists
also implicitly assume that an authentic object is valued, and that a judgement is required as
to whether an object is or appears to be what is claimed. However, constructivists generally
consider that the judgement of authenticity cannot be based on objective criteria, as the
meaning of an object is socially (i.e. symbolically) constructed. Indeed, constructivists
question the notion that objectively authentic objects can exist or perhaps assume instead
that any object can be authentic if the attribution of authenticity is based on societal beliefs.
This is because the knowledge used to judge authenticity is context-bound (Wang, 1999,
p. 355). Constructivists assume that there is no unique “real world” that pre-exists and is
independent of human mental activity and human symbolic language:
For constructivists, multiple and plural meanings of and about the same things can be
constructed from different perspectives, and people may adopt different constructed meanings
dependent on the particular contextual situation or intersubjective setting (Wang, 1999, p. 355).
Thus, all authenticity judgements are constructed by people and “projected” onto an object
based on the socially constructed meanings of objects. These constructions about experience
in other cultures may be based on stereotypes or perhaps “a projection from Western
consciousness” (Wang, 1999, p. 355). Experiences are used rather than objects to judge
authenticity because the focus of this approach is on an individual’s interpretation of social
values. For constructivists, tourists are still in search of authenticity as “on a quest” (Wang,
1999, p. 356). However, what they quest for is not objective authenticity (i.e. authenticity as
originals) but symbolic authenticity, which is the result of social construction. One
assumption of constructivists is that meaning is socially constructed, and this, if not limiting
opportunities for an individual ascription of the authentic, certainly presents challenges to
assert it – in the shape of personal power, confidence and self-reliance (Burks and Robbins,
2012). Note again that this constructivist perspective assumes that tourists pursue a quest
and is embedded in a particular sociological theory.

Postmodernist definitions of authenticity

Postmodernists also use the same original sense of authenticity as “original” and a type of
existential approach (Gao et al., 2022). However, they have changed the goal posts by
TRC arguing that inauthenticity is not problematic (Wang, 1999, p. 356). For postmodernists, the
5,1 “authenticity of the original” is desired but not possible. The concept of “hyperreality”
means that the difference between real and fake is blurred, and authenticity is a matter of
technique. For postmodernists, authenticity is not a relevant concept as “world is a
simulation which admits no originals, no origins, [. . .].” (Wang, 1999, p. 356). Tourists are
still “on a quest – in search of authenticity” (Ritzer and Liska, 1997, p. 107; Wang, 1999,
50 p. 356), but “inauthenticity is justifiable in postmodern conditions” (Wang, 1999, p. 357).
They may judge if an object or experience is authentic based on their fantasy and
imagination. Tourism provides exposure to constructed attractions (such as Disneyland).

Existential authenticity definition

Lastly, existential European philosophers, such as Sartre or Heidegger (Golomb, 1995), also
adopted the concept of authenticity as “original” but applied it not to external objects but to
a person’s internal states (of being). This latter view led to the concept of existential
authenticity (Wang, 1999). Wang (1999, p. 351) considers that “existential authenticity refers
to a potential existential state of being that is to be activated by tourist activities”.
Again, existential authenticity, like constructed authenticity, is unrelated to the objective
authenticity of objects. Instead, it is related to oneself. It is “a special state of being in which
one is true to oneself” (Wang, 1999, p. 358). Existential authenticity still carries the same
original meaning of authenticity as “original”. However, what is being evaluated is not an
object or experience but a person’s internal “state of being”. Achieving an authentic “state of
being” is seen as valuable. This is due to the importance of the authentic self. The relevant
sociological theory indicates that the “true self” is threatened or lost “in public roles and
public spheres in modern Western society” (Wang, 1999, p. 358) due to “the disintegration of
sincerity”. An inauthentic self arises when the balance between two parts of one’s being
(rational and non-rational) is broken down in such a way that rational factors overcontrol
non-rational factors (emotion, bodily feeling, spontaneity, etc.) and leave too little space for
satisfaction of the latter. Thus, people quest for an authentic self and a balance between
emotions, feelings, spontaneity, etc. Despite being a subjective (or intersubjective) feeling, it
is real to a tourist and thus accessible to him or her in tourism. This notion is related to
criticisms of modernity and the loss of a person’s authentic self in, for example, a service role
where flight attendants are required to smile.
Interestingly, existential sociologists appear to be making claims about concepts
normally considered to be within the domain of psychology, such as states of being,
emotion, bodily feeling, etc. It is here that the blurring of sociological and psychological
discussions become clear. Sociological researchers seek to explain the way people think,
emote and behave. They however adopt dated ideas, such as that emotion being non-
rational. Instead, psychological research suggests that emotions are rational, in that a
particular emotion derives from appraisals of goal achievement (Ma and Scott, 2015; Ma and
Scott, 2017).
Wang (1999, pp. 361–3) distinguishes between four forms of existential authenticity,
intra-personal authenticity as bodily feelings, intra-personal authenticity as self-identity,
inter-personal authenticity as family ties and inter-personal authenticity as communitas.
These are associated with intensely authentic, natural and emotional bonds, high emotion,
feelings and sensual pleasure, self-making and self-identity. Interestingly, Wang (1999)
describes different causes for each of these states of being, such as reassertion of the
authentic self (bodily feelings), ritual (family ties), escape from modernity (self-identity),
escape from inauthentic social hierarchy and status distinctions (communitas). Thus, each
type of existential authenticity is explained by different aspects of the sociological theory.
Common characteristics of definitions of authenticity in sociology/tourism Authenticity
Based on the above discussion, it can be noted that the types of authenticity discussed share
the following aspects:
 a focus on an object, because whatever the type of authenticity, they all apply to an
object that “is what it appears to be or is claimed to be”; and
 an attribution of authenticity, which involves in all cases an evaluation or judgement of
that object. Authenticity is an evaluative judgment that pertains to tourist experiences 51
regarding a certain site, culture, object or destination (Kolar and Zabkar, 2010), or
experience (Paulauskaite et al., 2017). Such an evaluative judgement does not provide
one universal outcome, which instead depends on a person’s motivation and past
experiences (Kolar and Zabkar, 2010, p. 660). Authenticity is not a tangible asset but,
instead, a judgement or value placed on the setting or product by its observers
(Moscardo and Pearce, 1999).

According to Trilling (1972), the original objective definition was used in the museum setting,
where experts in heritage or art test whether objects are what they appear to be or are
claimed to be, and therefore worth the price that is asked for them or, if this has already been
paid, worth the admiration they are being given (Wang, 1999, p. 350). Thus, authenticity is an
evaluation of value to a person. While an object may be merely recognised unemotionally as
authentic (Wang, 1999, p. 351), this is not usually the outcome discussed in tourism settings:
 an attribution of value, which concerns something that is valued and often personally
meaningful (Figure 1). Thus, it is argued that all definitions of authenticity are based
on the “everyday” meaning of the term, and also that the development of the
intellectual landscape is based on these common assumptions, albeit the different
definitions put forward. Authenticity is the result of a person evaluating an object, and
it may be assumed that the evaluation process is similar to that used by people in other

Figure 1.
Perspectives on
authenticity as found
in tourism literature
TRC aspects of their lives. For example, in some contexts, an object may be intellectually
5,1 evaluated as authentic. This was termed “cool authenticity” by Cohen and Cohen
(2012). In this sense, the authenticity of an object may not be personally relevant and
hence not important or meaningful. Alternatively, an authentic object may be valued
and sought because of its meaning. Wang (1999, p. 351) notes that experiences of the
“real” self (“hot authenticity”) are emotional. Here the “normal” appraisal theory of
52 emotions can be evoked, according to which, an object is appraised based on its
personal importance, among other appraisal dimensions (Ma and Scott, 2017).

For constructed authenticity, the authentic nature of an object is said to be relative to the
meaningful use through which a person encounters the object within a particular activity
(Moore et al., 2021). This process of constructing authenticity is more easily seen in the case
of heritage attractions that are perceived in their physicality, in combination with intangible
acts of performing and the processes of negotiation of values and meanings (Smith, 2006).
Authenticity here refers to a cultural process of “meaning and memory making and
remaking rather than a thing” (Smith, 2006, pp. 74–75) (Tiberghien et al., 2023, p. 3). Thus,
an object is valued because of its meaning, which is socially constructed.
For existential authenticity, value comes from identity construction (Rickly-Boyd, 2012).
Certain heritage sites provide the raw material (experiences) to “construct a sense of identity,
meaning, attachment, and stability” (Rickly-Boyd, 2012, p. 141). Authenticity is a relational
concept that functions to interlace notions of originality, genuineness, symbolism, encounter and
experience (Rickly and McCabe, 2017, p. 55). As we shall see below, an individual’s self-identity is
personally very important, and therefore, an experience reinforcing one’s self-identity is valued.

Definitions from psychology compared to sociology

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

Authenticity Authenticity
type Psychology (Newman, 2019) type Tourism (Wang, 1999)

Historical Authenticity is evaluated through an Objective Objective authenticity refers to the

object’s history and its connection to a authenticity of originals
valued person, place or event
Categorical Authenticity is evaluated by the extent Constructed Constructive authenticity refers to
to which an entity conforms to their the authenticity projected onto
existing beliefs about a particular toured objects by tourists or
category or type tourism producers
Values Authenticity is evaluated by the Existential Existential authenticity refers to a
Table 2. consistency between a person’s internal potential existential state of being
Disciplinary states and its external expressions that is activated by tourist activities
approaches to types
of authenticity Source: Tables by the authors
concept of authenticity in psychology as compared to those in tourism. Newman (2019) Authenticity
identifies historical, categorical and values authenticity as discussed below.

Objective
A comparison of psychological and sociological/tourism approaches to types of authenticity
shown in Table 2 indicates that objective authenticity is similar in both literatures. Historical
authenticity, like objective authenticity, requires observers to evaluate that an item or 53
experience physically embodies the “essence” of a particular person, place or event. This is the
equivalent of objective authenticity. However, the psychology and tourism definitions of
objective authenticity differ, in that Newman (2019) adds the requirement that the object is
“connected” to some valued person, place or event. Thus, a museum may display authenticated
objects that have no value to the visitor. A visitor’s psychological evaluation of such objects
may be that they are authentic (because they are valued by others) but are unimportant.
There are parallels between such important and unimportant authentic objects and hot
and cool interpretation (Ballantyne and Uzzell, 1993; Cohen and Cohen, 2012). Ballantyne
and Uzzell (1993) indicate that “hot interpretation” focuses on the subjective emotional or
affective dimension of human experience with an object. “Cool interpretation”, on the other
hand, provides a certification of authenticity without further elaboration. However, while
an object is merely presented (cool), it may have some special importance (high value) for a
particular visitor. In this case, an objectively authentic object “coolly interpreted” may still
be associated with a highly emotional state for a particular person. This heightened
emotion for a particular visitor is due to the value (significance and meaning) that the
object has for that particular visitor. This is what is meant by a personally “valued” object
(Newman, 2019).
Further, “hot” interpretation will easily evoke an emotional reaction for people for whom
the object is already personally “valued” and explains why some local residents may become
emotional at an interpretive site. For example, a study in a “hot” interpretation site on Juju
Island (Kang et al., 2012) found that the emotionality of a visit to a dark tourism site varied
with the relationship of the site to the visitor. While the site was perceived as objectively
authentic by all, those who had family connections with the victims experienced more
profound emotional experiences than those for whom the site was known through reports
and books. Thus, the same objectively authentic site can lead to different emotional
outcomes depending on the significance and meaning to the visitor. This may explain
differences in emotional outcome for hot interpretation sites a well. For example, Ballantyne
and Uzzell (1993) discuss that hot interpretation in the District Six Museum affected
residents and visitors differently.

Categorical
In essence, the sociological definition of constructed authenticity used in tourism is the same
as the term “categorical authenticity” of Newman (2019). However, Newman (2019) uses the
term “categorical” because attribution of this type of authenticity to an object is considered a
process of categorisation. In determining this attribution, “individuals are sensitive to the
extent to which an entity conforms to their existing beliefs about a particular category or
type” (Newman, 2019, p. 10). This may explain why individual visitors do or do not ascribe
authenticity to certain objects. Objects have multiple and plural meanings of and about the
same things (Wang, 1999, p. 351). Therefore, a person may categorise an object as authentic
depending on their past experience and current situation. Categorical authenticity requires
observers to evaluate that an item or experience embodies the essence of a “type of object”.
TRC Values authenticity
5,1 Lastly, Newman (2019, p. 16) names existential authenticity as “values authenticity”, but it may
also be called self-authenticity. Values authenticity means one acts consistent with one’s
values. Values are an important part of one’s identity. Self-authenticity is a characteristic
attributed to human beings and describes being truly oneself (Varga and Guignon, 2023) and
may also be understood as “self-congruency” of an individual (Ferrara, 1998, p. 70). In
54 psychology and social psychology, self-authenticity concerns the true’ or “authentic” self
(Moore et al., 2021). Work on the psychology of the self has focused on the personal
experiential/existential aspects indicative of an “authentic self” (i.e. a true, yet hidden, self that
has stability over time despite being uncovered via “growth”, “actualization” and “becoming”).
The concept of self-identity is relevant to tourism as it is seen as a context where tourists
can experience the “creation and reaffirmation” of their identity by using insights gathered
about a different culture to understand their own place in time and space (McIntosh and
Prentice, 1999, p. 590). Tourism provides a place for self-discovery and self-expressive
experiences (Steiner and Reisinger, 2006), a context for self-actualisation (Kolar and Zabkar,
2010, p. 655), which may have cognitive or emotional basis.
Interestingly, from a psychological perspective, the self can be authentic for historical
reasons or because of conformation to some category. Gender is a familiar example of
conformity to a category. Thus, in still many traditional societies, any girl who grows up
“naturally” becomes a woman, she is expected to fit herself into the options for women’s
roles. However, most discussion in tourism concerns values authenticity, meaning that
current actions and experiences are consistent with the self’s core values.
One psychological issue concerning values authenticity is to what extent there is only “one
true self” (Baumeister, 2019, p. 147). Some psychologists consider the self a consistent trait, but
research shows a variety of selves that are context dependent. In fact, it seems reasonable to
conclude that there is no such thing as one true self. Instead, a person may have:
Many non-false selves, of which the pragmatically most important is the desired reputation, given the
social-cultural orientation of humankind. Desired reputation is more a guide and goal than a reality, but
successes and failures at achieving that reputation will produce welcome and unwelcome feelings that
are likely reported as feeling authentic and inauthentic (respectively) (Baumeister, 2019, p. 143).
In this way, authenticity is a state, not a trait, and “people have multiple non false ones [selves],
none of which is entirely true” (Baumeister, 2019, p. 143). In this sense, values authenticity may
involve knowing, being consistent with or cultivating/fulfilling the true self (Baumeister, 2019),
and people may evaluate this on the extent to which an experience reflects the essential values of
the (contextual) self. This may be what is meant as an authentic state of being.
Feelings of existential authenticity in tourism are common possibly because that the
traveller chooses to put themselves in an exotic experiential landscape:
Travel often provides situations and contexts where people confront alternative possibilities for
belonging to the world and others that differ from everyday life. Indeed, part of the promise of
travel is to live and know the self in other ways (Neumann, 1992 in Wang, 1999).

Travel is mostly about dreams—dreaming of landscapes or cities, imagining yourself in them,

murmuring the bewitching place names, and then finding a way to make the dream come true
(Paul Theroux, 2009 in Potts, 2022).

Lessons from psychology

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

Categorisation theory
From a psychological perspective, attributions of authenticity are examples of categorisation.
Categorical thinking defines the ability of individuals to simplify and structure their 55
perception process in face of cognitive limitations and a profuse and multi-sensory world,
responding to the need to balance the facets of stability and novelty one encounters in it
(Macrae and Bodenhausen, 2000). It denotes the capacity of humans to adapt to the world by
simplifying it. Social categorisation is a facet of categorical thinking, defined as “the process
by which people categorize themselves and others into differentiated groups” (Krueger, 2001).
Research in psychology has suggested that the processes of impression and judgement
formation during categorisation can become automatic and may take place at the
subconscious level (Brewer, 1988). Categorisation is also influenced by stereotyping and
attitude structures spontaneous activation (Stolier and Freeman, 2016). This means that
authentic experiences may be related to cultural or other social group membership.

Cognitive appraisal theory

Wang (1999, p. 364) writes that “looking for the center that is endowed with most sacred
values and charged with high emotions”. Clearly authenticity is valued and goal related.
Kolar and Zabkar (2010, p. 660) assert that both objective and existential authenticity are
largely emotionally based constructs. “Authenticity means to feel something with honesty,
integrity, and vitality and to express in one’s life the truth of one’s personal insights and
discoveries” (McCarthy, 2009, p. 243). In psychology, the cognitive appraisal theory is one of
the mainstream theories of the elicitation of emotion. Appraisal theorists assume that the
quality and intensity of an emotional response depend on an individual’s assessment of an
event or situation (Lazarus, 1991; Roseman, 1991; Scherer, 1984; Scherer et al., 2001).
Appraisals are defined as:
The results of the information-processing tasks that indicate the implications of the situation for
the interests and goals of the individual and therefore determine the form that emotional reaction
takes in a given situation (Johnson and Stewart, 2005, p. 5).
The appraisal process implies a cognitive mechanism, a subjective construal of personally
relevant information that generates the variability in emotional reactions (Frijda et al., 1989;
Lazarus, 1998; Moors et al., 2013; Ortony and Clore, 2015; Ortony et al., 1988; Roseman et al.,
1990; Scherer, 2022). The cognitive appraisal theory indicates that a person will experience
strong positive emotions if they achieve a personally important goal in a given situation
(Lazarus, 1991).
As discussed above, authenticity is related to valued objects or outcomes. For example,
one feels authentic if the environment is a good fit to salient or important aspects of one’s
identity (Schmader and Sedikides, 2018). Existential or self-authenticity involves knowing,
being consistent with or cultivating/fulfilling the true self (Baumeister, 2019). Therefore, it is
likely that authentic experiences are related to stronger positive emotions. Clearly emotions
are central to authentic “experiences”, but as Rickly and McCabe (2017, p. 57) note, “there
has been too much focus on understanding the role of emotion in experiences, leaving
unanswered questions about how to elicit emotions in the design of experiences”. Use of the
appraisal theory allows the possibility to better design emotional authentic experiences.
TRC Feelings
5,1 An evaluation of authenticity may result in feelings of pleasure. Often the terms “feeling” and
“emotion” are used interchangeably, but there are differences that are accepted here (Shouse,
2005). In the psychological information theory, feelings are the result of an appraisal process
triggering the production of neurotransmitters leading to an “emotional body state”.
In this way, feelings provide information to the brain (Avnet et al., 2012; Schwarz, 2011). This
56 may explain why bodily sensations have been discussed in relation to authentic experiences.

A model of evaluation of authenticity

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

Figure 2.
A conceptual model
of the psychological
process of evaluation
of authenticity
Ruth et al., 2002) and novelty (Scherer, 1993). These feelings then form the criteria on which Authenticity
judgements of authenticity are made (Fredrickson, 2000),
The feelings resulting from an appraisal of emotion provide the evidence that one has
experienced something important and valued. This allows an attribution of authenticity to
be made.

Discussion 57
The aim of this critique was firstly to identify commonalities between the various
definitions of authenticity in tourism. This review has shown firstly that all definitions of
authenticity refer to the property of something being genuine, real and/or true (Beverland
and Farrelly, 2010). However, they differ in whether the real really exists or what real relates
to: an external object of some sort (e.g. a heritage attraction) or an internal mental state. A
second commonality is that all definitions of authenticity implicitly involve a judgement
about the object based on some categorisation criteria. The criteria used in each definition
varies, but the categorisation process is the same. Thirdly, all definitions implicitly imply
that the object is valued. Table 2 shows the comparison of those definitions and highlights
the alignment around the three main types of authenticity.
A second aim was to compare sociological/tourism and psychology definitions of authenticity
in tourism and between tourism and psychology. Tourism definitions of authenticity are based
on the sociological theory, while as may be expected, psychological definitions are based on
psychological theories. The sociological theory highlights the broad trends that individuals may
experience, such as alienation, search for meaning, hierarchical power, etc. These are the causes
of travel and why people judge an object as valuable and authentic. For psychologists, the cause
of a judgement of authenticity of an object is the knowledge and values that a person holds. For
psychologists, escape from inauthentic social hierarchy and status distinctions are not conscious
concerns of a person. Instead, existential authenticity (for example) is ascribed to situations where
there is consistency between a person’s internal states (self-identity) and their current experience
(Newman, 2019, p. 10). This kind of authenticity has been referred to as expressive (Dutton, 2003),
or moral authenticity (Beverland et al., 2008; Carroll, 2015). Here it is termed self-authenticity.
Such differences in the assumptions underlying a definition of authenticity have
important implications and must be understood by scholars using them. At issue is that
social forces are interpreted by individuals. Thus, sociology assumes people travel on a
quest for authenticity, and this may lead to a desire for existential experiences and self-
identity construction. The psychology theory on the other hand considers that people seek
various types of meaningful experiences depending on their own values, and that these lead
to consequent emotion and feelings. This suggests that any review of the concept should
separate psychological studies of authenticity from those using tourism definitions.
A third aim of this paper is to examine how psychological theory may augment the
mainstream tourism discussions of authenticity. These contributions are show in Figure 2,
which highlights that attribution of authenticity, as a judgement, is an outcome of a mental
process well discussed in the psychology literature (Ma et al., 2013; Ma and Scott, 2017). In
particular, the association of emotion with judgements of authenticity indicates that the
participants value the experience.
The findings of this paper also suggest a need to examine the possibility of tourism-
specific theory. Tourism is a complex and multi-layered phenomenon (Okumus and van
Niekerk, 2015). Its understanding is seen to emerge from the contribution of different
disciplines applied to tourism phenomena, but adopting different ontological and
epistemological lenses, thus displaying “an open and indefinitely relationally constructed
field” (Darbellay and Stock, 2012, p. 448). Multidisciplinary approaches seem to be common
TRC in tourism studies, which are often informed by a combination of concepts and theories
5,1 drawn from different disciplines. A discipline is considered “a branch of knowledge,
instruction, or learning” (Choi and Pak, 2008, p. 42) which agrees upon an epistemology. It
counts as “a detailed knowledge area with distinct borders, a shared ‘language’ among its
academic members, and widely shared paradigms” (Okumus and van Niekerk, 2015, p. 1).
For Mulkay (1974, p. 229), a discipline “has its own language, techniques, legitimate research
58 goals, training procedures, scientific societies and so on”.
Disciplinary boundary determines distances among disciplines and therefore explains
their proximity relationships. In principle, tourism as a complex applied field of study
benefits from a multiple disciplinary approach of proximity disciplines. There appears a
discussion on the applications of different disciplinary theory to study tourism-related
phenomena would be useful to the academia. Choi and Pak (2006) have provided
definitions of multi-disciplinarity, interdisciplinarity and trans-disciplinarity. According to
Choi and Pak (2006), multi-disciplinarity “draws on knowledge from different disciplines
but stays within the boundaries of those fields”, interdisciplinarity “analyses, synthesizes
and harmonizes links between disciplines into a coordinated and coherent whole” and
trans-disciplinarity “integrates the natural, social and health sciences in a humanities
context, and in so doing transcends each of their traditional boundaries”. In practice, it is
not always clear what scholars end up doing or to which degree the specifics of their
discipline are contributing to a research outcome, especially in a field of study
acknowledged as complex and requiring insights from varied perspectives. Multi-
disciplinarity has been advocated in tourism as a suitable approach for research (García
and Schenkel, 2015; Jacob et al., 2015; Jafari, 2001). Use of a single discipline studies may be
an extreme form of multi-disciplinarity (Okumus and van Niekerk, 2015). In fact, much
research draws conceptual and theoretical frameworks from multiple disciplines without a
critical analysis of why those frameworks are considered fundamental to the study of a
phenomenon as found in the realm of tourism or even to which extent they conform to the
latest knowledge in the foundational discipline. Overall, we suggest that pursuit of a project
to develop tourism as a discipline is likely to be unsuccessful, and it is better to apply theory
from other disciplines in a multidisciplinary way.
Lastly, the authors reflect on the difficulties of reconciling differences in definitions
used in tourism research. Disciplines are characterised by a specific language, composed
of terms, meant to cover and describe the realm of phenomena they aim studying
(Shneider, 2009). Language construction is part of the scientific work and development,
and concepts are said to shape how scientists interpret the world (Mulkay, 1974; Petersen,
1968). However, many terms are derived from natural languages, and others migrate
from one discipline to another, being displaced from the original one. Conceptual
displacement, or the metaphoric extension of ideas (Mulkay, 1974), is commonplace in
research and can be seen as a driver of scientific advancement (Dias and Nassif, 2013).
The process is represented as a projection that extends concepts in many directions
beyond the original scope (Mulkay, 1974; Schon, 1963). It is vital for tourism researchers
to understand the origins and development of the concepts they use and their various
definitions.

Limitations and areas for further research

This study has reviewed definitions of authenticity from tourism (Wang, 1999) and
psychology (Newman, 2019). These definitions may vary, and there is an ongoing need to
discuss and examine different definitions to ensure the validity of research conducted. This
is also true of other concepts used in tourism, such as subjective well-being (Liang et al., 2020),
the gaze (Samarathunga and Cheng, 2020; Urry, 1990; Zheng et al., 2021), flow Authenticity
(Csikszentmihalyi, 1990; deMatos et al., 2021) and place attachment (Ramkissoon et al., 2013).
It is recommended that researchers critically examine the concepts they use and their
definitions as a basis for applying theories from other disciplines into tourism.
Managerially, the implications for research revolve around considering the importance of
identity construction through tourism. Bond and Falk (2013), for example, consider that “all
tourist experiences are in some way motivated by the individual’s self-perceived identity
related needs and their perceptions of destinations and experiences that afford satisfaction of
59
those needs” (p. 439). Thus, tourism allows exploration of the authentic self from a
sociological perspective or engaging in activities related to a valued self-identity from a
psychological perspective. Understanding and segmenting types of identities associated with
tourism activities and experiences appears a useful direction for future research.

References
Avnet, T., Pham, M.T. and Stephen, A.T. (2012), “Consumers’ trust in feelings as information”, Journal
of Consumer Research, Vol. 39 No. 4, pp. 720-735, doi: 10.1086/664978.
Ballantyne, R. and Uzzell, D. (1993), “Environmental mediation and hot interpretation - a case study of
district six, cape town”, The Journal of Environmental Education, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 4-7.
Baumeister, R.F. (2019), “Stalking the true self through the jungles of authenticity: problems,
contradictions, inconsistencies, disturbing findings—and a possible way forward”, Review of
General Psychology, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 143-154, doi: 10.1177/1089268019829472.
Beverland, M.B. and Farrelly, F.J. (2009), “The quest for authenticity in consumption: consumers’
purposive choice of authentic cues to shape experienced outcomes”, Journal of Consumer
Research, Vol. 36 No. 5, pp. 838-856, doi: 10.1086/615047.
Beverland, M.B., Lindgreen, A. and Vink, M.W. (2008), “Projecting authenticity through advertising:
consumer judgments of advertisers’ claims”, Journal of Advertising, Vol. 37 No. 1, pp. 5-15, doi:
10.2753/joa0091-3367370101.
Bond, N. and Falk, J. (2013), “Tourism and identity-related motivations: why am I here (and not there)?”,
International Journal of Tourism Research, Vol. 15 No. 5, pp. 430-442, doi: 10.1002/jtr.1886.
Boorstin, C. (1964), The Image: A Guide to Pseudo-Events in American Society, Harper and Row,
New York, NY.
Burks, D.J. and Robbins, R. (2012), “Psychologists’ authenticity: implications for work in professional
and therapeutic settings”, Journal of Humanistic Psychology, Vol. 52 No. 1, pp. 75-104.
Choi, B.C. and Pak, A.W. (2006), “Multidisciplinarity, interdisciplinarity and transdisciplinarity in
health research, services, education and policy: 1. definitions, objectives, and evidence of
effectiveness”, Clinical and Investigative Medicine, Vol. 29 No. 6, p. 351.
Choi, B.C. and Pak, A.W. (2008), “Multidisciplinarity, interdisciplinarity, and transdisciplinarity in
health research, services, education and policy: 3. Discipline, inter-discipline distance, and
selection of discipline”, Clinical and Investigative Medicine, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. E41-E80.
Cohen, E. (1979), “A phenomenology of tourist experiences”, Sociology, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 179-210.
Cohen, E. and Cohen, S.A. (2012), “Authentication: hot and cool”, Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 39
No. 3, pp. 1295-1314, doi: 10.1016/j.annals.2012.03.004.
Corsini, R.J. (1991), The Dictionary of Psychology, Routledge, New York, NY.
 Kun, G. (2021), “Authentic experience in tourism and commodification”, Journal of Tourism Leisure
CoS
and Hospitality, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 95-102, doi: 10.48119/toleho.867086.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990), Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience, Harper and Row,
New York, NY.
TRC Darbellay, F. and Stock, M. (2012), “Tourism as complex interdisciplinary research object”, Annals of
Tourism Research, Vol. 39 No. 1, pp. 441-458.
5,1
deMatos, N., Sa, E. and Duarte, P. (2021), “A review and extension of the flow experience concept.
Insights and directions for tourism research”, Tourism Management Perspectives, Vol. 38,
p. 100802, doi: 10.1016/j.tmp.2021.100802.
Dias, F.S. and Nassif, M.E. (2013), “Migração conceitual e patologia metodológica: análise da
60 incorporação do conceito rizoma aos estudos da ciência da informação”, Perspectivas em Ciência
da Informação, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 147-166.
Dutton, D. (2003), “'Authenticity in art'”, in Levinson, J. (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Aesthetics,
Oxford University Press, Melbourne, pp. 258-274.
Ferrara, A. (1998), Reflective Authenticity: Rethinking the Project of Modernity, Routledge, London.
Ferris, K. and Stein, J. (2014), The Real World: An Introduction to Sociology, WW Norton, New York, NY.
Fredrickson, B.L. (2000), “Extracting meaning from past affective experiences: the importance of peaks,
ends, and specific emotions”, Cognition and Emotion, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 577-606.
Frijda, N.H. (1987), “Emotion, cognitive structure and action tendency”, Cognition and Emotion, Vol. 1
No. 2, pp. 115-143.
Frijda, N.H. (1993), “The place of appraisal in emotion”, Cognition and Emotion, Vol. 7 Nos 3/4,
pp. 357-387.
Frijda, N.H., Kuipers, P. and Ter Schure, E. (1989), “Relations among emotion, appraisal, and emotional
action readiness”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 57 No. 2, p. 212.
Gao, B.W., Zhu, C., Song, H. and Dempsey, I.M.B. (2022), “Interpreting the perceptions of authenticity in
virtual reality tourism through postmodernist approach”, Information Technology and Tourism,
Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 31-55.
Garcıa, F.A. and Schenkel, E. (2015), “Political science, tourism”, in Jafari, J. and Xiao, H. (Eds),
Encyclopedia of Tourism, Springer, Switzerland.
Gilmore, J.H. and Pine, B.J. (2007), Authenticity: what Consumers Really Want, Harvard Business School
Press, Boston, Massachusetts.
Goertz, G. and Mahoney, J. (2012), “Concepts and measurement: ontology and epistemology”, Social
Science Information, Vol. 51 No. 2, pp. 205-216, doi: 10.1177/0539018412437108.
Golomb, J. (1995), In Search of Authenticity, Routledge, London.
Heuermann, K. and Chhabra, D. (2014), “The darker side of dark tourism: an authenticity perspective”,
Tourism Analysis, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 213-225.
Hewstone, M., Stroebe, W. and Jonas, K. (2012), An Introduction to Social Psychology, John Wiley and
Sons, New Jersey.
Jacob, M, Payeras, M. and Florida, C. (2015), “La experiencia de un proyecto docente bilingüe en los
estudios de Economía y Administración de Empresas en la UIB: Evaluación de resultados y
competencias alcanzadas”, El trabajo en equipo, una herramienta para el aprendizaje, pp. 147-54.
Jafari, J. (2001), “The scientification of tourism”, in Smith, V.L. and Brenteditors, M. (Eds), Hosts and
Guests Revisited: tourism Issues of the 21st Century, Cognizant Communication Corporation,
Elmsford, pp. 28-41.
Jarvis, M. and Okami, P. (2019), Principles of Psychology: Contemporary Perspectives, Oxford University
Press, Oxford.
Jhangiani, R. and Tarry, H. (2022), Principles of Social Psychology-1st International H5P Edition,
BCampus and Opened.
Johnson, A. and Stewart, D.W. (2005), “’A reappraisal of the role of emotion in consumer behaviour:
Traditional and contemporary approaches’”, in Malhotra, N. (Ed.), Review of Marketing
Research, Vol. 1, M.E. Sharpe, London, pp. 3-34.
Kang, E., Scott, N., Lee, T. and Ballantyne, R. (2012), “Benefits from visiting a ‘dark tourism’ site: the Authenticity
case of the Jeju April 3rd peace park, Korea”, Tourism Management, Vol. 33 No. 2,
pp. 257-265.
Kim, H. and So, K.K.F. (2022), “Two decades of customer experience research in hospitality and
tourism: a bibliometric analysis and thematic content analysis”, International Journal of
Hospitality Management, Vol. 100, p. 103082, doi: 10.1016/j.ijhm.2021.103082.
Kolar, T. and Zabkar, V. (2010), “A consumer-based model of authenticity: an oxymoron or the
foundation of cultural heritage marketing?”, Tourism Management, Vol. 31 No. 5, pp. 652-664, 61
doi: 10.1016/j.tourman.2009.07.010.
Krueger, J. (2001), “Social categorization, psychology of”, in Smelser, N.J. and Baltes, P. (Eds),
International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioral Sciences, pp. 14219-14223.
Laceulle, H. (2018), “Aging and the ethics of authenticity”, The Gerontologist, Vol. 58 No. 5, pp. 970-978,
doi: 10.1093/geront/gnx037.
Lawler, J. and Ashman, I. (2012), “Theorizing leadership authenticity: a sartrean perspective”,
Leadership, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 327-344, doi: 10.1177/1742715012444685.
Lazarus, R.S. (1991), Emotion and Adaptation, Oxford University Press, New York, NY.
Lazarus, R.S. (1998), Fifty Years of Research and Theory by RS Lazarus: An Analysis of Historical and
Perennial Issues, Lawrence Erlbaum, New Jersey.
Le, T.H., Arcodia, C., Novais, M.A. and Kralj, A. (2022), “How consumers perceive authenticity in
restaurants: a study of online reviews”, International Journal of Hospitality Management,
Vol. 100, p. 103102, doi: 10.1016/j.ijhm.2021.103102.
Li, F. (2023), “Souvenir in tourism research: a literature review and future agenda”, Tourism Critiques:
Practice and Theory, Vol. 4 Nos 1/2, doi: 10.1108/trc-09-2022-0022.
Li, L. and Li, S. (2022), “Do tourists really care about authenticity? A study on tourists’ perceptions of
nature and culture authenticity”, Sustainability, Vol. 14 No. 5, doi: 10.3390/su14052510.
Liang, Z., Luo, H. and Liu, C. (2020), “The concept of subjective well-being: its origins an application in
tourism research: a critical review with reference to China”, Tourism Critiques: Practice and
Theory, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 2-19, doi: 10.1108/trc-04-2020-0009.
Lu, L., Chi, C.G. and Liu, Y. (2015), “Authenticity, involvement, and image: evaluating tourist
experiences at historic districts”, Tourism Management, Vol. 50, pp. 85-96, doi: 10.1016/j.
tourman.2015.01.026.
McCarthy, E.D. (2009), “Emotional performances as dramas of authenticity”, in Vannini, P. and Williams, J.P.
(Eds), Authenticity in Culture, Self, and Society, Ashgate, Farnham, Surrey, pp. 241-255.
McIntosh, A.J. and Prentice, R. (1999), “Affirming authenticity-consuming cultural heritage”, Annals of
Tourism Research, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 589-612.
MacCannell, D. (1973), “Staged authenticity: arrangements of social space in tourist settings”, American
Journal of Sociology, Vol. 79 No. 3, pp. 589-603.
MacCannell, D. (1976), The Tourist: A New Theory of the Leisure Class, Schocken Books, New York,
NY.
Ma, J. and Scott, N. (2015), “Fantasy, fun and feelings”, Tourism Tribune, Vol. 30 No. 11, pp. 9-13.
Ma, J. and Scott, N. (2017), “Customer delight from hospitality and tourism experience”, in Dixit, S.K.
(Ed.) Routledge Handbook of Consumer Behavior for Hospitality and Tourism, Routledge and
Taylor and Francis Group Publishing, UK.
Ma, J., Gao, J., Scott, N. and Ding, P. (2013), “Customer delight derived from theme park experiences: the
antecedents of delight based on cognitive appraisal theory”, Annals of Tourism Research,
Vol. 42, pp. 359-381.
Macrae, C.N. and Bodenhausen, G.V. (2000), “Social cognition: thinking categorically about others”,
Annual Review of Psychology, Vol. 51 No. 1, pp. 93-120, doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.51.1.93.
TRC Moore, K., Buchmann, A., Månsson, M. and Fisher, D. (2021), “Authenticity in tourism theory and
experience. Practically indispensable and theoretically mischievous?”, Annals of Tourism
5,1 Research, Vol. 89, p. 103208, doi: 10.1016/j.annals.2021.103208.
Moors, A., Ellsworth, P.C., Scherer, K.R. and Frijda, N.H. (2013), “Appraisal theories of emotion: state of
the art and future development”, Emotion Review, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 119-124, doi: 10.1177/
1754073912468165.
Moscardo, G. and Pearce, P.L. (1999), “Understanding ethnic tourists”, Annals of Tourism Research,
62 Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 416-434.
Mulkay, M. (1974), “Conceptual displacement and migration in science: a prefatory paper”, Science
Studies, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 205-234, doi: 10.1177/030631277400400301.
Newman, G.E. (2019), “The psychology of authenticity”, Review of General Psychology, Vol. 23 No. 1,
pp. 8-18, doi: 10.1037/gpr0000158.
Nunes, J.C., Ordanini, A. and Giambastiani, G. (2021), “The concept of authenticity: what it means
to consumers”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 85 No. 4, pp. 1-20, doi: 10.1177/00222429
21997081.
Olsen, K. (2002), “Authenticity as a concept in tourism research”, Tourist Studies, Vol. 2 No. 2,
pp. 159-182, doi: 10.1177/146879702761936644.
Ortony, A. and Clore, G. (2015), “Can an appraisal model be compatible with psychological
constructionism”, in Barrett, L.F. and Russell, J.A. (Eds), The Psychological Construction of
Emotion, Guildford Press, pp. 305-333.
Ortony, A., Clore, G.L. and Collins, A. (1988), The Cognitive Structure of Emotions, Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge.
Park, E., Choi, B.-K. and Lee, T.J. (2019), “The role and dimensions of authenticity in heritage tourism”,
Tourism Management, Vol. 74, pp. 99-109, doi: 10.1016/j.tourman.2019.03.001.
Paulauskaite, D., Powell, R., Coca-Stefaniak, J.A. and Morrison, A.M. (2017), “Living like a local:
authentic tourism experiences and the sharing economy”, International Journal of Tourism
Research, Vol. 19 No. 6, pp. 619-628, doi: 10.1002/jtr.2134.
Pearce, P.L. and Moscardo, G.M. (1986), “The concept of authenticity in tourist experiences”, Australian
and New Zealand Journal of Sociology, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 121-132.
Pickering, C. and Byrne, J. (2014), “The benefits of publishing systematic quantitative literature reviews
for PhD candidates and other early-career researchers”, Higher Education Research and
Development, Vol. 33 No. 3, pp. 534-548.
Potts, R. (2023), The Vagabond's Way: 366 Meditations on Wanderlust, Discovery, and the Art of
Travel, Ballantine Books.
Prayag, G., Le, T.H., Pourfakhimi, S. and Nadim, Z. (2022), “Antecedents and consequences of perceived
food authenticity: a cognitive appraisal perspective”, Journal of Hospitality Marketing and
Management, Vol. 31 No. 8, pp. 937-961, doi: 10.1080/19368623.2022.2100857.
Ramkissoon, H., Smith, L.D.G. and Weiler, B. (2013), “Relationships between place attachment, place
satisfaction and pro-environmental behaviour in an Australian national park”, Journal of
Sustainable Tourism, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 434-457, doi: 10.1080/09669582.2012.708042.
Rasmussen, J. (1987), “’Mental models and the control of actions in complex environments’”, in
Ackermannn, D. and Tauber, M.J. (Eds), Mental Models and Human-Computer Interaction 1.
Human Factors in Information Technology No. 3, Elsevier, Amsterdam.
Rickly-Boyd, J.M. (2012), “Through the magic of authentic reproduction’: tourists’ perceptions of
authenticity in a pioneer village”, Journal of Heritage Tourism, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 127-144, doi:
10.1080/1743873x.2011.636448.
Rickly, J.M. (2022), “A review of authenticity research in tourism: launching the annals of tourism
research curated collection on authenticity”, Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 92, p. 103349, doi:
10.1016/j.annals.2021.103349.
Rickly, J.M. and McCabe, S. (2017), “Authenticity for tourism design and experience”, in Fesenmaier, D. Authenticity
R. and Xiang, Z. (Eds), Design Science in Tourism: Foundations of Destination Management,
Springer, pp. 55-68.
Rittichainuwat, B., Laws, E., Scott, N. and Rattanaphinancha, S. (2018), “Authenticity in screen tourism:
significance of real and substituted screen locations”, Journal of Hospitality and Tourism
Research, Vol. 42 No. 8, pp. 1274-1294.
Ritzer, G. and Liska, A. (1997), “‘McDisneyization’ and ‘Post-Tourism’: complementary perspectives on
contemporary tourism”, in Rojek, C. and Urry, J. (Eds), Touring Culture, Routledge, London,
63
pp. 96-109.
Roseman, I.J. (1991), “Appraisal determinants of discrete emotions”, Cognition and Emotion, Vol. 5
No. 3, pp. 161-200.
Roseman, I.J., Spindel, M.S. and Jose, P.E. (1990), “Appraisals of emotion-eliciting events: testing a
theory of discrete emotions”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 59 No. 5, p. 899.
Ryan, W.S. and Ryan, R.M. (2019), “Toward a social psychology of authenticity: exploring within-
person variation in autonomy, congruence, and genuineness using self-determination theory”,
Review of General Psychology, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 99-112, doi: 10.1037/gpr0000162.
Samarathunga, W.H.M.S. and Cheng, L. (2020), “Tourist gaze and beyond: state of the art”, Tourism
Review, Vol. 76 No. 2, pp. 344-357, doi: 10.1108/tr-06-2020-0248.
Scherer, K.R. (1984), “On the nature and function of emotion: a component process approach’”, in
Scherer, K.R. and Ekman, P. (Eds), Approaches to Emotion, Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ,
pp. 293-317.
Scherer, K.R. (2022), “Theory convergence in emotion science is timely and realistic”, Cognition and
Emotion, Vol. 36 No. 2, pp. 155-170, doi: 10.1080/00000000.2020.000000.
Scherer, K.R., Schorr, A. and Johnstone, T. (2001), Appraisal Processes in Emotions: Theory, Methods,
Research, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Schmader, T. and Sedikides, C. (2018), “State authenticity as fit to environment: the implications of
social identity for fit, authenticity, and self-segregation”, Personality and Social Psychology
Review, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 228-259, doi: 10.1177/1088868317734080.
Schwarz, N. (2011), “Feelings-as-information theory”, in Van Lange, P., Kruglanski, A. and Higgins, E.
(Eds), Handbook of Theories of Social Psychology, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 289-308.
Shneider, A.M. (2009), “Four stages of a scientific discipline; four types of scientist”, Trends in
Biochemical Sciences, Vol. 34 No. 5, pp. 217-223.
Shouse, E. (2005), “Feeling, emotion, affect”, M/C Journal, Vol. 8 No. 6.
Shweder, R.A. (1993), “Everything you ever wanted to know about cognitive appraisal theory without
being conscious of it”, Psychological Inquiry, Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 322-342.
Smith, L. (2006), Uses of Heritage, Routledge.
Steiner, C.J. and Reisinger, Y. (2006), “Understanding existential authenticity”, Annals of Tourism
Research, Vol. 33 No. 2, pp. 299-318, doi: 10.1016/j.annals.2005.08.002.
Stolier, R.M. and Freeman, J.B. (2016), “Neural pattern similarity reveals the inherent intersection of
social categories”, Nature Neuroscience, Vol. 19 No. 6, pp. 795-797, doi: 10.1038/nn.4296.
Tiberghien, G., Mukhamedjanova, R. and Xie, P.F. (2023), “Authenticity and spectrality of space
heritage: Baikonur Cosmodrome, Kazakhstan”, Tourism Geographies, Vol. 25 No. 5, pp. 1-20, doi:
10.1080/14616688.2023.2231422.
Tribe, J. (1997), “The indiscipline of tourism”, Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 638-657.
Trilling, L. (1972), Sincerity and Authenticity, Oxford University Press, London.
Urry, J. (1990), The Tourist Gaze: Leisure and Travel in Contemporary Societies, Sage publications,
London.
TRC Varga, S. and Guignon, C. (2023), “Authenticity”, in Zalta, E.N. and Nodelman, U. (Eds), The {Stanford}
Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University.
5,1
Wang, N. (1999), “Rethinking authenticity in tourism experience”, Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 26
No. 2, pp. 349-370.
Yabanci, O. (2022), “Historic architecture in tourism consumption”, Tourism Critiques: Practice and
Theory, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 2-15, doi: 10.1108/trc-04-2021-0008.
64 Yin, S. and Dai, G. (2021), “Authenticity and tourist loyalty: a meta-analysis”, Asia Pacific Journal of
Tourism Research, Vol. 26 No. 12, pp. 1331-1349, doi: 10.1080/10941665.2021.1983624.
Zheng, Y., Wei, W., Line, N. and Zhang, L. (2021), “Integrating the tourist gaze with the social
servicescape: implications for creating memorable theme park experiences”, International
Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 93, p. 102782, doi: 10.1016/j.ijhm.2020.102782.

Corresponding author
Noel Scott can be contacted at: [email protected]

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: [email protected]