Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41091923›Full record

ArticleSocial cognitive and affective neuroscience2025

Authenticity is more than self-enhancement: behavioural and neurophysiological evidence.

Chengli Huang, Emily K Penney, Constantine Sedikides, Nicholas J Kelley

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Social cognitive and affective neuroscience, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Chengli HuangSchool of Mental Health, Wenzhou Medical University, Wenzhou, 325035, China.ORCID 0000-0001-5215-6734
Emily K PenneyCentre for Research on Self and Identity, University of Southampton, Southampton, SO17 1BJ, United Kingdom.
Constantine SedikidesCentre for Research on Self and Identity, University of Southampton, Southampton, SO17 1BJ, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-7563-306X
Nicholas J KelleyCentre for Research on Self and Identity, University of Southampton, Southampton, SO17 1BJ, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-2256-0597

Funding

Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) South Coast Doctoral Training Partnership (SCDTP) ES/P000673/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Negative self-descriptive information can be threatening to the self. This may depend, however, on the self-representation for which the information is relevant. We focused on two self-presentations, the authentic self and the presented self. In particular, we examined how the authentic and presented selves are influenced by emotional self-descriptiveness. Participants (N = 147) completed a self-referent emotional Stroop task while electroencephalogram (EEG) was recorded. They viewed in coloured text positive or negative traits exemplifying the authentic self ('I am genuinely honest'), the presented self ('I am outwardly honest'), or control ('It is clearly honest'). Colour naming latency was slower to negative (vs. positive) traits for the presented self and control. Colour naming latency was faster to negative (vs. positive) traits for the authentic self. Event-related potentials indicated that at both early (P1) and later (P3) stages of attentional processing, the authentic self exhibited comparable amplitudes to negative and positive traits. However, P1 was larger for negative, and P3 was larger for positive, traits for the presented self. Taken together, the findings highlight that the presented self is more pursuant of positivity, whereas the authentic self is more tolerant of negativity.

Indexed as

BrainEmotionsEvoked PotentialsSelf ConceptAdolescentAdultAttentionElectroencephalographyFemaleHumansMalePhotic StimulationReaction TimeStroop TestYoung Adultauthentic selfemotional Stroop effectpresented selfself-accuracyself-consistencyself-enhancement

Identifiers

PMID41091923
PMCPMC12687596

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.