Interpersonal Affirmation and Self-authenticity: A Test of Rogers's Self-growth Hypothesis

Abstract

Interpersonal relationships, including romantic attachments, are vital for personal well-being. Likewise, characteristics of the self, including one's sense of self-authenticity, influence human flourishing. Integrating these two perspectives, the current research builds on Rogers's (1961) notion that a close, supportive relationship can foster positive changes in the self. We propose a model that connects patterns of interpersonal affirmation (as described by the Michelangelo phenomenon) with increased self-authenticity. We tested this model using a correlational design and responses from undergraduates currently in dating relationships (60 males, 27 females). Structural equation modeling revealed that interpersonal processes promote self-authenticity inasmuch as individuals perceive their partners as being supportive. The model's implications for the interplay between self and other are discussed.

Keywords:

• Interpersonal affirmation
• Michelangelo phenomenon
• Self-authenticity
• Self-growth

Acknowledgments

Original research conducted at Department of Psychology, Brown University, Box 1853, 89 Waterman St., Providence, RI 02912, USA.

We thank Christina Wehrli for her assistance with data collection. We are also grateful for Tony Evans and our reviewers who offered insightful comments that led to improvements in earlier versions of our manuscript.

Notes

1. We also tested a model that included a direct path from dispositional authenticity to perceptual affirmation, the first stage of the Michelangelo phenomenon. This path was not significant, β = .23, and model fit was slightly worse than the hypothesized model, χ²(14) = 17.38, p = .236; CFI = 0.98; CMIN/DF = 1.24, p = .236; RMSEA = .019; PCLOSE = .98.

2. Again, we also tested a variation of this model, which included a direct path from dispositional functional flexibility to perceptual affirmation. This critical path was not significant, β = .17, p = .15, and model fit was slightly worse than the hypothesized model, χ²(14) = 21.49, p = .09; CFI = 0.96; CMIN/DF = 1.54, p = .09; RMSEA = .029; PCLOSE = .93.