Imagine waking one morning with the freedom to change the parts of your life that no longer fit. You could leave the role others expect you to play, speak more honestly, choose a different career, or become less like the person you have always been. Would those changes reveal your true self—or replace it?

This is the tension hidden inside the advice to “be yourself.” The phrase sounds as though authenticity requires loyalty to something already complete. Yet growth often asks us to move beyond familiar habits, revise old identities, and become someone our earlier self could not have predicted.

The Psychological Question Behind the True Self

The psychological problem is not whether people are real, continuous beings. We carry bodily histories, memories, temperamental patterns, relationships, and commitments across time. The harder question is what kind of thing this continuing self is. Is it a hidden essence, an accurate self-description, a socially formed identity, an evolving life story, or an ideal that guides who we hope to become?

Everyday language blends these possibilities. We call a private feeling “the real me,” describe a long-standing trait as part of our nature, and treat an aspiration as evidence of who we truly are. But these claims do not point to the same psychological phenomenon. A subject who experiences life may be real even if the story that subject tells about identity remains partial and revisable.

William James’s distinction between the “I” and the “Me” provides a useful starting point. The “I” is the self as knower—the subject who experiences, attends, and chooses. The “Me” is the empirical self: the body, roles, memories, relationships, reputation, possessions, values, and other things experienced as “mine” (James, 1890/2017). James’s distinction allows us to recognize a continuing point of view without assuming that the identity attached to it is fixed. The experiencing “I” and the interpreted “Me” belong together, but they are not identical.

What Do We Mean by the True Self?

Discussions of authenticity often use “self” as if it named one clearly defined psychological object. In practice, several self-representations overlap. The actual self describes the qualities people believe they presently possess. The ideal self represents desired qualities. The ought self reflects duties and expectations. Possible selves represent futures a person hopes to approach or avoid. Public identity concerns how one is known by others, while autobiographical identity organizes selected memories into a story about how the present person came to be.

The presumed hidden true self makes a stronger claim than any of these ideas. It suggests that beneath changing roles and incomplete self-knowledge lies a finished identity with special authority. If it could be uncovered, it would supposedly tell us which relationships, values, occupations, and ways of living are genuinely ours.

Baumeister distinguishes the actual self-process—the ongoing system that interprets experience, coordinates action, and manages relationships—from an imagined inner entity called the True Self. The self does real work: it coordinates action, carries commitments across time, participates in relationships, manages reputation, and interprets experience. Yet those functions do not require a second, purer person behind the person who is already living. A person can have many reasonably accurate self-concepts without any single description exhausting the whole individual (Baumeister, 2019; Baumeister, 2022).

This distinction prevents the inquiry from collapsing into either extreme. We need not claim that the self is an illusion. We need only question whether the self is best understood as a hidden, completed biography.

Why the Hidden-Self Idea Is So Compelling

The idea of a hidden self offers more than an appealing metaphor. It fits several familiar ways of thinking. People often explain visible characteristics by imagining something deeper and more stable beneath them. They also seek continuity in their self-understanding and reassurance that the person they recognize today will remain intelligible tomorrow. Psychological essentialism helps explain the first tendency; self-verification and Sullivan’s self-system help explain the second.

Psychological Essentialism: Why We Look Beneath the Surface

Psychological essentialism is the tendency to assume that observable qualities arise from an underlying reality or essence. We commonly reason this way about living things, personality traits, and social categories. Surface characteristics may change, yet we imagine that something deeper makes the person or thing what it truly is. Applied to identity, this style of reasoning makes the language of a concealed inner self feel almost self-evident.

Christy, Schlegel, and Cimpian found that people attributed several essence-like qualities to the true self. Participants tended to imagine it as inherent, informative, internally consistent, and relatively resistant to change. They also viewed the true self as more essence-like than the actual self expressed through everyday behavior. Moreover, belief in a true self was associated with essentialist thinking in other areas, and experimentally strengthening essentialist beliefs in other domains could increase endorsement of true-self beliefs (Christy et al., 2019).

These findings help explain why people so readily interpret identity through metaphors of depth, discovery, and concealment. If the true self is presumed to be inherent and causally powerful, then contradictory behavior can be dismissed as superficial while preferred qualities are treated as evidence of what was present “deep down” all along. The intuitive appeal of that explanation, however, does not establish that the presumed essence exists. It may instead reveal how the mind prefers to organize complex and changing information about persons.

Familiarity, Predictability, and Self-Verification

Belief in a stable inner identity also reduces uncertainty. Self-verification research suggests that people seek social interactions and feedback that confirm established self-conceptions. They may select confirming information, elicit responses that support what they already believe, and remember feedback that fits their existing self-views (Swann & Read, 1981). Confirmation makes relationships and social situations more predictable, even when the identity being confirmed is negative or limiting.

Sullivan’s concept of the self-system offers a complementary explanation. He described the self-system as an organization of experience that helps preserve interpersonal security. Through selective inattention, information that threatens an established self-understanding can be excluded from focal awareness (Sullivan, 1953, pp. 158–192, 233–234). This protection is not always unhealthy. Without some continuity, every criticism, failure, or unexpected response would require a complete reconstruction of identity. Yet the same protective process can become rigid when it prevents corrective experience from being considered.

A self-concept may therefore feel true for several reasons that do not guarantee its accuracy. It may resemble the hidden essences people intuitively use to explain the world. It may be familiar, socially confirmed, and effective at reducing uncertainty. “That is just who I am” may sometimes identify a durable pattern. At other times, it may protect a settled explanation from experiences that would require revision.

Is There Evidence for a Hidden Psychological Core?

People readily understand the concept of a true self, describe its qualities, and report greater satisfaction with decisions that seem aligned with it (Christy et al., 2019; Schlegel et al., 2013). Those findings show that the idea has psychological consequences. They do not establish that the idea corresponds to an independently existing inner entity.

Baumeister uses a useful logical distinction: people can possess a concept without the object represented by that concept existing. Rivera and colleagues similarly propose that perceived authenticity may operate as a guide toward a culturally informed ideal of a good and meaningful life rather than as evidence of a hidden psychological entity (Rivera et al., 2019).

This does not make true-self beliefs meaningless. An aspiration can organize choices. A preferred self-representation can help people judge whether a decision fits their values. The caution is narrower: subjective conviction and decision satisfaction are evidence that a belief matters, not proof that a completed identity has been discovered.

Winnicott’s influential distinction between True and False Self arose in a different clinical context. His False Self was not merely politeness or ordinary role performance. At its pathological extreme, it was a defensive organization that protected spontaneity and a fragile sense of being from an environment that could not adequately receive the developing person (Winnicott, 1960/1965, pp. 140–152). That clinical insight should not be flattened into the popular claim that every social accommodation conceals a pristine personality.

What Would Count as Evidence of a True Self?

Believing that a true self exists is not the same as demonstrating its existence. People may find the idea meaningful, use it to interpret decisions, and feel more satisfied when their choices appear consistent with it (Schlegel et al., 2013). The psychological usefulness of true-self beliefs does not establish that they correspond to a distinct inner entity. A stronger claim requires evidence capable of distinguishing a hidden true self from familiar processes such as personality, memory, values, motivation, and social identity.

Four questions provide a useful test:

• Predictive test: Does the proposed true self predict behavior across situations better than established traits, goals, relationships, social roles, and immediate circumstances? If it explains conduct only after it occurs, it may function as a retrospective interpretation rather than a predictive psychological construct.
• Explanatory test: Does the true self explain anything that cannot already be explained through self-concept, temperament, autobiographical memory, values, aspirations, and social identity? Giving these interacting processes a single new name does not necessarily identify an additional entity.
• Corrective test: Can a claim about the true self be contradicted by evidence? A person might describe compassionate behavior as an expression of the true self while dismissing cruelty as pressure, fear, or a false performance. Yet if every preferred action confirms the true self and every contradiction is excluded from it, the claim becomes protected against correction.
• Independence test: Does the attributed true self remain recognizable when moral approval, cultural expectations, and the observer’s preferences change? If people identify approved qualities as authentic and disapproved qualities as superficial, judgments about the true self may reveal ideals and values more readily than an independently existing psychological core.

These questions cannot settle every philosophical issue surrounding personal identity. They serve a narrower purpose. They help distinguish a testable psychological explanation from an interpretation that can absorb every possible outcome. The true self may remain a useful guide, aspiration, or organizing belief even if it does not pass these tests as a separate inner entity.

*These questions constitute an analytical framework proposed here, not an established psychological scale or validated assessment.

Why the True Self Usually Seems Morally Good

People do not appear to imagine the true self as a neutral collection of traits. The person presumed to exist “deep down” is usually seen as morally better than the person revealed through every action. Compassion, honesty, fairness, and moral improvement are readily interpreted as expressions of someone’s real character. Cruelty, deception, and moral decline are more likely to be explained as products of pressure, temptation, corruption, or some superficial part of the self.

Newman, Bloom, and Knobe found that observers were more likely to regard morally positive behavior as revealing a person’s true self than morally negative behavior. Their judgments were not based on one universally accepted definition of goodness. Participants’ own moral and political values influenced which beliefs they treated as authentic. Liberal observers were more likely to locate liberal beliefs within a person’s true self, while conservative observers were more likely to do the same with conservative beliefs (Newman et al., 2014).

A broader review by Strohminger, Knobe, and Newman concluded that people commonly conceive of the true self as both positive and moral. The tendency appeared when judging oneself and when judging other people, and related patterns were found across the cultures examined. Moral characteristics also appeared especially important to judgments of personal continuity: changes in moral character were often treated as more identity-altering than changes in preferences, personality, or other psychological characteristics (Strohminger et al., 2017).

A 2025 registered replication—a study whose methods and predictions were specified in advance—supported two central findings.. Lee and Feldman found that morally positive changes were judged as more representative of the true self than negative or neutral changes. They also replicated the finding that observers’ political values influenced which changes they interpreted as authentic. Their extension found smaller associations between perceived social norms and true-self judgments, suggesting that ideas about what is socially approved may also contribute to what people recognize as someone’s deeper identity (Lee & Feldman, 2025).

These findings complicate claims about discovering who someone “really is.” The perceived true self may sometimes operate as an idealized self—a representation of the person someone ought to be, hopes to become, or prefers to believe exists beneath contradictory behavior. Likewise, feeling authentic may partly reflect moral approval, pride, positive emotion, or the satisfaction of enacting a socially valued quality. The experience may be genuine while still failing to reveal a fixed psychological essence.

The same bias influences judgments of other people. Declaring that an act reveals someone’s “real character” may tell us something about the observer’s values as well as the person being judged. We are inclined to treat approved qualities as essential and disapproved qualities as departures from an underlying goodness. This tendency can support compassion and leave room for change, but it can also distort judgment. Believing that someone is “good deep down” should not require dismissing persistent harmful conduct, weakening accountability, or ignoring evidence necessary for safety.

The morally good true self may therefore be psychologically powerful without being an independently verified inner core. It gives people an ideal toward which change can be interpreted, but it also helps explain why socially valued behavior can feel especially authentic—even when that behavior does not match a person’s customary personality.

Feeling Authentic Is Not the Same as Revealing a Stable Personality

If authenticity simply meant expressing stable personality traits, people should feel most authentic when their behavior matches their typical trait levels. Research complicates that expectation. Fleeson and Wilt found that people tended to feel more authentic when acting in ways associated with socially valued poles of the Big Five traits. Introverted participants, for example, could feel more authentic while behaving more extravertedly (Fleeson & Wilt, 2010).

This does not mean introversion is false or that extraversion is universally better. It suggests that felt authenticity is influenced by aspiration, situational success, positive emotion, and cultural ideals. Sometimes “this feels like the real me” may mean “this is the person I am pleased to enact.”

Jongman-Sereno and Leary push the problem further through the idea of inevitable authenticity. Even deliberate impression management arises from the person’s own motives, fears, purposes, and judgments. A deceptive presentation may misrepresent facts, but the act of deception still belongs to the person performing it (Jongman-Sereno & Leary, 2019). Several presentations can be false in particular respects without logically requiring one perfectly true presentation beneath them.

The experience of authenticity remains important. Sedikides and colleagues describe state authenticity as a meaningful momentary experience, while Kernis and Goldman separate authenticity into awareness, relatively unbiased processing, behavior, and relational orientation (Kernis & Goldman, 2006; Sedikides et al., 2019). These approaches treat authenticity as a pattern of functioning, not merely as the release of whatever feeling happens to be strongest.

A Self Can Be Real Without Being Fixed

Questioning a hidden identity does not require denying the reality of selfhood. Damasio distinguishes the protoself, core self, and autobiographical self. The protoself and core self are grounded in the living organism and in the moment-to-moment organization of experience. The autobiographical self draws on remembered history, social identity, and anticipated future. These are dynamic processes rather than rigid things (Damasio, 2010).

James’s “I” and “Me” anticipate part of this distinction. The self as knower is not the same as the accumulated content by which the knower is described. Damasio’s core self helps explain how experience can remain owned by one organism, while the autobiographical self helps explain how that organism develops a revisable identity.

Within narrative identity, remembered events are selected and interpreted in light of present concerns and imagined futures. McAdams describes identity as an internalized and evolving life story that provides some measure of unity and purpose. The story is constrained by biographical facts, yet it goes beyond them as people select events, draw lessons, and connect past experience to anticipated futures (McAdams, 2001).

A constructed identity is therefore not necessarily arbitrary or fake. Bodies, temperaments, histories, relationships, promises, social conditions, and consequences impose real constraints. Construction means that those materials must be organized and interpreted; it does not mean that any interpretation is equally plausible.

How Relationships and Culture Shape Identity

Popular advice often treats social influence as contamination: the authentic self is supposedly what remains after parents, partners, institutions, and culture have been stripped away. Cooley’s looking-glass self challenges that premise. People develop self-understanding partly by imagining how they appear to others, imagining how others judge that appearance, and experiencing pride, shame, confidence, or embarrassment in response (Cooley, 1902).

These reflected appraisals need not be accurate. A silence can be interpreted as rejection; a critical parent can become an internal audience long after childhood. Nevertheless, language, values, roles, and possible identities emerge through social participation. From this perspective, there was no fully formed individual identity that existed before relationship and was only later influenced by it.

Social formation does not eliminate agency. People can examine inherited values, reject some, reinterpret others, and willingly endorse many. Ryan and Ryan’s self-determination account is useful here: autonomy does not require freedom from all influence. It concerns whether action is experienced as willingly chosen, integrated, and personally owned (Ryan & Ryan, 2019). Guidance, tradition, and obligation can participate in an authentic life when they have been understood and reflectively endorsed.

A more useful question is not “Did this value come entirely from inside me?” Almost no meaningful value could pass that test. More revealing questions are: Do I understand it? Can I give reasons for endorsing it? Does living by it remain defensible in light of experience, relationships, and consequences?

Authenticity Is Not Impulsive Self-Expression

A feeling can be genuine without being wise, ethical, or representative of the whole person. Anger may be genuinely present, but cruelty does not become authentic merely because it is spontaneous. Fear belongs to the person, but it need not have final authority. Desire is real, but it does not automatically outrank promises, relationships, or long-term aims.

LeDoux’s account of the synaptic self emphasizes that explicit and implicit systems jointly contribute to identity. Emotional and motivational processes are not always fully accessible to conscious control, and thoughts, motives, and emotions can become partly uncoupled (LeDoux, 2002). The loudest impulse may therefore represent one active process, not the final verdict of the whole person.

Rogers’s congruence remains important. He described genuineness as a reduction in the split among experience, awareness, and interpersonal presentation. Yet congruence was not simply indiscriminate disclosure. Rogers wrote that experienced feelings must be available to awareness and communicated when appropriate (Rogers, 1995, pp. 61–62). Authenticity requires contact with experience, but contact does not compel enactment.

Reflective action can incorporate a wider field: present emotion, competing desires, chosen values, moral obligations, long-term consequences, and the person one is trying to become. Self-regulation is not necessarily self-betrayal. It can be the means by which a person refuses to let one momentary state speak for the whole life.

Authenticity as Reflective Authorship

If there is no completed identity to uncover, authenticity does not disappear. It changes from excavation to authorship. The person works with inherited temperament, bodily needs, remembered history, relationships, cultural possibilities, and present circumstances to form commitments that can guide action.

Marcia’s identity-status model gives this authorship a developmental structure. His statuses are organized around exploration and commitment. Foreclosure involves commitment without meaningful exploration. Moratorium involves active exploration without settled commitment. Identity achievement combines exploration with commitment, while diffusion reflects the relative absence of both (Marcia, 1966).

The model should not be turned into a rigid ladder or a permanent label. People can reopen commitments when life changes, and different identity domains may develop differently. Its central insight remains useful: identity is shaped not only by what one presently feels but also by the work of considering alternatives and making commitments.

Reflective authorship therefore has two obligations. It must remain open enough to learn, and it must become definite enough to live. Endless reconsideration cannot sustain a relationship, vocation, moral practice, or community. Conversely, commitment that forbids all reexamination can become captivity.

Authenticity, in this sense, is a continuing alignment project. Awareness identifies experience. Relatively unbiased processing allows inconvenient information to be considered. Values provide direction. Commitments give continuity. Relationships supply both support and correction. Action tests whether the identity can be lived rather than merely admired.

When the Search for the True Self Becomes a Trap

The instruction to find one correct self can create paralysis. A person may assume that there is one ideal career, relationship, community, or way of living and that uncertainty proves inadequate self-knowledge. Decisions become excavations for certainty rather than experiments that generate new knowledge.

Marcia’s statuses reveal two opposite dangers (Marcia, 1966). Foreclosure treats an inherited, convenient, or socially rewarded identity as final before alternatives have been explored. Endless moratorium keeps every possibility open but postpones the commitments through which identity acquires substance. The search for a perfect fit can prevent the life experience needed to discover what a commitment actually means.

Self-verification creates another trap (Swann & Read, 1981). People may arrange relationships, interpret feedback, and remember events in ways that protect an established identity. Even a painful label—unlovable, incapable, difficult, destined to fail—can provide predictability. “This is who I am” then becomes a defense against evidence that would require uncertainty and change.

The language of authenticity can also rationalize impulse. “I had to follow my heart” may hide the fact that other values and obligations were excluded from consideration. A desire does not acquire moral authority merely by being described as true.

Authenticity can also become its own performance. Symbols, declarations, and carefully staged disclosures can advertise an identity more quickly than the slow work of becoming dependable, skilled, compassionate, or brave. The appropriate test is not whether an identity feels dramatic or pure. It is whether it remains coherent, responsible, revisable, and livable across time.

A Few Words by Psychology Fanatic

Return to the question posed at the beginning. If you left an ill-fitting role, spoke more honestly, or became less like the person you had always been, would those changes reveal your true self—or replace it? Perhaps the question presents a false choice. Some changes uncover needs and values that have long gone unrecognized. Others create qualities that did not previously exist. Most meaningful growth involves some of both.

Change does not erase the person who came before it. Your body still carries its history. Memories, relationships, promises, injuries, and repeated choices continue to shape what is possible. Yet continuity does not require remaining loyal to every familiar habit or inherited identity. The person you have been supplies the materials for who you may become, not a finished set of instructions you must obey.

Authenticity may therefore be less about discovering one final answer to “Who am I?” and more about living honestly with an answer that remains open to examination. We pay attention to what is within us, consider what deserves expression or restraint, and make commitments that gradually give identity its form. We do not merely uncover ourselves, nor do we invent ourselves without limits. Within the realities of our histories and relationships, we participate in who we become.

Associated Concepts

• Authenticity: Living with awareness of one’s experiences and expressing values, beliefs, and commitments in a congruent manner.
• Rogers’ Theory of Self: A humanistic model emphasizing the relationship among self-concept, lived experience, congruence, and psychological growth.
• Narrative Identity: The evolving life story through which people organize memories, interpret experience, and create continuity across time.
• Possible Selves: Mental representations of the people we hope to become, expect to become, or fear becoming.
• Looking-Glass Self: Cooley’s theory that self-understanding develops partly through how we imagine other people perceive and judge us.
• Marcia’s Identity Status Model: A developmental model describing identity through different combinations of exploration and commitment.
• Self-Verification Theory: The tendency to seek and interpret feedback in ways that confirm established beliefs about ourselves.
• William James’ Theory of Self: A foundational distinction between the “I” who experiences and knows and the “Me” composed of everything recognized as belonging to oneself.

References:

Baumeister, Roy 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, 23(1), 143–154. DOI: 10.1177/1089268019829472.
(Return to Main Text)

Baumeister, Roy F. (2022). The Self Explained: Why and How We Become Who We Are. The Guilford Press. ISBN: 9781462549283.
(Return to Main Text)

Christy, Andrew G.; Schlegel, Rebecca J.; Cimpian, Andrei (2019). Why Do People Believe in a “True Self”? The Role of Essentialist Reasoning About Personal Identity and the Self. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 117(2), 386–416. DOI: 10.1037/pspp0000254.
(Return to Main Text)

Cooley, Charles Horton (1902). Human Nature and the Social Order. Charles Scribner’s Sons.
(Return to Main Text)

Damasio, Antonio R. (2010). Self Comes to Mind: Constructing the Conscious Brain. Pantheon Books. ISBN: 9780307378750.
(Return to Main Text)

Fleeson, William; Wilt, Joshua A. (2010). The Relevance of Big Five Trait Content in Behavior to Subjective Authenticity: Do High Levels of Within-Person Behavioral Variability Undermine or Enable Authenticity achievement? Journal of Personality, 78(4), 1353–1382. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-6494.2010.00653.x.
(Return to Main Text)

James, William (1890/2017). The Principles of Psychology, Volumes 1–2. CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform; combined edition. ISBN: 9781543183184.
(Return to Main Text)

Jongman-Sereno, Katrina P.; Leary, Mark R. (2019). The Enigma of Being Yourself: A Critical Examination of the Concept of Authenticity. Review of General Psychology, 23(1), 133–142. DOI: 10.1037/gpr0000157.
(Return to Main Text)

Kernis, Michael H.; Goldman, Brian M. (2006). A Multicomponent Conceptualization of Authenticity: Theory and Research. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 38, 283–357. DOI: 10.1016/S0065-2601(06)38006-9.
(Return to Main Text)

LeDoux, Joseph (2002). Synaptic Self: How Our Brains Become Who We Are. Viking. ISBN: 9780670030286.
(Return to Main Text)

Lee, Shuk Ching; Feldman, Gilad (2025). Revisiting the Link Between True-Self and Morality: Replication and Extension Registered Report of Newman, Bloom, and Knobe (2014) Studies 1 and 2. Royal Society Open Science, 12(6), 250908. DOI: 10.1098/rsos.250908.
(Return to Main Text)

Marcia, James E. (1966). Development and Validation of Ego-Identity Status. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 3(5), 551–558. DOI: 10.1037/h0023281.
(Return to Main Text)

McAdams, Dan P. (2001). The Psychology of Life Stories. Review of General Psychology, 5(2), 100–122. DOI: 10.1037/1089-2680.5.2.100.
(Return to Main Text)

Newman, George E.; Bloom, Paul; Knobe, Joshua (2014). Value Judgments and the True Self. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 40(2), 203–216. DOI: 10.1177/0146167213508791.
(Return to Main Text)

Rivera, Grace N.; Christy, Andrew G.; Kim, Jinhyung; Vess, Matthew; Hicks, Joshua A.; Schlegel, Rebecca J. (2019). Understanding the Relationship Between Perceived Authenticity and Well-being. Review of General Psychology, 23(1), 113–126. DOI: 10.1037/gpr0000161.
(Return to Main Text)

Rogers, Carl R. (1995). On Becoming a Person: A Therapist’s View of Psychotherapy. Houghton Mifflin Company. ISBN: 9780395755310.
(Return to Main Text)

Ryan, William S.; Ryan, Richard 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, 23(1), 99–112. DOI: 10.1037/gpr0000162.
(Return to Main Text)

Schlegel, Rebecca J.; Hicks, Joshua A.; Davis, William E.; Hirsch, Kelly A.; Smith, Christina M. (2013). The Dynamic Interplay Between Perceived True Self-Knowledge and Decision Satisfaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 104(3), 542–558. DOI: 10.1037/a0031183.
(Return to Main Text)

Sedikides, Constantine; Lenton, Alison P.; Slabu, Letitia; Thomaes, Sander (2019). Sketching the Contours of State Authenticity. Review of General Psychology, 23(1), 73–88. DOI: 10.1037/gpr0000156.
(Return to Main Text)

Strohminger, Nina; Knobe, Joshua; Newman, George E. (2017). The True Self: A Psychological Concept Distinct From the Self. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 12(4), 551–560. DOI: 10.1177/1745691616689495.
(Return to Main Text)

Sullivan, Harry Stack (1953). The Interpersonal Theory of Psychiatry. W. W. Norton & Company. ISBN: 9780393001389.
(Return to Main Text)

Swann, William B., Jr.; Read, Stephen J. (1981). Self-Verification Processes: How We Sustain Our Self-Conceptions. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 17(4), 351–372. DOI: 10.1016/0022-1031(81)90043-3.
(Return to Main Text)

Winnicott, Donald Woods (1960/1965). Ego Distortion in Terms of True and False Self. In The Maturational Processes and the Facilitating Environment: Studies in the Theory of Emotional Development (pp. 140–152). The Hogarth Press and the Institute of Psycho-Analysis.
(Return to Main Text)