epubs.surrey.ac.ukepubs.surrey.ac.uk/814077/1/CDPS_Authenticity... · Web viewWord count: 2800. Contact author ... including artwork, music, architecture, cuisine ... Understanding

Running Head: JUDGMENT OF AUTHENTICITY OF CULTURAL PRODUCTS

THE AUTHENTICITY OF CULTURAL PRODUCTS: A PSYCHOLOGICAL

PERSPECTIVE

Robert Kreuzbauer

Nanyang Technological University

Joshua Keller

Nanyang Technological University

Keywords: Authenticity, Psychological Valuation, Judgment, Cultural Evolution,

Art, Heritage

Word count: 2800

Contact author: Robert Kreuzbauer, Department of Marketing and International

Business, Nanyang Business School, Nanyang Technological University. Both

authors equally contributed to this work.

1


The authenticity of cultural products: a psychological perspective

Abstract

Authenticity is a central concern in the evaluation of cultural products. But why

do people judge some cultural products as more authentic than others? We

provide a psychological explanation centered on the judgment of authenticity as

a ‘truth-seeking’ process. Observers evaluate whether the perceivable features of

the cultural product truthfully capture cultural knowledge, as well as the

inferred agency control and intentionality of the producer as a conveyer of

cultural knowledge. We argue that while no cultural product is inherently

authentic, individuals rely on the same psychological processes when judging

cultural products’ authenticity. We discuss how our approach applies to any

cultural product, including art, architecture, cuisine, tourism and sports.

2


Introduction

A foreign tourist walks through the streets of Naples in search of the most

authentic pizza. She reads a tour guide that explains how authentic pizza must

possess only four ingredients and recommends a pizzeria that follows this rule.

However, on arrival she sees a roomful of other foreign tourists, an English menu

and pizza-themed t-shirts for sale. Concerned about the pizzeria’s authenticity,

she then seeks another pizzeria with no foreign patrons and no English on the

menu. When she discovers an extensive list of pizza toppings, she begins to

wonder again about the pizzeria’s authenticity, but is reassured after a local

patron vouches for its quality. She has made a judgment of authenticity, which

she then uses to evaluate her meal.

The judgment of authenticity is a central concern in the evaluation of all cultural

products, including art (Kreuzbauer, King & Basu, 2015; Newman & Bloom,

2012; Phillips & Steiner, 1999), cuisine (Ebster & Guist, 2005), tourism (Cohen,

1988), and consumer goods (Grayson & Martinec, 2004; Kreuzbauer et al., 2015).

But while there is wide recognition of authenticity’s importance, extent research

has given scant attention to the psychological mechanisms underlying people’s

own judgment of authenticity. Instead, researchers typically define authenticity

as being ‘original’ (e.g, Newman & Bloom, 2012) or being ‘true to the self or

identity’ (Vannini & Franzese, 2008). While these definitions provide a general

conceptualization, judgments of authenticity are far more complex in practice

(see Kreuzbauer et al., 2015 for a more detailed discussion). For example, a

painting with an original motif created by a computer algorithm would be

considered original but would unlikely be judged as authentic (see Kreuzbauer,

3


et al., 2015; Kreuzbauer, 2016). Meanwhile, the New York Public library and

Beverly Hills mansions both have classical Greek-style columns. Although few

people would believe that either building was from the ancient world, most

people would likely judge the former as being more authentic than the latter.

So how do individuals judge authenticity? Recent research suggests that the

judgment of authenticity is not a simple heuristic based on perceived originality

or self-identity, but an elaborate psychological process of ‘truth-seeking’

(Grayson & Martinec, 2004; Nöth, 1995; Kreuzbauer, 2002). As we explain

below, this includes an evaluation of whether the perceivable features of the

cultural product truthfully capture a respective set of cultural knowledge, as well

as the inferred agency control and intentionality of the producer.

Some scholars have argued that judgments of authenticity are socially

constructed interpretations of the object by the observer and not properties

inherent to the object (Beverland, 2006; Grayson & Martinec, 2004; Rose &

Wood, 2005). We agree that social and individual factors contribute to the

observer’s judgment of authenticity, but we also recognize that there are

underlying psychological processes involved in the judgment of authenticity that

are consistent across individuals and populations of individuals. Therefore, there

is nothing inherently authentic about a particular cultural product itself, but

human beings tend to rely on the same psychological process when judging these

products’ level of authenticity.

Our objective is to draw upon evidence from research about semiotics,

anthropology and recent work in experimental psychology to articulate a general

psychological account of the judgment of authenticity of cultural products. Our

4


approach can apply to any cultural product, including artwork, music,

architecture, cuisine, tourism and sports.

Figure 1: Process model of judgment of authenticity

Judgments of Authenticity as a Psychological Process of Truth-seeking

Our account of authenticity is based on the premise that human beings have a

natural ability to develop complex signs and sign-systems (e.g, Deacon, 1997).

According to semiotic science (Grayson & Martinec, 2004; Kreuzbauer, 2002;

Inferred Producer’s Intention(e.g., does the pizzeria want to make a quick sell to non-knowledgeable tourists and therefore deviate

from the cultural tradition)

Inferred Producer’s Agency Control• Knowledge Extraction• Knowledge Transformation

(e.g., does the pizza baker know the Neapolitan way of pizza making and is he/she able to bake a pizza according to this

cultural tradition)

Goal and Rule Determination (e.g., identify a set of ingredients to determine whether

pizza X follows the Neapolitan tradition of pizza making)

5


Nöth, 1995, Peirce & Houser, 1998), a sign consists of a sign-vehicle and its

related sign-object. The sign-vehicle (signifier) is the perceivable representation

(e.g., portrait) and the sign-object (signified) is the entity or physical object (e.g.,

the person who has been depicted) that is represented. A judgment of

authenticity is a psychological process where a perceiver determines whether a

sign-vehicle truthfully represents its respective object (see the process model in

Figure 1). This representation can either be causal (indexicality: smoke to

indicate fire) or based on a similarity relationship (iconicity: a portrait to

represent the depicted person; Grayson & Martinec, 2004). For example, to

determine whether a portrait (sign-vehicle) is an authentic representation of the

depicted person (object), one engages in a psychological process of truth-seeking

where a perceiver would, for example, compare the facial features from the

portrait with the facial features from the real person. However, because cultural

products are more complex signs that often represent multifaceted and abstract

cultural entities, such simple feature comparisons are typically infeasible.

Consequently, the process is supplemented with additional psychological

procedures to examine the producer’s level of agency control and intentions.

Determining the Goal and Rule for Judging Authenticity

What are these mechanisms? As we recall, the tourist in Naples described in the

above example was inquiring about whether the pizza at a pizzeria was a true

representation of the local pizza making tradition. To find out, she could engage

in a field study where she interviews a group of local pizza chefs, critics, or other

people who might have rich cultural knowledge (e.g., grandmothers) about this

tradition of food production. Subsequently she could identify some features of

6


the pizza from the restaurant and compare them to information she received

from the field study. The outcome would follow a typical categorization process

(e.g., Barsalou, 1983; Medin & Atran, 2004) where the goal determines the rule

for identifying relevant features to compare the sign-vehicle and the cultural

entity. For example, the goal could be to determine whether the pizza and/or the

pizzeria represent Neapolitan pizza making. Answering this question would

require a rule-based comparison to identify certain ingredients (e.g., mozzarella

cheese) or production procedures (e.g., wood-fire oven). This procedure would

follow an iterative sequence, where the person may start with a first set of

apparently relevant features (e.g., wheat flour, filtered water, fresh tomatoes,

mozzarella cheese) and occasionally update them after further emersion into the

local culture (e.g., learning new traditional wood-fire oven baking procedures).

Agency Control over Knowledge Extraction and Transformation

A problem, however, arises when this extensive search process is infeasible or

economically taxing. Rather than an extensive first-hand search, individuals may

instead try to gain further clarity by making subsequent inferences about the

producer. For example, as illustrated in our example of pizzerias in Naples, the

tourist might begin to doubt the authenticity of pizza made at a pizzeria that is

part of a chain and the operator of the chain outlet is simply following

instructions and has no ‘true’ knowledge of local Naples pizza making culture. In

fact, even if the tourist knew the chain operator had such knowledge, she might

still doubt the pizza’s authenticity because the streamlined production

procedure of a chain restaurant may prevent the transfer of knowledge into the

making of the pizza.

7


The importance of agency control during judgments of authenticity has been

extensively researched by Kreuzbauer et al, (2015) as well as Kreuzbauer

(2016). As they have shown in their empirical studies, original artwork has a

higher perceived value than identical copies because it more accurately

represent the materialization of the artist’s expression during the moment of

creation (e.g., when a painting was drawn). This is because when producing an

original piece of art, the artist maintains agency control over the artist’s own

expression. Originality, itself, does not affect judgment of authenticity. In fact,

objects with design-motifs, which were designed by a computer algorithm, were

perceived as less authentic, despite having equal levels of uniqueness and

scarcity as artist-created motifs.

Perceived agency control can also explain the importance of production

procedures for judgments of authenticity (Kreuzbauer et al, 2015; Kreuzbauer,

2016). Artworks made by hand or an analog procedure are often favored over

those produced by automatic machinery or involving digital processing. This is

due to the fact that the former procedures are more likely than the latter

procedures to ensure agency control over the accurate transformation of cultural

knowledge into the final product. For example, automation and digitalization

often standardizes the final product and therefore ‘wipes out’ the unique

expression which the artist, designer or craftsman intended to embody in the

final product (Kreuzbauer, 2016). However, automatic and digital procedures

can still enable agency control when an equal number of motifs are transformed

into individual material end-objects on a one-to-one basis. For example, a series

of five digitally printed art-objects representing five uniquely different art-motifs

are still judged as authentic (Kreuzbauer, 2016).

8


Inferred Producer’s Intention

The judgment of authenticity is also based on the inferred intentions of the

producer. Individuals want to know whether the producer has altered the

product in a way that deviates from the producer’s original expression to

manipulate the audience or placate social expectations. For example, pizzerias

that cater to tourists are more likely to be perceived as inauthentic because the

patron is more likely to infer from the presence of tourists that the pizzeria

owner either wants to change the recipe to be more palatable to tourists’ tastes

to earn more money or to simply be nice to foreign guests. Such inferences about

the producer’s intention (see Tomasello, Carpenter, Call, Behne & Mollare, 2005)

not always easy to make when certain sign-vehicles can be referred to different

sign-objects. For example, neither an Ancient-Greek style Beverly Hills mansion

nor an Ancient-Greek style public library were built during antiquity. Yet, unlike

the Beverly Hills mansion, American observers of the public library may see the

Ancient-Greek features of the building as a symbol of democracy and judge the

building as authentic because they infer that the producer of the library wanted

to incorporate democratic symbols.

Finally, because of the uncertainty involved in making inferences, perceivers

often defer their judgment of agency or intentionality to others. For example, in

one study, Kreuzbauer & Huang (2014) asked lay people to rate designs for the

reconstruction of a culturally iconic building that had been destroyed during a

war. The results showed that most people preferred the reconstructed building

to have the same design as the original over a contemporary design or a hybrid

9


between the two. However, these differences disappeared when they were told

the design was proposed by a panel of experts.

Conclusion

As we have described above, judgments of authenticity of cultural products are

fundamental psychological judgments to determine whether a cultural product’s

sign-vehicle truthfully represents its respective sign-object. As illustrated in

Figure 1, observers first try to judge the similarity between features of the sign-

vehicle and the object. If uncertain, observers continue making inferences about

the producer’s agency control over knowledge extraction and transformation, as

well as the producer’s intention to honestly signal cultural knowledge through

the sign. The process is iterative, because during every stage, observers update

their judgment process. For example, the tourist might first believe that

ingredients are most important but then notices that production procedures are

more relevant and thus begins comparing features related to production.

Our emphasis on the inferred agency control and intentionality of the producer

in the judgment of authenticity of cultural products suggests new avenues for

future research on the underlying psychological mechanisms that guide

individuals’ relationship to cultural products. For example, previous research has

found that cultural symbols can invoke emotional attachments to those who

identify with the culture (Hong, Fang, Yang, & Phua, 2013; Yap, Christopoulos, &

Hong, 2017). Future research can explore how the iconicity of cultural products

(e.g., a pizza as a representation of Napoli culture) triggers emotional attachment

and how the emotional attachment is contingent on the inferred agency control

and intentionality of the producer. Previous research also points to cultural

10


products as critical tools of cultural learning, as they convey knowledge of both

instrumental action and cultural convention (Legare & Harris, 2016; Phillips,

Seston, & Kelemen, 2012; Tomasello, 2016), such as a mug that conveys

knowledge of liquid capturing and ceramic design. Future research can explore

how the knowledge that the observer acquires depends on the inferred agency

control and instrumentality of the producer, as well as the observer’s attention

to instrumental or conventional aspects of the product.

Finally, cultural evolutionary theories suggest that cultural products serve as

instruments of cultural knowledge transfer across generations (Henrich, 2015;

Sterelny, 2012). Because of the consistency in the psychological mechanisms

used to assess cultural products, our understanding of judgments of authenticity

may help illuminate how cultural knowledge is reliably transferred from one

generation to the next.

References

Beverland, M. B. (2006). The „Real Thing : Branding Authenticity in the Luxury ‟

Wine Trade. Journal of Business Research, 59 (February), 251-258.

Barsalou, L. W. (1983). Ad hoc categories. Memory & cognition, 11(3), 211-227.

Cohen, E. (1988). Authenticity and commoditization in tourism. Annals of tourism

research, 15(3): 371-386.

Deacon, T. (1997). The symbolic species: the co-evolution of language and the

human brain. London: Allen Lane.

Ebster, C., & Guist, I. 2005. The role of authenticity in ethnic theme restaurants.

Journal of Foodservice Business Research, 7(2): 41-52.

11


Grayson, K., & Martinec, R. (2004). Consumer perceptions of iconicity and

indexicality and their influence on assessments of authentic market

offerings. Journal of consumer research, 31(2): 296-312.

Henrich, J., (2015). The secret of our success: how culture is driving human

evolution, domesticating our species, and making us smarter. Princeton

University Press.

Hong, Y.-y., Fang, Y., Yang, Y., & Phua, D. Y. 2013. Cultural attachment: A new

theory and method to understand cross-cultural competence. Journal of

Cross-Cultural Psychology, 44(6): 1024-1044.

Kreuzbauer, R. (2002). Design and brand: The influence of product form on the

formation of brands. Springer-Verlag.

Kreuzbauer, R. (2016). Producing Authenticity: How Production Procedures Affect

The Value of Authentic Products, Working paper.

Kreuzbauer, R. & Huang, M. (2014), unpublished data.

Kreuzbauer, R., King, D., & Basu, S. (2015). The mind in the object—Psychological

valuation of materialized human expression. Journal of Experimental

Psychology: General, 144(4): 764.

Legare, C. H., & Harris, P. L. 2016. The ontogeny of cultural learning. Child

development, 87(3): 633-642.

Medin, D. L., & Atran, S. (2004). The native mind: biological categorization and

reasoning in development and across cultures. Psychological review,

111(4), 960.

Newman, G. E., & Bloom, P. (2012). Art and authenticity: the importance of

originals in judgments of value. Journal of Experimental Psychology:

General,141(3), 558.

12


Nöth, W. (1995). Handbook of semiotics. Indiana University Press.

Peirce, C. S., & Houser, N. (1998). The essential Peirce: selected philosophical

writings (Vol. 2). Indiana University Press.

Phillips, R. B., & Steiner, C. B. (1999). Unpacking culture: art and commodity in

colonial and postcolonial worlds: Univ of California Press.

Phillips, B., Seston, R., & Kelemen, D. (2012). Learning about tool categories via

eavesdropping. Child development, 83(6): 2057-2072.

Rose, RL & Wood SL (2005). Paradox and the consumption of authenticity

through reality television. Journal of consumer research 32 (2), 284-296

Sterelny, K. (2012). The evolved apprentice. MIT press.

Tomasello, M. 2016. The ontogeny of cultural learning. Current Opinion in

Psychology, 8: 1-4.

Tomasello, M., Carpenter, M., Call, J., Behne, T. & Moll, H. (2005). Understanding

and sharing intentions: The origins of cultural cognition. Behavioral and

Brain Sciences. 28: 675–691.

Vannini, P., & Franzese, A. (2008). The authenticity of self: Conceptualization,

personal experience, and practice. Sociology Compass,2(5), 1621-1637.

Yap, W. J., Christopoulos, G. I., & Hong, Y.-y. 2017. Physiological responses

associated with cultural attachment. Behavioural Brain Research.

Suggested readings

1. Kreuzbauer, R., King, D., & Basu, S. (2015). The mind in the object—

Psychological valuation of materialized human expression. Journal of

Experimental Psychology: General, 144(4): 764.

13


Note: A theory of authenticity in particular to explain why originals value more

than duplicates

2. Grayson, K., & Martinec, R. (2004). Consumer perceptions of iconicity and

indexicality and their influence on assessments of authentic market

offerings. Journal of consumer research, 31(2): 296-312.

Note: Explains authenticity in the context of semiotics and consumption

3. Henrich, J., (2015). The secret of our success: how culture is driving human

evolution, domesticating our species, and making us smarter. Princeton

University Press.

Note: Explains human's ability of social learning and intergenerational

knowledge transfer and its relevance for large-scale cooperation.

14

Documents

epubs.surrey.ac.ukepubs.surrey.ac.uk/814077/1/CDPS_Authenticity... · Web viewWord count: 2800. Contact author ... including artwork, music, architecture, cuisine ... Understanding