Reasonably Political
Reasonably Political is a podcast that brings scientific research into public debate without unnecessary jargon.
Hosted by Semih Çakır, a political scientist at the University of Ottawa, each episode explores a key political question through conversations with leading researchers, translating their findings into real-world insights.
From representation and polarization to voting behavior and public opinion, the podcast helps you make sense of today’s political challenges using evidence, not guesswork.
Reasonably Political
Authentic or Scripted? Why Do Some Politicians Seem More "Real" Than Others and Why Does It Matter?
Use Left/Right to seek, Home/End to jump to start or end. Hold shift to jump forward or backward.
In this episode, I sit down with John Kenny, a political scientist at the University of Southampton, to explore why some politicians are perceived as authentic while others come across as fake or scripted.
Drawing on research on political authenticity, John explains what makes politicians seem authentic to voters, why authenticity matters for political evaluations, and how these perceptions shape how individuals evaluate political leaders and vote.
We also discuss why authenticity is often associated with populist politicians, how social media affects perceptions of authenticity, and why voters sometimes value politicians who appear blunt, unscripted, or unconventional.
This episode explores how authenticity has become one of the important qualities in modern politics, and why perceptions of being “real” can shape political success just as much as competence or policy positions.
The research discussed in this episode is based on the following articles:
Dieter Stiers, Jac Larner, John Kenny, Sofia Breitenstein, Florence Vallée-Dubois and Michael Lewis-Beck. 2021. "Candidate Authenticity: `To Thine Own Self Be True' " Political Behavior 43(3): 1181-1204.
John Kenny and Lucas Geese. 2025. "An Authenticity Expectations Gap? A Comparison of Publics' and Members of Parliament's Views on Politicians Being True to Themselves" Polity 57(2): 350-369.
Hi, this is the Reasonably Political Podcast, and I am Semi Chekar, a political scientist at the University of Ottawa. In this podcast, I explore how scientific research helps us understand the political challenges we face in our societies. My goal is to make scientific research accessible to a broader audience and bring evidence-based perspective to public debates. But don't worry, we keep things clear and avoid unnecessary jargon or technical language, or at least we try to. In this episode, we explore a question that has become increasingly important in modern politics. Why do some politicians seem authentic while others come across as fake or scripted? Authenticity can shape who waters trust, connect with, and ultimately support. To better understand what political authenticity means and why it matters, I'm joined by John Kenney, a political scientist at the University of Southampton, whose research examines how citizens perceive political authenticity and how these perceptions shape the way waters evaluate politicians. John, it's a real pleasure to have you here. Thanks a lot for joining me on this episode. Thanks for having me. Okay, let's start with the concept itself. Authenticity is a word we hear quite a bit in politics. But John, what do we mean when we say a politician is authentic?
SPEAKER_01So yes, so I think it is true that we do hear the word authentic being used a lot in recent years. And it's not just in politics, but more broadly in society. So for instance, Miriam Webster declared authentic is their word of the year in 2023. So it's something that's very prominent at the moment. But in its broadest sense, authenticity captures a sense of realness and being true to one's origins. So when a politician is called authentic, it usually means that they're perceived as being true to themselves and that their behaviors and actions match their core values. So an authentic politician does not try to hide who they are or to put on an act. It's very much a case of what you see is what you get. So in that sense, it is considered as something desirable for a politician to be seen in this way. And maybe another way to understand it is to think of what's the opposite of it, which is being inauthentic. And this tends to refer to a perception that the politician is fake and you do not really know who they actually are. And that's an image no politician would wish to be associated with.
SPEAKER_00All right. One thing that is interesting in your research is that authenticity isn't just one thing, it is made up of different elements. Can you walk us through what makes a politician seem authentic? Sure.
SPEAKER_01So a key component is consistency. And by that, what I mean is that if a politician consistently maintains their stances in a sincere way over a long period of time and do not abandon them lightly, or when it may be politically expedient to do so, that can be one indicator of authenticity. So to give an example, if we think, for example, of Jeremy Corbyn, who was the former leader of the Labour Party in Britain from 2015 to 2020. So before he had this leadership rule, he had been a backbencher and during the new Labour governments of 1997 to 2010, he had voted against the party flip over 400 times. And in the British party system, the potential reprimands for such behavior can be quite severe and even prevent career advancement. This was one indicator for why he had been perceived in some discourses as being authentic. Related to this, you also have transparency. If a politician is perceived to be authentic, individuals must be able to form an opinion of what they represent and what their views are. So if a politician does not reveal these or is seen as being guarded, then this cannot be done. And to be transparent, it may involve providing insights into their personal life and not just their professional life. What is also important for an authentic politician is that they display conviction and are not afraid to speak out. So rather than the speech is being driven by spin doctors or opinion polls, the authentic politician should be able to communicate directly and clearly and with passion. They do not sugarcoat when communicating. And again, to contrast this with the inauthentic politician, an inauthentic politician may conversely be seen as being too scripted or unwilling or unable to offer frank views that stray from a script. And maybe something finally that I'll say for the moment on this is that one other thing that has been found in some studies to relate to politicians being taught of as authentic is being ordinary. This is an image that, rather than being elitist, in essence the politician is just like any other regular citizen, and they haven't let their position go to their head.
SPEAKER_00So, John, if I'm watching a debate, what signals would make me think, oh, okay, this person is really authentic? There are a few things.
SPEAKER_01For one, they don't stumble over their words. They speak clearly and directly and provide an impression that they're sincere in what they're saying and have a vision. They should also speak with passion rather than appearing that they're just going through the motions. If they're repeating the same mantras over and over again, it can look stale and potentially that they're afraid of straying from a pre-prepared script. They should also be willing to answer difficult questions rather than shy away from them. They don't apologize for their views or their stances, but provide a rationale for why they hold these views in a way that appears genuine. And I think in essence, it's really that they come across as being themselves rather than being robotic, disingenuous, or putting on an act.
SPEAKER_00Okay. Does this mean that authentic candidates would be less interested in being politically correct?
SPEAKER_01So that can be the case for certain politicians, especially when it comes to populist politicians. The populist element and the not being politically correct together often help with perceptions of authenticity. And it's also the way they carry themselves can give the impression that this is maybe quite a risky thing to be saying or quite out of the norm. So I must really mean it if I'm saying this. And being willing to stray from the norm can help with that authenticity perception. But I think it's also important to clarify that while it can help, it's not a necessary condition. So you can come across as authentic without being politically incorrect, as long as it comes across as sincere.
SPEAKER_00One thing I've really found interesting in your paper is that authenticity is not quite the same thing as honesty or integrity. Could you explain that distinction in simple terms for listeners?
SPEAKER_01Of course. So integrity captures whether a politician is considered to be an individual of morales. And honesty obviously is a requirement of being someone of that nature. But while integrity generally implies a commitment to desirable and worthy principles, an authentic individual can be committed to principles that could be morally undesirable or even devious. But as long as they're consistent with their true selves, they can still be authentic. And maybe to put it another way, the honesty that plays a role here is not necessarily the honesty of telling the truth, but instead it can be presenting oneself to the general public openly and freely, not hiding one's thoughts or not adapting one's behavior because they are a president or a prime minister or any other role. So in this sense, speaking one's mind can be more important to perceptions of authenticity than speaking the truth. And this is one way scholars have reconciled the fact, for example, that Donald Trump has regularly been seen as authentic, despite making statements that are often later demonstrated to not be factually correct. And there's a recent article by Gun Enley, for instance, that argues that Trump is extremely consistent in his style, his message, his rhetoric, and his spontaneity, which helps him with this image. So I think we can see that even though he is not necessarily honest in the way you would expect someone to be if they were high in integrity, it's that sense of the honesty in speaking one's mind that can help him with those perceptions.
SPEAKER_00Okay, so can we say that authenticity is not necessarily about being good, but it's more about being true to yourself? Is that a fair way to think about it? Completely. I think that's a very fair summary. Okay, great. So let's talk about your findings a little bit. Does authenticity really matter for how people evaluate politicians?
SPEAKER_01So in a previous study with some colleagues, we tested this across a number of different contexts. And what we found was that when individuals found a senior political leader to be more authentic, they evaluated them as more positively than those who they deemed less authentic. And in some countries, we found a similar association between evaluating party leaders as more authentic and having more positive views of that leader's party.
SPEAKER_00So how big is this effect? If a politician is seen as more authentic, how much does it actually change how people feel about them?
SPEAKER_01Okay, so if a politician is seen as more authentic, it is associated with them being like more, generally speaking, but the effect of it is probably best measured by looking at how this compares to positive evaluations on other more established traits, like for example, seeing them as being empathetic or being good leaders or showing integrity. And what we found in our study was that the effect of authenticity was often as strong, if not as stronger, than evaluations on other traits.
SPEAKER_00Okay. And beyond just liking a politician, does authenticity affect whether people vote for them?
SPEAKER_01So in that particular study, what we found was that people who turned candidates more authentic were more willing to have a vote intention for them.
SPEAKER_00So of course, people also tend to evaluate politicians from their own party more positively in general. So could part of this simply be partisan bias that people see the leaders they already support as more authentic? Or would authenticity still matter when voters compare different leaders from the same party?
SPEAKER_01Okay, so that's an excellent question. There were some studies that have found that people are more likely to have positive views of candidates when they come from a party they like. So this is something that myself and colleagues have looked into in a context in which everyone was voting for individuals of the same party. So this context was the IRA Democratic Caucus of 2020. And to bring ourselves back to that time, this was the election in which Biden would end up going and winning the presidency for the Democrats. And in a survey we carried out, we had a survey of people who were registered voters for the competition. And these were all either Democrats or independents, and all of the candidates at the time were Democratic candidates. And in this context, we found, for instance, when it came to Biden, that people who thought Biden was more authentic were more likely to vote for him than for the other Democratic candidates.
SPEAKER_00So even in situations where partisan bias is less relevant, authenticity still seems to matter for who people would support. Okay, nice. So, John, you test this across several countries. Do people understand authenticity in the same way everywhere? Or does it depend on the political context?
SPEAKER_01So, what we have found, and what's also been found by the scholars in the area, is that there does seem to be a fairly consistent understanding of people in different countries of what it means to consider a politician as authentic. Different scholars have different ways of measuring it, but the ingredients seem to work similarly in different countries. But one thing that I'll caveat with that is most of the existing studies have taken place in Western contexts, especially in North America and Western Europe. So across these contexts, they do seem to work similarly, but a lot of work has to be done to see if it travels to other countries.
SPEAKER_00Okay, so authenticity matters, and it seems to matter quite consistently. But that raises an important question. Where do these perceptions come from? How do people decide whether a politician is authentic?
SPEAKER_01So it depends on the exposure that they have to a particular candidate. So in some contexts, this could be from knowing a lot about their history, being quite familiar with who they are as a person. But for the general public, it's generally mediated through the media. This could be through traditional media, it could be through social media, it could be through watching leaders debate. So those are usually the ways in which people get to know about candidates. And then they make judgments on them based on different criteria. So the factors that I talked about earlier that one can think of as to whether a candidate might be authentic or not, they come into play here.
SPEAKER_00Do you think uh social media makes it easier for politicians to appear authentic?
SPEAKER_01So, in a lot of ways, social media can be a double-edged sword for politicians. Because, on the one hand, it offers them an unfiltered medium through which they can express themselves and communicate directly to the public and their voters. This isn't just in terms of their policy stances, but also in giving an insight into their personal lives. Often politicians may post pictures of their family or their vacations or their hobbies that the average person would never have known about had social media not been there. And it gives a window into their lives that gives a better insight. But when I say it's a double-edged sword, it can also work the other way. Because if politicians are trying to use social media in a strategic way to give an impression of being authentic, and then something happens that maybe destroys this image, it's much easier for that destruction of authenticity to go viral and to be seen more widely. So it can it's a tool that can help, but as much as it helps for some politicians, it can also destroy it easier.
SPEAKER_00Do you think social media also makes it easier to notice when politicians are inconsistent? Which is something that probably happens to everyone from time to time, and that this can end up hurting perceptions of their authenticity a lot easier.
SPEAKER_01It can be, and something that has come up in practice is historical social media posts by politicians, often before they've even run for political office before. There's an imprint of these online, and what has happened to many a politician is people have gone back through their timelines and they've discovered posts that have different messages or suggest different values than the ones they currently have, which then sets a perception of inconsistency. And it's also the case that some politicians, even while they are in active office, may put out a particular position. Four or five years, they may change their mind for various reasons, and then that's much more easily picked up than in the traditional media landscape.
SPEAKER_00Okay. A lot of politicians described as authentic are also labelled as populists. Do you see a connection there?
SPEAKER_01I do. There's a study, for instance, that was carried out in Norway that looked at perceptions of different party leaders there and different individuals, and they found that the more populist politicians were more likely to be seen as authentic. And one of the reasons for this is that the way that populists often behave often go in line with the factors that demonstrate authenticity. So if you think of being spontaneous, about not being afraid to speak out, about being willing to take actions regardless of the political costs, also being seen as ordinary, being like, look, we are one of the people, we're not proud of the elite. That's something that helps. Another thing that helps for populist leaders is that up until relatively recently, there was a lot of populist political leaders who have been quite prominent, but who have never held government office. And because they haven't held government office before, it's meant that they haven't tested whether what they say they would do in a certain circumstance is actually what would happen. So obviously in recent years, we've had more purpless politicians get into power, but all in all, it does help. But what I will also say is that while it helps, it's not necessary. So if we think of an authentic politician who is more mainstream, we can think, for example, of Cinderden in New Zealand, who was often put forward as someone who was very authentic for various reasons, but she would have been from a mainstream party rather than a populist variety.
SPEAKER_00All right. So, John, you measure authenticity in surveys. So very briefly, how would you measure something like authenticity in a survey?
SPEAKER_01Okay, so there are a number of different ways. So one is you can directly ask respondents how authentic do you think a candidate is? The advantage of this is it leaves it to the respondent to decide what they think authenticity is and whether a candidate has it or is or they don't. The disadvantage is that if you want to make sure that respondents are thinking of the same thing, then it's a bit less precise. Another way you can tap into this is by measuring the different components of authenticity directly. And in that way, you know what you're getting at. So what we've done is we've developed a measure that brings together, for instance, the candidate is not afraid to speak out. They always say what they think. When they give a speech, it's just straight stuff. They won't change your opinion just to get votes, they bes behave the same in public as in private. So then you can put these together and then you can use that to measure authenticity.
SPEAKER_00Okay, so basically you are measuring authenticity through several different components that together shape whether a politician is perceived as authentic.
SPEAKER_01That's right.
SPEAKER_00So if authenticity matters this much, why aren't all politicians trying to come across as authentic? Is there a trade-off between being authentic and being strategic in politics?
SPEAKER_01Okay, so thinking that over, authenticity is one trait, but there are other traits that exist. So for example, you have competence, empathy, leadership, and integrity. And these would be the traits that would have been looked at the most over the past 40, 50 years or so. And just like in policy terms, when politicians want and parties want to highlight their policies they're strongest on, and perhaps pay less attention to the others. If a politician is trying to win an election, they may want to put the focus on the traits they're particularly good at. So for example, why don't all politicians try to be authentic? It may be because they're not particularly good on that front, but they may come across stronger as being more competent or maybe having good leadership abilities. So that's one reason. There is also a trade-off between being authentic and being strategic in some ways, because what you really want to be, if you want to be perceived as authentic, it should appear as natural. Uh, if you try too hard to be authentic, it may backfire as people may actually think you're doing it strategically, and then you're seen as inauthentic.
SPEAKER_00So, John, in this case, can politicians fake authenticity or do voters eventually see through that?
SPEAKER_01So it is certainly something that politicians can fake. So there's a book by Michael Sarrazio called The Authenticity Industries that looks into in the case of the US, how the construction of authenticity is a core aim for political campaigns and that it's often done in a superficial way, rather than necessarily one geared towards substance. But in terms of whether voters can see through this, there is the thing that the longer one remains in the public eye, the more difficult it is to sustain a perception of authenticity if it is all in act. So over time, it's something that's harder to maintain.
SPEAKER_00So my take is that uh from what I understand, once a politician is seen as inauthentic, that's something that they cannot recover from, right?
SPEAKER_01Aaron Powell It's certainly extremely difficult to recover from. And in this way, it is different to other traits of politicians. So if we think, for example, of competence, there have been politicians who have done relatively awful jobs at particular portfolio. But they've recovered a perception for competence when they've been put into another portfolio or taken another position, or the political environment changes and suddenly they start to shine. But with authenticity, because it's about representing the true you, if you get a perception that you have been faking or you have been insincere in expressing your true values, that's something people tend to remember more. And it's much harder to turn around.
SPEAKER_00Okay, let me ask you a broader question. When we judge politicians, should we trust our instinct about who feels authentic, or should we be more cautious about that?
SPEAKER_01It is certainly a useful signal, and voters all over the world do first their instincts about how they feel about different politicians. But what I would say is that it shouldn't be taken in isolation, and that it shouldn't be the only criteria that individuals apply when they judge politicians.
SPEAKER_00Okay. Do you think authenticity has become more important in politics today than it used to be? Is that your perception?
SPEAKER_01So I think it has, and I think for this we need to go back and think what politics was like in the second half of the 20th century. So around this time, there's an increasing professionalization of politics in many countries, with more politicians specifically choosing politics as a career from an early age, rather than necessarily entering into elected office from other professions. So today, political careers tend to start earlier and last longer than Drew's case in the past. And while this is relevant to authenticity today is that it has led to the image of politicians as being more careerist. Because you have more politicians in elected office that rely on politics as a career than previously, there has arisen a stereotype that rather than achieving real meaningful societal changes. Some politicians now prioritize re-election more than in the past. And under this narrative, politicians may be perceived as selling out into principles to retain their seat, or indeed not having any principles to begin with, and to go with whatever seems to be popular at any given moment. This could involve telling voters what they believe they want to hear rather than putting forward a vision that is true to their own ideals, or even making promises that they know they will not be able to deliver on. And it could also involve them advocating for policies that are good for their donors rather than for their constituents. And so while I want to emphasize that this is a stereotype of the political class, the professionalization of politics has gone hand in hand with decreasing political trust. And therefore, in recent years, authenticity has been seen as an antidote to this malaise and a way to restore trust. So, with that, that can partly help explain why we tend to talk about authenticity more now than we had in the past. But what I will also say is that it's difficult to say this with certainty because it's really only over the last decade that scholars have really developed political authenticity as a study in its own right. And there is, for example, some work last year published that argued that the growth of authenticity in the US actually dates back to 1976 with the election of Jimmy Carter, who campaigned as a peanut farmer. It's definitely more salient now than it had been previously, but we can also find authenticity playing a role in earlier times.
SPEAKER_00That is a really interesting historical perspective, and it also helps put today's politics into context. So does this give an advantage to political outsiders since they may be less likely to conform to political norms and expectations in the same way as established politicians?
SPEAKER_01It certainly does. And one of the real advantages that political outsiders have is that they have never had to make compromises in political office. So one of the challenges with maintaining authenticity as a senior politician, especially in government, is that circumstances arise in which compromises need to be made in order to make progress, which sometimes can dent people's perceptions of how true you are to your core beliefs. But if you're a political outsider, you come fresh of these scenarios, which makes it more likely that you can argue that this is what you would do in staying true to yourself in such circumstances.
SPEAKER_00Up to now, we've been talking about authenticity as something voters seem to like, something that can shape how they evaluate politicians and even how they vote. But there is an important nuance here. In another study, you look at how much authenticity voters expect from politicians and how much authenticity politicians themselves think they should show. And you find what you call an authenticity expectations gap. Can you explain what you do in that study and what you mean by that gap?
SPEAKER_01Of course. So in this study, myself and my co-author were interested in measuring trade-offs because ideally people want all the good things, but there can be circumstances in which you do need to trade one good factor off with another. So we do know that in reality there are constraints which may make it more challenging for politicians to keep their authenticity in particular circumstances. So in this study that you're referring to, we carried out representative surveys of adult populations in Britain and Germany, but we also surveyed MPs in both of these countries so we could compare what voters thought should happen in situations in which authenticity may be challenged versus what MPs themselves would do. So to be more specific, we asked MPs whether, in circumstances in which their own strongly held views came into conflict with those of their voters, political parties, and also independent experts, to what extent that they would act in accordance with their own views. And we then asked publics what they thought that MPs should do. And what was really interesting that emerged here was a big authenticity gap when it came to circumstances in which the MP's views would conflict with those of voters. In both of the countries, we found that MPs were more willing to agree that they would prioritize their own views than publics actually wanted them to do.
SPEAKER_00Okay, that's very interesting. People say that they want authentic politicians who stick to their beliefs, but at the same time, they also want politicians to represent them, even if that means not always being true to themselves. So what do people actually want? Is authenticity a bit of a double-edged sword in politics, or is it more like people want authenticity, but not always the same kind of authenticity?
SPEAKER_01This is a very interesting point. And what it really highlights, I think, is the issue of trade-offs. And ideally, voters could have their cake and they could eat it. Same for politicians, in that all of the desirable factors come together and don't contradict each other. But sometimes it may be the case that politicians don't agree with their voters, or it may be the case that in order to try and make an agreement on a difficult policy, that compromise is needed to bring sites together. And that's one of the advantages of representative democracy in that you can compromise and you can try and get a solution that works best for society. And I think with the questions you posed me there, in some ways we don't yet have the answers to all of these questions. So what will be particularly important as scholars continue to carry out research in this area is to explore more of these trade-offs and to try to uncover the circumstances when voters would prefer for their representatives to be earthly authentic, and then when are the times when they actually think other considerations should take precedence.
SPEAKER_00John, thank you so much for joining me today and for walking us through your research. This was a really insightful discussion.
SPEAKER_01Thank you for having me.
SPEAKER_00So here is my take. Voters often judge authenticity less based on whether politicians are factually correct and more based on whether they appear sincere, consistent, and willing to say what they actually think. And that helps explain why populist politicians are often perceived as authentic. Speaking bluntly, breaking political norms, and rejecting scripted communication can make politicians seem more genuine and more connected to people. But authenticity on its own is not necessarily a good guide for evaluating politicians. Democratic politics also requires competence, responsibility, and compromise. Thank you so much for listening to the Reasonably Political Podcast, and I'll see you next time.