Cited by 288Psychological Treatments and AssessmentsMindfulness and Compassion InterventionsAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 39 of the 40 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Unconditional Self-Acceptance and Psychological Health

Chamberlain, John M., Haaga, David A. F.·2001·Journal of Rational-Emotive and Cognitive-Behavior Therapy

Abstract

Low self-esteem is usually considered unhealthy, but according to rational-emotive behavior therapy, any level of self-esteem reflects a dysfunctional habit of globally evaluating one's worth; it would be preferable to accept oneself unconditionally. This hypothesis was tested by examining several correlates of scores on a novel questionnaire measure of unconditional self-acceptance (USA). In a nonclinical adult sample, statistically controlling for self-esteem, USA was inversely correlated with anxiety symptoms and with narcissism, positively correlated with state mood after imaginal exposure to negative events. Other predicted associations of USA (with depression, happiness, and self-deception) either were not evident or became non-significant when self-esteem was taken into account. Discussion centered on the conceptual and operational distinctions between self-esteem and self-acceptance. © 2001 Human Sciences Press, Inc.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1023/a:1011189416600

Cites

39 of 39 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Unconditional self-acceptance in non-clinical samples has been shown to negatively correlate with anxiety.

    “unconditional self-acceptance in non-clinical samples has been shown to negatively correlate with anxiety (Chamberlain and Haaga 2001)”

    From Experiences of autism acceptance and mental health in autistic adults (2018) · cites this paper as Chamberlain and Haaga 2001

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 40 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Beck, A. T., Rush, A. J., Shaw, B. F., & Emery, G. (1979). Cognitive therapy of depression. New York: Guilford.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Chamberlain, J. M., & Haaga, D. A. F.
Affiliations
American University (US)
Corresponding author
Haaga, David A. F.
Venue
Journal of Rational-Emotive and Cognitive-Behavior Therapy
Published
2001-09
Volume
19
Issue
3
Pages
163-176
ISSN
  • 0894-9085 (ISSN-L)
  • 1573-6563
OpenAlex
W1860101029
Cited by
288
References
40
Citations by year
2026: 17 · 2025: 31 · 2024: 18 · 2023: 26 · 2022: 18 · 2021: 24 · 2020: 15 · 2019: 14 · 2018: 12 · 2017: 15 · 2016: 16 · 2015: 9 · 2014: 16 · 2013: 14 · 2012: 6
FWCI
1.77
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Journal of Rational-Emotive & Cognitive-Behavior Therapy (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychological Treatments and Assessments
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Mindfulness and Compassion Interventions
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
Keywords
unconditional self-acceptance, self-esteem, mental health, anxiety symptoms, narcissism, imaginal exposure, depression, happiness, self-deception, rational emotive behavior therapy

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review