Journal of Psychological Abnormalities

Acrophobia: Detection and Treatment

Albert Daniels^{* *}Correspondence: Albert Daniels, Editorial Office, Journal of Psychological Abnormalities, Brussels, Belgium, Email:

Author info »

Introduction

Acrophobia, which is a severe fear of heights, is categorized as a specific phobia of the naturalistic type in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition (DSM-IV). Given its resemblance to both panic disorder and agoraphobia, there is significant debate over its typology even though it has long been acknowledged as an illness. One of the earliest theoretical explanations of acrophobia to be utilized as a foundation for therapy was put out by Mowrer. Today, the two-factor theory of phobia therapy is still in use and has little changed. Fundamentally, according to this idea, phobias are conditioned responses brought on by conditioned stimuli. It also includes the addition that situational avoidance arises and persists as a result of the reinforcement of lower anxiety. Recent population-based cross-sectional epidemiological investigations have verified that fearfulness is the most noticeable symptom of visual height intolerance and that both this condition and, more specifically, acrophobia, are highly correlated with concomitant anxious and depressed illnesses. Visual height intolerance affects 28% of the general population on a lifetime basis (females 32%; men 25%); in more than 20% of those affected, it can occasionally lead to panic attacks. According to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-V), the lifetime prevalence of its more severe variant, acrophobia, or fear of heights, ranges from 3.1% to 6.4%.

Acrophobia typically necessitates counseling. Acrophobia has been the subject of all other multi-subject investigations. Students who were randomly assigned to either the VRET or a waiting list control group for the first study participated in it. It was discovered that VRET was more efficient than waiting without treatment. In a different study on acrophobia, the gold standard of phobia treatment—two sessions of exposure in vivo was followed by two sessions of VRET for 10 patients. VRET was discovered to be equally effective in vivo exposure. However, due to the order effect, no clear findings could be made (first VRET than exposure in vivo). The same research team employed a between-group design in their second investigation. Patients with acrophobia received either exposure in vivo or VRET treatment.

Conclusion

From the current research, it is clear that many studies with acrophobic subjects sought to determine the effectiveness of various treatment philosophies rather than specifically studying acrophobia. Comparisons between the exposure model and the self-efficacy model were primarily the focus of research on acrophobic individuals. The self-efficacy model of treatment typically featured a more structured approach and included additional therapeutic elements, like mastery of subtasks. The present study's encouraging results from just three VR sessions with officially diagnosed acrophobia are consistent with earlier findings that found that seven VR sessions were at least as effective as in-person exposure for subjects with community-based acrophobia and that three VR sessions were at least as effective as seven. The VR worlds employed in earlier studies on VR exposure were not the same as the settings used for real-life exposure. These suggestions should yet be tested in clinical studies before being employed as an addition to current behavioral therapy techniques. Psychotherapists are fully aware that such acts may reinforce rather than eradicate acrophobic behavior, hence prospective treatment studies are also required to evaluate their effectiveness over the long term.