Cited by 187Virtual Reality Applications and ImpactsAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesDigital Mental Health Interventions

Does engagement with exposure yield better outcomes? Components of presence as a predictor of treatment response for virtual reality exposure therapy for social phobia

Open access
Price, Matthew, Mehta, Natasha, Tone, Erin B., Anderson, Page L.·2011·Journal of Anxiety Disorders

Abstract

Virtual reality exposure (VRE) has been shown to be effective for treating a variety of anxiety disorders, including social phobia. Presence, or the level of connection an individual feels with the virtual environment, is widely discussed as a critical construct both for the experience of anxiety within a virtual environment and for a successful response to VRE. Two published studies show that whereas generalized presence relates to fear ratings during VRE, it does not relate to treatment response. However, presence has been conceptualized as multidimensional, with three primary factors (spatial presence, involvement, and realness). These factors can be linked to other research on the facilitation of fear during exposure, inhibitors of treatment response (e.g., distraction), and more recent theoretical discussions of the mechanisms of exposure therapy, such as Bouton's description of expectancy violation. As such, one or more of these components of presence may be more strongly associated with the experience of fear during VRE and treatment response than the overarching construct. The current study (N=41) evaluated relations between three theorized components of presence, fear ratings during VRE, and treatment response for VRE for social phobia. Results suggest that total presence and realness subscale scores were related to in-session peak fear ratings. However, only scores on the involvement subscale significantly predicted treatment response. Implications of these findings are discussed.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.janxdis.2011.03.004

Cites

40 of 40 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Although presence is linked to the anxiety experienced during exposure, there is no direct relationship between sense of presence and treatment outcomes.

    “In terms of treatment efficacy, research has also suggested that, although presence is linked to the anxiety experienced during the exposure, there is no direct relationship between sense of presence and treatment outcomes (Price et al., 2011; Price and Anderson, 2007; Tardif et al., 2019).”

    From An Internet-based treatment for Flying Phobia using 360° images: Study protocol for a feasibility pilot study (2021) · cites this paper as Price et al., 2011

    Results §3.1 links overall presence to peak fear during exposure. Results §3.2 finds no significant relationship between total presence and treatment response, but finds that involvement—a component of presence—predicts improvement. The claim is therefore supported for overall presence, but its unqualified statement overlooks the involvement finding. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • The current subjective presence measures do not capture the essential sense of presence that is responsible for activating fear related to social anxiety in individuals.

    “As several trials have demonstrated the potential of VRET for social anxiety disorder [27], [28], [75], one might conclude that the current subjective presence measures do not capture the essential sense of presence that is responsible for activating fear related to social anxiety in individuals.”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Price, M., Mehta, N., Tone, E. B., & Anderson, P. L.
Affiliations
  • Medical University of South Carolina (US)
  • Georgia State University (US)
Corresponding author
Anderson, Page L.
Venue
Journal of Anxiety Disorders
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2011-08
Volume
25
Issue
6
Pages
763-770
ISSN
0887-6185 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2006180230
Cited by
187
References
38
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 19 · 2023: 23 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 19 · 2019: 19 · 2018: 19 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 13 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 9 · 2012: 1
FWCI
10.17
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Anxiety Disorders (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • Digital Archive @ GSU (submittedVersion)
Funders
National Institute of Mental Health (R42MH060506)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Virtual Reality Applications and Impacts
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Digital Mental Health Interventions
Keywords
virtual reality exposure therapy, social anxiety disorder, presence, spatial presence, involvement, realness, treatment response, expectancy violation, distraction, anxiety disorders
MeSH terms
Adult, Amygdala, Anxiety, Fear, Female, Humans, Implosive Therapy, Male, Phobic Disorders, Surveys and Questionnaires, User-Computer Interface, Treatment Outcome

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