Controlled experiment assesses heart rate variability and respiratory markers in response to height exposure, suggesting gaps in concurrent validity of anxiety measures.
Despite the widespread use of height exposure in adventure-based programs to foster resilience, effectiveness has largely been evaluated through self-reported measures, with limited objective psychophysiological assessments. This study aimed to identify which physiological stress markers best determine the acute stress response to height. A secondary aim of the study was to assess the concurrent validity of the Competitive State Anxiety Inventory-2 Revised (CSAI-2R) questionnaire with ventilatory and heart rate variability (HRV) markers. A total of 55 healthy university students participated in a controlled experiment involving three walks on a log positioned at varying heights (0.3 m and 10.5 m). Psychometric measures were recorded using the Competitive State Anxiety Inventory-2 Revised, while physiological responses were monitored through HRV and respiratory markers. High-obstacle conditions significantly increased somatic (↑6.1 ± 5.7; p < 0.01) and cognitive anxiety (↑2.9 ± 5.9; p < 0.01) while reducing self-confidence (↓3.0 ± 5.6; p < 0.01). Based on the effect size ( η p 2 ), the largest differences between low- and high-height conditions for physiological markers were observed in heart rate (HR) ( η p 2 = 0.910), ventilation ( η p 2 = 0.906), oxygen uptake ( η p 2 = 0.891; p < 0.001), and tidal volume (VT) ( η p 2 = 0.872). Smaller differences were found for HRV markers, including the parasympathetic nervous system (PNS) index ( η p 2 = 0.860) and the sympathetic nervous system (SNS) index ( η p 2 = 0.798). Notably, weak correlations were observed between physiological markers and self-reported anxiety measures ( R = −0.454 to 0.323), raising questions about the concurrent validity of psychometric tools. The findings suggest that while height exposure induces a pronounced stress response, the combination of HR and respiratory measures with psychological tools provides a more comprehensive understanding of stress coping during height exposure.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Psohlavec et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: