Beyond acrophobia, Menzies and Clarke are conducting research into the nature of phobias in general. Prevailing theories state that phobics are aware of the inappropriateness of their fears. People suffering from different phobias supposedly have the capacity to accurately gauge levels of danger. More importantly, they know that their fears are unrealistic and exaggerated. Despite this awareness, however, phobics are unable to control their fears in relation to the lack of danger in their situation.
             This theory regarding phobias has been upheld by the American Psychiatric Association (APA) and is one of the few pronouncements regarding phobias that enjoy wide acceptance.
             However, this belief has also been challenged by theorists like Beck and Emery (1985). Beck and Emery hypothesize that while phobics have an accurate assessment of the danger, in the beginning, this assessment gets distorted as the subjects encounter the object of their fear. People who were afraid of heights gave fairly low danger ratings while on the ground. However, their perceptions of danger went up as they went higher up the building. The Beck and Emery study thus throws doubt on the APA pronouncements regarding how phobics consistently perceive the possibility of falling and of any danger in general.
             A study conducted by Williams and Watson (1985) goes further, stating that the danger perceptions of phobics are already distorted prior to encountering the fear stimulus. In this study, the authors were told that they would assess their danger expectancies as they ascended a building, looking down from a balcony. Williams and Watson found that the acrophobic already had a high expectation of falling even before the experiment was started. These findings challenge both the APA and the Beck and Emery studies, showing that the phobics' perceptions of danger regarding their fear stimulus are distorted from the beginning.
             Related to this, other empirical stud...