Challenge vs Threat States in Athletes: New Research Findings Explained
- Dr Paul McCarthy
- Dec 27, 2025
- 12 min read
Elite athletes' mental approach to high-pressure situations reveals fascinating insights. The theory of challenge and threat states in athletes provides a psychophysiological framework that explains how competitors anticipate performance situations. This groundbreaking approach helps us understand why some athletes thrive under pressure while others struggle.
Athletes experience either a challenge state or a threat state during motivated performance situations. These distinct psychological approaches trigger dramatically different physiological responses. Athletes in a challenge state show increased blood flow to their brain and muscles, higher blood glucose levels, and a rise in free fatty acids that deliver energy efficiently. The process involves fast-acting sympathetic-adreno-medullary (SAM) activation, increased epinephrine, and better cardiac activity. Athletes in a threat state display both SAM and pituitary-adreno-cortical (PAC) activation, elevated cortisol levels, smaller cardiac changes, and either no change or increased peripheral resistance.
The athlete's psychological approach determines which state they experience. Athletes with high self-efficacy, high perceived control, and an approach focus typically enter a challenge state. Those with low confidence, low control, and an avoidance focus tend to fall into a threat state. Scientists have discovered that oxytocin and neuropeptide Y serve as key indicators of an adaptive approach to performance situations.
This piece will get into the latest findings on the Theory of Challenge and Threat States in Athletes, the physiological markers of these states, and how this knowledge can reshape athletic performance.
Understanding the Theory of Challenge and Threat States in Athletes (TCTSA)
The Theory of Challenge and Threat States in Athletes (TCTSA) brings together several psychological models to explain how athletes respond to competition. This framework merges the biopsychosocial model of challenge and threat, adaptive approaches to competition, and the debilitative and facilitative competitive state anxiety model [1]. TCTSA goes beyond basic models by showing how athletes' mental assessments trigger specific body responses that affect their performance.
Self-efficacy, Control, and Achievement Goals as Core Appraisals
TCTSA points to three connected psychological elements that determine if an athlete sees a situation as a challenge or threat during competition:
Self-efficacy means how much athletes believe they can perform required skills. This goes deeper than just confidence—it's about knowing what you can do with your abilities [1]. Athletes develop self-efficacy through four main channels: actual performances, watching others succeed, encouragement from others, and reading their body's signals [1].
Perceived control works hand in hand with self-efficacy but looks at what athletes think they can and cannot influence. Athletes need both skill confidence and a sense they can use these skills when it matters [1]. To cite an instance, basketball players might feel great about their scoring skills but feel threatened if they think teammates won't pass them the ball [1].
Achievement goals round out these three factors by showing how goal-setting shapes competitive responses. TCTSA uses a 2×2 achievement goal framework that pairs mastery versus performance goals with approach or avoidance mindsets [2]. Athletes who focus on mastery-approach goals tend to see challenges, while those with performance-avoidance goals often feel threatened [1].
Challenge vs Threat: Definitions and Key Differences
The main difference between challenge and threat states lies in how athletes see their resources versus demands. In a challenge state, athletes feel their resources match or exceed what the situation needs [2]. A threat state happens when athletes think demands are too much for their resources [2].
These states also create different emotional experiences. Challenge states can include both good and bad feelings, but athletes see these emotions as performance boosters [2]. Threat states, however, only bring negative emotions that athletes think will hurt their performance [2].
Motivated Performance Situations in Sport Contexts
Challenge or threat states emerge when athletes face a "motivated performance situation." These situations have four key features: they matter personally, have uncertain outcomes, risk damaging self-image, and take real effort [3].
Sports competitions naturally create these motivated performance situations. They matter deeply to athletes, nobody knows who will win, there's a risk of failure, and they take serious effort [2].
TCTSA helps explain why athletes see the same situations differently and what affects their perceived resources [2]. This knowledge helps coaches and sport psychologists guide athletes toward challenge states, which can boost performance through better decisions, focus, and physical responses [2].
Physiological Markers of Challenge and Threat States
The human body shows clear differences in how athletes respond when they face challenges versus threats. These physical markers give us a full picture that adds to psychological assessments and helps predict how well athletes will perform.
Sympathetic-Adreno-Medullary (SAM) Activation in Challenge States
Athletes' bodies trigger SAM activation when they face a challenge. This process quickly mobilizes energy for immediate action and coping [4]. The activation releases epinephrine and norepinephrine into the bloodstream [2]. The SAM response spikes quickly and then adapts in challenge states [2].
SAM activation plays a vital role by releasing catecholamines that raise heart rate and force of contraction while preparing the body to use energy effectively [3]. Research shows that under challenge conditions, SNS activation fades quickly after the original response. This allows the arterioles to dilate [2]. The body can then deliver blood to muscles and brain during competition.
Hypothalamic–Pituitary–Adrenal (HPA) Axis Activation in Threat States
Threat states work differently. They involve both SAM activation and increased HPA axis activity [2]. The HPA axis is a slower stress response system that creates cortisol through hormone interactions [5]. The hypothalamic paraventricular nucleus activates first and releases corticotropin-releasing hormone (CRH) and arginine vasopressin (AVP) [3]. These hormones then prompt the anterior pituitary to release ACTH, which triggers cortisol production from the adrenal cortex [5].
Cortisol stays active much longer than catecholamines. It has a half-life of 30-90 minutes compared to epinephrine's brief action [2]. Athletes in threat states keep high stress hormone levels for long periods, which can hurt their recovery and future performance [5].
Cardiac Output (CO) and Total Peripheral Resistance (TPR) Patterns
Challenge and threat states demonstrate reliable cardiovascular patterns. Challenge states show:
Increased cardiac output (volume of blood pumped per minute)
Decreased total peripheral resistance (dilation of blood vessels) [6]
Threat states display:
Smaller increases or no change in cardiac output
Increased or unchanged total peripheral resistance (constriction in the arterial system) [6]
Research suggests these cardiovascular differences show how well the body delivers oxygen and nutrients during competition [7]. The challenge pattern is a more effective cardiovascular response for energy use [7]. This might explain why athletes perform better in challenge states.
Neuropeptide Y and Oxytocin as Emerging Biomarkers
Neuropeptide Y (NPY) and oxytocin are new biomarkers that help us understand challenge and threat states better. NPY, a 36-amino acid peptide found throughout the gut-brain axis, helps with stress resilience and inflammatory processes [3]. Studies of elite rowers found their NPY levels increased after exercise, showing its importance in athletic stress responses [3].
Scientists now recognize that oxytocin does more than promote social bonding and trust. It affects how athletes notice and handle competitive stress [1]. Higher oxytocin levels relate to challenge states and better performance [1]. Oxytocin also increases both sympathetic and parasympathetic cardiac activity. This protects the heart through vasodilation and helps regulate resting heart rate from exercise [1].
The ratio between AVP and oxytocin could be another useful marker. Higher ratios might suggest threat states, similar to PTSD patients who have low oxytocin and high AVP levels [8]. This hormone balance could help us understand an athlete's mental state during competition and create individual-specific intervention strategies.
Emotional and Cognitive Outcomes in Performance
Athletic performance depends on both physical abilities and how athletes see their emotional responses during competition. Physical differences aside, how athletes view situations as either challenges or threats affects their emotions, thinking, and competition results.
Facilitative vs Debilitative Anxiety Interpretations
The way athletes interpret anxiety matters more than just having anxiety. While positive emotions usually come with challenge states and negative ones with threat states, this isn't always true [2]. Athletes can feel similar anxiety symptoms but interpret them very differently based on their mental approach [9].
Top athletes see their competitive anxiety as helpful more often than other athletes do, even when they feel just as anxious [9]. This difference comes from how much control they feel they have. Athletes who feel in control see their symptoms as performance boosters, while those who don't see them as barriers [9].
Studies show that both challenge and threat states can make you anxious, but challenge states help prevent negative interpretations because you feel more confident and in control [5]. Your skill level also affects how you cope. Elite athletes use mental strategies like visualization and positive self-talk to turn anxiety into helpful energy [9].
Decision-Making and Attention Control in Challenge States
Challenge states help you make better decisions and control your attention [link_2]. The Stroop Test shows that people in challenge states make more accurate decisions than those feeling threatened [2]. Coaches who feel threatened tend to become more controlling, which suggests they make worse decisions [2].
Athletes in challenge states think less about their movements. After being put in challenge states, experienced golfers thought less about their technique, which let them play more naturally [2]. In contrast, athletes who feel threatened often think too much about their technique, which messes up their learned movements.
Reinvestment and Self-Regulation in Threat States
Athletes need more mental energy to cope when they feel threatened [2]. Research shows that threatened athletes work harder mentally to handle competitive situations and use more problem-solving and emotional coping strategies [2].
The reinvestment theory suggests that feeling threatened makes athletes focus too much on their movements instead of what's happening around them [10]. This internal focus disrupts automatic movements, especially in power-based tasks [10]. Studies of sprint cycling found that athletes who saw tests as threats focused more on things like pedaling speed and leg tiredness, while those who saw them as challenges focused on external factors [10].
Note that being skilled doesn't guarantee you'll think optimally under pressure. Even top athletes feel more anxious during high-pressure moments and often see this anxiety as harmful, despite using mental skills [11].
Empirical Evidence from the 15 TCTSA Predictions
Researchers have tested all 15 predictions of the original TCTSA theory in sports of all types. Their findings both support and refine the theory.
Prediction 1–3: Appraisals and Cardiovascular Reactivity
Studies with cardiovascular measurements show that athletes who just need to perform tasks have increased heart rates, which supports Prediction 1. These studies created pressure by making athletes perform in front of evaluators, compete against others, or have their performances recorded on video [2].
The research about self-efficacy, control, and achievement goals has mixed outcomes for Predictions 2 and 3. Meijen et al. found that avoidance goals linked to higher threat perception. They also showed that approach goals and self-efficacy predicted lower threat levels [2]. All the same, some studies tell a different story. Turner et al. found no evidence of these relationships [2]. One study even showed that higher self-efficacy linked to a threat state, which goes against TCTSA's core principles [2].
Prediction 6–9: Emotional Valence and Performance Perception
We found a clear link between anxiety and threat states when we tested emotional responses (Predictions 6-7) [2]. The research about emotional state interpretation (Predictions 8-9) shows that changing how you think about arousal leads to challenge states [2]. Therefore, Williams et al. used imagery to create challenge and threat states. Their participants saw anxiety as more helpful during challenge scripts [2].
The emotional predictions have stronger research support than the physiological ones. This has pushed researchers to develop strategies that help athletes think differently about their emotional responses.
Prediction 14–15: Decision-Making and Anaerobic Power Outcomes
Dixon et al. found that threat appraisals lead to more autocratic coaching behaviors in their decision-making research (Prediction 14) [2]. Turner et al. showed that challenge cardiovascular states connect to better Stroop Test accuracy, which points to improved decision-making abilities [2].
Only one study has tested the anaerobic power prediction (Prediction 15). Wood et al. showed that challenge appraisals link to higher anaerobic power during cycling tasks [2]. Of course, they found no connection between cardiovascular reactivity and anaerobic power [2]. This suggests a gap between how athletes think and how their bodies respond during intense exercise.
The sort of thing I love is how context affects TCTSA's validity. Trotman et al. found evidence supporting key principles during competitive stress but not social stress [2]. This suggests that different types of pressure trigger different challenge-threat responses.
Revising the Model: TCTSA-R and the 2x2 Bifurcation Framework
Recent reviews of the original TCTSA have led to a refined model—TCTSA-R. The new version addresses limitations and adds fresh insights from ten years of research. This refined model shows a deeper understanding of how athletes handle pressure situations.
Primary Appraisal: Motivational Relevance and Goal Congruence
The TCTSA-R brings Lazarusian concepts closer to real-world application. Two elements of primary appraisal stand out. Motivational relevance shows how much the situation matters to the athlete. Goal congruence reflects whether conditions favor success, like recent performance or whether the core team is available [12]. Athletes make these primary appraisals before they review their resources, which helps them lean toward either challenge or threat.
Demand vs Resource Appraisal Matrix
Athletes constantly weigh demands against resources during competitions [5]. This happens both consciously and unconsciously [5]. The revised model still has self-efficacy, control, and achievement goals as resources. Yet it now shows that demands and resources don't just balance each other—they interact in complex ways [7]. These interactions create a matrix where different combinations lead to distinct mental states.
High Challenge, Low Challenge, High Threat, Low Threat States
The most important advancement in TCTSA-R is its 2×2 framework. The model now suggests four distinct states instead of just two [2]. These states include high challenge, low challenge, high threat, and low threat [13]. Athletes can experience mixed feelings—to name just one example, see how in a low threat state, athletes might notice threatening elements but still perform well if they see their resources as strong [7]. This explains why some competitors succeed even when they feel anxious.
Incorporating Social Support into Resource Appraisals
The original TCTSA focused mainly on individual resources and didn't consider social factors much. Social support is a vital resource in the revised model [14]. Both receiving and giving social support affect how athletes approach high-pressure situations [2]. Research shows coaches who feel challenged give more support to athletes [2]. The sense of belonging to a group affects the connection between social support and life satisfaction [14]. This addition shows that athletes rarely perform alone.
Conclusion
The difference between challenge and threat states helps explain why some athletes excel under pressure while others crumble. This piece explores how our mental outlook triggers specific body responses that ended up shaping how well we perform.
Our body shows clear signs that distinguish these states. Challenge states show efficient SAM activation with better heart output and lower peripheral resistance, which helps deliver energy to muscles effectively. On the flip side, threat states combine extended HPA axis activation with SAM responses. This creates less efficient heart patterns and higher cortisol levels that can hurt performance.
These states also affect how athletes think. Athletes in challenge states make better decisions, control their attention more effectively, and perform skills more automatically. On top of that, they see anxiety as helpful rather than harmful, whatever its intensity might be.
Research testing the original 15 TCTSA predictions shows mixed results, especially about how self-efficacy, control, and achievement goals connect. All the same, studies strongly back predictions about emotional responses and performance outcomes. The way athletes interpret their arousal substantially affects how well they compete.
The revised TCTSA-R model takes things further by using a 2×2 framework that recognizes four distinct states instead of just two. This improved version shows that athletes can have mixed feelings and still perform well if they feel they have enough resources. Adding social support as a vital resource helps us better understand competitive responses.
Coaches and sport psychologists can use this knowledge to help athletes develop challenge states. Without doubt, teaching athletes to see their body's responses as helpful rather than threatening is a powerful way to improve performance under pressure. Building strong support networks and helping competitors accurately weigh their resources against what they need can reshape how athletes approach big competitions.
The Theory of Challenge and Threat States shows that peak performance isn't just about physical ability. It depends on how athletes mentally frame competitive situations. This mental approach, along with its matching body responses, taps into the potential for amazing athletic achievements even under intense pressure.
Key Takeaways on Challenge vs Threat States in Athletes
Understanding how athletes mentally approach high-pressure situations can dramatically impact their performance outcomes through distinct psychological and physiological pathways.
• Challenge states optimize performance: Athletes who perceive their resources as exceeding demands experience increased cardiac output, decreased peripheral resistance, and enhanced decision-making capabilities under pressure.
• Threat states impair efficiency: When demands outweigh perceived resources, athletes show prolonged cortisol elevation, compromised cardiovascular patterns, and increased self-focused attention that disrupts automated skills.
• Anxiety interpretation matters more than intensity: Elite athletes consistently view competitive anxiety as facilitative rather than debilitative, regardless of symptom intensity, through higher perceived control and self-efficacy.
• Social support acts as a crucial resource: The revised TCTSA-R model recognizes that social support significantly influences how athletes appraise competitive situations and can shift them toward challenge states.
• Four distinct states exist, not just two: Recent research reveals high/low challenge and high/low threat states, explaining why athletes can experience mixed appraisals yet still perform effectively with sufficient resources.
This framework provides coaches and sport psychologists with evidence-based strategies to help athletes reframe competitive pressure as opportunity rather than threat, ultimately unlocking peak performance potential in Challenge vs Threat States in Athletes
References
[1] - https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11194439/[2] - https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychology/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00126/full[3] - https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12970-016-0155-6[4] - https://researchonline.gcu.ac.uk/ws/files/34141737/fpsyg_11_00126.pdf[5] - https://kar.kent.ac.uk/26252/1/A Theory of Challenge and Threat States in Athletes-Not for Review.pdf[6] - https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/01443410.2022.2069229[7] - https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7016194/[8] - https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666497624000122[9] - https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3842142/[10] - https://eprints.glos.ac.uk/6039/1/6039 Parker-The-Relationship-Between-Challenge.pdf[11] - https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychology/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.02280/full[12] - https://e-space.mmu.ac.uk/633789/1/Dixon Lorenz Bolter Turner (2023) Examining Coaches Instructional Behavior in Response to Challenge and Threat Feedback.pdf[13] - https://e-space.mmu.ac.uk/624846/[14] - https://compass.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/spc3.12982