Why the Same Pressure Feels Different to Different People
One challenge can sharpen attention for one person and overwhelm another. The psychology of challenge and threat offers a more useful way to understand pressure.
A demanding situation can be shared without being experienced in the same way. Two people arrive equally prepared for an important event. Both understand its consequences. One sees the task as difficult but manageable; the other becomes increasingly concerned that the demands will exceed what they can bring to it. The pressure belongs to the occasion, yet their responses can differ.
Psychology distinguishes the demands of a situation from the judgement people make about their capacity to meet them. Research on challenge and threat describes this appraisal in more precise terms than the familiar idea that some people are simply good under pressure. It is not a distinction between strong and weak characters. It concerns how resources and demands are perceived in a moment that matters.
Demands and resources
The idea was developed most influentially in the biopsychosocial model associated with Jim Blascovich and Joe Tomaka. In a motivated performance situation — one in which a person cares about the outcome and must act — individuals evaluate the demands of the task against their perceived resources to meet them. When resources are judged to meet or exceed the demands, the response tends towards challenge. When demands are judged to exceed resources, it tends towards threat.
The model also linked these appraisals to physiology. In a challenge pattern, sympathetic arousal is accompanied by a rise in cardiac output and a fall in total peripheral resistance, meaning that blood vessels are relatively dilated. In a threat pattern, cardiac output rises little or not at all and resistance stays level or increases. The body, on this account, is not simply "stressed" or "not stressed"; it is mobilised in different ways depending on how the person has read the situation. These are laboratory measures, read over minutes rather than moments.
Marc Jones and colleagues later developed the theory of challenge and threat states in athletes, applying these ideas to sport. They proposed three resource appraisals that would shape whether an athlete experiences challenge: self-efficacy, perceived control, and achievement goals oriented towards approaching success rather than avoiding failure. A revised version of the theory, published in 2020, reviewed how well those predictions had held up, found the support for links between appraisals, cardiovascular patterns and emotions inconsistent, and proposed further elements — including social support and a person's dispositional tendency to appraise situations one way or the other — that have yet to be fully tested.
Does it matter for performance?
The obvious question is whether these states change outcomes. A systematic review by Ashley Hase and colleagues examined studies of challenge and threat and performance across sport and other settings. Overall, challenge states were associated with better performance than threat states, although the studies varied considerably in their methods, tasks and measures, which makes it difficult to say how large the advantage is.
Most of the research uses relatively controlled tasks — laboratory challenges, simulated putting, short competitive scenarios — and the leap from those to a career-defining moment is not trivial. What the evidence supports is a direction rather than a size: reading a demanding moment as something one is equipped to meet is, on average, associated with better performance than reading it as a threat.
Is reducing pressure the right goal?
The usual advice about pressure is to reduce it: lower the stakes, remove the audience, tell people the result does not matter. Sometimes that is possible and wise; often it is not, because the final is still the final and the vote still counts. An athlete told that the match "doesn't matter" is unlikely to believe it, and an executive presenting to investors cannot pretend the investors are absent.
The challenge-threat framework suggests a different target. Instead of trying to change the situation, one might try to change the balance a person perceives between demand and resource. Whether doing so reliably improves performance has been tested far less than the association itself, and the revised theory suggests that a person's dispositional tendency may limit how far a single reframing can shift appraisal. With those cautions, the balance could in principle be addressed from both sides. Resources can be strengthened in fact and made visible in mind: through preparation that rehearses the realistic difficulties of the task, through reminders of past evidence of competence, and through clear plans for what to do if things go wrong. Demands can be clarified and broken into components, so that an overwhelming whole becomes a sequence of manageable actions.
Control and goals are part of the theory too. It predicts that people who know which elements of the situation are within their influence, and who are oriented towards what they are trying to achieve rather than what they are trying to avoid, are more likely to appraise the moment as a challenge — a prediction for which empirical support has so far been mixed.
The moment after things go wrong
Appraisals are not fixed for the duration of a performance. A mistake, a bad early score or a hostile question can plausibly tip someone from challenge towards threat quickly, as the perceived demand suddenly rises and the perceived resource falls. What happens in that interval often matters more than the mistake itself, a theme ALTIUS has explored in The Moment After the Mistake. Performers who have rehearsed their response to errors at least carry into that moment a resource that others lack.
Pressure, in most demanding work, cannot be removed. What the challenge-threat research offers is a more precise description of what varies within it: not the stakes, but how a person reads their resources against them. That reading is shaped partly by preparation and goals and partly by a disposition that changes more slowly, and the evidence on how far it can be shifted in the moment is still thin. The distinction is worth having even so, because it points attention away from the size of the occasion and towards the part of the encounter that a person might, over time, prepare differently.
ALTIUS Note
This article concerns how people appraise demanding performance situations; it is not about anxiety disorders. Most research on challenge and threat uses controlled tasks, and findings vary across studies. The claim that the demand–resource appraisal is a practical target alongside reducing pressure is an ALTIUS interpretation of this literature, not a tested intervention.
Research References
- Blascovich, J., & Tomaka, J. (1996). The biopsychosocial model of arousal regulation. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 28, 1–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60235-X
- Hase, A., O'Brien, J., Moore, L. J., & Freeman, P. (2019). The relationship between challenge and threat states and performance: A systematic review. Sport, Exercise, and Performance Psychology, 8(2), 123–144. https://doi.org/10.1037/spy0000132
- Jones, M., Meijen, C., McCarthy, P. J., & Sheffield, D. (2009). A theory of challenge and threat states in athletes. International Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 2(2), 161–180. https://doi.org/10.1080/17509840902829331
- Meijen, C., Turner, M., Jones, M. V., Sheffield, D., & McCarthy, P. (2020). A theory of challenge and threat states in athletes: A revised conceptualization. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 126. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00126
Related from ALTIUS
Keep reading ALTIUS
Subscribe for new essays and analysis, or sign in if you already have an account.