Understanding Challenge and Threat in Sport: Why Pressure Doesn’t Always Mean Poor Performance
When Competition Feels Big;
Every athlete knows the feeling.
The tight chest before kickoff.
The racing heart on the start line.
The moment you realise: This really matters.
Pressure is not the problem. How you interpret pressure is what shapes performance.
Sport psychology research shows that when athletes face demanding situations, they typically enter one of two psychological states:
A challenge state
A threat state
Both involve activation. Both involve nerves. But they differ in how the body and mind prepare for performance.
Understanding this difference can help you perform closer to your potential when it matters most.
The Theory of Challenge and Threat in Athletes (TCTSA)
The Theory of Challenge and Threat States in Athletes (TCTSA) proposed by Jones et al. (2009) explains how athletes respond to pressure in motivated performance situations.
According to the theory, when you enter competition, your brain rapidly evaluates:
Do I have the resources to meet the demands of this situation?
Your answer to that question determines whether you experience challenge or threat.
Three key psychological factors influence this evaluation:
Self-efficacy
Perceived control
Goal orientation (approach vs avoidance)
Let’s break these down.
1. Self-Efficacy: Do I Believe I Can Do This?
Self-efficacy refers to your belief in your ability to execute the skills required to succeed (Bandura, 1997).
It is not general confidence.
It is task-specific belief.
For example:
“I can execute my race plan.”
“I can handle their pressing style.”
“I can recover after a mistake.”
Athletes with high self-efficacy are more likely to interpret pressure as a challenge.
Why?
Because they believe they have the skills required.
Bandura (1997) identified mastery experiences — successfully performing tasks — as the strongest builder of self-efficacy. This highlights why training quality, progressive exposure to pressure, and learning from past performances are crucial.
2. Perceived Control: Can I Influence What Happens?
Perceived control refers to how much influence you believe you have over performance outcomes.
This doesn’t mean controlling everything. It means believing you can control:
Your effort
Your focus
Your decisions
Your reactions
When athletes feel in control of their responses, pressure feels manageable.
When athletes feel events are happening to them rather than through them, threat is more likely.
Self-efficacy and perceived control are closely linked. If you believe you have the skills, you are more likely to feel in control.
3. Goal Orientation: Am I Trying to Achieve or Avoid?
The third factor is your motivational focus.
Athletes can enter competition with:
Approach goals (“I want to execute well and show what I can do.”)
Avoidance goals (“I don’t want to mess up.”)
Approach goals are associated with challenge states.
Avoidance goals are associated with threat states.
When your focus is on avoiding failure, your attention narrows toward mistakes and risk. When your focus is on executing skills and pursuing performance, pressure becomes energising rather than paralysing.
What Happens in the Body?
Both challenge and threat involve physiological activation. You will still feel nervous.
However, the patterns differ.
In a challenge state, the body shows:
Increased adrenaline
Efficient cardiovascular response
Greater cardiac output
Reduced peripheral resistance
This supports action and performance.
In a threat state, there is:
Activation of stress hormones such as cortisol
Less efficient cardiovascular response
Increased vascular resistance
The key difference is not whether you feel activated — it’s whether your body is preparing you to perform or protecting you from danger.
Important: Threat Is Not “Weakness”
Threat is not a sign of mental weakness.
It is a natural response when your brain perceives that demands outweigh resources.
In some contexts, a threat appraisal may even be adaptive.
For example, research with extreme mountaineers (Crust et al., 2016) shows that turning around before summiting can be one of the hardest but most rational decisions. In life-threatening environments, recognising limits can preserve life.
In competitive sport, however, interpreting situations as threat when you do have sufficient resources can unnecessarily impair performance.
The Revised Model: It’s More Complex Than Either/Or
More recently, Meijen et al. (2020) proposed a revised model (TCTSA-R) after evaluating predictions of the original theory.
They suggested that challenge and threat are not simply opposites on a single line.
Instead, they can vary independently.
This creates four possible states:
High Challenge
Low Challenge
High Threat
Low Threat
High Challenge
Situation matters
Conditions feel favourable
You believe you have the resources
High self-efficacy and control
Approach goals
This is often associated with peak performance.
High Threat
Situation matters
Conditions feel unfavourable
You believe demands exceed resources
Low control
Avoidance goals
Performance is less likely to reach potential.
Low Threat
Situation matters
Conditions may be unfavourable
But you still believe you have resources
Negative emotions may appear, but they can be facilitative.
Low Challenge
Situation matters
Conditions are favourable
But you doubt your own resources
This often leads to underperformance despite opportunity.
The revised model also highlights dispositions — such as irrational beliefs — that can predispose athletes toward threat appraisals.
For example:
“I must not fail.”
“If I lose, it means I’m not good enough.”
“I have to perform perfectly.”
Such rigid beliefs increase pressure and threat interpretation.
So What Can Athletes Do?
Understanding the theory is useful. Applying it is the next step.
Here are practical strategies that align with the research.
1. Build Self-Efficacy Deliberately
Self-efficacy is trainable.
You can strengthen it through:
Structured mastery experiences in training
Reviewing evidence of past successful performances
Progressive exposure to competitive scenarios
Imagery rehearsal of successful execution
Tracking improvements objectively
After competition, ask:
What did I execute well?
What skills did I demonstrate?
What evidence do I have that I can handle this level?
2. Increase Perceived Control
Shift your focus from outcomes to controllables.
Before competition, define:
What will I focus on?
What behaviours are within my control?
What will I do after a mistake?
Having a response plan increases perceived control and reduces threat appraisal.
Pre-performance routines are particularly useful for reinforcing control.
3. Shift From Avoidance to Approach Goals
Instead of:
“Don’t miss.”
“Don’t mess up.”
“Don’t lose.”
Try:
“Commit to my technique.”
“Stay aggressive.”
“Execute the plan.”
Language shapes attention. Attention shapes appraisal.
4. Reframe Pressure as Importance
Pressure signals that something matters.
Rather than interpreting nerves as danger, interpret them as readiness.
Statements such as:
“This activation is helping me.”
“My body is preparing to perform.”
“This means I care.”
can support challenge interpretation.
5. Identify Irrational Beliefs
Reflect on beliefs that amplify threat:
Do I equate performance with self-worth?
Do I believe mistakes are unacceptable?
Do I catastrophise outcomes?
Replacing rigid demands with flexible preferences reduces threat.
For example:
From: “I must win.”
To: “I want to win, and I will commit fully, but I can cope regardless.”
Final Thoughts
Pressure is not the enemy.
Your interpretation of pressure shapes whether your body and mind prepare you for performance — or protection.
The Theory of Challenge and Threat in Athletes reminds us that performance is not just about skill. It is about appraisal.
When you believe:
You have the resources,
You have control over your responses,
You are pursuing performance rather than avoiding failure,
pressure becomes fuel rather than fear.
And that shift can make the difference between surviving competition — and performing in it.
References
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control.
Crust, L., et al. (2016). Psychological factors in extreme mountaineering.
Jones, M., Meijen, C., McCarthy, P., & Sheffield, D. (2009). A theory of challenge and threat states in athletes.
Meijen, C., Jones, M., Sheffield, D., & McCarthy, P. (2020). Revisiting challenge and threat in athletes: The revised TCTSA model.
Bradley Birch
Sport & Exercise Psychologist in Training | QSEP Stage 2
+49 151 67344033 | bradley@birchpsych.com
GMBPsS - Member ID: 806679 | MSc Sport & Exercise Psychology