The Biopsychosocial Model of Challenge and Threat: Using the Heart to Measure the Mind

2013 ◽  
Vol 7 (9) ◽  
pp. 637-653 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mark D. Seery
Keyword(s):  
Biopsychosocial Model ◽  
Challenge And Threat ◽  
The Mind

Challenge and Threat States and Emotions

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nadine Sammy ◽  
David Harris ◽  
Samuel James Vine
Keyword(s):  
Biopsychosocial Model ◽  
Elite Athletes ◽  
Performance Outcomes ◽  
Sports Performance ◽  
Motivational States ◽  
Downstream Effects ◽  
Challenge And Threat ◽  
Response Profiles ◽  
And Performance ◽  
Situational Demands

Despite elite athletes refining their skills over years of practice, when it comes to pivotal sporting moments, performance may often hinge on the emotional consequences of motivational states. The biopsychosocial model (BPSM) of challenge and threat (Blascovich, 2013) proposes that, in motivated performance situations, a key determinant of emotions is the evaluation of situational demands and personal resources. The distinct response profiles arising from such evaluations are known as ‘challenge’ and ‘threat’ states, which differ in their emotional, cognitive and performance outcomes (Jones, Meijen, McCarthy, & Sheffield, 2009). Challenge states are associated with both pleasant and unpleasant emotions, while threat is usually marked by unpleasant emotions only. Further, when in a challenge state, emotions are considered facilitative to performance while the opposite occurs when threatened (Skinner & Brewer, 2002). In other words, challenge and threat states differ by types of emotions experienced (e.g., anxiety, excitement) and how these emotions are perceived (e.g., facilitative, debilitative). Recent work has provided mixed findings regarding the complex relationship between challenge and threat states and emotions (e.g., Meijen, Jones, Mccarthy, Sheffield, & Allen, 2013), but there is much scope to replicate, broaden and better understand this interaction, particularly in the context of sports performance. This chapter discusses the theory behind challenge and threat states and emotions, their interrelationships and downstream effects on performance, as well as implications for practice.

Heart Rate Variability Moderates Challenge and Threat Reactivity to Sexism Among Women in STEM

2018 ◽  
Vol 49 (4) ◽  
pp. 191-204 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bettina J. Casad ◽  
Zachary W. Petzel
Keyword(s):  
Heart Rate ◽  
Heart Rate Variability ◽  
Biopsychosocial Model ◽  
Stress Reactivity ◽  
Physiological Stress ◽  
Physiological Reactivity ◽  
Stem Majors ◽  
Challenge And Threat ◽  
And Mathematics ◽  
Resting Heart Rate Variability

Abstract. Using a biopsychosocial model of challenge and threat, we tested resting heart rate variability (HRV) as a moderator of physiological reactivity after experiencing sexism. Women science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) majors participated in a mock interview in which the male interviewer made a sexist or neutral comment. Resting HRV moderated physiological stress reactivity among women in the sexism condition, but not control, indicating lower resting HRV predicted greater physiological threat than challenge and higher resting HRV predicted greater physiological challenge than threat during the interview. These findings support the emotion regulation properties of HRV as applied to a biopsychosocial model of challenge and threat. Higher resting HRV may be adaptive for women experiencing sexism in male-dominated contexts like STEM.

The Robust Nature of the Biopsychosocial Model Challenge and Threat: A Reply to Wright and Kirby

2003 ◽  
Vol 7 (3) ◽  
pp. 234-243 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jim Blascovich ◽  
Wendy Berry Mendes ◽  
Joe Tomaka ◽  
Kristen Salomon ◽  
Mark Seery
Keyword(s):  
Theoretical Model ◽  
Psychological Factors ◽  
Biopsychosocial Model ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Economic Perspective ◽  
Social Psychological ◽  
Generative Theory ◽  
Current State ◽  
Environmental Interactions ◽  
Challenge And Threat

This article responds to Wright and Kirby's (this issue) critique of our biopsychosocial (BPS) analysis of challenge and threat motivation. We counter their arguments by reviewing the current state of our theory as well as supporting data, then turn to their specific criticisms. We believe that Wright and Kirby failed to accurately represent the corpus of our work, including both our theoretical model and its supporting data. They critiqued our model from a contextual, rational-economic perspective that ignores the complexity and subjectivity of person-person and person-environmental interactions as well as nonconscious influences. Finally, they provided criticisms regarding possible underspecificity of antecedent components of our model that do not so much indicate theoretical flaws as provide important and interesting questions for future research. We conclude by affirming that our BPS model of challenge and threat is an evolving, generative theory directed toward understanding the complexity of personality and social psychological factors underlying challenge and threat states.

scholarly journals Intergroup status differences as challenge or threat: The role of legitimacy

2016 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
pp. 75-90 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daan Scheepers
Keyword(s):  
Social Identity ◽  
Social Identity Theory ◽  
Biopsychosocial Model ◽  
High Status ◽  
Group Status ◽  
Identity Processes ◽  
Challenge And Threat ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Status Differences

Based on social identity theory (Tajfel & Turner, 1979) we examined the motivational consequences of intergroup status differences as a function of the legitimacy of these differences. Motivational responses were conceptualized in terms of challenge and threat and operationalized by their cardiovascular markers, as described by the biopsychosocial model of challenge and threat (BPS-CT; Blascovich & Mendes, 2010). Participants ( N = 104) were categorized in minimal groups. Group status and status legitimacy were manipulated in the context of an intergroup competition. High status elicited relatively more challenge (less threat) when status differences were legitimate than when they were illegitimate. Low status elicited relatively less threat (more challenge) when status differences were illegitimate than when they were legitimate. Cardiovascular reactivity in line with challenge mediated performance during the competition. Results are discussed in terms of the relationship between social status and stress, and the BPS-CT as novel and useful motivational framework for studying social identity processes.

The theoretical basis of the biopsychosocial model

2015 ◽  
Author(s):  
Helge Malmgren
Keyword(s):  
Theoretical Basis ◽  
Body Problem ◽  
Biopsychosocial Model ◽  
Factor Versus ◽  
Computer Hardware ◽  
Single Factor ◽  
Nature Versus Nurture ◽  
Mind And Body ◽  
The Mind ◽  
The Relationship

This chapter addresses the philosophy behind the biopsychosocial model. It summarizes five aetiological problems that the biopsychosocial model must address (nature versus nurture; single-factor versus multifactor causality; somatic versus mental causes; reasons versus causes; conscious versus non-conscious influences) with a particular focus on the mind-body problem, and uses an analogy between computer hardware and software to describe the relationship between the mind and body.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document