Cardiovascular correlates of challenge and threat appraisals: a critical examination of the biopsychosocial analysis.

In this article we examine critically the biopsychosocial (BPS) challenge versus threat analysis proposed by Blascovich and his coworkers. We conclude that the BPS analysis should be viewed with considerable caution. We conclude this in part because the analysis is associated with notable problems, including (a) its conception of demand, (b) its definitions of goal-relevant and evaluative situations, (c) its assertion regarding primary and secondary appraisal determinants of challenge and threat, and (d) its cardiovascular (CV) predictions. We conclude this as well because BPS analysis studies have not made a compelling empirical case. BPS analysis studies are unpersuasive because (a) their CV results are only partially consistent with BPS analysis predictions, (b) they have compared CV responses of groups bearing an uncertain relationship to the primary and secondary appraisal criteria specified for the production of challenge and threat effects, (c) they have not compared challenge and threat appraisals between challenge and threat groups, and (d) they provided data that are incomplete. Theoretical modifications and additional research could make a better case for the BPS view.