Incongruence in Doping Related Attitudes, Beliefs and Opinions in the Context of Discordant Behavioural Data: In Which Measure Do We Trust?

Abstract

BackgroundSocial psychology research on doping and outcome based evaluation of primary anti-doping prevention and intervention programmes have been dominated by self-reports. Having confidence in the validity and reliability of such data is vital.Methodology/Principal FindingsThe sample of 82 athletes from 30 sports (52.4% female, mean age: 21.48±2.86 years) was split into quasi-experimental groups based on i) self-admitted previous experience with prohibited performance enhancing drugs (PED) and ii) the presence of at least one prohibited PED in hair covering up to 6 months prior to data collection. Participants responded to questionnaires assessing a range of social cognitive determinants of doping via self-reports; and completed a modified version of the Brief Implicit Association Test (BIAT) assessing implicit attitudes to doping relative to the acceptable nutritional supplements (NS). Social projection regarding NS was used as control.PEDs were detected in hair samples from 10 athletes (12% prevalence), none of whom admitted doping use. This group of ‘deniers’ was characterised by a dissociation between explicit (verbal declarations) and implicit (BIAT) responding, while convergence was observed in the ‘clean’ athlete group. This dissociation, if replicated, may act as a cognitive marker of the denier group, with promising applications of the combined explicit-implicit cognitive protocol as a proxy in lieu of biochemical detection methods in social science research. Overall, discrepancies in the relationship between declared doping-related opinion and implicit doping attitudes were observed between the groups, with control measures remaining unaffected. Questionnaire responses showed a pattern consistent with self-reported doping use.Conclusions/SignificanceFollowing our preliminary work, this study provides further evidence that both self-reports on behaviour and social cognitive measures could be affected by some form of response bias. This can question the validity of self-reports, with reliability remaining unaffected. Triangulation of various assessment methods is recommended.

Prevalence of use of performance enhancing drugs by fitness centre members

“…[13] However, RRT has limitations. [1,14,23,24] Therefore, Lentillon-Kaestner and Ohl [1] suggest not to use one way of questioning to evaluate doping prevalence. [22] Therefore, it is necessary to collect larger samples than for the direct question method.…”

“…[13] Although studies have shown that RRT limits the influence of social desirability, its complexity and unfamiliarity for respondents could also lead to careful and not necessarily honest answers. [1,14,23,24] Therefore, Lentillon-Kaestner and Ohl [1] suggest not to use one way of questioning to evaluate doping prevalence. Data based on a combination of available techniques (i.e.…”

New non-randomised model to assess the prevalence of discriminating behaviour: a pilot study on mephedrone

“…This approach has been successfully employed in research investigating social cognitive factors in prohibited performance enhancing and illicit drug use [7,8]. …”

Impact of multidisciplinary research on advancing anti-doping efforts

“…Anti-doping efforts should aim to target modifiable factors, such as the environment and determinants of athletes' thinking process, that in a favourable context could lead to doping use. Based on published research to date, this latter group includes, but is not limited to, outcome expectancies (Petroczi and Aidman 2008), social projection (Petróczi et al 2008c, Petroczi et al 2010b, Uvacsek et al 2011, mental mapping of doping (Petróczi et al 2010c), susceptibility (Gucciardi et al 2010), risk-taking propensity (Petroczi and Aidman 2008), moral values (Strelan and Boeckmann 2006) and shame (Bloodworth and McNamee 2010). Changing beliefs and expectations via providing acceptable alternatives to doping may also offer a feasible approach utilized in anti-doping (James et al 2010), so do timing and targeted interventions focusing on critical periods such as career transition stages or recovery from injuries (Petroczi and Aidman 2008, Lentillon-Kaestner and Brissonneau 2009.…”