The effects of moral disengagement mechanisms on doping likelihood are mediated by guilt and moderated by moral traits

Abstract

Where a licence is displayed above, please note the terms and conditions of the licence govern your use of this document. When citing, please reference the published version. Take down policy While the University of Birmingham exercises care and attention in making items available there are rare occasions when an item has been uploaded in error or has been deemed to be commercially or otherwise sensitive.

The Self-Other Divergence Effect for Doping Likelihood: Mediation by Guilt and Moderation by Moral Agency and Values

“…Our fourth study purpose was to determine the extent to which moral traits were correlated with self and other doping likelihood. In a broad replication of previous studies, we showed that self doping likelihood was negatively related to moral agency (Ring & Hurst, 2019), moral identity (Kavussanu et al, 2020;Kavussanu & Ring, 2017;Ring & Hurst, 2019;Ring, et al, 2019a), personal moral standards (Ring & Hurst, 2019;Ring, et al, 2019a), and moral values (Ring & Hurst, 2019;Ring, et al, 2019b). In agreement with past research (Ring, et al, 2019b), the Z test (Steiger, 1980) provided evidence that the relationships between doping likelihood and moral agency/values were stronger for self than other measures.…”

“…According to Bandura's (1991) theory of moral thought and action, conduct is guided by moral standards and potential deviations from moral standards are typically constrained by affective self-sanctions, such as feelings of guilt about any planned action. The existence of this self-sanctioning phenomenon is well established in the context of doping (e.g., Kavussanu et al, 2020;Kavussanu & Ring, 2017;Ring & Hurst, 2019). Accordingly, based on this theoretical framework, the current evidence suggests that the operation of an indirect effect of perspective on doping likelihood via guilt can be explained by estimates of doping likelihood measured using other-referenced methods being relatively less constrained by affective selfsanction compared to those obtained using self-referenced methods.…”

“…Evidence indicates that self-referenced doping likelihood is negatively associated with moral agency (Ring & Hurst, 2019;Ring et al, 2019b), moral identity (Kavussanu et al, 2020;Kavussanu & Ring, 2017;Ring & Hurst, 2019;Ring, et al, 2019a;2019b), personal moral standards (Ring & Hurst, 2019;Ring et al, 2019b) and moral values (Ring & Hurst, 2019;Ring, Kavussanu & Gürpınar, 2020;Ring et al, 2019b). The evidence for self-referenced doping likelihood and concern over moral mistakes is mixed, with one study reporting a negative correlation (Ring & Hurst, 2019) and another reporting no relation (Ring et al, 2019b).…”

Effects of personal and situational factors on self-referenced doping likelihood

“…According to Bandura (1991) comparison, and euphemistic labeling (for review see Kavussanu, 2016). Moral disengagement has been implicated as an important facilitator of doping in qualitative studies (e.g., Engelberg et al, 2015), cross-sectional studies (e.g., Kavussanu, Hatzigeorgiadis, Elbe, & Ring, 2016;Kavussanu & Ring, 2017;Lucidi et al, 2004;Mallia et al, 2016), and experiments (e.g., Ring & Hurst, 2019). Bandura's (1991Bandura's ( , 2016 theory of moral thought and action also describes how selfregulatory efficacy, which is the perceived capability to control one's thoughts, feelings and actions (Bandura, 1997), can influence how a person acts when confronted with situational temptations.…”

“…Moral identity, which describes the degree to which being a moral person is central to one's self concept (Aquino & Reed, 2002;Blasi, 1984), is an important regulator of moral behavior (e.g., Hardy & Carlo, 2011;Hertz & Krettenauer, 2016). In the context of doping, moral identity has been inversely associated with doping likelihood (Kavussanu & Ring, 2017;Ring & Hurst, 2019;Ring, Kavussanu, Simms, & Mazanov, 2018). In addition, moral identity was found to be indirectly related to doping likelihood via moral disengagement (Kavussanu & Ring, 2017) and via self-regulatory efficacy and moral disengagement (Ring et al, 2018).…”