Capturing doping attitudes by self-report declarations and implicit assessment: a methodology study.

Andrea Petróczi,Tamás Nepusz,Eugene V Aidman

doi:10.1186/1747-597x-3-9

Abstract

BackgroundUnderstanding athletes' attitudes and behavioural intentions towards performance enhancement is critical to informing anti-doping intervention strategies. Capturing the complexity of these attitudes beyond verbal declarations requires indirect methods. This pilot study was aimed at developing and validating a method to assess implicit doping attitudes using an Implicit Associations Test (IAT) approach.MethodsThe conventional IAT evaluation task (categorising 'good' and 'bad' words) was combined with a novel 'doping' versus 'nutrition supplements' category pair to create a performance-enhancement related IAT protocol (PE-IAT). The difference between average response times to 'good-doping' and 'bad-doping' combinations represents an estimate of implicit attitude towards doping in relation to nutritional supplements. 111 sports and exercise science undergraduates completed the PE-IAT, the Performance Enhancement Attitude Scale (PEAS) and answered questions regarding their beliefs about doping.ResultsLonger response times were observed in the mixed category discrimination trials where categories 'good' and 'doping' shared the same response key (compared to 'bad-doping' combination on the same key) indicating a less favourable evaluation of doping substances. The PE-IAT measure did not correlate significantly with the declared doping attitudes (r = .181, p = .142), indicating a predictable partial dissociation. Action-oriented self-report expressed stronger associations with PE-IAT: participants who declared they would consider using doping showed significantly less implicit negativity towards banned substances (U = 109.00, p = .047). Similarly, those who reported more lenient explicit attitudes towards doping or expressly supported legalizing it, showed less implicit negativity towards doping in the sample, although neither observed differences reached statistical significance (t = 1.300, p = .198, and U = 231.00, p = .319, respectively). Known-group validation strategy yielded mixed results: while competitive sport participants scored significantly lower than non-competitive ones on the PEAS (t = -2.71, p = .008), the two groups did not differ on PE-IAT (t = -.093, p = .926).ConclusionThe results suggest a potential of the PE-IAT method to capture undeclared attitudes to doping and predict behaviour, which can support targeted anti-doping intervention and related research. The initial evidence of validity is promising but also indicates a need for improvement to the protocol and stimulus material.

Highlights

Understanding athletes' attitudes and behavioural intentions towards performance enhancement is critical to informing anti-doping intervention strategies
Intervention strategies have appealed to moral values and health consciousness of the athletes
This paper examines the utility of one such method – the Implicit Associations Test (IAT) [21] – in assessing implicit doping attitudes in comparison to the self-report derived assessments

Summary

Introduction

Understanding athletes' attitudes and behavioural intentions towards performance enhancement is critical to informing anti-doping intervention strategies. Capturing the complexity of these attitudes beyond verbal declarations requires indirect methods This pilot study was aimed at developing and validating a method to assess implicit doping attitudes using an Implicit Associations Test (IAT) approach. This approach is based on the assumption that athletes' actions are exclusively motivated by conscious cognitive processes. The fundamental questions to be addressed for effective intervention programs are: what is it that really drives highly skilled and motivated athletes to risk their health, reputation and future participation by engaging in doping practices? The fundamental questions to be addressed for effective intervention programs are: what is it that really drives highly skilled and motivated athletes to risk their health, reputation and future participation by engaging in doping practices? Why risk losing a future in one's chosen sport by committing an act that goes against the fabric of fair play and ethical behaviour? Are reasons always objectively evaluated and clearly articulated factors that can be measured by some explicit tools (e.g. questionnaires, interviews) or rather, may decisions be influenced by values below the explicit awareness?

Methods

Results

Discussion

Conclusion