Effects of situational costs and benefits on projected doping likelihood

Abstract

Objectives: Our primary aim was to compare the influence of a range of situational factors (costs and benefits) on projected doping likelihood in hypothetical situations. A secondary aim was to examine whether doping likelihood was influenced by personal social cognitive factors implicated in the regulation of ethical behavior by Bandura's (1991) theory of moral thought and action and Aquino and Reed's (2002) model of moral identity. Design: Using a cross-sectional design, projected doping likelihood was assessed indirectly via hypothetical scenarios. Method: Athletes indicated the likelihood of doping by another athlete in hypothetical situations and completed measures of moral identity, doping self-regulatory efficacy, and doping moral disengagement. Results: Projected doping likelihood varied considerably among the hypothetical situations. Athletes consistently judged that doping by an imaginary athlete was least likely when there was an increased risk of death and high chances of being caught, banned, and fined. In 14 contrast, doping was judged as most likely when associated with career advancement, 15 encouragement from the athlete's entourage, large financial gains, and low chances of being 16 caught, banned and fined. In situations where doping had costs for the athlete, moral identity was directly related to the likelihood of doping, whereas in situations where doping accrued benefits to the athlete, moral identity was indirectly related to doping likelihood via increased doping self-regulatory efficacy and decreased doping moral disengagement. 20 Conclusions: The current findings show that projected doping likelihood is influenced by 21 situational and personal factors.

The impact of achievement goals on cheating in sport

“…A series of Wilcoxon Signed Rank Tests indicated that cheating was more likely when the chance of being caught was 10% than both ACHIEVEMENT GOALS AND CHEATING 16 50%, Z = 1.90, p = .05, and 90%, Z = 3.50, p = .001, and more likely for 50% than 90%, Z = 2.53, p = .01. The current evidence showing that greater probability of being caught was associated with lower cheating likelihood, is compatible with studies showing that the likelihood of doping in hypothetical situations is lower when the probability of being detected is increased (Huybers & Mazanov, 2012;Ring, et al, 2018).…”

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

“…To our knowledge, no study has examined the relative strength exerted by the different mechanisms on doping by athletes (cf. Ring, Kavussanu, Simms, & Mazanov, 2018), or indeed any form of cheating or antisocial behavior in sport. To improve our understanding of the moral disengagement-doping relationship, we used an experimental design to compare the effects of six moral disengagement mechanisms on doping likelihood in hypothetical situations.…”

El Dopaje Deportivo Como Cuestión Socialmente Viva: Una Revisión Bibliográfica

“…65 Consecuentemente, una posición favorable o desfavorable ante el dopaje deportivo incluiría la evaluación de amenazas, el examen de beneficios, la moralidad, la legitimidad en las pruebas de detección de drogas, la opinión de un grupo de referencia y los rasgos de personalidad. [66][67][68] Una manera de demostrar el poder predictivo de la personalidad en relación con el dopaje, es la propuesta de la Tríada Oscura, en la cual se supone que los rasgos de personalidad que más influyen en las actitudes frente al dopaje son el maquiavelismo (manipulación a otras personas), el narcisismo (visión exagerada de sí mismas y autocomplacencia) y la psicopatía (impulsividad, poca empatía por los demás y agresividad). 69 • La categoría 2.…”