Empathic and Self-Regulatory Processes Governing Doping Behavior

Abstract

Evidence associating doping behavior with Moral Disengagement (MD) has accumulated over recent years. However, to date, research examining links between MD and doping has not considered key theoretically-grounded influences and outcomes of MD. As such, there is a need for quantitative research in relevant populations that purposefully examines the explanatory pathways through which MD is thought to operate. Towards this end, the current study examined a conceptually-grounded model of doping behavior that incorporated empathy, doping self-regulatory efficacy (SRE), doping MD, anticipated guilt and self-reported doping/doping susceptibility. Participants were specifically recruited to represent four key physical-activity contexts and consisted of team- (n = 195) and individual- (n = 169) sport athletes and hardcore- (n = 125) and corporate- (n = 121) gym exercisers representing both genders (nmale = 371; nfemale = 239); self-reported lifetime prevalence of doping across the sample was 13.6%. Each participant completed questionnaires assessing the aforementioned variables. Structural equation modelling indicated strong support for all study hypotheses. Specifically, we established: (a) empathy and doping SRE negatively predicted reported doping; (b) the predictive effects of empathy and doping SRE on reported doping were mediated by doping MD and anticipated guilt; (c) doping MD positively predicted reported doping; (d) the predictive effects of doping MD on reported doping were partially mediated by anticipated guilt. Substituting self-reported doping for doping susceptibility, multisample analyses then demonstrated these predictive effects were largely invariant between males and females and across the four physical-activity contexts represented. These findings extend current knowledge on a number of levels, and in doing so aid our understanding of key psychosocial processes that may govern doping behavior across key physical-activity contexts.

Integrating moral and achievement variables to predict doping likelihood in football: A cross-cultural investigation

“…In their seminal study, Bandura, Barbaranelli, Caprara, and Pastorelli (1996) found that anticipated guilt negatively predicted aggressive behavior in school children. Similar results have been reported in relation to Doping Likelihood athletes' antisocial behavior (e.g., Stanger, Kavussanu, Boardley, & Ring, 2013) as well as their doping likelihood and susceptibility (e.g., Boardley et al, 2017;Kavussanu & Ring, 2017;Ring & Kavussanu, 2018). Other anticipated negative emotions such as regret or shame about potential doping have also been negatively associated with doping intentions in adolescent and adult athletes (Barkoukis, Lazuras, & Harris, 2015;Lazuras, Barkoukis, & Tsorbatzoudis, 2015).…”

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

“…This indirect pathway suggests that the greater the perceived capacity to resist temptation the less mechanisms of moral disengagement are used to justify unethical conduct. Recent research has provided evidence to support this indirect pathway in the context of doping (e.g., Boardley et al, 2017;Corrion et al, 2017;Kavussanu & Ring, 2017;Ring & Kavussanu, 2018a). The current study evaluated this pathway in situations associated with potential benefits and costs for the athlete.…”

Perceptions of coach doping confrontation efficacy and athlete susceptibility to intentional and inadvertent doping

“…This study is the first to link athlete perceptions of coach DCE with outcomes relevant to both intentional and inadvertent doping, building upon the dominant focus on intentional doping . We also extended the predominant focus on technical coaches to consider strength and conditioning coaches, who work within environments where doping is prevalent . In also identifying potential psychosocial processes linking athletes' perceptions of their coaches with doping outcomes and demonstrating replicability of the proposed model by sex and across athletes from three continents, this work offers several meaningful advancements to the doping knowledge base.…”

“…Then, through vicarious influence, a coach demonstrating such behavior may enhance athlete doping SRE, which theoretically should tie with reduced doping MD as athletes who feel more confident in their ability to resist pressures and risks to dope should have lesser need to justify and rationalize doping . This possibility that changes in MD explain links between SRE and doping has previously been supported for self‐reported doping …”

“…First, extant work has tended to focus only on technical coaches . However, strength and conditioning coaches are also well placed to play a role in athlete doping because they interact with athletes in the gym environment, one often associated with doping . Thus, it is important to consider strength and conditioning and technical coaches in doping research.…”