Moral Disengagement in Doping Scale

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 policyWhile 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.

Effects of situational costs and benefits on projected doping likelihood

“…In line with Bandura's (1991) theory of moral thought and action and in agreement with past research (Engelberg et al, 2015;Hodge, et al, 2013;Kavussanu et al, 2016;Mallia, et al, 2016;Ring & Kavussanu, 2017;Zelli, et al, 2010Zelli, et al, , 2016, we found that moral disengagement was linked with a permissive view of doping, with athletes who had the PROJECTED DOPING tendency to morally disengage, also being most likely to consider doping. Importantly, the moral disengagement-doping relationship was influenced by the context, with a mediumsized positive effect for benefit situations and a small-sized positive effect for cost situations.…”

“…They are able to do so by disengaging moral self-sanctions (i.e., guilt, shame) from reprehensible behavior by enacting a thought process -termed moral disengagement -that allows individuals with the same moral standards to act differently in the same situation (Bandura, 1991). Mechanisms of moral disengagement have been identified in relation to doping, with many studies linking moral disengagement with increased intention or likelihood of doping in sport (e.g., Engelberg et al, 2015;Hodge, Hargreaves, Gerrard, & Lonsdale, 2013;Kavussanu et al, 2016;Lucidi et al, 2004;2008;Mallia et al, 2016;Ring & Kavussanu, 2017).…”

“…In the context of doping, moral identity has been negatively related to moral disengagement, and there is evidence for a link between moral disengagement and doping likelihood (Kavussanu et al, 2016). Moreover, a recent study has reported that the influence of moral values on aggressiveness in athletes was serially mediated via self-regulatory efficacy 2 and moral disengagement (Albouza, d'Arripe-Longueville, & Corrion, 2017).…”

“…Moral disengagement. The moral disengagement in doping scale (Kavussanu et al, 2016) was used to measure moral disengagement in doping in sport. Athletes indicated their level of agreement with six statements (e.g., "Doping does not really hurt anyone") using a Likert scale anchored by 1 (strongly disagree) and 7 (strongly agree).…”

“…Athletes indicated their level of agreement with six statements (e.g., "Doping does not really hurt anyone") using a Likert scale anchored by 1 (strongly disagree) and 7 (strongly agree). The scale has shown good internal consistency (α's = .78 -.86), test-retest reliability (r = .78), and construct PROJECTED DOPING validity (Kavussanu et al, 2016). The mean of all six item ratings was computed as a measure of moral disengagement in doping (α = .79).…”