Personal and Psychosocial Predictors of Doping Use in Physical Activity Settings: A Meta-Analysis
- 1.2k Downloads
There is a growing body of empirical evidence on demographic and psychosocial predictors of doping intentions and behaviors utilizing a variety of variables and conceptual models. However, to date there has been no attempt to quantitatively synthesize the available evidence and identify the strongest predictors of doping.
Using meta-analysis, we aimed to (i) determine effect sizes of psychological (e.g. attitudes) and social-contextual factors (e.g. social norms), and demographic (e.g. sex and age) variables on doping intentions and use; (ii) examine variables that moderate such effect sizes; and (iii) test a path analysis model, using the meta-analyzed effect sizes, based on variables from the theory of planned behavior (TPB).
Articles were identified from online databases, by contacting experts in the field, and searching the World Anti-Doping Agency website.
Study Eligibility Criteria and Participants
Studies that measured doping behaviors and/or doping intentions, and at least one other demographic, psychological, or social-contextual variable were included. We identified 63 independent datasets.
Study Appraisal and Synthesis Method
Study information was extracted by using predefined data fields and taking into account study quality indicators. A random effects meta-analysis was carried out, correcting for sampling and measurement error, and identifying moderator variables. Path analysis was conducted on a subset of studies that utilized the TPB.
Use of legal supplements, perceived social norms, and positive attitudes towards doping were the strongest positive correlates of doping intentions and behaviors. In contrast, morality and self-efficacy to refrain from doping had the strongest negative association with doping intentions and behaviors. Furthermore, path analysis suggested that attitudes, perceived norms, and self-efficacy to refrain from doping predicted intentions to dope and, indirectly, doping behaviors.
Various meta-analyzed effect sizes were based on a small number of studies, which were correlational in nature. This is a limitation of the extant literature.
This review identifies a number of important correlates of doping intention and behavior, many of which were measured via self-reports and were drawn from an extended TPB framework. Future research might benefit from embracing other conceptual models of doping behavior and adopting experimental methodologies that will test some of the identified correlates in an effort to develop targeted anti-doping policies and programs.
- 1.WADA. World anti-doping code. Montreal: World Anti-Doping Agency; 2009.Google Scholar
- 6.Laure P. Epidemiologic approach of doping in sport: a review. J Sports Med Phys Fit. 1997;37(3):218–24.Google Scholar
- 11.Fahey J. WADA in 2013. WADA Media Symposium. London; 12 Feb 2013. http://www.wada-ama.org/Documents/News_Center/Speeches_Presentations/WADA-2013-Media-Symposium-President-Speech.pdf. Accessed 4 Jun 2014.
- 12.Working Group on the (in) effectiveness of testing. Report to WADA Executive Committee on lack of effectiveness of testing programs. 2013.Google Scholar
- 20.Fishbein M. An integrative model for behavioral prediction and its application to health promotion. In: DiClemente RJ, Crosby RA, Kegler MC, editors. Emerging theories in health promotion practice and research. 2nd ed. New York: Wiley; 2009. p. 215–34.Google Scholar
- 24.Whitaker L, Long J, Petróczi A, et al. Using the prototype willingness model to predict doping in sport. Scand J Med Sci Sports. in press.Google Scholar
- 25.Backhouse S, McKenna J, Robinson S, et al. International literature review: Attitudes, behaviors, knowledge and education–drugs in sport: past, present and future. Report to the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA). 2007.Google Scholar
- 27.Chng CL, Moore A. A study of steroid use among athletes: knowledge, attitude and use. Health Educ. 1990;21(6):12–7.Google Scholar
- 28.Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. National Youth Risk Behavior Survey (National High School); 1991.Google Scholar
- 29.Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. National Youth Risk Behavior Survey (National High School);1993.Google Scholar
- 31.Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. National Youth Risk Behavior Survey (National High School); 1995.Google Scholar
- 32.Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. National Youth Risk Behavior Survey (National College); 1995.Google Scholar
- 34.Allemeier MF. CIAU athletes’ use and intentions to use performance enhancing drugs: a study utilizing the theory of planned behaviour [Master’s thesis]. The University of British Columbia; 1996.Google Scholar
- 37.Vogels T, Brugman E, Coumans B, et al. Correlates of the use of performance-enhancing drugs among young patrons of gymnasiums in the Netherlands. Drugs (Abingdon Engl). 1996;3(1):39–48.Google Scholar
- 38.Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. National Youth Risk Behavior Survey (National Alternative High School); 1998.Google Scholar
- 40.Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. National Youth Risk Behavior Survey (National High School); 1999.Google Scholar
- 43.Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. National Youth Risk Behavior Survey (National High School); 2001.Google Scholar
- 44.Pedersen W, Wichstrøm L. Adolescents, doping agents, and drug use: a community study. J Drug Issues. 2001;31(2):517–42.Google Scholar
- 45.Miller KE, Barnes GM, Sabo D, et al. A comparison of health risk behavior in adolescent users of anabolic-androgenic steroids, by gender and athlete status. Sociol Sport J. 2002;19:385–402.Google Scholar
- 48.Lucidi F, Grano C, Leone L, et al. Determinants of the intention to use doping substances: an empirical contribution in a sample of Italian adolescents. Int J Sport Psychol. 2004;35(2):133–48.Google Scholar
- 49.Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. National Youth Risk Behavior Survey (National High School); 2005.Google Scholar
- 50.Donahue EG, Miquelon P, Valois P, et al. A motivational model of performance-enhancing substance use in elite athletes. J Sport Exerc Psychol. 2006;28:511–20.Google Scholar
- 54.Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. National Youth Risk Behavior Survey (National High School); 2007.Google Scholar
- 62.Moran A, Guerin S, Kirby K, et al. The development and validation of a doping attitudes and behaviour scale. Report to World Anti-Doping Agency and The Irish Sports Council; 2008.Google Scholar
- 65.Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. National Youth Risk Behavior Survey (National High School); 2009.Google Scholar
- 66.Lugo R. Sports and health: The influence of motivational orientation on body image and doping behaviors [Master’s thesis]: Universitet I Oslo; 2009.Google Scholar
- 71.Zelli A, Lucidi F, Mallia L. The relationships among adolescents’ drive for muscularity, drive for thinness, doping attitudes, and doping intentions. J Clin Sport Psych. 2010;4:39–52.Google Scholar
- 72.Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. National Youth Risk Behavior Survey (National High School); 2011.Google Scholar
- 74.Neeraj K, Maman P, Sandhu JS. Why players engage in drug abuse substances? A survey study. Doping J. 2011;8:1.Google Scholar
- 79.Chan DKC, Hagger MS, Hardcastle SJ, et al. Behavioural, normative, and control beliefs of doping avoidance: a perspective from the theory of planned behaviour [unpublished]; 2013.Google Scholar
- 80.Tsorbatzoudis H, Barkoukis V, Lazuras L. Relation between doping behaviours and psychological variables [unpublished]; 2013.Google Scholar
- 81.Whitaker L. Applying the prototype willingness model to doping in sport [Doctoral thesis]: Leeds Metropolitan University; 2013.Google Scholar
- 82.Hunter JE, Schmidt FL. Methods of meta-analysis: correcting error and bias in research findings. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, Inc.; 2004.Google Scholar
- 83.Higgins JPT, Altman DG, Sterne JAC. Assessing risk of bias in included studies. In: Higgins JPT, Green S, editors. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions: The Cochrane Collaboration; 2011.Google Scholar
- 84.Shadish WR, Haddock CK. Combining estimates of effect size. In: Cooper H, Hedges LV, editors. The handbook of research synthesis. New York: Russell Sage Foundation; 1994. p. 261–81.Google Scholar
- 86.Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. revised ed. New York: Academic Press; 1977.Google Scholar
- 92.Muthén B, Muthén L. Mplus user guide. Los Angeles: Muthén and Muthén; 2008.Google Scholar
- 104.Tsorbatzoudis H, Barkoukis V, Lazuras L. Determinants of doping intentions in sport–YOUTH. Montreal: World Anti-Doping Agency; 2013.Google Scholar
- 113.Simons-Morton BG, Haynie D, Noelcke E. Social influences: the effects of socialization, selection, and social normative processes on health behavior. In: DiClemente RJ, Crosby RA, Kegler M, editors. Emerging theories in health promotion practice and research. San Francisco: Wiley; 2009. p. 65–95.Google Scholar