Personal and Psychosocial Predictors of Doping Use in Physical Activity Settings: A Meta-Analysis

Abstract

Background

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.

Objectives

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).

Data Sources

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.

Results

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.

Limitations

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.

Conclusions

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

References

  1. 1.

    WADA. World anti-doping code. Montreal: World Anti-Doping Agency; 2009.

    Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Baron DA, Martin DM, Magd SA. Doping in sports and its spread to at-risk populations: an international review. World Psychiatry. 2007;6(2):118–23.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Pitsch W, Emrich E. The frequency of doping in elite sport: results of a replication study. Int Rev Sociol Sport. 2011;47(5):559–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Dunn M, Mazanov J, Sitharthan G. Predicting future anabolic-androgenic steroid use intentions with current substance use: findings from an internet-based survey. Clin J Sport Med. 2009;19(3):222–7.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Blouin AG, Goldfield GS. Body image and steroid use in male bodybuilders. Int J Eat Disord. 1995;18(2):159–65.

    PubMed  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Laure P. Epidemiologic approach of doping in sport: a review. J Sports Med Phys Fit. 1997;37(3):218–24.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Lentillon-Kaestner V, Ohl F. Can we measure accurately the prevalence of doping? Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2011;21(6):e132–42.

    PubMed  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Uvacsek M, Nepusz T, Naughton DP, et al. Self-admitted behavior and perceived use of performance-enhancing vs psychoactive drugs among competitive athletes. Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2011;21(2):224–34.

    PubMed  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Petróczi A, Aidman EV, Nepusz T. Capturing doping attitudes by self-report declarations and implicit assessment: a methodology study. Subst Abuse Treat Prev Policy. 2008;3:9.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Sottas P-E, Robinson N, Fischetto G, et al. Prevalence of blood doping in samples collected from elite track and field athletes. Clin Chem. 2011;57(5):762–9.

    PubMed  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 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. 12.

    Working Group on the (in) effectiveness of testing. Report to WADA Executive Committee on lack of effectiveness of testing programs. 2013.

  13. 13.

    Ajzen I. The theory of planned behavior. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process. 1991;50(2):179–211.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Fishbein M, Cappella JN. The role of theory in developing effective health communications. J Commun. 2006;56(s1):S1–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Goulet C, Valois P, Buist A, et al. Predictors of the use of performance-enhancing substances by young athletes. Clin J Sport Med. 2010;20(4):243–8.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Lazuras L, Barkoukis V, Rodafinos A, et al. Predictors of doping intentions in elite-level athletes: a social cognition approach. J Sport Exerc Psychol. 2010;32(5):694–710.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Lucidi F, Zelli A, Mallia L, et al. The social-cognitive mechanisms regulating adolescents’ use of doping substances. J Sports Sci. 2008;26(5):447–56.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Wiefferink CH, Detmar SB, Coumans B, et al. Social psychological determinants of the use of performance-enhancing drugs by gym users. Health Educ Res. 2008;23(1):70–80.

    PubMed  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Zelli A, Mallia L, Lucidi F. The contribution of interpersonal appraisals to a social-cognitive analysis of adolescents’ doping use. Psychol Sport Exerc. 2010;11(4):304–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 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 

  21. 21.

    Barkoukis V, Lazuras L, Tsorbatzoudis H, et al. Motivational and sportspersonship profiles of elite athletes in relation to doping behavior. Psychol Sport Exerc. 2011;12(3):205–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Dodge TL, Jaccard JJ. The effect of high school sports participation on the use of performance-enhancing substances in young adulthood. J Adolesc Health. 2006;39(3):367–73.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Backhouse SH, Whitaker L, Petróczi A. Gateway to doping? Supplement use in the context of preferred competitive situations, doping attitude, beliefs, and norms. Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2013;23(2):244–52.

    PubMed  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 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.

  25. 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.

  26. 26.

    Elliot DL, Goldberg L, Moe EL, et al. Long-term outcomes of the ATHENA (athletes targeting healthy exercise & nutrition alternatives) program for female high school athletes. J Alcohol Drug Educ. 2008;52(2):73–92.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. 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. 28.

    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. National Youth Risk Behavior Survey (National High School); 1991.

  29. 29.

    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. National Youth Risk Behavior Survey (National High School);1993.

  30. 30.

    Brower KJ, Blow FC, Hill EM. Risk factors for anabolic-androgenic steroid use in men. J Psychiatr Res. 1994;28(4):369–80.

    PubMed  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. National Youth Risk Behavior Survey (National High School); 1995.

  32. 32.

    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. National Youth Risk Behavior Survey (National College); 1995.

  33. 33.

    Nilsson S. Androgenic anabolic steroid use among male adolescents in Falkenberg. Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 1995;48(1):9–11.

    PubMed  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  34. 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.

  35. 35.

    Goldberg L, Elliot D, Clarke GN, et al. Effects of a multidimensional anabolic steroid prevention intervention: the adolescents training and learning to avoid steroids (ATLAS) program. J Am Med Assoc. 1996;276(19):1555–62.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  36. 36.

    Melia P, Pipe A, Greenberg L. The use of anabolic-androgenic steroids by Canadian students. Clin J Sport Med. 1996;6(1):9–14.

    PubMed  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  37. 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. 38.

    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. National Youth Risk Behavior Survey (National Alternative High School); 1998.

  39. 39.

    Faigenbaum AD, Zaichkowsky LD, Gardner DE, et al. Anabolic steroid use by male and female middle school students. Pediatrics. 1998;101:e6.

    PubMed  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  40. 40.

    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. National Youth Risk Behavior Survey (National High School); 1999.

  41. 41.

    Kindlundh AMS, Isacson DGL, Berglund L, et al. Factors associated with adolescent use of doping agents: anabolic-androgenic steroids. Addiction. 1999;94(4):543–53.

    PubMed  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  42. 42.

    Goldberg L, Mackinnon DP, Elliot DL, et al. The adolescents training and learning to avoid steroids program: preventing drug use and promoting health behaviors. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2000;154:332–8.

    PubMed  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  43. 43.

    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. National Youth Risk Behavior Survey (National High School); 2001.

  44. 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. 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 

  46. 46.

    Goldberg L, Elliot DL, Mackinnon DP, et al. Drug testing athletes to prevent substance abuse: background and pilot study results of the SATURN (student athlete testing using random notification) study. J Adolesc Health. 2003;32(1):16–25.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  47. 47.

    Laure P, Lecerf T, Friser A, et al. Drugs, recreational drug use and attitudes towards doping of high school athletes. Int J Sports Med. 2004;25(2):133–8.

    PubMed  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  48. 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. 49.

    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. National Youth Risk Behavior Survey (National High School); 2005.

  50. 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 

  51. 51.

    Kanayama G, Barry S, Hudson JI, et al. Body image and attitudes toward male roles in anabolic-androgenic steroid users. Am J Psychiatry. 2006;163:697–703.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  52. 52.

    Papadopoulos FC, Skalkidis I, Parkkari J, et al. Doping use among tertiary education students in six developed countries. Eur J Epidemiol. 2006;21(4):307–13.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  53. 53.

    Striegel H, Simon P, Frisch S, et al. Anabolic ergogenic substance users in fitness-sports: a distinct group supported by the health care system. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2006;81(1):11–9.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  54. 54.

    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. National Youth Risk Behavior Survey (National High School); 2007.

  55. 55.

    Dodge T, Jaccard JJ. Negative beliefs as a moderator of the intention-behavior relationship: decisions to use performance-enhancing substances. J Appl Soc Psychol. 2007;37(1):43–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. 56.

    Elliot DL, Cheong J, Moe EL, et al. Cross-sectional study of female students reporting anabolic steroid use. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2007;161:572–7.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  57. 57.

    Laure P, Binsinger C. Doping prevalence among preadolescent athletes: a 4-year follow-up. Br J Sports Med. 2007;41(10):660–3.

    PubMed  CAS  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  58. 58.

    Petróczi A. Attitudes and doping: a structural equation analysis of the relationship between athletes’ attitudes, sport orientation and doping behaviour. Subst Abuse Treat Prev Policy. 2007;2:34.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  59. 59.

    Wanjek B, Rosendahl J, Strauss B, et al. Doping, drugs and drug abuse among adolescents in the state of Thuringia (Germany): prevalence, knowledge and attitudes. Int J Sports Med. 2007;28(4):346–53.

    PubMed  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  60. 60.

    Al-Falasi O, Al-Dahmani K, Al-Eisaei K, et al. Knowledge, attitude and practice of anabolic steroids use among gym users in Al-Ain district, United Arab Emirates. Open Sports Med J. 2008;2:75–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. 61.

    Dodge T, Jaccard JJ. Is abstinence an alternative? Predicting adolescent athletes’ intentions to use performance enhancing substances. J Health Psychol. 2008;13(5):703–11.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  62. 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.

  63. 63.

    Petróczi A, Mazanov J, Nepusz T, et al. Comfort in big numbers: does over-estimation of doping prevalence in others indicate self-involvement? J Occup Med Toxicol. 2008;3:19.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  64. 64.

    Rees CR, Zarco EPT, Lewis DK. The steroids/sports supplements connection: pragmatism and sensation-seeking in the attitudes and behavior of JHS and HS students on Long Island. J Drug Educ. 2008;38(4):329–49.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  65. 65.

    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. National Youth Risk Behavior Survey (National High School); 2009.

  66. 66.

    Lugo R. Sports and health: The influence of motivational orientation on body image and doping behaviors [Master’s thesis]: Universitet I Oslo; 2009.

  67. 67.

    Ranby KW, Aiken LS, Mackinnon DP, et al. A mediation analysis of the ATHENA intervention for female athletes: prevention of athletic-enhancing substance use and unhealthy weight loss behaviors. J Pediatr Psychol. 2009;34(10):1069–83.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  68. 68.

    Rodek J, Sekulic D, Pasalic E. Can we consider religiousness as a protective factor against doping behavior in sport? J Relig Health. 2009;48(4):445–53.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  69. 69.

    Ip EJ, Barnett MJ, Tenerowicz MJ, et al. Women and anabolic steroids: an analysis of a dozen users. Clin J Sport Med. 2010;20(6):475–81.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  70. 70.

    Thorlindsson T, Halldorsson V. Sport, and use of anabolic androgenic steroids among Icelandic high school students: a critical test of three perspectives. Subst Abuse Treat Prev Policy. 2010;5:32.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  71. 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. 72.

    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. National Youth Risk Behavior Survey (National High School); 2011.

  73. 73.

    Gucciardi DF, Jalleh G, Donovan RJ. An examination of the sport drug control model with elite Australian athletes. J Sci Med Sport. 2011;14(6):469–76.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  74. 74.

    Neeraj K, Maman P, Sandhu JS. Why players engage in drug abuse substances? A survey study. Doping J. 2011;8:1.

    Google Scholar 

  75. 75.

    Petróczi A, Uvacsek M, Nepusz T, et al. Incongruence in doping related attitudes, beliefs and opinions in the context of discordant behavioural data: in which measure do we trust? PLoS One. 2011;6:e18804.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  76. 76.

    Allahverdipour H, Jalilian F, Shaghaghi A. Vulnerability and the intention to anabolic steroids use among Iranian gym users: an application of the theory of planned behavior. Subst Use Misuse. 2012;47(3):309–17.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  77. 77.

    Pope HG Jr, Kanayama G, Hudson JI. Risk factors for illicit anabolic-androgenic steroid use in male weightlifters: a cross-sectional cohort study. Biol Psychiatry. 2012;71(3):254–61.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  78. 78.

    Barkoukis V, Lazuras L, Tsorbatzoudis H. Beliefs about the causes of success in sports and susceptibility for doping use in adolescent athletes. J Sports Sci. 2013;32(3):212–9.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  79. 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.

  80. 80.

    Tsorbatzoudis H, Barkoukis V, Lazuras L. Relation between doping behaviours and psychological variables [unpublished]; 2013.

  81. 81.

    Whitaker L. Applying the prototype willingness model to doping in sport [Doctoral thesis]: Leeds Metropolitan University; 2013.

  82. 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. 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.

  84. 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 

  85. 85.

    Chen H, Cohen P, Chen S. How big is a big odds ratio? Interpreting the magnitudes of odds ratios in epidemiological studies. Commun Stat Simul Comput. 2010;39(4):860–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  86. 86.

    Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. revised ed. New York: Academic Press; 1977.

  87. 87.

    Rosenthal R. The “file drawer problem” and tolerance for null results. Psychol Bull. 1979;86(3):638–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  88. 88.

    Higgins JPT, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, et al. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ. 2003;327:557.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  89. 89.

    Hwang MI, Schmidt FL. Assessing moderating effect in meta-analysis: a re-analysis of top management support studies and suggestions for researchers. Eur J Inf Syst. 2011;20(6):693–702.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  90. 90.

    Landis RS. Successfully combining meta-analysis and structural equation modeling: recommendations and strategies. J Bus Psychol. 2013;28(3):251–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  91. 91.

    Viswesvaran C, Ones DS. Theory testing: combining psychometric meta-analysis and structural equations modeling. Pers Psychol. 1995;48(4):865–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  92. 92.

    Muthén B, Muthén L. Mplus user guide. Los Angeles: Muthén and Muthén; 2008.

    Google Scholar 

  93. 93.

    Barkoukis V, Lazuras L, Tsorbatzoudis H, et al. Motivational and social cognitive predictors of doping intentions in elite sports: an integrated approach. Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2013;23(5):e330–40.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  94. 94.

    Hu L-T, Bentler PM. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct Equ Modeling. 1999;6(1):1–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  95. 95.

    Cheung GW, Rensvold RB. Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Struct Equ Modeling. 2002;9(2):233–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  96. 96.

    Petróczi A, Aidman E. Psychological drivers in doping: the life-cycle model of performance enhancement. Subst Abuse Treat Prev Policy. 2008;3:7.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  97. 97.

    Goldberg L, Elliot DL, Clarke GN, et al. The adolescents training and learning to avoid steroids (ATLAS) prevention program: background and results of a model intervention. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 1996;150(7):713–21.

    PubMed  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  98. 98.

    Goldberg L, Elliot DL. Preventing substance use among high school athletes: the ATLAS and ATHENA programs. J Appl Sch Psychol. 2005;21(2):63–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  99. 99.

    Elliot DL, Goldberg L, Moe EL, et al. Preventing substance use and disordered eating: initial outcomes of the ATHENA (athletes targeting healthy exercise and nutrition alternatives) program. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2004;158(11):1043–9.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  100. 100.

    Burns RD, Schiller MR, Merrick MA, et al. Intercollegiate student athlete use of nutritional supplements and the role of athletic trainers and dietitians in nutrition counseling. J Am Diet Assoc. 2004;104(2):246–9.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  101. 101.

    Maughan RJ, Depiesse F, Geyer H. The use of dietary supplements by athletes. J Sports Sci. 2007;25(S1):S103–13.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  102. 102.

    Hoffman JR, Faigenbaum AD, Ratamess NA, et al. Nutritional supplementation and anabolic steroid use in adolescents. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2008;40(1):15–24.

    PubMed  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  103. 103.

    Tscholl P, Alonso JM, Dollé G, et al. The use of drugs and nutritional supplements in top-level track and field athletes. Am J Sports Med. 2010;38(1):133–40.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  104. 104.

    Tsorbatzoudis H, Barkoukis V, Lazuras L. Determinants of doping intentions in sport–YOUTH. Montreal: World Anti-Doping Agency; 2013.

    Google Scholar 

  105. 105.

    Ajzen I. The theory of planned behaviour: reactions and reflections. Psychol Health. 2011;26(9):1113–27.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  106. 106.

    Stewart B, Smith ACT. Drug use in sport: implications for public policy. J Sport Soc Issues. 2008;32(3):278–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  107. 107.

    Geyer H, Parr MK, Koehler K, et al. Nutritional supplements cross-contaminated and faked with doping substances. J Mass Spectrom. 2008;43(7):892–902.

    PubMed  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  108. 108.

    Donovan RJ, Egger G, Kapernick V, et al. A conceptual framework for achieving performance enhancing drug compliance in sport. Sports Med. 2002;32(4):269–84.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  109. 109.

    Strelan P, Boeckmann RJ. A new model for understanding performance-enhancing drug use by elite athletes. J Appl Sport Psychol. 2003;15(2):176–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  110. 110.

    Rivis A, Sheeran P. Descriptive norms as an additional predictor in the theory of planned behaviour: a meta-analysis. Curr Psychol. 2003;22(3):218–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  111. 111.

    Armitage CJ, Conner M. Efficacy of the theory of planned behaviour: a meta-analytic review. Br J Soc Psychol. 2001;40(4):471–99.

    PubMed  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  112. 112.

    McEachan RRC, Conner M, Taylor NJ, et al. Prospective prediction of health-related behaviours with the theory of planned behaviour: a meta-analysis. Health Psychol Rev. 2011;5(2):97–144.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  113. 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 

  114. 114.

    Backhouse SH, Patterson L, McKenna J. Achieving the Olympic ideal: preventing doping in sport. Perform Enhanc Health. 2012;1(2):83–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  115. 115.

    Gardner M, Steinberg L. Peer influence on risk taking, risk preference, and risky decision making in adolescence and adulthood: an experimental study. Dev Psychol. 2005;41(4):625–35.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  116. 116.

    Albert D, Chein J, Steinberg L. The teenage brain: peer influences on adolescent decision making. Curr Dir Psychol Sci. 2013;22(2):114–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  117. 117.

    Cialdini RB. Crafting normative messages to protect the environment. Curr Dir Psychol Sci. 2003;12(4):105–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  118. 118.

    Schultz PW, Nolan JM, Cialdini RB, et al. The constructive, destructive, and reconstructive power of social norms. Psychol Sci. 2007;18(5):429–34.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank the World Anti-Doping Agency for funding this project. The funders did not influence this review in any way. Nikos Ntoumanis, Johan Y.Y. Ng, Vassilis Barkoukis, and Susan Backhouse have no potential conflicts of interest that are directly relevant to the content of this review. We would also like to thank the following authors and their team (in alphabetical order) for providing the necessary statistical information needed for our meta-analysis: F. Al-Maskari, D. Chan, T. Dodge, E. Donahue, M. Dunn, H. Gabriel, D. Gucciardi, G. Kanayama, F. Lucidi, R. Lugo, K. Miller, A. Moran, S. Nilsson, F. Papadopoulos, A. Petróczi, H. Pope, K. Wiefferink, A. Zelli.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nikos Ntoumanis.

Electronic supplementary material

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ntoumanis, N., Ng, J.Y.Y., Barkoukis, V. et al. Personal and Psychosocial Predictors of Doping Use in Physical Activity Settings: A Meta-Analysis. Sports Med 44, 1603–1624 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-014-0240-4

Download citation

Keywords

  • Standardize Root Mean Square Residual
  • Moral Disengagement
  • Autonomous Motivation
  • Descriptive Norm
  • Competitive Athlete