Using the prototype willingness model to predict doping in sport

Scandinavian Journal of Medicine and Science in Sports

Volumn 24, Issue 5, 2014, Pages e398-e405

  Whitaker, L ^a   Long, J ^a   Petroczi A ^b   Backhouse, S H ^a  

^a LEEDS METROPOLITAN UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

^b KINGSTON UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Anti doping education; Performance enhancing substances; Possible selves; Prevention

Indexed keywords

PERFORMANCE ENHANCING SUBSTANCE;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; ATHLETE; ATTITUDE; ATTITUDE TO HEALTH; DOPING; FEMALE; HUMAN; MALE; PERCEPTION; PREVENTION AND CONTROL; PSYCHOLOGICAL MODEL; PSYCHOLOGY; QUESTIONNAIRE; SOCIAL NORM; YOUNG ADULT;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; ATHLETES; ATTITUDE; DOPING IN SPORTS; FEMALE; HEALTH KNOWLEDGE, ATTITUDES, PRACTICE; HUMANS; MALE; MODELS, PSYCHOLOGICAL; PERCEPTION; PERFORMANCE-ENHANCING SUBSTANCES; QUESTIONNAIRES; SOCIAL NORMS; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 84928824388     PISSN: 09057188     EISSN: 16000838     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/sms.12148     Document Type: Article

References (36)

1. Ajzen I. From intentions to actions: a theory of planned behaviour. In: Kuhl J, Beckmann J, eds. Action control: from cognitions to behaviour. New York: Springer, 1985: 11-39.
2. Andrews JA, Hampson S, Barckley M. The effect of subjective normative social images of smokers on children's intentions to smoke. Nicotine Tob Res 2008: 10: 589-597.
3. Backhouse SH, Patterson L, McKenna J. Achieving the Olympic ideal: preventing doping in sport. Performance Enhancement & Health 2012: 1: 83-85.
4. Blanton H, Vanden den Eijnden RJJM, Buunk BP, Gibbons FX, Gerrard M, Bakker A. Accentuate the negative: social images in the prediction and promotion of condom use. J Appl Soc Psychol 2001: 31: 274-295.
5. Bloodworth A, McNamee M. Clean Olympians? Doping and anti-doping: the views of talented young British athletes. Int J Drug Policy 2010: 21: 276-282.
6. Fahey J. Are we winning the fight? In: World Anti-Doping Agency, ed. Play true: Engaging the Athlete. Montreal: World Anti-Doping Agency, 2009: 1.
7. Gibbons FX, Gerrard M, Lane DJ. A social reaction model of adolescent health risk. In: Suls JM, Wallston KA, eds. Social psychological foundations of health and illness. Oxford: Blackwell, 2003: 107-136.
8. Gibbons FX, Gerrard M, Reimer RA, Pomery EA. Unintentional behavior: a subrational approach to health risk. In: de Ridder D, de Wit J, eds. New perspectives on health behavior: the role of self-regulation. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons Ltd, 2006: 45-70.
9. Goulet C, Valois P, Buist A, Côté M. Predictors of the use of performance-enhancing substances by young athletes. Clin J Sport Med 2010: 20: 243-248.
10. Hasking PA, Oei TPS. Incorporating coping into an expectancy framework for explaining drinking behaviour. Curr Drug Abuse Rev. 2008: 1: 20-35.
11. Hauw D, Bilard J. Situated activity analysis of elite track and field athletes' use of prohibited performance-enhancing substances. J Subst Use. 2011: 17: 183-197.
12. Kirby K, Moran A, Guerin S. A qualitative analysis of the experiences of elite athletes who have admitted to doping for performance enhancement. Int J Sport Policy 2011: 3: 205-224.
13. Kondric M, Sekulic D, Petroczi A, Ostojic L, Rodek J, Ostojic Z. Is there a danger for myopia in anti-doping education? Comparative analysis of substance use and misuse in Olympic racket sports calls for a broader approach. Subst Abuse Treat Prev Policy 2011: 6: 27.
14. Kreuter F, Presser S, Tourangeau R. Social desirability bias in CATI, IVR and web surveys. Public Opin Q 2008: 72: 847-865.
15. Lazuras L, Barkoukis V, Rodafinos A, Tsorbatzoudis H. Predictors of doping intentions in elite-level athletes: a social cognitive approach. J Sport Exerc Psychol. 2010: 32: 694-710.
16. Lentillon-Kaestner V, Hagger MS, Hardcastle S. Health and doping in elite-level cycling. Scand J Med Sci Sports 2011: 22: 596-606.
17. Lucidi F, Zelli A, Mallia L, Grano C, Russo PM, Violani C. The social-cognitive mechanisms regulating adolescents' use of doping substances. J Sports Sci 2008: 26: 447-456.
18. Mazanov J, Huybers T. An empirical model of athlete decisions to use performance-enhancing drugs: qualitative evidence. Qual Res Sport Exerc Health. 2010: 2: 385-402.
19. Melzer M, Elbe A-M, Brand R. Moral and ethical decision-making: a chance for doping prevention in sports? Nord J Appl Ethics. 2010: 4: 69-85.
20. Nulty DD. The adequacy of response rates to online and paper surveys: what can be done? Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Educ. 2008: 33: 301-314.
21. Paulhus DL. Manual for the balanced inventory of desirable responding: version 6. Unpublished manual, University of British Columbia, 1988.
22. Petróczi A, Aidman E. Psychological drivers in doping: the life-cycle model of performance enhancement. Subst Abuse Treat Prev Policy 2008: 3: 7.
23. Petróczi A, Aidman E. Measuring explicit attitude toward doping: review of the psychometric properties of the Performance Enhancement Attitude Scale. Psychol Sport Exerc. 2009: 10: 390-396.
24. Petróczi A, Nepusz T. Methodological considerations regarding response bias effect in substance use research: is correlation between the measured variables sufficient? Subst Abuse Treat Prev Policy 2011: 6: 1.
25. Pitsch W, Emrich E. The frequency of doping in elite sport: results of a replication study. Int Rev Sociol Sport 2011: 45: 559-580.
26. Pomery EA, Gibbons FX, Reis-Bergan M, Gerrard M. From willingness to intention: experience moderates the shift from reactive to reasoned behavior. Pers Soc Psychol Bull 2009: 35: 894-908.
27. Rivis A, Sheeran P. Social influences and the theory of planned behaviour: evidence for a direct relationship between prototypes and young people's exercise behaviour. Psychol Health 2003: 18: 567-583.
28. Tabachnick BG, Fidell LS. Using multivariate statistics. 3rd edn. New York: Harper Collins, 1996.
29. Thornton B, Gibbons FX, Gerrard M. Risk perception and prototype perception: independent processes predicting risk behavior. Pers Soc Psychol Bull 2002: 28: 986-999.
30. UNESCO. Doping education brochure. Paris: United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization, 2006.
31. Uvacsek M, Nepusz T, Naughton DP, Mazanov J, Rànky MZ, Petróczi A. Self-admitted behavior and perceived use of performance-enhancing vs psychoactive drugs among competitive athletes. Scand J Med Sci Sports 2009: 21: 224-234.
32. WADA. World Anti-Doping Code. Montreal: World Anti-Doping Agency, 2009.
33. Whitaker L. Applying the prototype willingness model to doping in sport (PhD). Leeds: Leeds Metropolitan University, 2013.
34. Whitaker L, Long J, Petróczi A, Backhouse SH. Athletes' perceptions of performance enhancing substance user and non-user prototypes. Perform Enhancement Health 2012: 1: 28-34.
35. Wiefferink CH, Detmar SB, Coumans B, Vogels T, Paulussen TG. Social psychological determinants of the use of performance-enhancing drugs by gym users. Health Educ Res 2008: 23: 70-80.
36. Zimmermann F, Sieverding M. Young adults' social drinking as explained by an augmented theory of planned behaviour: the roles of prototypes, willingness, and gender. Br J Health Psychol 2010: 15: 561-581.