The role of the Self in assessing doping cognition: Implicit and explicit measures of athletes' doping-related prototype perceptions

Psychology of Sport and Exercise

Volumn 24, Issue , 2016, Pages 159-167

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

^a LEEDS METROPOLITAN UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

^b KINGSTON UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

^c Sixdegrees Ltd   (Hungary)

Author keywords

Mental representation; Performance enhancement; Sport; Stimulus response compatibility

Indexed keywords

EID: 84959302977     PISSN: 14690292     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.psychsport.2016.02.005     Document Type: Article

References (58)

1. Blanton H., Vanden Den Eijnden R.J.J.M., Buunk B.P., Gibbons F.X., Gerrard M., Bakker A. Accentuate the negative: social images in the prediction and promotion of condom use. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 2001, 31(2):274-295. 10.1111/j.1559-1816.2001.tb00197.x.
2. Boldero J.M., Rawlings D., Haslam N. Convergence between GNAT-assessed implicit and explicit personality. European Journal of Personality 2007, 21(3):341-358. 10.1002/per.622.
3. Brand R., Heck P., Ziegler M. Illegal performance enhancing drugs and doping in sport: a picture-based brief implicit association test for measuring athletes' attitudes. Substance Abuse Treatment, Prevention and Policy 2014, 9:7. 10.1186/1747-597x-9-7.
4. Brand R., Wolff W., Baumgarten F. Modeling doping cognition from a dual process perspective. The psychology of doping in sport 2015, 33-43. Routledge, Oxon. V. Barkoukis, L. Lazuras, H. Tsorbatzoudis (Eds.).
5. Brand R., Wolff W., Thieme D. Using response-time latencies to measure athletes? doping attitudes: the brief implicit attitude test identifies substance abuse in bodybuilders. Substance Abuse Treatment, Prevention, and Policy 2014, 9(36). http://www.biomedcentral.com/content/pdf/1747-1597X-1749-1736.pdf.
6. Cooley E., Payne B.K., Loersch C., Lei R. Who owns implicit attitudes? testing a metacognitive perspective. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 2015, 41(1):103-115. 10.1177/0146167214559712.
7. Cross S.E., Markus H.R. Self-schemas, possible selves, and competent performance. Journal of Educational Psychology 1994, 86(3):423-438. 10.1037/0022-0663.86.3.423.
8. De Houwer J. A structural and process analysis of the implicit association test. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 2001, 37(6):443. 10.1006/jesp.2000.1464.
9. De Houwer J., Moors A. How to define and examine the implicitness of implicit measures. Implicit measures of attitudes 2007, 179-195. Guilford Press, London. B. Wittenbrink, N. Schwarz (Eds.).
10. Fazio R.H. A practical guide to response latency in social psychological research. Research methods in personality and social psychology 1990, 11:74-97. Sage, Newbury Park, CA.
11. Fazio R.H., Olson M.A. Implicit measures in social cognition research: their meaning and use. Annual Review of Psychology 2003, 54(1):297-327. 10.1146/annurev.psych.54.101601.145225.
12. Gawronski B., Lebel E.P., Peters K.R. What do implicit measures tell us? Scrutinizing the validity of three common assumptions. Perspectives on Psychological Science 2007, 2:181-193.
13. Gibbons F.X., Gerrard M., Lane D.J. A social reaction model of adolescent health risk. Social psychological foundations of health and illness 2003, 107-136. Blackwell, Oxford. J.M. Suls, K.A. Wallston (Eds.).
14. Goldman B., Bush P., Klatz R. Death in the locker room: steroids and sports 1984, Century, London.
15. Greenwald A.G., Mcghee D.E., Schwartz J.L. Measuring individual differences in implicit cognition: the implicit association test. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 1998, 74(6):1464-1480.
16. Greenwald A.G., Nosek B.A. Attitudinal dissociation: what does it mean?. Attitudes: Insights from the new implicit measures 2008, 65-82. Psychology Press, New York, NY, US. R.E. Petty, R.H. Fazio, P. Briñol (Eds.).
17. Greenwald A.G., Rudman L.A., Nosek B.A., Banaji M.R., Farnham S.D., Mellott D.S. A unified theory of implicit attitudes, stereotypes, self-esteem, and self-concept. Psychological Review 2002, 109(1):3-25.
18. Greenwald A.G., Nosek B.A., Banaji M.R. Understanding and using the implicit association test: I. An improved scoring algorithm. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 2003, 85(2):197-216. 10.1037/0022-3514.85.2.197.
19. Gucciardi D.F., Jalleh G., Donovan R.J. Does social desirability influence the relationship between doping attitudes and doping susceptibility in athletes?. Psychology of Sport and Exercise 2010, 11(6):479-486. 10.1016/j.psychsport.2010.06.002.
20. Kahneman D. A perspective on judgment and choice: mapping bounded rationality. American Psychologist 2003, 58(9):697-720. 10.1037/0003-066x.58.9.697.
21. Kornblum S., Hasbroucq T., Osman A. Dimensional overlap: cognitive basis for stimulus-response compatibility-a model and taxonomy. Psychological Review 1990, 97(2):253-270.
22. Kreuter F., Presser S., Tourangeau R. Social desirability bias in CATI, IVR and web surveys. Public Opinion Quarterly 2008, 72(5):847-865.
23. Lenhard W., Lenhard A. Calculation of effect sizes 2015, http://www.psychometrica.de/effect_size.html.
24. Markus H., Nurius P. Possible selves. American Psychologist 1986, 41(9):954-969. 10.1037/0003-066x.41.9.954.
25. Mcclelland D.C., Koestner R., Weinberger J. How do self-attributed and implicit motives differ?. Psychological Review 1989, 96:690-702. 10.1037/0033-295X.96.4.690.
26. Nosek B.A. Implicit-Explicit relations. Current Directions in Psychological Science 2007, 16(2):65-69. 10.1111/j.1467-8721.2007.00477.x.
27. Nosek B.A., Bar-Anan Y., Sriram N., Greenwald A.G. Understanding and using the brief implicit association test: I. Recommended scoring procedures 2013, Retrieved from SSRN website. http://ssrn.com/abstract=2196002.
28. Nosek B.A., Greenwald A.G., Banaji M.R. The implicit association test at age 7: a methodological and conceptual review. Social psychology and the unconscious: The automaticity of higher mental processes 2007, 265-292. Psychology Press, London. J.A. Bargh (Ed.).
29. Nosek B.A., Hawkins C.B., Frazier R.S. Implicit social cognition: from measures to mechanisms. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 2011, 15(4):152-159. 10.1016/j.tics.2011.01.005.
30. Nulty D.D. The adequacy of response rates to online and paper surveys: what can be done?. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 2008, 33(3):301-314. 10.1080/02602930701293231.
31. Ouellette J.A., Hessling R., Gibbons F.X., Reis-Bergan M., Gerrard M. Using images to increase exercise behavior: prototypes versus possible selves. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 2005, 31(5):610-620. 10.1177/0146167204271589.
32. Payne B.K., Cameron C.D. Implicit social cognition and mental representation. Oxford handbook of social cognition 2013, 220-238. Oxford University Press, New York, NY. D. Carlston (Ed.).
33. Payne B.K., Gawronski B. A history of implicit social cognition: where is it coming from? where is it now? where is it going?. Handbook of implicit social cognition: Measurement, theory, and applications 2010, 1-15. Guilford Press, New York, NY, US. B. Gawronski, B.K. Payne (Eds.).
34. Petróczi A. The doping mindset- Part II: potentials and pitfalls in capturing athletes' doping attitudes with response-time methodology. Performance Enhancement & Health 2013, 2(4):164-181. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.peh.2014.08.003.
35. Petróczi A., Aidman E. Measuring explicit attitude toward doping: review of the psychometric properties of the performance enhancement attitude scale. Psychology of Sport and Exercise 2009, 10(3):390-396. 10.1016/j.psychsport.2008.11.001.
36. Petróczi A., Aidman E.V., Hussain I., Deshmukh N., Nepusz T., Uvacsek M., Naughton D.P. Virtue or pretense? Looking behind self-declared innocence in doping. PLoS One 2010, 5:e10457. 10.1371/journal.pone.0010457.
37. Petróczi A., Aidman E.V., Nepusz T. Capturing doping attitudes by self-report declarations and implicit assessment: a methodology study. Substance Abuse Treatment, Prevention, and Policy 2008, 3(9). 10.1186/1747-597X-3-9.
38. Petróczi A., Backhouse S.H., Barkoukis V., Brand R., Elbe A.-M., Lazuras L., et al. A call for policy guidance on psychometric testing in doping control in sport. International Journal of Drug Policy 2015, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.drugpo.2015.04.022.
39. Petróczi A., Haugen K.K. The doping self-reporting game: the paradox of a 'false-telling' mechanism and its potential research and policy implications. Sport Management Review 2012, 15:513-517. 10.1016/j.smr.2012.04.002.
40. Petróczi A., Uvacsek M., Nepusz T.S., Deshmukh N., Shah I., Aidman E.V., Naughton D.P. 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(4):e18804. 10.1371/journal.pone.0018804.
41. Pitsch W., Emrich E. The frequency of doping in elite sport: results of a replication study. International Review for the Sociology of Sport 2011, 45(5):559-580. 10.1177/1012690211413969.
42. Popa-Roch M., Delmas F. Prejudice implicit association test effects: the role of self-related heuristics. Zeitschrift für Psychologie/Journal of Psychology 2010, 218(1):44-50. 10.1027/0044-3409/a000007.
43. Ratliff K.A., Howell J.L. Implicit prototypes predict risky sun behavior. Health Psychology 2015, 34(3):231-242. 10.1037/hea0000117.
44. Read S.J., Miller L.C. Inter-personalism: toward a goal-based theory of persons in relationships. Goal concepts in personality and social psychology 1989, 413-472. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ. L.A. Pervin (Ed.).
45. Robbins J.M., Krueger J.I. Social projection to ingroups and outgroups: a review and meta-Analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Review 2005, 9(1):32-47. 10.1207/s15327957pspr0901_3.
46. Rothermund K., Wentura D. Underlying processes in the implicit association test: dissociating salience from associations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 2004, 133(2):139-165. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.133.2.139.
47. Rothermund K., Wentura D. It's brief but is it better? an evaluation of the brief implicit association test. Experimental Psychology 2010, 57(3):233-237. 10.1027/1618-3169/a000060.
48. Scott K.A., Mason M.J., Mason J.D. I'm not a smoker: constructing protected prototypes for risk behavior. Journal of Business Research 2015, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.03.021.
49. Spijkerman R., Van Den Eijnden R.J.J.M., Vitale S., Engels R.C.M.E. Explaining adolescents' smoking and drinking behavior: the concept of smoker and drinker prototypes in relation to variables of the theory of planned behavior. Addictive Behaviors 2004, 29:1615-1622. 10.1016/j.addbeh.2004.02.030.
50. Sriram N., Greenwald A.G. The brief implicit association test. Experimental Psychology 2009, 56:283-294. 10.1027/1618-3169.56.4.283.
51. Stevenson J., Clegg S. Possible selves: students orientating themselves towards the future through extracurricular activity. British Educational Research Journal 2011, 37(2):231-246. 10.1080/01411920903540672.
52. Thornton B., Gibbons F.X., Gerrard M. Risk perception and prototype perception: Independent processes predicting risk behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 2002, 28(7):986-999.
53. Vargo E.J., Petróczi A. Detecting cocaine use? the autobiographical implicit association test (aIAT) produces false positives in a real-world setting. Substance Abuse Treatment, Prevention & Policy 2013, 8(1):1-13. 10.1186/1747-597x-8-22.
54. Vargo E.J., Petróczi A., Shah I., Naughton D.P. It is not just memory: propositional thinking influences performance on the autobiographical IAT. Drug and alcohol dependence 2014, 145:150-155. 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2014.10.008.
55. Whitaker L. Applying the prototype willingness model to doping in sport 2013, (Doctor of Philosophy PhD), Leeds Metropolitan University, Leeds.
56. Whitaker L., Long J., Petróczi A., Backhouse S.H. Athletes' perceptions of performance enhancing substance user and non-user prototypes. Performance Enhancement and Health 2012, 1:28-34. 10.1016/j.peh.2012.03.002.
57. Whitaker L., Long J., Petróczi A., Backhouse S. Using the prototype willingness model to predict doping in sport. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine and Science in Sports 2014, 24(5):e393-e405. 10.1111/sms.12148.
58. Zimmermann F., Sieverding M. Young adults' social drinking as explained by an augmented theory of planned behaviour: the roles of prototypes, willingness, and gender. British Journal of Health Psychology 2010, 15:561-581. 10.1348/135910709X476558.