Doping and Character in Triathletes

Purpose of the Research

Doping in sport as defined by the World Anti-Doping Code (WADA, 2015) is the presence, possession, trafficking or attempted use of a prohibited substance or method on the prohibited list or the refusal, failure or evasion to submit a sample. The prevalence of doping in elite sport is believed to be between 14-39%, a number significantly higher than the 1-2% caught by the WADA which even the Director General of WADA believes to be far from the reality (de Hon et al., 2014). These numbers are not easy to evaluate and can be affected by the methods used to assess the prevalence and also the researcher’s definition of doping (Lentillon-Kaestner and Ohl, 2011). Researching the psychosocial influences such as attitudes towards doping (Lazrus et al., 2010) the motivational climate (Barkoukis et al., 2011) and the influence of the coach (Horn, 2002) to inform future education strategies represents an alternative way of deterring athletes from doping beyond the current deterrence-based strategy that relies on testing, detecting and punishing athletes who dope. For those studying related topics, seeking sociology dissertation help can provide insights into these complex issues.

Ntoumanis et al. (2014) found that certain psychosocial variables are able to explain doping attitudes and behaviours. Two variables shown to be particularly effective predictors in this meta-analysis were doping self-regulatory efficacy (SRE) and moral disengagement (MD). Doping SRE is an individual’s confidence in his/her ability to withstand personal and social influences encouraging doping (Lucidi et al., 2008 and Ntoumanis et al., 2014). An athlete with higher levels of SRE may be able to reduce the influence of personal and social pressures that encourage doping. Further, Bandura (1991) suggests that moral behaviour is regulated by anticipation of emotions and that MD represents a psychosocial mechanism that allows individuals to behave immorally and avoid negative feelings normally associated with harmful behaviour. Research conducted by Boardley and Grix (2014) into the psychosocial processes that facilitate doping in bodybuilders found evidence of six mechanisms of MD being used:

Another key element in understanding moral behaviour is empathy which Duquin and Schroeder-Braun (1996) defined as "an emotional response that stems from another's emotional state or condition and is congruent with the other's emotional state or condition". Empathy allows an individual to understand and experience how others feel. Athletes’ with higher levels of empathy are likely to anticipate experiencing more guilt and shame following engagement in transgressive acts and refrain from acts such as doping to avoid these deleterious feelings.

Coach behaviour may also influence athletes’ susceptibility to doping, by influencing their psychological states (see Horn, 2008). One model suitable for informing research looking to investigate such influences is the coaching efficacy (CE) model of Feltz et al. (1999). Coaching efficacy is defined as the extent to which coaches believe they can affect the learning and performance of their athletes. The CE model has also been used successfully to investigate coaching effectiveness, and consists of four dimensions: motivation, game strategy, technique, and character building (Feltz et al., 1999). Of these four dimensions, character building (CB) is particularly relevant to doping, being defined as a coach’s ability to affect the positive development of athletes’ characters (Feltz et al., 1999). One would expect that athletes’ coached by a coach who they perceive to be high in CB effectiveness (CBE) may be less susceptible to doping as such athletes should place greater importance on morals, fair play, sportspersonship and respect for others. However, to date the relationship between athletes’ perceptions of their coach’s CBE and their susceptibility to doping has not been tested.

Another theoretical framework relevant to doping and developed from the CE model is that of doping confrontation efficacy (DCE). Sullivan et al., (2015) proposed DCE as a key coach attribute relevant to a coach’s role in doping prevention. Confronting doping can be a challenging situation for a coach with sub-components including legitimacy, personal resources, outcomes, intimacy and initiation. It is because of these factors that a coach who confronts a suspected doper must be skilled and confident to achieve a successful outcome (Sullivan et al., 2015). Athletes’ perception of their coach’s DCE may affect their susceptibility to doping as athletes who perceive their coach to have high levels of DCE is likely to be coached in an environment in which doping is discouraged. However, to date the 4 Coach’s character building and doping confrontation efficacy and athletes’ susceptibility to doping relationship between athletes’ perceptions of their coach’s DCE and their susceptibility to doping has not been tested.

Recent evidence suggests doping is prevalent across many amateur sports (Gallagher, 2015). In particular, a recent questionnaire-based study by Dietz et al. (2013) found 13% of amateur triathletes reported they had doped in the past 12 months. Given that age group triathletes are unlikely to be subjected to doping controls (Dreier, 2015) it is particularly important to look at the psychosocial influences that make influence triathletes susceptibility to doping.

Based on the above assertions, the aim of the current research is to investigate the relationships between triathletes’ perception of their coach’s CBE, DCE, empathy, doping SRE, MD and susceptibility to doping. The study will adopt a quantitative-psychometric questionnaire-based approach to (a) test a hypothetical causal model (Figure 1) of athletes’ susceptibility to doping in which athletes’ perceptions of their coach’s CBE and DCE negatively predict athletes’ susceptibility to doping through changes in athletes’ doping SRE, doping MD and empathy (b) determine estimates for prevalence of doping in UK-based

Sample Characteristics

Approximately 200 age-group athletes (aged 16+; representing both sexes) currently competing in triathlon will participate. Athletes must have a coach that they have been working with for a minimum time period of two months.

Design of the Study

Questionnaires will be completed at race registration following the methodology of Dietz et al., (2013) who achieved a high response rate with this approach. Respondents will place questionnaires into a box to emphasise anonymity and increase the likelihood of honest responses. No personal data will be collected that will allow identification of individuals. In a separate information sheet, participants will be informed of the aims of the research and that participation is completely anonymous and voluntary; this sheet will be read and any questions answered prior to participants consenting to take part.

The questionnaire pack will be separated into two main parts: Part A will consist of questionnaires (details below) measuring the constructs involved in the hypothesised casual model, whereas Part B will contain a Randomised Response Technique based measure designed to assess the past 12-month prevalence of doping. The specific measures to be included in Part A will be: The Doping Moral Disengagement Scale (Boardley et al., in preparation), The Doping Self-Regulatory Efficacy Scale (Boardley et al., in preparation), The Athletes’ Perceptions of Coaches’ Doping Confrontation Efficacy Scale (based on Sullivan et al., 2015), The Interpersonal Reactivity Index (Davis, 1980), and The Athletes’ Perceptions of Coaches’ Character Building Efficacy Scale (based on Feltz et al., 1999). Data collection will be conducted between September and November 2016.

Specific Procedures

All relevant procedures are described in the previous section. No school SOP will be used, beyond the general guidelines for fieldwork.

Risk Assessment

Withdrawal

Withdrawal will be possible up until the point the questionnaire pack is sealed into the blank envelope and placed in the box for completed questionnaire packs held by the researcher. Due to the anonymous nature of the study withdrawal will not be possible after this point. This information is included in the information sheet (see attached).

Take a deeper dive into Doctoral Programme In Educational Psychology with our additional resources.