6533b823fe1ef96bd127e32a
RESEARCH PRODUCT
Implicit versus explicit attitude to doping: which better predicts athletes’ vigilance towards unintentional doping?
James A. DimmockDerwin K. C. ChanDerwin K. C. ChanTracy C. W. TangDavid KeatleyMartin S. HaggerMartin S. Haggersubject
AdultMaleAdolescentTreatment adherencePerformance-enhancing drugsmedia_common.quotation_subjectPhysical Therapy Sports Therapy and RehabilitationAttitude scaledoping050105 experimental psychologyYoung Adult03 medical and health sciencesC890 Psychology not elsewhere classified0302 clinical medicineC841 Health PsychologyC810 Applied PsychologyurheiluAvoidance LearningHumans0501 psychology and cognitive sciencesOrthopedics and Sports Medicineta315implicit association testmedia_commondoping in sportDoping in Sports05 social sciencesAustraliaImplicit-association testprohibited substances030229 sport sciencesC800 PsychologyCross-Sectional StudiesAttitudeAthletesUnintentional dopingLinear Modelsperformance enhancing drugsFemaleImplicit attitudePsychologyPerformance enhancementSocial psychologyVigilance (psychology)description
Abstract Objectives This preliminary study examined whether implicit doping attitude, explicit doping attitude, or both, predicted athletes’ vigilance towards unintentional doping. Design A cross-sectional correlational design. Methods Australian athletes (N = 143; Mage = 18.13, SD = 4.63) completed measures of implicit doping attitude (brief single-category implicit association test), explicit doping attitude (Performance Enhancement Attitude Scale), avoidance of unintentional doping (Self-Reported Treatment Adherence Scale), and behavioural vigilance task of unintentional doping (reading the ingredients of an unfamiliar food product). Results Positive implicit doping attitude and explicit doping attitude were negatively related to athletes’ likelihood of reading the ingredients table of an unfamiliar food product, and positively related to athletes’ vigilance towards unintentional doping. Neither attitude measures predicted avoidance of unintentional doping. Overall, the magnitude of associations by implicit doping attitude appeared to be stronger than that of explicit doping attitude. Conclusions Athletes with positive implicit and explicit doping attitudes were less likely to read the ingredients table of an unknown food product, but were more likely to be aware of the possible presence of banned substances in a certain food product. Implicit doping attitude appeared to explain athletes’ behavioural response to the avoidance of unintentional doping beyond variance explained by explicit doping attitude.
year | journal | country | edition | language |
---|---|---|---|---|
2018-03-01 |