Investigating the Utility of Implicit Associations and Indirect Methods in Predicting Doping Behavior

Summary
The primary aim of this project was to address the gap in research methodology typically employed in doping behaviour research by pulling together results from previous studies to develop and pilot test an array of indirect measures. These indirect measures include:

(1) measures based on reaction-time differences (often referred to as implicit association tests);

(2) measures based on social projection; and

(3) implicit priming task for honesty.

Methodology

The empirical work in 12 separate studies presented in this report was conducted between 2009 and 2018. The content of the literature review in the Background section was updated to capture the relevant research up to 2020.

Results
(1) Results from the studies informed and elements been incorporated into the Athlete Learning Programme for Health and Anti-doping (ALPHA) and its evaluation: modules 7 & 8 as well as a short 8-item measure of doping attitude and a single-question social desirability measure incorporated into ALPHA evaluation.

(2) Cumulative evidence offered robust evidence against using projective questioning as bona fide doping prevalence; or interpreting outcome from such approach (perceived prevalence) as prevalence.

(3) Outcomes from implicit measured cautioned against using response-time based measures (e.g., implicit association tests) for individual level diagnostic tool; or treat such approach as ‘lie detector’.

(4) Honesty goal priming concept has trialed and refined in studies piloted in the first phase of WADA Doping Prevalence project (2011-2012)

Significance for Clean Sport

What this research study adds:  

• A new, developmental model of doping behaviour (Incremental Model of Doping Behaviour,  IMDB) is proposed and placed in broader context of anti-doping legitimacy and values-based and information-based anti-doping education.

• The concept of ‘Performance mindset’ and its impact on performance enhancement, decision about doping, and approach to anti-doping education.

• Evidence-based argument for the need for a positive approach to anti-doping working together with and not against athletes; and the need to focus on helping athletes to manage the demands of sport and staying clean as oppose to focusing on trying to stop athletes from using doping. 

• Comprehensive set of implicit association tests, including measures for affective, moral, and instrumental implicit ‘attitude’ and implicit norms (perceived prevalence).

• Applications of the IAT concept to capture doping-related social cognition moved away from using affective attributes. Moral and instrumental attitudes, although each showed some difference in the expected direction at the aggregated level, did not produce significantly different implicit measures between self-admitted doping users and non-users. The self-referential doping BIAT contrasting target words with me/not me categories had better discriminatory power.

• Highlights the importance of research framing and limitations of implicit measures on doping due to the complexity of doping and doping-related cognition.

• Guidance for using projective questioning to estimate perceived prevalence of doping; and consider reported perceived prevalence as an indicator of the athlete’s mindset (which is influenced by the dynamic between behaviour and environment).

• Introduce Social network Analysis, and associated methodology, to doping behavior research.

• A functional and effective honesty priming task (word-search puzzle).

• Short form of the Performance Enhancement Attitude Scale with additional evidence for validity (PEAS-8).

• Single Question measure of social desirability in research settings