Athlete doping confrontation efficacy and confrontation likelihood |
| |
| Institution: | 1. Department of Neurosciences, Imaging and Clinical Sciences, University “Gabriele d’Annunzio” of Chieti–Pescara, Chieti, Italy;2. Department of Psychological, Humanistic and Territorial Sciences, University “Gabriele d’Annunzio” of Chieti–Pescara, Chieti, Italy;3. Department of Movement, Human and Health Sciences, University of Rome \"Foro Italico\", Rome, Italy;4. Laboratory of Cognitive Neuroscience, Department of Languages and Literatures, Communication, Education and Society, University of Udine, Udine, Italy;5. Behavioral Imaging and Neural Dynamics Center, University “Gabriele d’Annunzio” of Chieti–Pescara, Chieti, Italy;6. Santa Lucia Foundation IRCCS, Rome, Italy;7. Department of Medicine and Aging Sciences, University “G. d''Annunzio” of Chieti-Pescara, Chieti, Italy;8. Institute for Advanced Biomedical Technologies, University “Gabriele d’Annunzio” of Chieti–Pescara, Chieti, Italy;1. The Academic College at Wingate, Netanya, Israel;2. Movement Control and Neuroplasticity Research Group, Department of Kinesiology, KU Leuven, Belgium;3. Department of Health Promotion and Rehabilitation, Lithuanian Sports University, Kaunas, Lithuania;1. School of Health and Exercise Sciences, University of British Columbia, Kelowna, BC, Canada;2. International Collaboration on Repair Discoveries (ICORD), University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada;3. Department of Medicine, Division of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada;4. Centre for Chronic Disease Prevention and Management, University of British Columbia, Kelowna, BC, Canada;5. School of Occupational Therapy, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada;6. Arthritis Research Canada, Vancouver, BC, Canada;7. School of Kinesiology, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada;8. Spinal Cord Injury British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada;9. The Thompson Okanagan Tourism Association, Vernon, BC, Canada;10. School District, Vernon, BC, Canada;1. Department of Behavioral and Social Sciences, Brown University, USA;2. Department of Psychiatry and Human Behavior, Alpert Medical School, Brown University, USA;3. Department of Medicine, Alpert Medical School, Brown University, USA;4. National Center for PTSD, VA Boston Healthcare System, USA;5. Department of Psychiatry, Boston University School of Medicine, USA;6. Department of Family and Preventive Medicine, Emory University School of Medicine, USA;7. Woodruff Health Sciences Center, Emory University, USA;1. University of Chieti and Pescara “G. d''Annunzio”, Department of Neuroscience, Imaging and Clinical Sciences, Via dei Vestini 33, 66100, Chieti, Italy;2. University of Bern, Institute of Sport Science, Bremgartenstrasse 145, 3012, Bern, Switzerland;3. University of Parma, Department of Medicine and Surgery, Via Gramsci 14, 43126, Parma, Italy;4. Catholic University of Valencia “San Vicente Martir”, Department of Athletic Training, Carrer de Quevedo, 2, 46001, Valencia, Spain;5. University of Rome “Foro Italico”, Department of Movement, Human and Health Sciences, Piazza Lauro De Bosis 6, 00135, Rome, Italy;1. Department of General Psychology, University of Padua, Italy;2. Federazione Italiana Giuoco Handball, Rome, Italy;3. Borman Consulting, Mirandola, MO, Italy |
| |
| Abstract: | Evidence supports the role of coach doping confrontation efficacy (DCE; Sullivan et al., 2015) as a deterrent against athletes’ doping cognitions (Boardley et al., 2019; Sullivan & Razavi, 2017), but the role of the athlete has largely been ignored. Current anti-doping campaigns encourage athletes to report doping misconduct (i.e., whistleblowing), but some athletes would prefer to confront the athlete directly (Erickson et al., 2017). Thus, it is important to consider what may contribute to athletes’ likelihood to confront a doping teammate or opponent. The purpose of this study was to determine whether DCE could predict an athlete’s likelihood to confront a doping teammate or opponent. Additionally, doping moral disengagement (MD) was included as a possible moderator of this relationship. Surveys were completed by 155 college athletes (nmale = 145) to measure their perceived DCE, doping MD, likelihood to confront a teammate, and likelihood to confront an opponent. Separate linear regression analyses were run for the two targets of confrontation. In the teammate model, both DCE and doping MD were significant predictors of confrontation likelihood. DCE was the only significant predictor in the opponent model. Neither model presented with a significant interaction, suggesting no moderation effect. Results suggest perceived DCE is associated with a greater likelihood to confront a doping athlete, regardless of whether they are a teammate or opponent; however, moral disengagement plays a greater role if the athlete is a teammate. These findings imply that confrontation may be the first line of defense against doping before whistleblowing action is taken. Research should continue to explore antecedents and consequences of athlete doping confrontation, providing greater insight into the whistleblowing process. |
| |
| Keywords: | Performance enhancing drugs Whistleblowing Peer relationships Doping Moral disengagement |
| 本文献已被 ScienceDirect 等数据库收录！ |
|
