Comfort in big numbers: Does over-estimation of doping prevalence in others indicate self-involvement?
BACKGROUND
The 'False Consensus Effect' (FCE), by which people perceive their own actions as relatively common behaviour, might be exploited to gauge whether a person engages in controversial behaviour, such as performance enhancing drug (PED) use.


OBJECTIVE
It is assumed that people's own behaviour, owing to the FCE, affects their estimation of the prevalence of that behaviour. It is further hypothesised that a person's estimate of PED population use is a reliable indicator of the doping behaviour of that person, in lieu of self-reports.


METHODS
Over- or underestimation is calculated from investigating known groups (i.e. users vs. non-users), using a short questionnaire, and a known prevalence rate from official reports or sample evidence. It is proposed that sample evidence from self-reported behaviour should be verified using objective biochemical analyses.In order to find proofs of concept for the existence of false consensus, a pilot study was conducted. Data were collected among competitive UK student-athletes (n = 124) using a web-based anonymous questionnaire. User (n = 9) vs. non-user (n = 76) groups were established using self-reported information on doping use and intention to use PEDs in hypothetical situations. Observed differences in the mean estimation of doping made by the user group exceeded the estimation made by the non-user group (35.11% vs. 15.34% for general doping and 34.25% vs. 26.30% in hypothetical situations, respectively), thus providing preliminary evidence in support of the FCE concept in relation to doping.


CONCLUSIONS
The presence of the FCE in estimating doping prevalence or behaviour in others suggests that the FCE based approach may be an avenue for developing an indirect self-report mechanism for PED use behaviour. The method may be successfully adapted to the estimation of prevalence of behaviours where direct self-reports are assumed to be distorted by socially desirable responding. Thus this method can enhance available information on socially undesirable, health compromising behaviour (i.e. PED use) for policy makers and healthcare professionals. The importance of the method lies in its usefulness in epidemiological studies, not in individual assessments.
Petróczi
Andrea
A
Kingston University, Faculty of Science, School of Life Sciences, Penrhyn Road, Kingston upon Thames, Surrey, KT1 2EE, UK. A.Petroczi@kingston.ac.uk.
Mazanov
Jason
J
Nepusz
Tamás
T
Backhouse
Susan H
SH
Naughton
Declan P
DP
Am J Public Health. 2007 Aug;97(8):1399-400
17600252
Environ Pollut. 1995;87(1):61-4
15091608
Forensic Sci Int. 2007 Aug 6;170(2-3):189-92
17628371
Psychol Bull. 1968 Apr;69(4):248-268
4873052
Clin Chim Acta. 2006 Aug;370(1-2):17-49
16624267
Addict Behav. 2008 May;33(5):713-24
18242002
J Pers Soc Psychol. 1994 Oct;67(4):596-610
7965607
Pers Soc Psychol Bull. 2003 May;29(5):559-67
15272990
Addiction. 2004 Sep;99(9):1195-205
15317641
Eur J Epidemiol. 2006;21(4):307-13
16685582
J Forensic Sci. 2002 Jan;47(1):211-4
12064656
Int J Sports Med. 2006 Oct;27(10):842-6
16586338
J Int Soc Sports Nutr. 2007 Nov 12;4:19
17997853
Chem Soc Rev. 2004 Jan 10;33(1):1-13
14737504
Subst Abuse Treat Prev Policy. 2008 Mar 10;3:7
18331645
J Sports Med Phys Fitness. 1997 Sep;37(3):218-24
9407754
BMC Int Health Hum Rights. 2007 Oct 05;7:8
17919330
Addiction. 2006 Nov;101(11):1640-4
17034444
Psychol Addict Behav. 2000 Sep;14(3):295-8
10998955
Nutr J. 2007 Oct 30;6:34
17971239
BMC Med Ethics. 2007 Mar 29;8:2
17394662
J Trace Elem Med Biol. 2005;19(2-3):195-201
16325536