title: Virtue or pretense? Looking behind self-declared innocence in doping.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  Social science studies of doping practices in sport rely predominantly on self-reports. Studies of psychoactive drug use indicate that self-reporting is characterised by under-reporting. Likewise doping practice is likely to be equally under-reported, if not more so. This calls for more sophisticated methods for such reporting and for independent, objective validation of its results. The aims of this study were: i) to contrast self-reported doping use with objective results from chemical hair analysis and ii) to investigate the influence of the discrepancy on doping attitudes, social projection, descriptive norms and perceived pressure to use doping.
  
  
  RESULTS
  A doping attitudes questionnaire was developed and combined with a response latency-based implicit association test and hair sample analysis for key doping substances in 14 athletes selected from a larger sample (N = 82) to form contrast comparison groups. Results indicate that patterns of group differences in social projection, explicit attitude about and perceived pressure to use doping, vary depending on whether the user and non-user groups are defined by self-report or objectively verified through hair analysis. Thus, self-confessed users scored higher on social projection, explicit attitude to doping and perceived pressure. However, when a doping substance was detected in the hair of an athlete who denied doping use, their self-report evidenced extreme social desirability (negative attitude, low projection and low perceived pressure) and contrasted sharply with a more positive estimate of their implicit doping attitude.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Hair analysis for performance enhancing substances has shown considerable potential in validating athletes' doping attitude estimations and admissions of use. Results not only confirm the need for improved self-report methodology for future research in socially-sensitive domains but also indicate where the improvements are likely to come from: as chemical validation remains expensive, a more realistic promise for large scale studies and online data collection efforts is held by measures of implicit social cognition.
authors.affiliation: School of Life Sciences, Kingston University London, Kingston upon Thames, United Kingdom. A.Petroczi@kingston.ac.uk
authors.forename: Andrea
authors.initials: A
authors.lastname: Petróczi
authors.forename: Eugene V
authors.initials: EV
authors.lastname: Aidman
authors.forename: Iltaf
authors.initials: I
authors.lastname: Hussain
authors.forename: Nawed
authors.initials: N
authors.lastname: Deshmukh
authors.forename: Tamás
authors.initials: T
authors.lastname: Nepusz
authors.forename: Martina
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Uvacsek
authors.forename: Miklós
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Tóth
authors.forename: James
authors.initials: J
authors.lastname: Barker
authors.forename: Declan P
authors.initials: DP
authors.lastname: Naughton
mesh_terms: D001290:Attitude; D001519:Behavior; D002853:Chromatography, Liquid; D004300:Doping in Sports / Q000523:psychology*; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D057230:Limit of Detection; D008297:Male; D013058:Mass Spectrometry; D015203:Reproducibility of Results; D013315:Stress, Psychological; D028722:Virtues; D055815:Young Adult
references.citation: Drug Alcohol Depend. 2010 Jan 15;106(2-3):230-2
references.pmid: 19740612
references.citation: Subst Abuse Treat Prev Policy. 2008 Apr 21;3:9
references.pmid: 18426575
references.citation: Ann Epidemiol. 2005 May;15(5):381-9
references.pmid: 15840552
references.citation: Forensic Sci Int. 2006 Jan 27;156(2-3):118-23
references.pmid: 16410161
references.citation: Annu Rev Psychol. 2003;54:297-327
references.pmid: 12172003
references.citation: Psychol Rev. 1995 Jan;102(1):4-27
references.pmid: 7878162
references.citation: Int J Sports Med. 2008 Jul;29(7):607-12
references.pmid: 18214812
references.citation: Clin Toxicol (Phila). 2008 Mar;46(3):239-42
references.pmid: 18344106
references.citation: Addict Behav. 2008 Sep;33(9):1131-9
references.pmid: 18547737
references.citation: J Sports Sci. 2008 Mar;26(5):447-56
references.pmid: 18274942
references.citation: Subst Use Misuse. 2005;40(3):299-311
references.pmid: 15776978
references.citation: Br Med Bull. 2008;86:95-107
references.pmid: 18385161
references.citation: J Forensic Sci. 2002 Jan;47(1):211-4
references.pmid: 12064656
references.citation: J Occup Med Toxicol. 2008 Sep 05;3:19
references.pmid: 18775068
references.citation: Chem Soc Rev. 2004 Jan 10;33(1):1-13
references.pmid: 14737504
references.citation: Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2011 Apr;21(2):224-34
references.pmid: 19903314
references.citation: J Subst Abuse Treat. 2008 Apr;34(3):347-55
references.pmid: 17614240
references.citation: Behav Res Methods Instrum Comput. 2002 Feb;34(1):83-9
references.pmid: 12060994
references.citation: Steroids. 2009 Sep;74(9):773-8
references.pmid: 19397917
references.citation: J Pers Soc Psychol. 2009 Jul;97(1):17-41
references.pmid: 19586237
references.citation: J Pers Soc Psychol. 1998 Jun;74(6):1464-80
references.pmid: 9654756
references.citation: Br J Pharmacol. 2008 Jun;154(3):502-21
references.pmid: 18500378
references.citation: J Pers Soc Psychol. 2005 Nov;89(5):672-85
references.pmid: 16351361
references.citation: Pers Soc Psychol Bull. 2003 May;29(5):559-67
references.pmid: 15272990
references.citation: Trends Cogn Sci. 2007 Mar;11(3):97-104
references.pmid: 17276131
references.citation: Forensic Sci Int. 1999 May 17;101(3):209-16
references.pmid: 10404632
references.citation: J Pers Soc Psychol. 2003 Aug;85(2):197-216
references.pmid: 12916565
references.citation: Exp Psychol. 2009;56(4):283-94
references.pmid: 19439401
references.citation: Am Psychol. 1996 Oct;51(10):1065-71
references.pmid: 8870543
references.citation: Health Educ Res. 2008 Feb;23(1):70-80
references.pmid: 17301058
references.citation: Sports Med. 2002;32(4):269-84
references.pmid: 11929355
references.citation: Subst Abuse Treat Prev Policy. 2007 Nov 09;2:34
references.pmid: 17996097