University of Lincoln
Browse

Implicit versus explicit attitude to doping: which better predicts athletes’ vigilance towards unintentional doping?

Download all (1.4 MB)
Version 4 2024-03-12, 15:27
Version 3 2023-10-29, 11:51
journal contribution
posted on 2024-03-12, 15:27 authored by Derwin King Chung Chan, David Keatley, Tracy C. W. Tang, James A. Dimmock, Martin S. Hagger
<p>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 toward 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.</p>

History

School affiliated with

  • School of Psychology (Research Outputs)

Publication Title

Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport

Volume

21

Issue

3

Pages/Article Number

238-244

Publisher

Elsevier

ISSN

1440-2440

Date Submitted

2017-05-31

Date Accepted

2017-04-15

Date of First Publication

2017-06-02

Date of Final Publication

2018-03-01

Date Document First Uploaded

2017-06-02

ePrints ID

27614

Usage metrics

    University of Lincoln (Research Outputs)

    Licence

    Exports

    RefWorks
    BibTeX
    Ref. manager
    Endnote
    DataCite
    NLM
    DC