A systemic social-cognitive perspective on doping

Psychology of Sport and Exercise 13 (2012) 317e323

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Psychology of Sport and Exercise journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/psychsport

Review

A systemic social-cognitive perspective on doping Michael B. Johnson* Department of Psychology, The University of Tennessee at Chattanooga, 350H Holt Hall, Chattanooga, TN 37403, USA

a r t i c l e i n f o

a b s t r a c t

Article history: Received 1 October 2011 Received in revised form 28 December 2011 Accepted 29 December 2011 Available online 8 January 2012

Objectives: The present article provides a theoretically sound framework (i.e., a social-cognitive approach), using conceptual models and concrete examples, to aid our understanding of why some people dope. Design: Recognizing that sports occur in a social environment, the current article is grounded in socialcognitive theory. Additionally, since many studies investigating doping have attempted to use cause-andeffect or correlational methods, this article emphasized the systemic nature of doping behavior. Method: The present article succinctly clarifies why some people take greater risks than others (e.g., dope), and specifically discusses the roles of history, obedience to authority, brain development, culture, stereotypes, and reinforcement, as they relate with doping. Results: Although likely possible, it is difficult to provide an example of an effective intervention that adequately addresses the deletion of doping. However, an example based on social-cognitive principles is provided. Conclusions: Future research that emphasizes a social-cognitive approach to doping is needed. Interventions built from such research likely will lead to effective anti-doping interventions. Ó 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Environment Authority Culture Stereotypes Reinforcement Risk-taking

People select behaviors that they feel and think will help them achieve goals (Bandura, 1977, 1986, 1999), however, these thoughts and feelings are not necessarily apart of one’s conscious awareness. In some cases a goal directed behavior increases the risk of harm to the individual. The present article concerns itself with a specific risk-taking behavior: doping, and does so through a social-cognitive lens. This article’s contention is that the individual and their environment interact in a manner such that doping may result. Just as theories aid our ability to predict and explain phenomena, it is vital to identify and define the phenomenon of interest. The definition of doping utilized herein was selected from the scientific literature rather than from any specific group as a group carries with it biases or agendas inherent with that group. Herein, doping is considered, The use of a substance (e.g., Adderall, anabolic steroid, beta blocker, human growth hormone, amphetamine, or erythropoietin) or medical technique (e.g., gene manipulation) that is not naturally occurring, or the use of a substance (e.g., caffeine) that is naturally occurring, for the primary purpose of improving performance and/or aesthetics, and such usage may result in harm to the user. (Johnson, 2011, p. 151)

* Tel.: þ423 425 2780. E-mail addresses: [email protected], [email protected]. 1469-0292/$ e see front matter Ó 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.psychsport.2011.12.007

This definition brings with it no biases from a governing body or professional players’ union, for example. Additionally, this definition is not concerned with subjective concepts such as fair play (which is beyond the scope or focus of this article), or subjective judgments addressing what is banned or not banned. And finally, this article is not concerned with performance enhancing techniques or other goal oriented behaviors (e.g., see Bilard, Ninot, & Hauw, 2010) that do no harm, physical or psychological, to the user (e.g., functional foods, hypoxic chambers). The present article is concerned with improving our understanding of why some people engage in a behavior that is (a) dangerous, as the literature identifying the risks attributable to doping (e.g., deleterious physiological and psychological effects) is clear (e.g., Wadler & Hainline, 1989) and (b) supposedly disdained (e.g., sanctions resulting from a positive test). Due to the potential dangers, doping is considered a risk-taking behavior. Furthermore, for those who practice the behavior consistently, it also could be considered an addictive behavior as, “It is the hallmark of addictive behaviors that they persist despite what seems overwhelming evidence of their destructiveness... We are not always sensible creatures” (Miller & Rollnick, 2002, p. 4). A compelling argument can be made that doping exists. Athletes of varying abilities use steroids to enhance their performance and/or their appearance (Iriart, Chavez, & Orleans, 2009). Gym members, particularly those involved in bodybuilding (i.e., a

318

M.B. Johnson / Psychology of Sport and Exercise 13 (2012) 317e323

socially mediated and subjectively evaluated competition), engage in doping behaviors more often than others whose workouts are not as focused on bodybuilding (Wiefferink, Detmar, Coumans, Vogels, & Paulussen, 2008). Doping has increased in U.S. high schools (Koch, 2002; National Institute on Drug Abuse, 2000), and among adolescents in Canada (Melia, Pipe, & Greenberg, 1996) and Italy (Rossi, Abate, Braganò, & Botré, 2009). Between the 2000 and 2004 Olympic Games the number of positive doping cases at the Games doubled (Tsivou et al., 2006). These increases may be due to increased testing frequency, or improved testing methods and techniques, but regardless, they underscore the prevalence of doping in sport. Additionally, doping is not limited to enhancing only physical performance. Substances that enhance cognitive functioning (e.g., Adderall; Cakic, 2009) exist, are abused (Chatterjee, 2004), and have been linked with sudden unexplained death among children and adolescents (Gould et al., 2009). There are lines of evidence supporting the argument that doping exists and is a serious problem, and such evidence comes from the very existence of anti-doping bodies, policies, and research. If doping did not exist then (a) the rationale for the continuation of anti-doping governing bodies would cease, (b) the policies for detection and punishment would be moot, and (c) the amount of capital (Trout & Kazlauskas, 2004) and time spent on anti-doping would be reallocated. This latter idea already has been championed by others based on their argument that current interventions are futile (Haugen, 2004) and flawed (Kayser & Smith, 2008). Therefore, given the known threats to those who dope and the known fact that a significant number of people dope, there must be a rationale as to why the behavior exists. An understanding of this rationale can provide insight into how to most effectively address this behavior. It is possible that the underlying schema for those who dope (regardless of sport, academics, or aesthetics) likely are highly similar (e.g., conform to socially mediated values and norms). When coupled with doping rates that have been reported by some to be as high as 55% in male collegiate student-athletes (Yusko, Buckman, White, & Pandina, 2008), the pervasiveness of doping is hardly insignificant. What is not as pervasive is an understanding of why some individuals dope from a socialcognitive perspective. An analysis of social-cognitive theory will help, not only to understand how to best address the issue of doping, but also understand the weaknesses of current strategies. One challenge that confronts research attempting to tease out the complex relationships among the factors driving doping behavior is the systemic nature of the phenomenon. In 2011, the systemic model of doping behavior (SMDB) addressed this (Johnson, 2011). The SMDB is quite complex in its content and structure, and it lacks a coherent theoretical framework. As such the SMDB is difficult to operationalize, test, and is of limited effectiveness in operationalizing our understanding of why some athletes dope. The focus of the present article is to expand our understanding of the role of one of the primary factors within the SMDB, environment, via a sound theoretical framework. A hypothetical hierarchical linear model (HLM) can help elaborate. A linear equation predicting doping behavior (Y) is conceptualized as Y ¼ b0 þ b1X1 þ b2X2 þ b3X3 þ . þ bkXk þ r, where b1 represents the relative weight of environment (X1) in doping behavior. Specifically, this article elaborates on the possible factors “nested” within the relevant level 1 X1 factors, identifying the literature and theoretically based g weights for the level 2 environmental factors (W), such that b1 ¼ g10 þ g11W1 þ g12W2 þ . þ g1kWk þ u1. Culture, explicit rewards, and stereotypes are examples of environmental factors, and interactions amongst these factors can vary the influence of b1 in the HLM equation presented. For example, it may be possible that at high levels of SES a specific amount or type of educational programming can greatly affect doping behavior,

whereas at low SES the same amount or type of educational programming will have minimal effect. That is, at differing levels of SES, the slope of the b1 could vary. The SMDB emphasizes the importance of systemic interactions in doping behavior, but does little to identify interrelations among specific factors. Additionally, some research asserting the existence of a relationship between the environment and doping may not be as promising as results suggest. Research investigating relationships among attitudes, beliefs, and other constructs exists (e.g., Backhouse, Whitaker, & Petróczi, 2011; Lazuras, Barkoukis, Rodafinos, & Tzorbatzoudis, 2010), but does little to help understand the formation and persistence of these constructs (i.e., social schema). For example, James, Naughton, and Petróczi (2010) reported on the effectiveness of a single exposure to accurate information about the performance advantages of certain functional foods. However, the long-term success of this intervention or its relationship with other factors (e.g., reinforcers) is unknown. Over time (e.g., a week, a year) a new option (e.g., a new “safer” and less expensive synthetic alternative) may present itself or the rewards (e.g., social acceptance) may change, rendering the original intervention ineffective. Persuading people to embrace a behavioral change via solely education is generally ineffective (Chaiken, Wood, & Eagly, 1996; Lyle & Hoffman, 1971; Petty & Cacciopo, 1986). A broad understanding of the environmental and social forces involved in doping decisions and behaviors, as well as an understanding of any relevant interactions, can result in efforts or interventions that likely will be effective within ever changing environments. In an effort to better understand why some people employ a strategy that is not sensible and is fraught with risk, this article supplies a literature-based social-cognitive conceptualization of the relationship between the environment and doping. This conceptualization, in turn, is argued as a possible aid to guide future research. Hence, future possible actions are discussed in the latter portion of this article. Approach One’s behavior reflects that person’s understanding of how the world works (i.e., schema; Bandura, 1986, 1999). Schema involving doping decisions and behaviors are comprised of an individual’s subjective perceptions of (a) the consequences of doping (e.g., performance level, punishments, reinforcers), (b) the likelihood that these consequences will occur, and (c) the role of pertinent environmental factors in their doping behavior. According to socialcognitive theory (Bandura, 1977, 1986, 1999), as applied to doping, a number of conditions must be met in order for one to dope. First, doping must be relevant to the individual’s goals. Second, these goals must be personally meaningful. Next, the ability to dope must exist. And finally, the ability to appropriately self-monitor one’s doping behavior must subjectively exist (e.g., the ability to prevent detection by a governing body). There are a number of germane environmental factors that conceptually play a role in the development and persistence of doping schema, yet an evaluation of an ecologically valid systemic relationship among the relevant factors has not been adequately addressed. The conceptual HLM presentation earlier illustrates such a relationship. Studies such as those that identify individuals’ perceived similarities between doping and nutritional supplement use (Petróczi, Mazanov, & Naughton, 2011) are fascinating, if not also common sense. But these types of studies and their associated statistical analyses do little to advance our understanding of the complex systemic socialcognitive influences (Johnson, 2007) on doping. Returning to the example of the possible nested affect of SES, would Petróczi et al. (2011) uncover a different relationship (e.g., a strong perceived

M.B. Johnson / Psychology of Sport and Exercise 13 (2012) 317e323

link between doping and illicit drugs) had their participants been from a population that differed from students at the University of New South Wales? Knowing the answer to this and other similar questions (e.g., individualistic v. collectivistic cultures, levels of exposure to media) is strongly encouraged before confidence in a preventative system can emerge. Valid models and conceptualizations will lead to research that is better tailored to improve our understanding of why some people dope. Truly effective interventions, if desired, then can be planned and implemented. Since doping knowledge is greater among those who dope than among those who do not (Wanjek, Rosendahl, Strauss, & Gabriel, 2007), and doping can be considered a risk-taking behavior, then a better understanding of why individuals take risks is warranted.

319

consume more alcohol (i.e., a risk-taking behavior) than other students (Hildebrand, Johnson, & Bogle, 2001; Leichliter, Meilman, Presley, & Cashin, 1998; Turrisi, Mallett, Mastroleo, & Larimer, 2006). Relevant environmental factors in student-athletes’ heavy drinking include (a) peer norms, (b) environmental influences, (c) parental communication style (Turrisi, Mastroleo, Mallett, Larimer, & Kilmer, 2007), and (d) type of sport (Martens, Watson II, & Beck, 2006). Additionally, there is a positive correlation between heavy drinking and the use of performance enhancing substances among college student-athletes at rates that exceed those of studentnonathletes (Yusko et al., 2008). Clarifying the causal factors for such between-sport differences in risk-taking behavior and the relevance of these factors to doping could provide useful insight into why some athletes dope.

Risk-taking Findings One’s environment can influence many of that individual’s thoughts, feelings, and behaviors, and vice-versa. This has relevance to the current conversation as, based on the definition used herein, doping involves risk-taking (i.e., “may result in harm”). “Risk taking refers to one’s purposive participation in some form of behavior that involves potential negative consequences or losses (social, monetary, interpersonal) as well as perceived positive consequences or gains” (Ben-Zur & Zeidner, 2009, p. 110). This definition includes social-cognitive concepts. Research addressing the environment e risk-taking relationship has involved insects (Mishra, Logue, Abiola, & Cade, 2011) and primates (Steinberg, 1989), as well as athletes (Dodge & Jaccard, 2006). A recent metaanalysis provides support for a link between one’s environment and their risk-taking behavior (Fischer, Greitemeyer, Kastenmuller, Vogrincic, & Sauer, 2011). However, studies that bring the conclusions therein into question exist (Steinberg & Monahan, 2011). The search for clarity continues. Investigations that provide insight into the specific environmental factors linked with social-cognitive theory (i.e., relevant to one’s goals, personal meaningfulness of those goals, access, and able to subjectively self-monitor) as they relate with doping could lead to interventions that validly target doping schema. As argued earlier, doping behavior likely is part of a complex system, and that system dictates that environment alone does not drive one’s risk-taking tendencies. One’s developmental stage, and not just their sport career stage, interacts with the environment. In the presence of peers the reward-related areas of adolescents’ brains activate more so than the same brain areas of adults or children (Chein, Albert, O’Brien, Uckert, & Steinberg, 2010), which may be functional from an evolutionary perspective as elevated levels of risk-taking during this period in life could enhance mate selection (Darwin, 1859/1964; Steinberg, 1989). That being said, a supportive social climate can provide adolescents with strong protection from risk-taking behaviors, but “once an adolescent chooses to engage in a risk taking behaviour a supportive environment may not protect them from injury” (Pickett et al., 2006, p. 87). Acknowledging that a system is at play, it is still important to understand that as a person makes decisions, these decisions contribute to, and are influenced by, the person’s environmental feedback. This is important in terms of doping because environmental experiences at a young age may contribute to a delay in reaching socioemotional maturity (Sebastian, Viding, Williams, & Blakemore, 2010), which for some people can have ramifications reaching into their 30s (Steinberg, 2008). Socioemotional, unlike cognitive, maturity is inversely related with risk-taking and positively related with the ability to employ a long-term future orientation. From this viewpoint research supporting the role of environmental factors in young adults’ behaviors is extensive. U.S. college student-athletes and members of Greek social clubs

Social-cognitive factors involved in doping There are a number of social-cognitive principles that help us understand why (a) some people dope, and (b) current punitive and educational interventions likely are ineffective. Current anti-doping interventions (i.e., punishment and education) focus on an indicator, symptom, or correlate of doping, much as medications for the common cold target the symptoms of a cold and not the causal virus. Socially constructed punishments are not effective at increasing behavioral compliance (Miller & Rollnick, 2002; Skinner, 1974), especially when the punishment cannot be applied consistently and it conflicts with one’s personally meaningful and relevant goals. Additionally, there is no evidence supporting the position that athletes dope in order to violate another’s rights or to gain an unfair advantage, which is the reported rationale for some current interventions (World Anti-Doping Agency, 2009). However, there is a theoretical basis and empirical support for the rationale that environmental forces are a factor in doping behavior. The current ineffectiveness of doping interventions (e.g., Rossi et al., 2009) likely is due to schema that are not “rational.” Although implemented within a social context devoid of empirical rigor, one example of such irrational schema was provided by Bamberger’s and Yaeger’s (1997) survey. A group of elite athletes were asked if they would take an illegal substance if, as a result, they knew they would win and not be caught, but it would kill them in five years. A vast majority replied “yes.” This underdeveloped future orientation also can be found in college studentathletes’ career maturity relative to college student-nonathletes’ (Linnemeyer & Brown, 2010). Although it is common for individuals’ future orientation to shift over time, it appears that there are social factors influencing the timing of this maturity in athletes. Improved insight into why some elite athletes, such as those in Bamberger’s and Yaeger’s study, possess limited future orientations, and what factors contribute to college student-athletes’ poorly developed career maturity, may help our understanding of athletes’ schema development and persistence as it relates to doping. Historical events are another factor to consider as they play a role in current behaviors (i.e., social epigenesis; Gottlieb, 2003; Gottlieb, Wahlsten, & Lickliter, 2006). Doping has a documented history of over 6000 years (Wadler & Hainline, 1989). People’s behaviors are reciprocal (Parke & Buriel, 2006), and past events can influence current behaviors, states, and traits (Asken, 1988; Hall, Arnold, & Myers, 2000; Li, 2003; Woolley, 1990). Moreover, these reciprocal person-environment relationships are not so much linear as they are systemic, and this system can include socially mediated constructs, values, norms, and morals (Gottlieb, 2003; Gottlieb et al., 2006).

320

M.B. Johnson / Psychology of Sport and Exercise 13 (2012) 317e323

Environment

Doping

Authority Culture Influences on Brain Development Stereotypes Reinforcers

The Person

Affect -CognitionBehavior Fig. 1. A conceptualization of the relationship among the person, the environment, and doping. The triangle represents a person (i.e., feelings, thoughts, and behaviors), and a triangle is used to represent the fulcrum that finds itself between environmental pressures and doping behavior. Over time the position of the person can shift due to learning, maturation, or other variables. This shifting over time will mediate the amount of pressure the environment must impose in order for doping to occur for that person.

Fig. 1 provides a simplistic conceptualization of the personenvironment relationship as it relates to doping. Fig. 1 purposefully uses a triangle to represent the person as the fulcrum that mediates the relationship between environmental pressures and doping behavior. Over time the relative weights of these environmental pressures can change and/or the position of the person can shift due to learning, maturation, or other variables. This shifting over time will mediate the amount of pressure the environment must impose in order for doping to occur for that person. At a minimum, the explicit and implicit environmental forces mediating doping include messages from perceived sources of authority, environmentally mediated brain development, cultural norms, social expectations (e.g., stereotypes), and reinforcements (e.g., gold medal). Authority Context matter. People who are otherwise good, law abiding citizens behave in ways that are not always considered prosocial. Studies addressing obedience to authority illustrate this. Milgram (1974), and later Burger (2009), demonstrated the effect that the presence of an authority figure can have on an individual’s behavior, and the effect varies depending on the environment (e.g., coach’s style or expectations). Based on this line of evidence, and other social psychology research (e.g., Asch, 1956; Sherif, Harvey, White, Hood, & Sherif, 1961), it appears that complex interactions among individual, situational, and perceived authority variables are involved in a person’s decisions and behaviors. Athletes’ schema may include interpretations of implicit and/or explicit messages from those perceived to be in positions of authority. Interventions must be sensitive to subjectively perceived authority and sources of interpersonal power. Environmentally mediated brain development As further substantiation of the influence that the environment (as it interacts with human development) has on behavior in general, and likely doping in particular, is theory of the mind (Baron-Cohen, Leslie, & Frith, 1985), which argues that human mental states (e.g., desires, beliefs, and intentions) develop as a result of changes in certain brain structures (Gallagher & Frith, 2003; Sabbagh, 2006; Saxe, Carey, & Kanwisher, 2004). Structural brain changes are influenced by interactions with one’s environment (Hughes et al., 2005; Nelson et al., 2003; Thompson, 2006). Specific social-cognitive factors addressed by theory of the mind include one’s parents (Symons & Clark, 2000; Thompson, 2006);

language, both receptive and expressive (Peterson & Siegal, 1999; Peterson, Wellman, & Liu, 2005); culture (Vinden & Astington, 2000); and subjective perceptions of social interactions (i.e., social cognition). Some factors involved in schema development can be directly approached, while others will not have that luxury (e.g., cultural norms may dictate this to some degree). Cultural norms Cultural norms also can play a role in doping. As an example of explicit norms and values, the former German Democratic Republic (i.e., East Germany) implemented a systematic and governmentally condoned doping program that resulted in physical and psychological damage to a nation’s elite athletes (Ungerleider, 1999). Implicit cultural norms and values also may be involved when some individuals resort to doping in an effort to “save face” and to protect their self-esteem in situations where failure is possible (Dunning & Waddington, 2003), or when one’s culture over-emphasizes an outcome (i.e., ego) orientation (Kavussanu & Ntoumanis, 2003; Kavussanu & Roberts, 2001; Kavussanu, Roberts, & Ntoumanis, 2002). Specifically as it relates to doping, Petróczi and Aidman (2008) identified that a critical factor in doping involves motivational climate (e.g., expectations from coaches, parents, peers, and fans). Motivational climate plays a role in an athlete’s ultimate ego or task orientation. Although extrinsic motivators can influence one’s behaviors, optimal performances include both extrinsic and intrinsic sources (Vallerand, 2007). Intrinsic and internalized motivators have been shown to be the most resistant to change (Keutzer, Lichtenstein, & Mees, 1968), a consideration that should not be overlooked in doping interventions. One concept that plays a role in human motivation is stereotype threat. Stereotype threat Stereotypes and stereotype threats occur when a person who identifies with a particular group internalizes a negative perception (i.e., a schemata) about his or her group. These schema can affect the individual’s behavior (e.g., performance on a math test) as well as the individual’s quality of life prior to any overt expression of the stereotype (Steele, Spencer, & Aronson, 2002). To illustrate this latter point, Steele et al. (2002) used the example of a poisonous snake loose in the house. The mere threat of the loose snake can have a harmful psychological effect on the occupants of the house well before anyone even encounters the snake. Stereotypes can be linked to behaviors such as doping. Reich, Below, and Goldman (2010) identified that both implicit and explicit expectations are involved in people’s risk-taking choices. As an example of the link between stereotypes and explicit behavior, in 1970 Jane Elliott (Kowalski & Westen, 2011) had her Iowa third grade students assigned to a privileged group or a non-privileged group, depending on their eye color. Members of Elliott’s privileged group not only performed better on classroom activities, but also were more outgoing and confident relative to both their preexperimental states and when compared with members of the non-privileged group. Additional research into the effect of teachers’ expectations has shown similar results (e.g., Sarrazin, Trouilloud, Tessier, Chanal, & Bois, 2005). Implicit expectations also can affect cognitive processing. Schmader and Johns (2003) and Steele (1997) identified that when confronted with a personally relevant stereotype, the working memory of those in the stereotyped group is impaired, resulting in poorer academic performance. Influences such as these clearly can have a powerful impact on one’s quality of life. Stereotype threat has received minimal attention in athletic or sport domains, yet stereotypes have far reaching consequences. Beilock and McConnell (2004) discussed the existence of racial stereotypes in sports, and how these stereotypes influence

M.B. Johnson / Psychology of Sport and Exercise 13 (2012) 317e323

perceptions of athletes’ aptitude and capacity. Under the scenarios elaborated upon by Beilock and McConnell, it seems quite possible that if one is stereotyped then there are situations that could influence one’s motivation to dope. This may be evident particularly when one strongly identifies with their sport and any resultant extrinsic or intrinsic reinforcers. One of the mechanisms by which such reinforcers could be achieved and retained is doping, and doping could be perceived by the individual as just as rational as any other mechanism utilized to maximize performance (e.g., training plans, diet, and sleep). It appears that identifying any environmental or internalized stereotypes could improve our understanding of doping. Tailoring interventions that address rather than ignore these social-cognitions and schema development mechanisms could improve the development of interventions. Reinforcement Competitive athletics are almost exclusively zero-sum in nature (i.e., someone wins and someone loses, only one person holds a world record at any point in time). Such situations encourage an individual to emphasize his or her self-interest, which lessen one’s perceived responsibility to others (e.g., Sherif et al., 1961). When self-interests include a victory over an opponent, and lowered responsibility to others, then the likelihood of doing whatever it takes to achieve that desired outcome is heightened. However, many individuals who are proficient at violating the rules of the game (e.g., doping) are otherwise compliant with the rules and laws of the larger society (Bredemeier, 1995; Bredemeier & Shields, 1984, 1986; Schmitz, 1976), supporting the notion that situational (i.e., environmental) factors likely are involved in doping. This lack of consistent prosocial behavior is supported elsewhere in the literature as attitudes and behaviors are not linked with any regularity, in sport (Gucciardi, Jalleh, & Donovan, 2010; Petróczi, 2007) or otherwise (Festinger & Carlsmith, 1959). The relationship likely is more complex than “change the attitude and the behavior will change.” Furthermore, experiences that are subjectively evaluated by participants and viewers from an esthetic perspective (e.g., historically decreasing BMI of Miss America; Rubbenstein & Caballero, 2000) can impact those who are not directly involved in that activity (e.g., young women who identify with and want to look like Miss America). In a way, society is getting that which is seeks. Bigger, stronger, faster, and so on. We may contribute to the development and perpetuation of a privileged group: a group that may internalize the need for, desire for, and goal of retaining that privileged status via doping. Within such a system, the fact that some develop schema that include doping may not be surprising. Since reinforcers are so powerful, interventions need to consider them, or be destined for futility. That is, focus on the reinforcements rather than on punishing a behavior that is not desired.

Social-cognitive factors: summary Based on the role environment plays in doping, some have called for the inclusion of personal norms and social processes in preventative interventions (Wiefferink et al., 2008). This is congruent with the literature and arguments presented herein. Petróczi (2007) states, “Sport governing bodies and anti-doping organisations need to recognise that using performance enhancements (both acceptable and prohibited methods) may be more of a rational, outcome optimizing behaviour than deviance” (p. 12). Methods designed to influence long-term positive social behavior, such as “compete clean,” should consider the factors identified herein.

321

Discussion The complex relationships among person, environment, and doping are real. Fischer et al. (2011) discuss the stronger relationship between active media (when compared with passive media) and risk-taking behavior, as well as the importance of contextual fit. There are some very challenging hurdles to overcome if the goal is to develop effective anti-doping interventions. Identifying differences in power among individuals within a certain geographic location or culture; incorporating individuals’ differing developmental stages; clarifying any existing environmental or internalized stereotypes; and restructuring the existing reinforcement system, all should be part of a “compete clean” program if the program is to be effective. One concrete example of an effective “compete clean” program could focus on high level competitive athletes, perhaps even high school or university student-athletes. Due to developmental issues it is necessary to identify a specific age range and context for an effective intervention. The program could be educational in nature, but would include the following: (a) a focus on the deleterious effects of substance use, (b) materials addressing the benefits of healthy alternatives, (c) a public statement component regarding the individual’s commitment to “compete clean,” and (d) a module that includes interacting with others (e.g., teaching elementary school children on a regular basis) with the goal of espousing the benefits of prosocial behavior in all aspects of life (including competing clean). Upon completion of the program the participant would be awarded a certificate, then they would be required to complete annual or bi-annual continuing education. The purposes underlying such a plan include molding athletes’ schema in a manner that is congruent with social-cognitive theory, requiring effort on their part, and providing a small extrinsic reward. In addition to the content of the program, program delivery is also a point of attention. The delivery must be credible, in some way attractive, and from a trustworthy source. Such a program relies on sound social-cognitive principles (e.g., Aronson, 2012; Aronson & Carlsmith, 1963; Aronson & O’Leary, 1982-1983; Chialdini, Cacioppo, Bassett, & Miller, 1978; Dickerson, Thibodeau, Aronson, & Miller, 1992; Knox & Inkster, 1968; Peterson, Haynes, & Olson, 2008) and addresses schema development concepts. However, the feasibility of this program is suspect, and is likely rather low given the competing interests that make up much of our social world. The general ideas and specific thoughts presented herein, which are grounded in social-cognitive theory, enhance our chances of developing valid prosocial interventions. Only after (a) there is a firm understanding of the factors involved in doping, and (b) an improved understanding of the systemic relationships among these factors is developed, can truly effective interventions be generated. As some have suggested, “Developing preventive programmes e implemented through person-tailored counseling and eventually treatment, rather than severe sanctions or the mere lifting of the ban e seems to be a more reasonable, and probably more efficient, way of conducting ‘the war against doping.’” (D’Angelo & Tamburrini, 2010, p. 700). Perhaps such programs could be effective, but until we better understand the social-cognitive factors involved in the process of doping schema development and maintenance, interventions may not be addressing the salient factors involved in doping. References Aronson, E. (2012). The social animal (11th ed.). New York, NY: Worth. Aronson, E., & Carlsmith, J. M. (1963). Effect of the severity of threat on the devaluation of forbidden behavior. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 66, 584e588.

322

M.B. Johnson / Psychology of Sport and Exercise 13 (2012) 317e323

Aronson, I., & O’Leary, M. (1982e1983). The relative effectiveness of models and prompts on energy conservation: a field experiment in a shower room. Journal of Environmental Systems, 12, 219e224. Asch, S. E. (1956). Studies of independence and conformity: a minority of one against a unanimous majority. Psychological Monographs, 70(416). Asken, M. J. (1988). Dying to win. Washington, DC: Acropolis Books. Backhouse, S. H., Whitaker, L., & Petróczi, A. (2011). Gateway to doping? Supplement use in the context of preferred competitive situations, doping attitude, beliefs, and norms. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine and Science in Sports, . doi:10.1111/j.1600-0838.2011.01374.x. Bamberger, M., & Yaeger, D. (1997). Over the edge. Sports Illustrated, 86, 60e68. Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action. A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Bandura, A. (1999). Social cognitive theory of personality. In L. Pervin, & O. John (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (2nd ed.). (pp. 154e196) New York, NY: Guilford Press. Baron-Cohen, S., Leslie, A. M., & Frith, U. (1985). Does the autistic child have a “theory of he mind”? Cognition, 21, 37e46. Beilock, S. L., & McConnell, A. R. (2004). Stereotype threat and sport: can athletic performance be threatened? Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 26, 597e609. Ben-Zur, H., & Zeidner, M. (2009). Threat to life and risk-taking behaviors: a review of empirical findings and explanatory models. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 13, 109e128. doi:10.1177/1088868308330104. Bilard, J., Ninot, G., & Hauw, D. (2010). Motives for illicit use of doping substances among athletes calling a national antidoping phone-help service: an exploratory study. 1e9. Substance Use & Misuse, . doi:10.3109/10826084.2010.502553. Bredemeier, B. J. (1995). Divergence in children’s moral reasoning about issues in daily life and sport specific contexts. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 26, 453e463. Bredemeier, B. J., & Shields, D. L. (1984). Divergence about moral reasoning about sport and life. Sociology of Sport Journal, 1, 348e357. Bredemeier, B. J., & Shields, D. L. (1986). Game reasoning and interactional morality. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 147, 257e275. Burger, J. M. (2009). Replicating Milgram: would people still obey today? American Psychologist, 64, 1e11. doi:10.1037/a0010932. Cakic, V. (2009). Smart drugs for cognitive enhancement: ethical and pragmatic considerations in the era of cosmetic neurology. Journal of Medical Ethics, 35, 611e615. doi:10.1136/jme.2009.030882. Chaiken, S., Wood, W., & Eagly, A. H. (1996). Principles of persuasion. In E. T. Higgins, & A. W. Kruglanski (Eds.), Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles (pp. 702e742). New York, NY: Guilford Press. Chatterjee, A. (2004). Cosmetic neurology: the controversy over enhancing movement, mentation, and mood. Neurology, 63, 968e974. Chein, J., Albert, D., O’Brien, L., Uckert, K., & Steinberg, L. (2010). Peers increase adolescent risk taking by enhancing activity in the brain’s reward circuitry. Developmental Science, 14, F1eF10. doi:10.1111/j.1467-7687.2010.01035.x. Chialdini, R., Cacioppo, J., Bassett, R., & Miller, J. (1978). Low-ball procedure for producing compliance: commitment then cost. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 463e476. D’Angelo, C., & Tamburrini, C. (2010). Addict to win? A different approach to doping. Journal of Medical Ethics, 36, 700e707. doi:10.1136/jme.2009.034801. Darwin, C. (1859 1964). On the origin of species. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Dickerson, C. A., Thibodeau, R., Aronson, E., & Miller, D. (1992). Using cognitive dissonance to encourage water conservation. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 22, 841e854. Dodge, T. L., & Jaccard, J. J. (2006). The effect of high school sports participation on the use of performance-enhancing substances in young adulthood. Journal of Adolescent Health, 39, 367e373. Dunning, E., & Waddington, I. (2003). Sport as a drug and drugs in sport: some exploratory comments. International Review of Sociology in Sport, 38, 351e368. doi:10.1177/10126902030383006. Festinger, L., & Carlsmith, J. (1959). $1/$20 experiment: cognitive consequences of forced compliance. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 58(2), 203e210. Fischer, P., Greitemeyer, T., Kastenmuller, A., Vogrincic, C., & Sauer, A. (2011). The effects of risk-glorifying media exposure on risk-positive cognitions, emotions, and behaviors: a meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 137, 367e390. doi:10.1037/a0022267. Gallagher, H. L., & Frith, C. D. (2003). Functional imaging of “theory of mind.” Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7, 77e83. Gottlieb, G. (2003). On making behavioral genetics truly developmental. Human Development, 46, 337e355. Gottlieb, G., Wahlsten, D., & Lickliter, R. (2006). The significance of biology for human development: a developmental psychobiological systems view. In R. M. Lerner, & William Damon. (Eds.), Handbook of child Psychology (6th ed.).. Theoretical models of human development, vol. 1 (pp. 210e257) New York, NY: Wiley. Gould, M. S., Walsh, B. T., Munfakh, J. L., Kleinman, N., Duan, N., Olfson, M., et al. (2009). Sudden death and use of stimulant medications in youths. American Journal of Psychiatry, . Gucciardi, D. F., Jalleh, G., & Donovan, R. J. (2010). Does social desirability influence the relationship between doping attitudes and doping susceptibility in athletes? Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 11, 479e486. doi:10.1016/ j.psychsport.2010.06.002.

Hall, W. G., Arnold, H. M., & Myers, K. P. (2000). The acquisition of an appetite. Psychological Science, 11, 101e105. Haugen, K. K. (2004). The performance-enhancing drug game. Journal of Sports Economics, 5, 67e86. Hildebrand, K. M., Johnson, D. J., & Bogle, K. (2001). Comparison of patterns of alcohol use between high school and college athletes and non-athletes. College Student Journal, 35, 358e365. Hughes, C., Jaffe, S. R., Happe, F., Taylor, A., Caspi, A., & Moffitt, T. E. (2005). Origins of individual differences in theory of mind: from nature to nurture? Child Development, 76, 356e370. Iriart, J. A. B., Chavez, J. C., & Orleans, R. G. (2009). Body cult and use of anabolic steroids by body builders. Cadernos de Saúde Coletiva, 25, 773e782. James, R., Naughton, D. P., & Petróczi, A. (2010). Promoting functional foods as acceptable alternatives to doping: potential for information-based social marketing approach. Journal of the International Society of Sports Nutrition, 7, 37. Johnson, W. (2007). Genetic and environmental influences on behavior: capturing all the interplay. Psychological Review, 114, 423e440. Johnson, M. B. (2011). A systemic model of doping behavior. American Journal of Psychology, 124, 151e162. Kavussanu, M., & Ntoumanis, N. (2003). Participation in sort and moral functioning: does ego orientation mediate their relationship? Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 25, 1e18. Kavussanu, M., & Roberts, G. C. (2001). Moral functioning in sport: an achievement goal perspective. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 23, 37e54. Kavussanu, M., Roberts, G. C., & Ntoumanis, N. (2002). Contextual influences on moral functioning of college basketball players. Sport Psychologist, 16, 347e367. Kayser, B., & Smith, A. C. T. (2008). Globalisation of anti-doping: the reverse side of the medal. British Medical Journal, 337(7661), 85e87. doi:10.1136/bmj.a584. Keutzer, C. S., Lichtenstein, E., & Mees, H. L. (1968). Modification of smoking behavior: a review. Psychological Bulletin, 70, 520e533. Knox, R., & Inkster, J. (1968). Postdecision dissonance at post time. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 8, 319e323. Koch, J. J. (2002). Performance-enhancing substances and their use among adolescent athletes. Pediatrics in Review, 23, 310e317. Kowalski, R., & Westen, D. (2011). Psychology (6th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Lazuras, L., Barkoukis, V., Rodafinos, A., & Tzorbatzoudis, H. (2010). Predictors of doping intentions in elite-level athletes: A social cognition approach. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 32, 694e710. Leichliter, J. S., Meilman, P. W., Presley, C. A., & Cashin, J. R. (1998). Alcohol use and related consequences among students with varying levels of involvement in college athletics. Journal of American College Health, 46, 257e262. Li, S. (2003). Biocultural orchestration of developmental plasticity across levels: the interplay of biology and culture in shaping the mind and behavior across the life span. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 171e194. Linnemeyer, R. M., & Brown, C. (2010). Career maturity and foreclosure in student athletes, fine arts students, and general college students. Journal of Career Development, 37, 616e634. doi:10.1177/0894845309357049. Lyle, J., & Hoffman, H. (1971). Children’s use of television and other media. InMurray, J. P., Robinson, E. A., & Comstock, G. A. (Eds.). (1971). Television and social behavior, Vol. 4 (pp. 129e256). Rockville, MD: National Institutes of Health. Martens, M. P., Watson, J. C., II, & Beck, N. C. (2006). Sport-type differences in alcohol use among intercollegiate athletes. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 18, 136e150. doi:10.1080/10413200600653758. Melia, P., Pipe, A., & Greenberg, L. (1996). The use of anabolic-androgenic steroids by Canadian students. Clinical Journal of Sports Medicine, 6, 9e14. Milgram, S. (1974). Obedience to authority: An experimental view. New York, NY: Harper & Row. Miller, W. R., & Rollnick, S. (2002). Motivational interviewing: Preparing people for change (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Guilford. Mishra, S., Logue, D. M., Abiola, I. O., & Cade, W. H. (2011). Developmental environment affects risk-acceptance in the hissing cockroach, Gromphadorhina portentosa. Journal of Comparative Psychology, 125, 40e47. National Institute on Drug Abuse. (2000). Anabolic steroid abuse. Bethesda, MD: Author. Nelson, K., Skwerer, D. P., Goldman, S., Henseler, S., Presler, N., & Walkenfeld, F. F. (2003). Entering a community of minds: an experiential approach to “theory of mind.” Human Development, 46, 24e46. Parke, R. D., & Buriel, R. (2006). Socialization in the family: ethnic and ecological perspectives. In W. Damon, & R. Lerner (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology (6th ed.). New York, NY: Wiley. Peterson, A. A., Haynes, G. A., & Olson, J. M. (2008). Self-esteem differences in the effects of hypocrisy induction on behavioral intentions in the health domain. Journal of Personality, 76, 305e322. Peterson, C. C., & Siegal, M. (1999). Representing inner worlds: theory of mind in autistic, deaf, and normal hearing children. Psychological Science, 10, 126e129. Peterson, C. C., Wellman, H. M., & Liu, D. (2005). Steps in theory-of-mind development for children with deafness or autism. Child Development, 76, 502e517. Petróczi, A. (2007). Attitudes and doping: a structural equation analysis of the relationship between athletes’ attitudes, sport orientation and doping behaviour. Substance Abuse Treatment, Prevention, and Policy, 2, 34. doi:10.1186/1747597X-2-34. Petróczi, A., & Aidman, E. (2008). Psychological drivers in doping: the life-cycle model of performance enhancement. Substance Abuse Treatment, Prevention, and Policy, 3, 7. doi:10.1186/1747-597X-3-7.

M.B. Johnson / Psychology of Sport and Exercise 13 (2012) 317e323 Petróczi, A., Mazanov, J., & Naughton, D. P. (2011). Inside athletes’ minds: preliminary results from a pilot study on mental representation of doping and potential implications for anti-doping. Substance Abuse Treatment, Prevention, and Policy, 6, 10. doi:10.1186/1747-597X-6-10. Petty, R. E., & Cacciopo, J. T. (1986). The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (pp. 123e205). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Pickett, W., Dostaler, S., Craig, W., Janssen, I., Simpson, K., Shelley, S. D., et al. (2006). Associations between risk behavior and injury and the protective roles of social environments: an analysis of 7235 Canadian school children. Injury Prevention, 12, 87e92. doi:10.1136/ip.2005.011106. Reich, R. R., Below, M. C., & Goldman, M. S. (2010). Explicit and implicit measures of expectancy and related alcohol cognitions: a meta-analytic comparison. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 24, 13e25. doi:10.1037/a0016556. Rossi, S. S., Abate, M. G., Braganò, M. C., & Botré, F. (2009). Use of stimulants and drugs of abuse in sports: the Italian experience. Addicciones, 21, 239e242. Rubbenstein, S., & Caballero, B. (2000). Is Miss America an undernourished role model? Journal of the American Medical Association, 283(12), 1569. Sabbagh, M. A. (2006). Neurocognitive bases of preschoolers’ theory-of-mind development: integrating cognitive neuroscience and cognitive development. In P. J. Marshall, & N. A. Fox (Eds.), The development of social engagement: Neurobiological perspectives (pp. 153e170). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Sarrazin, P., Trouilloud, D., Tessier, D., Chanal, J., & Bois, J. (2005). Teacher’s expectations about students’ motivation and his/her differential treatments: a study in physical education classes. Revue Européenne de psychologie appliquée, 55, 111e120. Saxe, R., Carey, S., & Kanwisher, N. (2004). People thinking about thinking people: the role of the temporo-parietal junction in “theory of mind.” NeuroImage, 19, 1835e1842. Schmader, T., & Johns, M. (2003). Converging evidence that stereotype threat reduces working memory capacity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 440e452. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.85.3.440. Schmitz, K. (1976). Sport and play: suspension of the ordinary. In M. Hart (Ed.), Sport in the sociocultural process (pp. 35e48). Dubuque, IA: Brown. Sebastian, C., Viding, E., Williams, K. D., & Blakemore, S. (2010). Social brain development and the affective consequences of ostracism in adolescence. Brain and Cognition, 72, 134e145. doi:10.1016/j.bandc.2009.06.008. Sherif, M., Harvey, O. J., White, B. J., Hood, W. R., & Sherif, C. W. (1961). Intergroup conflict and cooperation: The Robber’s cave experiment. Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma Book Exchange. Skinner, B. F. (1974). About behaviorism. New York, NY: Knopf. Steele, C. M. (1997). A threat in the air: how stereotypes shape intellectual identity and performance. American Psychologist, 52, 613e629. doi:10.1037/0003066X.52.6.613. Steele, C. M., Spencer, S. J., & Aronson, J. (2002). Contending with group image: the psychology of stereotype and social identity threat. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 34, 379e440. Steinberg, L. (1989). Pubertal maturation and parent-adolescent distance: an evolutionary perspective. In G. R. Adams, R. Montemayor, & T. P. Gullotta (Eds.),

323

Advances in adolescent behavior and development (pp. 71e97). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. Steinberg, L. (2008). A social neuroscience perspective on adolescent risk-taking. Developmental Review, 28, 78e106. doi:10.1016/j.dr.2007.08.002. Steinberg, L., & Monahan, K. C. (2011). Adolescents’ exposure to sexy media does not hasten the initiation of sexual intercourse. Developmental Psychology, 47, 562e576. doi:10.1037/a0020613. Symons, D. K., & Clark, S. E. (2000). A longitudinal study of mother-child relationships and theory of mind in the preschool period. Social Development, 9, 3e23. Thompson, R. A. (2006). Conversation and developing understanding: introduction to the special issue. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 52, 1e16. Trout, G. J., & Kazlauskas, R. (2004). Sports drug testing e an analyst’s perspective. Chemical Societal Reviews, 33, 1e13. Tsivou, M., Kioukia-Fougia, N., Lyris, E., Aggelis, Y., Fragkaki, A., Kiousi, X., et al. (2006). An overview of the doping control analysis during the Olympic games of 2004 in Athens, Greece. Analytica Chimica Activa, 555, 1e13. Turrisi, R., Mallett, K. A., Mastroleo, N. R., & Larimer, M. E. (2006). Heavy drinking in college students: who is at risk and what is being done about it? The Journal of General Psychology, 133, 401e420. Turrisi, R., Mastroleo, N. R., Mallett, K. A., Larimer, M. E., & Kilmer, J. R. (2007). Examination of the mediational influences of peer norms, environmental influences, and parent communications on heavy drinking in athletes and nonathletes. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 21, 453e461. doi:10.1037/08893164X.21.4.453. Ungerleider, S. (1999). Faust’s gold: Inside the East German doping machine. New York, NY: St. Martin’s Press. Vallerand, R. J. (2007). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation in sport and physical activity: a review and a look at the future. In G. Tenenbaum, & R. C. Eklund (Eds.), Handbook of sport psychology (3rd ed.). (pp. 59e83) Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Vinden, P. G., & Astington, J. W. (2000). Culture and understanding other minds. In S. Baron-Cohen, H. Tager-Fllusberg, & D. J. Cohen (Eds.), Understanding other minds. Perspectives from developmental cognitive neuroscience (2nd ed.). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press. Wadler, G. I., & Hainline, B. (1989). Drugs and the athlete. Philadelphia, PA: F. A. Davis. Wanjek, B., Rosendahl, J., Strauss, B., & Gabriel, H. H. (2007). Doping, drugs, and drug abuse among adolescents in the State of Thuringia (Germany): prevalence, knowledge and attitudes. International Journal of Sports Medicine, 28, 347e353. Wiefferink, C. H., Detmar, S. B., Coumans, B., Vogels, T., & Paulussen, T. G. W. (2008). Social psychological determinants of the use of performance-enhancing drugs by gym members. Health Education Research, 23, 70e80. doi:10.1093/her/ cym004. Woolley, B. H. (1990). History and evolution of drugs in sport. In R. Tricker, & D. L. Cook (Eds.), Athletes at risk: Drugs and sport (pp. 15e28). Dubuque, IA: Brown. World Anti-Doping Agency. (2009). World anti-doping code: Play true. Retrieved from. http://www.wada-ama.org. Yusko, D. A., Buckman, J. F., White, H. R., & Pandina, R. J. (2008). Alcohol, tobacco, illicit drugs, and performance enhancers: a comparison of use by college student athletes and nonathletes. Journal of American College Health, 57, 281e289.