ArticlePloS one2010
Virtue or pretense? Looking behind self-declared innocence in doping.
Article in PloS one, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
16 citing papers in PubMed, 50 citations in OpenAlex.
- Analysis of doping control test results in individual and team sports from 2003 to 2015.Journal of sport and health science · 2020Article
- The Brief Death Implicit Association Test: Scoring recommendations, reliability, validity, and comparisons with the Death Implicit Association Test.Psychological assessment · 2018Article
- Sport motivation and doping in adolescent athletes.PloS one · 2018Article
- Korean national athletes' knowledge, practices, and attitudes of doping: a cross-sectional study.Substance abuse treatment, prevention, and policy · 2017Article
- "I Want It All, and I Want It Now": Lifetime Prevalence and Reasons for Using and Abstaining from Controlled Performance and Appearance Enhancing Substances (PAES) among Young Exercisers and Amateur Athletes in Five European Countries.Frontiers in psychology · 2017Article
- Prevalence of doping use in elite sports: a review of numbers and methods.Sports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2015Review
- Using response-time latencies to measure athletes' doping attitudes: the brief implicit attitude test identifies substance abuse in bodybuilders.Substance abuse treatment, prevention, and policy · 2014Article
- Understanding and using the brief Implicit Association Test: recommended scoring procedures.PloS one · 2014Article
- The autobiographical IAT: a review.Frontiers in psychology · 2013Article
- Enzymatic digestion and selective quantification of underivatised delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol and cocaine in human hair using gas chromatography-mass spectrometry.Journal of analytical methods in chemistry · 2012Article
- Detection of stanozolol in environmental waters using liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry.Chemistry Central journal · 2011Article
- New non-randomised model to assess the prevalence of discriminating behaviour: a pilot study on mephedrone.Substance abuse treatment, prevention, and policy · 2011Article
- 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 · 2011Article
- Article
- Methodological considerations regarding response bias effect in substance use research: is correlation between the measured variables sufficient?Substance abuse treatment, prevention, and policy · 2011Article
- Promoting functional foods as acceptable alternatives to doping: potential for information-based social marketing approach.Journal of the International Society of Sports Nutrition · 2010Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSocial 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. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL
findingsA 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/SIGNIFICANCE: 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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.