Measuring Moral Behaviour and Doping
Dual Aspects of Morality (Bandura, 1999)
Inhibitive Morality
The power to refrain from behaving antisocially.
Proactive Morality
The power to behave prosocially.
Main methods to assess moral behaviour in sport
Fouls and penalties
Self-reported questionnaires
Self-report scenarios
The iEAR System
Coach/peer ratings
Behavioural observation
Examining social environment in youth sport (Herbison et al. 2020)
Random recordings so people are more natural.
Not easy to wear during sport but can be used on the way home form a match or in the changing rooms.
Qualitative and frequency data.
Strengths
Objective assessment of actual behaviour.
Collects off-pitch data and is covert.
Weaknesses
Needs time for habituation and can’t be used on the pitch.
Assessment of Doping in Sport (De Hon et al., 2015)
Review of methods and data relateing to assessment of doping prevalence in elite sport.
Split into lab based chemical analyses and questionnaires.
Lab-based Chemical Analyses: Doping Control Test Results
WADA annually published overview of Adverse Analytical Findings (AAFs)
Data encompass <50 sports, including all Olympic and Paralympic sports.
Only substances found at the time of collection and detection windows vary.
Lab-Based Chemical Analyses: Population Estimates Based on Biological Parameters
Indirect way of estimating prevalence is to look at dirstibution of specific biological parameters.
Estimates that between 2000 and 2010, 14% of elite track and field athletes engaged in some sort of illegal blood manipulation.
Questionnaires: Standard Self-report
Elite athletes’ doping habits reviewed in 1997 by Laure, estimated doping in adult athletes at 5-15%.
Rarely used now due to significant potential for socially desirable responding
Questionnaires: The Randomised Response Technique (RRT)
Designed to obtain population estimates of ethically questionable behaviours.
Guarantees and makes salient anonymity of repondent prior to asssessment of behaviour.
Prevalence estimates higher and closer to actual prevalence rates than those obtaining using standard questionnaires.
3-11% for lifetime doping in German elite junior athletes (Striegel et al., 2010)
26-48% for lifetime doping and 20-39% for last-year doping in German elite adult athletes (Pitsch et al., 2007)