Comfort in big numbers: Does over-estimation of doping prevalence in others indicate self-involvement?
2008

Understanding Doping Prevalence Through Perception

Sample size: 124 publication Evidence: moderate

Author Information

Author(s): Petróczi Andrea, Mazanov Jason, Nepusz Tamás, Backhouse Susan H, Naughton Declan P

Primary Institution: Kingston University

Hypothesis

It is hypothesised that athletes who use PEDs overestimate prevalence of doping in their sport and in sport more broadly, compared to non-users.

Conclusion

The study suggests that the False Consensus Effect can provide a more reliable estimate of doping prevalence among athletes.

Supporting Evidence

  • Users estimated doping prevalence at 35.11% while non-users estimated it at 15.34%.
  • The study provides preliminary evidence supporting the False Consensus Effect in relation to doping.
  • The method may enhance understanding of health-compromising behaviors for policymakers.

Takeaway

The study found that athletes who use performance-enhancing drugs think more people use them than actually do, which can help understand drug use in sports.

Methodology

Data were collected using a web-based anonymous questionnaire among competitive UK student-athletes, comparing self-reported doping use and estimates of others' use.

Potential Biases

The reliance on self-reports for categorizing users and non-users may introduce bias.

Limitations

Self-reported data may be subject to social desirability bias, and the sample may not represent all athletes.

Participant Demographics

The sample consisted of 46 female and 78 male athletes with a mean age of 21.47 years.

Statistical Information

P-Value

0.004

Confidence Interval

95%CI = 1.365, 31.186

Statistical Significance

p<0.05

Digital Object Identifier (DOI)

10.1186/1745-6673-3-19

Want to read the original?

Access the complete publication on the publisher's website

View Original Publication