اثرات دستکاری خودتأییدی بر تصمیم گیری در مورد استفاده از مواد نیروزا در ورزشکاران نخبه
|کد مقاله||سال انتشار||مقاله انگلیسی||ترجمه فارسی||تعداد کلمات|
|38944||2015||7 صفحه PDF||سفارش دهید||5948 کلمه|
Publisher : Elsevier - Science Direct (الزویر - ساینس دایرکت)
Journal : Psychology of Sport and Exercise, Volume 16, Part 2, January 2015, Pages 175–181
Abstract Objectives Doping use is an ongoing concern in both competitive and recreational sports. The present study set out to investigate the effects of a self-affirmation intervention on the decision-making process relevant to doping among elite athletes who were doping users. Design A between subject experimental design was employed. Method Sixty competitive athletes using doping substances took part in the study and were randomly assigned into active control and experimental groups. In the experimental group, participants received a self affirmation manipulation, whereas those in the active control group completed a neutral task. Subsequently, all participants were exposed to information relevant to the health side effects and moral aspects of doping use and subsequently completed a questionnaire about doping intentions and related social cognitions (i.e., attitudes, social and moral norms, self-efficacy beliefs, and anticipated regret). Results Independent samples t-tests showed that self-affirmed participants reported significantly lower intentions to dope and temptation to engage in doping under risk-conducive situations. Multiple regression analysis showed that, whereas attitudes, moral norms and anticipated regret predicted doping use intentions, the effects of self-affirmation were not mediated by these social cognitive predictors of doping intentions. Conclusions The study presents novel findings about the role of self-affirmation in the decision-making process relevant to doping use and can have direct implications for preventive interventions
نتیجه گیری انگلیسی
Results Randomization check The means and standard deviations of the study variables are presented in Table 1. The analysis of correlation revealed moderate to high relationships among the study's variables (Table 2). To check for randomization we compared the gender distribution between the intervention (66.7% males) and control (83.3% males) groups. The results of a χ2 test indicated no significant difference in proportions of males and females randomized to the control and experimental groups, χ2(1, N = 60) = 2.22, p = .23. Table 1. Means and standard deviations of study's variables. Total sample Experimental group Control group M SD M SD M SD Attitudes 3.16 1.90 2.83 1.73 3.50 2.04 PBC 5.68 1.27 5.53 1.38 5.82 1.15 Subjective norms 1.74 1.03 1.66 .89 1.82 1.16 Moral norms 3.71 1.26 3.92 1.27 3.50 1.24 Perceived prevalence (fellow) 55.34 29.87 56.00 29.77 54.64 30.51 Perceived prevalence (elite) 76.83 25.06 79.60 20.93 74.07 28.71 Situational temptation** 2.91 .99 2.48 1.03 3.34 .75 Anticipated regret 3.70 2.23 3.90 2.31 3.49 2.17 Intentions* 3.13 2.26 2.45 2.00 3.82 2.33 Note: PBC = Perceived Behavioral Control; higher scores in attitudes, situational temptation, norms and intentions reflect more positive beliefs towards doping, whereas higher scores in anticipated regret show more affective negative towards doping use; *p < .01, **p < .001. Table options Table 2. Correlation coefficients among the study variables. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1. Attitudes .39** .47** −.48** .44** .10 .68** −.78** .73** 2. PBC .07 −.31* .12 .15 .25* −.41** .31* 3. Subjective norms −.21 .36** −.05 .42** −.37** .42** 4. Moral norms −.39** −.01 −.41** .62** −.20 5. Perceived prevalence (elite) .25* .29* −.46** .26* 6. Perceived prevalence (fellow) −.11 −.07 −.07 7. Situational temptation −.62** .65** 8. Anticipated regret −.68** 9. Intentions Note. * = p < .05, ** = p < .01. Table options Effect of self-affirmation on doping intentions and related social cognitive variables Independent samples t-test was used to assess differences in doping intentions and related social cognitions towards doping (attitudes, social and moral norms, self-efficacy beliefs, anticipated regret) between the intervention and control groups (Hypothesis 1). The findings showed that condition (intervention vs. control group) significantly influenced doping intentions (t (58) = −2.43, p = .01, η2 = .09) and situational temptation (t (58) = −3.71, p < .001, η2 = .19), with moderate and strong effect sizes respectively ( Cohen, 1992). In both cases, participants in the intervention group had lower scores as compared to those in the control condition, indicating lower intentions and less self-efficacy (see Table 1). Multiple linear regression analyses were used to assess the predictive effects of self-affirmation manipulation and social cognitions (attitudes towards doping, social and moral norms, perceived behavioral control, situational temptation, and anticipated regret) on doping intentions (Hypothesis 2). The analysis was completed at two steps to enable the assessment of the unique effects of the self-affirmation manipulation (coded as a dummy ‘intervention’ variable at Step 1), and social cognitions (step 2). A significant overall model emerged (F = 14.41, p < .001) predicting 67.9% (AdjR2) of the variance in doping intentions – a large multivariate effect size according to Cohen (1992). At step 1, the effect of the intervention was statistically significant (β = .30, p < .05). At step 2, the addition of social cognition improved the overall predicted variance by 63.5%, and the effect of intervention group was reduced but still significant (β = .18, p = .043). Significant predictors of doping intentions at this step included attitudes (β = .38, p < .01), moral norms (β = .47, p < .001), and anticipated regret (β = −.62, p < .001). The findings from the regression analysis are summarized in Table 3. Table 3. Effect of self affirmation on the decision-making process. Step Predictors β AdjR2 F 1 Intervention .30** .07 5.86* 2 Intervention .18* .67 14.41** Attitudes .38* PBC .00 Subjective norms .08 Moral norms .47** Perceived prevalence (elite) −.00 Perceived prevalence (fellow) −.05 Situational temptation .09 Anticipated regret −.62** Note. *p < .05; **p ≤ .001. Table options Indirect effects of self-affirmation on doping intentions Multiple mediation modeling was used to assess if the effect of the intervention on doping intentions was mediated by doping-related social cognitions (Hypothesis 2). Preacher and Hayes' (2008) method was employed, using bootstrapping (1000 resamples) and confidence intervals set at 95%. Based on the findings from the regression analysis three mediators were tested in the model, namely attitudes, moral norms, and anticipated regret. The findings showed that both direct and total effects of self-affirmation intervention on doping intentions were significant (βc = 1.366, p = .01, βc′ = 1.064, p = .002). Although the total effect was significant, there were no significant effects from individual mediators, thus not providing support for the hypothesized mediation effects of social cognitions.