ATTITUDES TOWARD PERFORMANCE ENHANCING DRUGS: DIVISION II MALE ATHLETES. A Thesis Presented. to the. Graduate Faculty of Health and Physical Education

Transcription

1 ATTITUDES TOWARD PERFORMANCE ENHANCING DRUGS: DIVISION II MALE ATHLETES A Thesis Presented to the Graduate Faculty of Health and Physical Education Eastern New Mexico University In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Science by Ryan W. Atkinson July 30, 2011

2

3 ATTITUDES TOWARD PERFORMANCE ENHANCING DRUGS: DIVISION II MALE ATHLETES Abstract of a Thesis Presented to the Graduate Faculty of Health and Physical Education Eastern New Mexico University In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Science by Ryan W. Atkinson July 30, 2011 iii

4 Abstract Since the beginning of athletic competition, there have been cases of athletes trying to enhance performance. The earliest record of athletes using performance enhancing drugs (PEDs) was in the 668 B.C. Ancient Games. Contemporary athletes still use PEDs to gain a competitive advantage or rehabilitate from injuries in many team and individual sports. Some of the most high profile cases of athletes using PEDs include cyclists in the Tour de France, Major League Baseball players, and Olympic athletes. There is also evidence of collegiate athletes using PEDs. A number of exercise scientists and sport psychologists have analyzed the physiological and/or psychological reasons why athletes take performance enhancing drugs. However, more research needs to be done regarding Division II athletes attitudes toward PEDs. The purpose of this study was to examine attitudes and perceptions regarding performance enhancing drugs with Division II male collegiate athletes. One hundred and twenty-seven male athletes participating in a number of sports at ENMU completed the performance enhancement attitude scale (PEAS). The sports included football, basketball, track and field (split up between distance runners, sprinters, and field event), and soccer athletes. The survey analyzed participants attitudes toward PEDs. A one-way ANOVA statistical test was used. There were no statistical significant differences found among the different groups. In conclusion, any educational programs regarding PEDs should be continued with this population. iv

5 Acknowledgements I would like to thank my thesis committee for their help and for supporting me throughout the thesis writing process. I would also like to extend a special thank you to Dr. Matthew Martin for being an outstanding chair. Also, thank you Dr. Kristi Jarman for her assistance with the statistics program. v

6 Table of Contents Page Abstract.. Acknowledgements List of Tables/Graphs. iii v viii Chapter: I. Introduction... 1 Problem Statement... 3 Purpose Statement 3 Hypothesis 3 Definitions 3 Limitations... 4 Assumptions. 4 Delimitations 4 Risk/Benefit. 5 Significance.. 5 II. Review of Literature. 6 Prevalence of Performance Enhancing Drugs in Sport 6 Media s Influence on Performance Enhancing Drug Behavior... 8 Psychosocial and Physiological Factors that Influence Doping Behavior Performance Enhancement Attitude Scale (PEAS).. 12 Perceptions of Performance Enhancing Drug Use in Sport. 14 vi

7 Summary.. 18 III. Methods 20 Participants/Settings. 20 Research Design Instrument. 21 Validity of Study.. 21 Procedures 22 Analysis Method Summary.. 23 IV. Results.. 24 Descriptive Statistics 24 One-Way ANOVA Statistics 25 Summary.. 25 V. Discussion 26 Recommendations Conclusion 29 References.. 30 Appendixes A. National Collegiate Athletic Association List of Banned Drugs.. 34 B. Performance Enhancement Attitude Scale (PEAS). 37 C. Informed Consent 40 D. Graph 1 42 vii

8 List of Tables/Graphs 1. PEAS Mean Scores Mean Scores of PEAS by Sport Group 43 viii

9 CHAPTER I Introduction Since the beginning of athletic competition, there have been cases of athletes trying to enhance performance (Ehrnborg & Rosen, 2009). The earliest record of athletes using performance enhancing drugs (PEDs) was in the 668 B.C. Ancient Games (Holt, Erotokritou- Mulligan & Sonksen, 2009). Still, contemporary athletes use PEDs to gain a competitive advantage or rehabilitate from injuries in many team and individual sports (Petroczi & Aidman, 2008). Some of the most high profile cases of athletes using PEDs include cyclists in the Tour de France, Major League Baseball players, and Olympic athletes (Holt et al.). The challenge, however, for the World Anti-Doping Agency employees, athletic administrators and individuals involved in testing athletes is that the performance enhancement methods have evolved and become difficult to detect (Holt et al.). A number of exercise scientists and sport psychologists have analyzed the physiological and/or psychological reasons why athletes take performance enhancing drugs. Researchers have found that the primary physiological motives for athletes doping are gaining an edge on competitors, increasing muscular strength and endurance, and reducing recovery time from injuries (Nocelli, Kamber, Francois, Gmel & Marti, 1998; Petroczi & Aidman, 2009). Recent studies concerning the psychological motives for using PEDs have shown that athletes take them due to pressures to win and perform at a high level, to improve one s body image, and personal desire to do well (Ehrnborg & Rosen, 2009; Petroczi & Aidman, 2009). 1

10 2 Researchers have also studied how the media influences athletes decisions to take PEDs. For example, Marion Jones, who is a five time Olympic medalist, was stripped of those medals after it was found she used PEDs (Jones, 2010). Likewise, Mark Maguire admitted to using while he was a Major League Baseball star (Araton, 2010). When the media reports on well known athletes using PEDs and not being severely punished, younger athletes may feel it is acceptable to use PEDs in their given sport (Holt et al., 2009). Further, collegiate athletes in certain sports such as baseball, football, and track and field may see professional athletes using PEDs, and they may believe it is acceptable to use and may have more lenient attitudes toward PED use. The impact of the media and reasons for using PEDs has been researched in collegiate athletes as well. For example, the media televises highly anticipated college football games with stadiums seating close to 100,000 people (Calfee & Fadale, 2006). Adolescents and high school athletes may be exposed to the televised college sports and wonder how those players reached that level. Some may think the only way to get to that level is to dope. Also, there is evidence of college athletes using PEDs as a means of gaining strength, speed and endurance (Calfee & Fadale). There have been many studies researching male and female use of PEDs. Further, there have been studies which look at athletes at different levels and the use of PEDs. A common way to determine athletes attitudes toward PEDs is the use of the Performance Enhancement Attitude Scale (PEAS) in which a higher score indicates the participants have a more lenient view towards PEDs. Still, there is a lack of research investigating collegiate athletes in a variety of sports attitudes toward PEDs. Therefore, more research needs to be

11 3 done on collegiate athletes to gain a better understanding of their attitudes and perceptions toward PEDs. Problem Statement The problem is that there is no clear understanding of attitudes towards PEDs among Division II collegiate athletes participating in different sports. Purpose of the Study The purpose of this study is to examine attitudes and perceptions regarding performance enhancing drugs (PEDs) held by Division II male collegiate athletes in a variety of sports. Research Hypothesis The hypothesis of this study is that football, track sprinters and field event athletes will score higher on the PEAS than basketball, track distance runners and soccer players. Definitions Performance enhancing drug (PED) is any drug used by athletes which reportedly improves performance and is on the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) list of banned substances (The National Collegiate Athletic Association, 2010) (See Appendix A). Doping is defined as use of substances in any alien form to the body or physiological substances in abnormal amounts with abnormal methods with the aim of obtaining an increase of performance in competition (Anshel & Russell, 1997).

12 4 Limitations The following are limitations of this study. 1. The sample was a convenience sample of male athletes at ENMU. 2. Participants dropped out due to the intrusiveness of the questions. 3. Survey is self-reported, therefore, some participants may not have answered the survey questions honestly based on the sensitivity of the questions. Assumptions The following are assumptions of this study. 1. All participants answered the survey questions honestly. Delimitations The following are delimitations of this study. 1. Only male athletes 18 to 24 years old participated in the study. 2. The participants were athletes participating in the following sports at Eastern New Mexico University (ENMU): track and field (including sprinters, field events, and distance runners), soccer, basketball, and football. 3. Data collection was completed during the academic year.

13 5 Risk/Benefits There were minimal risks for participants in the study. However, one possible risk was that the participants anxiety levels might have increased due to the sensitive nature of the questions. Two potential benefits of participating in the study were that the athletes may have become familiar with NCAA list of banned substances (new knowledge of PEDs) which may have altered athletes attitudes toward PEDs and caused athletes to reflect about their own beliefs toward performance enhancing drugs. Once the athletes realized the extent of the NCAA banned list, they may have reevaluated their attitudes toward PEDs. Significance of the Study The significance of this study is that athletic trainers, coaches and athletic directors will have a better understanding of athletes attitudes and perceptions about PEDs and the extent to which Division II athletes believe it is acceptable behavior. The results of this study may add to the existing literature and provide information which could guide new intervention programs, ultimately altering athletes decisions to take performance enhancing drugs.

14 CHAPTER II Review of Literature The purpose of this study was to examine attitudes and perceptions regarding performance enhancing drugs (PEDs) with Division II collegiate athletes. This review of literature contains the following sections: (a) prevalence of performance enhancing drugs in sport, (b) media s influence on performance enhancing drug behavior, (c) psychosocial and physiological factors that influence doping behavior, (d) Performance Enhancement Attitude Scale (PEAS), (e) perceptions of performance enhancing drug use in sport, and (f) summary. Prevalence of Performance Enhancing Drugs in Sport Researchers have found that athletes at all levels of competition use performance enhancing drugs. However, one of the challenges with this area of study is the underreporting of athletes PED use. This may be due to athletes fear of getting caught and being reprimanded. Unfortunately, adolescent athletes also have been reported to use PEDs. Athletes as young as adolescents have been found to use performance-enhancing drugs. For instance, Nilsson, Spak, Marklund, Baigi and Allebeck (2004) examined steroid usage rates with 4,049 male adolescents whose ages ranged from The researchers used a 94-item questionnaire which included questions about steroid usage rate. The researchers found that 1.2% of participants admitted to doping. Further, Peretti-Watel et al. (2004) reviewed a number of studies which reported 4% to 12% of adolescents admitting to anabolic steroid use. 6

15 7 Sport psychologists also have been interested in investigating the prevalence of PED with collegiate athletes. For example, Petroczi (2007) found that 15 out of 199 collegiate athletes reported using PEDs within 12 months of the study. Calfee and Fadale (2006) also found that 1.4% of 21,000 student-athletes reported using steroids. In a related study, Green, Uryasz, Petr and Bray (2001) surveyed 13,914 student-athletes and found 1.1% reported using steroids. At elite levels of competition, prevalence rates are higher than rates for adolescents and college athletes. For example, Petroczi and Aidman (2009) completed a series of seven studies analyzing Hungarian elite athletes prevalence rates of PEDs. The researchers found that the percentage of athletes who used performance-enhancing drugs ranged from 4.4% to 13.7%. Similarly, Mazanov, Petroczi, Bingham, and Holloway (2008) found that 4% of a sample of 293 elite athletes from the United Kingdom (UK) reported using performance enhancing drugs. Alaranta et al. (2006) completed a study in which 494 Finnish elite athletes answered questions (self-reported anonymous survey) regarding suspicion or knowledge of another athlete using PEDs. The findings indicated that 6.1% of the participants suspected another athlete was using whereas 3.4% personally knew another athlete who was taking PEDs. Both percentages are similar to the range Petroczi and Aidman (2009) found for Hungarian elite athletes. Studies reviewed in this section have shown that the PED usage rates ranged from 1.1% to 13.7% depending on the level of competition. The lower percentages may be due to underreporting because of sanctions or being labeled a cheater. The self-report data on usage

16 8 rates of PEDs indicates it may be a common and underreported occurrence from adolescent to elite athletes. Media s Influence on Performance-Enhancing Drug Behavior The media has contributed to athletes considering the use of performance-enhancing drugs. At higher levels of competition, winning and performing often influence athletes decisions whether to dope or not. Many collegiate and professional sporting events are broadcast to millions of viewers on television. When collegiate athletes are featured on television every week, this may put more pressure to win on athletes. Loyal fans who buy tickets or watch their team on television are not going to want to see their team lose, adding to the pressure to win. This exposure may have an effect on the athletes playing and their decision to use PEDs as well as young athletes watching the games and their decision to use (Calfee & Fadale, 2006). Unfortunately, high profile athletes who have been caught using PEDs have been documented in the media, which may have influenced younger viewers decisions to use PEDs (Labre, 2002). In particular, Yesalis and Bahrke (2000) completed an analysis of the impact of the media on adolescent athletes decisions to dope. The researchers investigated society s fixation with winning, and instances where television and print media have shown high profile athletes who have used PEDs. Further, Yesalis and Bahrke examined professional wrestlers such as Hulk Hogan and Stone Cold Steve Austin who are admired for their muscularity which has reportedly been enhanced by the use of anabolic steroids. Younger viewers who watch their role-model athletes use PEDs may alter their own attitudes toward using PEDs. The researchers concluded that, with societal reward related to the

17 9 importance of winning in sports as well as the perception of improving one s physical appearance, the demand for PEDs among adolescents is increasing (Yesalis & Bahrke). In addition, President George W. Bush, during his presidency, appointed Arnold Schwarzenegger, who has been accused of using steroids, as a chair of the President s Council on Physical Fitness and Sports which seemed to be an inappropriate message to people involved with physical fitness. Print media sources have been found to feature ads and articles that portray an ideal body shape rather than healthy diets (Labre, 2002). Some of these magazines include Men s Health and the teenage spin-off MH-18. Morrison, Kalin and Morrison (2004), for example, measured the effect of the media on athletes body image with 765 male adolescents. The purpose of the study was to determine the impact of reading or watching programs with pictures of an ideal male body image on perceptions of appearance. The participants looked at media images of males in shape and reflected about their own appearance and were administered the Appearance Self-Esteem Scale (ASES). The Body Figure Perception Questionnaire (BFPQ) was also administered and required the participants to look at skinny, large, and muscular body figures and rate their own body image in comparison to those images (Morrison et al.). Finally, the participants were required to state if the magazines they read and television programs they watched showed an ideal male body image. The findings indicated that 92.5% of the participants thought the print media sources showed an ideal male body image. A second finding indicated that 89.1% of the participants believed television programs also displayed idealistic male body images in their advertisements. These findings indicated that adolescents may be more likely to take PEDs if they feel their body figure is not ideal (Morrison et al., 2004). Another study s

18 10 findings indicated that a reason adolescents gave for doping was that they believed girls preferred men with bigger muscles (Nilsson et al., 2004). This muscular ideal, which has been found in the media recently, is not achievable by most men and is not needed for optimal health. Still adolescents and men alike may engage in unhealthy activities such as using PEDs to obtain the images they see in the media (Labre, 2002). It is evident that the media influences younger athletes decisions to use performanceenhancing drugs. In particular, television advertisements and print media sources portray ideal body images in their advertising to sell products and services. However, young people will see these images and it may affect their decision to use PEDs in the future to make gains in their performance or appearance. Psychosocial and Physiological Factors That Influence Doping Behavior Sport psychologists and exercise scientists have examined the psychosocial and physiological factors that influence athletes decisions to take performance-enhancing drugs with adolescent, college and elite athletes. Some of the primary psychosocial factors that influence athletes behavior include: societal pressures, financial stress, and improvement of appearance (Ehrnborg & Rosen, 2009; Petroczi & Aidman, 2009). Society s pressures may influence athletes to use performance-enhancing drugs because of the undue stress (pressure to win, perform, and look ideal ) put on athletes. Social pressures may come from the win at all costs attitude which our society has placed on sport performance and achievement (Albrecht, Anderson & McKeag, 1992). Athletes may also use PEDs to help their financial situation. For example, if an athlete needs to gain a

19 11 scholarship to pay for college they may be more likely to use PEDs (Albrecht et al.). This may ultimately be the primary motive for participating in sport. The main physiological factors which influence athletes decisions to use PEDs include maximizing one s performance on the athletic field and recovering from injuries. Athletes may feel it is necessary to use PEDs to maximize performance and outperform their competitors on the athletic field. Also, professional athletes may take PEDs to recover from injuries quicker which will enable them to get back on the playing field so they can pay bills (Bloodworth & McNamee, 2009; Donovan, Egger, Kapernick & Mendoza, 2002). Adolescent, college and elite athletes may all have different reasons for doping. For example, Nilsson et al. (2004) asked 1.2% of the 4,049 adolescents who admitted using their reasons for doping. The most common reasons given were to improve appearance followed by to maximize their performance in sport. Researchers also have investigated the factors that influence collegiate athletes to consider taking PEDs. For instance, Green and colleagues (2001) administered a survey to 13,914 student-athletes to determine substance-use patterns. The participants were male and female athletes from the Division I, II, or III level. The data showed that only 1.1% of the participants admitted using anabolic steroids. Results also showed that the primary reasons why athletes ingested performance-enhancing drugs were for performance enhancement and recovery from injuries. Certain research findings have actually documented cases of elite athletes using performance-enhancing drugs. For example, Bloodworth and McNamee (2009) held a series of group discussions with 40 UK elite athletes to determine the possible reasons why athletes

20 12 use PEDs. During the group discussions, the researchers used hypothetical situations to determine the participants attitudes toward doping. The majority of the athletes reported that they did not believe doping was a national problem in their sport. The participants reported that the primary reasons why they would take PEDs included improving one s financial situation and recovering from injuries. In contrast, the researchers found that the main reasons why athletes avoid using performance-enhancing drugs included shame of being caught and the idea that PEDs are not natural and take away from one s natural ability. This negative connotation is related to shame in that using PEDs is not a moral norm; therefore, the participants cited shame as a deterrent for using PEDs (Bloodworth & McNamee). There are a variety of psychosocial and physiological reasons why athletes choose to take PEDs. It has been found that some athletes may be more susceptible to PED use than others due to internal and external pressures (Petroczi, 2007). These pressures may include injuries and finances. Some athletes only have sport to pay bills, therefore, they need to be on the field to create income and may decide to use PEDs to gain an edge. A common finding among earlier studies was that athletes choose to use performance enhancements in order to improve performance (Green et al., 2001; Nilsson et al., 2004). Other primary reasons to use performance enhancing drugs were to improve one s appearance, to improve finances, and to recover from injuries quicker. Performance Enhancement Attitude Scale (PEAS) Petroczi and Aidman (2009) developed and validated a17-item Performance Enhancement Attitude Scale (PEAS) to understand participants attitudes and perceptions

21 13 toward doping. The scales validity was tested by having admitted PED users and non-users answer questions on the survey. A 6-point Likert scale with no neutral response was used with scores ranging from 17 to 102 with a mid-point of The researchers measured convergent validity by analyzing the differences between admitted users and non-users of PEDs (Petroczi & Aidman, 2009). The authors hypothesized that the participants who used PEDs would show a more liberal view toward doping and score higher on the PEAS. Further validity tests were done using United Kingdom (UK) and Hungarian students where they were asked about their intention to use by answering questions about five hypothetical situations. The participants were then administered the PEAS and asked if they would use PEDs. A majority of students stated under no circumstance would they dope. The means of hypothetical users in five of the seven tests scored higher than The means of the non-users, in all but one test, scored at least 2.00 points lower than the users. It was found that participants who claimed they would use under certain circumstances scored higher on the PEAS than participants who would not use under any circumstance. Further, participants were asked if they would use PEDs and these responses were compared to the PEAS scores. It was found the participants who would use PEDs scored higher on the PEAS. When analyzing the reliability of the scale, Cronbach s alpha values ranged from.71 to.91, which indicated that the instrument is reliable. These findings suggest the PEAS is a valid and reliable scale for determining athletes attitudes toward doping (Petroczi & Aidman).

22 14 Perceptions of Performance-Enhancing Drug Use in Sport A number of researchers have analyzed the views and perceptions of PED use with adolescent, collegiate and elite athletes. Athletes views and perceptions toward PED use could be related to athletes deciding to use performance enhancements. This area of research is important to determine who may use PEDs which allows for new and improved antidoping educational interventions to be created. Sport psychologists have been interested in investigating PED attitudes with younger athletes. For instance, Nilsson et al. (2004) administered a survey to 4,049 male adolescent athletes from Sweden. The researchers used a 94-item questionnaire which included questions such as Are steroids dangerous? and Is steroid use acceptable? The results were split between admitted PED users and non-users. Only 1.2% of the participants were admitted users. In relation to attitudes toward PEDs the finding indicated that 79% of the steroid users believed that steroids were not dangerous, whereas, 64% of non-users believed they were dangerous. The researchers also found that 87% of steroid users believed steroids were acceptable. In contrast, 59% of the non-users thought steroids were not acceptable to use although 41% of non-users thought PED use was acceptable. It is evident with these findings that the attitudes toward PEDs differ from steroid users and non-users. Performance enhancing drug use has also been investigated with collegiate students and student athletes. According to Green et al. (2001), out of 13,914 college student-athletes, 1.1% admitted using anabolic steroids. In a study by Sabini and Monterosso (2005) a scenario-based test was administered to 185 psychology undergraduate students from the University of Pennsylvania to determine their attitudes toward PEDs. Specifically, the

23 15 participants read a fictitious scenario where an athlete took PEDs to enhance athletic performance. The results of the study showed that 84.5% of the participants were in favor of banning drugs which gave athletes a competitive advantage. In a related study, Petroczi, Aidman, and Nepusz (2008) asked 111 undergraduate college students about their perceptions of PED use. Interestingly, the only significant finding was that 66% of the participants thought doping would help one s performance. Other researchers have tried to determine if college students identified more with college athletes who used PEDs or those who did not by administering hypothetical situations. Chantal, Soubranne, and Brunel (2009) conducted a study to understand the social image from college students toward athletes who take PEDs. Chantal and colleagues administered the Sport Motivation Scale (SMS) a hypothetical scenario to 182 college physical education students who had steady sport involvement for eight years. The researchers analyzed whether participants viewed the drug user as having negative morals and not being self-determined or if the drug user was viewed as having positive morals and were self-determined. The findings of the study showed that the participants identified more with the athlete in the scenario who did not use drugs compared to the scenario where drug use was evident. A second finding was that the participants viewed the athlete who used PEDs less positively and indicated the athlete did not have as much motivation or sportsmanship when compared to the athlete who did not use (Chantal et al.). In collegiate sports, athletes have to maintain a certain grade point average to compete. Researchers have been interested in determining if there is a correlation between PED use and grade point averages. Perko, Cowdery, Wang and Yesalis (1995) analyzed 1,638 Division I athletes grade point averages and how they related to the athletes attitudes

24 16 toward PEDs. The researchers found that the lower the participants GPA, the more likely the athletes believed that performance-enhancing drugs could improve performance. A second finding was that athletes with lower GPAs were more likely to use steroids. The researchers concluded that educational interventions need to be directed at this group specifically to reduce the possibility of using. Petroczi (2007) asked 199 male college athletes a series of questions to determine their attitudes toward PEDs. The purpose of the study was two-fold, to determine attitudes and create effective deterrence methods. Petroczi used the Performance Enhancement Attitude Scale (PEAS) and Sport Orientation Questionnaire to analyze athletes personal traits such as competiveness level and win orientation, and how that influenced doping behavior and attitudes. An athlete s competiveness level was defined as the desire to succeed in sport and win orientation was related to individual achievement in sport. The main finding in the study suggested that athletes win orientation and competitiveness when analyzed together did not play a significant role in doping behavior, but a win orientation did have an effect on doping attitudes. This points out that the importance of winning may influence what athletes think about PED use (Petroczi). This shows that personal traits of athletes may have an influence on PED use. Athletes personal traits and decisions may be influenced by a number of factors such as their role models beliefs toward PEDs. If elite athletes believe it is acceptable to use PEDs to maximize performance, younger athletes may be influenced to use performance-enhancing drugs. Therefore, it is important to analyze elite athletes attitudes towards PEDs. For instance, Mazanov et al. (2008) administered the Drug Free Sport Survey (a 65-question survey) to 832 elite British athletes to measure attitudes toward PEDs. The researchers found that likely users saw

25 17 doping as a problem in their sport and were familiar with various testing procedures compared to non-users. In a related study, Bloodworth and McNamee (2009) investigated attitudes toward doping among 40 elite male and female athletes in the United Kingdom (UK). The researchers found the participants did not feel as though there was a significant national doping problem in their sport and rejected the idea of using PEDs. These UK athletes felt PED use was prevalent in other nations. A possible reason for the difference in findings is the fact that in the Mazanov et al. study, the participants, who were more likely to use, thought there was a problem with doping in their sport. Whereas in Bloodworth and McNamee s study, the participants did not feel there was a doping problem in their respective sport, and therefore, did not feel the need to dope. Understanding why athletes decide to use PEDs has been documented throughout different levels of competition. For example, Peretti-Watel et al. (2004) administered the Survey on Elite Provencal Student-Athletes (SEPSA) to analyze elite athletes attitudes toward doping. The sample included 458 elite student athletes with an age range of from sporting centers in France (159=females, 299=males). The researchers found that approximately 95% of the participants thought doping was dishonest and unhealthy, and the majority of the study s participants stated they were fearful of getting caught and worried about possible sanctions. However, male participants were more likely than females to agree with statements which related to benefits of doping. Participants who believed doping was acceptable and beneficial to performance were older males with lower parental academic achievement and a lower socioeconomic status. This group of participants also had no sporting history in their family. It is believed that athletes from lower socioeconomic

26 18 backgrounds may view doping as a means to an end because they feel as though sport is their only way of improving their social and financial status (Peretti-Watel et al.). Anshel and Russell (1997) also examined the attitudes of Australian elite athletes towards PEDs. The researchers administered a two-part questionnaire which asked participants about their knowledge and attitudes toward steroid use. The researchers found that most of the participants felt PEDs were not an ethical method of gaining a competitive advantage over their opponents. Anshel and Russell concluded that these attitudes may be due to culture because Australia s drug prevention and testing procedures are more stringent than those of the United States. Overall, elite athletes and college student-athletes have been found to reject the idea of using PEDs. In contrast, results from several studies show that adolescent athletes accepted using PEDs. This difference may be due to the amount of education each group has received. In addition, the fear of sanctions that may be placed on college and elite athletes are harsher than adolescent athletes. Finally, adolescent athletes do not have to take part in stringent drug tests as do collegiate and elite athletes. Summary Most studies on performance-enhancing drug use and doping methods find that a majority of athletes both young and old disapprove of any doping behavior. Still, it is interesting to note that doping is still evident in sport today. Possible reasons for using include enhancing performance, financial strains, and physical appearance (Bloodworth & McNamee, 2009; Petroczi & Aidman, 2009). Further, college athletes may not use PEDs due to the fear of getting caught and sanctions if one is caught as well as shame and the idea that

27 19 doping takes away from one s own natural ability (Bloodworth & McNamee, 2009; Donovan, Egger, Kapernick & Mendoza, 2002). With PED usage still evident in the sport culture and in collegiate athletics, it is important to continue studies which analyze collegiate athletes attitudes about PEDs. It is important to analyze athletes attitudes at different universities to determine if there are lenient views toward PED use. Lenient views may indicate problems within certain universities and across different sports.

28 CHAPTER III Methods Adolescent, college and elite athletes have reported using performance enhancing drugs (PEDs) for a variety of reasons. Although many researchers have investigated the physiological effects of PEDs, more research needs to be completed to understand athletes perceptions toward PEDs. The purpose of this study was to examine attitudes and perceptions regarding performance-enhancing drugs with Division II collegiate athletes. This chapter will consist of the following sections: (a) participants/settings, (b) research design, (c) instrument, (d) validity of study, (e) procedures, (f) analysis method, and (g) summary. Participants/Setting The participants selected for this study were male athletes participating in individual and team sports attending a Division II regional university. The study included volunteers from the following sports: track and field (including sprinters, field events, and distance runners), soccer, basketball, and football players. The volunteers signed an informed consent form before participating in the study. Research Design The research design for this study was descriptive. The Performance Enhancement Attitude Scale (PEAS) was used to measure participants attitudes toward PEDs. The survey was scored using a Likert scale with 6 responses ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 6 (strongly agree). The independent variable is the six different sport groups: track sprinters, 20

29 21 distance runners, throwers, soccer, football, and basketball players. The dependent variable is the scores on the Performance Enhancement Attitude Scale. Instrument The questionnaire that participants completed was the PEAS (see Appendix B). The PEAS is a 17-item self-report instrument with attitude statements which measure participants attitudes toward PEDs. A 6-point Likert scale with points ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 6 (strongly agree) was used to score the survey. Petroczi and Aidman (2009) compared seven scores of hypothetical doping situations (UK/U.S./Hungarian athletes) and found PEAS scores were congruent with previous literature. The researchers analyzed data using PEAS scores and compared the responses from non-users and users. The results showed a statistically significant difference between users and an elevated score on the PEAS as well as between non-users and a lower score on the PEAS. In all but one of the seven studies the users scored higher than non-users on the PEAS. Petroczi and Aidman concluded the PEAS is a valid measure. Reliability scores (r = 0.71 to 0.91) indicate medium to high internal consistency. These psychometric values show the PEAS is a valid and reliable tool for examining athletes attitudes toward doping (Petroczi & Aidman). A potential weakness of this instrument is that the data is self-reported. Validity of Study It is important to understand possible threats to the internal validity of the study. One potential threat is a history threat. If a participant has previously taken part in an anti-doping educational program he may answer the questions based on what the program taught. To add, another threat may be that participants who have taken PEDs or have certain attitudes

30 22 toward them might be more likely to choose not to participate. Another potential internal validity threat is that the participants may choose not to answer the questions honestly due to fear (expectancy threat) of being reprimanded by coaches, athletic trainers or athletic directors, even though anonymity of their responses was assured. Finally, a threat to the external validity of the study is the fact that the sample is a convenience sample which may affect the generalization of the results. Procedures Approval to use human subjects was obtained from the Eastern New Mexico University Human Subjects Committee. The primary investigator met with head coaches for each sport informing them of the study. The primary investigator asked each coach if there were any two-sport athletes. Any two-sport athlete s PEAS scores were not included in the study. The coach introduced the primary investigator at the mandatory team meetings in which data collection occurred. The coach(es) left the room. Prior to the participants answering the survey, the primary investigator hung up three posters which listed NCAA s list of banned substances. The investigator informed the participants about the purpose of the study and passed out an informed consent form (See Appendix C) and the PEAS survey. Participation was strictly voluntary. Once the volunteers signed the informed consent and completed the survey, the participants brought both papers to the front of the room. The primary investigator made sure the informed consent was signed and then put the PEAS into an appropriate sport labeled box. Each sport had a different box in which the completed PEAS was placed. At the completion of the data collection the sport boxes were transferred to a locked cabinet in a locked office. The informed consent was placed in a box labeled signed informed consent. If the informed consent was not signed the unanswered PEAS

31 23 was placed in a separate box along with the un-signed informed consent. The primary investigator was the only person who handled the surveys. The mean scores of the PEAS were calculated for six groups: track and field (separated as sprinters, field events, and distance runners), football, basketball and soccer players. Analysis Method A one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) test was used to test for differences among the six groups. The PEAS mean scores from each team was analyzed using SPSS (Version 17.0) software. This analysis tested the null hypothesis which states there would be no difference in attitudes toward PEDs among the different groups. The alpha level was set at (p <.05). Summary It is important to examine college athletes attitudes toward PED use to add to the gap in literature regarding attitudes toward performance enhancement. Although some threats include history and expectancy threats, this study can add to our understanding of athletes attitudes toward PED use. Examining ENMU Division II male athletes attitudes toward PEDs through a questionnaire (PEAS) further adds information to the body of literature available about college athletes attitudes toward PED use. Once athletes are more informed about PEDs, they may be deterred from using banned substances. This information, with further investigation, can help create new education programs and deterrence methods for Division II athletes as well as other athletes. If we understand how athletes view PEDs at Eastern New Mexico University, we may have a better understanding of how Division II athletes view PEDs.

32 CHAPTER IV Results This chapter presents the results of the study. The following sections will be discussed: (a) descriptive statistics, (b) one-way ANOVA statistics, and (c) summary. Descriptive Statistics Before the ANOVA statistics were computed, the mean scores for the Performance Enhancement Attitude Scale (PEAS) were computed for each of the six sports: track and field (grouped by sprinters, field events, and distance runners), football, basketball, and soccer players. Descriptive statistics and study findings are presented in detail as follows. 95% Confidence Interval for Mean N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Lower Bound Upper Bound Minimum Maximum Football Soccer Basketball Distance Field Sprint Total Table 1-PEAS Mean Scores These mean scores were further graphed and shown in Graph 1 (Appendix D). Once the mean scores and ranges were computed for each of the six groups (Table 1), a one-way ANOVA test was used to determine if there were any significant differences among the different groups. 24

33 25 One-Way ANOVA The hypothesis of this study was that football, track field athletes, and track sprinters would score higher on the PEAS compared to soccer, track distance runners, and basketball players. The one-way ANOVA results showed no significant difference was found among the PEAS group mean scores (F (5,121) = 0.708, p >.05). The six sport groups did not differ significantly in the PEAS mean scores, and therefore the null hypothesis, which states that football, track field athletes, and track sprinters would not score higher on the PEAS compared to soccer, track distance runners, and basketball players, could not be rejected thus no post hoc tests were needed. Therefore, statistical significance was not reached in relation to the hypothesis. Summary Based on the results there was no statistical significant difference among the six PEAS group mean scores. The difference among the six groups was (p = 0.62) higher than the alpha level and therefore not significant. With these results, there was no need for post hoc tests.

34 CHAPTER V Discussion The purpose of this study was to examine attitudes and perceptions regarding performance enhancing drugs (PEDs) with Division II male athletes in a variety of sports. The sports included football, soccer, basketball, and track and field (sprinters, field events, and distance runners). The participants completed the Performance Enhancement Attitude Scale (PEAS) which measured participants attitudes and perceptions toward PEDs. Specific findings showed that the football, soccer and sprinter groups had the lowest scores on the PEAS (M = 37.46, 37.07, and 36.17,) compared to the basketball, field event, and distance runner groups (M = 43.06, 41.83, and 40.14). However, all the group mean scores were below the PEAS midpoint value of One possible reason for the low mean scores is that the participants may not have answered the survey questions honestly due to fear of sanctions against them or concerns of accusation. Another possible reason for the mean scores being lower than PEAS midpoint is the number of participants in the sprinter, field event, and distance runner groups. Each of these groups had fewer than 14 participants which may not have been a representative sample of actual perceptions about PED use for the respective sport groups. A final explanation may be the influence of the media on the subjects perceptions of PEDs. Many high profile athletes have recently been caught using illegal PEDs. The media coverage of these incidents has been overwhelming and may have influenced the participants answers. In relation to this study, the football and sprint groups had two of the lowest group mean scores on the PEAS, yet surprisingly, these sports are reported most 26

35 27 heavily in the media when an athlete is caught using PEDs. Because the media reports on these sports more often, the participants may not have wanted to incur the negative stigma associated with PEDs and their respective sport, therefore they may not have been honest in their responses. In contrast, since elite athletes have been documented using PEDs in the media, one might assume that collegiate athletes would feel it would be appropriate to use PEDs (Labre, 2002). Contrary to the current study s findings, it is possible that collegiate athletes may think about using PEDs and therefore have a more lenient view on PED use due to media coverage and viewing many professional athletes using PEDs. This more relaxed view may cause collegiate athletes to use PEDs for a number of reasons including financial stress, improving appearance and performance, and recovering from injuries (Petroczi & Aidman, 2009). Scores on the PEAS for basketball were higher than the other sport groups although still lower than the midpoint of The basketball athletes participated in the current study during the end of their season. A win orientation, which is related to individual achievement in sport, may be a possible reason why basketball athletes scored the highest on the PEAS (Petroczi, 2007). The results of Petroczi s study showed that a win orientation influenced whether or not the participants used performance enhancing drugs. Considering these participants were in the final stretch of their season, their win orientation may have been higher than the soccer or football participants who were out of season. Therefore, we could expect a higher score on the PEAS for the basketball participants.

36 28 Other studies have shown that a majority of athletes (95%) surveyed disapprove of using PEDs (Peretti-Watel et al., 2004; Petroczi, 2007); the results of the current study are, thus, in line with previous findings. In this current study, PEAS mean scores ranged from to Other researchers such as Petroczi and Aidman (2009) found that their participants PEAS scores ranged from M = to which also was below the PEAS midpoint. Recommendations The mean PEAS scores across the different groups ranged from to which were substantially lower than the midpoint score on the PEAS. The results of the present study and previous findings suggest that researchers should reevaluate the PEAS midpoint score as an accurate predictor of PED users versus non-users. Based on the results of this study, it is recommended that future research in this area examine existing educational programs as part of the research design to determine if these programs are effective. For example, the PEAS could be administered prior to and after an educational treatment which would provide evidence of the effectiveness of the program. A second recommendation would be to complete an item analysis in which individual questions on the PEAS are analyzed across groups. This information may provide more specific data about the content included on the questionnaire. It may also show where there are differences between groups if there are big differences in the responses. Finally, because this current study s participants were American Division II athletes and most other studies are done on elite participants and at bigger Division I universities, the PEAS could be distributed to athletes at a number of Division I, II, and III universities to

37 29 provide a more representative sample of college athletes attitudes and perceptions toward PEDs. Conclusion In conclusion, the results of this study showed there were no statistical significant differences in attitudes toward PEDs among the different athlete groups who participated. The athletes in this study did not show a lenient view on PED use; therefore, this may suggest that PED use is not a problem at ENMU.

38 30 References Alaranta, A., Alaranta, H., Holmila, J., Palmu, P., Pietila, K., & Helenius, I. (2006). Selfreported attitudes of elite athletes towards doping: Differences between type of sport. International Journal of Sports Medicine, 27(10), Albrecht, R. R., Anderson, W. A., & McKeag, D. B. (1992). Drug testing of college athletes: The issues. Sports Medicine, 14(6), Anshel, M. H., & Russell, K. G. (1997). Examining athletes attitudes toward using anabolic steroids and their knowledge of the possible effects. Journal of Drug Education, 27(2), Araton, H. (2010, February 18). Chatty McGwire is back in uniform. The New York Times, p. B20. Bloodworth, A., & McNamee, M. (2009). Clean Olympians? Doping and anti-doping: The views of talented young British athletes. International Journal of Drug Policy, 21(4), Calfee, R., & Fadale, P. (2006). Popular ergogenic drugs and supplements in young athletes. Pediatrics, 117, Chantal, Y., Soubranne, R., & Brunel, P. C. (2009). Exploring the social image of anabolic steroid users through motivation, sportspersonship orientations and aggression. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports, 19,