Changing Attitudes and Intentions Related to Doping: An Analysis of Individual Differences in Need for Cognition
Research has shown that athletes’ attitudes towards the use of banned performance-enhancing substances are reliable predictors of their intentions to use these substances, which in turn can be relevant predictors of their actual doping behaviours. Despite the important role played by attitudes and i...
| Autores: | , , , |
|---|---|
| Tipo de recurso: | artículo |
| Fecha de publicación: | 2019 |
| País: | España |
| Institución: | Universidad Autónoma de Madrid |
| Repositorio: | Biblos-e Archivo. Repositorio Institucional de la UAM |
| Idioma: | inglés |
| OAI Identifier: | oai:repositorio.uam.es:10486/750420 |
| Acceso en línea: | https://hdl.handle.net/10486/750420 https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2019.1665876 |
| Access Level: | acceso abierto |
| Palabra clave: | need for cognition attitude intention doping elaboration Psicología |
| Sumario: | Research has shown that athletes’ attitudes towards the use of banned performance-enhancing substances are reliable predictors of their intentions to use these substances, which in turn can be relevant predictors of their actual doping behaviours. Despite the important role played by attitudes and intentions in doping, research analysing how to change those attitudes and intentions is relatively scarce. The present study examined how individual differences in Need for Cognition (NC, Cacioppo & Petty, 1982) influenced doping-related attitude change and subsequent behavioural intentions. Participants were randomly assigned to read a persuasive message either against or in favour of legalising the use of several banned substances, including anabolic androgenic steroids (AAS) and Erythropoietin (EPO). In addition, participants completed the NC scale, and finally reported their attitudes and behavioural intentions regarding the legalisation proposal. As hypothesised, results showed that participants who received an anti-legalisation message had significantly more unfavourable attitudes towards the proposal than participants who received a pro-legalisation message, regardless of NC. However, as predicted, NC moderated the relationship between individuals’ attitudes and their intentions. That is, high-NC participants showed greater attitude-intention correspondence than low-NC participants |
|---|