The Phenomenon of Anti-Doping Policy Legitimacy in the Social Psychology of Sports

Anti-doping represents a global system where an athlete is in the center of a control and regulations. The perception of legitimacy is important for compliance with rules and regulation within the anti-doping system. However, the concept of legitimacy in anti-doping is not sufficiently defined, which makes it difficult to develop psychodiagnostic tools for its assessment within the framework of relevant psychological theories. The aim of this study is to review psychological literature on legitimacy perception and identify a framework within which legitimacy can be studied in anti-doping area. Reviewed data were structured by three categories of legitimacy: “proper”, “just” and “appropriate” and a respective matrix for a focus group interview had been developed. Four focus-group interviews had been conducted among Russian competitive athletes (N=22). The focus-group interviews revealed three main themes: trust to anti-doping organizations, equal and transparent anti-doping rules and possibility for athletes to influence anti-doping policy. Legitimacy of anti-doping is an important psychological construct that may be operationalized through the perception that anti-doping is functioning proper, just and appropriate. In addition, athletes voiced their concerns on the transparent and equal implementation of the anti-doping rules and possibility to influence anti-doping policy.

1. Bondarev D.V. Sotsial'no-kognitivnye faktory v dopingovom povedenii: ot otnosheniya do tselostnoi teorii [Socio-cognitive factors in doping behavior: from relationship to holistic theory]. Materialy Vserossiiskoi nauchno-prakticheskoi konferentsii po voprosam sportivnoi nauki v detsko-yunosheskom sporte i sporte vysshikh dostizhenii=Proceedings of the All-Russian Scientific and Practical Conference on Sports Science in Children's and Youth Sports and Sports of Higher Achievements. Moscow: publ. of GKU “TsSTiSK” Moskomsporta, 2016, pp. 576–587.
2. Bochaver K.A., Bondarev D., Savinkina A. et al. Interview in sport psychology: Method of study and preparing an intervention. Klinicheskaia i spetsial'naia psikhologiia=Clinical Psychology and Special Education, 2017, vol. 6, no. 4, pp. 148–167. DOI: 10.17759/ cpse.2017060410
3. Spiridonov V., Gulevich O., Bezmenova I. Faktory, oposreduyushchiye vospriyatiye spravedlivosti organizatsionnogo vzaimodeystviya [Factors mediating the perception of the fairness of organizational interaction]. Psikhologiya. Zhurnal Vysshey shkoly ekonomiki=Psychology: Journal of the Higher School of Economics, 2010, vol. 7, no. 1,
   pp. 130–137.
4. Ajzen I. The theory of planned behavior. Theories of Cognitive Self-Regulation, 1991, vol. 50, no. 2, pp. 179–211. DOI:10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T
5. Al Ghobain M. Attitudes and behavior related to performance-enhancing substance use among elite Saudi football players. BMC Sports Science, Medicine and Rehabilitation, 2019, vol. 11, no. 1, p. 35.
6. Barkoukis V. Lazuras L., Tsorbatzoudis H. Motivational and sportspersonship profiles of elite athletes in relation to doping behavior. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 2011, vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 205–212. DOI: 10.1016/j.psychsport.2010.10.003
7. Barkoukis V. Bondarev D., Lazuras L. et al. Whistleblowing against doping in sport:
   A cross-national study on the effects of motivation and sportspersonship orientations on whistleblowing intentions. Journal of Sports Sciences, 2020, vol. 18, pp. 1–10. DOI: 10.1080/02640414.2020.1861740
8. Barkoukis V., Lazuras L., Tsorbatzoudis H. Beliefs about the causes of success in sports and susceptibility for doping use in adolescent athletes. Journal of Sports Sciences, 2014, vol. 32, no. 3, pp. 212–219. DOI: 10.1080/02640414.2013.819521
9. Beetham D. The legitimation of power. Macmillan International Higher Education. Palgrave, London, 2013. 267 p.
10. Bloodworth A., McNamee M. Clean Olympians? Doping and anti-doping: The views of talented young British athletes. International Journal of Drug Policy, 2010, vol. 21, no. 4, pp. 276–282. DOI: 10.1016/j.drugpo.2009.11.009
11. Bondarev D. Why good athletes may use doping: Moral justifications of doping behavior. In A.V. Christiansen, J. Gleaves (eds.), Aarhus International Network of Doping Research conference “What do we (really) know about doping”. Denmark: University of Aarhus, 2014, pp. 18–22.
12. Bondarev D. Finni T., Kokko K. et al. Association of physical performance and mental well-being in middle-aged women. BMC Public Health, 2021, vol. 21. DOI:10.21203/rs.3.rs-42216/v1
13. Braun V., Clarke V., Weate P. Using thematic analysis in sport and exercise research. In Routledge Handbook of Qualitative Research in Sport and Exercise. Abingdon: Routledge. 2016, pp. 191–205.
14. Cohen C., Spector P. The role of justice in organizations: A meta-analysis: Organizational behavior and human decision processes. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 2001, vol. 2, no. 86, pp. 278–321. DOI: 10.1006/obhd.2001.2958
15. Cremer D.D., Tyler T.R. Managing group behavior: The interplay between procedural justice, sense of self, and cooperation. In P. Zanna (ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology. San Diego, CA: Elsevier Academic Press, 2005, pp. 151–218. DOI: 10.1016/S0065-2601(05)37003-1
16. Deephouse, D.L., Bundy, J., Tost, L. et al. Organizational legitimacy: Six key questions. In R. Greenwood, C. Oliver, T. Lawrence and R. Meyer (eds.), The SAGE Handbook of Organizational Institutionalism. Thousand Oaks, CA: 2017, pp. 27–54. DOI: 10.4135/ 9781446280669.n2
17. Dimeo P., Møller V. The anti-doping crisis in sport: causes, consequences, solutions. New York: Routledge, 2018, 186 p. DOI: 10.4324/9781315545677
18. Donovan R.J. Egger G., Kapernick V. et al. A conceptual framework for achieving performance enhancing drug compliance in sport. Sports Medicine, 2002, vol. 32, no. 4, pp. 269–284. DOI: 10.2165/00007256-200232040-00005
19. Donovan R., Jalleh G., Gucciardi D. Research package for anti-doping organizations. The World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) Education Committee and Social Science Research Ad Hoc Sub-Committee, Curtin University of Technology, Centre for Behavioural Research in Cancer Control, 2015. URL: https://www.wada-ama.org/en/resources/education-and-prevention/research-package-for-anti-doping-organizations-ados (Accessed: 01.02.2021).
20. Dreiskämper D., Pöppel K., Westmattelmann D. et al. Trust processes in sport in the context of doping. In B. Blöbaum (ed.), Trust and Communication in a Digitized World: Models and Concepts of Trust Research. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2016, pp. 125–141. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-28059-2_7
21. Duval A. The Russian doping scandal at the court of arbitration for sport: Lessons for the world anti-doping system. The International Sports Law Journal, 2017, vol. 16, no. 3–4, pp. 177–197.
22. Efverström A., Ahmadi N., Hoff D. et al. Anti-doping and legitimacy: an international survey of elite athletes’ perceptions. International Journal of Sport Policy and Politics, 2016, vol. 8, no. 3, pp. 491–514. DOI: 10.1080/19406940.2016.1170716
23. Efverström A. Bäckström A., Ahmadi N. et al. Contexts and conditions for a level playing field: Elite athletes’ perspectives on anti-doping in practice. Performance Enhancement & Health, 2016, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 77–85. DOI: 10.1016/j.peh.2016.08.001
24. Engelberg T., Moston S., Skinner J. The final frontier of anti-doping: A study of athletes who have committed doping violations. Sport Management Review, 2015, vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 268–279. DOI: 10.1016/j.smr.2014.06.005
25. Erickson K., Backhouse S.H., Carless D. “I don’t know if I would report them”: Student-athletes’ thoughts, feelings and anticipated behaviours on blowing the whistle on doping in sport. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 2017, vol. 30, pp. 45–54. DOI: 10.1016/j.psychsport.2017.01.005
26. Gatterer K., Gumpenberger M., Overbye M. An evaluation of prevention initiatives by 53 national anti-doping organizations: Achievements and limitations. Journal of Sport and Health Science, 2020, vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 228–239. DOI: 10.1016/j.jshs.2019.12.002
27. Gleaves J., Christiansen A.V. Athletes’ perspectives on WADA and the code: a review and analysis. International Journal of Sport Policy and Politics, 2019, vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 341–353. DOI: 10.1080/19406940.2019.1577901
28. Gowthorp L., Greenhow A., O’Brien D. An interdisciplinary approach in identifying the legitimate regulator of anti-doping in sport: The case of the Australian Football League. Sport Management Review, 2016, vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 48–60. DOI: 10.1016/j.smr.2015.11.004
29. Gucciardi D.F., Jalleh G., Donovan R.J. An examination of the Sport Drug Control Model with elite Australian athletes. Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport, 2011, vol. 14, no. 6, pp. 469–476. DOI: 10.1016/j.jsams.2011.03.009
30. Hanstad D.V., Loland S. Elite athletes’ duty to provide information on their whereabouts: Justifiable anti-doping work or an indefensible surveillance regime? European Journal of Sport Science, 2009, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 3–10. DOI: 10.1080/ 17461390802594219.
31. Hanstad D.V., Smith A., Waddington I. The Establishment of the World Anti-Doping Agency: A Study of the management of organizational change and unplanned outcomes. International Review for the Sociology of Sport, 2008, vol. 43, no. 3, pp. 227–249. DOI: 10.1177/1012690208100552
32. Henning A., Dimeo P. Perceptions of legitimacy, attitudes and buy-in among athlete groups: a cross-national qualitative investigation providing practical solutions. Report compiled for the World Anti-Doping Agency. Stirling: University of Stirling, 2018. 73 p.
33. Hoffmann E.A. Dispute resolution in a worker cooperative: Formal procedures and procedural justice. Law & Society Review, 2005, vol. 39, no. 1, pp. 51–82. DOI: 10.1111/ j.0023-9216.2005.00077.x
34. Ivanova V., Miller J., Rabin O. et al. Harmonization of anti-doping rules in a global context (World Anti-Doping Agency-laboratory accreditation perspective). Bioanalysis, 2012, vol. 4, no. 13, pp. 1603–1611. DOI: 10.4155/bio.12.152
35. Jackson J., Gau J.M. Carving up concepts? Differentiating between trust and legitimacy in public attitudes towards legal authority. In E. Shockley et al. (eds.), Interdisciplinary Perspectives on Trust: Towards Theoretical and Methodological Integration. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2016, pp. 49–69. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-22261-5_3
36. Jalleh G., Donovan R.J., Jobling I. Predicting attitude towards performance enhancing substance use: A comprehensive test of the Sport Drug Control Model with elite Australian athletes. Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport, 2014, vol. 17, no. 6, pp. 574–579. DOI: 10.1016/j.jsams.2013.10.249
37. Jost J.T., Major B. The psychology of legitimacy: Emerging perspectives on ideology, justice, and intergroup relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001. 470 p. DOI: 10.2307/3094855
38. Kegelaers J., Wylleman P., De Brandt K. et al. Incentives and deterrents for drug-taking behaviour in elite sports: A holistic and developmental approach. European Sport Management Quarterly, 2018, vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 112–132. DOI: 10.1080/16184742. 2017.1384505
39. King A.A., Lenox M.J. Industry self-regulation without sanctions: The chemical industry’s responsible care program. Academy of Management Journal, 2000, vol. 43, no. 4, pp. 698–716. DOI: 10.5465/1556362
40. Kirby K., Moran A., Guerin S. A qualitative analysis of the experiences of elite athletes who have admitted to doping for performance enhancement. International Journal of Sport Policy and Politics, 2011, vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 205–224. DOI: 10.1080/19406940.2011. 577081
41. Levi M., Sacks A., Tyler T. Conceptualizing legitimacy, measuring legitimating beliefs. American Behavioral Scientist, 2009, vol. 53, no. 3, pp. 354–375. DOI: 10.1177/ 0002764209338797
42. Ljungqvist A. Brief history of anti-doping. In O. Rabin, Y. Pitsiladis (eds), Medicine and Sport Science. Acute Topics in Anti-Doping. Basel, Karger, 2017, pp. 1–10. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-22261-5_3
43. Masucci M.A., Butryn T.M., Johnson J.A. Knowledge and perceptions of doping practices and anti-doping education among elite North American female triathletes. Performance Enhancement & Health, 2019, vol. 6, no. 3–4, pp. 121–128. DOI: 10.1016/j.peh.2019.02.001
44. Matheson C. Weber and the classification of forms of legitimacy. The British Journal of Sociology, 1987, vol. 38, no. 2, pp. 199–215.
45. McDermott V. The war on drugs in sport: Moral panics and organizational legitimacy. NY: Routledge, 2016. 272 p.
46. Møller V. The road to hell is paved with good intentions: A critical evaluation of WADA’s anti-doping campaign. Performance Enhancement & Health, 2016, vol. 4, no. 3–4, pp. 111–115.
47. Ntoumanis N., Ng J., Barkoukis V. et al. Personal and psychosocial predictors of doping use in physical activity settings: a meta-analysis. Sports Medicine, 2014, vol. 44, no. 11, pp. 1603–1624. DOI: 10.1007/s40279-014-0240-4
48. Oliver S. Making research more useful: integrating different perspectives and different methods. London: Open University Press, 2001, pp. 167–179.
49. Overbye M. Doping control in sport: An investigation of how elite athletes perceive and trust the functioning of the doping testing system in their sport. Doping in Sport: Current Issues and Challenges for Sport Management, 2016, vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 6–22. DOI: 10.1016/j.smr.2015.10.002.
50. Qvarfordt A., Ahmadi N., Bäckström A. et al. Limitations and duties: elite athletes’ perceptions of compliance with anti-doping rules. Sport in Society, 2019, vol. 24, no. 4, 2019, pp. 1–20. DOI: 10.1080/17430437.2019.1681404
51. Shestowsky D. Procedural preferences in alternative dispute resolution: A closer, modern look at an old idea. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 2004, vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 211–249. DOI: 10.1037/1076-8971.10.3.211
52. Skinner J., Read D., Kihl L.A. Applying a conceptual model of policy regime effectiveness to national and international anti-doping policy in sport. In L.A. Kihl (ed.), Corruption in Sport: Causes, Consequences, and Reform. London: Taylor and Francis, 2017, pp. 62–78.
53. Smith A.C.T., Stewart B., Oliver-Bennetts S. et al. Contextual influences and athlete attitudes to drugs in sport. Sport Management Review, 2010, vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 181–197. DOI: 10.1016/j.smr.2010.01.008
54. Smith B., McGannon K.R. Developing rigor in qualitative research: Problems and opportunities within sport and exercise psychology. International Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 2018, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 101–121. DOI: 10.1080/1750984X.2017. 1317357
55. Sparkes A.C., Smith B. Qualitative research methods in sport, exercise and health: From process to product. London: Routledge, 2013. 288 p.
56. Stewart B., Smith A.C.T. Drug Use in Sport: Implications for Public Policy. Journal of Sport and Social Issues, 2008, vol. 32, no. 3, pp. 278–298. DOI: 10.1177/ 0193723508319716
57. Suchman M.C. Managing Legitimacy: Strategic and Institutional Approaches. The Academy of Management Review, 1995, vol. 20, no. 3, pp. 571–610. DOI: 10.2307/258788
58. Sunshine J., Tyler T.R. The role of procedural justice and legitimacy in shaping public support for policing. Law & Society Review, 2003, vol. 37, no. 3, pp. 513–548. DOI: 10.1111/1540-5893.3703002
59. Toorn J. van der, Tyler T.R., Jost J.T. More than fair: Outcome dependence, system justification, and the perceived legitimacy of authority figures. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 2011, vol. 47, no. 1, pp. 127–138. DOI: 10.1016/j.jesp.2010.09.003
60. Tost L.P. An integrative model of legitimacy judgments. Academy of Management Review, 2011, vol. 36, no. 4, pp. 686–710. DOI: 10.5465/AMR.2010.0227
61. Tyler T.R. Procedural justice, legitimacy, and the effective rule of law. Crime and Justice, 2003, vol. 30, pp. 283–357. DOI: 10.1086/652233
62. Tyler T.R. Psychological perspectives on legitimacy and legitimation. Annual Review of Psychology, 2006, vol. 57, no. 1, pp. 375–400. DOI: 10.1146/annurev.psych. 57.102904.190038
63. Tyler T.R., Blader S.L. The group engagement model: Procedural justice, social identity, and cooperative behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 2003, vol. 7, no. 4, pp. 349–361. DOI: 10.1207/S15327957PSPR0704_07
64. Tyler T.R., Huo Y. Trust in the law: Encouraging public cooperation with the police and courts. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 2002. 264 p.
65. Tyler T.R., Jackson J. Popular legitimacy and the exercise of legal authority: Motivating compliance, cooperation, and engagement. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 2014, vol. 20, no. 1, p. 78. DOI: 10.1037/a0034514
66. Ulrich R., Pope H., Cleret L. et al. Doping in two elite athletics competitions assessed by randomized-response surveys. Sports Medicine, 2018, vol. 48, no. 1, pp. 211–219. DOI: 10.1007/s40279-017-0765-4
67. Westmattelmann D. Dreiskämper D., Strauss B. et al. Perception of the current anti-doping regime: A quantitative study among German top-level cyclists and track and field athletes. Frontiers in Psychology, 2018, vol. 9, p. 1890. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01890
68. Woolway T. Lazuras L., Barkoukis V. et al. “Doing what is right and doing it right”: A mapping review of athletes’ perception of anti-doping legitimacy. International Journal of Drug Policy, 2020, vol. 84, no. 102865. DOI: 10.1016/j.drugpo.2020.102865
69. Zelditch M., Walker H.A. The legitimacy of regimes. In S.R. Thye, J. Skvoretz (eds.), Power and Status (Advances in Group Processes). Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing Limited, 2003, pp. 217–249.