The Phenomenon of Anti-Doping Policy Legitimacy in the Social Psychology of Sports 58
PhD in Physical Education and Sports, Assistant Professor, Immanuel Kant Baltic Federal University, Jyväskylä, Finland
PhD in Psychology, Head of the Psychology of Health and Living Environment Department, Institute of Interdisciplinary Medicine, Moscow, Russia
PhD, Associate Professor of the Department of Physical Education and Sports Sciences, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Greece
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.
The reported study was funded by Russian Foundation for Basic Research (RFBR), project no. 19-113-50267
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.
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/
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,
Ajzen I. The theory of planned behavior. Theories of
Cognitive Self-Regulation, 1991, vol. 50, no. 2, pp. 179–211.
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.
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.
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
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.
Beetham D. The legitimation of power. Macmillan
International Higher Education. Palgrave, London, 2013. 267 p.
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:
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.
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
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.
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.
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:
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
Dimeo P., Møller V. The anti-doping crisis in sport:
causes, consequences, solutions. New York: Routledge, 2018, 186 p. DOI:
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:
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:
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:
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.
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
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
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:
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:
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
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:
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
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:
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.
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:
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.
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
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
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
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:
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
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
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:
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
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
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:
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
Matheson C. Weber and the classification of forms of
legitimacy. The British Journal of Sociology, 1987, vol. 38, no. 2, pp.
McDermott V. The war on drugs in sport: Moral panics and
organizational legitimacy. NY: Routledge, 2016. 272 p.
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.
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.
Oliver S. Making research more useful: integrating
different perspectives and different methods. London: Open University Press,
2001, pp. 167–179.
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:
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:
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:
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.
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:
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
Sparkes A.C., Smith B. Qualitative research methods in
sport, exercise and health: From process to product. London: Routledge, 2013.
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
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
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:
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
Tost L.P. An integrative model of legitimacy judgments.
Academy of Management Review, 2011, vol. 36, no. 4, pp. 686–710. DOI:
Tyler T.R. Procedural justice, legitimacy, and the
effective rule of law. Crime and Justice, 2003, vol. 30, pp. 283–357.
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
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:
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.
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:
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:
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
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
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.