Background/Purpose Performance enhancing drug use in sport is well-publicized. Knowledge about use is limited either to self-report measures or positive drug tests. Limited research exists concerning the reasoning that athletes and others use when deciding whether or not to use a performance enhancing drugs. The purpose of this study was to examine moral reasoning of kinesiology majors and collegiate athletes relative to doping in sport.
Method Participants were 208 convenience sampled students (82 males;126 females; 64 athletes; 144 kinesiology majors). Reasoning was assessed using the Ergogenic Aids Moral Competence Inventory (Cronbach .71-.78) which examines reasoning relative to doping. Data were analyzed in SPSS (18) using ANOVA procedures, p<.05.
Analysis/Results A significant difference was found between intercollegiate athletes and kinesiology majors F(1, 203) = 3.979, p = 0.047, ηρ2= 0.09; athletes (11.46 ± 2.1; Kinesiology majors (12.11 ± 2.1). While the means were similar, kinesiology majors chose items more frequently that argued doping was a natural progression in sport while athletes chose more rule bound perspectives.
Conclusions If kinesiology majors work in fitness centers, coach, and teach with these perspectives, anti-doping education programs may have limited impact on young athletes. While both athletes and kinesiology majors could benefit, kinesiology programs may need to re-evaluate anti-doping education programs and implement moral reasoning pedagogical techniques that challenge students to evaluate their reasoning about doping relative to the mission and purpose of educational sport. Educational programs can be developed which address the specific thought processes involved instead of the typical scare tactics or rule-based current educational programs.