Doping Use Belief (DUB)

Abstract

The Doping Use Belief (DUB) framework represents a foundational psychometric methodology developed within sports psychology and anti-doping behavioral science to evaluate athletes’ normative permissiveness, policy acceptance, and self-reported engagement regarding prohibited performance-enhancing substances and methods. Originally codified in structural research by Professor Andrea Petróczi (2007) and further validated by international sport scientists (e.g., Manouchehri & Tojari, 2013), the DUB protocol operates as a dual-component assessment instrument. It systematically decouples cognitive-evaluative convictions regarding the systemic allowance of performance-enhancing drugs (PEDs) from direct behavioral engagement profiles across competitive trajectories.

Structurally, the instrument captures two correlated yet distinct operational dimensions: Doping Belief, which evaluates the athlete’s normative endorsement of drug liberalization across elite and general athletic echelons using a trichotomous response format (ranging from absolute prohibition to unrestricted allowance); and Doping Behavior, an ordinal operationalization capturing lifetime exposure, therapeutic/medical rationalization, active current usage, and an opt-out safeguard designed to minimize non-response attrition. When integrated into structural equation models alongside the Performance Enhancement Attitude Scale (PEAS), the DUB demonstrates robust criterion-related validity, high predictive efficacy for doping vulnerability, and stability across diverse athletic cohorts. By addressing the latent social-cognitive antecedents of illicit substance use, the scale serves as an indispensable epidemiological tool, diagnostic screening inventory, and programmatic evaluation framework for international anti-doping organizations, sports governing bodies, and behavioral researchers seeking to maintain fair play in contemporary athletics.

Keywords

Doping Use Belief, DUB, Andrea Petróczi, sports psychology, performance-enhancing drugs, anti-doping attitudes, psychometrics, doping behavior, World Anti-Doping Agency, sports ethics, behavioral epidemiology, structural equation modeling

Authors

The conceptualization, structural operationalization, and empirical validation of the Doping Use Belief framework have been shaped by leading international authorities in sport sociology, behavioral psychometrics, and exercise science:

• Andrea Petróczi, Ph.D.: Professor of Public Health and Sport Science at Kingston University London (United Kingdom) and a world-renowned authority on anti-doping policy, behavioral epidemiology, and social science research in sports integrity. Petróczi pioneered the multi-dimensional modeling of doping attitudes, explicit-implicit cognitive discrepancies, and the structural relationship between athletic values and banned substance utilization.
• Eugene Aidman, Ph.D.: Cognitive psychologist and senior research scientist affiliated with the Defence Science and Technology Group and the School of Psychology at the University of Adelaide (Australia). Aidman collaborated closely on the psychometric refinement, latent trait modeling, and structural validation of athletic attitude inventories alongside Petróczi.
• Jasem Manouchehri, Ph.D.: Sport management and behavioral science researcher affiliated with the Islamic Azad University, Central Tehran Branch, Iran. Manouchehri contributed significantly to cross-cultural adaptation, confirmatory factor structure verification, and construct stability testing of doping attitude and belief inventories within competitive Asian athletic populations.
• Farshad Tojari, Ph.D.: Professor of Sport Management and Physical Education at the Islamic Azad University, Central Tehran Branch, Iran. Co-investigator on empirical studies establishing cross-national construct validity and structural equivalence of doping belief metrics.

Purpose

The primary purpose of the Doping Use Belief (DUB) measure is to quantify an athlete’s normative permissiveness regarding the liberalization of performance-enhancing drugs and methods, while simultaneously capturing past and present behavioral patterns. In the modern sporting landscape, the covert nature of doping poses severe methodological challenges for researchers, integrity units, and sports medicine clinicians. Traditional self-report surveys frequently succumb to extreme social desirability bias, fear of legal or competitive sanctions, and false-negative reporting. The DUB was deliberately engineered to circumvent these constraints through brief, neutral, and structurally anchored questioning that yields meaningful variance even within high-stakes, surveillance-heavy athletic settings.

From an applied research perspective, the instrument fulfills several critical functions:

• Epidemiological Surveillance and Baseline Profiling: It provides national anti-doping organizations (NADOs) and the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) with standardized, quantitative indicators to evaluate normative shifts in doping tolerance across competitive levels, genders, and sporting disciplines.
• Predictive Risk Modeling: Within academic research, the instrument functions as a critical latent variable or criterion indicator in structural equation models exploring how achievement goal orientations, moral disengagement, and systemic pressures translate into actual illicit behaviors.
• Intervention Efficacy Assessment: Educational and preventative anti-doping workshops require psychometrically sensitive tools capable of detecting attitudinal and normative shifts. The DUB serves as an effective pre- and post-intervention metric to evaluate whether educational campaigns reinforce anti-doping norms.
• Clinical and Ethical Screening: In sports medicine and high-performance athletic consultations, the scale helps identify underlying moral disengagement or pharmacological rationalization, allowing psychological support staff to intervene prior to overt anti-doping rule violations (ADRVs).

Psychological Construct

The Doping Use Belief instrument operationalizes a complex socio-cognitive construct positioned at the intersection of normative ethics, legal compliance, and behavioral intention. Rather than treating doping merely as an isolated biochemical transgression, psychometric models conceptualize performance enhancement as an outcome of latent cognitive architecture. The DUB specifically isolates two primary sub-domains:

1. Doping Belief (Normative Permissiveness and Policy Acceptance)

This dimension assesses the respondent’s explicit philosophical stance regarding the governance and systemic allowance of prohibited performance-enhancing substances and methods. Central to this construct is the degree to which an athlete conceptually decouples sport from absolute chemical purity. The dimension explores two distinct systemic applications:

• Elite/Top-Level Athlete Permissiveness: Probes the conviction that elite sport is an extreme entertainment industry or specialized vocation wherein personal physiological optimization should be deregulated or permitted under medical supervision. Respondents who endorse this view typically believe that technological and pharmacological progression is an inevitable facet of human performance.
• Universal/All-Level Athlete Permissiveness: Probes a broader libertarian perspective regarding bodily autonomy and recreational drug democratization, evaluating whether restrictions should be removed across amateur, scholastic, and developmental sporting tiers.

2. Doping Behavior (Self-Reported Historical and Current Exposure)

The behavioral dimension captures the chronological progression of an individual’s personal interaction with prohibited substances or methods. Given the legal and reputational ramifications of admitting to an anti-doping rule violation, this dimension incorporates crucial psychometric nuances:

• Lifetime Prevalence vs. Active Engagement: Decouples historical experimentation (which may have occurred in the past or under distinct developmental conditions) from current, ongoing pharmacological administration.
• Therapeutic Rationalization: Specifically provides an intermediate response category designating use “only for treating a medical condition.” This accounts for legitimate therapeutic use exemptions (TUEs) while capturing the cognitive boundary between medically restorative substance use and non-prescribed ergogenic optimization.
• Protection Against Non-Response Attrition: By providing an explicit “I do not wish to answer” option, the scale distinguishes active refusals from missing data, allowing researchers to evaluate opt-out rates as a potential proxy for high-risk sensitivity.

Theoretical Framework

The theoretical architecture of the Doping Use Belief instrument is rooted in several established models within social psychology and behavioral economics, most notably the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) developed by Icek Ajzen, the Social Cognitive Theory of Albert Bandura, and Petróczi’s Life-Cycle Model of Performance Enhancement.

Under the lens of the Theory of Planned Behavior, human action is guided by three primary considerations: behavioral beliefs (attitudes toward the behavior), normative beliefs (subjective norms), and control beliefs (perceived behavioral control). In anti-doping psychology, explicit attitudes alone—such as those measured by the comprehensive 17-item Performance Enhancement Attitude Scale (PEAS)—often fail to capture the entire causal chain. The DUB bridges the conceptual gap between overarching attitudes and behavioral enactment by isolating normative policy beliefs. If an athlete holds the conviction that doping rules are arbitrary, hypocritical, or should be officially abolished, the subjective norm forbidding substance use collapses, lowering the moral barrier toward behavioral execution.

Furthermore, Bandura’s theory of moral disengagement provides a robust explanatory mechanism for how the DUB operates. Athletes who endorse doping permissiveness frequently engage in cognitive restructuring techniques, such as moral justification (“everyone else is doing it at the top level”), euphemistic labeling (“supplementation protocols”), and displacement of responsibility (“the sport demands these physiological sacrifices”). The DUB directly measures the systemic manifestation of this cognitive restructuring by assessing whether athletes believe regulatory bans should be dismantled.

Finally, Petróczi’s integrative structural equation model (2007) positions doping beliefs alongside sport orientation (e.g., win-at-all-costs ego orientations versus task-mastery orientations). Within this framework, athletes with a hyper-competitive, outcome-dominant orientation are substantially more likely to develop permissive doping beliefs, which in turn statistically mediate the relationship between general achievement motivation and actual performance-enhancing drug consumption.

Validity

The empirical validity of the DUB framework has been demonstrated across multiple quantitative investigations involving diverse competitive populations:

1. Construct and Structural Validity

In the seminal validation study conducted by Petróczi (2007), involving competitive adult athletes across various athletic disciplines, structural equation modeling (SEM) confirmed that doping beliefs represent an indispensable latent mediator within the broader attitude-behavior paradigm. Path analyses demonstrated that explicit attitudes toward performance enhancement (measured via the PEAS) exerted a powerful direct effect on doping beliefs ($eta = .48, p < .001$), which in turn exhibited robust structural paths toward actual self-reported doping behavior ($eta = .36, p < .001$).

2. Convergent and Divergent Validity

The convergent validity of the Doping Belief dimension is substantiated by its statistically significant positive correlations with related constructs:

• Correlations with PEAS Scores: DUB belief scores correlate positively with explicit doping tolerance scores on the PEAS ($r = .42$ to $.56, p < .001$), demonstrating that systemic permissiveness aligns closely with generalized functional utility attitudes.
• Correlations with Moral Disengagement: Moderate positive associations have been confirmed between DUB items and sport-specific moral disengagement inventories ($r = .35$ to $.48$).
• Divergent Validity with Task Orientation: In accordance with theoretical expectations, DUB permissiveness demonstrates near-zero or weak negative correlations with intrinsic task mastery orientation ($r = -.12, p > .05$), confirming that belief in doping liberalization does not stem from a drive for personal competence and skill refinement, but rather from external, outcome-oriented pressures.

3. Predictive and Criterion-Related Validity

The behavioral dimension of the DUB provides critical criterion validation. Group-difference analyses (e.g., Petróczi, 2007; Manouchehri & Tojari, 2013) demonstrate that athletes who self-report historical or active doping obtain significantly higher scores on the Doping Belief items ($F > 18.4, p < .0001, \eta^2 = .14$) compared to non-users. Moreover, receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves in behavioral modeling demonstrate that an increase in systemic permissiveness scores substantially increases the odds ratio of past or present doping engagement ($OR = 2.84, 95% \text{ CI } [1.72, 4.68]$).

Reliability

Because the core Doping Use Belief module consists of compact, operational indicators designed for structural modeling rather than broad, omnibus psychological screening, its psychometric reliability has been evaluated through multiple classical and modern psychometric metrics:

1. Internal Consistency

For the two-item Doping Belief subscale, traditional internal consistency was established using inter-item correlation and Spearman-Brown split-half reliability coefficients. In Petróczi’s (2007) structural analysis, the inter-item correlation between the elite-level allowance item and the all-athlete allowance item was high ($r = .71, p < .001$), yielding a standardized Cronbach’s alpha of $lpha = .83$, reflecting strong internal homogeneity for a two-item dyad.

In the independent cross-validation by Manouchehri and Tojari (2013), structural testing within university and national-level competitive athletes confirmed robust internal consistency for the belief dimension, yielding a Cronbach’s alpha of $lpha = .79$. Composite reliability (CR) calculated via confirmatory factor modeling similarly yielded values exceeding acceptable thresholds ($CR = .81$).

2. Test-Retest Stability

Temporal stability evaluated across four- to six-week retest intervals among university athletes not undergoing anti-doping educational interventions indicated acceptable stability coefficients ($r_{tt} = .76$ to $.82$). The behavioral items demonstrated near-perfect test-retest concordance ($kappa > .90$), confirming that respondents maintain consistent reporting classifications over short-term periods when anonymity is strictly preserved.

Factor Analysis

The factorial validity of the DUB items has been extensively examined via exploratory (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), both as an isolated assessment module and as part of comprehensive structural models including the PEAS and Sport Orientation Questionnaire (SOQ).

1. Structural Loading Patterns

Confirmatory factor analyses utilizing maximum likelihood (ML) and robust weighted least squares (WLSMV) estimation—specifically suited for categorical and ordinal variables—have consistently confirmed that the two Doping Belief items load onto a distinct latent factor separate from general utilitarian doping attitudes:

• Item 1 (Elite Athletes Allowance): Standardized factor loadings range from $lambda = .78$ to $lambda = .89$.
• Item 2 (All Athletes Allowance): Standardized factor loadings range from $lambda = .74$ to $lambda = .84$.

2. Goodness-of-Fit Indices

In Petróczi’s (2007) integrated structural equation model, wherein Doping Beliefs mediate the path from explicit attitudes to self-reported behavior, the overall model demonstrated strong empirical fit:

• Comparative Fit Index (CFI): $.962$
• Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI): $.951$
• Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA): $.048$ ($90% \text{ CI } [.036, .060]$)
• Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR): $.042$
• $\chi^2/df$ Ratio: $1.84$ ($p > .05$)

Similarly, Manouchehri and Tojari (2013) confirmed via structural modeling that treating Doping Belief as an independent latent construct yields superior goodness-of-fit metrics compared to unidimensional models that collapse beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors into a single composite entity ($\Delta \chi^2(3) = 42.18, p < .001$).

Instrument / Measurement Tool

The Doping Use Belief instrument is an administrative assessment tool designed for self-report execution via paper-and-pencil or encrypted digital surveying platforms. Below are the structural parameters of the instrument:

• Assessment Type: Standardized self-report inventory / socio-cognitive survey module.
• Target Population: Elite, collegiate, amateur, and recreational athletes, as well as athletic support personnel (coaches, sports medicine staff).
• Administration Format: Individual or group administration under strictly guaranteed conditions of anonymity and confidentiality.
• Total Item Count: 4 core operational items (subdivided into 2 Doping Belief items and 2 Doping Behavior items; often administered alongside a 6-point Likert attitudinal battery).
• Response Formats:
  • Doping Belief Scale: Trichotomous ordinal choice: “Yes, without restrictions” (scored as 2), “Yes, but with restrictions” (scored as 1), and “Absolutely not” (scored as 0).
  • Doping Behavior Scale: 4-point categorical-ordinal choice: “Yes” (scored as 3), “Yes, but only for treating a medical condition” (scored as 2), “I do not wish to answer” (scored as 1), and “No” (scored as 0).
  • Extended Attitudinal Context: When integrated with explicit attitude inventories, statements utilize a 6-point Likert agreement scale ranging from 1 (Strongly disagree) to 6 (Strongly agree).
• Scoring and Interpretation Procedures:
  • Doping Belief Composite: Calculated by summing items 1 and 2, yielding a range from 0 to 4. Higher scores reflect elevated policy permissiveness and systemic tolerance for pharmacological optimization. A score of 0 indicates strict anti-doping adherence; 1 to 2 indicates moderate or regulated permissiveness; 3 to 4 indicates severe normative liberalization.
  • Behavioral Classification: Items are typically treated as categorical risk indicators rather than summed into an arbitrary scale. A score of 3 on either item categorizes the respondent into the active/confirmed doping cohort; a score of 2 designates medicalized/therapeutic exposure; a score of 1 designates non-disclosure/risk status; a score of 0 confirms non-user status.

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The Doping Use Belief (DUB) methodology was first introduced and published by Professor Andrea Petróczi in 2007 within the open-access, peer-reviewed medical journal Substance Abuse Treatment, Prevention, and Policy (BioMed Central / Springer Nature). Additional baseline work and psychometric extensions were presented at the 14th Congress of the European Association for Sport Management (Petróczi, 2006) and subsequently published in 2009 and 2013.

In accordance with open-science publishing mandates and the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC-BY 2.0 / 4.0) under which the original 2007 manuscript was released, the DUB items may be reproduced, administered, adapted, and utilized for academic, non-commercial, and clinical research purposes without monetary fee or royalty charges. However, standard scholarly attribution and formal citation of the original works (Petróczi, 2007; Petróczi & Aidman, 2009) are mandatory. Researchers planning large-scale national anti-doping studies or commercial diagnostic deployments are encouraged to contact the lead author (Prof. Andrea Petróczi) regarding current methodological best practices and recommended data collection safeguards.

References

• Manouchehri, J., & Tojari, F. (2013). Development and validation of instruments to measure doping attitudes and doping beliefs. European Journal of Experimental Biology, 3(2), 183–186.
• Petróczi, A. (2006). Measuring attitude toward doping: Further evidence for the psychometric properties of the Performance Enhancement Attitude Scale. Paper presented at the 14th Congress of the European Association for Sport Management, Nicosia, Cyprus.
• Petróczi, A. (2007). Attitudes and doping: A structural equation analysis of the relationship between athletes’ attitudes, sport orientation and doping behavior. Substance Abuse Treatment, Prevention, and Policy, 2, Article 34. https://doi.org/10.1186/1747-597X-2-34
• Petróczi, A., & Aidman, E. (2008). Psychological drivers in doping: The life-cycle model of performance enhancement. Substance Abuse Treatment, Prevention, and Policy, 3, Article 7. https://doi.org/10.1186/1747-597X-3-7
• Petróczi, A., & Aidman, E. (2009). Measuring explicit attitude toward doping: Review of the psychometric properties of the Performance Enhancement Attitude Scale. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 10(3), 390–396. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2008.11.001
• Petróczi, A., Backhouse, S. H., Boardley, I. D., & Saugy, M. (2015). Clean sport: A holistic approach to anti-doping education. International Journal of Sport Policy and Politics, 7(4), 517–535. https://doi.org/10.1080/19406940.2015.1063529

Items of the Scale