Athletes' Denials and Perceptions of Doping Accusations

1. Perceptions of Athletes following Accusations of Doping Jacinta King, Terry Engelberg & Marie Caltabiano* 1

2. Background • Doping is the use of a chemical substance to gain an advantage in sport • Some cases • World Anti-Doping Agency defines doping as – • The violation of an anti-doping rule rather than the act of doping itself

3. BACKGROUND • Current anti-doping policy punishes innocent athletes where accidental or inadvertent consumption has occurred • In sport denials are common responses following accusations of doping • 1/3 of athletes accused of doping deny any accusations against them • Denials are often seen as attempts of the guilty to escape punishment (World Anti-Doping Agency, 2018; Moston & Engelberg, 2016; Moston & Stephenson, 2009)

4. Research Question • To what extent, if at all, can an athlete mount an effective defence following an accusation of doping? • Notion that some denials may be believed more than others has not been researched in the context of sport

5. background • Benoit’s (1995) theory of image repair discourse • An act must have occurred that is regarded as undesirable (e.g. doping in sport) • An actor must be viewed as responsible

6. Review of the literature • Effectiveness of an apology • ‘Blanket’ or absolute denials • Yet to investigate different formulations of a denial (Fehr & Gelfand, 2010; Hill & Boyd, 2015)

7. A typology of denials Active Denial Passive Denial Simple denial “No, I didn’t take any steroids” Denial of knowledge “I don’t know how that got in my sample!” Denial of motivation “Golf is a skill sport… why would I need to dope?” • Denial of interpretation • “I used some pharmacy cold and flu tablets..” • Denial of causation • “I accidentally drank a soda that had been spiked!” Denial of offense • “I didn’t take the test because I felt unwell!” (Moston & Stephenson, 2009; Moston & Engelberg, 2016)

8. Problem with that… • “… the mere labelling of a statement as being an alibi evokes a sense of disbelief and challenges people to create imaginative scenarios worthy of a great crime novel as to how the person could nevertheless have committed the crime” • (Olson & Wells, 2004, p. 174)”

9. An indirect measure… • Incorporate a trait measure

10. The Dark Triad • ‘Darkest Traits’ • Triad = Machiavellianism, Psychopathy, and Narcissism Manipulative Unremorseful or Callous Self-absorbed Dirty Dozen – Brief measure (12 items, 4 items per trait construct) (Jonason & Webster, 2010; Maples, Lamkin, & Miller, 2014; Furnham, Richards, & Paulhus, 2013)

11. Hypotheses • 1) Ratings of perceived credibility will differ depending on the type of denial strategy used by the athlete (e.g. a passive denial vs an active denial) • 2) Participants involved in sport will view an athlete accused of doping more positively and thus will be more likely to believe their denial as true. • 3) Interaction effects will occur between the denial type used by the athlete and whether the denial evaluator is involved in sport • 4) Credibility ratings will significantly predict negative character inferences such that interpersonal ratings of dark traits will serve as an indirect measure of perceived alibi believability

12. Method

13. Active denial vignettes • Denial of Charge • Kim is a professional athlete and was recently asked to provide a urine sample for anti-doping control testing. Today, the World Anti-Doping Agency confirmed that Kim has tested positive to a banned substance and is under investigation for possible anti-doping rule violations. In response to the charge, Kim replied 'I didn't take any prohibited substances • Denial of Knowledge • Kim is a professional athlete and was recently asked to provide a urine sample for anti-doping control testing. Today, the World Anti-Doping Agency confirmed that Kim has tested positive to a banned substance and is under investigation for possible anti-doping rule violations. In response to the charge, Kim replied 'I don’t know how that got in my sample’.

14. PASSIVE denial vignettes • Denial of Interpretation • Kim is a professional athlete and was recently asked to provide a urine sample for anti-doping control testing. Today, the World Anti-Doping Agency confirmed that Kim has tested positive to a banned substance and is under investigation for possible anti-doping rule violations. In response to the charge, Kim replied ‘The substance came from some pharmacy cold and flu tablets that I took’. • Denial of Causation • Kim is a professional athlete and was recently asked to provide a urine sample for anti-doping control testing. Today, the World Anti-Doping Agency confirmed that Kim has tested positive to a banned substance and is under investigation for possible anti-doping rule violations. In response to the charge, Kim replied 'I must have accidentally drank a soda that had been spiked’. 

15. Dirty Dozen scale • Used to measure the Dark Triad constructs – • Narcissism • Psychopathy • Machiavellianism • Items adapted to reflect person perception rather than personal or intrapersonal perception. • 12 items with four items per Dark Triad construct • 5 point Likert scale ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree.

17. Perceived credibility of the athlete(5-point Likert Scale: strongly disagree to strongly agree) • 1) Kim is telling the truth • 2) Kim is reliable • 3) Kim is capable of lying • 4) Kim seems credible • 5) I believe Kim completely • 6) Kim seems honest • 7) Kim seems confident

18. Perceived credibility of athlete’s statement(5-point Likert scale- strongly disagree to strongly agree) • (1) Kim’s statement is a truthful account of what really happened • (2) It is likely Kim forgot to tell some details that really happened • (3) Kim’s statement is accurate • (4) It is likely that Kim fabricated some of the details in the statement • (5) Kim’s statement was very convincing • (6) It is likely that Kim was lying about some details in the statement

19. Participant Characteristics • 113 participants • Age range 17 to 73 (M = 36.59, SD = 14.76) • 63% female, 37% males • 41% involved in sport, 59% no involvement

20. Results: Mean differences in credibility? • There were no statistically significant mean differences in credibilityratings observed between… • H1: Active and Passive denials • H2: Participants involved and not involved in sport • And… • H3: There were no interaction effects observed

21. Why is this so? • Vignette design • Athletes, in reality, mount lengthy defences which is more indicative of guilt or innocence • Neutral responses • Genuine response? • Fatigue / poor motivation / cognitive costs (Glantz, 2010; Walsh & McAllister-Spooner, 2011; Malhotra, Krosnick, & Thomas, 2009; Sturgis, Roberts, & Smith, 2014)

22. Results: Predicting credibility

23. Hierarchical Regression (model 4)

24. Why is this so? • Problems with Dirty Dozen measure • Narcissism manifests differently compared to Machiavellianism and Psychopathy • Honesty and humility more strongly negatively associated with M and P • Narcissists are not seen particularly negatively compared to M and P • Whilst narcissism may encompass undesirable attributes, such may be ultimately seen by others as irrelevant for the purpose of evaluating innocence. • In comparison, M and P can be seen as more overt tendencies toward deceptive behaviours, therefore more relevant to the task of evaluating one’s innocence or guilt. • (Rauthmann, 2012; Muris, Merckelbach, Otgaar, & Meijer, 2017; Ackerman et al., 2011; Dinić & Vujić, 2018)

25. To sum it up… • There were no differences in perceptions of credibility depending on either the type of denial used or participant characteristics such as involvement in sport • The Dark Dyad (M and P) may serve as an indirect method for assessing credibility • Someone thought to be manipulative or unremorseful is someone thought to have committed the act in question, and thus their statement is likely to be evaluated negatively

26. Future Directions • Neutral responses – Branching questions which further probe answers • Incorporate longer defences • More representative sample (e.g., of males, Indigenous and Torres Strait Islander people, involved in sport)

27. Questions?

28. references • Ackerman, R. A., Witt, E. A., Donnellan, M. B., Trzesniewski, K. H., Robins, R. W., & Kashy, D. A. (2011). What Does the Narcissistic Personality Inventory Really Measure? Assessment, 18(1), 67-87. doi:10.1177/1073191110382845 • Dinić, B. M., & Vujić, A. (2018). Five-Factor Model Best Describes Narcissistic Personality Inventory Across Different Item Response Formats. Psychological Reports. doi:10.1177/0033294118794404 • Fehr, R., & Gelfand, M. J. (2010). When apologies work: How matching apology components to victims’ self-construals facilitates forgiveness. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 113(1), 37-50. doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2010.04.002 • Furnham, A., Richards, S. C., & Paulhus, D. L. (2013). The Dark Triad of Personality: A 10 Year Review: Dark Triad of Personality. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 7(3), 199-216. doi:10.1111/spc3.12018 • Glantz, M. (2010). The Floyd Landis doping scandal: Implications for image repair discourse. Public Relations Review, 36(2), 157-163. doi:10.1016/j.pubrev.2009.09.002 • Hill, K. M., & Boyd, D. P. (2015). Who Should Apologize When an Employee Transgresses? Source Effects on Apology Effectiveness. Journal of Business Ethics, 130(1), 163-170. doi:10.1007/s10551-014-2205-9 • Jonason, P. K., & Webster, G. D. (2010). The Dirty Dozen: A Concise Measure of the Dark Triad. Psychological Assessment, 22(2), 420-432. doi:10.1037/a0019265 • Malhotra, N., Krosnick, J. A., & Thomas, R. K. (2009). Optimal Design of Branching Questions to Measure Bipolar Constructs. The Public Opinion Quarterly, 73(2), 304-324. doi:10.1093/poq/nfp023 • Maples, J. L., Lamkin, J., & Miller, J. D. (2014). A test of two brief measures of the dark triad: The dirty dozen and short dark triad. Psychological Assessment, 26(1), 326-331. doi:10.1037/a0035084

29. references • Moston, S., & Engelberg, T. (2016). An Honest Mistake? Establishing Intention to Dope. • Moston, S., & Stephenson, G. (2009). A typology of denial strategies by suspects in criminal investigations. In: Wiley. • Muris, P., Merckelbach, H., Otgaar, H., & Meijer, E. (2017). The Malevolent Side of Human Nature: A Meta-Analysis and Critical Review of the Literature on the Dark Triad (Narcissism, Machiavellianism, and Psychopathy). Perspectives on Psychological Science, 12(2), 183-204. doi:10.1177/1745691616666070 • Olson, E. A., & Wells, G. L. (2004). What Makes a Good Alibi? A Proposed Taxonomy. Law and Human Behavior, 28(2), 157-176. doi:10.1023/B:LAHU.0000022320.47112.d3 • Rauthmann, J. F. (2012). The Dark Triad and Interpersonal Perception: Similarities and Differences in the Social Consequences of Narcissism, Machiavellianism, and Psychopathy. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 3(4), 487-496. doi:10.1177/1948550611427608 • Sturgis, P., Roberts, C., & Smith, P. (2014). Middle Alternatives Revisited: How the neither/nor Response Acts as a Way of Saying “I Don’t Know”? Sociological Methods & Research, 43(1), 15-38. doi:10.1177/0049124112452527 • Walsh, J., & McAllister-Spooner, S. M. (2011). Analysis of the image repair discourse in the Michael Phelps controversy. Public Relations Review, 37(2), 157-162. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2011.01.001

30. Thank You • Contact: • Jacinta King • Jacinta.king@my.jcu.edu.au