A Comparison of Attitudes Toward Cognitive Enhancement and Legalized Doping in Sport in a Community Sample of Australian Adults
Summary (2 min read)
METHODS
- The Queensland Social Survey Data collection occurred during July and August 2011 as part of the Queensland Social Survey (QSS), a large omnibus statewide survey of views of participants in households in the state of Queensland, Australia, also known as The Survey Instrument.
- The QSS is administered through a CATI (computer-assisted telephone interviewing) system.
- It includes questions from multiple research bodies and other organizations on a wide range of topics.
- Next, the authors included two questions about attitudes toward cognitive enhancement and legalized sports doping.
- Participants were asked to respond using the following response categories: (1) strongly agree; (2) agree; (3) slightly agree; (4) neither agree nor disagree; (5) slightly disagree; (6) disagree; (7) strongly disagree; (8) don't know.
Procedure
- The target population for the telephone interview consisted of persons 18 years of age or older who at the time of the survey were living in a dwelling unit in Queensland and could be contacted by directdialed, land-based telephone service.
- The sample was drawn from a telephone database of randomly generated numbers that had been selected using postcode parameters.
- Known nonresidential and nonworking numbers were not included in the database.
- Within each household, one eligible person was selected as the respondent for the interview.
- All participants gave verbal informed consent to participate.
Analysis
- Descriptive analyses gave overall rates of familiarity with the use of prescription drugs for cognitive enhancement; the overall rate of agreement with using prescription drugs for cognitive enhancement; and the overall rate of agreement with legalized doping.
- Participant responses to Q1 were coded into two groups: "familiar" (they, or someone they know personally, have taken prescription drugs to enhance concentration or alertness) and "not familiar" (they had never taken prescription drugs to enhance concentration or alertness and didn't know anyone who had).
- Participant responses to Q2 and Q3 were coded into four categories: agree, disagree, neutral, or don't know.
- The authors used logistic regression to see what characteristics predicted agreement with the acceptability of using prescription drugs for cognitive enhancement.
- The dependent variable was "agreement with the acceptability of using prescription drugs" (coded as disagree = 0; agree = 1).
Sample Characteristics
- Acceptance of cognitive enhancement and use of performance-enhancing drugs Table 2 Predictive factors for acceptability of cognitive enhancement and legalized doping Familiarity With Cognitive Enhancement Familiarity with cognitive enhancement was low in the sample.
- Age was also a significant predictor of familiarity, but education was not.
- Roughly 21% of participants aged 18-34 either knew someone who had used prescription drugs to enhance alertness or concentration, or had done so themselves (6.2% of the 18-34 group had ever used).
Attitudes Toward Cognitive Enhancement
- The logistic regression analysis examining factors predicting attitudes toward the acceptability of healthy people using prescription drugs to enhance their concentration or alertness was statistically significant (χ2(8, N = 1153) = 26.989, p < .001).
- Attitudes Toward Legalized Doping Only 3.6% of participants (n = 45) agreed that people who play professional sport should be allowed to use performance-enhancing drugs if they wanted to (see Table 1 ).
- Gender, age, and education were not significant predictors, but attitude toward the acceptability of cognitive enhancement was a statistically significant predictor.
DISCUSSIONJ
- This is the first time public attitudes toward the two forms of enhancement have been assessed.
- Even so, the vast majority of those who found cognitive enhancement acceptable did not support the use of PEDs.
- There were low levels of direct or vicarious familiarity with cognitive enhancement-only 2.4% of participants claimed to have ever used prescription drugs in this way and a further 8% knew someone else who had done so.
- The results of self-report surveys of drug use and attitudes may be subject to recall and response biases; however, these limitations are not unique to this survey and it is not clear that their results have been unduly affected.
- Their survey generates one of the first sets of empirical data about public attitudes toward cognitive enhancement and legalized doping in sport.
Did you find this useful? Give us your feedback
Citations
112 citations
Cites background from "A Comparison of Attitudes Toward Co..."
...…2012 Switzerland Physicians Stratified random sampling (profession, gender, years of training, language) Paper and pencil questionnaire 23.9% 379 Safety Partridge et al., 2012 Australia General public Random sampling Telephone interview 31.9% 1265 General Partridge et al., 2013 Australia…...
[...]
...…of PCE amongst 1265 members of the general public in Australia found that respondents who were familiar with PCE—either by using it themselves or by knowing somebody who used PCE—were twice as likely to find PCE acceptable than respondents who were not familiar with it (Partridge et al., 2012)....
[...]
...Authors Country Occupation of Sampling method Research Response Sample Concerns participants method rate size Aikins, 2011 USA University students Purposive sampling Semi-structured interview n/a 12 Safety, fairness Asscher and Schermer, 2013 The Netherlands General public Purposive sampling Focus groups n/a 37 Safety Ball and Wolbring, 2014 Canada Parents Purposive sampling Semi-structured interview n/a 12 Safety Banjo et al., 2010 USA and Canada Physicians Convenience sampling Web-based survey n/a 212 Safety, coercion, Fairness Bell et al., 2013 Australia University students Convenience sampling Interview n/a 19 Safety, coercion Bergström and Lynöe, 2008 Sweden General public Random sampling Paper and pencil questionnaire 52% 517 Safety Physicians 39% 108 Bossaer et al., 2013 USA University students All students at one university invited Web-based survey 59.9% 372 Safety, fairness Desantis and Hane, 2010 USA University students Convenience sampling Interview n/a 175 Safety Dodge et al., 2012 USA University students All students at one university invited Web-based survey 37% ±1200 Fairness Dubljević et al., 2013* Germany University students Three stage cluster sampling (universities, disciplines, students) Web-based survey First wave 53.5% 5882 Fairness Second wave 69.1% 3486 Eickenhorst et al., 2012 Germany University students Convenience sampling Web-based survey n/a 1218 Safety University graduates 106 European Citizens Panel, 2006 Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Italy, the Netherlands, UK General public Stratified random sampling (age, profession, gender) Citizen’s deliberation n/a 126 Coercion Fitz et al., 2013 USA and Canada General public Convenience sampling, Amazon’s Mechanical Turk recruitment Web-based survey n/a 4011 Safety, coercion, fairness (Continued) Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience www.frontiersin.org April 2014 | Volume 8 | Article 53 | 3 Table 1 | Continued Authors Country Occupation of Sampling method Research Response Sample Concerns participants method rate size Forlini and Racine, 2009 Canada University students Purposive sampling Focus groups n/a 29 Coercion Parents 21 Health care providers 15 Forlini and Racine, 2012a Canada University students Purposive sampling Focus groups n/a 29 Safety, coercion, fairness Parents 21 Health care providers 15 Forlini and Racine, 2012b Canada University students Purposive sampling Focus groups n/a 29 Safety, fairness Parents 21 Health care providers 15 Franke et al., 2012a* Germany High school students All students at 12 public grammar and vocational schools, and students of three departments of one university invited Paper and pencil questionnaire 83% 1035 Safety, coercion, fairness University students 512 Franke et al., 2012b Germany University students Convenience sampling Interview n/a 22 Safety, coercion, fairness Franke et al., 2014 Germany Physicians All primary care physicians in one state invited Paper and pencil questionnaire 30.2% 832 Safety Hotze et al., 2011 USA Physicians Random sampling Paper and pencil questionnaire 46.6% 633 Fairness Judson and Langdon, 2009 USA University students All students at two colleges invited Paper and pencil questionnaire 10% 333 Safety Kudlow et al., 2013 Canada University students All medical students at one medical school invited Web-based survey 50% 326 Safety Maier et al., 2013 Switzerland University students All students at three educational institutions invited Web-based survey 22.3% 6275 Coercion Maslen et al., in press Germany University students Convenience sampling Paper and pencil questionnaire n/a 80 Coercion Mazanov et al., 2013 Australian University students Convenience sampling Web-based survey n/a 1729 General, fairness Ott and Biller-Andorno, 2013 Switzerland University students Convenience sampling Web-based survey and separate paper and pencil questionnaire n/a 1765 Safety, fairness (Continued) Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience www.frontiersin.org April 2014 | Volume 8 | Article 53 | 4 Table 1 | Continued Authors Country Occupation of Sampling method Research Response Sample Concerns participants method rate size Ott et al., 2012 Switzerland Physicians Stratified random sampling (profession, gender, years of training, language) Paper and pencil questionnaire 23.9% 379 Safety Partridge et al., 2012 Australia General public Random sampling Telephone interview 31.9% 1265 General Partridge et al., 2013 Australia University students Convenience sampling Interview n/a 19 Safety Riis et al., 2008 USA University students No information provided Web-based survey n/a 357 Fairness Sabini and Monterosso, 2005 USA University students Convenience sampling Paper and pencil questionnaire n/a 185 Fairness Santoni de Sio et al., in press United Kingdom University students Convenience sampling Paper and pencil questionnaire n/a 102 Safety, fairness Sattler et al., 2013a* Germany University students Three stage cluster sampling (universities, disciplines, students) Web-based survey 87.1% 1852 Safety, fairness (Sattler et al., 2013b)* Germany University teachers Three stage cluster sampling (universities, disciplines, students/teachers) Web-based survey 33.5% 1402 Safety University students 69.1% 3486 Sattler et al., 2014* Germany University students Three stage cluster sampling (universities, disciplines, students); only second time wave Web-based survey 69.1% 3486 Safety, coercion, fairness Sattler and Wiegel, 2013* Germany University students Three stage cluster sampling (universities, disciplines, students); only second time wave Web-based survey First wave 53.5% 5882 Safety Second wave 69.1% 3486 Scheske and Schnall, 2012 UK University students Convenience sampling, two studies - two samples Paper and pencil questionnaire n/a 50 Safety, fairness 306 Schildmann et al., 2013 Germany University students No information provided Survey n/a 1026 Coercion, fairness (Continued) Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience www.frontiersin.org April 2014 | Volume 8 | Article 53 | 5 Table 1 | Continued Authors Country Occupation of Sampling method Research Response Sample Concerns participants method rate size Schuijff and Brom, 2013 The Netherlands All Purposive sampling Focus groups n/a 38 Safety, coercion, fairness Sweeney, 2010 USA University students Convenience sampling Paper and pencil questionnaire n/a 100 Safety, fairness Convenience sampling and purposive sampling require no random selection of participants, whereas random sampling, stratified random sampling and cluster sampling do....
[...]
62 citations
52 citations
49 citations
49 citations
References
56 citations
"A Comparison of Attitudes Toward Co..." refers background in this paper
...…Academy of Neurology has recently defended the ethical permissibility of prescribing drugs that are used to treat dementia, Alzheimer’s disease, and attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) to normally functioning people who want to enhance their cognitive function (Larriviere et al. 2009)....
[...]
43 citations
"A Comparison of Attitudes Toward Co..." refers background in this paper
...The nonmedical use of prescription drugs by healthy people for cognitive enhancement and the use of PEDs in Brad Partridge has been awarded an NHMRC Training Fellowship....
[...]
...Younger participants were 2.5 times more likely to have used prescription drugs for cognitive enhancement or know someone who had compared to those aged 35–44, October–December, Volume 3, Number 4, 2012 ajob pr 83 Acceptable for healthy people to use prescription drugs for cognitive enhancement (CE) 1265 7.0 85.8 3.2 4.0 - Familiar with CE 131 13.0 79.4 4.6 3.1 - Unfamiliar with CE 1134 6.3 86.5 3.0 4.1 - Age 18–34 176 12.5 77.8 6.8 2.8 - Age 35–44 202 11.4 83.2 3.5 2.0 - Age 45–54 241 4.1 90.0 2.5 3.3 - Age 55+ 636 5.0 87.4 2.2 5.3 Acceptable for professional athletes to use PEDs if they want to 1265 3.6 93.4 1.7 1.3 - CE is acceptable 89 15.7 77.5 3.4 3.4 - CE is not acceptable 1085 2.0 96.9 1.0 0.1 Note....
[...]
...…there actually exists a “culture of enhancement” in many Western societies (Knorr Cetina 2005), and a number of bioethicists have even recommended various degrees of “legalized doping” in sport, by allowing athletes to use PEDs (Kayser and Smith 2008; Kayser et al. 2005; Savulescu et al. 2004)....
[...]
...Similar concerns have been expressed about the two activities regarding: (1) users gaining an unfair competitive advantage; (2) competitive pressure coercing nonusers to engage in the practice; (3) the inauthenticity of drug-enhanced performances; (4) the potential benefits to the “enhanced” individual; (5) the health risks of using prescription drugs for nonmedical purposes; and (6) the effectiveness of the relevant regulatory systems in discouraging such use (see, e.g., Cakic 2009; Kayser et al. 2005; Kayser and Smith 2008; Lucke et al. 2011b; Partridge 2010)....
[...]
...Only a minority of our participants found cognitive enhancement acceptable (7%), but they were 9.5 times more likely to agree that professional athletes should be allowed to use PEDs if they wanted to....
[...]
40 citations
"A Comparison of Attitudes Toward Co..." refers background in this paper
...However, sociologists have speculated that there actually exists a “culture of enhancement” in many Western societies (Knorr Cetina 2005), and a number of bioethicists have even recommended various degrees of “legalized doping” in sport, by allowing athletes to use PEDs (Kayser and Smith 2008;…...
[...]
35 citations
"A Comparison of Attitudes Toward Co..." refers background in this paper
...…to the “enhanced” individual; (5) the health risks of using prescription drugs for nonmedical purposes; and (6) the effectiveness of the relevant regulatory systems in discouraging such use (see, e.g., Cakic 2009; Kayser et al. 2005; Kayser and Smith 2008; Lucke et al. 2011b; Partridge 2010)....
[...]
...The existence of a culture of enhancement is often inferred from drug sales, but in the case of cognitive enhancement several recent papers have shown the phenomenon is not as prevalent as suggested by advocates in the popular media (Lucke et al. 2011a; Partridge et al. 2011)....
[...]
34 citations
"A Comparison of Attitudes Toward Co..." refers background in this paper
...…rest on an assumption that the public condemns doping in sport, and one recent survey of the Australian public found overwhelming support for strong sanctions against athletes caught doping in sport, such as loss of sponsorship and prize money, and even criminal convictions (Engelberg et al. 2012)....
[...]
...For instance, antidoping campaigns typically rest on an assumption that the public condemns doping in sport, and one recent survey of the Australian public found overwhelming support for strong sanctions against athletes caught doping in sport, such as loss of sponsorship and prize money, and even criminal convictions (Engelberg et al. 2012)....
[...]