Exact(3)
Social projections for NS, doping and social drug use showed a positive, statistically significant but relatively weak relationship between fellow athletes using prohibited performance enhancing drugs and NS (r = .385, p<.001) and social drugs by the general population (r = .231, p = .036).036
Assuming that direct experience increases attitude salience and the level of attitude - behaviour consistency [40], athletes' explicit and implicit attitudes and social projections were contrasted in the four user groups.
Interestingly, social projections were given the lowest percentage by those who denied doping use where hair results indicated otherwise and reached the highest estimation by those who admit using PEDs.
Similar(57)
Social projection regarding NS was used as control.
Thus, self-confessed users scored higher on social projection, explicit attitude to doping and perceived pressure.
Non-doping related dependent variables (social projection of NS and social drug use among members of the general population) were used as control variables.
Group differences in and relationship between explicit doping attitude and implicit doping associations and social projection were compared for groups based on self-reports and hair analyses.
The chemical validation of self-reported information on doping and drug taking behaviour was part of a multi-centre study investigating social projection in doping and social drug use [31], [32].
We have also found further evidence that distorted social projection (false consensus) is only present for the doping related sensitive issues, not for general population social drug use or NS.
This is supported at the behavioral level by the fact that stronger social projection attitudes usually occur towards in-group members whereby the expectation of similarity between self and others is increased [12].
Results indicate that patterns of group differences in social projection, explicit attitude about and perceived pressure to use doping, vary depending on whether the user and non-user groups are defined by self-report or objectively verified through hair analysis.
Write better and faster with AI suggestions while staying true to your unique style.
Since I tried Ludwig back in 2017, I have been constantly using it in both editing and translation. Ever since, I suggest it to my translators at ProSciEditing.

Justyna Jupowicz-Kozak
CEO of Professional Science Editing for Scientists @ prosciediting.com