Author(s): XIE, Y., LI, S., ZHANG, S., Institution: HUNAN UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY, Country: CHINA, Abstract-ID: 1112

Introduction
Intentional doping, or purposeful use of banned substances for performance enhancement, remains a threat to integrity and fairness in competition sport. Among the theoretical accounts regarding why and how athletes develop doping, the Incremental Model of Doping Behaviour (IMDB) argues that doping can be developed from habitual use of performance-enhancing methods (e.g., supplement use for enhanced performance, training and recovery). Research on achievement motivation and doping also indicates that a performance- or ego-focus orientation contributes to increased risk of doping. Altogether, these knowledges suggest that athletes may develop doping as a means of performance reward. Nevertheless, according to the Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory, athletes can be high or low in reward sensitivity, punishment sensitivity, or both, and their sport-related outcomes may be influenced by these different reinforcement sensitivities. Ironically, knowledge is scarce regarding how reward and sensitivity may influence one’s willingness to dope. In the current research, we conceptualised punishment sensitivity as a catalyst of reward sensitivity in doping and examined whether the hypothesised reward-punishment sensitivity interaction manifests consistently across athletes’ key developmental stages by age.

Method
A total of 602 youth athletes (Mean age = 15.515, SD = 2.813; ratio of male = 71.262%) from 62 sports teams completed validated psychometric scales assessing reward sensitivity, punishment sensitivity, and doping willingness. A clustered moderation analysis, that adjusted for random intercepts of athlete-level variables at the sport team-level, was conducted for hypothesis testing.

Result
The clustered moderation analysis revealed a significant three-way interaction of reward sensitivity, punishment sensitivity, and age. Specifically, the reward × punishment sensitivity interaction on doping willingness was heterogeneous across ages. At low ages (e.g., under 13), reward sensitivity was not related to doping willingness when punishment sensitivity was low (B = -0.020, p =0.838; 95% CI [-0.214, 0.173]) but related to reduced doping willingness when punishment sensitivity was high (B = -0.153, p =0.055; 95% CI [-0.309, 0.003]). In contrasts at older ages (e.g., under 19), the negative relationship between reward sensitivity and doping willingness at low levels of punishment sensitivity (B = -0.212, p =0.097; 95% CI [-0.464, 0.039]) flipped to be positive when punishment sensitivity was high (B = 0.069, p =0.181; 95% CI [-0.032, 0.170]).

Discussion
The findings suggest age or the developmental phase is a pivotal to how reward and punishment sensitivity interplay in the risk for intentional doping. Researchers and practitioners should consider tackling the distinct motivational profiles and developmental phases of athletes to capture the unique psycho-developmental process underlying doping.