Journal of Sports Sciences

ISSN: 0264-0414 (Print) 1466-447X (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjsp20

Changing attitudes and intentions related to

doping: An analysis of individual differences in
need for cognition

Javier Horcajo, David Santos, Joshua J. Guyer & Lorena Moreno

To cite this article: Javier Horcajo, David Santos, Joshua J. Guyer & Lorena Moreno (2019):
Changing attitudes and intentions related to doping: An analysis of individual differences in need for
cognition, Journal of Sports Sciences, DOI: 10.1080/02640414.2019.1665876

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2019.1665876

Published online: 15 Sep 2019.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 38

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rjsp20
JOURNAL OF SPORTS SCIENCES
https://doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2019.1665876

SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

Changing attitudes and intentions related to doping: An analysis of individual

differences in need for cognition
a b a a
Javier Horcajo , David Santos , Joshua J. Guyer and Lorena Moreno
a
Facultad de Psicología, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Madrid, Spain; bIE School of Human Sciences and Technology, IE University, Madrid,
Spain

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Research has shown that athletes’ attitudes towards the use of banned performance-enhancing sub- Accepted 29 August 2019
stances are reliable predictors of their intentions to use these substances, which in turn can be relevant
KEYWORDS
predictors of their actual doping behaviours. Despite the important role played by attitudes and Need for cognition; attitude;
intentions in doping, research analysing how to change those attitudes and intentions is relatively behavioural intention;
scarce. The present study examined how individual differences in Need for Cognition (NC, Cacioppo & doping; elaboration
Petty, 1982) influenced doping-related attitude change and subsequent behavioural intentions.
Participants were randomly assigned to read a persuasive message either against or in favour of
legalising the use of several banned substances, including anabolic androgenic steroids (AAS) and
Erythropoietin (EPO). In addition, participants completed the NC scale, and finally reported their
attitudes and behavioural intentions regarding the legalisation proposal. As hypothesised, results
showed that participants who received an anti-legalisation message had significantly more unfavour-
able attitudes towards the proposal than participants who received a pro-legalisation message, regard-
less of NC. However, as predicted, NC moderated the relationship between individuals’ attitudes and
their intentions. That is, high-NC participants showed greater attitude-intention correspondence than
low-NC participants.

Introduction Although prior theory and research have noted that target-
ing a recipient’s attitudes and intentions can be an effective
A wealth of research has shown that athletes’ attitudes towards
strategy for inducing changes in actual doping-related beha-
the use of banned performance-enhancing substances are reli-
viours, relatively little effort has been made to integrate prior
able predictors of their intentions to use these substances (e.g.,
doping-related attitudes research within a contemporary atti-
Barkoukis, Lazuras, Tzorbatzoudis, & Rodafinos, 2013; Lazuras,
tudes and persuasion framework (e.g., see Horcajo & De la
Barkoukis, Rodafinos, & Tzorbatzoudis, 2010; Lucidi, Grano,
Vega, 2014). Furthermore, what remains unknown is which
Leone, Lombardo, & Pesce, 2004; Lucidi et al., 2008).
variables and psychological processes influence the attitude-
Furthermore, prior research has indicated that attitudes and
intention relationship regarding doping behaviour. Thus, the
intentions are among the most relevant psychological determi-
goal of the present study was to apply one of the most
nants of doping behaviours (e.g., see Backhouse, Whitaker,
prominent theoretical frameworks used in contemporary per-
Patterson, Erickson, & McKenna, 2016; Morente-Sánchez &
suasion research to investigate the relationship between atti-
Zabala, 2013; Ntoumanis, Ng, Barkoukis, & Backhouse, 2014; for
tudes and intentions related to doping among a sample of
reviews).
young adults. Specifically, we based our predictions on the
Among those studies that have experimentally investigated
Elaboration Likelihood Model (ELM, Petty & Cacioppo, 1986;
doping-related attitude change, James, Naughton, and Petróczi
see also Petty & Briñol, 2012; Petty & Wegener, 1999), which
(2010) demonstrated that exposing male recreational gym users
holds that attitude change can occur through relatively
to a persuasive message that promoted alternatives to doping
thoughtful (i.e., “high elaboration”) or relatively non-
changed their beliefs and automatic associations regarding per-
thoughtful (i.e., “low elaboration”) processes depending on
mitted functional foods (e.g., nitrate-rich food such as beetroot).
the extent to which people are motivated and able to carefully
Similarly, Barkoukis, Lazuras, and Harris (2015) demonstrated that
consider the merits of persuasive communications.
attitudes and intentions towards doping among elite athletes
Most important for the present study, the ELM provides
(users of doping substances) were influenced by a manipulation
a theoretical framework that explains how dispositional and
of self-affirmation (vs. control), such that a persuasive message
situational variables can influence attitude change under
discussing the health side effects and moral aspects of doping
a diverse set of conditions, including within the context of sports
generated significantly lower intentions to use AAS for self-
(Petty, Briñol, Teeny, & Horcajo, 2018). Thus, the value of the ELM
affirmed (vs. control) participants.
is its ability to make very specific predictions about how any

CONTACT Javier Horcajo javier.horcajo@uam.es Facultad de Psicología, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Ciudad Universitaria de Cantoblanco, C/Ivan
Pavlov, 6, Madrid 28049, Spain
© 2019 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
2 J. HORCAJO ET AL.
variable can influence attitudes under different levels of thought
and elaboration, as well as specifying the downstream conse-
quences on intentions and behaviours. In fact, the ELM holds that
the process by which an attitude is formed or changed is con-
sequential for the strength of the resulting attitude. That is,
attitudes formed or changed as a result of careful thought are
more likely to yield changes in behavioural intentions and actual
behaviours than attitudes changed as a result of less careful
thought (e.g., see Petty, Haugtvedt, & Smith, 1995; Petty &
Wegener, 1998).
Importantly, recent research investigating the relation-
ship between cognitive processing and doping-related atti-
tude change has shown that attitudes changed as a result
of high-elaboration processes were more stable and persis-
tent (Horcajo & De la Vega, 2014), more resistant to further
change, and more predictive of behavioural intentions
(Horcajo & Luttrell, 2016) than attitudes changed through
low-elaboration processes. Moreover, conviction (i.e., cer-
tainty) in one’s attitude was also higher when individuals
changed their attitudes through high-elaboration (vs. low-
elaboration) processes (Horcajo & De la Vega, 2016).
Although this research highlighted a number of important
downstream consequences of cognitive processing on atti-
tude change, one notable limitation of these studies is that
in each case, elaboration (high vs. low thinking) was
manipulated by using an induction that only temporarily
affected thinking by either increasing or decreasing the
extent to which participants felt personally responsible for
their answers and/or perceived the topic as personally rele-
vant. Of course, showing that changes in doping-related
attitudes and intentions can be produced even by induc-
tions that stimulate relatively temporary changes in thinking
is important. However, if similar changes in doping-related
attitudes and intentions could also be produced as a result
of more stable factors such as dispositional attributes linked
to preferences for careful thinking (i.e., the need for cogni-
tion), this could have important real-world implications for
the design of doping-intervention programmes because
individual-difference variables are a significant source of
variance in doping behaviour (e.g., see Chan et al., 2015;
Gucciardi, Jalleh, & Donovan, 2011; Jalleh, Donovan, &
Jobling, 2014; Madigan, Stoeber, & Passfield, 2016). Thus,
in an attempt to address this potential methodological
issue while also enhancing ecological validity, we sought
to conceptually replicate and extend prior research by
using a stable, well-validated individual-difference variable
to assess participants’ amount of elaboration. Specifically,
we tested whether individual differences in need for cogni-
tion (NC, Cacioppo & Petty, 1982) moderated the relation-
ship between attitudes and intentions related to doping.
That is, by identifying individuals’ relative level of NC,
researchers can better predict for whom attitudes changed
as a result of doping interventions will show greater corre-
spondence with intentions and subsequent behaviours,
among other important downstream consequences.
1
It is important to note that low-NC individuals can be motivated to elaborate on the message content (although they are not naturally inclined to do so) if other
factors are present, such as when an issue is personally relevant, or when they are held responsible for subsequent outcomes. Likewise, high-NC individuals may
be unable to elaborate on the message content and thus base their attitudes on peripheral cues, such as when insufficient time is available to process a message.
NC is an individual-difference variable often linked to different
processes and outcomes related to attitude formation and change.
Specifically, NC is represented by a continuum that reflects stable,
individual differences in the tendency to engage in and enjoy
effortful cognitive activities (see Cacioppo, Petty, Feinstein, &
Jarvis, 1996; Petty, Briñol, Loersch, & McCaslin, 2009; for reviews).
Individuals who fall at the upper end of the continuum (high in NC)
tend to engage in and enjoy cognitively challenging activities,
whereas individuals who fall at the lower end of the continuum
(low in NC) tend to exhibit relatively less engagement and less
enjoyment of cognitively challenging tasks.1
In accord with the ELM (Petty & Cacioppo, 1986), early research
on NC demonstrated that political attitudes of high-NC (vs. low-
NC) individuals were more predictive of their intentions and sub-
sequent voting behaviours because of the greater chronic ten-
dency in high-NC individuals to carefully process and integrate
issue-relevant information into an overall evaluative position (e.g.,
Cacioppo, Petty, Kao, & Rodriguez, 1986). In contrast, attitude
change in low-NC individuals is usually based more on a simple
cue that provides some evaluative association or allows some
relatively simple inference (e.g., heuristic rule) regarding the valid-
ity of the advocacy. In sum, individuals high (vs. low) in NC may
exhibit greater attitude-behaviour correspondence because their
attitudes are based more on a careful consideration of issue-
relevant information.
Interestingly, although a large body of literature has exam-
ined the effects of NC on attitudes and persuasion (see Cacioppo
et al., 1996; Petty et al., 2009; for reviews), few studies have
examined the relationship between NC and either behavioural
intentions or actual behaviours. Furthermore, as far as we are
aware, of those studies that have examined these relationships,
nearly all have used topics regarding desirable behaviours, such
as exercise behaviour (Conner, Rhodes, Morris, McEachan, &
Lawton, 2011), fruit and vegetable consumption (Williams-
Piehota, Pizarro, Navarro Silvera, Mowad, & Salovey, 2006), mam-
mography utilisation (Williams-Piehota, Schneider, Pizarro,
Mowad, & Salovey, 2003), breast self-examination (Ruiter,
Verplanken, De Cremer, & Kok, 2004), [cancer patients] talking
to their physicians about clinical trials (Latimer et al., 2008), pro-
environmental behaviour (Barbaro, Pickett, & Parkhill, 2015), or
voting behaviour (Cacioppo et al., 1986). One exception that
focused on an undesirable behaviour examined excessive alco-
hol consumption (Hittner, 2004), but this study did not analyse
attitudes or attitude-intention correspondence. In addition, even
fewer studies have included both attitudes and intentions as
separate dependent variables within the same study. Thus, very
little is known about how individual differences in NC might
influence the relationship between attitudes and behavioural
intentions regarding behaviours considered as undesirable
(e.g., doping in sports). In fact, existing data is somewhat unclear
and inconclusive regarding the moderating role of NC on the
relationship between attitudes and behavioural intentions –
and/or actual behaviours. For example, whereas some research
has found evidence in favour of the moderating role of NC (e.g.,
Cacioppo et al., 1986), other research either did not find evidence

or did not report it (e.g., Conner et al., 2011; Ruiter et al., 2004). As
a consequence, the gaps and inconsistencies in the existing
literature provide an important opportunity to clarify the role
of NC in the attitude-intention relationship.
In the present study, attitude change was induced using
a manipulation of the direction of the message with two experi-
mental conditions. Specifically, participants were randomly
assigned to read one of two different versions of a persuasive
message composed of information either against (i.e., the anti-
legalisation message) or in favour of (i.e., the pro-legalisation mes-
sage) legalising several doping behaviours (e.g., the use of AAS and
EPO). This manipulation was used to influence the favourability of
participants’ attitudes. That is, the message against legalisation
was expected to produce significantly more unfavourable atti-
tudes towards the legalisation proposal than the message in
favour of legalisation. In addition, participants completed the NC
scale, after which they reported their attitudes and behavioural
intentions regarding the legalisation proposal.
In accord with the ELM and prior research, we made three
main predictions:
Hypothesis 1: We expected that the anti-legalisation message
would generate more unfavourable attitudes than the pro-
legalisation message, regardless of participants’ level of NC. That
is, we hypothesised a main effect of the direction of the message
on attitudes towards the legalisation proposal.
Hypothesis 2: We expected that attitudes towards the legalisation
proposal (when included as a predictor variable) would predict
behavioural intentions. Specifically, more unfavourable attitudes
would predict lower intentions to support legalisation and less
willingness to engage in those banned behaviours if legalised,
compared with more favourable attitudes. That is, we hypothe-
sised a main effect of attitudes towards the legalisation proposal
on behavioural intentions.
Hypothesis 3: We expected that NC would moderate the relation-
ship between individuals’ attitudes (when included as a predictor
variable) and their intentions, such that greater correspondence
between attitudes towards the legalisation proposal and inten-
tions to support and engage in those banned behaviours if lega-
lised should emerge for high (vs. low) NC individuals. That is, we
hypothesised an interaction between attitudes and NC on beha-
vioural intentions.
Method
Participants and design
One hundred thirty-six university students (109 females, 25
males, 2 unidentified; Mage = 19.39, SD = 1.60) were randomly
assigned to a 2 (Message Direction: Against vs. In Favour of
2
Participants were required to meet the following inclusion criteria: a) fall between 18 and 26 years of age; b) engage in sports or physical exercise at least 3 hours
per week; and c) not be enrolled as last-year university students because these students could have already taken upper-year attitudes and persuasion courses and
thus be aware of our hypotheses, which could potentially bias their responses.
3
Participants were told that messages did not include rigorous and accurate scientific information (most importantly, about the certain benefits of those substances
and behaviours). Furthermore, a message in favour of legalisation was included to have more equivalent tasks across experimental conditions and to permit
a better comparison with a message against legalisation (Horcajo & De la Vega, 2014). Applications of this research (e.g., doping prevention programmes) should
include the implementation of effective programmes to change doping-related attitudes in only one direction (i.e., against doping).
JOURNAL OF SPORTS SCIENCES 3
Legalisation) between-participants factorial design, with Need
for Cognition as an additional predictor variable. An a priori
power analysis was conducted using G*Power (Faul, Erdfelder,
Buchner, & Lang, 2009) based on similar prior research analysing
the effects of elaboration on attitude strength regarding doping-
related attitudes (averaging f = .24; see Horcajo & De la Vega,
2014; Horcajo & Luttrell, 2016). Results of the G*Power analysis
indicated that the desired sample size for our study with an effect
size of f = .24 and a power of .80 is N = 139. Our final sample size
was determined by the number of participants that we were able
to collect during the academic semester, resulting in a number
that was nearly identical (136 participants) to the estimated one.
Importantly, our goal was to examine attitudes and behavioural
intentions related to doping in recreational sports because
recent research indicates this is an emerging issue among
young adults (e.g., see Lazuras et al., 2017).2
Procedure
Permission to conduct the study was provided by the university
institutional ethics committee before the study began. Using
a procedure adapted from prior research (see Horcajo & De la
Vega, 2014, 2016; Horcajo & Luttrell, 2016), participants were told
that they would be taking part in a study regarding the legalisation
of several doping behaviours (e.g., the use of anabolic androgenic
steroids; AAS, and Erythropoietin; EPO). We chose a legalisation
proposal as our target attitude object (instead of towards doping
itself) in order to reduce bias induced by socially desirable respond-
ing (e.g., Gucciardi, Jalleh, & Donovan, 2010; Petrózci & Nepusz,
2011). Next, participants were randomly assigned to receive
a persuasive message that presented either negative (i.e., risks) or
positive (i.e., benefits) information about the legalisation of those
banned behaviours. Both messages contained a mix of strong
arguments (which can lead to attitude change when people
think carefully about the message), and potential peripheral cues
such as a credible source (which can lead to attitude change when
people do not think carefully about a message). Thus, participants
were likely to be persuaded regardless of whether they were
thinking carefully (high-NC individuals) or not thinking carefully
(low-NC individuals) about the message (see Haugtvedt & Petty,
1992, for a similar approach). In addition, participants completed
the NC scale. Finally, participants reported their attitudes and
behavioural intentions towards the legalisation proposal, then
filled out several socio-demographic questions. After all measures
were completed, each participant was debriefed and received
information clarifying the purpose of the study.3
Independent variables
Message direction
Messages were taken from prior research (e.g., see Horcajo &
Luttrell, 2016). In the anti-legalisation condition, the message
4 J. HORCAJO ET AL.
emphasised various risks of legalisation. For example, “it is not
appropriate to permit the use of substances such as EPO and AAS
because these substances can produce severe harm to athletes’
health,” and “one of the most obvious consequences of legalis-
ing these doping substances is that their consumption would
skyrocket and occur at increasingly early ages by athletes,” and
“the level of physical and psychological dependence could
increase the consumption of certain harmful substances.”
By contrast, in the pro-legalisation condition, the message
emphasised various benefits of legalisation under medical
guidance. For example, “substances such as EPO and AAS
could help athletes cope with stress,” and “the legalisation of
some practices and substances that are currently prohibited
would lead to more investment in research and development
in order to improve sports performance, which would create
new job opportunities and with it new jobs,” and “legalisation
would be beneficial because some athletes acquire these
substances on the ‘black market’ without any medical control
or a medical prescription regarding safe dosages.”
In addition, both messages contained several variables
potentially serving as peripheral cues, including: a credible
source (e.g., the World Anti-Doping Agency; WADA), the bla-
tant direction of the proposal (highlighting the terms risks or
benefits of legalisation by underlining them and making them
bold), and a relatively extensive number of arguments (i.e., five
arguments per message).4 Therefore, consistent with prior
research (e.g., Horcajo & De la Vega, 2014), we anticipated
that attitudes were likely to change for both high-NC indivi-
duals (via more reliance on argument quality) and low-NC
individuals (via more reliance on peripheral cues).
Need for cognition
All participants completed the Spanish version of the 18-
item NC scale (Falces, Briñol, Sierra, Becerra, & Alier, 2001).
This scale is a well-validated, single-factor measure asses-
sing individual differences in the tendency to engage in
and enjoy effortful cognitive activities (see Cacioppo, Petty,
& Kao, 1984). It includes items such as “I would prefer
complex to simple problems” and “I find satisfaction in
deliberating hard and for long hours.” Each item is
answered on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1
(extremely uncharacteristic of me) to 5 (extremely character-
istic of me). Items showed high internal consistency
(α = .87); therefore, the final score for each participant
was the mean of all 18 items. NC scores did not differ as
a function of Message Direction (p = .526), Attitude
(p = .627), Behavioural Intentions (p = .189), or the inter-
actions between these variables (ps > .215).
Dependent variables
Attitudes
Attitudes towards the legalisation proposal were assessed using
the same eight 9-point semantic differential scales from prior
4
These variables are expected to serve as simple cues when recipients are under low-elaboration conditions (such as low-NC individuals). However, these same variables can
also affect attitudes through different processes under other circumstances (e.g., see Petty & Briñol, 2012; Petty & Cacioppo, 1986; Petty & Wegener, 1998).
5
To control for the potential effect of behavioural intentions on attitudes, participants’ intentions were included in the analysis as a covariable.
research (Horcajo & Luttrell, 2016): against vs. in favour, less vs.
more stress after legalisation, unhealthy vs. healthy, inappropriate vs.
appropriate, negative vs. positive, undesirable vs. desirable, non-
recommendable vs. recommendable,and bad vs. good. Item-
ratings were highly correlated (α = .91), thus averaged to create
a composite attitude index. Responses to these attitude scales
were scored so that higher values represented more favourable
attitudes towards legalisation.
Behavioural intentions
Participants’ behavioural intentions were assessed using
three 9-point items adapted from Horcajo and Luttrell
(2016) for this specific sample of participants: (1)
“Hypothetically, to what extent would you be willing to
deliver fliers supporting the legalisation proposal?”, (2)
“Hypothetically, to what extent would you be willing to
participate in a debate supporting the legalisation propo-
sal?”, and (3) “Hypothetically, to what extent do you have
the intention to use the substances and do the behaviours
if they were legalised?” We chose these items because they
are specifically tailored to the legalisation proposal of sev-
eral doping substances (i.e., AAS and EPO) rather than to
doping itself. Additionally, these items better fit the spe-
cific type of population (i.e., university students) in the
present study because two of the three items assess rela-
tively familiar activities for university students (i.e., deliver-
ing flyers and participating in a debate). The third item is
exactly the same as that used in Horcajo and Luttrell
(2016). Item-ratings were moderately correlated (α = .67),
thus averaged to create a composite index of behavioural
intentions. Higher values represent greater intentions to
support the legalisation proposal and to engage in those
banned behaviours if legalised.
Results
Attitudes
The attitudes measure was submitted to a hierarchical mul-
tiple regression analysis conducted via PROCESS (Hayes,
2013; Model 3). Message Direction (dummy coded; anti-
legalisation = 0; pro-legalisation = 1), NC (continuous vari-
able), Behavioural Intentions (continuous variable), and the
interaction terms were entered as predictors.5 NC scores
and Behavioural Intentions were mean centred in the ana-
lyses to address collinearity issues when computing interac-
tion terms. Following the suggestion of Cohen and Cohen
(1983), all main effects and interactions were interpreted in
the first block in which they appeared in the regression
analysis.
As hypothesised and shown in Figure 1, a significant main effect
of Message Direction emerged, B = 1.133 (95%CI: .776, 1.490),
t(132) = 6.275, p < .001, Cohen’s f = 0.546. That is, participants
who received the anti-legalisation message elicited more unfa-
vourable attitudes towards the proposal (M = 2.16, SD = .95) than
 JOURNAL OF SPORTS SCIENCES 5

5 4

Behavioural Intentions
4
3
Attitudes

3
Against Low NC (-1SD)
2 High NC (+1SD)
In Favour of
2

1 1

Low (-1SD) High (+1SD) Unfavourable (-1SD) Favourable (+1SD)

Need for Cognition Attitudes

Figure 1. Attitudes as a function of Message Direction and Need for Cognition. Figure 2. Behavioural Intentions as a function of Need for Cognition and
Attitudes.

participants who received the pro-legalisation message (M = 3.82,
SD = 1.44), independent of NC levels (i.e., high or low NC).6
Moreover, as expected, a significant positive relationship emerged
between Behavioural Intentions and attitudes, B = .547 (95%CI:
.413, .680), t(132) = 8.102, p < .001, Cohen’s f = 0.705, such that
greater intentions to support the legalisation proposal were tied to
more favourable attitudes towards legalisation. No further effects
reached significance (ps > .1).
Behavioural intentions
Similar analyses using PROCESS were conducted to investigate the
relationship between Message Direction, NC, Attitudes, and the
interaction terms as predictors, with behavioural intentions as our
dependent variable (see Horcajo & Luttrell, 2016, for a similar
approach). In this case, NC scores and Attitudes were mean
centred. As hypothesised, results indicated a significant main
effect of Attitudes, B = .608 (95%CI: .459, .756), t(132) = 8.102,
p < .001, Cohen’s f = 0.705, such that more unfavourable attitudes
led to lower behavioural intentions. No other main effect emerged
(ps > .19).7 Of critical importance, the expected interaction
between Attitudes and NC on behavioural intentions was found,
B = .215 (95%CI: .018, .412), t(132) = 2.163, p = .032, Cohen’s
f = 0.188. As hypothesised and illustrated in Figure 2, this pattern
revealed that attitudes were a better predictor of intentions for
high-NC (B = .704 [95%CI: .549, .859], t(132) = 8.990, p < .001,
Cohen’s f = 0.782) than for low-NC (B = .447 [95%CI: .265, .629], t
(132) = 4.867, p < .001, Cohen’s f = 0.424) individuals.8
Discussion
This study showed that individual differences in need for cogni-
tion are an important determinant of the relationship between
attitudes and intentions related to doping. Specifically, we
hypothesised and found that attitudes were more predictive of
intentions for high-NC than for low-NC individuals, even though
no difference in attitude favourability emerged across levels of
NC. This finding is consistent with the idea that for high-NC
individuals, attitude change typically occurs via processes that
involve more issue-relevant thinking, whereas for low-NC indivi-
duals, attitude change is often elicited by peripheral cues (see
Cacioppo et al., 1996; Petty et al., 2009; for a review). In line with
multi-process models of persuasion such as the ELM (Petty &
Cacioppo, 1986) or the HSM (Heuristic-Systematic Model,
Chaiken, Liberman, & Eagly, 1989), we suggest that those differ-
ent processes leading to attitude change for high-NC (vs. low-NC)
individuals were responsible for the differences found in our
study regarding attitude-intention correspondence.9 Therefore,
the present research meaningfully advances the doping-related
attitudes literature by proposing the ELM as a relatively new (and
complementary) conceptual framework in doping research, as
well as by proposing a very specific moderator of the relationship
between attitudes and behavioural intentions that has not been

6
When Message Direction and NC were the only predictors included in the model, the main effect of Message Direction remained significant, B = 1.650 (95%CI:
1.242, 2.057), t(133) = 8.014, p < .001, Cohen’s f = 0.695, indicating that attitudes were more unfavourable for the anti- than pro-legalisation message. No other
effects were significant (ps > .12).
7
When Message Direction and NC were the only predictors included in the model, a main effect of Message Direction emerged, B = .946 (95%CI: .517, 1.375), t
(133) = 4.358, p < .001, Cohen’s f = 0.378, indicating lower behavioural intentions for the anti-legalisation than pro-legalisation message. Also, a main effect of NC
emerged, B = .361 (95%CI: .001, .721), t(132) = 1.985, p = .049, Cohen’s f = 0.172, indicating greater behavioural intentions as NC increased.
8
A marginally significant three-way interaction (Message Direction × NC × Attitudes) emerged, B = .515 (95%CI: −.029, 1.078), t(132) = 1.877, p = .063, Cohen’s
f = 0.166, indicating that the expected pattern of results was more pronounced for the pro-legalisation (vs. anti-legalisation) message. In addition, there was
a marginal effect of Message Direction × NC interaction, B = .639 (95%CI: −.081, 1.359), t(132) = 1.756, p = .081, Cohen’s f = 0.153. In line with prior research
(Horcajo & Luttrell, 2016), for the high-NC participants, those who received the anti-legalisation message reported significantly lower intentions to support
legalisation and to engage in doping behaviours if legalised than those who received the pro-legalisation message, B = 1.326 [95%CI: .722, 1.929], t(132) = 4.344,
p < .001, Cohen’s f = 0.379. For the low-NC participants, there was only a marginal difference between those who received the message against and those who
received the message in favour of legalisation, B = .563 [95%CI: −.044, 1.169], t(132) = 1.836, p = .069, Cohen’s f = 0.160. Finally, there was no Message Direction ×
Attitudes interaction, B = .056 (95%CI: −.256, .369), t(132) = .356, p = .722, Cohen’s f = 0.031.
9
According to the ELM (e.g., see Petty & Briñol, 2012), when either motivation or ability to think is low, variables typically serve as simple peripheral cues, producing
an effect that is consistent with their valence (i.e., variables evaluated positively lead to more persuasion). When motivation and ability to think are high, variables
can produce persuasion via other processes, such as serving as arguments (pieces of evidence), biasing thoughts, or influencing the degree to which a person has
confidence in their thoughts (i.e., self-validation) and thus relies on them when making judgements. When thinking is not constrained to be high or low by other
factors, then variables determine how much thinking is done.
6 J. HORCAJO ET AL.
examined in prior doping literature: The need for cognition. This
moderator is important because it provides critical information
that helps understand when and why attitudes predict intentions
and behaviours and when they do not.
Our findings highlight the important role of attitude
strength as it relates to attitude-intention correspondence.
As shown in the present study, variations in the amount
of elaboration (i.e., high vs. low NC) are consequential. In
fact, when people are relatively unmotivated (e.g., low-NC
individuals) or unable to think, they are more likely to
form or change their attitude by relying on the valence
of immediately accessible information that originates
either internally (e.g., one’s prior attitude) or externally
(e.g., the credibility of the source). In contrast, when peo-
ple are motivated (e.g., high-NC individuals) and able to
think, they are more likely to form or change their attitude
by carefully processing issue-relevant information and
integrating it into an overall evaluative position which
predicts their intentions to a greater extent. Based on
prior research (e.g., see Petty et al., 1995), we suggest
that doping-related attitude change occurring as a result
of high-elaboration processes could enhance the accessi-
bility of the newly formed or changed attitude and/or
increase one’s certainty in the attitude (e.g., see Horcajo
& De la Vega, 2016). Consequently, this could increase
attitude persistence, resistance to counter-attitudinal infor-
mation, and yield larger attitude-behaviour correspon-
dence compared with doping-related attitude change
occurring as a result of low-elaboration processes.
Taken together, the results of our study not only contribute
to doping research by specifying when and for whom atti-
tudes predict intentions related to doping, but also to the
broader literatures on attitude change and need for cognition,
accumulating conclusive evidence that NC is capable of mod-
erating attitude-intention/behaviour correspondence, as pro-
posed by the ELM and other models of attitude change such
as the HSM, even in the case of an undesirable behaviour such
as doping in sports. In addition, by considering the role of
individual differences in the preference for careful thinking,
indeed the ELM provides a relevant framework that allows
both researchers and practitioners to make useful suggestions
to improve the efficacy of interventions designed to change
attitudes, intentions, and behaviours related to doping in the
context of sports. Consider this in light of the meta-analysis
conducted by Ntoumanis et al. (2014), which evaluated the
effectiveness of existing randomised controlled trials regard-
ing intervention programmes such as ATLAS (e.g., Goldberg
et al., 1996, 2000) and ATHENA (e.g., Elliot et al., 2004, 2008;
see also Goldberg & Elliot, 2005). While their meta-analysis
revealed a very small, albeit significant, reduction in doping
intentions, no changes in doping behaviour were found.
Although some explanations were proposed (e.g., the non-
significant effects might reflect floor effects because partici-
pants’ doping intentions at baseline [pre-intervention] were
low, see Ntoumanis et al., 2014), as shown in the present
study, the conceptual framework provided by the ELM allows
greater insight into these types of questions because it per-
mits researchers and practitioners to make more specific pre-
dictions regarding when (not whether) doping-related attitude
change will be consequential for intentions and behaviours
(e.g., when individuals have high levels of NC).
Nevertheless, it is important to recognise that doping beha-
viour is a very complex phenomenon that can be studied from
multiple levels (e.g., individual, interpersonal, social, cultural,
sport-specific) and perspectives (e.g., see Barkoukis et al.,
2013; Donovan, 2009; Johnson, 2011, 2012; Petróczi, 2013;
Petróczi, Norman, & Brueckner, 2017; Pitsch, Emrich, & Klein,
2007). Thus, although the data supported our hypotheses, it
should be noted that our study is not without limitations. For
example, like any study involved in “the cognitive research
program” (Hauw & McNamee, 2015), our conclusions are
based on the hypothesis that attitudes and intentions are cau-
sally related to behaviour in accord with most psychological
research on doping, which has extensively maintained this
“cognitive research program” assumption. However, as noted
by Hauw and McNamee (2015), other research programmes can
also be used to understand doping behaviour, such as those
analysing the drive/motivation leading to doping behaviour
(i.e., “the drive research program”) or the influence of the con-
text on doping behaviour (i.e., “the situated dynamic research
program”). Of course, the underlying motives for the use of
doping substances and methods is a relevant question for
research, as is the study of doping behaviour that indeed
emerges in specific contexts, and comes from interactions
between individuals and situations (Hauw, 2013). Moreover,
“drives” and “contexts” can widely differ between recreational
sportspeople and elite athletes. This fact notwithstanding, the
results of the present study are consistent with prior research
analysing the effects of elaboration on attitude change and
intentions related to doping (e.g., Horcajo & De la Vega, 2014,
2016; Horcajo & Luttrell, 2016), even though these prior studies
examined other different populations (e.g., soccer players and
coaches). The consistency in results is not surprising because
the cognitive processes tested in the present study are
expected to occur irrespective of a person’s specific level or
role in sports. Nevertheless, although the same processes oper-
ate, future research should analyse these cognitive processes in
relation with other contexts, as well as regarding different
“drives” which could influence information processing in differ-
ent ways.
It is also important to recognise that each approach or
“research program” has strengths and weaknesses (Hauw &
McNamee, 2015). From a specific cognitive perspective, the pre-
sent study demonstrates that individual differences in NC can
influence the psychological processes leading to attitude change
and subsequent intentions related to doping, although other traits
and dispositional characteristics can also influence attitudes and
attitude-behaviour correspondence regarding doping (e.g., see
Chan et al., 2015; Gucciardi et al., 2011; Jalleh et al., 2014;
Madigan et al., 2016; see Briñol & Petty, 2019, for a recent review
on the effects of individual-difference factors on attitude change).
Moreover, it should be noted that our goal was not to provide an
alternative theory to replace current models and theories in dop-
ing research, such as the applications of the Theory of Planned
Behaviour (Ajzen, 1991), or similar conceptual models which
include different social psychological factors predicting doping
behaviour. Rather, we sought to use the ELM to expand our
understanding of when and why attitudes formed or changed in

response to persuasive information can predict (or not predict)
intentions and behaviours related to doping. Therefore, although
we agree with contemporary attitude models related to doping,
and their relationships with intentions and behaviours, the
novelty/value of our approach is linked to the ELM’s ability to
specify the factors and psychological processes responsible for
those relationships. In sum, the conceptual framework provided
by the ELM (Petty & Cacioppo, 1986) is in fact a relevant and
complementary framework to current doping attitude models,
thus extending our understanding of attitude change, as well as
intentions and behaviours related to doping (e.g., Horcajo & De la
Vega, 2014, 2016; Horcajo & Luttrell, 2016; see Petty et al., 2018, for
a review).
In light of the present findings, future research can benefit from
considering the influential role played by differences in a person’s
propensity for careful thought when designing and implementing
more effective doping prevention programmes. Similarly, future
research could also benefit by examining the role of NC as
a relevant variable within other doping-specific models to better
understand not only doping-related attitude formation and
change, but also the attitude-intention-behaviour correspon-
dence. Finally, by knowing the recipients’ personal characteristics
and message characteristics, prevention programmes might more
effectively facilitate attitude change under specific circumstances,
and thus increase attitude-behaviour correspondence in the
desired direction (i.e., against doping in sports).
Although we believe the current study provides some useful
insights regarding the moderating role of NC in the relationship
between attitudes and intentions related to doping, it should be
acknowledged that we assessed attitudes and intentions rather
than doping behaviour per se. Thus, our focus was somewhat
different than some prior research, which has specifically exam-
ined the relationship between intentions and doping behaviour.
The results of these studies have largely been inconsistent, with
some authors finding a significant relationship (e.g., Backhouse
et al., 2016; Ntoumanis et al., 2014), while others did not (e.g.,
Blank, Kopp, Niedermeier, Schnitzer, & Schobersberger, 2016).
While different explanations could be proposed based on different
populations (e.g., elite athletes vs. recreational sportspeople),
methodological issues, macro-level factors, and so forth (e.g., see
Blank et al., 2016; Ntoumanis et al., 2014; for a discussion), we
speculate that the inconsistent relationship between intentions
and doping behaviour could also be linked to the notion of
attitude strength. Indeed, as previously discussed, a large body
of work has indicated that attitudes formed via extensive cognitive
elaboration of attitude-relevant information are more predictive of
behavioural intentions and behaviours than are attitudes formed
via relatively less careful thought (e.g., see Petty et al., 1995; Petty &
Wegener, 1998). Thus, one potentially fruitful area for future
research would be to specifically analyse the consequences of
attitude strength on actual doping behaviour (vs. intentions), as
well as other potential (situational and individual) moderators of
the relationship between attitudes, intentions and doping
behaviour.
In conclusion, our findings provide convergent evidence
with the ELM and prior doping research showing that both
momentary experimental manipulations of elaboration (e.g.,
Horcajo & De la Vega, 2014, 2016; Horcajo & Luttrell, 2016),
and stable dispositional factors that affect elaboration (i.e.,
JOURNAL OF SPORTS SCIENCES 7
NC), can determine the psychological processes leading to
changes in doping-related attitudes. Importantly, understand-
ing these processes can help us to describe, explain and better
predict the immediate and long-term attitudinal and beha-
vioural consequences regarding doping in sports.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
Funding
This research was supported by the Ministerio de Economía, Industria
y Competitividad, Gobierno de España (ES) [PSI2017-83303-C2-1-P] Grant
to Javier Horcajo.
ORCID
Javier Horcajo http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6252-1096
David Santos http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9786-5219
Joshua J. Guyer http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3932-4956
Lorena Moreno http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4829-7280
References
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior
and Human Decision Processes, 50, 179–211.
Backhouse, S. H., Whitaker, L., Patterson, L., Erickson, K., & McKenna, J.
(2016). Social psychology of doping in sport: A mixed-studies narrative
synthesis. Montreal, Canada: World Anti-Doping Agency.
Barbaro, N., Pickett, S. M., & Parkhill, M. R. (2015). Environmental attitudes
mediate the link between need for cognition and pro-environmental
goal choice. Personality and Individual Differences, 75, 220–223.
Barkoukis, V., Lazuras, L., & Harris, P. R. (2015). The effects of
self-affirmation manipulation on decision making about doping use in
elite athletes. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 16, 175–181.
Barkoukis, V., Lazuras, L., Tsorbatzoudis, H., & Rodafinos, A. (2013).
Motivational and social cognitive predictors of doping intentions in
elite sports: An integrated approach. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine &
Science in Sports, 23, e330–340.
Blank, C., Kopp, M., Niedermeier, W., Schnitzer, C., & Schobersberger, M.
(2016). Predictors of doping intentions, susceptibility, and behavior of
elite athletes: A meta-analytic review. Springerplus, 5(1), 1–14.
Briñol, P., & Petty, R. E. (2019). The impact of individual differences on
attitudes and attitude change. In D. Albarracín & B. T. Johnson (Eds.),
Handbook of Attitudes (Vol. 1, 2nd ed., pp. 520–556). New York:
Routledge.
Cacioppo, J. T., & Petty, R. E. (1982). The need for cognition. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 42(1), 116–131.
Cacioppo, J. T., Petty, R. E., Feinstein, J., & Jarvis, W. B. G. (1996).
Dispositional differences in cognitive motivation: The life and times of
individuals varying in need for cognition. Psychological Bulletin, 119,
197–253.
Cacioppo, J. T., Petty, R. E., Kao, C., & Rodriguez, R. (1986). Central and
peripheral routes to persuasion: An individual difference perspective.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1032–1043.
Cacioppo, J. T., Petty, R. E., & Kao, C. F. (1984). The efficient assessment of
need for cognition. Journal of Personality Assessment, 48, 306–307.
Chaiken, S. L., Liberman, A., & Eagly, A. H. (1989). Heuristic and systematic
processing within and beyond the persuasion context. In J. S. Uleman &
J. A. Bargh (Eds.), Unintended thought (pp. 212–252). New York: Guilford.
Chan, D. K., Lentillon-Kaestner, V., Dimmock, J. A., Donovan, R. J.,
Keatley, D. A., Hardcastle, S. J., & Hagger, M. S. (2015). Self-control,
self-regulation, and doping in sport: A test of the strength-energy
model. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 37, 199–206.
8 J. HORCAJO ET AL.
Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. (1983). Applied multiple regression/correlation analy-
sis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Conner, M., Rhodes, R. E., Morris, B., McEachan, R., & Lawton, R. (2011).
Changing exercise through targeting affective or cognitive attitudes.
Psychology and Health, 26(2), 133–149.
Donovan, R. J. (2009). Performance-enhancing technologies in sports:
Ethical, conceptual, and scientific issues. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins
University Press.
Elliot, D. L., Goldberg, L., Moe, E. L., Defrancesco, C. A., Durham, M. B., &
Hix-Small, H. (2004). Preventing substance use and disordered eating:
Initial outcomes of the ATHENA (Athletes Targeting Healthy Exercise
and Nutrition Alternatives) program. Archives of Pediatrics and
Adolescent Medicine, 158, 1043–1049.
Elliot, D. L., Goldberg, L., Moe, E. L., Defrancesco, C. A., Durham, M. B.,
McGinnis, W., & Lockwood, C. (2008). Long-term outcomes of the
ATHENA (Athletes Targeting Healthy Exercise & Nutrition Alternatives)
program for female high school athletes. Journal of Alcohol and Drug
Education, 52, 73–92.
Falces, C., Briñol, P., Sierra, B., Becerra, A., & Alier, E. (2001). Validación de la
escala de Necesidad de Cognición y aplicación al estudio del cambio de
actitudes [Validation of the need for cognition scale, and application to
the study of attitude change]. Psicothema, 13, 647–653.
Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Buchner, A., & Lang, A. G. (2009). Statistical power
analyses using G*Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression ana-
lyses. Behavior Research Methods, 41, 1149–1160.
Goldberg, L., & Elliot, D. L. (2005). Preventing substance use among high
school athletes: The ATLAS and ATHENA programs. Journal of Applied
School Psychology, 21, 63–87.
Goldberg, L., Elliot, D. L., Clarke, G. N., MacKinnon, D. P., Zoref, L.,
Moe, E. L., . . . Wolf, S. L. (1996). The Adolescents Training and
Learning to Avoid Steroids (ATLAS) prevention program: Background
and results of a model intervention. Archives of Pediatrics and
Adolescent Medicine, 150, 713–721.
Goldberg, L., MacKinnon, D. P., Elliot, D. L., Moe, E. L., Clarke, G. N., &
Cheong, J. W. (2000). The adolescents training and learning to avoid
steroids program: Preventing drug use and promoting health
behaviors. Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, 154, 332–338.
Gucciardi, D. F., Jalleh, G., & Donovan, R. J. (2010). Does social desirability
influence the relationship between doping attitudes and doping sus-
ceptibility in athletes? Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 11, 479–486.
Gucciardi, D. F., Jalleh, G., & Donovan, R. J. (2011). An examination of the
sport drug control model with elite Australian athletes. Journal of
Science and Medicine in Sport, 14, 469–476.
Haugtvedt, C. P., & Petty, R. E. (1992). Personality and persuasion: Need for
cognition moderates the persistence and resistance of attitude
changes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 308–319.
Hauw, D. (2013). Toward a situated and dynamics understanding of dop-
ing behaviors. In J. Tolleneer, P. Bonte, & S. Sterckx (Eds.), Athletic
enhancement, human nature and ethics. Threats and opportunities of
doping technologies (pp. 219–235). Berlin: Springer.
Hauw, D., & McNamee, M. (2015). A critical analysis of three psychological
research programs of doping behaviour. Psychology of Sport & Exercise,
16(2), 140–148.
Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional
process analysis: A regression-based approach. New York, NY: The
Guilford Press.
Hittner, J. B. (2004). Alcohol use among American college students in
relation to need for cognition and expectations of alcohol’s effects on
cognition. Current Psychology: Developmental, Learning, Personality,
Social, 23, 173–187.
Horcajo, J., & De la Vega, R. (2014). Changing doping-related attitudes in
soccer players: How can we get stable and persistent changes?
European Journal of Sport Science, 14, 839–846.
Horcajo, J., & De la Vega, R. (2016). La convicción en las actitudes relacio-
nadas con el dopaje: Un estudio experimental con entrenadores de
fútbol. [Conviction in doping-related attitudes: An experimental study
with soccer coaches]. Revista de Psicología del Deporte, 25, 57–64.
Horcajo, J., & Luttrell, A. (2016). The effects of elaboration on the strength
of doping-related attitudes: Resistance to change and behavioral
intentions. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 38, 236–246.
Jalleh, G., Donovan, R. J., & Jobling, I. (2014). Predicting attitude
towards performance enhancing substance use: A comprehensive
test of the sport drug control model with elite Australian athletes.
Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport, 17, 574–579.
James, R., Naughton, D. P., & Petrócki, A. (2010). Promoting functional
foods as acceptable alternatives to doping: Potential for
information-based social marketing approach. Journal of the
International Society of Sports Nutrition, 7, 37.
Johnson, M. B. (2011). A systemic model of doping behavior. The
American Journal of Psychology, 124, 151–162.
Johnson, M. B. (2012). A systemic social-cognitive perspective on
doping. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 13, 317–323.
Latimer, A. E., Williams-Piehota, P., Katulak, N. A., Cox, A., Salovey, P., &
Mowad, L. (2008). Encouraging cancer patients to talk to their
physicians about clinical trials: Considering patients’ information
needs. Journal of Applied Biobehavioural Research, 12(3–4), 178–195.
Lazuras, L., Barkoukis, V., Loukovitis, A., Brand, R., Hudson, A.,
Mallia, L., . . . Zelli, A. (2017). “I want it all, and i want it now”:
Lifetime prevalence and reasons for using and abstaining from
controlled Performance and Appearance Enhancing Substances
(PAES) among young exercisers and amateur athletes in five
European countries. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, Article 717.
Lazuras, L., Barkoukis, V., Rodafinos, A., & Tzorbatzoudis, H. (2010).
Predictors of doping intentions in elite-level athletes: A social cog-
nition approach. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 32, 694–710.
Lucidi, F., Grano, C., Leone, L., Lombardo, C., & Pesce, C. (2004).
Determinants of the intention to use doping substances: An empiri-
cal contribution in a sample of Italian adolescents. International
Journal of Sport Psychology, 35, 133–148.
Lucidi, F., Zelli, A., Mallia, L., Grano, C., Russo, P. M., & Violani, C. (2008).
The social-cognitive mechanisms regulating adolescents’ use of dop-
ing substances. Journal of Sports Science, 26, 447–456.
Madigan, D. J., Stoeber, J., & Passfield, L. (2016). Perfectionism and
attitudes towards doping in junior athletes. Journal of Sports
Sciences, 34, 700–706.
Morente-Sánchez, J., & Zabala, M. (2013). Doping in sport: A review of
elite athletes’ attitudes, beliefs, and knowledge. Sports Medicine, 43,
395–411.
Ntoumanis, N., Ng, J. Y., Barkoukis, V., & Backhouse, S. (2014). Personal
and psychosocial predictors of doping use in physical activity set-
tings: A meta-analysis. Sports Medicine, 44, 1603–1624.
Petróczi, A. (2013). The doping mindset—Part I: Implications of the
functional use theory on mental representations of doping.
Performance Enhancement & Health, 2, 153–163.
Petróczi, A., & Nepusz, T. (2011). Methodological considerations regard-
ing response bias effect in substance use research: Is correlation
between the measured variables sufficient? Substance Abuse
Treatment, Prevention, and Policy, 6, 1.
Petróczi, A., Norman, P., & Brueckner, S. (2017). Can we better integrate
the role of anti-doping in sports and society? A psychological
approach to contemporary value-based prevention. Medicine and
Sport Science, 62, 160–176.
Petty, R. E., & Briñol, P. (2012). The elaboration likelihood model. In
P. A. M. Van Lange, A. Kruglanski, & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Handbook of
theories of social psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 224–245). London, England:
Sage.
Petty, R. E., Briñol, P., Loersch, C., & McCaslin, M. J. (2009). The need for
cognition. In M. R. Leary & R. H. Hoyle (Eds.), Handbook of individual
differences in social behavior (pp. 318–329). New York: Guilford Press.
Petty, R. E., Briñol, P., Teeny, J., & Horcajo, J. (2018). The elaboration
likelihood model: Changing attitudes toward exercising and beyond.
In B. Jackson, J. A. Dimmock, & J. Compton (Eds.), Persuasion and
communication in sport, exercise, and physical activity (pp. 22–37).
Abingdon, UK: Routledge.
Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). Communication and persuasion:
Central and peripheral routes to attitude change. New York: Springer/
Verlag.
Petty, R. E., Haugtvedt, C. P., & Smith, S. M. (1995). Elaboration as
a determinant of attitude strength: Creating attitudes that are persis-
tent, resistant, and predictive of behavior. In R. E. Petty & J. A. Krosnick

(Eds.), Attitude strength: Antecedents and consequences (pp. 93–130).
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Petty, R. E., & Wegener, D. T. (1998). Attitude change: Multiple roles for persua-
sion variables. In D. Gilbert, S. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook of
social psychology (Vol. 1, 4th ed., pp. 323–390). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Petty, R. E., & Wegener, D. T. (1999). The elaboration likelihood model: Current
status and controversies. In S. Chaiken & Y. Trope (Eds.), Dual process theories
in social psychology (pp. 41–72). New York: Guilford Press.
Pitsch, W., Emrich, E., & Klein, M. (2007). Doping in elite sports in Germany:
Results of a www survey. European Journal for Sport and Society, 4(2),
89–102.
JOURNAL OF SPORTS SCIENCES 9
Ruiter, R. A. C., Verplanken, B., De Cremer, D., & Kok, G. (2004). Danger
and fear control in response to fear appeals: The role of need for
cognition. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 26, 13–24.
Williams-Piehota, P., Pizarro, J., Navarro Silvera, S. A., Mowad, L., &
Salovey, P. (2006). Need for cognition and message complexity in
motivating fruit and vegetable intake among callers to the cancer
information service. Health Communication, 19(1), 75–84.
Williams-Piehota, P., Schneider, T. R., Pizarro, J., Mowad, L., &
Salovey, P. (2003). Matching health messages to informationproces-
sing styles: Need for cognition and mammography utilization.
Health Communication, 15(4), 375–392.