Using Control Balance Theory to Examine Sports Doping Among Professional Athletes in Iran

• Author: Seyyedeh Masoomeh (Shamila) Shadmanfaat,Saeed Kabiri,Christopher M. Donner
• Published date: 01 July 2019
• Date: 01 July 2019
• DOI: 10.1177/0022042619837757
• Subject Matter: Articles

https://doi.org/10.1177/0022042619837757

Journal of Drug Issues

2019, Vol. 49(3) 493 –511

© The Author(s) 2019

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/0022042619837757

journals.sagepub.com/home/jod

Article

Using Control Balance Theory to

Examine Sports Doping Among

Professional Athletes in Iran

Saeed Kabiri1, Seyyedeh Masoomeh (Shamila) Shadmanfaat2,

and Christopher M. Donner3

Abstract

The use of performance-enhancing drugs (PEDs) is one of the most important issues in the

world of sports. At its very heart, this issue speaks to athletic integrity and competitive fairness.

When athletes engage in doping, they are committing acts of deviance. The main purpose of

this research, accordingly, is to explain why athletes use illegal PEDs. Specifically, we use Tittle’s

control balance theory as a conceptual framework. A sample of 852 professional athletes from

Iran was used to test assumptions related to control balance theory, and the findings of the study

generally indicated that the components of control balance theory predicted athletes’ doping

behavior. In addition, the moderating relationships of the control balance model indicated that

the relationship between the control deficit and PED use was moderated by the variance in

self-control, opportunity, motivation, constraint, perceived benefits, and provocations. Specific

results, policy implications, and study limitations are discussed.

Keywords

control balance theory, performance-enhancing drugs, professional athletes

Introduction

The use of performance-enhancing drugs (PEDs) is currently one of the most salient issues in the

world of sport (e.g., Loland, 2018). Several recent and high-profile cases of PED use—such as

the ongoing steroids scandal in Major League Baseball or the Russian athletes at the 2014 Winter

Olympics—have brought the issue of sports doping to the forefront of the world’s attention.

These events, and others, have led to various consequences for individual athletes, entire teams,

and even the global sport community. Such consequences include athlete and team suspensions

from competition (e.g., Alex Rodriguez in baseball), vacated championships (e.g., Marion Jones

in track and field), and criminal prosecution (e.g., Lance Armstrong in cycling). In sports, there

is an inherent assumption that when athletes compete, they are competing in ethical ways and are

following the rules of their given sport. Unfortunately, not all athletes abide by the rules of their

sport, and, thus, doping constitutes a form of deviant behavior. Consequently, it is important to

1University of Mazandaran, Babolsar, Iran

2University of Guilan, Rasht, Iran

3Loyola University Chicago, IL, USA

Corresponding Author:

Christopher M. Donner, Loyola University Chicago, Lake Shore Campus, 1032 W. Sheridan Road, Chicago, IL 60660,

USA.

Email: cdonner@luc.edu

837757JODXXX10.1177/0022042619837757Journal of Drug IssuesKabiri et al.

research-article2019

494 Journal of Drug Issues 49(3)

investigate the etiology of sports doping so that coaches, trainers, and governing bodies of sports

may be better suited to address the problem.

One such factor that is worthy of empirical examination in the context of sports doping is

control balance. Tittle’s (1995, 2004) control balance theory suggests that control imbalances

(i.e., surpluses or deficits) can explain a wide variety of deviant behavior. Generally, this approach

is based on the fundamental assumption that individuals’ lack of control (on their environment)

forces them to engage in deviance to increase their lost control and to achieve social and personal

goals (Tittle, 2004). The theory emphasizes a general propensity of all people to desire a control

balance among the different domains in their lives. If there is an imbalance, the theory considers

deviant behavior—like doping—to be a mechanism an individual uses to bring their control level

back to balance (Tittle, 1995, 2004). In the context of professional athletes, using PEDs could

then be viewed as an attractive and efficient way of recovering from a control deficit within the

sport domain of their environment.

Control imbalances have been identified in prior research as a consistent predictor of general

criminal behavior (e.g., Hughes, Antonaccio, & Botchkovar, 2015; Hunt & Topalli, 2018; Nobles

& Fox, 2013; A. R. Piquero & Hickman, 1999), as well as of drug use (Baron, 2010). This latter

study demonstrates some initial evidence for the predictive utility of control balance theory in

explaining drug use. Moreover, several previous studies in the doping literature have demon-

strated the importance of psychosocial factors such as low self-control, social learning, social

norms, and the physical environment (e.g., Chan et al., 2015; Erickson, McKenna, & Backhouse,

2015; Johnson, 2011; Kabiri et al., 2018). However, no study to date has specifically investigated

the relationship between control balance theory and banned PED use among professional ath-

letes. To that end, and in building upon previous research, this study makes a contribution to the

criminological literature by testing the impact of control imbalance on doping behavior. More

specifically, multiple regression analyses are used to investigate whether an athlete’s control

deficit is related to PED use, as well as whether that relationship is moderated by several other

theoretical variables among a large sample (n = 852) of athletes from Iran.

Literature Review

Control Balance Theory

Control theories tend to focus on the factors that restrain—or, control—an individual’s behavior.

They generally do not consider the control that is exercised by the individual over his or her

environment. Tittle’s (1995, 2004) control balance theory, however, does just that. He posits that

individuals are not only objects of control but also agents of control. In this theory, control refers

to the ability of an individual to manipulate or block social or other actions and circumstances.

For some individuals, the relative amount of control is in balance. Other individuals, however,

suffer from either an actual—or perceived—control deficit or control surplus. More specifically,

individuals experience a control deficit when they are under greater control than the control

being exerted. Examples of deviance to deal with a control deficit include theft, status violations,

and vandalism. Others may experience a control surplus in which they exert greater control rela-

tive to the amount of control that they are under. Examples of deviance to deal with a control

surplus include exploitation, political influence pedaling, corporate price fixing, and environ-

mental pollution. According to Tittle (1995), the central premise of the theory is “. . . the amount

of control to which an individual is subject, relative to the amount of control he or she can exer-

cise, determines the probability of deviance occurring . . .” (p. 135).

Thus, the key concept within control balance theory is control ratio, which refers to the level

of control one exerts relative to the level of control one is subjected to. Accordingly, the associa-

tion between these two forms of control shapes an individual’s control balance (Tittle, 1995). The