Fans’ Perceptions of Doping in Sport: How Performance-Enhancing Drug Use and Punishment Context Shape Judgments of Athlete Misconduct

Abstract

Public reactions to athlete misconduct, particularly involving performance-enhancing drug (PED) use, play a critical role in shaping perceptions of fairness, legitimacy, and accountability in sport. While prior research has focused largely on athletes’ internal experiences, less is known about how external observers evaluate such violations. The present study examined how punishment source (sports league vs. legal court system), punishment severity (mild vs harsh), and athlete gender (male vs. female) influe public perception of athlete misconduct. In a 2 x 2 x 2 between-subjects experimental design, participants (N = 607) were randomly assigned to read a vignette describing a professional basketball player who tested positive for PEDs, with variations across the three manipulated factors. Participants then reported their perceptions of punishment fairness, institutional legitimacy, sympathy toward the athlete, and negative emotional reactions. Results indicated that punishment severity was a key driver of evaluations with harsher punishments generally associated with higher perceived fairness and legitimacy, but lower sympathy and forgiveness. Punishment source also influenced perceptions, with legal punishments often viewed as more legitimate but eliciting stronger negative emotional responses. Effects of athlete gender were more limited, though some patterns suggested a difference in moral evaluation. Additionally, individual differences in sports investment moderated responses, such as highly invested participants showed more leniency and reduced negative evaluations. These findings contribute to a broader understanding of how contextual and individual factors shape moral judgments in sport, highlighting the importance of both institutional context and personal investment in shaping public responses to ethical violations.