Objectives: The authors aimed to develop a moral intervention and to determine whether it was more effective in preventing doping than an educational (i.e., knowledge-based) intervention; their primary outcome was doping likelihood, and the secondary outcomes were moral identity, moral disengagement, moral atmosphere, and anticipated guilt. Methods: Eligible athletes (N = 303) in the United Kingdom and Greece took part in the study. The authors randomly assigned 33 clubs to either the moral or the educational intervention. They measured outcomes pre- and postintervention and at 3- and 6-month follow-up. Results: Athletes in both interventions in both countries reported lower doping likelihood and moral disengagement and higher guilt from pre- to postintervention. These effects were maintained at the 3- and 6-month follow-ups. There were no effects on moral identity or moral atmosphere. Conclusions: In addition to disseminating information about doping, doping prevention programs should include content that focuses on moral variables.

目标：作者旨在开发一种道德干预，并确定它是否比教育（即基于知识的）干预更有效地预防兴奋剂；他们的主要结果是使用兴奋剂的可能性，次要结果是道德认同、道德脱离、道德氛围和预期的内疚。方法： 英国和希腊的合格运动员（ N = 303）参与了这项研究。作者随机分配了 33 个俱乐部进行道德或教育干预。他们测量了干预前后以及 3 个月和 6 个月的随访结果。结果：在这两个国家的两种干预措施中，运动员在干预前和干预后都报告了较低的兴奋剂可能性和道德脱节以及较高的内疚感。这些效果在 3 个月和 6 个月的随访中得以保持。对道德认同或道德氛围没有影响。结论：除了传播有关兴奋剂的信息外，兴奋剂预防计划还应包括关注道德变量的内容。