Skip to main content
Search
Search
    Quick Search anywhere
    Quick search in Citations
Advanced Search
Skip main navigationClose Drawer MenuOpen Drawer Menu
Previous article
Next article
Positionspapier

Die „Vertrauenskrise“ der empirischen Sozialwissenschaften und deren Bedeutung für die Sportpsychologie

Ein Kommentar aus der Perspektive der Vertrauensforschung

Published Online:January 23, 2017https://doi.org/10.1026/1612-5010/a000168

Abstract

Zusammenfassung. Dieser Kommentar hat das Ziel, die gegenwärtige Diskussion zur „Vertrauenskrise in der empirischen Sozialforschung“ aus der Perspektive der Vertrauensforschung zu beleuchten. Hierfür soll das Vertrauensmodell von Mayer, Davis und Schoorman (1995) auf die gegenwärtige Problemstellung adaptiert werden. Hieraus soll abgeleitet werden, welche Vertrauenskonstellationen in der Wissenschaft bestehen und ob es sich generell um eine „Vertrauenskrise“ handelt. Die hieraus geschlussfolgerten Interpretationen sollen dann in mögliche Handlungskonsequenzen für die Wissenschaft überführt werden.


The “Trust Crisis” of Empiric Social Science and Its Meaning for Sport and Exercise Psychology: A Comment from the Trust Research Perspective

Abstract. This comment aims to analyze the current discussion on the “trust crisis in empirical social science” from a trust research perspective. The trust model by Mayer, Davis, and Schoorman (1995) was adapted for the given problems of research. In this way one can deduce which trust constellations exist in science and whether this can be called a trust crisis in general. The concluded interpretations are translated into possible practical consequences for research.

Literatur

  • Büsch, D. & Strauß, B. (2015). Wider die „Sternchenkunde“. Sportwissenschaft. Online first. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s-x First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • De Vries, R., Anderson, M. S. & Martinson, B. C. (2006). Normal misbehavior: Scientists talk about the ethics of research. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 1, 43–50. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Dreiskämper, D., Pöppel, K. & Strauß, B. (2016). Vertrauen ist gut … Entwicklung und Validierung eines Inventars zur Messung von Vertrauenswürdigkeit im Sport. Zeitschrift für Sportpsychologie, 23, 1–15. First citation in articleLink, Google Scholar

  • Fanelli, D. (2012). Negative results are disappearing from most disciplines and countries. Scientrometrics, 90, 891–904. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Gelman, A. & Loken, E. (2013). The garden of forking paths: Why multiple comparisons can be a problem, even when there is no fishing expedition“ or “p-hacking“ and the research hypothesis was posited ahead of time. Unpublished Manuscript. Columbia University, New York. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Geukes, K., Schönbrodt, F. D., Utesch, T., Geukes, S. & Back, M. D. (2016). Wege aus der Vertrauenskrise. Individuelle Schritte hin zu verlässlicher und offener Forschung. Zeitschrift für Sportpsychologie, 23, 99–109. First citation in articleLink, Google Scholar

  • Hendriks, F., Kienhues, D. & Bromme, R. (2016). Trust in science and the science of trust. In B. Blöbaum & B. Blöbaum (Hrsg.), Trust and communication in a digitized world: Models and concepts of trust research. (pp. 143–159). Cham, Schweiz: Springer. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • John, L., Loewenstein, G. & Prelec, D. (2012). Measuring the prevalence of questionable research practices with incentives for truth-telling. Psychological Science, 23, 524–532. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Kerr, N. L. (1998). HARKing: hypothesizing after the results are known. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 2, 196–217. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Klein, R. A., Ratliff, K. A., Vianello, M., Adams, R. B., Bahník, S. & Bernstein, M. J. et al. (2014). Investigating variation in replicability: A „Many Labs“ replication project. Social Psychology, 45, 142–152. First citation in articleLink, Google Scholar

  • Loffing, F. (2012). „Höher, schneller, weiter?“ Ein kritischer Blick auf den Impact Factor als Beurteilungsmaß in der Wissenschaft. Ze-phir, 19, 11–17 First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Luhmann, N. (1979). Trust and Power. Chichster, UK: John Wiley. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H. & Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An integrative model of organizational trust. The Academy of Management Review, 20, 709–734. http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/AMR.1995.9508080335. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Morey, R. D., Chambers, C. D., Etchells, P. J., Harris, C. R., Hoekstra, R. & Lakens, D. et al. (2016). The Peer Reviewers’ Openness Initiative: Incentivizing open research practices through peer review. The Royal Society, 3, 15047–15054. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Nelson, L. D., Simmons, J. P. & Simonsohn, U. (2012). Let’s publish fewer papers. Psychological Inquiry, 23, 291–293. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Nosek, B. A. & Lakens, D. (2014). Registered reports: A method to increase the credibility of published results. Social Psychology, 45, 137–141. First citation in articleLink, Google Scholar

  • Open Science Collaboration. (2015). Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science. Science, 349, 943–952. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Open Science Collaboration. (2012). An open, large-scale, collaborative effort to estimate the reproducibility of psychological science. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7, 657–660. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Pashler, H. & Wagenmakers, E.-J. (2012). Editors’ introduction to the special section on replicability in psychological science: A crisis of confidence? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7, 528–530. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Schoorman, F. D., Mayer, R. C. & Davis, J. H. (2007). An integrative model of organizational trust: Past, present, and future. Academy of Management Review, 32, 344–354. http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/amr.2007.24348410. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Schweizer, G. & Furley, P. (2015). Reproducible research in sport and exercise psychology: The role of sample sizes. Psychology of Sport & Exercise. Online First. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2015.11.005 First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Simmons, J. P., Nelson, L. D. & Simonsohn, U. (2011). False-Positive Psychology: Undisclosed flexibility in data collection and analysis allows presenting anything as significant. Psychological Science, 22, 1359–1366. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Spellman, B. A. (2012). Introduction to the special section: Data, data, everywhere … especially in my file drawer. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7, 58–59. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar