This research analyzes the effects of common method variance (CMV) on parameter estimates in bivariate linear, multivariate linear, quadratic, and interaction regression models. The authors demonstrate that CMV can either inflate or deflate bivariate linear relationships, depending on the degree of symmetry with which CMV affects the observed measures. With respect to multivariate linear relationships, they show that common method bias generally decreases when additional independent variables suffering from CMV are included in a regression equation. Finally, they demonstrate that quadratic and interaction effects cannot be artifacts of CMV. On the contrary, both quadratic and interaction terms can be severely deflated through CMV, making them more difficult to detect through statistical means.
Bollen, K.J. ( 1989). Structural equations with latent variables. New York: John Wiley.
2.
Bornstedt, G.W., & Goldberger, A.S. (1969). On the exact covariance of products of random variables. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 64, 1439-1442.
3.
Busemeyer, J.R., & Jones, L.E. ( 1983). Analysis of multiplicative combination rules when the causal variables are measured with error. Psychological Bulletin , 93, 549-562.
4.
Campbell, D.T., & Fiske, D.W. ( 1959). Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 56, 81-105.
5.
Cote, J.A., & Buckley, R. ( 1987). Estimating trait, method, and error variance: Generalizing across 70 construct validation studies. Journal of Marketing Research, 24, 315-318.
6.
Cote, J.A., & Buckley, R. ( 1988). Measurement error and theory testing in consumer research: An illustration of the importance of construct validation. Journal of Consumer Research, 14, 579-582.
7.
Crampton, S.M., & Wagner, J.A. ( 1994). Percept-percept inflation in microorganizational research: An investigation of prevalence and effect. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 67-76.
8.
Doty, D.H., & Glick, W.H. ( 1998). Common method bias: Does common method variance really bias results? Organizational Research Methods, 1, 374-406.
9.
Evans, M.G. ( 1985). A Monte Carlo study of the effects of correlated method variance in moderated multiple regression analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 36, 305-323.
10.
Garber, S., & Klepper, S. ( 1980). Extending the classical normal errors-in-variables model . Econometrica, 48, 1541-1546.
James, L.R. ( 1980). The unmeasured variables problem in path analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 65, 415-421.
13.
Lindell, M.K., & Whitney, D.J. ( 2001). Accounting for common method variance in cross-sectional research designs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 113-121.
14.
Mauro, R. ( 1990). Understanding left out variables error: A method for estimating the effects of omitted variables. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 314-329.
15.
Munz, D., Huelsman, T., Konold, T., & McKinney, J. ( 1996). Are there methodological and substantive roles for affectivity in Job Diagnostic Survey relationships? Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 795-805.
16.
Podsakoff, P.M., Podsakoff, N.P., MacKenzie, S.B., & Lee, J.Y. ( 2003). Common method bias in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879-903.
17.
Rentz, J.O. ( 1987). Generalizability theory: A comprehensive method for assessing and improving the dependability of marketing measures. Journal of Marketing Research, 24, 19-28.
18.
Spector, P.E. ( 2006). Method variance in organizational research. Organizational Research Methods, 9, 221-232.
19.
Spector, P.E., & Brannick, M.T. (1995). The nature and effects of method variance in organizational research. In C. L. Cooper & I. T. Robertson (Eds.), International review of industrial and organizational psychology. London, UK: Sage, pp. 249-274.
20.
Spector, P.E., & Brannick, M.T. (2009). Common method variance or measurement bias? The problem and possible solutions. In D. Buchanan & A. Bryman (Eds.), Handbook of organizational research methods (Vol. 10, pp. 346-362). London, UK: Sage .
21.
Theil, H. ( 1957). Specification errors and the estimation of economic relationships . Revue de l’Institut International de Statistique, 25, 41-51.
22.
Verbeek, M. ( 2000). A guide to modern econometrics. New York: John Wiley.
23.
Williams, L.J., & Anderson, S. ( 1994). An alternative approach to method effects using latent variable models: Applications in organizational behavior research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 323-331.
24.
Williams, L.J., & Brown, B.K. ( 1994). Method variance in organizational behavior and human resources research: Effects on correlations, path coefficients, and hypothesis testing. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes , 57, 185-209.
25.
Williams, L.J., Cote, J.A., & Buckley, M.R. ( 1989). Lack of method variance in self-reported affect and perceptions at work: Reality or artifact? Journal of Applied Psychology , 74, 462-468.
26.
Williams, L.J., Edwards, J.R., & Vandenberg, R.J. (2003). Recent advances in causal modeling methods for organizational and management research. Journal of Management, 29, 903-936.
