Alison Wall, Marcia Simmering, Christie Fuller, Brian Waterwall
{"title":"Manipulating Common Method Variance via Experimental Conditions","authors":"Alison Wall, Marcia Simmering, Christie Fuller, Brian Waterwall","doi":"10.34190/ejbrm.20.1.2196","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Research data collected from single respondents may raise concerns regarding common method variance (CMV), which is believed to threaten the validity of findings. The primary concern is that CMV can inflate substantive relationships, such that they appear statistically significant when they are not. Thus, understanding the nature of CMV is critical, especially when one considers the popularity—and sometimes necessity—of using self-report data. Research examining CMV has found conflicting evidence about the impact of CMV. Researchers who believe CMV influences findings have proposed solutions to combat any real or perceived potential bias, including changing survey instructions and using marker variables, but few studies have examined the efficacy of these approaches. The purpose of this study is to examine the impact of these techniques and the nature of CMV using an experimental design. To conduct the experiment, multiple versions of a survey, which vary in their use of the remedial approaches, are utilized to collect data, which resulted in 1,069 usable responses. The experimental design was based on the faking literature and included instructions intended to induce or reduce the levels of CMV. Further, two different marker variables are used to determine the degree to which they create a psychological separation in substantive variables. Correlation analysis and measurement invariance are used to analyze the data. This study posits that, if CMV is a substantial concern for self-report data and these approaches are effective, then findings will differ in surveys that incorporate such approaches from surveys that do not. Results indicate few differences in experimental conditions, meaning that regardless of instructions or marker variable, substantive item correlations remained statistically similar. The results indicate this is likely due to the minimal impact of CMV, given that the proposed methods of correction did not significantly influence research findings. These findings have implications for researchers in that they do not support that CMV, or at least its proposed remedies, significantly alter findings. However, support for the null conclusions, in spite of appropriate statistical power, warrant future research examining the nature and impact of CMV.","PeriodicalId":38532,"journal":{"name":"Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-02-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.34190/ejbrm.20.1.2196","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Business, Management and Accounting","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1
Abstract
Research data collected from single respondents may raise concerns regarding common method variance (CMV), which is believed to threaten the validity of findings. The primary concern is that CMV can inflate substantive relationships, such that they appear statistically significant when they are not. Thus, understanding the nature of CMV is critical, especially when one considers the popularity—and sometimes necessity—of using self-report data. Research examining CMV has found conflicting evidence about the impact of CMV. Researchers who believe CMV influences findings have proposed solutions to combat any real or perceived potential bias, including changing survey instructions and using marker variables, but few studies have examined the efficacy of these approaches. The purpose of this study is to examine the impact of these techniques and the nature of CMV using an experimental design. To conduct the experiment, multiple versions of a survey, which vary in their use of the remedial approaches, are utilized to collect data, which resulted in 1,069 usable responses. The experimental design was based on the faking literature and included instructions intended to induce or reduce the levels of CMV. Further, two different marker variables are used to determine the degree to which they create a psychological separation in substantive variables. Correlation analysis and measurement invariance are used to analyze the data. This study posits that, if CMV is a substantial concern for self-report data and these approaches are effective, then findings will differ in surveys that incorporate such approaches from surveys that do not. Results indicate few differences in experimental conditions, meaning that regardless of instructions or marker variable, substantive item correlations remained statistically similar. The results indicate this is likely due to the minimal impact of CMV, given that the proposed methods of correction did not significantly influence research findings. These findings have implications for researchers in that they do not support that CMV, or at least its proposed remedies, significantly alter findings. However, support for the null conclusions, in spite of appropriate statistical power, warrant future research examining the nature and impact of CMV.
期刊介绍:
The Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods (EJBRM) provides perspectives on topics relevant to research methods applied in the field of business and management. Through its publication the journal contributes to the development of theory and practice. The journal accepts academically robust papers that contribute to the area of research methods applied in business and management research. Papers submitted to the journal are double-blind reviewed by members of the reviewer committee or other suitably qualified readers. The Editor reserves the right to reject papers that, in the view of the editorial board, are either of insufficient quality, or are not relevant enough to the subject area. The editor is happy to discuss contributions before submission. The journal publishes work in the categories described below. Research Papers: These may be qualitative or quantitative, empirical or theoretical in nature and can discuss completed research findings or work in progress. Case Studies: Case studies are welcomed illustrating business and management research methods in practise. View Points: View points are less academically rigorous articles usually in areas of controversy which will fuel some interesting debate. Conference Reports and Book Reviews: Anyone who attends a conference or reads a book that they feel contributes to the area of Business Research Methods is encouraged to submit a review for publication.