Skip to main content
Disciplines
Automotive Business IT + Informatics Construction + Real Estate Electrical Engineering + Electronics Energy + Sustainability Insurance + Risk Finance + Banking Management + Leadership Marketing + Sales Mechanical Engineering + Materials
Events
DE
EN
Books
Journals
Topic Page
Marketing
Start single access now
Access for companies
EXTENDED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Published in:
Research Methods in International Business: Challenges and Advances Read chapter Read first chapter

2020 | OriginalPaper | Chapter

21. Common Method Variance in International Business Research: A Commentary

Authors : D. Harold Doty, Marina Astakhova

Published in: Research Methods in International Business

Publisher: Springer International Publishing

Log in

Activate our intelligent search to find suitable subject content or patents.

search-config
loading …

Abstract

Common method variance (CMV) remains a long-standing conundrum in academic research. More than half a century and thousands of pages after Campbell and Fiske’s (Psychological Bulletin 56: 81–105, 1959) seminal article we are still debating whether CMV is a major problem or an urban legend. In our comment on Chang, van Witteloostuijn, and Eden’s (Journal of International Business Studies 41: 178–184, 2010) article we offer a somewhat contrarian perspective grounded in classical test theory and the recent recognition of uncommon method variance. We comment on emerging data sources and conclude by offering four guidelines that will help reviewers evaluate the extent to which CMV threatens the validity of a study’s findings.

Dont have a licence yet? Then find out more about our products and how to get one now:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 102.000 Bücher
  • über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
  • Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Versicherung + Risiko




Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now
previous chapter Common Method Variance in International Business Research
next chapter Common Method Variance in International Business Research: Further Reflections
Literature
Campbell, J. 1982. Editorial: Some remarks from the outgoing editor. Journal of Applied Psychology 67 (6): 691–700.CrossRef
Campbell, D.T., and D.W. Fisk. 1959. Convergent and discriminant validation by the multi-trait – Multi-method matrix. Psychological Bulletin 56 (2): 81–105.CrossRef
Chang, S.-J., A. van Wittleloostuijn, and L. Eden. 2010. From the editors: Common method variance in international business research. Journal of International Business Studies 41 (2): 178–184.CrossRef
Cote, J.A., and R. Buckley. 1987. Estimating trait, method, and error variance: Generalizing across 70 construct validation studies. Journal of Marketing Research 24 (3): 315–318.CrossRef
Cronbach, L.J., and P.C. Meehl. 1955. Construct validity in psychological tests. Psychological Bulletin 52 (4): 281–302.CrossRef
Davis, M.S. 1971. That’s interesting: Towards a phenomenology of sociology and a sociology of phenomenology. Philosophy of the Social Sciences 1 (2): 390–344.CrossRef
Doty, D.H., and W.H. Glick. 1988. Method variance in I/O research major effect or mythical beast? Dallas: Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology Conference.
———. 1998. Common methods bias: Does common methods variance really bias results? Organizational Research Methods 1 (4): 374–406.CrossRef
Fuller, C.M., M.J. Simmering, G. Atinc, Y. Atinc, and B.J. Babin. 2016. Common methods variance detection in business research. Journal of Business Research 69 (8): 3192–3198.CrossRef
George, G., M.R. Haas, and A. Pentland. 2014. Big data and management. Academy of Management Journal 57 (2): 321–326.CrossRef
Grinstein, A., and P. Riefler. 2015. Citizens of the (green) world? Cosmopolitan orientation and sustainability. Journal of International Business Studies 46 (6): 694–714.CrossRef
Hauser, D.J., and N. Schwarz. 2016. Attentive Turkers: MTurk participants perform better on online attention checks than do subject pool participants. Behavior Research Methods 48 (1): 400–407.CrossRef
Lance, C.E., B. Dawson, D. Birkelbach, and B.J. Hoffman. 2010. Method effects, measurement error, and substantive conclusions. Organizational Research Methods 13 (3): 435–455.CrossRef
Malhotra, N.K., S.S. Kim, and A. Patil. 2006. Common method variance in IS research: A comparison of alternative approaches and a reanalysis of past research. Management Science 52 (12): 1865–1883.CrossRef
Nunnally, J. 1967. Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Podsakoff, P.M., S.B. MacKenzie, J.Y. Lee, and N.P. Podsakoff. 2003. Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology 88 (5): 879–903.CrossRef
Podsakoff, P.M., S.B. MacKenzie, and N.P. Podsakoff. 2012. Sources of method bias in social science research and recommendations on how to control it. Annual Review of Psychology 63: 539–569.CrossRef
Richardson, H., M. Simmering, and M. Sturman. 2009. A tale of three perspectives: Examining post hoc statistical techniques for detection and correction of common method variance. Organizational Research Methods 12 (4): 762–800.CrossRef
Shaffer, M.A., B.S. Reiche, M. Dimitrova, M. Lazarova, S. Chen, M. Westman, and O. Wurtz. 2016. Work- and family-role adjustment of different types of global professionals: Scale development and validation. Journal of International Business Studies 47 (2): 113–139.CrossRef
Sharma, R., P. Yetton, and J. Crawford. 2009. Estimating the effect of common method variance: The method–method pair technique with an illustration from TAM research. MIS Quarterly 33 (3): 473–490.CrossRef
Spector, P. 1987. Method variance as an artifact in self-reported affect and perceptions at work: Myth or significant problem? Journal of Applied Psychology 72 (3): 438–443.CrossRef
Spector, P.E. 2006. Method variance in organizational research: Truth or urban legend? Organizational Research Methods 9 (2): 221–232.CrossRef
Spector, P.E., C.C. Rosen, H.A. Richardson, L.J. Williams, and R.E. Johnson. 2019. A new perspective on method variance: A measure-centric approach. Journal of Management 45 (3): 855–880.CrossRef
Su, C., Z. Yang, G. Zhuang, N. Zhou, and W. Dou. 2009. Interpersonal influence as an alternative channel communication behavior in emerging markets: The case of China. Journal of International Business Studies 40 (4): 668–689.CrossRef
Williams, L.J., and B.K. Brown. 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 (2): 185–209.CrossRef
Williams, L.J., J.A. Cote, and M.R. Buckley. 1989. Lack of method variance in self-reported affect and perceptions at work: Reality or artifact? Journal of Applied Psychology 74 (3): 462–468.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Common Method Variance in International Business Research: A Commentary
Authors
D. Harold Doty
Marina Astakhova
Copyright Year
2020
Publisher
Springer International Publishing
Book
Research Methods in International Business

Print ISBN: 978-3-030-22112-6

Electronic ISBN: 978-3-030-22113-3

Copyright Year: 2020

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-22113-3_21