Abstract:There are enduring misconceptions in the marketing and management literature about the potential biasing effects of Common Method Variance (CMV). One belief is that the biasing effect of CMV is of greater theoretical than practical importance; another belief is that if CMV is a potential problem, it can be easily identified with the Harman one-factor test. In this article, we show that both beliefs are ill founded and need correction. To demonstrate our key points with greater generality, we use analytical derivations rather than empirical simulations. First, we examine the effects of CMV on correlations between observed variables as a function of measure unreliability and the sign and size of the "true" trait correlation. We demonstrate that, for negative trait correlations, CMV leads to a substantial upward bias in observed correlations (i.e., observed correlations are less negative than the trait correlation), and under certain conditions observed correlations may even have the wrong sign (assuming that the method loadings are both positive or both negative). We also show that, for positive trait correlations, the downward bias due to measurement unreliability does not always mitigate the upward bias due to CMV (again assuming that the method loadings are either both positive or both negative). Importantly, our results indicate that the inflationary effect of CMV is larger at lower levels of (positive) trait correlations, whereas the deflationary effect of unreliability is larger at higher levels of trait correlations. Second, we demonstrate analytically the serious deficiencies of the popular Harman one-factor test for detecting common method variance and strongly recommend against its use in future research.

The Influence of Common Method Variance in Marketing Research: Reanalysis of Past Studies Using a Marker-Variable Technique

Dealing with Common Method Variance in International Marketing Research

EXPRESS: Dealing with Common Method Variance in International Marketing Research

The biasing effect of common method variance: some clarifications

A metacognitive approach to understanding what marker variables measure

Accounting for common method variance in cross-sectional research designs.

Testing and Controlling for Common Method Variance: A Review of Available Methods

A Monte Carlo Study of the Effects of Common Method Variance on Significance Testing and Parameter Bias in Hierarchical Linear Modeling

The past, present, and future of measurement and methods in marketing analysis

The Effectiveness of Cause-Related Marketing: A Meta-Analysis on Consumer Responses

Real or Imagined? A Study Exploring the Existence of Common Method Variance Effects in Road Safety Research

Common Method Variance in International Business Research

Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies.

Can Harman's single-factor test reliably distinguish between research designs? Not in published management studies

Common Method Bias: It's Bad, It's Complex, It's Widespread, and It's Not Easy to Fix

Conducting Research in Marketing with Quasi-Experiments

On Detecting Systematic Measurement Error in Cross-Cultural Research: A Review and Critical Reflection on Equivalence and Invariance Tests

A Critical Review of Construct Indicators and Measurement Model Misspecification in Marketing and Consumer Research

Citation Analysis of Marketing Research: Key Contributions and Future Directions

Appropriate use of single-item measures is here to stay

Explaining Variations in the Advertising & Promotional Costs/Sales Ratio: A Reanalysis