Common method bias in regression models with linear, quadratic, and interaction effects

Organizational Research Methods

Volumn 13, Issue 3, 2010, Pages 456-476

  Siemsen, Enno ^a   Roth, Aleda ^b   Oliveira, Pedro ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA   (United States)

^b CLEMSON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY OF PORTUGAL   (Portugal)

Author keywords

common method variance; interaction effects; multivariate regression; quadratic effects; research methods

Indexed keywords

EID: 78049462315     PISSN: 10944281     EISSN: 15527425     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/1094428109351241     Document Type: Article

References (26)

1. 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.
11. Greene, W.H. (2002). Econometric analysis. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
12. 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.