SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Tüketici ve Tüketim Araştırmaları Dergisi / 2021 / Cilt: 13 - Sayı: 2

Common Method Variance: Procedural and Methodological Remedies

Mahmut BAKIR
Volkan DOĞAN
Pages
401–456
Publication Date
2022-11-05
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Second, readers will capture the big picture of common method variance remedies, which can help readers to develop a novel remedy for common method variance in the future.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This methodological paper focuses on the nature and remedies of the common method variance.
📊
Key Findings & Data:We expect that this paper, which integrates the remedies of common method variance, will increase interest in common method variance among Turkish marketing researchers.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Second, readers will capture the big picture of common method variance remedies, which can help readers to develop a novel remedy for common method variance in the future.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

This methodological paper focuses on the nature and remedies of the common method variance. We expect that this paper, which integrates the remedies of common method variance, will increase interest in common method variance among Turkish marketing researchers. In addition, this paper is expected to serve as a guideline on dealing with common method variance. This paper will help readers in two main ways. First, readers will benefit from this paper finding the best solution of common method variance in their particular situations. Second, readers will capture the big picture of common method variance remedies, which can help readers to develop a novel remedy for common method variance in the future.

🔖

Cite This Article

BAKIR, M., DOĞAN, V. (2022). Common Method Variance: Procedural and Methodological Remedies. Tüketici ve Tüketim Araştırmaları Dergisi, Cilt: 13 - Sayı: 2, 401–456. https://ajindex.com/articles/619615

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (13)

  1. Aguirre-Urreta, M. I., & Hu, J. (2019). Detecting common method bias: Performance of the Harman’s single-factor test. Data Base for Advances in Information Systems, 50(2), 45–70.
  2. Antonakis, J., Bendahan, S., Jacquart, P., & Lalive, R. (2010). On making causal claims: A review and recommendations. Leadership Quarterly, 21(6), 1086–1120.
  3. Archimi, C. S., Reynaud, E., Yasin, H. M., & Bhatti, Z. A. (2018). How perceived corporate social responsibility affects employee cynicism: The mediating role of organizational trust. Journal of Business Ethics, 151, 907–921.
  4. Bagozzi, R. P. (2011). Measurement and meaning in information systems and organizational research: Methodological and philosophical foundations. MIS Quarterly: Management Information Systems, 35(2), 261–292.
  5. Bagozzi, R. P., Yi, Y., & Phillips, L. W. (1991). Assessing construct validity in organizational research. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36(3), 421–458.
  6. Bagozzi, R. P., & Yi, Y. (1990). Assessing method variance in multitrait-multimethod matrices: The case of self-reported affect and perceptions at work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75(5), 547–560.
  7. Baumgartner, H., & Steenkamp, J.-B. E. M. (2001). Response styles in marketing research: A cross-national investigation. Journal of Marketing Research, 38(2), 143–156.
  8. Baumgartner, H., Weijters, B., & Pieters, R. (2021). The biasing effect of common method variance: some clarifications. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 49(2), 221–235.
  9. Becker, T. E., & Vance, R. J. (1993). Construct validity of three types of organizational citizenship behavior: An illustration of the direct product model with refinements. Journal of Management, 19(3), 663–682.
  10. Brown, T. A. (2015). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research (2. baskı). New York: The Guilford Press.
  11. Campbell, D. T., & Fiske, D. W. (1959). Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 56(2), 81–105.
  12. Chang, S.-J., van Witteloostuijn, A., & Eden, L. (2020). Common method variance in international business research. Içinde L. Eden, B. B. Nielsen, & A. Verbeke (Ed.), Research Methods in International Business (ss. 385–398). Cham: Palgrave Macmillan. Conway, J. M., & Lance, C. E. (2010). What reviewers should expect from authors regarding common method bias in organizational research. Journal of Business and Psychology, 25(3), 325–334.
  13. Cooper, B., Eva, N., Fazlelahi, F. Z., Newman, A., Lee, A., & Obschonka, M. (2020). Addres