KaydedilenlerDerginizi ekleyin

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

Common Method Variance: Procedural and Methodological Remedies

Mahmut BAKIR
Volkan DOĞAN
Sayfa
401–456
Yayın Tarihi
2022-11-05
DOI
—
🏛️Bu makalenin bibliyografik verileri ve tam metin bağlantısı DergiPark üzerinden sağlanmıştır.
DergiPark Kaydı ↗
✨

Yapay Zeka Hızlı Bakış & Çıkarımlar

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(1 Cümlede Hızlı Çıkarım)

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 Maddede Bu Makale

🎯
Amaç & Hipotez:This methodological paper focuses on the nature and remedies of the common method variance.
📊
Temel Bulgular & Veri:We expect that this paper, which integrates the remedies of common method variance, will increase interest in common method variance among Turkish marketing researchers.
💡
Sonuç & Katkı: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.
🔬Tür:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Kapsam:Genişletilmiş Akademik Örneklem
⚙️Değişkenler:Alan Parametreleri

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.

🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

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

📄 Tam Metin PDF Okuyucu

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

Kaynakça (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