This article investigates in two ways the use and reporting of marker variables to detect common method variance (CMV) in organizational research. First, a review of 398 empirical articles and 41 unpublished dissertations that employ marker variables indicates that authors are not reporting adequate information regarding marker variable choice and use, are choosing inappropriate marker variables, and are possibly making errors in their assessment of CMV effects. Second, two data sets are presented that investigate the properties of six prospective markers to assess the degree to which they capture specific, measurable causes of CMV and the conclusions these markers produce when applied to substantive relationships. Results from the review and empirical investigation are used to expand the set of conditions scholars should consider when determining whether to employ a marker technique over other alternatives for detecting and controlling CMV and how best to do so.
BaumgartnerH.SteenkampJ. E. M. (2001). Response styles in marketing research: A cross-national investigation. Journal of Marketing Research, 38, 143–156.
2.
BeardenW. O.NetemeyerR. G. (1999). Handbook of marketing scales: Multi-item measures for marketing and consumer behavior research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
3.
BingM. N.KluemperD.DavisonH. K.TaylorS.NovicevicM. (2011). Overclaiming as a measure of faking. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 116, 148–162.
4.
BowlingN. A.JohnsonR. E. (2013). Measuring implicit content and processes at work: A new frontier within the organizational sciences. Human Resource Management Review, 23, 203–204.
5.
BrannickM. T.ChanD.ConwayJ. M.LanceC. E.SpectorP. E. (2010). What is method variance and how can we cope with it? A panel discussion. Organizational Research Methods, 13, 407–420.
6.
BrunerG. C.IIHenselP. J (1994). Marketing scales handbook: A compilation of multi-item measures (Vol. 1). Chicago, IL: American Marketing Association.
7.
BurkeM. J.BriefA. P.GeorgeJ. M. (1993). The role of negative affectivity in understanding relations between self-reports of stressors and strains: A comment on the applied psychology literature. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 402–412.
8.
ButtsM. M.VandenbergR. J.WilliamsL. J. (2006). Investigating the susceptibility of measurement invariance tests: The effects of common method variance. Academy of Management Proceedings, 2006, D1–D6.
9.
ChanD. (2009). So why ask me? Are self-report data really that bad? In LanceC. E.VandenbergR. J. (Eds.), Statistical and methodological myths and urban legends (pp. 309–336). New York, NY: Routledge.
10.
ColquittJ. A. (2001). On the dimensionality of organizational justice: A construct validation of a measure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 386–400.
11.
ConwayJ. M.LanceC. E. (2010). What reviewers should expect from authors regarding common method bias in organizational research. Journal of Business & Psychology, 25, 325–334.
12.
CoteJ. A.BuckleyR. (1987). Estimating trait, method, and error variance: Generalizing across 70 construct validation studies. Journal of Marketing Research, 24, 315–318.
13.
CramptonS. M.WagnerJ. A. (1994). Percept-percept inflation in microorganizational research: An investigation of prevalence and effect. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 67–76.
14.
CrowneD. P.MarloweD. (1964). The approval motive: Studies in evaluative dependence. New York, NY: John Wiley.
15.
De JongM. G.PietersR.FoxJ.-P. (2010). Reducing social desirability bias through randomized response: An application to measure underreported desires. Journal of Marketing Research, 47, 14–27.
16.
GansterD. C.HennesseyH. W.LuthansF. (1983). Social desirability response effects: Three alternative models. Academy of Management Journal, 26, 321–331.
17.
GraenG. B.Uhl-BienM. (1995). Relationship-based approach to leadership: Development of leader-member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years: Applying a multi-level multi-domain perspective. Leadership Quarterly, 6, 219–247.
18.
HackmanJ. R.OldhamG. R. (1975). Development of the Job Design Diagnostic Survey. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60, 159–170.
19.
HansenT. (2012). The moderating influence of broad-scope trust on customer-seller relationships. Psychology & Marketing, 29, 350–364.
20.
HardyB.FordL. R. (2014). It’s not me, it’s you: Miscomprehension in surveys. Organizational Research Methods, 17, 138–162.
21.
HarrisonD. A.McLaughlinM. E.CoalterT. M. (1996). Context, cognition, and common method variance: Psychometric and verbal protocol evidence. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 68, 246–261.
22.
JohnsonR. E.RosenC. C.DjurdjevicE. (2011). Assessing the impact of common method variance on higher order multidimensional constructs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96, 744–761.
23.
JudgeT. A. (1993). Does affective disposition moderate the relationship between job satisfaction and voluntary turnover. Journal of Psychology, 78, 395–401.
24.
LanceC. E.DawsonB.BirkelbachD.HoffmanB. J. (2010). Method effects, measurement error, and substantive conclusions. Organizational Research Methods, 13, 435–455.
25.
LidenR. C.GraenG. (1980). Generalizability of the vertical dyad lineage model of leadership. Academy of Management Journal, 23, 451–465.
26.
LindellM. K.WhitneyD. J. (2001). Accounting for common method variance in cross sectional research designs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 114–121.
27.
MalhotraN. K.KimS. S.PatilA. (2006). Common method variance in IS research: A comparison of alternative approaches and a reanalysis of past research. Management Science, 52, 1865–1883.
28.
MillerB. K.ChiodoB. (2008, October). Academic entitlement: Adapting the equity preference questionnaire for a university setting. Paper presented at the Southern Management Association meeting, St. Pete Beach, FL.
29.
PaceV. L. (2010). Method variance from the perspective of reviewers: Poorly understood problem of overemphasized complaint?Organizational Research Methods, 13, 421–434.
30.
PaulhusD. L. (1984). Two-component models of socially desirable responding. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 598–609.
31.
PaulhusD. L.HarmsP. D.BruceM. N.LysyD. C. (2003). The over-claiming technique: Measuring self-enhancement independent of ability. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 890–904.
32.
PodsakoffP. M.MacKenzieS. B.LeeJ. Y.PodsakoffN. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879–903.
33.
PodsakoffP. M.MacKenzieS. B.PodsakoffN. P. (2012). Sources of method bias in social science research and recommendations on how to control it. Annual Review of Psychology, 63, 1–31.
34.
RichardsonH. A.SimmeringM. J.SturmanM. C. (2009). A tale of three perspectives: Examining post hoc statistical techniques for detection and correction of common method variance. Organizational Research Methods, 12, 762–800.
35.
RizzoJ. R.HouseR. J.LirtzmanS. I. (1970). Role conflict and ambiguity in complex organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 15, 150–163.
36.
RobinsonJ. A. (1986). Temporal reference systems and autobiographical memory. In RubinD. C. (Ed.), Autobiographical memory (pp. 159–187). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
37.
RobinsonJ. P.ShaverP. R.WrightsmanL. S. (1991). Measures of personality and social psychological attitudes. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
38.
SchmittN. (1994). Method bias: The importance of theory and measurement. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 15, 393–398.
39.
SiemsenE.RothA.OliveraP. (2010). Common method bias in regression models with linear, quadratic, and interaction effects. Organizational Research Methods, 13, 456–476.
40.
SimsH. P.JrSzilagyiA. D.KellerR. T. (1976). The measurement of job characteristics. Academy of Management Journal, 19, 195–212.
41.
SpectorP. E. (1987). Method variance as an artifact in self-reported affect and perceptions at work: Myth or significant problem?Journal of Applied Psychology, 72, 438–324.
42.
SpectorP. E. (1994). Using self-report questionnaires in OB research: A comment on the use of a controversial method. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 15, 385–392.
43.
SpectorP. E. (2006). Method variance in organizational research: Truth or urban legend?Organizational Research Methods, 9, 221–232.
44.
SpectorP. E.BrannickM. T. (2010). Common method issues: An introduction to the feature topic in Organizational Research Methods. Organizational Research Methods, 13, 403–406.
45.
SpectorP. E.FoxS.Van KatwykP. T. (1999). The role of negative affectivity in employee reactions to job characteristics: Bias effect or substantive effect?Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 72, 205–218.
46.
SpectorP. E.ZapfD.ChenP. Y.FreseM. (2000). Why negative affectivity should not be controlled in job stress research: Don’t throw out the baby with the bath water. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21, 79–95.
47.
TierneyP.FarmerS. M. (2002). Creative self-efficacy: Its potential. Antecedents and relationship to creative performance. Academy of Management Journal, 45, 1137–1148.
48.
WatsonD.ClarkL. A. (1984). Negative affectivity: The disposition to experience aversive emotional states. Psychological Bulletin, 96, 465–490.
49.
WatsonD.ClarkL. A.TellegenA. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 1063–1070.
50.
WatsonD.PennebakerJ. W.FolgerR. (1987). Beyond negative affectivity: Measuring stress and satisfaction in the workplace. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 8, 141–158.
51.
WeijtersB.SchillewaertN.GeuensM. (2008). Assessing response styles across modes of data collection. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 36, 409–422.
52.
WeitzJ. (1952). A neglected concept in the study of job satisfaction. Personnel Psychology, 5, 201–205.
53.
WilliamsL. J.AndersonS. E. (1994). An alternative approach to method effects using latent-variable models: Applications in organizational behavior research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 323–331.
54.
WilliamsL. J.BrownB. 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.
55.
WilliamsL. J.CoteJ. A.BuckleyM. R. (1989). Lack of method variance in self-reported affect and perceptions at work: Reality or artifact?Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 462–468.
56.
WilliamsL. J.GavinM. B.WilliamsM. L. (1996). Measurement and nonmeasurement processes with negative affectivity and employee attitudes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 88–101.
57.
WilliamsL. J.HartmanN.CavazotteF. (2010). Method variance and marker variables: A review and comprehensive CFA marker technique. Organizational Research Methods, 13, 477–514.
58.
WilliamsM. L. (1995). Antecedents of benefit level satisfaction: A test of a model. Journal of Management, 21, 1097–1128.
59.
YangJ.MossholderK. W. (2006, May). Trust in organizations: A multi-bases, multi-foci investigation. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Dallas, TX.
60.
YangJ.MossholderK. W.PengT. K. (2009). Supervisory procedural justice effects: The mediating roles of cognitive and affective trust. Leadership Quarterly, 20, 143–154.
