Elsevier

Journal of Retailing

Volume 88, Issue 4, December 2012, Pages 542-555
Journal of Retailing

Common Method Bias in Marketing: Causes, Mechanisms, and Procedural Remedies

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretai.2012.08.001Get rights and content

Abstract

There is a great deal of evidence that method bias influences item validities, item reliabilities, and the covariation between latent constructs. In this paper, we identify a series of factors that may cause method bias by undermining the capabilities of the respondent, making the task of responding accurately more difficult, decreasing the motivation to respond accurately, and making it easier for respondents to satisfice. In addition, we discuss the psychological mechanisms through which these factors produce their biasing effects and propose several procedural remedies that counterbalance or offset each of these specific effects. We hope that this discussion will help researchers anticipate when method bias is likely to be a problem and provide ideas about how to avoid it through the careful design of a study.

Highlights

► We identify factors that cause method bias. ► We discuss the psychological mechanisms through which they produce their biasing effects. ► We propose procedural remedies to counterbalance or offset these effects.

Section snippets

When is method bias likely to be a problem?

Several researchers (Krosnick, 1991, Krosnick, 1999, Sudman et al., 1996, Tourangeau et al., 2000) have speculated that, because the cognitive effort required to generate an optimal answer to a long series of questions on a wide range of topics is often substantial, respondents cope with these demands by seeking easier ways to generate their answers. More specifically, when the difficulty of the task of generating an optimal answer is high, and a respondent's ability, natural predisposition, or

Conclusion

The purpose of this article has been to discuss the causes of method biases, the mechanisms through which they produce their biasing effects, and how to minimize or prevent these effects by implementing appropriate procedural controls. More specifically, we identified a series of factors that may cause method biases by undermining the capabilities of the respondent, making the task of responding accurately more difficult, decreasing the motivation to respond accurately, and making it easier for

A final cautionary note

That being said, it is important to note that all research involves inevitable tradeoffs and it is impossible to design a study that completely rules out all possibility of method bias. This implies that the procedural remedies discussed in this research should be viewed as a much needed complement to – but not a substitute for – the statistical remedies that have already been developed (Bagozzi, 1984, Baumgartner and Steenkamp, 2001, Podsakoff et al., 2003, Podsakoff et al., 2012, Weijters et

References (82)

  • Richard P. Bagozzi

    Causal Models in Marketing

    (1980)
  • Richard P. Bagozzi

    A Prospectus for Theory Construction in Marketing

    Journal of Marketing

    (1984)
  • Hans Baumgartner et al.

    Response Styles in Marketing Research: A Cross-National Investigation

    Journal of Marketing Research

    (2001)
  • Kenneth A. Bollen

    Structural Equations with Latent Variables

    (1989)
  • Ann Bowling

    Mode of Questionnaire Administration Can Have Serious Effects on Data Quality

    Journal of Public Health

    (2005)
  • Norman M. Bradburn et al.

    Asking Questions: The Definitive Guide to Questionnaire Design – For Market Research, Political Polls, and Social and Health Questionnaires

    (2004)
  • Michael T. Brannick et al.

    What Is Method Variance and How Can We Cope with It? A Panel Discussion

    Organizational Research Methods

    (2010)
  • John W. Brehm

    A Theory of Psychological Reactance

    (1966)
  • M. Ronald Buckley et al.

    Measurement Errors in the Behavioral Sciences: The Case of Personality Attitude Research

    Educational and Psychological Measurement

    (1990)
  • John T. Cacioppo et al.

    The Need for Cognition

    Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

    (1982)
  • Donald T. Campbell et al.

    Convergent and Discriminant Validation by the Multitrait–Multimethod Matrix

    Psychological Bulletin

    (1959)
  • Charles F. Cannell et al.

    Research on Interviewing Techniques

  • Shelley Chaiken et al.

    Heuristic and Systematic Processing Within and Beyond the Persuasion Context

  • Kevin J. Clancy et al.

    Positional Effects in Shared-Cost Surveys

    Public Opinion Quarterly

    (1971)
  • Arthur Couch et al.

    Yeasayers and Naysayers: Agreeing Response Set as a Personality Variable

    Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology

    (1960)
  • Paul T. Costa et al.

    NEO PI-R Professional Manual

    (1992)
  • James A. Cote et al.

    Estimating Trait, Method, and Error Variance: Generalizing Across 70 Construct Validation Studies

    Journal of Marketing Research

    (1987)
  • James A. Cote et al.

    Measurement Error and Theory Testing in Consumer Research: An Illustration of the Importance of Construct Validation

    Journal of Consumer Research

    (1988)
  • D. Harold Doty et al.

    Common Methods Bias: Does Common Methods Variance Really Bias Results?

    Organizational Research Methods

    (1998)
  • Lois L. Elliott

    Effects of Item Construction and Respondent Aptitude on Response Acquiescence

    Educational and Psychological Measurement

    (1961)
  • K. Anders Ericsson et al.

    Verbal Reports as Data

    Psychological Review

    (1980)
  • Jack M. Feldman et al.

    Self-Generated Validity and Other Effects of Measurement on Belief, Attitude, Intention, and Behavior

    Journal of Applied Psychology

    (1988)
  • Robert Ferber

    Item Nonresponse in a Consumer Survey

    Public Opinion Quarterly

    (1966)
  • Donald W. Fiske

    Convergent-Discriminant Validation in Measurements and Research Strategies

  • Susan T. Fiske et al.

    Involvement, Expertise, and Schema Use: Evidence from Political Cognition

  • Joe D. Francis et al.

    What We Don’t Know About ‘I Don’t Knows’

    Public Opinion Quarterly

    (1975)
  • Eric A. Greenleaf

    Improving Rating Scale Measures by Detecting and Correcting Bias Components in Some Response Styles

    Journal of Marketing Research

    (1992)
  • David L. Hamilton

    Personality Attributes Associated with Extreme Response Style

    Psychological Bulletin

    (1968)
  • Robert A. Hansen

    A Self-Perception Interpretation of the Effect of Monetary and Nonmonetary Incentives on Mail Survey Respondent Behavior

    Journal of Marketing Research

    (1980)
  • A. Regula Herzog et al.

    Effects of Questionnaire Length on Response Quality

    Public Opinion Quarterly

    (1981)
  • Douglas N. Jackson

    Cognitive Energy Level, Acquiescence, and Authoritarianism

    Journal of Social Psychology

    (1959)
  • Cited by (1672)

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    1

    Tel.: +1 812 855 2747.

    View full text