It has become widely accepted that correlations between variables measured with the same method, usually self-report surveys, are inflated due to the action of common method variance (CMV), despite a number of sources that suggest the problem is overstated. The author argues that the popular position suggesting CMV automatically affects variables measured with the same method is a distortion and oversimplification of the true state of affairs, reaching the status of urban legend. Empirical evidence is discussed casting doubt that the method itself produces systematic variance in observations that inflates correlations to any significant degree. It is suggested that the term common method variance be abandoned in favor of a focus on measurement bias that is the product of the interplay of constructs and methods by which they are assessed. A complex approach to dealing with potential biases involves their identification and control to rule them out as explanations for observed relationships using a variety of design strategies.
Boswell, W. R., Boudreau, J. W., & Dunford, B. B. (2004). The outcomes and correlates of job search objectives: Searching to leave or searching for leverage?Journal of Applied Psychology,89, 1083-1091.
2.
Brief, A. P., Burke, M. J., George, J. M., Robinson, B., & Webster, J. (1988). Should negative affectivity remain an unmeasured variable in the study of job stress?Journal of Applied Psychology,73, 193-198.
3.
Campbell, D. T., & Fiske, D. W. (1959). Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix.Psychological Bulletin,56, 81-105.
4.
Chan, D. (2001). Method effects of positive affectivity, negative affectivity, and impression management in selfreports of work attitudes.Human Performance,14, 77-96.
5.
Chen, P. Y., Dai, T., Spector, P. E., & Jex, S. M. (1997). Relationship between negative affectivity and positive affectivity: Effects of judged desirability of scale items and respondent's social desirability.Journal of Personality Assessment,69, 183-198.
6.
Chen, P. Y., & Spector, P. E. (1991). Negative affectivity as the underlying cause of correlations between stressors and strains.Journal of Applied Psychology,76, 398-407.
7.
Connolly, J. J., & Viswesvaran, C. (2000). The role of affectivity in job satisfaction: A meta-analysis.Personality and Individual Differences,29, 265-281.
8.
Crampton, S. M., & Wagner, J. A., III. (1994). Percept-percept inflation in microorganizational research: An investigation of prevalence and effect.Journal of Applied Psychology,79, 67-76.
9.
Doty, D. H., & Glick, W. H. (1988, April).Method variance in I/O research major effect or mythical beast? Paper presented at the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology Conference, Dallas, TX.
10.
Doty, D. H., & Glick, W. H. (1998). Common methods bias: Does common methods variance really bias results?Organizational Research Methods,1, 374-406.
11.
Frese, M. (1985). Stress at work and psychosomatic complaints: A causal interpretation.Journal of Applied Psychology,70, 314-328.
12.
Frese, M., & Zapf, D. (1988). Methodological issues in the study of work stress: Objective vs. subjective measurement of stress at work and the question of longitudinal studies. In C. L. Cooper & R. Payne (Eds.),Causes, coping, and consequences of stress at work (pp. 375-411). Chichester, UK: Wiley.
13.
Glick, W. H., Jenkins, G. D., Jr., & Gupta, N. (1986). Method versus substance: How strong are underlying relationships between job characteristics and attitudinal outcomes?Academy of Management Journal,29, 441-464.
14.
Lance, C. E., Baxter, D., & Mahan, R. P. (2005). Evaluation of alternative perspectives on source effects in multisource performance measures. In W. Bennett Jr., C. E. Lance, & D. J. Woehr (Eds.),Performance measurement: Current perspectives and future challenges. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
15.
Lance, C. E., Newbolt, W. H., Gatewood, R. D., Foster, M. R., French, N. R., & Smith, D. E. (2000). Assessment center exercise factors represent cross-situational specificity, not method bias.Human Performance,13, 323-353.
16.
Lindell, M. K., & Whitney, D. J. (2001). Accounting for common method variance in cross-sectional research designs.Journal of Applied Psychology,86, 114-121.
17.
Moorman, R. H., & Podsakoff, P. M. (1992). A meta-analytic review and empirical test of the potential confounding effects of social desirability response sets in organizational behavior research.Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology,65, 131-149.
18.
Ones, D. S., Viswesvaran, C., & Reiss, A. D. (1996). Role of social desirability in personality testing for personnel selection: The red herring.Journal of Applied Psychology,81, 660-679.
19.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies.Journal of Applied Psychology,88, 879-903.
20.
Podsakoff, P. M., & Todor, W. D. (1985). Relationships between leader reward and punishment behavior and group processes and productivity.Journal of Management,11, 55-73.
21.
Rorer, L. G. (1965). The great response-style myth.Psychological Bulletin,63, 129-156.
22.
Rosenthal, R., & Rosnow, R. L. (Eds.). (1969).Artifact in behavioral research. New York: Academic Press.
23.
Shadish, W. R., Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (2002).Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
24.
Shavelson, R. J., & Webb, N. M. (1991).Generalizability theory: A primer. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
25.
Spector, P. E. (1987). Method variance as an artifact in self-reported affect and perceptions at work: Myth or significant problem?Journal of Applied Psychology,72, 438-443.
26.
Spector, P. 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.
27.
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 (Vol. 10, pp. 249-274). New York: John Wiley.
28.
Spector, P. E., Fox, S., & Van Katwyk, P. T. (1999). The role of negative affectivity in employee reactions to jobs: Nuisance effect or substantive effect?Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology,72, 205-218.
29.
Spector, P. E., Jex, S. M., & Chen, P. Y. (1995). Personality traits as predictors of objective job characteristics. Journal of Organizational Behavior,16, 59-65.
30.
Spector, P. E., Zapf, D., Chen, P. Y., & Frese, M. (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.
31.
Watson, D., Pennebaker, J. W., & Folger, R. (1987). Beyond negative affectivity: Measuring stress and satisfaction in the workplace. In J. M. Ivancevich & D. C. Ganster (Eds.),Job stress: From theory to suggestion (pp. 141-157). New York: Haworth Press.
32.
Williams, L. J., & Anderson, S. E. (1994). An alternative approach to method effects using latent-variable models: Applications in organizational behavior research.Journal of Applied Psychology,79, 323-331.
33.
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, 185-206.
