Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Common Method Variance und Single Source Bias

  • Chapter
Book cover Methodik der empirischen Forschung

Auszug

Ein beim Design von Erhebungsstudien zu beachtender Aspekt ist die Vermeidung von systematischen Messfehlern, insbesondere der Common Method Variance (Ernst 2003, S. 1250, Podsakoffet al. 2003). Es ist weitestgehend akzeptiert, dass Korrelationen zwischen mit der gleichen Methode gemessenen Variablen durch Common Method Variance aufgebläht werden können. (2003, S. 879) schreiben: „Most researchers agree that common method variance [⋯] is a potential problem in behavioral research“. (1991, S. 422) führen dies noch weiter aus: „A hypothesis might be rejected or accepted because of excessive error in measurement, not necessarily because of inadequacy or adequacy of theory“.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 44.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literatur

  • Ailawadi K. L., R. P. Dant und D. Grewal (2004): The Difference between Perceptual and Objective Measures: An Empirical Analysis, Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bagozzi R. P. (1998): A Prospectus for Theory Construction in Marketing: Revised and Revisited, in: L. Hildebrandt und C. Homburg (Hrsg.): Die Kausalanalyse. Ein Instrument der Empirischen Betriebswirtschaftlichen Forschung, Stuttgart, 45–81.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bagozzi R. P., Y. Yi und L. W. Phillips (1991): Assessing Construct Validity in Organizational Research, Administrative Science Quarterly, 63, 421–458.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bortz J. und N. Döring (1995): Forschungsmethoden und Evaluation für Sozialwissenschaftler, 2. Aufl., Berlin et al.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boswell W. R., J. W. Boudreau und B. B. Dunford (2004): The Outcomes and Correlates of Job Search Objectives: Searching to Leave or Searching for Leverage?, Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 1083–1091

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brief A. P., M. J. Burke, J. M. George, B. S. Robinson und J. Webster (1988): Should Negative Affectivity Remain an Unmeasured Variable in the Study of Job Stress?, Journal of Applied Psychology, 73, 191–198.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burke M. J., A. P. Brief und J. M. George (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, 402–426.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Campbell D. T. und D. W. Fiske (1959): Convergent and Discriminant Validation by the Multitrait Multimethod Matrix, Psychological Bulletin, 52, 6, 81–105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chan D. (2001): Method Effects of Positive Affectivity, Negative Affectivity, and Impression Management in Self-Reports of Work Attitudes, Human Performance, 14, 77–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen P. Y. und P. E. Spector (1991): Negative Affectivity as the Underlying Cause of Correlations between Stressors and Strains, Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 398–407.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Churchill G. A. (1979): A Paradigm for Developing Better Measures of Marketing Constructs, Journal of Marketing Research, 16, 1, 64–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Conolly J. J. und C. Viswesvaran (2000): The Role of Affectivity in Job Satisfaction: A Meta Analysis, Personality and Individual Differences, 29, 265–281.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cote J. A. und M. R. Buckley (1987): Estimating Trait, Method, and Error Variance: Generalizing Across 70 Construct Validation Studies, Journal of Marketing Research, 24, 315–318.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crampton S. und J. Wagner (1994): Percept-Percept Inflation in Microorganizational Research: An Investigation of Prevalence and Effect, Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 67–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Doty D. H. und W. H. Glick (1998): Common Methods Bias: Does Common Methods Variance Really Bias Results?, Organizational Research Methods, 1, 374–406.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ernst H. (2001): Erfolgsfaktoren neuer Produkte: Grundlagen für eine valide empirische Forschung, Wiesbaden.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ernst H. (2003): Ursachen eines Informant Bias und dessen Auswirkung auf die Validität empirischer betriebswirtschaftlicher Forschung, Zeitschrift für Betriebswirtschaft, 73, 2, 1249–1275.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frese M. (1985): Stress at Work and Psychosomatic Complaints: A Causal Interpretation, Journal of Applied Psychology, 70, 314–328.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greve G. (2006): Erfolgsfaktoren von Customer-Relationship-Management-Implementierungen, DUV, Wiesbaden.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harman H. H. (1967): Modern Factor Analysis, Chicago.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hunter J. E., F. L. Schmidt und G. B. Jackson (1982): Meta-Analysis: Cumulating Research Findings Across Studies, Beverly Hills, CA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jex S. M. und P. E. Spector (1996): The Impact of Negative Affectivity on Stressors and Strain Relations: A Replication and Extension, Work and Stress, 10, 36–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kumar N., L. W. Stern und E. W. Anderson (1993): Conducting Interorganizational Research Using Key Informants, Academy of Management Journal, 36, 6, 1633–1651.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moorman R. H. und P. M. Podsakoff (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 Organisational Psychology, 65, 131–149.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ones D. S., C. Viswesvaran und A. D. Reiss (1996): Role of Social Desirability in Personality Testing for Personnel Selection: The Red Herring, Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 660–679

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Podsakoff P. M., S. B. MacKenzie, Y. Lee und N. P. Podsakoff (2003): Common Method Biases in Behavioral Research: A critical Review of the Literature and Recommended Remedies, Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 5, 879–903.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Podsakoff P. M. und D. W. Organ (1986): Self-reports in Organizational Research: Problems and Prospects, Journal of Management, 12, 69–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rorer L. G. (1965): The Great Response-Style Myth, Psychological Bulletin, 63, 129–156.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shadish W. R., T. D. Cook und D. T. Campbell (2002): Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Generalized Causal Inference, Boston.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spector P. E. (2006): Method Variance in Organizational Research. Truth or Urban Legend?, Organizational Research Methods, 9, 2, 221–232.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spector P. E., S. M. Jex und P. Y. Chen (1995): Personality Traits as Predictors of Objective Job Characteristics, Journal of Organizational Behaviour, 16, 59–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williams L. J. und S.E. Anderson (1994): An Alternative Approach to Method Effects Using Latent-Variable-Models: Applications in Organizational Behavior Research, Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 323–331.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors
  1. Florian Söhnchen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Sönke Albers Daniel Klapper Udo Konradt Achim Walter Joachim Wolf

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2007 Betriebswirtschaftlicher Verlag Dr. Th. Gabler |d GWV Fachverlage GmbH, Wiesbaden

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Söhnchen, F. (2007). Common Method Variance und Single Source Bias. In: Albers, S., Klapper, D., Konradt, U., Walter, A., Wolf, J. (eds) Methodik der empirischen Forschung. Gabler. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-8349-9121-8_10

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation