Common method variance: An experimental manipulation

Although common method variance has been a subject of research concern for over fifty years, its influence on study results is still not well understood. Common method variance concerns are frequently cited as an issue in the publication of self-report data; yet, there is no consensus as to when, or if, common method variance creates bias. This dissertation examines common method variance by approaching it from an experimental standpoint. If groups of respondents can be influenced to vary their answers to survey items based upon the presence or absence of procedural remedies, a better understanding of common method variance can be developed. The results of this study supported that common method variance can be manipulated through research design, but not to the same degree for all variables. Further, not all of the proposed remedies resulted in significant changes in the results. In addition, the CFA marker technique was used to determine the extent of common method variance in the data. The results indicated that, while common method variance existed in the data set, it did not do so at such levels as to bias results. Additionally, the results indicated support for the noncongeneric perspective of common method variance in that all items were affected to differential degrees. Taken as a whole, these findings show that while common method variance exists and can potentially cause variance in data, the bias produced is minimal. Further, the results indicate the remedies that are posited to reduce common method variance may be less effective than previous researchers believed