共同方法变异是“致命瘟疫”吗?——论争、新知与应对

doi:10.3724/SP.J.1042.2019.00587

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

共同方法变异是由构念间相似的测量方法特征引起的系统变异, 可歪曲构念间的关系, 造成共同方法偏差。60年来, 这一问题在社会科学研究中被反复提及, 但它是否严重威胁研究效度尚无定论。虽然实证证据表明, 共同方法变异普遍存在, 数据来源、测量时间、问卷设计等因素可导致共同方法偏差, 使自我报告的横断式调查研究饱受质疑, 但部分学者从测量误差和非共同方法变异的制约作用等角度做出了回应和辩护, 认为无需过度担忧。以测量为中心的新视角强调共同方法变异是测量方法和被测构念交互作用的产物, 应从方法和构念两个维度评估共同方法变异风险。建议研究者树立均衡无偏的态度, 接纳共同方法变异的存在, 纠正对自我报告的偏见, 着重通过改进研究设计做好预先应对。

关键词: 共同方法变异, 共同方法偏差, 自我报告, 研究设计, 效度

Abstract:

Common method variance (CMV) is a form of systematic variance attributed to similarities of measurement method facets between constructs. It has potential to distort observational correlations and thus elicits common method bias (CMB). Although it has been noted repeatedly in social science research for almost 60 years, its threat to research validity hasn’t been overwhelmingly acknowledged and remains to be scrutinized. Extant empirical evidence has demonstrated the ubiquity of CMV and identified distinct factors triggering CMB, including data source, time interval, and questionnaire design. As a result, cross-sectional self-reporting surveys are particularly subjected to extensive criticism. Nonetheless, some researchers contend that measurement error and uncommon method variance can offset or alleviate the underlying detriment so that pervasive anxiety regarding CMV is exaggerated and unjustified. The measure-centric approach underlines that CMV originates from the interplay between methods and constructs, and the two-dimensional CMV risk evaluation procedure should be conducted with simultaneous consideration of method and construct. From our view, it is preferable to cultivate a balanced and impartial attitude towards CMV, embrace its existence, discard the prejudice against self-reporting, and, above all, take proactive countermeasures based on the optimization of research design.

Key words: common method variance, common method bias, self-reporting, research design, validity

中图分类号:

B841

朱海腾, 李川云. (2019). 共同方法变异是“致命瘟疫”吗?——论争、新知与应对. 心理科学进展 , 27(4), 587-599.

ZHU Haiteng, LI Chuanyun. (2019). Is common method variance a “deadly plague”? Unsolved contention, fresh insights, and practical recommendations. Advances in Psychological Science, 27(4), 587-599.

图/表 3

参考文献 68

[1]	陈春花, 苏涛, 王杏珊 . ( 2016). 中国情境下变革型领导与绩效关系的Meta分析. 管理学报, 13, (8), 1174-1183. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1672-884x.2016.08.007 URL
[2]	顾红磊, 温忠麟 . ( 2017). 多维测验分数的报告与解释: 基于双因子模型的视角. 心理发展与教育, 33, (4), 504-512.
[3]	刘洋, 谢丽 . ( 2017). 中国管理研究中问卷调查法的取样与测量合适性: 评估与建议. 电子科技大学学报(社科版), 19, (2), 24-31. doi: 10.14071/j.1008-8105(2017)02-0024-08 URL
[4]	吕宛蓁, 萧嘉惠, 许振明, 曹校章, 王学中 . ( 2012). 台湾体育运动学术研究的共同方法变异. 大专体育学刊(台), 14, (4), 419-427.
[5]	彭台光, 高月慈, 林钲棽 . ( 2006). 管理研究中的共同方法变异: 问题本质、影响、测试和补救. 管理学报(台), 23, (1), 77-98.
[6]	苏中兴, 段佳利 . ( 2015). 同源主观数据是否膨胀了变量间的相关性——以战略人力资源管理研究为例. 武汉大学学报(哲学社会科学版), 68, (6), 83-92. doi: 10.14086/j.cnki.wujss.2015.06.010 URL
[7]	温忠麟 . ( 2017). 实证研究中的因果推理与分析. 心理科学, 40, (1), 200-208.
[8]	温忠麟, 黄彬彬, 汤丹丹 . ( 2018). 问卷数据建模前传. 心理科学, 41, (1), 204-210.
[9]	萧佳纯, 涂志贤 . ( 2012). 教师创意教学衡量中共同方法变异问题之探讨. 测验学刊(台), 59, (4), 609-639.
[10]	熊红星, 张璟, 叶宝娟, 郑雪, 孙配贞 . ( 2012). 共同方法变异的影响及其统计控制途径的模型分析. 心理科学进展, 20, (5), 757-769. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1042.2012.00757 URL
[11]	熊红星, 张璟, 郑雪 . ( 2013). 方法影响结果? 方法变异的本质、影响及控制. 心理学探新, 33, (3), 195-199. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1003-5184.2013.03.001 URL
[12]	叶日武 . ( 2015). 共同方法变异: 统计对策之文献回顾与实证例释. 顾客满意学刊(台), 11, (1), 105-132.
[13]	叶日武, 林荣春 . ( 2014). 共同方法变异: 古典测量理论下的检测与控制. 顾客满意学刊(台), 10, (1), 65-92.
[14]	张春雨, 韦嘉, 赵清清, 张进辅 . ( 2015). 正负性表述的方法效应: 以核心自我评价量表的结构为例. 心理学探新, 35, (1), 78-83. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1003-5184.2015.01.015 URL
[15]	郑晓明, 刘鑫 . ( 2016). 互动公平对员工幸福感的影响: 心理授权的中介作用与权力距离的调节作用. 心理学报, 48, (6), 693-709. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2016.00693 URL
[16]	周浩, 龙立荣 . ( 2004). 共同方法偏差的统计检验与控制方法. 心理科学进展, 12, (6), 942-950. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1671-3710.2004.06.018 URL
[17]	朱海腾 . ( 2018 -06-19). 共同方法变异问题的多维审视. 中国社会科学报, p. 03.
[18]	Andersen L. B., Heinesen E., & Pedersen L. H . ( 2016). Individual performance: From common source bias to institutionalized assessment. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 26, (1), 63-78. doi: 10.1093/jopart/muv010 URL
[19]	Barraclough P., af Wåhlberg A., Freeman J., Davey J., & Watson B . ( 2014). Real or imagined? A study exploring the existence of common method variance effects in road safety research. Paper presented at the 5th International Conference on Applied Human Factors and Ergonomics, Krakow, Poland.
[20]	Batista-Foguet J. M., Revilla M., Saris W. E., Boyatzis R., & Serlavós R . ( 2014). Reassessing the effect of survey characteristics on common method bias in emotional and social intelligence competencies assessment. Structural Equation Modeling, 21, (4), 596-607. doi: 10.1080/10705511.2014.934767 URL
[21]	Brannick M. T., Chan D., Conway J. M., Lance C. E., & Spector P. E . ( 2010). What is method variance and how can we cope with it? A panel discussion. Organizational Research Methods, 13, (3), 407-420. doi: 10.1177/1094428109360993 URL
[22]	Carter M. Z., Mossholder K. W., Field H. S., & Armenakis A. A . ( 2014). Transformational leadership, interactional justice, and organizational citizenship behavior: The effects of racial and gender dissimilarity between supervisors and subordinates. Group & Organization Management, 39, (6), 691-719.
[23]	Chang S.-J., van Witteloostuijn A., & Eden L . ( 2010). From the editors: Common method variance in international business research. Journal of International Business Studies, 41, (2), 178-184. doi: 10.1057/jibs.2009.88 URL
[24]	Conway J.M., &Lance C.E . ( 2010). What reviewers should expect from authors regarding common method bias in organizational research. Journal of Business & Psychology, 25, (3), 325-334.
[25]	Cortina J. M., Aguinis H., & Deshon R. P . ( 2017). Twilight of dawn or of evening? A century of research methods in the Journal of Applied Psychology. Journal of Applied Psychology, 102 (3), 274-290.
[26]	Craighead C. W., Ketchen D. J., Dunn K. S., & Hult G. T. M . ( 2011). Addressing common method variance: Guidelines for survey research on information technology, operations, and supply chain management. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 58, (3), 578-588. doi: 10.1109/TEM.2011.2136437 URL
[27]	Doty D.H., &Glick W.H . ( 1998). Common methods bias: Does common methods variance really bias results? Organizational Research Methods, 1, (4), 374-406.
[28]	Edwards J.R . ( 2008). To prosper, organizational psychology should…overcome methodological barriers to progress. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 29, (4), 469-491. doi: 10.1002/job.529 URL
[29]	Favero N., &Bullock J.B . ( 2015). How (not) to solve the problem: An evaluation of scholarly responses to common source bias. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 25, (1), 285-308. doi: 10.1093/jopart/muu020 URL
[30]	Fuller C. M., Simmering M. J., Atinc G., Atinc Y., & Babin B. J . ( 2016). Common methods variance detection in business research. Journal of Business Research, 69, (8), 3192-3198. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.12.008 URL
[31]	George B., &Pandey S.K . ( 2017). We know the Yin-but where is the Yang? Toward a balanced approach on common source bias in public administration scholarship. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 37, (2), 245-270. doi: 10.5465/AMBPP.2017.10293abstract URL
[32]	Johnson R. E., Rosen C. C., & Djurdjevic E . ( 2011). Assessing the impact of common method variance on higher order multidimensional constructs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96, (4), 744-761. doi: 10.1037/a0021504 URL pmid: 21142343
[33]	Kammeyer-Mueller J., Steel P. D. G., & Rubenstein A . ( 2010). The other side of method bias: The perils of distinct source research designs. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 45, (2), 294-321. doi: 10.1080/00273171003680278 URL pmid: 26760287
[34]	Kline T. J. B., Sulsky L. M., & Rever-Moriyama S. D . ( 2000). Common method variance and specification errors: A practical approach to detection. Journal of Psychology, 134, (4), 401-421. doi: 10.1080/00223980009598225 URL pmid: 10908073
[35]	Lai X., Li F., & Leung K . ( 2013). A Monte Carlo study of the effects of common method variance on significance testing and parameter bias in hierarchical linear modeling. Organizational Research Methods, 16, (2), 243-269. doi: 10.1177/1094428112469667 URL
[36]	Lance C. E., Baranik L. E., Lau A. R., & Scharlau E. A . ( 2009). If it ain’t trait it must be method: (Mis)application of the multitrait-multimethod design in organizational research. In C. E. Lance & R. J. Vandenberg (Eds.), Statistical and methodological myths and urban legends( pp. 339-362). New York: Routledge.
[37]	Lance C. E., Dawson B., Birkelbach D., & Hoffman B. J . ( 2010). Method effects, measurement error, and substantive conclusions. Organizational Research Methods, 13, (3), 435-455.
[38]	Lindell M.K., &Whitney D.J . ( 2001). Accounting for common method variance in cross-sectional research designs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, (1), 114-121.
[39]	MacKenzie S.B., &Podsakoff P.M . ( 2012). Common method bias in marketing: Causes, mechanisms, and procedural remedies. Journal of Retailing, 88, (4), 542-555. doi: 10.1016/j.jretai.2012.08.001 URL
[40]	Malhotra N. K., Kim S. S., & Patil A . ( 2006). Common method variance in IS research: A comparison of alternative approaches and a reanalysis of past research. Management Science, 52, (12), 1865-1883. doi: 10.1287/mnsc.1060.0597 URL
[41]	Malhotra N. K., Schaller T. K., & Patil A . ( 2017). Common method variance in advertising research: When to be concerned and how to control for it. Journal of Advertising, 46, (1), 193-212. doi: 10.1080/00913367.2016.1252287 URL
[42]	Meade A. W., Watson A. M., & Kroustalis C. M . ( 2007). Assessing common methods bias in organizational research. Paper presented at the 22nd Annual Meeting of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, New York.
[43]	Meier K. J., & O’Toole L. J ., Jr. ( 2013). Subjective organizational performance and measurement error: Common source bias and spurious relationships. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 23, (2), 429-456.
[44]	Min H., Park J., & Kim H. J . ( 2016). Common method bias in hospitality research: A critical review of literature and an empirical study. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 56, 126-135. doi: 10.1016/j.ijhm.2016.04.010 URL
[45]	Pace V.L . ( 2010). Method variance from the perspectives of reviewers: Poorly understood problem or overemphasized complaint? Organizational Research Methods, 13, (3), 421-434.
[46]	Paiva-Salisbury M. L., Gill A. D., & Stickle T. R . ( 2016). Isolating trait and method variance in the measurement of callous and unemotional traits. Assessment, 24, (6), 763-771. doi: 10.1177/1073191115624546 URL pmid: 26733309
[47]	Podsakoff N. P., Whiting S. W., Welsh D. T., & Mai K. M . ( 2013). Surveying for “artifacts”: The susceptibility of the OCB-performance evaluation relationship to common rater, item, and measurement context effects. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98, (5), 863-874. doi: 10.1037/a0032588 URL pmid: 23565897
[48]	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, (5), 879-903. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879 URL pmid: 1451625114516251
[49]	Podsakoff P. M., MacKenzie S. B., & Podsakoff N. P . ( 2012). Sources of method bias in social science research and recommendations on how to control it. Annual Review of Psychology, 63, 539-569. doi: 10.1146/annurev-psych-120710-100452 URL
[50]	Reio T.G., Jr. ( 2010). The threat of common method variance bias to theory building. Human Resource Development Review, 9, (4), 405-411. doi: 10.1177/1534484310380331 URL
[51]	Richardson H. A., Simmering M. J., & Sturman M. C . ( 2009). A tale of three perspectives: Examining post hoc statistical techniques for detection and correction of common method variance. Organizational Research Methods, 12, (4), 762-800.
[52]	Rindfleisch A., Malter A. J., Ganesan S., & Moorman C . ( 2008). Cross-sectional versus longitudinal survey research: Concepts, findings, and guidelines. Journal of Marketing Research, 45, (3), 261-279.
[53]	Schaller T. K., Patil A., & Malhotra N. K . ( 2015). Alternative techniques for assessing common method variance: An analysis of the theory of planned behavior research. Organizational Research Methods, 18, (2), 177-206. doi: 10.1177/1094428114554398 URL
[54]	Schwarz A., Rizzuto T., Carraher-Wolverton C., Roldán J. L., & Barrera-Barrera R . ( 2017). Examining the impact and detection of the “urban legend” of common method bias. Data Base for Advances in Information Systems, 48, (1), 93-119.
[55]	Schwarz A., Schwarz C., & Rizzuto T . ( 2008). Examining the “urban legend” of common method bias: Nine common errors and their impact. Paper presented at the 41st Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Waikoloa, USA.
[56]	Sharma R., Yetton P., & Crawford J . ( 2009). Estimating the effect of common method variance: The method-method pair technique with an illustration from TAM research. MIS Quarterly, 33, (3), 473-490. doi: 10.1080/15575330409490128 URL
[57]	Siemsen E., Roth A., & Oliveira P . ( 2010). Common method bias in regression models with linear, quadratic, and interaction effects. Organizational Research Methods, 13, (3), 456-476.
[58]	Spector P.E . ( 2006). Method variance in organizational research: Truth or urban legend? Organizational Research Methods, 9, (2), 221-232.
[59]	Spector P. E., Bauer J. A., & Fox S . ( 2010). Measurement artifacts in the assessment of counterproductive work behavior and organizational citizenship behavior: Do we know what we think we know? Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, (4), 781-790. doi: 10.1037/a0019477 URL pmid: 20604597
[60]	Spector P.E., &Brannick M.T . ( 2009). Common method variance or measurement bias? The problem and possible solutions. In D. Buchanan & A. Bryman (Eds.), The Sage handbook of organizational research methods( pp. 346- 362). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Ltd.
[61]	Spector P.E., &Brannick M.T . ( 2010). Common method issues: An introduction to the feature topic in Organizational Research Methods. Organizational Research Methods, 13 (3), 403-406.
[62]	Spector P. E., Rosen C. C., Richardson H. A., Williams L. J., & Johnson R. E. (in press). A new perspective on method variance: A measure-centric approach. Journal of Management. doi: 10.1177/0149206316687295.
[63]	Tehseen S., Ramayah T., & Sajilan S . ( 2017). Testing and controlling for common method variance: A review of available methods. Journal of Management Sciences, 4, (2), 142-168.
[64]	Weijters B., Schillewaert N., & Geuens M . ( 2008). Assessing response styles across modes of data collection. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 36, (3), 409-422. doi: 10.1007/s11747-007-0077-6 URL
[65]	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 & Human Decision Processes, 57, (2), 185-209.
[66]	Williams L. J., Hartman N., & Cavazotte F . ( 2010). Method variance and marker variables: A review and comprehensive CFA marker technique. Organizational Research Methods, 13, (3), 477-514.
[67]	Williams L.J., &McGonagle A.K . ( 2016). Four research designs and a comprehensive analysis strategy for investigating common method variance with self-report measures using latent variables. Journal of Business & Psychology, 31, (3), 339-359. doi: 10.1007/s10869-015-9422-9 URL
[68]	Wingate S., Sng E., & Loprinzi P. D . ( 2018). The influence of common method bias on the relationship of the socio-ecological model in predicting physical activity behavior. Health Promotion Perspectives, 8, (1), 41-45. doi: 10.15171/hpp.2018.05 URL

风险源	评分范围	说明
方法维度
数据来源	-4~4	完全自我报告计4分, 数据来源不同计-4分
测量时间	-3~3	一次性完成计3分; 时间间隔越长, 评分越低, 如间隔2天可计-1分, 间隔1周可计-2分
量表格式和选项	-2~2	两个变量采用完全相同的格式和选项, 计2分; 差异越大, 评分越低
变量维度
是否属于感知类	-2~2	两个变量均为感知类变量, 计2分; 至少一个不属于感知类变量, 计-2分
抽象性	-2~2	两个变量都非常抽象或模糊, 计2分; 至少一个比较具体, 计-2分
社会赞许性	-2~2	两个变量都有明显的社会赞许性, 计2分; 至少一个社会赞许性较低, 计-2分

风险源	评分范围	说明
方法维度
数据来源	-4~4	完全自我报告计4分, 数据来源不同计-4分
测量时间	-3~3	一次性完成计3分; 时间间隔越长, 评分越低, 如间隔2天可计-1分, 间隔1周可计-2分
量表格式和选项	-2~2	两个变量采用完全相同的格式和选项, 计2分; 差异越大, 评分越低
变量维度
是否属于感知类	-2~2	两个变量均为感知类变量, 计2分; 至少一个不属于感知类变量, 计-2分
抽象性	-2~2	两个变量都非常抽象或模糊, 计2分; 至少一个比较具体, 计-2分
社会赞许性	-2~2	两个变量都有明显的社会赞许性, 计2分; 至少一个社会赞许性较低, 计-2分