The DOI matches its Crossref record; 91 of the 91 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Common Method Variance in Advertising Research: When to Be Concerned and How to Control for It
Abstract
In this article we discuss and analyze the critical issues related to common method variance (CMV) that are particularly relevant to advertising research and recommend best practices for assessing the effects of CMV in this domain. Specifically, we cover the development of CMV as a domain-specific methodological concern and the underlying sources of CMV that are likely to operate in cross-sectional survey-based studies in the field of advertising. We discuss in detail the available procedural and statistical techniques that can be applied to control for and/or measure the effects of sources of CMV in a single study and across research domains. In addition, we provide a critical look at how these techniques have been employed in past research and make recommendations for future examinations of CMV in advertising research.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879 · Cited by 82,194
Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix.
Campbell, D. T., & Fiske, D. W. (1959) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/h0046016 · Cited by 17,116
Self-Reports in Organizational Research: Problems and Prospects
Podsakoff, P. M., & Organ, D. W. (1986) · Journal of Management · doi:10.1177/014920638601200408 · Cited by 17,102
Sources of method bias in social science research and recommendations on how to control it
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2012) · Annual Review of Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-120710-100452 · Cited by 15,744
Accounting for common method variance in cross-sectional research designs
Lindell, M. K., & Whitney, D. J. (2001) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/0021-9010.86.1.114 · Cited by 8,490
Assessing construct validity in organizational research
Bagozzi, R. P., Yi, Y., & Phillips, L. W. (1991) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2307/2393203 · Cited by 6,621
Liang, H., Saraf, N., Hu, Q., & Xue, Y. (2007) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/25148781 · Cited by 3,921
Common methods variance detection in business research
Fuller, C. M., Simmering, M. J., Atinc, G., Atinc, Y., & Babin, B. J. (2016) · Journal of Business Research · doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.12.008 · Cited by 3,519
Method Variance in Organizational Research: Truth or Urban Legend?
Spector, P. E. (2006) · Organizational Research Methods · doi:10.1177/1094428105284955 · Cited by 3,445
From the Editors: Common method variance in international business research
Chang, S.-J., van Witteloostuijn, A., & Eden, L. (2010) · Journal of International Business Studies · doi:10.1057/jibs.2009.88 · Cited by 3,352
Cited by
Qin, H., Peak, D. A., & Prybutok, V. (2021) · Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services · doi:10.1016/j.jretconser.2020.102337 · Cited by 259
Liu, W., Jiang, M., Li, W., & Mou, J. (2024) · Technological Forecasting and Social Change · doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2024.123407 · Cited by 98
Interplay of rationality and morality in using ChatGPT for academic misconduct
Zhang, L., Amos, C., & Pentina, I. (2025) · Behaviour & Information Technology · doi:10.1080/0144929x.2024.2325023 · Cited by 48
The role of emotional attachment in IPA continuance intention: an emotional attachment model
Mamun, M. R. A., Prybutok, V. R., Peak, D. A., Torres, R., & Pavur, R. J. (2023) · Information Technology & People · doi:10.1108/itp-09-2020-0643 · Cited by 28
Valero-Amaro, V., Galera-Casquet, C., & Barroso-Méndez, M. J. (2021) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2021.797621 · Cited by 13
Metadata
- Authors
- Malhotra, N. K., Schaller, T. K., & Patil, A.
- Venue
- Journal of Advertising
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2016-11-16
- Volume
- 46
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 193-212
- ISSN
- 0091-3367 (ISSN-L)
- 1557-7805
- OpenAlex
- W2552741083
- Cited by
- 312
- References
- 91
- FWCI
- 14.23
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Common Method Variance in Advertising Research: When to Be Concerned and How to Control for It. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1080/00913367.2016.1252287
- The paper
- 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. https://doi.org/10.1080/00913367.2016.1252287
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
