Journal of Retailing 88 (4, 2012) 542555

Common Method Bias in Marketing: Causes, Mechanisms, and Procedural

Remedies
Scott B. MacKenzie a, , Philip M. Podsakoff b,1
aDepartment of Marketing, Kelley School of Business, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN 47405, United States
b Department of Management at the Kelley School of Business, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN 47405, United States

Abstract
There is a great deal of evidence that method bias influences item validities, item reliabilities, and the covariation between latent constructs.
In this paper, we identify a series of factors that may cause method bias by undermining the capabilities of the respondent, making the task of
responding accurately more difficult, decreasing the motivation to respond accurately, and making it easier for respondents to satisfice. In addition,
we discuss the psychological mechanisms through which these factors produce their biasing effects and propose several procedural remedies that
counterbalance or offset each of these specific effects. We hope that this discussion will help researchers anticipate when method bias is likely to
be a problem and provide ideas about how to avoid it through the careful design of a study.
2012 New York University. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Research Dialog on common method bias; Research methods in retailing

The dangers of the effects of method bias have long been
recognized in the research literature (e.g., Arndt and Crane
1975; Bagozzi 1980, 1984; Campbell and Fiske 1959; Cote
and Buckley 1987, 1988; Fiske 1982; Greenleaf 1992; McGuire
1969). For example, over 50 years ago in the psychology liter-
ature, Campbell and Fiske (1959) called attention to the fact
that any measuring instrument inevitably has: (a) systematic
trait/construct variance due to features that are intended to repre-
sent the trait/construct of interest, (b) systematic error variance
due to characteristics of the specific method being employed
which may be common to measures of other traits/constructs,
and (c) random error variance. In this research, they (Fiske 1982,
p. 82) defined the term method broadly to encompass several
key aspects of the measurement process including: the content
of the items, the response format, the general instructions and
other features of the test-task as a whole, the characteristics of
the examiner, other features of the total setting, and the reason
why the subject is taking the test.
Twenty-five years later in the marketing literature, Bagozzi
(1984, p. 24) further warned that it is important to understand
the sources of systematic measurement error because they can
Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 812 855 1101.
E-mail addresses: mackenz@indiana.edu (S.B. MacKenzie),
podsakof@indiana.edu (P.M. Podsakoff).
1 Tel.: +1 812 855 2747.
induce regular or irregular changes in the means, variances,
and/or covariances of observations. This especially becomes
a problem when a subset of measurements is so affected. By
suppressing or enhancing variation in selected observations in
an orderly way, sources of systematic error may influence key
phenomena of interest over and above the true causes and ran-
dom error. A few years later Cote and Buckley (1987, p. 317)
conducted a meta-analysis of 70 MTMM studies to obtain an
estimate of the amount of systematic measurement error present
in different types of measures and concluded that, although
trait/construct variance often is assumed to be large in relation to
systematic and random measurement error, Our findings indi-
cate the general assumption of minimal measurement error is
highly questionable. Measurement error, on average, accounts
for most of the variance in a measure. This observation raises
questions about the practice of applying statistical techniques
based on the assumption that trait variance is large in relation to
measurement error variance.
There are two detrimental effects produced by systematic
method variance. First, systematic method variance biases
estimates of construct validity and reliability (e.g., Bagozzi
1984; Baumgartner and Steenkamp 2001; Buckley, Cote, and
Comstock 1990; Cote and Buckley 1987; Doty and Glick 1998;
Lance et al. 2010; MacKenzie, Podsakoff, and Podsakoff 2011;
Podsakoff et al. 2003; Podsakoff, MacKenzie, and Podsakoff
2012; Williams, Cote, and Buckley 1989). Because a latent

0022-4359/$ see front matter 2012 New York University. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jretai.2012.08.001
 S.B. MacKenzie, P.M. Podsakoff / Journal of Retailing 88 (4, 2012) 542555 543

Table 1
Empirical evidence of the effects of method bias.
Nature of method bias effect Evidence Conclusion

Effects of method bias on item reliability or
validity.
Effects of method bias on the covariation
between constructs.
CFA of MTMM matrices (Buckley, Cote, and
Comstock 1990; Cote and Buckley 1987; Doty
and Glick 1998; Lance et al. 2010; Williams,
Cote, and Buckley 1989).
Estimates based on MTMM meta-analytic
studies (Buckley, Cote, and Comstock 1990;
Lance et al. 2009).
Effects of obtaining measures of predictor and
criterion variables from the same versus
different sources (summarized by Podsakoff,
MacKenzie, and Podsakoff 2012).
Effects of response styles (Baumgartner and
Steenkamp 2001).
Effects of proximity (Weijters, Geuens, and
Schillewaert 2009).
Effects of item wording (Harris and Bladen
1994).
Evidence suggests that between 18 percent and 32 percent
of the variance in items is attributable to method factors.
Meta-analytic evidence suggests that the true correlation
between traits in these studies was inflated between 38
percent and 92 percent by method bias.
Summary of evidence from meta-analytic studies suggests
that correlation between many widely studied constructs are
inflated from 133 percent to 304 percent when the predictor
and criterion variables are obtained from the same source as
opposed to different sources.
Evidence suggests that 27 percent of the variance in the
magnitude of correlations between fourteen consumer
behavior constructs was attributable to five response styles.
The correlation between items measuring unrelated
constructs increased by 225 percent when they are
positioned next to each other compared to when they were
positioned six items apart.
Evidence suggests that the correlation between constructs
was 0.21 when item wording bias was controlled, but 0.50
when it was not controlled (an increase of 238 percent).

Source: Adapted from evidence summarized in Podsakoff, MacKenzie and Podsakoff (2012).

construct captures systematic variance among its measures,
if systematic method variance is not controlled, this variance
will be lumped together with systematic trait variance in the
construct. This can lead to: (a) incorrect conclusions about
the adequacy of a scales reliability and convergent validity
(Baumgartner and Steenkamp 2001; Lance in Brannick et al.
2010; Williams, Hartman, and Cavazotte 2010); (b) underes-
timates of corrected correlations in meta-analyses because the
reliability estimates will be artificially inflated due to method
variance (Le, Schmidt, and Putka 2009); and (c) biased esti-
mates of the effects of other correlated predictors on the criterion
variable (Bollen 1989).
The second detrimental effect of systematic method vari-
ance is that it can bias parameter estimates of the relationship
between two different constructs. It has been widely recog-
nized that method bias can inflate, deflate, or have no effect
on estimates of the relationship between two constructs (e.g.,
Bagozzi 1984; Baumgartner and Steenkamp 2001; Cote and
Buckley 1988; Podsakoff et al. 2003; Podsakoff, MacKenzie,
and Podsakoff 2012; Siemsen, Roth, and Oliveira 2010). This is
a serious problem because it can: (a) bias hypothesis tests and
cause Type I or Type II errors, (b) lead to incorrect conclusions
about the proportion of variance accounted for in a criterion
variable, and (c) alter conclusions about the nomological and/or
discriminant validity of a scale.
Recently, Podsakoff, MacKenzie, and Podsakoff (2012)
reviewed the empirical evidence of the effects that method bias
has on item reliability and validity as well as on the covariation
between constructs. This evidence is summarized in Table 1.
As indicated in this table, an average of 1832 percent of the
variance in a typical measure is attributable to method variance.
In addition, estimates of the covariation between constructs are
typically inflated 27304 percent by method variance depending
upon the nature of the method factor examined. They concluded
that (2012, p. 10.27), the evidence shows that method biases
can significantly influence item validities and reliabilities as well
as the covariation between latent constructs. This suggests that
researchers must be knowledgeable about the ways to control
method biases that might be present in their studies.
Several researchers (Bagozzi 1984; Baumgartner and
Steenkamp 2001; Podsakoff et al. 2003; Podsakoff, MacKenzie,
and Podsakoff 2012; Williams, Hartman, and Cavazotte 2010)
have noted that there are two fundamental ways to control for
method biases. One way is to statistically control for the effects
of method biases after the data have been gathered; the other is to
minimize their effects through the careful design of the studys
procedures. Far more has been written about the post hoc ways
to statistically control for method bias than about the proce-
dural controls. Based on their recent review of this extensive
literature, Podsakoff, MacKenzie, and Podsakoff (2012) recom-
mended that researchers try to use what they called the directly
measured latent factor technique (Bagozzi 1984; Podsakoff et al.
2003; Williams, Gavin, and Williams 1996) or the measured
response style technique (Baumgartner and Steenkamp 2001;
Weijters, Schillewaert, and Geuens 2008). The advantage of
these techniques is that they identify the nature of the method
bias being statistically controlled. If the specific source of the
method bias is unknown or cannot be measured, then they sug-
gested the use of the CFA marker technique (Williams, Hartman,
and Cavazotte 2010) or the common method factor technique
(Bagozzi 1984; Podsakoff et al. 2003). Although neither of these
techniques is as good as the previously recommended ones,
in some situations they may be the best a researcher can do,
and they are better than relying on the weaker, conceptually
544 S.B. MacKenzie, P.M. Podsakoff / Journal of Retailing 88 (4, 2012) 542555
flawed statistical control procedures (i.e., Lindell and Whitneys
correlation-based marker variable technique or Harmans one
factor test) that have been used in some recent retailing research
(e.g., see Arnold and Reynolds 2009; Babakus, Ugur, and Ashill
2009; Grace and Weaven 2011; Spralls, Hunt, and Wilcox 2011).
In contrast, the literature provides less guidance about what
kinds of procedural controls should be implemented in a given
study to control for method bias. In part this may be because,
although many of the sources of method bias have been identi-
fied, the mechanisms through which they produce their effects
are not well understood. In view of this, the current paper con-
tributes to the literature by: (a) examining the conditions under
which method bias is likely to be a particularly serious problem,
(b) identifying the potential mechanisms responsible for it, and
(c) suggesting several procedural techniques that can be used to
diminish it. Hopefully, this information will provide researchers
with better tools to avoid or minimize the detrimental effects of
method bias.
When is method bias likely to be a problem?
Several researchers (Krosnick 1991, 1999; Sudman,
Bradburn, and Schwarz 1996; Tourangeau, Rips, and Rasinski
2000) have speculated that, because the cognitive effort required
to generate an optimal answer to a long series of questions on a
wide range of topics is often substantial, respondents cope with
these demands by seeking easier ways to generate their answers.
More specifically, when the difficulty of the task of generating
an optimal answer is high, and a respondents ability, natural
predisposition, or motivation to expend the required amount
of cognitive effort are low, Krosnick (1991, 1999) has argued
that respondents may satisfice by being less thorough in ques-
tion comprehension, memory retrieval, judgment, and response
selection. In other words, they may expend less effort: thinking
about the meaning of a question; searching their memories for
information to answer the question; integrating the information
that has been retrieved to form a judgment; and matching their
judgments to the response options presented in the question.
Our fundamental hypothesis is that responses will be more
strongly influenced by method bias when respondents cannot
provide accurate responses and/or when they are unwilling to
try to provide accurate responses. In other words, we expect
that when respondents are satisficing rather than optimizing they
will be more likely to respond stylistically, and their responses
will be more susceptible to method bias. This is consistent with
Krosnick (1999, p. 548) who observes that when respondents
are unwilling or unable to expend the cognitive effort required
to accurately answer a question, they,
. . . can use a number of possible decision heuristics to arrive
at a satisfactory answer without expending substantial effort.
A person might select the first reasonable response he or
she encounters in a list rather than carefully processing all
possible alternatives. Respondents could be inclined to accept
assertions made in the questions regardless of content, rather
than performing the cognitive work required to evaluate those
assertions. Respondents might offer safe answers, such as the
neutral point of a rating scale, endorsement of the status quo,
or saying dont know so as to avoid expending the effort
necessary to consider and possibly take more risky stands. In
the extreme, respondents could randomly select a response
from those offered by a closed-ended question.
Therefore, the key to understanding when method bias will
be a problem is to identify when respondents are likely to be sat-
isficing rather than optimizing. Generally speaking, as shown in
Fig. 1 respondents will optimize when they are able to provide
accurate answers and they are motivated to provide accurate
answers. Both are necessary. If respondents are able to provide
accurate answers, but unwilling to try to do so, then satisficing
will result. Similarly, if respondents are motivated to provide
accurate answers, but are unable to do so, once again satisfic-
ing may be the result. The ability of respondents to answer
accurately is itself jointly determined by the match between
the respondents capabilities and the difficulty of the task of
answering the question. If a respondent lacks the experience,
intelligence, and so forth needed to answer accurately, or the
task is too difficult, then satisficing will be the likely result. This
suggests that method bias is more likely to be a problem when
factors are present that: (a) undermine the capabilities of the
respondent; (b) make the task of responding accurately more
difficult; (c) decrease the motivation to respond accurately; and
(d) make it easier for respondents to satisfice (i.e., decrease the
difficulty of the task of satisficing).
Krosnick (1991, 1999) reviews a considerable amount of
empirical evidence that is consistent with these general propo-
sitions. For example, there is a great deal of evidence that
acquiescence bias is more common among respondents with lim-
ited cognitive capabilities (Elliott 1961; Jackson 1959; Schuman
and Presser 1981), for items that are more difficult to answer
(Trott and Jackson 1967), and for items that appear toward
the end of a long questionnaire when respondents are presum-
ably fatigued (Clancy and Wachsler 1971). Similarly, there is
evidence that a nondifferentiated response style and random
measurement error are more common when respondents have
limited cognitive capabilities and toward the end of a long ques-
tionnaire when respondents are fatigued (Herzog and Bachman
1981; Kraut, Wolfson, and Rothenberg 1975; Krosnick and
Alwin 1988). The same is true for response order effects (i.e., the
tendency to select the first or the last response alternative). More
specifically, several researchers have found that response order
effects are stronger for: less educated respondents (Krosnick
and Alwin 1987; McClendon 1986, 1991); respondents with lim-
ited cognitive skills (Krosnick 1991; Krosnick and Alwin 1987);
and questions that are more difficult and when respondents are
fatigued (Mathews 1927).
Finally, empirical evidence also demonstrates that respon-
dents are less likely to say dont know or no opinion when
motivation is high due to: (a) interest in the topic (Francis and
Busch 1975; Rapoport 1982); (b) the perceived ability to process
and understand information relevant to the topic (Krosnick and
Milburn 1990); and (c) inducements to optimize (McDaniel and
Rao 1980; Wotruba 1966). In contrast, no opinion or dont
know responses are more common for questions at the end
 S.B. MacKenzie, P.M. Podsakoff / Journal of Retailing 88 (4, 2012) 542555
Fig. 1. When is method bias likely to be a problem?
of a long questionnaire when motivation is low due to fatigue
(Dickinson and Kirzner 1985; Ferber 1966), and when intrinsic
motivation to optimize has been undermined (Hansen 1980).
Therefore, in the sections below we will identify some of the
factors that may increase method bias by increasing the like-
lihood of satisficing either by undermining the capabilities of
respondents; decreasing their motivation to respond accurately;
making the task of responding accurately more difficult or the
task of satisficing easier. In addition, we will attempt to link
these mechanisms to the stages in the question response process
(Krosnick 1999; Tourangeau, Rips, and Rasinski 2000). Finally,
we will suggest procedural changes researchers can make to
offset these biases.
Remedies for factors that decrease the ability to respond
accurately
To answer a question accurately, the difficulty of the task
must not exceed the capabilities of the respondent. Therefore,
factors that limit a respondents capabilities and/or make the
task of answering accurately more difficult are potential sources
of method bias. There are a number of factors that may cause
biased responding by decreasing the ability of the respondent
to answer accurately. These factors relate to the respondents
ability, experience, and/or characteristics of the items that s/he
is asked to answer (Table 2).
Lack of ability
Several researchers (Krosnick 1991, 1999; Krosnick and
Alwin 1987; Schuman and Presser 1981) have noted that low
ability (e.g., as reflected in a lack of verbal skills, education, or
cognitive sophistication) increases the likelihood of satisficing
because respondents who lack these abilities have more diffi-
culty comprehending the meaning of the questions, retrieving
relevant information from memory, and making judgments. To
mitigate this problem, researchers need to do a better job of align-
ing the difficulty of the task of answering the questions with the
capabilities of the respondents. For example, if the concern is
about the cognitive sophistication of respondents, researchers
need to ensure that the questions are written at a level that the
respondents can comprehend. This is something that should be
assessed through pretesting. Alternatively, if the concern is about
the literacy of respondents, questions can be recorded and pre-
sented to respondents in audio form to augment the written form
545
(Bowling 2005). This can be done using audio computer-assisted
self-administered interviewing (ACASI) techniques.
Lack of experience thinking about the topic
Several researchers have suggested that a lack of experi-
ence thinking about a given topic may impair a respondents
ability to answer relevant questions about that topic (Fiske and
Kinder 1981; Krosnick 1991). This can produce several detri-
mental effects. Comprehension may be impaired because a lack
of experience reduces the respondents ability to link key terms
to relevant concepts. Information retrieval may also be more
difficult because there is less information to retrieve or there
has been less practice retrieving it. Finally, a lack of experi-
ence thinking about a topic may make it more difficult to draw
inferences needed to fill in missing information, and to integrate
material that is retrieved. One obvious way to remedy this is to
make sure that you do not ask respondents to tell more than
they can know (Ericsson and Simon 1980; Nisbett and Wilson
1977). This can be avoided by exercising caution when asking
respondents about the motives for their behavior, the effects of
situational factors on their behavior, or other things pertaining
to cognitive processes that they are unlikely to have attended
to or stored in short-term memory. Perhaps more importantly,
this suggests that it is crucial to select respondents who have
the necessary experience thinking about the issues of interest in
the questionnaire. In instances where several diverse topics are
of interest, this may require asking one set of respondents (e.g.,
employees) about some topics, and another set of respondents
(e.g., managers) about other topics.
Complex or abstract questions
Complex, abstract questions are more difficult for respon-
dents to answer (Doty and Glick 1998) and increase the
likelihood of satisficing (Krosnick 1991) because they: (a)
decrease the ability of respondents to comprehend the mean-
ing of the questions, (b) make it more difficult for respondents
to know what information to retrieve from memory to answer
the question, and (c) make judgments more difficult because
they make it harder for respondents to assess the completeness
of what has been recalled and to identify and fill in gaps in what
is recalled. Obvious ways to diminish this problem are to: avoid
referring to vague concepts without providing clear examples;
simplify complex or compound questions; and use language,
vocabulary, and syntax that match the reading capabilities of the
respondents.
546 S.B. MacKenzie, P.M. Podsakoff / Journal of Retailing 88 (4, 2012) 542555

Table 2
Factors that increase method bias by decreasing the ability to respond accurately.
Conditions that cause method bias Mechanism Potential remedies

Lack of verbal ability, education, or
cognitive sophistication (Krosnick
1999; Krosnick and Alwin 1987;
Schuman and Presser 1981).
Lack of experience thinking about the
topic (e.g., Fiske and Kinder 1981;
Schwarz, Hippler, and
Noelle-Neumann 1992).
Complex or abstract questions (Doty and
Glick 1998; Krosnick 1991).
Item ambiguity (Krosnick 1991;
Podsakoff et al. 2003; Tourangeau,
Rips, and Rasinski 2000).
Double-barreled questions (Bradburn,
Sudman, and Wansink 2004; Krosnick
1991; Sudman and Bradburn 1982).
Questions that rely on retrospective
recall (Krosnick 1991).
Auditory only presentation of item
(telephone) versus written
presentation of item (print or web).
May increase the difficulty of the task of
comprehending the meaning of the questions,
retrieving information, and making judgments
(Krosnick 1991).
May impair a respondents ability to answer
because it: (a) hinders comprehension by reducing
the respondents ability to link key terms to
relevant concepts, (b) makes information retrieval
more difficult (less to retrieve, less practice
retrieving), and (c) makes it harder to draw
inferences needed to fill in gaps and to integrate
material that is retrieved.
May increase the difficulty of comprehending the
meaning of the questions, retrieving relevant
information, and making judgments.
May increase the difficulty of comprehending the
questions, retrieving relevant information, and
making judgments. Can also increase the
sensitivity of answers to context effects.
Make the retrieval task more demanding
(Krosnick 1991) and introduce ambiguities into
the response selection task by making it unclear
whether respondents should: (a) answer only one
part of the question, or (b) average their responses
to both parts of the question.
May increase the difficulty of the retrieval process
and the likelihood of satisficing because questions
that require retrospective recall are more difficult
to answer due to the relative remoteness of the
relevant information in memory.
Increases the memory load because respondents
must keep the meaning of the question and all
response options in short-term memory before
responding.
Align the difficulty of the task with the capabilities of the
respondents by: (a) pretesting questions to ensure they are
written at a level the respondents can comprehend; and/or
(b) presenting the questions in audio form to augment the
written form (e.g., audio computer-assisted
self-administered interviewing (ACASI)).
Select respondents who have the necessary experience
thinking about the issues of interest. Exercise caution when
asking respondents about the motives for their behavior, the
effects of situational factors on their behavior, or other
things pertaining to cognitive processes that are unlikely to
have been attended to or stored in short-term memory.
Avoid referring to vague concepts without providing clear
examples; simplify complex or compound questions; and
use language, vocabulary, and syntax that match the reading
capabilities of the respondents.
Use clear and concise language; avoid complicated syntax;
define ambiguous or unfamiliar terms; and label all
response options rather than just the end points.
Avoid double-barreled questions.
Refocus the questions to ask about current states because
this reduces the effort required for retrieval. Take steps to
increase the respondents motivation to expend the effort
required to retrieve the information necessary to answer the
question accurately by explaining why the questions are
important and how accurate responses will have useful
consequences for the respondent and/or the organization.
Make it easier for respondents to recall the information
necessary to answer the question accurately.
Simplify questions and/or response options. Present long,
complex, questions with many response options in written
form or with visual aids.

Item ambiguity
Item ambiguity decreases the ability of respondents to gener-
ate an accurate response (MacKenzie, Podsakoff, and Podsakoff
2011; Podsakoff et al. 2003) and thus increases the likelihood
that respondents will rely on stylistic response tendencies to gen-
erate a merely satisfactory answer (Krosnick 1991) and increases
the sensitivity of their answers to measurement context effects
(see Tourangeau, Rips, and Rasinski 2000). This can happen
because item ambiguity impairs the respondents ability to com-
prehend the meaning of the question which makes it difficult for
the respondent to generate an effective retrieval strategy, assess
the completeness of what has been recalled, and fill in gaps in
what is recalled. This problem can be addressed by using clear
and concise language; avoiding complicated syntax; defining
ambiguous or unfamiliar terms; and labeling all response options
rather than just the end points.
Double-barreled items
Double-barreled questions are ones in which opinions about
two subjects are joined together so that respondents must
answer two questions with one answer (Bradburn, Sudman,
and Wansink 2004; Krosnick 1991; MacKenzie, Podsakoff, and
Podsakoff 2011; Podsakoff et al. 2003; Sudman and Bradburn
1982). Krosnick (1991, p. 221) notes that that this type of ques-
tion can make the retrieval task more demanding, A question
that asks respondents how much they like spinach requires only
that cognitions about spinach be retrieved. But a question that
asks whether an individual prefers spinach or turnips requires
 S.B. MacKenzie, P.M. Podsakoff / Journal of Retailing 88 (4, 2012) 542555
that information about both vegetables be recalled. The more dif-
ficult the required retrieval task is, the more likely satisficing is to
occur. In addition, because double-barreled questions decrease
a respondents ability to generate an accurate response, they
may increase the likelihood that respondents will answer only
one part of the question, or average their responses to both parts
of the question. Finally, this type of question can also make it
difficult to accurately map judgments onto response categories.
The simple solution is to avoid double-barreled questions by
splitting the question up into two separate questions.
Questions that rely on retrospective recall
Questions that require the retrieval of information about
current states are easier to answer than questions that require
retrospective recall because of the relative remoteness of the rele-
vant information in memory (Krosnick 1991). The more difficult
the retrieval process, the less complete the information retrieval,
the less able the respondent is to fill in missing details and gaps
in what is recalled, and the greater the motivation to satisfice. To
compensate for this, one obvious strategy would be to refocus
the questions to ask about current states because this reduces
the effort required for retrieval. However, this may not always
be possible. In these instances, another strategy would be to
take steps to increase the respondents motivation to expend the
effort required to retrieve the information necessary to answer
the question accurately (Cannell, Miller, and Oksenberg 1981),
perhaps by explaining why the questions are important and how
their accurate responses will have useful consequences for them
and/or their organization. Yet another strategy would be to make
it easier for respondents to recall the information necessary to
answer the question accurately. Depending upon the nature of the
question of interest, Schrder (2011, p. 15) notes three things
that can be done to make this information easier for respon-
dents to recall: (a) to facilitate top-down retrieval, specify large
topics first and then move within these topics to the more spe-
cific events; (b) to facilitate temporal retrieval, start with the
first (or the last) event and then move forward (or backward)
chronologically; and (c) to facilitate parallel retrieval, ask about
contemporaneous events all at the same time.
Auditory versus written presentation of items
The most common data collection methods used in marketing
studies are: (a) auditory only presentation of items via telephone
or face-to-face interviews or (b) written presentation of items
by means of traditional pencil and paper self-completion ques-
tionnaires or computer-assisted self-completion questionnaires.
These methods confound two key factors that potentially affect
method bias. One is the modality through which the items are
presented auditory mode or visual mode. The other is who
administers the questions an interviewer or self-administration
by the respondent. The former primarily affects the difficulty of
the task of answering the question accurately, whereas the latter
primarily affects a respondents motivation to answer accurately.
Consequently, we will discuss the issues related to the modal-
ity through which the items are presented in this section and
the issues related to the presence of an interviewer in the next
section.
547
The modality through which the items are presented (audi-
tory or visual) can potentially influence method bias because
it can affect the cognitive demands placed on the respondent.
Compared to visual presentation, auditory only presentation of
the items may increase the difficulty of the task of respon-
ding accurately because respondents must keep the meaning
of the question and all response options in short-term mem-
ory before answering. In addition, an auditory only presentation
does not permit the respondent to control the rate of information
exchange, and no visual cues are present to reinforce the mean-
ing of the items or the response options. Indeed, Tourangeau,
Rips, and Rasinski (2000, pp. 292293) have noted that, Audi-
tory presentation (without simultaneous visual display), of long
or complicated questions may overtax the respondents listen-
ing ability, reducing their comprehension. Moreover, when the
question has numerous response options, it may be difficult
for respondents to keep them all in mind . . . [and] When the
questions are only read aloud, respondents have little control
over the pace at which questions and response options are pre-
sented and may begin by considering the options that come at
the end of the list. One way to diminish this problem would
be to present the items in visual form in addition to auditory
form (e.g., computer assisted self-completion questionnaire with
audio), or present long, complex, questions with many response
options with visual aids. Beyond this, it would help to simplify
the questions and/or response options to the extent possible.
Remedies for factors that decrease the motivation to
respond accurately
To answer accurately, it is essential for respondents to have
not only the ability to answer questions correctly, but also the
motivation to do so. Consequently, factors that diminish the
motivation of respondents are potential sources of method bias.
Broadly speaking, many of these factors identified in previous
research are dispositional characteristics of the respondent, self-
referential characteristics, or characteristics of the measurement
context (Table 3).
Low personal relevance of the issue
Both the Elaboration Likelihood Model (Petty and Cacioppo
1986) and the Heuristic Systematic Model (Chaiken, Liberman,
and Eagly 1989) imply that when an issue is perceived to
have little personal relevance to respondents, it may decrease
their motivation to exert cognitive effort to answer the ques-
tion and increase the desire to satisfice. Consequently, this may
decrease their willingness to assess the completeness and accu-
racy of information retrieved, fill in gaps in what is recalled,
and integrate the information retrieved. Similarly, Krosnick
(1999) has noted that questions that are perceived to be unim-
portant or that are not expected to have useful consequences
may undermine motivation and result in poorer comprehension,
less thorough retrieval, less careful judgment and mapping of
judgments onto response categories, and can lead to respon-
ding in a stylistic or nondifferentiated manner. To compensate
for this an attempt could be made to increase motivation by:
(a) explaining to respondents why the questions are important
548 S.B. MacKenzie, P.M. Podsakoff / Journal of Retailing 88 (4, 2012) 542555
Table 3
Factors that increase method bias by decreasing the motivation to respond accurately.
Conditions that cause method bias
Low personal relevance of the issue
(Chaiken, Liberman, and Eagly 1989;
Krosnick 1999; Petty and Cacioppo 1986).
Low self-efficacy to provide a correct answer
(Chaiken, Liberman, and Eagly 1989).
Low need for cognition (Cacioppo and Petty
1982).
Low need for self-expression,
self-disclosure, or emotional catharsis
(Krosnick 1999).
Low feelings of altruism (Krosnick 1999;
Orne 1962; Viswanathan 2005).
Agreeableness (Costa and McCrae 1992;
Knowles and Condon 1999).
Impulsiveness (Couch and Keniston 1960;
Messick 1991).
Dogmatism, rigidity, or intolerance of
ambiguity (Baumgartner and Steenkamp
2001; Hamilton 1968).
Implicit theories (Lord et al. 1978; Podsakoff
et al. 2003; Staw 1975).
Mechanism
May decrease a respondents motivation to exert
cognitive effort and result in: poorer
comprehension; less thorough retrieval; and less
careful judgment and mapping of judgments
onto response categories.
May decrease motivation to exert cognitive effort
which decreases a persons willingness to: assess
the completeness and accuracy of information
retrieved, fill in gaps in what is recalled, and trust
his/her own inferences based on partial retrieval.
May decrease motivation to exert cognitive effort
and thereby diminish: (a) the thoroughness of
information retrieval and integration processes,
and (b) the filling in of gaps in what is recalled.
May decrease motivation to exert cognitive
effort and thereby decrease (a) the thoroughness
of information retrieval and (b) the filling in of
gaps in what is recalled. As a result, these
factors may cause people to respond to items
carelessly, randomly, or nonpurposefully.
May decrease intentions to exert cognitive effort
on behalf of the researcher which can decrease
the thoroughness of information retrieval and the
filling in of gaps in what is recalled.
Increases the tendency to uncritically endorse or
acquiesce to statements, search for cues
suggesting how to respond, and edit responses
for acceptability. According to the dual process
theory, acquiescence results from a premature
truncation of the reconsideration stage of
comprehension.
May: (a) impair comprehension by decreasing
attention to questions and instructions; (b)
diminish the tendency to assess the
completeness and accuracy of information
retrieved, fill in gaps in what is recalled, and
integrate the information retrieved; and (c) result
in carelessness in mapping judgments onto
response categories.
Dogmatism (or rigidity) may heighten feelings
of certainty and thus increase willingness to:
make an estimate based on partial retrieval;
and/or draw inferences based on accessibility or
to fill in gaps in what is recalled. Dogmatism (or
intolerance for ambiguity) can cause people to
view things as either black or white, thus
increasing the likelihood that they will map
judgments onto extreme response categories.
May motivate respondents to edit their responses
in a manner that is consistent with their theory.
Potential remedies
Explain to respondents why the questions are important
and how their accurate responses will have useful
consequences for them and/or their organization; and/or
promise feedback to respondents to motivate them to
respond more accurately so that they can gain greater
self-understanding, enhance self-efficacy, and improve
performance.
Emphasizing to respondents that it is their personal
opinions that are important, and only their personal
experience or knowledge is required to answer the
questions.
Enhance motivation to exert cognitive effort by
emphasizing the importance of the issues; reminding
respondents of how research can benefit them or help
the organization; or increasing personal relevance of the
task.
Enhance the motivation for self-expression by
explaining in the cover story or instructions that we
value your opinion, we need your feedback, or that
we want respondents to tell us what you think, and so
forth. Similarly, enhance willingness to self-disclose by
emphasizing the personal benefits of the research to
them (e.g., improved performance and increased
self-awareness) in the instructions.
Explain how much the respondents help is needed,
indicating that others are depending upon the accuracy
of the responses; suggest that no one else can provide
the needed information (or you are one of the few that
can); and/or remind them how research can improve the
quality of life for others or help the organization.
Through instructions, stress the fact that the best way to
help the researcher is to answer the questions as
accurately as possible. Enhance motivation by
emphasizing the importance of the issues; reminding
respondents of how research can benefit them or help
the organization; or increasing personal relevance of the
task. In addition, measure acquiescence response style
and control for it.
Stress the importance of conscientiousness and
accuracy, and encourage respondents to carefully weigh
the alternatives before responding.
Stress the importance of conscientiousness and
accuracy, and encourage respondents to carefully weigh
the alternatives before responding. Measure extreme
response style and control for it.
Introduce a temporal, proximal, or spatial separation;
and/or obtain the information about the predictor and
criterion variables from separate sources.
 S.B. MacKenzie, P.M. Podsakoff / Journal of Retailing 88 (4, 2012) 542555 549

Table 3 (Continued)
Conditions that cause method bias Mechanism Potential remedies

Repetitiveness of the items (Petty and
Cacioppo 1986).
Lengthy scales (Krosnick 1999).
Forced participation (Brehm 1966).
Presence of an interviewer (Bowling 2005).
Source of the survey is disliked (Krosnick
1999).
Contexts that arouse suspicions
(Baumgartner and Steenkamp 2001;
Schmitt 1994).
Measurement conditions that make the
consequences of a response salient (see
Paulhus 1984; Steenkamp, DeJong, and
Baumgartner 2010).
May decrease motivation to maintain the
cognitive effort required to provide optimal
answers and increase the tendency to respond in
a nondifferentiated manner or stylistically.
May decrease motivation to maintain the
cognitive effort required to provide optimal
answers, and result in poorer comprehension,
less thorough retrieval, less careful judgment
and mapping of judgments onto response
categories, and/or stylistic responding.
May increase psychological reactance and
consequently decrease the motivation to exert
cognitive effort to generate accurate answers or
to faithfully report those answers.
May motivate respondents to edit their answers
to make them more socially desirable to avoid
any social consequences of expressing their true
judgments.
May decrease: the desire to cooperate;
willingness to exert the cognitive effort required
to generate optimal answers; or motivation to
faithfully report those answers.
May motivate respondents to conceal their true
opinion by editing their responses. They might
do this by using the middle scale category
regardless of their true feelings, or by
responding to items carelessly, randomly, or
nonpurposefully.
May increase desire to edit answers in order to
provide a socially acceptable response or to
avoid undesirable consequences.
Increase motivation by minimizing the repetitiveness of
the items, making the questions seem less repetitive by
reversing some items (i.e., polar opposites not
negations), or changing the format.
Increase motivation by minimizing the length of the
survey, simplifying the questions, making the questions
seem less repetitive by reversing some items (i.e., polar
opposites not negations), or changing the format.
Solicit participation by promising rewards rather than
by threatening punishment. Treat participants in a
respectful manner, show that you value their time, and
express appreciation for their participation.
If appropriate, utilize a self-administered method of data
collection (e.g., traditional paper and pencil or
computer-assisted questionnaire). If this is
inappropriate, assure respondents in the cover story or
instructions that there are no right or wrong answers,
that people have many different opinions about the
issues addressed in the questionnaire, that their
responses will only be used for research purposes, and
that their individual responses will not be revealed to
anyone else.
Treat participants in a respectful manner, show that you
value their time, and express appreciation for their
participation. If the dislike relates to an impersonal
source of the survey, you can attempt to disguise the
source.
Suspicions may be mitigated by explaining how the
information will be used, why the information is being
requested, who will see the responses, and how the
information will be kept secure. In addition, one could
assure participants that their responses will be used only
for research purposes, will be aggregated with the
responses of others, and that no one in their organization
will see their individual responses. Measure midpoint
response style and control for it.
Can be diminished by guaranteeing anonymity, telling
respondents there are no right or wrong answers, and
assuring them that people have different opinions about
the issues addressed in the questionnaire.

and how their accurate responses will have useful consequences
for them and/or their organization; or (b) promising feedback
to respondents (where appropriate) so that they can gain greater
self-understanding, enhance self-efficacy, and/or improve their
performance.
Low self-efcacy to provide a correct answer
Chaiken, Liberman, and Eagly (1989) noted that a respon-
dents perceived self-efficacy to provide a correct answer can
influence how much cognitive effort s/he is willing to exert
to answer a question. This suggests that, low perceived self-
efficacy to answer a question can decrease motivation to exert
cognitive effort, which can subsequently decrease a respondents
willingness to: (a) assess the completeness and accuracy of infor-
mation retrieved, (b) fill in gaps in what is recalled, and (c) trust
his/her own inferences based on partial retrieval. In addition,
low perceived self-efficacy may also increase the likelihood that
respondents will use the middle scale category regardless of their
true feelings because they lack confidence in their responses.
One remedy for this perceived lack of self-efficacy would be
to emphasize to respondents that it is their personal opinions
that are important and that only their personal experience or
knowledge is required to answer the questions.
Low need for cognition
Cacioppo and Petty (1982) demonstrated that if need for cog-
nition (i.e., chronic motivation to exert cognitive effort) is low,
it is likely to decrease the thoroughness of information retrieval
and integration processes and the extent to which the respondent
attempts to fill in missing details and gaps in what is recalled.
550 S.B. MacKenzie, P.M. Podsakoff / Journal of Retailing 88 (4, 2012) 542555
More generally, it can decrease a respondents motivation to
exert the cognitive effort required to provide optimal answers
and increase his/her desire to satisfice by responding stylistically
or in a nondifferentiated manner. This chronically low level of
motivation to exert cognitive effort might be temporarily com-
pensated for by enhancing motivation through other means. This
might be done by emphasizing the importance of the issues;
reminding respondents of how research can benefit them or help
their organization; or increasing the personal relevance of the
task of answering the questions.
Low need for self-expression, self-disclosure, or emotional
catharsis
Krosnick (1999) noted that these self-referential factors can
decrease a respondents motivation to exert the cognitive effort
required to provide optimal answers. This is likely to decrease
the thoroughness of information retrieval and the extent to which
the respondent attempts to fill in missing details and gaps in what
is recalled. Thus, these factors may have a tendency to cause
people to respond to items carelessly, randomly, or nonpurpose-
fully. To counter this tendency, the desire for self-expression or
emotional catharsis may be enhanced by explaining in the cover
story or instructions that we value your opinion, we need your
feedback, or that we want you to tell us what you think, and
so forth. Similarly, to increase the willingness of respondents
to self-disclose, the instructions could emphasize the personal
benefits of the research to them (e.g., improved performance and
increased self-awareness).
Low feelings of altruism
Low feelings of altruism toward the sponsor of the research
project can decrease intentions to exert cognitive effort to help
the sponsor, and thereby decrease the thoroughness of informa-
tion retrieval and the respondents willingness to try to fill in
missing details and gaps in what is recalled. More generally,
this may increase the respondents tendency to satisfice by res-
ponding in a nondifferentiated manner or stylistically (Krosnick
1991, 1999). Feelings of altruism toward the sponsor of the
research might be increased by explaining why the respondents
help is needed, indicating that others (who the respondent cares
about) are depending upon the accuracy of the responses, or sug-
gesting that no one else can provide the needed information (or
the respondent is one of the few that can). It might also help to
remind the respondents of how research can improve the quality
of life for others and/or help the organization.
Agreeableness
Costa and McCrae (1992) have noted that agreeableness is a
tendency to be compassionate and cooperative rather than suspi-
cious and antagonistic toward others, and that agreeable people
are especially concerned with maintaining or enhancing social
harmony. Consequently, people high in agreeableness may have
a tendency to uncritically endorse or acquiesce to statements,
search for cues that suggest how they should respond, and edit
their responses for acceptability. One way to compensate for this
would be to stress the fact that the best way for respondents to
help the researcher is to answer the questions as accurately as
possible. This could be done through instructions that encourage
respondents to tell us what you honestly think and that we
need your opinion. Another way to control this bias might be to
measure the respondents acquiescence response style and con-
trol for it using the procedures recommended by Baumgartner
and Steenkamp (2001) and Weijters, Schillewaert, and Geuens
(2008).
Impulsiveness
Impulsiveness causes respondents to react to questions
quickly, with little reflection, and little monitoring of judgments.
This trait has been linked to response bias in several studies
(Couch and Keniston 1960; Messick 1991). Impulsiveness can:
(a) impair comprehension by decreasing attention to questions
and instructions; (b) diminish the tendency to assess the com-
pleteness and accuracy of information retrieved, fill in gaps in
what is recalled, and integrate the information retrieved; and (c)
result in carelessness in mapping judgments onto response cat-
egories. One way to offset this tendency might be to stress the
importance of conscientiousness and accuracy in the instructions
to respondents and/or to encourage them to carefully weigh the
alternatives before responding.
Dogmatism, rigidity, or intolerance for ambiguity
Research (Baumgartner and Steenkamp 2001; Hamilton
1968) suggests that dogmatism, rigidity, and intolerance for
ambiguity can produce biased responding for several reasons.
First, rigidity and dogmatism can heighten a persons willing-
ness to make judgments or fill in gaps based on only partial
retrieval, and cause people to be more willing to draw infer-
ences based on information accessibility, because people who
are high in these traits tend to feel certain of everything. Second,
dogmatism (or intolerance for ambiguity) can make people view
things as either black or white, thus increasing the likelihood that
they will map judgments onto extreme response categories. One
way to manage the latter problem would be to measure extreme
response style and control for it (Baumgartner and Steenkamp
2001). Managing the former problem is more difficult, but might
be mitigated to some degree by stressing the importance of
conscientiousness and accuracy in the instructions to respon-
dents and/or by encouraging respondents to carefully weigh the
alternatives before answering.
Implicit theories
If respondents have an implicit theory (Lord et al. 1978; Staw
1975) that two constructs are related, they may be motivated to
fill in gaps in what is recalled in a manner that is consistent
with their implicit theory, or to edit their responses in a man-
ner that is consistent with their theory. Podsakoff et al. (2003)
and Podsakoff, MacKenzie, and Podsakoff (2012) have argued
that one way to diminish this tendency is to obtain the infor-
mation about the two constructs linked by the implicit theory
from separate sources, or introduce a temporal, psychological,
or spatial separation between the measures of the two constructs
linked by the implicit theory. Introducing a temporal separation
between the measures of two constructs linked by an implicit
theory decreases the likelihood that the answers to the first set
 S.B. MacKenzie, P.M. Podsakoff / Journal of Retailing 88 (4, 2012) 542555
of measures will be available in the respondents short-term
memory at the time s/he answers the second set of measures.
Introducing a psychological separation between the measures of
two constructs linked by an implicit theory decreases the diag-
nosticity of the answers to the first set of measures as cues to
how to respond to the second set of measures (cf. Feldman and
Lynch 1988). Finally, introducing a spatial separation between
the measures of two constructs linked by an implicit theory can
(under some circumstances) make the answers to the first set
of measures physically unavailable at the time the respondent
answers the second set of measures.
Repetitiveness
According to Petty and Cacioppos (1986) Elaboration Like-
lihood Model, excessive repetition of a message decreases
the motivation to centrally process it. This suggests that the
repetitiveness of the items on a questionnaire may decrease a
respondents motivation to maintain the cognitive effort required
to provide optimal answers and increase the desire to satisfice
by responding in a nondifferentiated manner or stylistically. The
obvious solution is to maintain the respondents motivation to
provide accurate answers by minimizing the repetitiveness of the
items or making the questions seem less repetitive by reversing
some items (i.e., polar opposites but not negations), or varying
the scale format.
Lengthy scales
Several researchers have noted that a seemingly unending
stream of questions may cause respondents to become fatigued
or irritated (Clancy and Wachsler 1971; Schuman and Presser
1981). This may decrease a respondents motivation to maintain
the cognitive effort required to provide optimal answers and
increase the desire to satisfice (e.g., by mechanically acquiesc-
ing to items). This may also result in poorer comprehension due
to careless reading of items, less thorough retrieval, less careful
judgment and mapping of judgments onto response categories,
and can lead to responding in a stylistic or nondifferentiated
manner. This can be mitigated by increasing the motivation to
provide accurate answers by shortening the length of the sur-
vey, simplifying the questions, making the questions seem less
repetitive by reversing some items (i.e., polar opposites but not
negations), or changing the format.
Forced participation
Compelling respondents to participate in the survey (e.g., to
fulfill a course requirement or a request by top management) can
increase psychological reactance (Brehm 1966) and the desire to
rebel. This may subsequently decrease a respondents motivation
to exert the cognitive effort required to generate optimal answers,
or decrease his/her motivation to faithfully report those answers.
Consequently, the respondent may be less likely to cooperate by:
carefully attending to the questions and instructions; thoroughly
retrieving relevant information from memory and filling in gaps
in what is recalled; and conscientiously mapping judgments onto
response categories. Perhaps the most effective way to avoid this
problem would be to solicit participation by promising rewards
rather than by threatening punishment. Beyond this, the tendency
551
to rebel might also be diminished by treating participants in a
respectful manner, showing that you value their time (i.e., by not
wasting it), and expressing appreciation for their participation.
Presence of an interviewer
The mere presence of an interviewer may motivate respon-
dents to edit their answers to make them more socially desirable
to avoid any social consequences of expressing their true
judgments. Indeed, Bowlings (2005) review of the empirical lit-
erature demonstrates that social desirability bias and yea-saying
bias are higher, and willingness to disclose sensitive informa-
tion is lower, for interviews (face-to-face or telephone) than for
self-administered questionnaires (paper and pencil or computer-
assisted). Perhaps the most obvious solution to this potential
problem would be to avoid the use of an interviewer by utilizing
a self-administered method of data collection (e.g., traditional
paper and pencil or computer-assisted questionnaire). However,
in those cases where this is infeasible, or undesirable, one could
partially diffuse this issue by assuring respondents in the cover
story or instructions that there are no right or wrong answers, that
people have many different opinions about the issues addressed
in the questionnaire, that their responses will only be used for
research purposes, and that their individual responses will not
be revealed to anyone else.
Source of survey is disliked
If the interviewer, experimenter, or sponsor of the survey is
disliked by respondents it may decrease the respondents desire
to cooperate which may decrease their motivation to exert the
cognitive effort required to generate optimal answers or faith-
fully report those answers. Consequently, respondents may be
less likely to expend the cognitive effort necessary to carefully
attend to the questions and instructions, retrieve relevant infor-
mation from memory, fill in gaps in what is recalled, and select
the appropriate response categories. The remedy for this depends
upon the source that is disliked by respondents. If the dislike
is for an interviewer or experimenter, steps could be taken to
establish rapport with the respondents. If the dislike relates to
the sponsor of the survey, an attempt could be made to dis-
guise the source. In addition, it is always important to treat
participants in a respectful manner, show that you value their
time (i.e., by not wasting it), and express appreciation for their
participation.
Contexts that arouse suspicions
Several researchers (Baumgartner and Steenkamp 2001;
Schmitt 1994) have noted that when respondents are suspicious
about how the data will be used, they may be motivated to con-
ceal their true opinions by editing their responses. They might
do this by using the middle scale category regardless of their
true feelings, or perhaps by responding to items carelessly, ran-
domly, or nonpurposefully. These suspicions may be mitigated
by explaining (to the extent possible) why the information is
being requested, how the information will be used, and how the
information will be kept secure. Beyond this, if possible, it would
also be beneficial to assure participants that their responses will
be used only for research purposes, will be aggregated with the
552 S.B. MacKenzie, P.M. Podsakoff / Journal of Retailing 88 (4, 2012) 542555

Table 4
Factors that increase method bias by decreasing the difficulty of satisficing.
Conditions that cause method bias Mechanism Potential remedies

Common scale attributes (e.g., the same scale
types, scale points, and anchor labels).
Grouping related items together.
The availability of answers to previous
questions (physically or in memory).
May heighten the perceived similarity and
redundancy of items; and encourage respondents
to be less thorough in item comprehension,
memory retrieval, and judgment. This also
makes it easier to edit answers for consistency
which decreases difficulty of satisficing.
May heighten the perceived similarity and
redundancy of items; and encourage respondents
to be less thorough in item comprehension,
memory retrieval, and judgment. This also
makes it easier to edit answers for consistency
which decreases difficulty of satisficing; and
makes it easier to use previously recalled
information and prior answers to respond to the
current question.
This may make it easier to: (a) use previously
recalled information and answers to respond to
the current question (i.e., judgment referral); and
(b) provide answers that are consistent with each
other or with an implicit theory.
Explain to respondents that although some questions
may seem similar, each is unique in important ways.
Encourage them to read each item carefully. Vary the
scale types and anchor labels and/or reverse the wording
of some of the items to disrupt undesirable response
patterns.
Disperse similar items throughout the questionnaire,
separated by unrelated buffer items.
Memory availability can be diminished by introducing a
temporal separation between the measurement of the
predictor and criterion variables; and the diagnosticity
of the previous answers (as a cue to how to respond) can
be diminished by introducing a psychological
separation. Physical availability can be diminished by
restricting access to previous answers.

responses of others, and that no one in their organization will
see their individual responses.
Measurement conditions that make the consequences of a
response salient
When the social or professional consequences of a respon-
dents answers are potentially serious, and the measurement
conditions make these consequences salient (see Paulhus 1984;
Steenkamp, DeJong, and Baumgartner 2010), respondents may
be motivated to edit their answers in order to provide a
socially acceptable response, rather than saying what they really
think. This tendency to respond in a socially desirable man-
ner may be diminished by guaranteeing anonymity, telling
respondents in the cover story or instructions that there are
no right or wrong answers, and assuring respondents that peo-
ple have different opinions about the issues addressed in the
questionnaire.
Common scale attributes
It seems plausible that some forms of satisficing would be
easier to implement if the measures share a common scale type,
have the same number of scale points and common anchor
labels, and do not have any reverse-worded items. These com-
mon characteristics make it easier to edit answers for consistency
which decreases the difficulty of satisficing. These characteris-
tics also heighten the perceived similarity and redundancy of
items which may encourage respondents to be less thorough in
item comprehension, memory retrieval, and judgment. These
detrimental tendencies can be diminished by varying the scale
types and anchor labels and/or reversing the wording of some of
the items to balance the positively and negatively worded items
(Baumgartner and Steenkamp 2001; Weijters and Baumgartner
2012). However, the latter is only a good idea if it can be done
without altering the content validity or conceptual meaning of
the scale, and if the reverse-worded items are not confusing to
respondents.

Grouping related items together

Remedies for factors that decrease the difculty of
satiscing
The factors above decrease the likelihood that a respondent
will answer accurately by: decreasing the motivation to respond
accurately, undermining the respondents capabilities, or making
the task of responding accurately more difficult. In this section
we will shift our focus to discuss characteristics of items that
encourage satisficing by making the task of generating alterna-
tive answers easier, rather than by making the task of answering
accurately harder (Table 4).
It is not uncommon for researchers to group items measur-
ing the same or similar constructs together on a questionnaire.
Although this has the benefit of diminishing the cognitive
demands of the task, it may also heighten perceptions of
the similarity and redundancy of the items, and consequently
encourage respondents to be less thorough in item comprehen-
sion, memory retrieval, and judgment. Grouping similar items
together also makes it easier to: use previously recalled infor-
mation and prior answers to respond to the current question
and edit answers for consistency which decreases the difficulty
of satisficing. The obvious solution to this problem is to dis-
perse similar items throughout the questionnaire, separated by
 S.B. MacKenzie, P.M. Podsakoff / Journal of Retailing 88 (4, 2012) 542555
unrelated buffer items (see Weijters, Schillewaert, and Geuens
2008).
Availability of answers to previous questions
It is easier for respondents to satisfice by providing answers
that are consistent with each other or with an implicit theory if the
answers to previous questions are readily available, either phys-
ically or in memory, at the time of answering a later question (cf.
Feldman and Lynch 1988). Answers are likely to be physically
available in a self-administered paper and pencil questionnaire
and may be (but need not be) for online questionnaires. This can
be remedied by using computer-presented questionnaires that
prevent subjects from scrolling backwards to consult previous
answers. In addition, as noted above, availability is also greater
when questions are grouped together in close proximity by con-
struct on the questionnaire. This can be avoided by separating
items on the questionnaire to decrease the availability of previous
answers. More generally, whenever the predictor and criterion
variables are measured at the same point in time by means a
single questionnaire, the likelihood that the answers to previous
questions will be available is greater. In these instances, avail-
ability might be diminished by introducing a temporal separation
between the measurement of the predictor and criterion vari-
ables; and/or the diagnosticity of the previous answers (as a cue
to how to respond to subsequent questions) might be diminished
by introducing a psychological separation.
Conclusion
The purpose of this article has been to discuss the causes
of method biases, the mechanisms through which they produce
their biasing effects, and how to minimize or prevent these effects
by implementing appropriate procedural controls. More specif-
ically, we identified a series of factors that may cause method
biases by undermining the capabilities of the respondent, mak-
ing the task of responding accurately more difficult, decreasing
the motivation to respond accurately, and making it easier for
respondents to satisfice. In addition, we tried to advance our
understanding of the mechanisms through which these factors
produce their biasing effects by discussing how they influence
a respondents desire to provide optimal versus satisfactory
answers to the questions, and how this subsequently affects
question comprehension, memory retrieval and inference pro-
cesses, the mapping of judgments onto response categories, and
the editing of responses. Finally, based on this understanding of
the mechanisms involved, we tried to propose procedural reme-
dies that would counterbalance or offset each of these specific
effects. For example, to increase the likelihood that respon-
dents are able to answer accurately it is important to: align the
capabilities of respondents with the difficulty of the task; select
respondents who have the necessary experience thinking about
the issues of interest; avoid referring to vague concepts; and use
clear and concise language. It is also important to enhance the
motivation of respondents to answer accurately perhaps by: pro-
viding an explanation of why the questions are important and
have useful consequences for the respondent, organization, and
so forth; explaining why their answers are important; assuring
553
respondents of the confidentiality of their answers; encour-
aging respondents to carefully weigh the alternatives before
responding; and minimizing the length and repetitiveness of the
questionnaire to the extent possible. It also may be a good idea to
make it more difficult for respondents to satisfice by: varying the
scale types and anchor labels when appropriate; and introducing
a temporal, psychological, or spatial separation between items
measuring key constructs when possible. Our hope is that this
discussion will help researchers anticipate when method bias is
likely to be a problem and provide ideas about how to avoid it
through the careful design of a study.
A nal cautionary note
That being said, it is important to note that all research
involves inevitable tradeoffs and it is impossible to design a
study that completely rules out all possibility of method bias.
This implies that the procedural remedies discussed in this
research should be viewed as a much needed complement
to but not a substitute for the statistical remedies that
have already been developed (Bagozzi 1984; Baumgartner and
Steenkamp 2001; Podsakoff et al. 2003; Podsakoff, MacKenzie,
and Podsakoff 2012; Weijters, Schillewaert, and Geuens 2008;
Williams, Hartman, and Cavazotte 2010). This also implies that
some method bias may be present even in a well designed study.
Consequently, the researchers goal should be to thoughtfully
assess the research setting, try to identify the most likely causes
of method bias, and take concrete steps to mitigate these prob-
lems in order to reduce the plausibility of method bias as a rival
explanation for the relationships observed in a study. Indeed, as
we have said before (Podsakoff et al. 2003, p. 899),
The key point to remember is that the procedural and statis-
tical remedies selected should be tailored to fit the specific
research question at hand. There is no single best method for
handling the problem of common method variance because
it depends on what the sources of method variance are in the
study and the feasibility of the remedies that are available.
In addition, we would also like to make it clear that nothing
we have said here should be construed as a general indictment
of survey research. Indeed, many of the sources of method bias
identified in this research are also present in experimental inves-
tigations of mediating effects models, and in research based on
archival datasets gathered through single-source surveys (e.g.,
including official government statistics). Moreover, we believe
that survey research is an essential complement to experimen-
tal research for two reasons. First, survey research is needed to
examine the extent to which causal relationships observed in
experimental studies hold over variations in persons, settings,
treatment manipulations, and outcome variables. This is impor-
tant because there are some phenomena that consistently show
up in a lab setting that do not generalize. Second, there are some
important phenomena that can only be studied in field settings
because: they cannot be effectively or ethically manipulated in
a lab setting; the real world setting to which one wishes to gen-
eralize is complex and cannot be adequately replicated in a lab
setting; some subject populations may be unwilling to participate
554 S.B. MacKenzie, P.M. Podsakoff / Journal of Retailing 88 (4, 2012) 542555
in a lab study; and/or some important outcome variables (i.e.,
sales, profitability, loyalty, repeat purchase, satisfaction based
on product usage, etc.) are difficult to capture in lab settings.
Therefore, our objective is not to discourage the use of
survey research methods in marketing, but rather to encour-
age researchers to think carefully about how to control for
method biases in the design of their studies. Moreover, we
caution researchers not to throw the baby out with the bathwa-
ter by rejecting survey research simply because method bias
potentially provides a rival explanation for the relationships
observed. The goal of this paper has been to suggest some things
researchers can do to make this explanation less plausible.
References
Arndt, Johan and Edgar Crane (1975), Response Bias, Yea-Saying, and the
Double Negative, Journal of Marketing Research, 12 (May), 21820.
Arnold, Mark J. and Kristy E. Reynolds (2009), Affect and Retail Shopping
Behavior: Understanding the Role of Mood Regulation and Regulatory
Focus, Journal of Retailing, 85 (3), 30820.
Babakus, Emin, Ugur Yavas and Nicholas J. Ashill (2009), The Role of Cus-
tomer Orientation as a Moderator of the Job DemandBurnoutPerformance
Relationship: A Surface-Level Trait Perspective, Journal of Retailing, 85
(4), 48092.
Bagozzi, Richard P. (1980), Causal Models in Marketing, New York: John Wiley.
(1984), A Prospectus for Theory Construction in Mar-
keting, Journal of Marketing, 48 (1), 1129.
Baumgartner, Hans and Jan-Benedict E.M. Steenkamp (2001), Response Styles
in Marketing Research: A Cross-National Investigation, Journal of Market-
ing Research, 38 (2), 14356.
Bollen, Kenneth A. (1989), Structural Equations with Latent Variables, New
York, NY: Wiley.
Bowling, Ann (2005), Mode of Questionnaire Administration Can Have Seri-
ous Effects on Data Quality, Journal of Public Health, 27 (3), 28191.
Bradburn, Norman M., Seymour Sudman and Brian Wansink (2004), Asking
Questions: The Denitive Guide to Questionnaire Design For Market
Research, Political Polls, and Social and Health Questionnaires, San Fran-
cisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Brannick, Michael T., David Chan, James M. Conway, Charles E. Lance and
Paul E. Spector (2010), What Is Method Variance and How Can We Cope
with It? A Panel Discussion, Organizational Research Methods, 13 (3),
40720.
Brehm, John W. (1966), A Theory of Psychological Reactance, New York, NY:
Academic Press.
Buckley, M. Ronald, James A. Cote and S. Mark Comstock (1990), Measure-
ment Errors in the Behavioral Sciences: The Case of Personality Attitude
Research, Educational and Psychological Measurement, 50 (September),
44774.
Cacioppo, John T. and Richard E. Petty (1982), The Need for Cognition,
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42 (1), 11631.
Campbell, Donald T. and Donald W. Fiske (1959), Convergent and Dis-
criminant Validation by the MultitraitMultimethod Matrix, Psychological
Bulletin, 56 (2), 81105.
Cannell, Charles F., Peter V. Miller and Lois F. Oksenberg (1981), Research on
Interviewing Techniques, In Sociological Methodology, Vol. 11, Leinhardt
Samuel ed. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass, 389437.
Chaiken, Shelley, Akiva Liberman and Alice H. Eagly (1989), Heuristic and
Systematic Processing Within and Beyond the Persuasion Context, in Unin-
tended Thought: Limits of Awareness, Intention, and Control, Uleman James
S. and Bargh John A., eds. New York, NY: Guilford, 21252.
Clancy, Kevin J. and Robert A. Wachsler (1971), Positional Effects in Shared-
Cost Surveys, Public Opinion Quarterly, 35, 25865.
Couch, Arthur and Kenneth Keniston (1960), Yeasayers and Naysayers: Agree-
ing Response Set as a Personality Variable, Journal of Abnormal and Social
Psychology, 60 (2), 15172.
Costa, Paul T. and Robert R. McCrae (1992), NEO PI-R Professional Manual,
Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources, Inc.
Cote, James A. and Ronald Buckley (1987), Estimating Trait, Method, and
Error Variance: Generalizing Across 70 Construct Validation Studies, Jour-
nal of Marketing Research, 24 (3), 3158.
and (1988), Measurement Error
and Theory Testing in Consumer Research: An Illustration of the Impor-
tance of Construct Validation, Journal of Consumer Research, 14 (4),
57982.
Dickinson, John R. and Eric Kirzner (1985), Questionnaire Item Omission as a
Function of Within-Group Question Position, Journal of Business Research,
13 (1), 715.
Doty, D. Harold and William H. Glick (1998), Common Methods Bias: Does
Common Methods Variance Really Bias Results?, Organizational Research
Methods, 1, 374406.
Elliott, Lois L. (1961), Effects of Item Construction and Respondent Aptitude
on Response Acquiescence, Educational and Psychological Measurement,
21 (2), 40515.
Ericsson, K. Anders and Herbert A. Simon (1980), Verbal Reports as Data,
Psychological Review, 87 (3), 21557.
Feldman, Jack M. and John G. Lynch (1988), Self-Generated Validity and
Other Effects of Measurement on Belief, Attitude, Intention, and Behavior,
Journal of Applied Psychology, 73 (3), 42135.
Ferber, Robert (1966), Item Nonresponse in a Consumer Survey, Public Opin-
ion Quarterly, 30 (3), 399415.
Fiske, Donald W. (1982), Convergent-Discriminant Validation in Measure-
ments and Research Strategies, in Forms of Validity in Research, Brinberg
David and Kidder Louise H., eds. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass,
7792.
Fiske, Susan T. and Donald R. Kinder (1981), Involvement, Expertise, and
Schema Use: Evidence from Political Cognition, in Personality, Cognition
and Social Interaction, Cantor Nancy and Kihlstrom John, eds. Hillsdale,
NJ: Erlbaum, 17190.
Francis, Joe D. and Lawrence Busch (1975), What We Dont Know About I
Dont Knows, Public Opinion Quarterly, 39 (2), 20718.
Grace, Debra and Scott Weaven (2011), An Empirical Analysis of Fran-
chisee Value-in-Use, Investment Risk and Relational Satisfaction, Journal
of Retailing, 87 (3), 36680.
Greenleaf, Eric A. (1992), Improving Rating Scale Measures by Detecting
and Correcting Bias Components in Some Response Styles, Journal of
Marketing Research, 29 (May), 17688.
Hamilton, David L. (1968), Personality Attributes Associated with Extreme
Response Style, Psychological Bulletin, 69 (March), 192203.
Hansen, Robert A. (1980), A Self-Perception Interpretation of the Effect of
Monetary and Nonmonetary Incentives on Mail Survey Respondent Behav-
ior, Journal of Marketing Research, 17 (1), 7783.
Harris, Michael M. and Amy Bladen (1994), Wording Effects in the Mea-
surement of Role Conflict and Role Ambiguity: A MultitraitMultimethod
Analysis, Journal of Management, 20 (4), 887901.
Herzog, A. Regula and Jerald G. Bachman (1981), Effects of Question-
naire Length on Response Quality, Public Opinion Quarterly, 45 (4),
54959.
Jackson, Douglas N. (1959), Cognitive Energy Level, Acquiescence, and
Authoritarianism, Journal of Social Psychology, 49 (1), 659.
Knowles, Eric S. and Christopher A. Condon (1999), Why People Say Yes: A
Dual-Process Theory Of Acquiescence, Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 77 (2), 37986.
Kraut, Allen I., Alan D. Wolfson and Alan Rothenberg (1975), Some Effects
of Position on Opinion Survey Items, Journal of Applied Psychology, 60
(6), 7746.
Krosnick, Jon A. (1991), Response Strategies for Coping with the Cognitive
Demands of Attitude Measures in Surveys, Applied Cognitive Psychology,
5 (3), 21336.
(1999), Survey Research, Annual Review of Psychol-
ogy, 50, 53767.
Krosnick, Jon A. and Duane F. Alwin (1987), An Evaluation of a Cognitive
Theory of Response-Order Effects in Survey Measurement, Public Opinion
Quarterly, 51 (2), 20119.
 S.B. MacKenzie, P.M. Podsakoff / Journal of Retailing 88 (4, 2012) 542555
and (1988), A Test of the Form-
Resistant Correlation Hypothesis: Ratings, Rankings, and the Measurement
of Values, Public Opinion Quarterly, 52 (4), 52638.
Krosnick, Jon A. and Michael A. Milburn (1990), Psychological Determinants
of Political Opinionation, Social Cognition, 8 (1), 4972.
Lance, Charles E., Lisa E. Baranik, Abby R. Lau and Elizabeth A. Scharlau
(2009), If It Aint Trait It Must Be Method: (Mis)Application Of The
Multitrait-Multimethod Design In Organizational Research, in Statistical
and Methodological Myths and Urban Legends, in Doctrine, Verity, and
Fable in the Organizational and Social Sciences, Lance Charles E. and
Vandenberg Robert L., eds. New York: Routledge, 33760.
Lance, Charles E., Bryan Dawson, David Birkelbach and Brian J. Hoffman
(2010), Method Effects, Measurement Error, and Substantive Conclusions,
Organizational Research Methods, 13 (3), 40720.
Le, Huy, Frank L. Schmidt and Dan J. Putka (2009), The Multifaceted Nature of
Measurement Artifacts and Its Implications for Estimating Construct-Level
Relationships, Organizational Research Methods, 12 (1), 165200.
Lord, Robert G., John F. Binning, Michael C. Rush and Jay C. Thomas (1978),
The Effect of Performance Cues and Leader Behavior on Questionnaire
Ratings of Leadership Behavior, Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, 21 (1), 2739.
MacKenzie, Scott B., Philip M. Podsakoff and Nathan P. Podsakoff (2011),
Construct Measurement and Validity Assessment in Behavioral Research:
Integrating New and Existing Techniques, MIS Quarterly, 35 (2),
293334.
Mathews, C.O. (1927), The Effect of Position of Printed Response Words Upon
Childrens Answers to Questions in Two-Response Types of Tests, Journal
of Educational Psychology, 18 (7), 44557.
McClendon, McKee J. (1986), Response-Order Effects for Dichotomous Ques-
tions, Social Science Quarterly, 67 (1), 20511.
(1991), Acquiescence and Recency Response Order
Effects in Interview Surveys, Sociological Methods & Research, 20 (1),
60103.
McDaniel, Stephen W. and C.P. Rao (1980), The Effect of Monetary Induce-
ment on Mailed Questionnaire Response Quality, Journal of Marketing
Research, 17 (2), 2658.
McGuire, Robert J. (1969), The Nature of Attitudes and Attitude Change, in
The Handbook of Social Psychology, Lindzey Gardner and Aronson Eliot,
eds. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 136314.
Messick, Samuel (1991), Psychology and Methodology of Response Styles, in
Improving the Inquiry in Social Science: A Volume in Honor of Lee J. Cron-
bach, Snow Richard E. and Wiley David E., eds. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum, 161200.
Nisbett, Richard E. and Timothy D. Wilson (1977), Telling More than We Can
Know: Verbal Reports on Mental Processes, Psychological Review, 84 (3),
23159.
Orne, Martin T. (1962), On the Social Psychology of the Psychological Exper-
iment: With Particular Reference to Demand Characteristics and Their
Implications, American Psychologist, 17 (11), 77683.
Paulhus, Delbert L. (1984), Two-Component Models of Socially Desir-
able Responding, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46 (3),
598609.
Petty, Richard E. and John T. Cacioppo (1986), Communication and Persuasion:
Central and Peripheral Routes to Attitude Change, New York, NY: Springer-
Verlag.
Podsakoff, Philip M., Scott B. MacKenzie, Jeong-Yeon Lee and Nathan P. Pod-
sakoff (2003), Common Method Biases in Behavioral Research: A Critical
Review of the Literature and Recommended Remedies, Journal of Applied
Psychology, 88 (5), 879903.
Podsakoff, Philip M., Scott B. MacKenzie and Nathan P. Podsakoff
(2012), Sources of Method Bias in Social Science Research and
555
Recommendations on How to Control It, Annual Review of Psychology, 63,
53969.
Rapoport, Ronald B. (1982), Sex Differences in Attitude Expression: A Gen-
erational Explanation, Public Opinion Quarterly, 46 (1), 8696.
Schmitt, Neal (1994), Method Bias: The Importance of Theory and Measure-
ment, Journal of Organizational Behavior, 15 (5), 3938.
Schreder, Mathis (2011), Concepts and Topics, in Retrospective Data
Collection in the Survey of Health, Ageing and Retirement in Europe:
SHARELIFE Methodology, Schrder Mathis ed. Mannheim, Germany:
Mannheim Research Institute for the Economics of Ageing, 119.
Schuman, Howard and Stanley Presser (1981), Questions and Answers in Atti-
tude Surveys, New York: Academic Press.
Schwarz, Norbert, Hans-Juergen Hippler and Elisabeth Noelle-Neumann
(1992), A Cognitive Model of Response-Order Effects in Survey Measure-
ment, in Context Effects in Social and Psychological Research, Schwarz
Norbert and Sudman Seymour, eds. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Siemsen, Enno, Aleda Roth and Pedro Oliveira (2010), Common
Method Bias in Regression Models with Linear, Quadratic, and
Interaction Effects, Organizational Research Methods, 13 (3),
45676.
Spralls, Samuel A. III, Shelby D. Hunt and James B. Wilcox (2011), Extranet
Use and Building Relationship Capital in Interfirm Distribution Networks:
The Role of Extranet Capability, Journal of Retailing, 87 (1), 5974.
Staw, Barry M. (1975), Attribution of the Causes of Performance: A General
Alternative Interpretation of Cross-sectional Research on Organizations,
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 13 (3), 41432.
Steenkamp, Jan-Benedict E.M., Martijn G. De Jong and Hans Baumgartner
(2010), Socially Desirable Response Tendencies in Survey Research, Jour-
nal of Marketing Research, 47 (2), 199214.
Sudman, Seymour and Norman M. Bradburn (1982), Asking Questions a Prac-
tical Guide to Questionnaire Design, San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Sudman, Seymour, Norman M. Bradburn and Norbert Schwarz (1996), Thinking
About Answers: The Application of Cognitive Processes to Survey Method-
ology, San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Tourangeau, Roger, Lance J. Rips and Kenneth A. Rasinski (2000), The Psy-
chology of Survey Response, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Trott, D. Merilee and Douglas N. Jackson (1967), An Experimental Analysis
of Acquiescence, Journal of Experimental Research in Personality, 2 (4),
27888.
Viswanathan, Madhu (2005), Measurement Error and Research Design, Thou-
sand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Weijters, Bert and Hans Baumgartner (2012), Misresponse to Reversed and
Negated Items in Surveys: A Review, Journal of Marketing Research, 49,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1509/jmr.11.0368. Ahead of Print
Weijters, Bert, Maggie Geuens and Niels Schillewaert (2009), The Proximity
Effect: The Role of Inter-Item Distance on Reverse-Item Bias, International
Journal of Marketing Research, 26 (1), 212.
, Niels Schillewaert and Maggie Geuens (2008),
Assessing Response Styles Across Modes of Data Collection, Journal of
the Academy of Marketing Science, 36 (3), 40922.
Williams, Larry J., James A. Cote and M. Ronald Buckley (1989), Lack of
Method Variance in Self-Reported Affect and Perceptions at Work: Reality
or Artifact?, Journal of Applied Psychology, 74 (3), 4628.
Williams, Larry J., Mark B. Gavin and Margaret L. Williams (1996), Mea-
surement and Nonmeasurement Processes with Negative Affectivity and
Employee Attitudes, Journal of Applied Psychology, 81 (1), 88101.
Williams, Larry J., Nathan Hartman and Flavia Cavazotte (2010), Method Vari-
ance and Marker Variables: A Review and Comprehensive CFA Marker
Technique, Organizational Research Methods, 13 (3), 477514.
Wotruba, Thomas R. (1966), Monetary Inducements and Mail Questionnaire
Response, Journal of Marketing Research, 3 (4), 398400.