Self-generated Validity, Framing Effects, and Survey Research in IS
Based on the accessibility-diagnosticity cognitive framework, we discuss self-generated validity and framing effects as two method biases that can threaten the validity of survey research results. Two empirical studies are used to establish their presence in IS research. We discuss their research implications, with a focus on model comparison and the testing of new instruments or theories. We also suggest a number methodological remedies that can control these method biases, including randomization or partial randomization of question items, temporal separation of construct measurements, replication of research studies, experimental methods and multilevel analysis with split-sample design.
|Date of creation:||06 May 2010|
|Date of revision:|
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: Jubilee Campus, Nottingham NG2 8BB|
Phone: +44-115-846 66 02
Fax: +44-115-846 66 67
Web page: http://www.nottingham.ac.uk/business/
More information through EDIRC
References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Viswanath Venkatesh & Fred D. Davis, 2000. "A Theoretical Extension of the Technology Acceptance Model: Four Longitudinal Field Studies," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 46(2), pages 186-204, February.
- John G. Lynch Jr., 2006. "Accessibility-Diagnosticity and the Multiple Pathway Anchoring and Adjustment Model," Journal of Consumer Research, Oxford University Press, vol. 33(1), pages 25-27, 06.
- Fred D. Davis & Richard P. Bagozzi & Paul R. Warshaw, 1989. "User Acceptance of Computer Technology: A Comparison of Two Theoretical Models," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 35(8), pages 982-1003, August.
- Sendhil Mullainathan & Marianne Bertrand, 2001. "Do People Mean What They Say? Implications for Subjective Survey Data," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 91(2), pages 67-72, May.
- Ahluwalia, Rohini & Gurhan-Canli, Zeynep, 2000. " The Effects of Extensions of the Family Brand Name: An Accessibility-Diagnosticity Perspective," Journal of Consumer Research, Oxford University Press, vol. 27(3), pages 371-81, December.
- Naresh K. Malhotra & Sung S. Kim & Ashutosh Patil, 2006. "Common Method Variance in IS Research: A Comparison of Alternative Approaches and a Reanalysis of Past Research," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 52(12), pages 1865-1883, December.
- Williams, Larry J. & Brown, Barbara K., 1994. "Method Variance in Organizational Behavior and Human Resources Research: Effects on Correlations, Path Coefficients, and Hypothesis Testing," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 57(2), pages 185-209, February.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bbr:workpa:11. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Laure Cabantous)The email address of this maintainer does not seem to be valid anymore. Please ask Laure Cabantous to update the entry or send us the correct email address
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.