Essays on supplier responsiveness and buyer firm value - Nyenrode ...

een monitored to make sure they gave the most accurate reply possible. However, since it was an
Internet survey, we were able to look at whether informants rapidly clicked through a survey by
examining the time it took them to complete the survey and whether they just choose one option as an
answer throughout the survey. Hence, we removed those responses that had responses that had one
response filled throughout the questionnaire. For example, if respondents just choose the option 1 for
all the answers. This, as a result, reduces the potential CMV bias in our sample response.
Two common survey procedures that were particularly prone to CMV are single-point format
(i.e., using a five- or seven-point scale throughout the survey) and common scale anchors (for
example, 1= strongly agree and 5= strongly disagree). For the first concern, we had to make a trade off
and accept a single point format almost throughout the survey. There were two main reasons for our
decision, such as time concerns (i.e., since we needed a number of questions answered in a limited
amount of time and the use of a different point format would increase the amount of time required per
survey filling) and the fact that our use of panel data would significantly increase the per response
cost. For the common scale anchors, we decided to use different terminology throughout the survey,
hence reducing the error caused by these anchors (Rindfleisch et al., 2009).
Marketing has lower CMV error than other social science disciplines (Rindfleisch et al., 2009).
CMV is a cause for concern because it reduces the researchers’ ability to correctly critically infer
information from the data (Rindfleisch et al., 2009). Specifically, it increases the probability of type I
and type II errors.
One important way in which common method variance increases is as the level of construct
abstraction increases (Rindfleisch et al., 2009). Some scholars have suggested a three-level taxonomy
for categorizing the level of construct abstraction (Crampton & Wagner, 1994; Rindfleisch et al.,
2009). The first and least abstract levels of constructs are those that can be externally verified, for
example, advertising expenditure. The second and middle level of abstraction are the outer expression
of internal states. For example, firm experience in high technology markets. The third and most
abstract level is an internal state, such as customer satisfaction. Based on this taxonomy, we have one
variable that is at the most abstract level (i.e., buyer satisfaction); we have two variables that are
moderately abstract (i.e., market orientation and IdRR), and two variables that are at the least abstract
level (i.e., supplier brand value and buyer firm value). Therefore, we tried to find existing scales
wherever possible, as they have been tried and tested, and help minimize any fears of CMV error in
our study.
2.4.2 Sample
Table 2.12 provides a description of the sample. Our sample was collected by using the GMI online
panel and we received a response rate of 6% in the United States. Firms were chosen on the basis of
whether they were situated in the United States. Whenever possible we tried to collect firms that were
publically listed. Although the firms in our sample have a variety of products and have had
relationships that range from transactional to strategic in nature, we only investigated their strategic
relationships. The sample frame was comprised of 164 purchasing managers of strategic products. We
sent out the questionnaire via email to the GMI panel in three waves according to Donney and Canon’s
(1997) recommendations. Specifically, the entire list (N=2800) was mailed a questionnaire and a letter
requesting their participation and one week later, a reminder was sent via email to those participants
who had not responded. A total of 194 responses were received; of that total, 164 were finally used in
our analysis. Thirty were discarded because they were incomplete or incorrectly filled. For instance,
55