Response Surface Analysis: A Tutorial for Examining Linear and Curvilinear Effects

Main Article Content

Antonio Carlos Rodrigues orcid


Context: response surface analysis (RSA) is an approach that allows examining the extent to which combinations of two predictive variables relate to one outcome variable. The method is particularly interesting in cases where (in)congruence between the two predictive variables is a central consideration of the study. Objective: the purpose of this article is to provide a tutorial on applying RSA. Method: the method’s conceptual background and an illustrative example are provided so that the reader can understand some of the basic principles of the technique. This tutorial’s target audience is researchers who use mathematical modeling but are not yet familiar with the method. Results: the technique has the potential for application in various research questions in the field of Administration. Conclusions: besides providing a tutorial on how to use the investigated technique, the study demonstrates its relevance in the analysis of congruence and incongruence between the scores.


Download data is not yet available.

Article Details

How to Cite
Rodrigues, A. C. (2021). Response Surface Analysis: A Tutorial for Examining Linear and Curvilinear Effects. Journal of Contemporary Administration, 25(6), e200293.


Barranti, M., Carlson, E. N., & Côté, S. (2017). How to test questions about similarity in personality and social psychology research: Description and empirical demonstration of response surface analysis. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 8(4), 465–475.
Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York, NY: John Wiley.
Brito, R. P., & Miguel, P. L. S. (2017). Power, governance, and value in collaboration: Differences between buyer and supplier perspectives. Journal of Supply Chain Management, 53(2), 61–87.
Caniëls, M. C. J., & Veld, M. (2019). Employee ambidexterity, high performance work systems and innovative work behaviour: How much balance do we need? International Journal of Human Resource Management, 30(4), 565-585.
Caniëls, M. C. J., Vos, F. G. S., Schiele, H., & Pulles, N. J. (2018). The effects of balanced and asymmetric dependence on supplier satisfaction: Identifying positive effects of dependency. Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management, 24(4), 343–351.
Casciaro, T., & Piskorski, M. J. (2005). Power imbalance, mutual dependence, and constraint absorption: A closer look at resource dependence theory. Administrative Science Quarterly, 50(2), 167–199.
Crook, T. R., Craighead, C. W., & Autry, C. W. (2017). Hold back or held back? The roles of constraint mitigation and exchange diffusion on power “nonuse” in buyer-supplier exchanges. Journal of Supply Chain Management, 53(2), 10–21.
Edwards, J. R. (2002). Alternatives to difference scores: Polynomial regression analysis and response surface methodology. In F. Drasgow & N. Schmitt (Eds.), Measuring and analyzing behavior in organizations: Advances in measurement and data analysis. Hoboken, NJ: Pfeiffer.
Edwards, J. R., & Parry, M. E. (1993). On the use of polynomial regression equations as an alternative to difference scores in organizational research. Academy of Management Journal, 36(6).
Emerson, R. M. (1976). Social exchange theory. Annual Review of Sociology, 2(1), 335–362.
Gaski, J. F. (1984). The theory of power and conflict in channels of distribution. Journal of Marketing, 48(3), 9-29.
Griffith, D. A., Hoppner, J. J., Lee, H. S., & Schoenherr, T. (2017). The influence of the structure of interdependence on the response to inequity in buyer–supplier relationships. Journal of Marketing Research, 54(1), 124–137.
Gulati, R., & Sytch, M. (2007). Dependence asymmetry and joint dependence in interorganizational relationships: Effects of embeddedness on a manufacturer’s performance in procurement relationships. Administrative Science Quarterly, 52(1), 32–69.
Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2014). Multivariate data analysis. Upper Saddle River: Pearson Education.
Hofer, A. R. (2015). Are we in this together? The Dynamics and performance implications of dependence asymmetry and joint dependence in logistics outsourcing relationships. Transportation Journal, 54(4), 438-472.
Humberg, S., Nestler, S., & Back, M. D. (2019). Response surface analysis in personality and social psychology: Checklist and clarifications for the case of congruence hypotheses. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 10(3), 409–419.
Ireland, R. D., & Webb, J. W. (2007). A multi-theoretic perspective on trust and power in strategic supply chains. Journal of Operations Management, 25(2), 482–497.
Hoppner, J., Griffith, D., & Yeo, C. (2014). The intertwined relationships of power, justice and dependence. European Journal of Marketing, 48(9/10), 1690–1708.
Kim, S. K. (2003). A cross-national study of interdependence structure and distributor attitudes: The moderating effect of group orientation. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 20(2), 193–214.
Kim, S. K., & Hsieh, P.-H. (2003). Interdependence and its consequences in distributor-supplier relationships: A distributor perspective through response surface approach. Journal of Marketing Research, 40(1), 101–112.
Kumar, N., Scheer, L. K., & Steenkamp, J.-B. E. M. (1995). The effects of perceived interdependence on dealer attitudes. Journal of Marketing Research, 32(3), 348–356.
Kumar, N., Scheer, L. K., & Steenkamp, J.-B. E. M. (1998). Interdependence, punitive capability, and the reciprocation of punitive actions in channel relationships. Journal of Marketing Research, 35(2), 225-235.
Lee, K., Woo, H.-G., & Joshi, K. (2017). Pro-innovation culture, ambidexterity and new product development performance: Polynomial regression and response surface analysis. European Management Journal, 35(2), 249-260.
Leonidou, L. C., Talias, M. A., & Leonidou, C. N. (2008). Exercised power as a driver of trust and commitment in cross-border industrial buyer-seller relationships. Industrial Marketing Management, 37(1), 92–103.
Nyaga, G. N., Lynch, D. F., Marshall, D., & Ambrose, E. (2013). Power asymmetry, adaptation and collaboration in dyadic relationships involving a powerful partner. Journal of Supply Chain Management, 49(3), 42–65.
Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. (1978). The external control of organizations: A resource dependence perspective. New York: Harper & Row.
Reimann, F., & Ketchen, D. J. (2017). Power in supply chain management. Journal of Supply Chain Management, 53(2), 3–9.
Reimann, F., Shen, P., & Kaufmann, L. (2017). Multimarket contact and the use of power in buyer–supplier relationships. Journal of Business Logistics, 38(1), 18–34.
Schönbrodt, F. D., & Humberg, S. (2020). An R package for response surface analysis (version 0.10.0). Retrieved from
Schönbrodt, F. D., Humberg, S., & Nestler, S. (2018). Testing similarity effects with dyadic response surface analysis. European Journal of Personality, 32(6), 627–641.
Shanock, L. R., Baran, B. E., Gentry, W. A., Pattison, S. C., & Heggestad, E. D. (2010). Polynomial regression with response surface analysis: A powerful approach for examining moderation and overcoming limitations of difference scores. Journal of Business and Psychology, 25(4), 543–554.
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2012). Using multivariate statistics (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall.
Venkatesh, V., & Goyal, S. (2010). Expectation disconfirmation and technology adoption: Polynomial modeling and response surface analysis. MIS Quarterly, 34(2), 281-303.
Zhang, C., Zhuang, G., Yang, Z., & Zhang, Y. (2017). Brand loyalty versus store loyalty: Consumers’ role in determining dependence structure of supplier–retailer dyads. Journal of Business-to-Business Marketing, 24(2), 139–160.