See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/328777522

The impact of student attitude, trust, subjective norms, motivation and

rewards on knowledge sharing attitudes among university students

Article  in  International Journal of Knowledge and Learning · January 2018

DOI: 10.1504/IJKL.2018.095955

CITATIONS READS

12 1,008

5 authors, including:

Syed Ali Raza Muhammad Arsalan

Iqra University International Islamic University, Islamabad
172 PUBLICATIONS   4,006 CITATIONS    2 PUBLICATIONS   12 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Muhammad Asif Qureshi

Universiti Utara Malaysia
59 PUBLICATIONS   631 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Islamic Insurance View project

Annals of Contemporary Developments in Management & HR (ACDMHR) View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Syed Ali Raza on 08 March 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Int. J. Knowledge and Learning, Vol. 12, No. 4, 2018 287

The impact of student attitude, trust, subjective

norms, motivation and rewards on knowledge sharing
attitudes among university students

Syed Ali Raza, Masooma Abidi

and Ghulam Muhammad Arsalan
Department of Management Sciences,
IQRA University,
Karachi 75300, Pakistan
Email: syed_aliraza@hotmail.com
Email: masoom@hotmail.com
Email: arsalan@hotmail.com

Arshian Shairf*
School of Economics,
Finance and Banking College of Business,
Universiti Utara Malaysia (UUM),
Sintok 06010 Kedah, Malaysia
Email: arshian.aslam@gmail.com
*Corresponding author

Muhammad Asif Qureshi

School of Business Management,
College of Business
Universiti Utara Malaysia (UUM),
Sintok 06010 Kedah, Malaysia
Email: qureshimuhammadasif@gmail.com

Abstract: The aim of the study is to examine the Impact of Student Attitude,
Trust, Subjective Norm, Motivation and Rewards on Knowledge Sharing
Attitude among University Students. Theoretical model of the study is based on
theory of reasoned action (TRA). Furthermore, the study based on four
independent and one dependent variables. Data was gathered from 350
university students of Karachi. The research instrument contains close ended
question. The result was summarised and data was interpreted with the help of
Smart Partial Least Squares-SEM. The results of the study show that student
attitude, trust, subjective norm, motivation and rewards have a significant
positive impact on knowledge exchange behaviour between university students.
On the basis of result, we can say that student attitude is not only the factors
that have an impact on knowledge sharing behaviour of students but other
elements also matter. Therefore, students need motivation, trust factor and
perceived behaviour that lead the knowledge sharing attitude between them.

Keywords: behaviour; knowledge sharing; confidence; TRA; theory of

reasoned action; mutual understanding.

Copyright © 2018 Inderscience Enterprises Ltd.

288 S.A. Raza et al.

Reference to this paper should be made as follows: Raza, S.A., Abidi, M.,
Arsalan, G.M., Shairf, A. and Qureshi, M.A. (2018) ‘The impact of student
attitude, trust, subjective norms, motivation and rewards on knowledge sharing
attitudes among university students’, Int. J. Knowledge and Learning, Vol. 12,
No. 4, pp.287–304.

Biographical notes: Syed Ali Raza is associated with IQRA University as an

Assistant Professor and Director Academics. His areas of interest include
financial economics, energy economics, tourism economics, corporate finance
and behavioural sciences. He has published numerous papers in international
refereed journals including Tourism Management, Energy Policy, Economic
Modelling, Social Indicators Research, Quality and Quantity, International
Migration, Total Quality Management and Business Excellence, Housing
Studies, Journal of Business Economics and Management, Journal of
Transnational Management, Transition Studies Review, Global Business
Review and Journal of Chinese Economic and Foreign Trade Studies.

Masooma Abidi is associated with IQRA University as Business graduate.

Her areas of interest include online learning management and knowledge skills.

Ghulam Muhammad Arsalan is associated with IQRA University as Business

graduate. His areas of interest include training, employee motivation and
corporate social responsibility.

Arshian Shairf is a PhD Scholar in School of Economics, Finance and Banking

at Universiti Utara Malaysia. He holds an MBA/MS (Economics and Finance)
from IQRA University. He teaches quantitative technique in analysis and
research methods courses. His interest in research lies in the areas of
economics, banking and e-commerce, education. He has published more than
25 papers in selected peer reviewed journals which are Telematics &
Informatics, Energy Policy, Physic A, Current Issues in Tourism, Asia Pacific
Journal of Tourism Research, Tourism Analysis, Global Business Review,
International journal of Business Information System, International Journal of
Education Economics and Development and Journal of Management Sciences.

Muhammad Asif Qureshi is associated with School of Business Management,

College of Business, Universiti Utara Malaysia. His area of interest is online
learning management, teachers training and knowledge share behaviour and
attitude.

1 Introduction
Knowledge sharing defined an idea or a process of a mutual sharing of information that
leads to creating joint facts. Likewise, knowledge itself a guideline as a fluid mixes of
enclosed experience, values, contextual information, and expert insight (Gagné, 2009).
Knowledge sharing is a difficult task as it chiefs over the principle of individual’s
willingness to share or integrate their ideas with others (Lam and Ford, 2010). Swift et al.
(2010) stated that in order to get a quality performance in any framework sharing
thoughts and information with each other can an essential element. For achieving a
positive response against sharing behaviour many factors influence the individual other
than their willingness. Transference of information concerned with the causes that
 The impact of student attitude, trust, subjective norms, motivation and rewards 289

motivates an individual to share or promote the amount of knowledge they have (Bock
et al., 2005). Incorporating knowledge can also uphold the social ties or networks by
contouring sure environment around members (Huang et al., 2013).
Javadi et al. (2012) expressed that trust is feeling of self-assurance and refuge that
create a response of care among partners and tighten the bond too. Past studies also
indicates that the trust is an important variable that influence the knowledge sharing
behaviour as it affects the members to share their ideas and increase the willingness to
sharing ideas with others. Trusts also depend on the internal satisfaction that is created
under the particular atmosphere and differ to person to person (Osmani, 2014).
Moghadam et al. (2013) explained the idea that mutual relationship and personal trust
governed the knowledge sharing moreover, organisations may encourage the knowledge
sharing attitude by providing such environment that able to stabilise a mutual trust
building atmosphere among members. Trust is a key factor that elaborates the idea that
effective knowledge sharing is important in order to get the quality performance from
each member (Javadi et al., 2012).
Lee and Lee (2008) defined motivation as a process that push individual in order to
gain their desire goal so that leads the specific behaviour accordingly. Behind any
aspiration action there must be a motivation (Nita, 2008). In addition, it is human nature
that everyone does not like to do work if they do not have any enthusiasm. Siemsen et al.
(2007) investigated that in corporate world staff avoid to share their valuable information
with others co members due to lack of understanding and interaction. Most of the firms
do not make proper policies regarding rewards and compensation. And that’s the reason
why staff showing low interest to share their knowledge with other. These are major tool
which sustain culture of knowledge sharing and impact maintaining knowledge on stuff.
Ghadirian and Noble (1985) determined that designing the good and satisfied payment
and rewards system will definitely boost employees interest to share useful information
among members. Barnard (2005) describe that knowledge sharing contain three main
factors motivating, persuading and stimulating which encourage employees to share their
valuable knowledge and information among coworkers.
Subjective norm is “the perceived social pressure to perform or not to perform the
behaviour” (Ajzen, 1991, p.188). Students Attitude towards knowledge sharing is highly
dependable over the subjective norm that how their society and surroundings teach them
in order to share once knowledge. Every human being has an element of some knowledge
in their selves and sharing their knowledge totally depends on them but there are few
perspectives like, Individuals Attitude, Trust, Motivation and their experiences which
make them share knowledge or motto share it which comes from the social pressure.
Goh and Sandhu (2013) stated that subjective norm are defined an individual willingness
of sharing their views with others and also facing some societal pressure in a particular
action. For example, an individual has greater intention to share their valuable
information when they have a feeling of superior among all.
Emmer and Gerwels (2002) said that knowledge sharing is significant factor of
student success when the student shares their knowledge in peers and groups students got
lots of benefits by that knowledge like students was very confident when they share their
knowledge. When teachers appreciated students, this appreciation gave students more
motivation and self-confidence. Hogberg and Edvinsson (1998) stated that knowledge
sharing helps students to when they are finding some information about project, find way
to resolve the existing problem, create new ideas, increase knowledge about a particular
goal and simply achieve their goals and help one another. The attitude of student towards
290 S.A. Raza et al.

knowledge sharing is that when the student sharing their knowledge they expected there
is some intermediate communication channels that allows the students to share and
explore with other students and teachers (Yuen and Majid, 2007). When students sharing
their knowledge it involves both skills and willingness while exchanging their knowledge
they both learn from each other and it’s also help them to clear their concept with such
discussions (Al-Hawamdeh, 2003).
In Pakistan, students taking knowledge sharing as for granted because number of
factors that influence them. Some related studies in Pakistan, Younas et al. (2012) stated
that lack of trust among peers affects their group performance. Institutes cannot provide
an intermediate channel or any effective medium that helps in building a knowledge
sharing culture. Rewards are the token of appreciation in any field of work unfortunately
associations are not planning any criteria in order to promote information sharing
behaviour. Zubair et al. (2014) determined that students feel that if they start sharing their
ideas and understanding they will lose their own competences and make their academic
career ill. But indeed sharing thoughts is essential because without it students cannot
improve their knowledge and unable to face variety of situation and never come up with
an effective outcome. The objective of the research is to explore the impact of student
attitude on knowledge sharing behaviour among university students in Karachi, Pakistan.
Moreover, to examine how the trust factor influence student’s attitude towards
knowledge sharing. Likewise, to find out an impact of subjective norms over knowledge
sharing attitude and an impact of motivation and rewards factor on the way to knowledge
sharing attitude among university students in Karachi, Pakistan.
The main concept of this research is to spread the awareness and significance of the
information sharing attitude. As sharing thoughts enable an effective performance in any
field of life. Varity of ideas can lead if teachers encourage students towards this essential
practice. Moreover, peer work can be a way to boost the information sharing culture.
Idea generation skills help the students throughout their career. If the firms want a
guaranteed success they can stimulate the idea exchange behaviour. This study will
find some ways for the students and encourage them to share as promoting the pros
of the behaviour.
The following section reviews the previous literature on the studied subject. Section 3
explains the methodology. Section 4 discusses the results and finding. And at last,
Section 5 shows the conclusion and recommends strong policy implications.

2 Literature review
2.1 Theoretical background
2.1.1 Theory of reasoned action (TRA)
The conceptual model of the study comprises over the TRA determined the social
behaviour of an individual; the developed model context explained the linkage between
belief, intention and attitude. Past studies can also use this theoretical layout in order to
investigate relationships. The key element of the theory is intention that based on attitude
and norms of doing actions. Besides that, subjective norm is another important factor that
defined person’s opinion over an action as what is important in order to perform the
behaviour. Attitude can be general feelings that causes as an effect of behaviour.
Also motivation can be substantial effects on knowledge sharing attitude for the students.
 The impact of student attitude, trust, subjective norms, motivation and rewards 291

At last trust factor can also create a specific conduct that influence the knowledge sharing
behaviour, as people always prefer to those they trust.
Kankanhalli et al. (2005) “Attitude toward a certain behaviour is determined by a set
of salient beliefs about certain outcomes caused by the behaviours and the corresponding
evaluation on the outcomes” (p.455). Thompson (1999) investigated the personal factors
which influence the proposed reaction of sharing information, the consequence of any
desire action is categorised into the costs and benefits that individual supposes to get after
sharing useful knowledge. Clark and Soliman (1999) adopt the TRA (Theory Reasoned
to Action) in knowledge based systems valuation, major reason to get this theory to
explain business administrators a clear vision of evaluating the value of KBS
investments. Bock et al. (2005) also found that extrinsic motivators, societal-mental
forces that directly impact on sharing information intentions.

2.2 Hypothesis development

2.2.1 Trust
Knowledge sharing and trust is a critical combination in which trust is the only tool
which enhance individual’s interaction and it allow people to share their innovative and
creative ideas with those they trust and maintain long term relations with them. Goh and
Sandhu (2013) state that existence of trust among people makes their relationship strong
and willingness to share knowledge with each other. Due to the trust one person has more
confident and sure about he or she share their knowledge to the deserving one. In addition
to, there are two major components of trust which are commonly apply in the
organisation one is affect-based trust and other is cognition-based trust. The major
purpose of these components to enhance the relationship between employees and assure
them freely share their personal information and knowledge without any hesitation
(Parayitam and Dooley, 2007). Interpersonal trust concerning the peers helps to build the
cooperative atmosphere at the workplace and this leads to the long term sustainability
among them (Kuo, 2012). In order to achieve derisible objective of the firm trust plays a
vital role by doing so management create such environment where mutual trust factor
leads (Reagans and McEvily, 2003; Brookes et al., 2006). Trust also influence the
repetitive sharing and transferring the complex information and also establishing the
strong bonding in a social group (Shah et al., 2006). Renzl (2008) found that lack of trust
also generates the idea that a person can loss his or her uniqueness if they are involving in
the knowledge sharing attitude with this mind set management should come up with kind
of management style in which very participant have an equal opportunity sharing their
idea of expertise. Trust also divided in to two different kinds of dimensions cognitive and
affective (Swift and Hwang, 2013). This state of psychology also refers the idea of
confidence among the partners to perform a task or particular nature of actions (Nguyen
et al., 2006). Chowdhury (2005) illustrates the concept behind the affective trust can be
positive personal and emotional connection between the entities. On the contradictory,
cognitive trust refers the perception of assessment to determine the reliability and
accountability of an individual in order to work done (Jain et al., 2015). Bakker et al.
(2006) originated that the cognitive based trust has a negative influence on the knowledge
sharing environment they analyses the idea that and individual want be a competitive so
he seems that he knows all the area of expertise that need to work done and not
encourage the knowledge sharing attitude. When it comes to professionals the cognitive
292 S.A. Raza et al.

trust turns around as showing the positive outcome and explaining the idea that the
professionals can share their valuable assets in terms of knowledge with their lower level
coworkers in order to done their task (O’Neill and Adya, 2007). When it comes to
affective based trust states that social exchange and cooperative environment helps to
enhance the structure of the organisation emphasise on the knowledge sharing attitude
(Ko, 2010). People also not feel confident in a competitive environment in sharing their
ideas as they having a fear to lose their potential (Bock et al., 2005). FranchyKastl (2004)
expressed that trust is the major concern in the organisation activities and knowledge
based economy give the competitive advantage to any organisation because employees
are one of the main asset and among them effective trust should be exist. In addition,
organisation should use such mechanism and methods which increase trust level among
employees. It is expected that if knowledge owners do not get any potential benefits than
he/she cannot share their knowledge with others. However only financial rewards are not
enough to motivate employees to share their knowledge since the major action is social
interaction among stuff will definitely enhance knowledge sharing culture in organisation
(Vasco and Faraj, 2005). Javadi (2012) found that trust is the major tool used for the
information sharing because individual like to share their knowledge with those people
who they have confidence. When relationships are created more over on trust so people
are more aggressively and freely share their useful knowledge with specific group of
people in addition trust is the influence which obtain effective knowledge and also
improve the employees’ performance within the organisation. However, an organisation
has support system regarding trust than knowledge sharing culture become more
attractive in the organisation (Sewkaran, 2008).
H1: Trust has a positive impact on knowledge sharing attitude among university
students in Karachi, Pakistan.

2.2.2 Motivation and rewards

Motivation is another tool in which people act as a specific way to achieve their desire
goal and tasks. Lucas and Ogilvie (2006) state that Organisation should hire honest and
collaborative employee, give freedom to speak and allow them to come up with new
ideas. In addition, sharing of rewards and promotions must be based on efforts rather than
political influence. So employee will definitely motivate and wants to segment their
information with their co members. Moreover, a motivating job design and perfect
self-directed work environment can influence the variable of knowledge sharing. Because
this type of design increases the level of interdependency among employee and
encourage them to maintain strong communication and greater opportunities performed
together for the sake of the organisation (Kelloway and Barling, 2000). Rosen et al.
(2007) identified that virtual team work can be barrier in knowledge sharing so the best
solution to restructure the work design and should be team based design which increase
interaction and develop social environment among them. Due to this design positive
atmosphere take place in the organisation and will enhance employee intrinsic motivation
towards knowledge sharing. In addition, there are two types of motivation which stimulus
people to share knowledge with other, one is autonomous motivation and second is
controlled motivation (Deci and Ryan, 2000). Iskoujina and Roberts (2015) pointed out
that there are two factors internal or external those influence the individual’s motivational
level, internal factor can be explaining in terms of power and acknowledgeable attitude.
 The impact of student attitude, trust, subjective norms, motivation and rewards 293

External factor refers the idea about the external atmosphere that can be provided by the
surroundings. Researchers also talks about the intrinsic element that can able to satisfy
immediate satisfaction level when the extrinsic could be failing (Lam and Ford, 2010).
Ajzen (1991) assumed that intensions are the major factor of motivation to influence
employee action, attitude and behaviour. Because higher the intension of person
likelihood he or she will perform their job or task with maximum efforts some types of
extrinsic motivation which shape up employee behaviour and forced them to spread the
culture of knowledge sharing with a positive way. Roca and Gagné (2008) explore that
work related need pleasure was positively build employee’s attitude towards knowledge
sharing. Breaugh (1985) originate that feeling self-directed in one’s job improved job
involvement performance of employees. Sheldon and Elliot’s (1998) also investigated
that intrinsic motivation helps to forecasts greater determination and more achievement.
Study can also illustrate the five significant forecasters that influence the concept of
knowledge sharing that includes need satisfaction, and sharing norms (Cabrera and
Cabrera, 2005; Kelloway and Barling, 2000). Study also demonstrates some barriers that
show as hurdles between the knowledge sharing that includes lack of sharing
opportunities, fair reward system and leadership (Riege, 2005). Knowledge sharing
attitude also relate with the job design in terms of work motivation, moreover job design
divided in to three determinants autonomy, competence, and relatedness that have the
positive influence on the motivation towards knowledge sharing (Marylene Gagne,
2009). Studies shows that people can be motivated by two ways if a person can be
motivated intrinsically he or she can be interested in sharing their information by own
self moreover, in extrinsic motivation as need some rewards in order to get or achieve the
desire goal (Hung et al., 2011). Motivation is one of the most significant aspect,
employees need recognition and promotions in order to get them motivated in peers and
share their ideas and knowledge for the progressive consequences of the team project
(Hau et al., 2012). Knowledge sharing plays an important role to build reasonable
advantage based on knowledge exchange behaviour (Argot and Ingram, 2000). However,
Motivation is a key factor within every individual which allows sharing knowledge.
Motivation can be obtained if an individual gets appreciation when they share knowledge
and their innovative ideas. Once an individual is appreciated they can be motivated
towards knowledge sharing. Rio et al. (2003) stated that knowledge sharing among
individual and group that defined a process in which literature can be enhance that.
Knowledge sharing is a process in which individuals exchange their knowledge and
together create new knowledge of mutual concerned. In a broader concept, Knowledge
sharing occurs when an individual has an intention of helping others so this can able to
create the competency (Senge, 1990). Therefore, knowledge sharing boost person’s
leaning skills to share whatever they have and obtained (Zawya, 2009). Therefore,
Motivation has a high impact on knowledge sharing. Osterloh and Frey (2000) study can
also relate the dynamics of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation, the progress and
performance of the employees can enhance the result and outcome of their work if they
are motivated more intrinsically rather than extrinsically. Various kinds of reward system
and compensation system can lead and encourage the employees of the organisation to
share their knowledge and related information and give their best (Javadi et al., 2012).
Intrinsic motivation also explains the idea of individual’s self-involvement that inspires
the person to get in the work and share the related knowledge in order to get the
progressive outcome of the situation (Osmani et al., 2014). External force such as reward
and compensation system encourages the knowledge sharing phenomenon among
294 S.A. Raza et al.

employees and management also have a significant impact on knowledge sharing system
as they design such sharing environment in their organisation or provide such working
environment (Hau et al., 2012).
H2: Motivation and Rewards has a positive impact on knowledge sharing attitude
among university students in Karachi, Pakistan.

2.2.3 Subjective norms

Perceived behavioural control is defined as “the anticipated ease or hindrance in carrying
out particular the behaviour and it is assumed to reflect previous experience as well as
anticipated hindrance or obstacles” (Ajzen, 1991). This design gives back the
controllability of a distinctive either to act or not to act in a particular behaviour (So and
Bolloju, 2005). This concept of perceived behavioural control is regard to possess alike
traits as the idea of perceived self-efficacy by Bandura (1982). It is observed as the self-
judgement by an individual regarding their ability to perform achieves a specific goal
(Kuo and Young, 2008). If an individual has assumed of having a strong ability and
better control over sharing their knowledge, the aim or goal to share a knowledge would
be better and higher (Cabrera et al., 2006; Lin, 2007b; So and Bolloju, 2005) and
conclusively he or she will actually interconnect in knowledge sharing (Hsu et al., 2007;
Thomas et al., 2001). From the factual findings of Lin and Lee (2004), and Kuo and
Young (2008), they claimed that high subjective norm does lead to high intention towards
sharing their knowledge. Goh and Sandhu (2013) state, subjective norm judge and
assesses whether an individual is ready to comply with the surroundings of the social
pressure in its continuation to the sequence to perform a different behaviour. This implies
that one will have a greater tendency to share his or her knowledge if the person
perceives agreeing to the social norms is crucial. For example, an individual has greater
intention to share his or her knowledge when it is regarded by their supervisor. It is
deemed that subjective norm has an efficient and significant impact in judging
behavioural intentions (Ajzen and Fishbein, 1980). Other researchers have also found the
empirical evidence to support and back the role of subjective norms as an important
precursor of behavioural intention (Mathieson, 1991; Taylor and Todd, 1995; Thompson
et al., 1991). Basically, subjective norms ignite to the level of which an individual
believes that a person, who resists pressure on one’s response and expects from other to
carry out or to perform the behaviour in question multiplied by the level of one’s
compliance with each other’s referents (Fishbein and Ajzen, 1981). Though the collision
of subjective norms on attitude may seem controversial (Lee and Green, 1991), many
researchers have investigated and approved the relationship between the two variables
(Bijker, 1995; Chang, 1998; Shepherd and O’Keefe, 1984; Shimp and Kavas, 1984;
Vallerand et al., 1992; Venkatesh and Davis, 2000). It is considered that subjective norms
can have a critical impact on attitude through the development of social influence
processes on attitudes (Fulk, 1993; Schmitz and Fulk, 1991), exhibited via the
psychological pathways of internalisation and identifications (Lewis et al., 2003).
Therefore, subjective norm regarding knowledge sharing has a high probability of
influencing an academician’s attitude towards sharing their knowledge (Jasmine and
Ignatius, 2013). The application of the TRAs to the knowledge sharing context has been
evaluated in past researches, with subjective norms and knowledge sharing intentions
found to be significant and meaningful (Bock et al., 2005; Ryu et al., 2003).
 The impact of student attitude, trust, subjective norms, motivation and rewards 295

H3: Subjective Norms has a positive impact on knowledge sharing attitude among
university students in Karachi, Pakistan.

2.2.4 Student attitude

Every individual has different attitude and behaviour towards knowledge sharing. The
feelings and beliefs of the individual’s benefits or losses cause from execution of the
behaviour. Vesalainen and Pihkala (1999) stated that every individual behaviour towards
knowledge sharing is different state of mind a person consideration towards a particular
purpose or goals in manners to get something. Schwarz et al. (2009) states that view
attitude as the construct that is most usually used for estimate of behaviour intention.
Understanding may be explained as a creative idea, beliefs, unexpected interactions,
decisions, opinion, beliefs and information that award a framework of new experiences
and information (Ahmad and Daghfous, 2010). Tannenbaum and Alliger (2000) state that
attitude of sharing is the procedure where persons share their ideas in peers for the
construction of new awareness or to resolve problems. Knowledge sharing is divided in
two main aspects, the first is that individual share their knowledge where existing
knowledge is valuable, transferable and organised, and second one is where existing
knowledge is captured and shared McElroy, 2003; Swan et al., 1999. Fazio et al., 1981
State that the collective attitude of the members in an institution is an important factor
that can be an important determinant of their knowledge-sharing behaviour. Hussain et al.
(2011) for knowledge sharing students are probable make a group to redesign the
understanding about particular subject. The learning environment is not as a direct
determinant of students’ attitude and their intention, but rather as a moderator of the
attitude-intention relationship state by (Srivastava and Frankwick 2011). Opinion of
developed own relations it may be not disturb persons’ attitude toward knowledge
sharing (Bock and Kim 2002). The thinking of hide your knowledge may be distress
persons’ attitude toward knowledge sharing (Zhang and Ng 2012). The researchers are
estimated that the students take interests to share their knowledge in their own groups,
may be the students not feel confidents when they share their knowledge with unknown
people they prefer to share their knowledge with known peoples. The student feels that if
they convey some unreliable knowledge with other they make the fun of them that’s why
they save their face and does not share their ideas with others (Chow et al., 2000). The
researcher indicates that ideas of person solve the existing problem and it can also
motivate them to share their knowledge with others. Students like to work in teams
generally accept the challenge set their goals on daily basis it helps them to archives their
targets (Fong and Chu 2006). Most of the time the student attitude towards knowledge
sharing is positive the reason behind that is that when the student feels relaxed and
confident and the audience are appreciable the student attitude is positive towards
knowledge sharing. Most of studies show that the individual attitude towards knowledge
sharing is build up that is highly influential on the individual intention and also reflect
from individual behaviour and performance Cohen and Hanno (1993). Those who are
interesting in accounting field has attitude towards accounting subject are positive and he
will take interest towards accounting knowledge sharing (Felton et al., 1995). The
significant role of every individual attitude on behavioural objective is similarly in other
related subjects. Ahmad et al. (2011) stated that students always do that which was he
thought and he also share that information which he can perceive and his attitude is
positive towards that knowledge or information. Hassandoust et al. (2011) states that
296 S.A. Raza et al.

student attitude towards knowledge sharing is positive when they share their knowledge
online through social media and other internet sources. The studies on student’s attitude
is to largely research due to that every individual attitude is different towards knowledge
sharing every individual perceive different from other and also their belief are differing
from each other and also every individual learning environment is different and their
attitude is designed through trainings (Wolcott et al., 2002). An individual attitude can
make his or her behaviour x and y theory said that every individual can different behave
in different situation its totally depend on his attitude some time he behaves positive in
some situation or some time he totally he or she behave different. It is commonly
believed that attitudes shape behaviour of an individual. This belief appears justified in
most cases like that when an individual is in peer he is more confident and his attitude
towards knowledge is positive or when he was in group it was not necessary that his or
her attitude was same towards knowledge sharing. The A-B Model implies that attitude
can be understood by observing behaviour. Cognitive dissonance theory said that the
dissonance experienced by an individual after sharing his or her knowledge when he/she
experiences an inconsistency between the expected and real performance/benefits offered
by this knowledge. An individual’s attitude in the organisation plays a significant role
and its shows its level of interest towards work place (Halder et al., 2010). Organisation
management attitude and subjective norms are taken a very important part in an
individual knowledge sharing among management (Teh and Yong, 2011). Individual staff
knowledge sharing behaviour may be indirectly influenced by the attitude towards
knowledge sharing (Minbaeva, 2010).
H4: Student Attitude has a positive impact on knowledge sharing attitude among
university students in Karachi, Pakistan.

3 Methodology
The conceptual model of our study allocated in Figure 1. The quantitative measuring
model comprise on four independent dimensions that are student attitude, trust, subjective
norm and motivation and rewards. These variables are used to figure out the impact of
knowledge sharing among university students in Pakistan. Moreover, study associated
with the past literature. Figure 1 demonstrates the relationship among dependent and
independent variables.

3.1 Measurement instrument

The student attitude items are collected from (Majid et al., 2007). This variable contains
six items whereas trust and motivation and rewards have five and six items respectively
both are occupied from (Raham and Hussain, 2014). In addition, subjective norm and
knowledge sharing items are adapted from (Huang et al., 2008). Questionnaire items
were altered as per to the research scale. Whereas content validity confirmed by an
academic supervisor. Researchers were directly conducted main study and questionnaires
were distributed among university students. It is more confirmed that all items are
relevant according the study and easy to understand.
 The impact of student attitude, trust, subjective norms, motivation and rewards 297

Figure 1 The conceptual model of the study (see online version for colours)

A questionnaire based on 5-Points Likert scale extending from (1) ‘strongly disagree’, (2)
‘disagree’, (3) ‘neutral’, (4) ‘agree’ and (5) ‘strongly agree’ were used to measure the
student’s attitude regarding knowledge sharing. Lastly demographic information that
include age, gender, and level of education also gathered from respondents. Researchers
used convenience sampling technique and sample data was composed from survey
method. To regulate the sample size of our study, researchers adopted one of the best
guideline for the sake of the quality results meanwhile the parameter is provided by
Comrey and Lee (1992) suggest that, a sample size is directly affect the study results so if
respondent size is 50 it consider as poor whereas 300 is consider as average but 500 and
1000 are more sufficient sample size for factor analysis. Researchers used this guideline
in the study and used sample size of total 350 respondents in order to get the good results
and distributed among the university student based in Karachi, Pakistan. The total sample
size of the study was 350. The total questionnaire items are 27 which satisfy the
minimum questionnaire requirement given by Hair et al. (2006). For this study all
respondents are requested to participate voluntary and assure them that their given
information will more valuable for us and it will keep confidential. The impact of
independent variables (student attitude, trust, subjective norm and motivation and
rewards) is examined on dependent variable which is knowledge sharing by the help of
this questionnaire. The basic regression models of the study are:
Y = α + βX
where Y represents a dependent variable (Knowledge Sharing) and α represents the
intercept term. X represents explanatory variables (Student Attitude, Motivation and
Rewards, Trust and subjective norm), while β represents the regression coefficient.
Knowledge Sharing = ƒ (Student Attitude, motivation and rewards, Subjective Norm
and Trust)
KSn = α + β1SAn + β2MRn + β3SNn + β4Tn+ n
298 S.A. Raza et al.

where KS represents Knowledge sharing, SA denotes Student Attitude, MR represents

Motivation and Rewards, SN represent Subjective Norms, T shows Trust, while is the
error term.

3.2 Demographics
The sample represented the responses of the University students and total 350
questionnaires were filled. Fortunately, no outlier or deletion was found. The detail of
demographics information is process through SSPS and the figures shown in Table 1.
As seen from gender column 46.3% are the male whereas 53.7% are the females. In terms
of age 49.7% respondents are from the age group of 18–21. In addition, 50% response got
from age 22–26 similarly, only 0.3% data collected from age 27–23. At last education
were divided into three levels, undergraduate student’s ratio was 89.1% whereas graduate
and postgraduate student’s ratio were 9.7% and 1.1%, respectively.

Table 1 Profile of respondents (N = 350)

Demographic items Frequency Percentile

Gender Male 162 46.3
Female 188 53.7
Age 18–21 174 49.7
22–26 175 50.0
27–30 1 0.3
Education Undergraduate 312 89.1
Graduate 34 9.7
Postgraduate 4 1.1

4 Estimations and results

Table 2 shows the measurement of this study. This table displays the results of the
measurement model. Reliability tested is essential for data validation (Nunnally, 1998).
Scale reliability was calculated through composite reliability and Cronbach’s α and all
the results of both composite reliabilities were higher than 0.7 for each of our constructs.
The minimum and maximum value of Cronbach’s alpha is 0.70 and 0.89, respectively.
According to (Henseler et al., 2009) the most appropriate of composite reliability is 0.70
or higher. The composite reliability shown in Table 2, the minimum and maximum value
is 0.77 and 0.92, respectively, both values are accepted and reliable for the research.
Furthermore (Henseler et al., 2009) suggested that the value of Average Variance
Extracted (AVE) value is at least 0.5 for significant validity. In Table 2, all values of
AVE are greater than 0.5 which achieving convergent validity.
In Table 3 presented the co-relation matrix. All the values of co-relation matrix
indication that for each pair of constructs, the entire value of their correlation is below the
square root of AVE of each construct (Fornell and Larcker, 1981); the minimum and
maximum value of co-relation matrix is 0.733 and 0.846, respectively. The co-relation
matrix express that all of values between the variables are less than 0.9. This means that
there is strong co-relation between the variables.
 The impact of student attitude, trust, subjective norms, motivation and rewards 299

Table 2 Measurement model results

Average
Composite variance
Constructs Items Loadings Cronbach’s α reliability extracted
Student attitude SA1 0.732 0.702 0.808 0.585
SA2 0.803
SA3 0.760
Motivation and rewards MR1 0.828 0.712 0.787 0.559
MR2 0.793
MR3 0.623
Subjective norms SN1 0.738 0.737 0.807 0.584
SN2 0.794
SN3 0.765
Trust Trust1 0.624 0.709 0.774 0.537
Trust2 0.825
Trust3 0.735
Knowledge sharing KS1 0.745 0.899 0.926 0.715
KS2 0.877
KS3 0.896
KS4 0.879
KS5 0.822

Table 3 Summary statistics

Correlation matrix
SA KS MR SN T
SA 0.765
KS 0.605 0.846
MR 0.222 0.207 0.754
SN 0.231 0.292 0.379 0.766
T 0.631 0.545 0.236 0.329 0.733
SA = Student Attitude, KS = Knowledge sharing, MR = Motivation and Reward,
SN = Subjective norm, T = Trust. The diagonal elements (bold) represent the square root
of AVE (average variance extracted).

Table 4 shows the correlation of each item with other factors. Firstly, bold values of KS
indicate high correlation with their factor except other factors. Moreover, MR, SA, SN
and Trust all are rely on their own factor that show the relevance of each factor.
Hetrotrait and Monotrait ratio were shown in Table 5. None of the HTMT VALUES
are less than 0.90. As suggested by Hair et al. (2011), Table 5 shows that all the HTMT
values are less than 0.90.
300 S.A. Raza et al.

Table 4 Loadings and cross loadings

SA KS MR SN T
KS1 0.477 0.745 0.232 0.227 0.359
KS2 0.528 0.877 0.194 0.216 0.457
KS3 0.570 0.896 0.164 0.250 0.503
KS4 0.486 0.879 0.149 0.323 0.464
KS5 0.490 0.822 0.143 0.217 0.512
MR3 0.133 0.185 0.828 0.268 0.213
MR4 0.231 0.163 0.793 0.269 0.195
MR6 0.142 0.106 0.623 0.364 0.104
SA4 0.732 0.395 0.124 0.244 0.480
SA5 0.803 0.509 0.120 0.101 0.549
SA6 0.760 0.474 0.263 0.203 0.420
SN3 0.205 0.226 0.372 0.738 0.281
SN4 0.187 0.247 0.199 0.794 0.202
SN5 0.131 0.190 0.312 0.765 0.285
Trust3 0.320 0.314 0.186 0.353 0.624
Trust4 0.598 0.500 0.150 0.199 0.825
Trust5 0.422 0.354 0.201 0.214 0.735
SA = Student Attitude, KS = Knowledge sharing, MR = Motivation and Reward,
SN = Subjective norm, T = Trust.

Table 5 Heterotrait-Monotrait ratio (HTMT) results

SA KS MR SN
SA
KS 0.785
MR 0.347 0.285
SN 0.361 0.378 0.631
T 0.715 0.735 0.394 0.576
SA = Student Attitude, KS = Knowledge sharing, MR = Motivation and Reward,
SN = Subjective norm, T = Trust.

Table 6 indicates the results of standardised regression weights and values for the
hypothesised relationships. The values indicate that all dimensions have a positive and
significant impact on knowledge sharing attitude among university student in Karachi,
Pakistan. Moreover, the coefficient value of Student Attitude is the highest (0.430)
among all the variables; this value shows that student attitude has highly positive
significant impact on knowledge sharing behaviour. Studied also show that student
attitude towards knowledge sharing is positive when they share their knowledge online
through social media and other internet sources (Hassandoust et al., 2011).
 The impact of student attitude, trust, subjective norms, motivation and rewards 301

Table 6 Standardised regression weights for the research model

Hypothesis Regression Path Effect type SRW Remarks

H1 SA → KS Direct effect 0.430*** Supported
H2 MR → KS Direct effect 0.019** Supported
H3 SN → KS Direct effect 0.112** Supported
H4 T → KS Direct effect 0.236** Supported
SRW = Standardised regression weight *p < 0.10, **p < 0.05, ***p < 0.01.

Furthermore, motivation and rewards shows the lowest (0.019) as compare to other
variables, this value indicate that MR has positive significant impact on KS. In addition,
motivation and rewards culture in an organisation can positively influence the expansion
of understanding among the members of an institution (Casimir et al., 2012).
Likewise, the coefficient value of Subjective norm is (0.112) that shows the positive
significant impact on knowledge sharing. Past study also indicate that subjective norm
positively affects one’s attitude towards knowledge sharing as well as knowledge sharing
behaviour (Ramayah et al., 2013).
Trust value of (0.236) indicates the positive significant impact on knowledge sharing.
Previous study also confirmed that trust has a positive influence on knowledge sharing
among the SSC and HSC level students (Hussain, 2014). Overall, findings of our study
indicate that all the hypotheses, that is, H1–H4, of our research are up to the mark.
Hence, the four dimensions of the TRA model have an optimistic and significant impact
on Knowledge sharing attitude. The results can also seen in Figure 2.

Figure 2 Results of path analysis (see online version for colours)

5 Conclusion and policy implications

The objective of the study is to evaluate the impact of Student Attitude, Trust, Subjective
Norms, Motivation and Rewards towards Knowledge sharing among university students
302 S.A. Raza et al.

Karachi, Pakistan. The conceptual model, TRA used to construct the frame work to check
the behaviour of the students. A questionnaire of the study has been constructed over four
variables that contain 27 items which adopted from past papers. In this study the total
sample size of the respondents was 350, the data was collected from university students
of Karachi, Pakistan. After collection of data, researchers used some statistical tool in
order to examine the impact of all variables on knowledge sharing attitude. These
variables have positive and significant impact on knowledge sharing among universities
student of Karachi, Pakistan. The results indicate that all independent variables have
suitable reliability, whereas all variable have positive and significant relationship with
knowledge sharing except Motivation and Reward in general, our estimation shows that
knowledge sharing behaviour is more affected by student attitude as every individual
behaviour is having a different state of mind that leads a person’s attention towards a
specific object in order to achieving their mutual goals.

5.1 Policy implications

This research was specifically conducted to analyse the student’s attitude and behaviour
towards knowledge sharing. The study recommends that knowledge sharing plays a most
important role in every field. In addition to, this is the responsibility of educational
institutes to improve the culture of knowledge sharing among students by organising
some effective activities like debates session, assign group projects, informative seminars
and some healthy competitions regarding knowledge sharing.
Informal interaction can help in order to build the trust factor between students that
can be encourage by assigning different group based activities or projects. Moreover,
question answer section may also help as students can share their views and
understanding with others.
Appropriate training and incentives will assist students to overcome their
unwillingness to share knowledge. In addition, teachers should allot grading base
assignments which cheer students to share their knowledge with other.
Also consider teacher’s training programs so that they can able to deliver the
importance of knowledge sharing among students and also encourage them to share their
information to get an effective outcome meanwhile all these techniques must be
developing student interest, trust and change the student negative perception related to
Knowledge Sharing.

5.2 Limitations and future research of the study

The current study is only applied on the undergraduate students of university. In this
study there are some limitations which researchers must be obeyed. The entire sample
size of the study is limited with 350 respondents and researcher could conduct their
research in Karachi. According to the project requirements researchers have only eight
months for conducting their study. In addition, due to limited resource in term of budget
and time researchers decided to collect data from the nearest location to home and
university. Therefore, researchers used connivance sampling technique for this study.
Meanwhile researchers focused only four independent variables to make study simple
and understanding that justify conceptual model of TRA. For future research, researchers
should increase the sample size, number of university and try to gather data from
different major cities of Pakistan, instead of Karachi. Furthermore, future researchers
 The impact of student attitude, trust, subjective norms, motivation and rewards 303

may also include TPB conceptual model for that purpose they may comprise more
variables for the sake of the better results. In future researchers may also conduct their
research over the different field of graduate students instead of business students.

References
Ardichvili, A., Page, V. and Wentling, T. (2003) ‘Motivation and barriers to participation in virtual
knowledge-sharing communities of practice’, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 7,
No. 1, pp.64–77.
Barling, J., Slater, F. and Kevin Kelloway, E. (2000) ‘Transformational leadership and emotional
intelligence: an exploratory study’, Leadership and Organization Development Journal,
Vol. 21, No. 3, pp.157–161.
Bock, G.W., Zmud, R.W., Kim, Y.G. and Lee, J.N. (2005) ‘Behavioral intention formation in
knowledge sharing: examining the roles of extrinsic motivators, social-psychological forces,
and organizational climate’, MIS Quarterly, pp.87–111.
Chin Wei, C., Siong Choy, C., Geok Chew, G. and Yee Yen, Y. (2012) ‘Knowledge sharing
patterns of undergraduate students’, Library Review, Vol. 61, No. 5, pp.327–344.
Emmer, E.T. and Gerwels, M.C. (2002) ‘Cooperative learning in elementary classrooms: teaching
practices and lesson characteristics’, The Elementary School Journal, pp.75–91.
Foong, S.Y. and Khoo, C.H. (2015) ‘Attitude, learning environment and current knowledge
enhancement of accounting students in Malaysia’, Journal of Accounting in Emerging
Economies, Vol. 5, No. 2, pp.202–221.
Gagné, M. (2009) ‘A model of knowledge-sharing motivation’, Human Resource Management,
Vol. 48, No. 4, p.571.
Goh, S.K. and Sandhu, M.S. (2013) ‘Knowledge sharing among Malaysian academics: influence of
affective commitment and trust’, The Electronic Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 11,
No. 1, pp.38–48.
He, J. (2009) Examining Factors that Affect Knowledge Sharing and Students’ Attitude Toward
their Learning Experience within Virtual Teams, Doctoral dissertation, University of Central
Florida Orlando, Florida.
Iskoujina, Z. and Roberts, J. (2015) ‘Knowledge sharing in open source software communities:
motivations and management’, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 19, No. 4,
pp.791–813.
Javadi, M.H.M., Zadeh, N.D., Zandi, M. and Yavarian, J. (2012) ‘Effect of motivation and trust on
knowledge sharing and effect of knowledge sharing on employee’s performance’,
International Journal of Human Resource Studies, Vol. 2, No. 1, p.210.
Jer Yuen, T. and Shaheen Majid, M. (2007) ‘Knowledge-sharing patterns of undergraduate students
in Singapore’, Library Review, Vol. 56, No. 6, pp.485–494.
Kankanhalli, A., Tan, B.C. and Wei, K.K. (2005) ‘Contributing knowledge to electronic knowledge
repositories: an empirical investigation’, MIS Quarterly, pp.113–143.
Lam, A. and Lambermont-Ford, J.P. (2010) ‘Knowledge sharing in organisational contexts: a
motivation-based perspective’, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 14, No. 1, pp.51–66.
Lin, H.F. and Lee, G.G. (2004) ‘Perceptions of senior managers toward knowledge-sharing
behaviour’, Management Decision, Vol. 42, No. 1, pp.108–125.
Liñán, F. and Rodríguez-Cohard, J.C. (2015) ‘Assessing the stability of graduates’ entrepreneurial
intention and exploring its predictive capacity’, Academia Revista Latinoamericana de
Administración, Vol. 28, No. 1, pp.77–98.
 304 S.A. Raza et al.

Osmani, M., Rozan, A., Zaidi, M. and Nilashi, M. (2014) ‘Motivational factors, trust and
knowledge sharing in organizations’, International Journal of Innovation and Scientific
Research, Vol. 12, No. 2, pp.463–474.
Rahman, M.S., Osmangani, A.M., Daud, N.M. and Abdelfattah, F.A.M. (2016) ‘Knowledge
sharing behaviors among nonacademic staff of higher learning institutions: attitude, subjective
norms and behavioral intention embedded model’, Library Review, Vol. 65, Nos. 1–2,
pp.65–83.
Ramayah, T., Yeap, J.A. and Ignatius, J. (2013) ‘An empirical inquiry on knowledge sharing
among academicians in higher learning institutions’, Minerva, Vol. 51, No. 2, pp.131–154.
Rosen, B., Furst, S. and Blackburn, R. (2007) ‘Overcoming barriers to knowledge sharing in virtual
teams’, Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 36, No. 3, pp.259–273.
Rutten, W., Rutten, W., Blaas-Franken, J., Blaas-Franken, J., Martin, H. and Martin, H. (2016)
‘The impact of (low) trust on knowledge sharing’, Journal of Knowledge Management,
Vol. 20, No. 2, pp.199–214.
Ryan, R.M. and Deci, E.L. (2000) ‘Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic
motivation, social development, and well-being’, American Psychologist, Vol. 55, No. 1, p.68.
Sabbir Rahman, M. and Hussain, B. (2014) ‘The impact of trust, motivation and rewards on
knowledge sharing attitudes among the secondary and higher secondary level students’
evidence from Bangladesh’, Library Review, Vol. 63, Nos. 8–9, pp.637–652.
Siemsen, E., Balasubramanian, S. and Roth, A.V. (2007) ‘Incentives that induce task-related effort,
helping, and knowledge sharing in workgroups’, Management Science, Vol. 53, No. 10,
pp.1533–1550.
Swift, M., Balkin, D.B. and Matusik, S.F. (2010) ‘Goal orientations and the motivation to share
knowledge’, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 14, No. 3, pp.378–393.
Tohidinia, Z. and Mosakhani, M. (2010) ‘Knowledge sharing behaviour and its predictors’,
Industrial Management and Data Systems, Vol. 110, No. 4, pp.611–631.
Van den Hooff, B., Schouten, A.P. and Simonovski, S. (2012) ‘What one feels and what one
knows: the influence of emotions on attitudes and intentions towards knowledge sharing’,
Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 16, No. 1, pp.148–158.
Vuori, V. and Okkonen, J. (2012) ‘Knowledge sharing motivational factors of using an intra-
organizational social media platform’, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 16, No. 4,
pp.592–603.

View publication stats