Journal of Applied Research in Higher Education

Behavioral factors influencing virtual knowledge sharing: theory of reasoned action

Farkhondeh Hassandoust Rajasvaran Logeswaran Mehdy Farzaneh Kazerouni
Article information:
To cite this document:
Farkhondeh Hassandoust Rajasvaran Logeswaran Mehdy Farzaneh Kazerouni, (2011),"Behavioral factors
influencing virtual knowledge sharing: theory of reasoned action", Journal of Applied Research in Higher
Downloaded by CHALMERS UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY At 14:58 31 January 2016 (PT)

Education, Vol. 3 Iss 2 pp. 116 - 134

Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/17581181111198665
Downloaded on: 31 January 2016, At: 14:58 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 82 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 1510 times since 2011*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
Choong Lyong Ha, (1998),"The theory of reasoned action applied to brand loyalty", Journal of Product
& Brand Management, Vol. 7 Iss 1 pp. 51-61 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/10610429810209737
Ali Jolaee, Khalil Md Nor, Naser Khani, Rosman Md Yusoff, (2014),"Factors affecting knowledge sharing
intention among academic staff", International Journal of Educational Management, Vol. 28 Iss 4 pp.
413-431 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJEM-03-2013-0041
Zahra Tohidinia, Mohammad Mosakhani, (2010),"Knowledge sharing behaviour and its
predictors", Industrial Management & Data Systems, Vol. 110 Iss 4 pp. 611-631 http://
dx.doi.org/10.1108/02635571011039052

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:115318 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for
Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines
are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as
providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee
on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive
preservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

 The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/2050-7003.htm

JARHE
3,2
Behavioral factors influencing
virtual knowledge sharing:
theory of reasoned action
116 Farkhondeh Hassandoust
Faculty of Creative Multimedia, Multimedia University,
Selangor, Malaysia, and
Downloaded by CHALMERS UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY At 14:58 31 January 2016 (PT)

Rajasvaran Logeswaran and Mehdy Farzaneh Kazerouni

Faculty of Engineering, Multimedia University,
Selangor, Malaysia
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to report the results of an exploratory investigation of the
behavioral factors in relation to virtual knowledge sharing among Multimedia University students,
Malaysia, based on the theory of reasoned action (TRA).
Design/methodology/approach – A search and review of the existing literature was followed by an
empirical test of the proposed model in the pilot study (number of participants: n ¼ 50) and the main
study (n ¼ 250).
Findings – Trust, anticipated reciprocal relationship and willingness to share knowledge as an
individual’s attitude; while identification and organizational culture acting as subjective norms,
indirectly have an impact on individual’s intention to share knowledge virtually. No positive
relationship was discovered between the degree of competition and an individual’s attitude to share
knowledge; nor between collectivism and subjective norms.
Research limitations/implications – The results may have been influenced by self-selection bias,
as only one university was sampled.
Practical implications – This study encourages academic researchers and service providers in
educational institutions to focus on an individual’s attitude and institutional subjective norms to
comprehend students’ behavior in virtual knowledge sharing and to improve the knowledge sharing
activities among them, allowing scholars to benefit from better results in their routine academic tasks.
Originality/value – The results indicate that trust, anticipated reciprocal relationship and
willingness to share knowledge were significant predictors of an individual’s intention to share
knowledge indirectly through their attitude toward knowledge sharing. Therefore, lecturers interested
in developing and sustaining knowledge exchange through virtual communities should develop
strategies or mechanisms that encourage the interaction and strength of the relationships among
students. Lecturers can encourage reciprocity by using extrinsic motivators such as assigning rewards
for knowledge sharing activities among students. Also, lecturers can facilitate the factor of “trust”
among student relationships by enhancing the norm of reciprocity.
Keywords Virtual knowledge sharing, Theory of reasoned action (TRA), Individual behaviour,
Trust, Students, Malaysia
Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction
Sharing knowledge through internet technologies and e-collaboration systems for
training and learning has resulted in increasing interest in academia and industry.
Journal of Applied Research in Higher Seeking knowledge through virtual communities to resolve problems at work is
Education popular, but of limited value without rich knowledge (Chiu et al., 2006). Thus, there is a
Vol. 3 No. 2, 2011
pp. 116-134 need to explain why individuals elect to share or not to share knowledge with
r Emerald Group Publishing Limited
2050-7003
other community members. Identification of the influencing factors underlying the
DOI 10.1108/17581181111198665 knowledge sharing behavior in virtual communities would help both academics and
 practitioners gain valuable insight into what is required to stimulate knowledge Virtual
sharing in virtual communities (Chiu et al., 2006). The theory of reasoned action (TRA) knowledge
is applied as a social theory for this purpose.
The knowledge sharing process is considered to be a significant factor in sharing
knowledge management (KM) literature incorporating behavioral and social factors
(Alavi et al., 2006; Bock et al., 2005). In spite of the availability of advanced systems
and large quantities of information in the knowledge driven institutions, it is the 117
behavioral factors of users in sharing knowledge that is paramount in determining
the success or failure of KM technologies (Dyer and McDonough, 2001; Malhotra
and Galleta, 2005). KM literature and e-collaboration technologies emphasize that
Downloaded by CHALMERS UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY At 14:58 31 January 2016 (PT)

KM success depends on collaboration and knowledge sharing among group

members, along with the socio-behavioral factors (Bock et al., 2005; Ko et al., 2005;
Wasko and Faraj, 2005). Researching the social factors of knowledge sharing
behavior has resulted in more interest and attention on the important role of social
influence (norms) and personal commitment (attitude) on the implementation of
e-collaboration systems (Malhotra and Galleta, 2005; Alavi and Leidner, 2001;
Venkatesh et al., 2003).
The findings of this research will not be limited to KM. The social and behavioral
influencing factors discussed in this study will be helpful in improving the
understanding of e-collaboration and should have significant implications to
researchers of these domains. Kock and Nosek (2005) suggested that an important
area of research and institutional practice is on how electronic systems would be able to
expand the learning boundaries of students in education. Integration of different
studies show that social influence, norms and attitudes are important factors for
learning effectiveness (Kock and Nosek, 2005).

2. Theoretical background
2.1 TRA
TRA was originally developed in 1967 by Fishbein and Ajzen, and was later implemented
for human behavior in 1980. This resulted in the development of appropriate
intervention studies.
Attitude and subjective norm are two conceptually independent determinants of
intention that constitutes TRA. Intention toward performing a behavior is identified
from a person’s decision to engage that behavior. The intention, according to Bock
et al. (2005), consists of attitude and subjective norm regarding the particular behavior.
In TRA, behavior is preceded by intentions, the individual’s intentions determined by
attitude (defined as disposition to respond favorably or unfavorably to the self, others
and the environment) and social norms (defined as the way we think others expect us
to act) (Fishbein and Ajzen, 1975).
The intention of an individual to perform a behavior is motivated by positive
evaluation of the behavior, while attitude is the reflection of the individual’s salient
behavioral beliefs (Hassandoust and Perumal, 2010; Bock et al., 2005). Social norm is
the degree to which an individual perceives how others approve the individual’s
participation in a specific behavior. Consequently, social norm is able to positively
affect intention to participate in virtual knowledge sharing networks (Hassandoust and
Perumal, 2010; Hsu and Lin, 2008). Literature on information system studies on social
norms or environmental influence on intention are readily available (Hwang and Kim,
2007). An extensive review of the topic can be found in (Venkatesh et al., 2003).
Limayem et al. (2000) provided evidence that social norms resulting from influence of
 JARHE family members, friends, superiors and even the media, can result in direct, positive
3,2 effects on users’ intention in an electronic collaborative system environment.
However, test results by other researchers highlight inconsistencies in the
relationship between intention and social norms. Among these include work by
Mathieson (1991), who discovered that social norms did not have a significant effect
on intention. This was further confirmed by Davis (1989) that social norms had no
118 significant effect on intention beyond the perceived ease of use and usefulness.
The influence of subjective norms on the intention to share knowledge virtually
among students is tested in this study. TRA is adopted as an initial theoretical frame
for this study. The individual’s decision to participate in a particular behavior is
Downloaded by CHALMERS UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY At 14:58 31 January 2016 (PT)

identified by his/her intention to execute the behavior, which in turn is determined

cooperatively by his/her attitude toward and the subjective norm regarding the
behavior (Fishbein and Ajzen, 1975).

2.2 Online knowledge sharing

There are many forms of knowledge sharing that occur at academic institutions.
These are enhanced by internet networks, which leverage on their ubiquitous
nature. Considered a social exchange, knowledge sharing entices the sharing of
knowledge by individuals. However, Hall (2001) observed that people needed to be
persuaded of the worth of entering into a transaction in exchange for some kind
of resource.
In the past, knowledge sharing was perceived as a transaction process of knowledge
markets. In this scenario, there is a need for reciprocal benefits from the exchange
between the knowledge buyers and sellers (Davenport and Prusak, 1997). The
reciprocal benefits, along with willingness toward knowledge sharing, trust and
competition, are perceived to be the incentives for knowledge sharing.
Nevertheless, there are other influencing factors that affect a user’s intention to
share knowledge virtually. This study includes other determinants affecting
knowledge sharing behavior such as identification, collectivism and organizational
culture – all of which have impact on subjective norms, which in turn influence users’
intention to share knowledge virtually.

3. Factors and hypotheses

The proposed research model is summarized in Figure 1. In comparison with the
standard TRA formulation, the proposed model differs in two major aspects in
terms of recognizing that knowledge sharing inherently involves collective action at its
core: the trust, competition degree, anticipated reciprocal relationship and willingness
to share knowledge are posited to directly and indirectly (through attitude)
influence intention to share knowledge; and identification, collectivism and
organizational culture are posited to directly and indirectly (through subjective
norms) influence intention to share knowledge. The posited relationships are
developed as follows.

3.1 Trust
Management literature views trust as a set of specific beliefs relating to the integrity,
benevolence and ability of others (Mayer et al., 1995; Gefen et al., 2003). The integrity
aspect is focussed in this study, as it deals with the expectation that members involved
in an e-collaborative platform would adhere to a common set of norms, values
and principles. In addition to its important antecedent role in knowledge sharing in
 Trust Virtual
knowledge
Competition
sharing
Attitude toward
Anticipated
knowledge
reciprocal
sharing
relationship 119
Downloaded by CHALMERS UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY At 14:58 31 January 2016 (PT)

Willingness to
share knowledge
Intention to
share
knowledge

Identification

Subjective
Collectivism
norms
Figure 1.
Organizational Conceptual model
culture for this study

virtual communities (Ridings et al., 2002), as also observed in Figure 1, trust is an

important antecedent of many other aspects, including e-collaboration systems’ group
performance (Nelson and Cooprider, 1996), online transactions (Chang et al., 2005;
Gefen et al., 2003; Gefen and Straub, 2004; Pavlou and Gefen, 2004), intellectual capital
exchange (Nahapiet and Ghoshal, 1998) and organizational value creation (Tsai and
Ghoshal, 1998). Engaging in cooperative interaction happens more willingly when
trust exists between the parties (Nahapiet and Ghoshal, 1998). Inter-personal trust
is necessary for the creation of knowledge sharing atmosphere in teams and
organizations (Nonaka, 1994). The difficulty in evaluating the contributions of the
individual in informal interactions is a pertinent characteristic (Bartol and Srivastava,
2002) that gives greater importance for the need of trust in volitional behaviors,
specifically in virtual community knowledge sharing.
According to Cummings and Bromiley (1996, p. 303), a group is trusted when it:
“(a) makes a good-faith effort to behave in accordance with any commitments both
explicit or implicit, (b) is honest in whatever negotiations that preceded such
commitments, and (c) does not take excessive advantage of another even when the
opportunity is available.” Shared social norms, along with repeated interactions and
shared experiences, are recognized as factors that facilitate the development of trust
(Bradach and Eccles, 1989; Lewis and Weigert, 1985; Mayer et al., 1995). Powell (1990)
asserts that the anticipation of future association is another factor that can promote
trust and cooperation. The high levels of uncertainty that exist in the modern
technological environment, especially in the global virtual team, is reduced when trust
plays the pivotal role ( Jarvenpaa and Leidner, 1999).
The media richness (Daft et al., 1987) and social presence theories (Short et al., 1976)
suggest that the type of communication cues individuals use to convey trust, warmth,
 JARHE attentiveness and other interpersonal affections, may be eliminated by computer-based
3,2 communication. They doubt the possibility that virtual teams could develop
relationship and trust. However, many empirical studies have proven the existence
of relational information sharing in computer-mediated teams (Adler, 1995;
Chidambaram, 1996; Walther, 1992, 1994, 1995, 1997). Walther’s social information
processing theory (1996, 1997) claims that there is no difference between
120 computer-mediated and face-to-face communications in terms of social information
exchange capabilities. Its effects are merely in terms of a slower rate of
transfer. Contrary to the previous theories, Walther (1995, 1997) found that
computer-mediated communication groups achieved greater intimacy, social
Downloaded by CHALMERS UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY At 14:58 31 January 2016 (PT)

discussion and depth than the face-to-face groups. This was true even for
geographically dispersed and culturally diverse partners who had never met
face-to-face.
Therefore, the following hypothesis is proposed:

H1. The level of trust among users will positively affect their attitude toward
knowledge sharing in virtual communities.

3.2 Competition
Often, the fear of losing exclusiveness prevents people from willingly sharing their
knowledge. The knowledge the individual possesses gives them an advantage that
can be leveraged (Cho et al., 2007). Competition is a predominant characteristic of
the modern world concerned with intellectual property and is another factor that has
to be addressed. In the context of a classroom, competition in terms of grades may
deter a student from sharing knowledge.
Therefore, the following hypothesis is proposed:

H2. Competition will have a positive affect on attitude toward virtual knowledge
sharing.

3.3 Anticipated reciprocal relationship

The desire to maintain ongoing relationships with others in terms of knowledge
provision and reception, is captured by this factor (Bock et al., 2005). Several studies
(Constant et al., 1994; Blau, 1967; Organ and Konovsky, 1989) argue that the social
exchange relationship is a major determinant of the attitudes of people influenced
by their social and organizational contexts. This is particularly so when knowledge
and similar unspecified cooperative outputs are exchanged.
According to Organ and Konovsky (1989), friendship and/or superordination over
others may be established through social exchange, which also engenders diffuse,
unspecified obligations. In this case, distinct from economic exchange, the interest is in
the relationship itself, and not any other benefit that may be obtained (Blau, 1967).
Consequently, those who are likely to have positive attitudes toward knowledge
sharing would be the ones who believe that knowledge sharing can improve their
mutual relationships with others (Huber, 2001). These people often interact in the desire
for reciprocity and fairness.
The above results in the following hypothesis:

H3. The greater the anticipated reciprocal relationships, the more favorable the
attitude toward knowledge sharing.
 3.4 Willingness to share knowledge Virtual
The willingness to share, as a personal attitude, has been proposed to have positively knowledge
influenced knowledge sharing (Van den Hooff et al., 2003). The propensity or
willingness to share information is considered a prosocial attitude, a general tendency sharing
of people wishing for good outcomes not only for themselves but also for others
(Brief and Motowidlo, 1986, p. 710). It has been linked to influence information sharing
behavior, independent of personal feelings about others (Constant et al., 1994). 121
Hence, this leads to the following hypothesis:

H4. The willingness to share knowledge through online networks will have a
Downloaded by CHALMERS UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY At 14:58 31 January 2016 (PT)

positive effect on user’s attitude toward virtual knowledge sharing.

3.5 Attitude toward knowledge sharing

If the behavioral intention model domain is limited to the rational actor, it is the
individual’s attitude toward a behavior that determines the intention to engage in
the behavior (Ajzen and Fishbein, 1980). In this study, the individual’s attitude toward
knowledge sharing is defined as the degree of positive feelings about sharing
knowledge.
This leads to the hypothesis:

H5. The more favorable the attitude toward knowledge sharing, the greater the
intention to share knowledge.

3.6 Identification
Identification is concerned about the relationship of an individual with others
(Hwang and Kim, 2007; Nahapiet and Ghoshal, 1998). It refers to “one’s conception of
self in terms of the defining features of self-inclusive social category” (Chiu et al., p. 11).
The self-inclusive category here refers to the virtual community. Specifically to this
study, identification relates to the sense of belonging and positive feeling toward a
virtual community. This approach is similar to the emotional identification proposed
by Ellemers et al. (1999) to foster citizenship behaviors and loyalty in the group setting
(Bergami and Bagozzi, 2000; Meyer et al., 2002). Furthermore, it is useful in explaining
the willingness to maintain committed relationships with virtual communities
(Bagozzi and Dholakia, 2002; Dholakia et al., 2004).
Identification is argued to act as a resource that influences the motivation to
combine and exchange knowledge (Nahapiet and Ghoshal, 1998). Conversely, the
existence of distinct and contradictory identities within a group would create
significant barriers to learning, knowledge creation and information sharing. Virtual
communities are informal entities that exist in the minds of the members who connect
through specific shared problems or areas of interest (Ardichvili et al., 2003). The
knowledge is embedded in the individuals of the community. Given that people
tend to keep knowledge to themselves, it is expected that one would not contribute
knowledge unless one is able to identify with the other and feel that the contribution is
conducive to one’s welfare.
“Identification occurs when system users adopt attitudes and behaviors to achieve a
satisfying and self-defining relationship with another person or group” (Hwang and
Kim, 2007). This satisfying self-defining relationship is achieved through the influence
of social norms on the affective commitment and personal norms of the individual.
Satisfaction, derived from the salience of the desired relationship has a similar effect on
 JARHE attitude (Venkatesh et al., 2003; O’Reilly and Chatman, 1986). Specifically, in the KM
3,2 systems environment, this group salience or relationship, through commitment by
identification, plays an important role in developing an attitude toward sharing
knowledge (subjective norms) through online systems. Thus:

H6. Identification will have a positive effect on subjective norms through virtual
122 communities.

3.7 Collectivism
Hofstede (1994) introduced five cultural dimensions, in which collectivism is defined
Downloaded by CHALMERS UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY At 14:58 31 January 2016 (PT)

as the degree of acting as members of cohesive groups rather than as individuals.

Hofstede’s national-level analysis (e.g. US and Korean samples) is used in many
studies, but even people within the same country can differ in their orientations toward
cultural dimensions (McCoy et al., 2005). As such, individual-level adoption of
technology should be investigated and tested based on the individual-level cultural
orientation (McCoy et al., 2005). One such method is the Dorfman and Howell (1998)
measurement of cultural orientation at the individual level. The technique is based on
Hofstede’s (1994, 2001) five dimensions.
Collectivism is where the group feeling is very strong in a tightly coupled social
network (Hofstede, 2001). The norms from other organizational members (e.g. teachers
or classmates) of such a network or learning environment should be positively
influenced by the collectivist culture. Thus, in a model based on the salience of
group membership in the collectivist cultural orientation, the collectivism would be a
positive influence on the social norms. The beliefs, norms and values of the in-group
become more salient and individuals become more responsive to these norms (Srite
and Karahanna, 2006; Bond and Smith, 1996; Hui and Triandis, 1985; Marcus and
Kitayama, 1991) when the collective self is sampled.
Given the importance of collaboration and social learning context in virtual
communities, we hypothesize that:

H7. Collectivism will have a positive effect on social norms.

3.8 Organizational culture

Culture is the collective programming of the mind that distinguishes groups of
humans (Hofstede, 1994, 2001, p. 260) by shared values and norms that constitute
a design of living of the particular group (Hall and Hall, 1990, p. 43). It is a system
for creating, sending and processing information (Hall and Hall, 1990, p. 43).
Culture, this distinctive, enduring patterns of behavior and/or personality
characteristics (Saberwal and Becerra-Fernandez, 2003), affects technology adoption
behavior.
Shared values about human relationships in an organization is known as
organizational culture (Trice and Beyer, 1993). There is common emphasis that for
transfer activities to take place, there is the need for intimacy or closer interpersonal
relationships in organizations (Szulanski, 1996). It is also known that individuals’
evaluations of organizational fairness influences their cooperative behavior (Tyler,
1999). A democratic culture may engender fairness, which in turn may promote
information sharing. Organizational commitment and pride may increase the
likelihood of individuals behaving in the organization’s best interest. This is usually
released by sharing information that is beneficial to others.
 It is generally understood that organizational culture is a critical driver of Virtual
knowledge sharing (Constant et al., 1996; Huber, 2001; Orlikowski, 1993). Robert knowledge
Buckman (1998, pp. 14-5) aptly expressed that a culture that fosters long-term trusting
relationship is required to move from knowledge hoarding to one that rewards sharing
knowledge sharing, as a means of gaining power. He added that knowledge recipients
must be able to trust that they get the best information, while sharers must trust that
the knowledge will not be abused. 123
Hence, we hypothesize:

H8. Organizational culture will have a positive affect on subjective norms.

Downloaded by CHALMERS UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY At 14:58 31 January 2016 (PT)

3.9 Subjective norms

Another important organizational factor related to media choice, as emphasized in
e-collaboration research, is social influence and norms. The social influence model
by Fulk et al. (1991) proposed that the individual’s choices in media are influenced by
those of other employees. However, empirical findings in studies such as the media
richness theory (Daft et al., 1987) put forth contradictory conclusions, including that
group cohesiveness were negatively affected by e-mail and computer conferencing
(Sproull and Kiesler, 1986; Walther, 1996), and that e-communication media reduced
“social context cues” resulting in them being impersonal and ineffective as compared to
the face-to-face communications.
Although contradictory to the report by Venkatesh et al. (2003), we expect a
direct positive relationship between social norms and intention within the voluntary
system environment (i.e. students online communities). Therefore, Ajzen (1991) defined
the subjective norm construct as perceived social pressure to perform or not perform
a behavior. This construct has received considerable empirical support as an important
antecedent to behavioral intention (Mathieson, 1991; Taylor and Todd, 1995;
Thompson et al., 1991).
This leads to the study’s final hypothesis:

H9. Social norms will have a positive effect on intention toward sharing knowledge
through online networks.

4. Research methodology
4.1 Survey administration (data collection)
A sample was designed to include most students from various faculties of the
Cyberjaya campus of Multimedia University Malaysia. The survey was conducted
over a period of two months and concluded with 287 questionnaires. The exclusion
of 37 invalid questionnaires resulted in a total of 250 complete and valid ones for data
analysis. The results were coded by using SPSS.
To test the hypotheses, an online field survey was conducted. Using a
questionnaire designed to be placed on the “Survey Gizmo” web site. The URL of
the questionnaire was forwarded to students via e-mail. To increase the response
rate, the survey message was placed on the MMU “facebook” page. Additionally,
some questionnaires were manually handed out to students to fill out in
undergraduate classes. Table I summarizes the distribution of questionnaire
and respondents’ profile with a summary of the descriptive statistics is shown in
Table II.
 JARHE Description of questionnaire Collected questionnaire Percentage
3,2 Online Through e-mail and MMU facebook page 152 students 25
Handed Response rate 135 students 90
Measure Items Frequency Percentage
Gender Female 123 49.2
Male 127 50.8
Age o21 77 30.8
124 21-25 20 8.0
26-30 74 29.6
31-35 57 22.8
Downloaded by CHALMERS UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY At 14:58 31 January 2016 (PT)

435 22 8.8
School Engineering 42 16.8
Information and technology 31 12.4
Creative multimedia 129 51.6
Table I. Management 37 14.8
Distribution of Foundation 11 4.4
questionnaire and Level Undergraduate 155 62.0
demographic profile Postgraduate 94 37.6

Cronbach’s a based on
Cronbach’s a standardized items
0.921 0.921
Measures Items Mean SD Cronbach’s a if item deleted
Trust 4 3.37 0.76 0.912
Competition 3 3.50 0.63 0.923
Anticipated reciprocal relationship 5 3.59 0.73 0.910
Willingness to sharing knowledge 3 3.78 0.68 0.912
Attitude toward knowledge sharing 4 3.70 0.72 0.907
Subjective norms 3 3.36 0.85 0.913
Identification 3 3.58 0.76 0.911
Collectivism 3 3.68 0.66 0.925
Table II. Intention to virtual knowledge sharing 5 3.55 0.64 0.906
Summary of descriptive Institutional culture 3 4.00 0.78 0.909
statistics (mean, SD and
reliability) Notes: 1 ¼ completely disagree, 5 ¼ completely agree

4.2 Measurement development

The questionnaire was developed from materials that were discussed and tested
previously. The list of items is demonstrated in the Appendix. A pretest of
questionnaire was performed using three experts in the KM area to review its logical
reliability and validity, contextual relevance, arrangement of items and ease of
comprehension of statements. The feedback from these experts led to minor revisions.
The measurement items for competition and willingness to share knowledge were
adopted from Wangpipatwong (2009). Items adopted from Jarvenpaa and Leidner
(1999) were adjusted and used to evaluate the factor of “trust.” The scale items for
anticipated reciprocal relationship and intention to virtual knowledge sharing were
from Bock et al. (2005). Attitude toward online knowledge sharing and social norms
were applied by (Bock et al., 2005; Hwang and Kim, 2007). Identification and
 collectivism aspects were assessed by means of the items based on Hwang and Kim Virtual
(2007). Items used for determining the institutional culture factor was measured based knowledge
upon the research of Tan et al. (2010). For all the measured items a five-point “Likert
scale” was used with the definitions of 1 ¼ completely disagree, 2 ¼ disagree, sharing
3 ¼ neither agree nor disagree, 4 ¼ agree and 5 ¼ completely agree.

4.3 Data analysis 125

A regression analysis was implemented to examine the hypotheses and identify the
relationship between independent variables and the dependent variable. The results
indicate that hypotheses H1, H3 and H4 are therefore supported and trust, anticipated
Downloaded by CHALMERS UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY At 14:58 31 January 2016 (PT)

reciprocal relationship and willingness to share knowledge with statistical significance

at po0.001 are positively associated with attitude toward knowledge sharing and have
positive influence on intention toward knowledge sharing indirectly. However,
competition has no significant association with the attitude toward knowledge sharing
(p40.05); therefore, hypothesis H2 is not confirmed (Table III). Hypotheses H5 and H7
are supported and thus identification and institutional culture factors have significant
influence on subjective norms (po0.05). But, the collectivism factor has no significant
impact on subjective norms, and H5 is not supported (Table IV). Table V reveals that
attitude and subjective norms have direct positive influence on intention toward virtual
knowledge sharing (p ¼ 0.000), ergo H8 and H9 are supported.
From Table III, the regression equation can be formulated as:

Y ¼ 0:527 þ 0:322 X1  0:097 X2 þ 0:312 X3 þ 0:344 X4 þ x

p Hypotheses
Independent variables B b t (significance) supported

Constant 0.527 2.646 0.009

Trust 0.322 0.338 5.738 0.000 (H1) Yes
Competition 0.097 0.083 1.799 0.073 (H2) No
Anticipated reciprocal
relationship 0.312 0.315 5.178 0.000 (H3) Yes Table III.
Willingness to share knowledge 0.344 0.323 6.573 0.0001 (H4) Yes Regression analysis
for attitude toward
Note: Dependent variable (DV): attitude toward knowledge sharing R2 ¼ 0.612 knowledge sharing

Independent p Hypotheses
variables B b t (significance) support

Constant 0.136 0.522 0.602

Identification 0.543 0.484 8.925 0.000 (H5) Yes
Collectivism 0.103 0.080 1.521 0.129 (H6) No
Institutional culture 0.294 0.271 4.452 0.002 (H8) Yes Table IV.
Regression analysis for
Note: Dependent variable (DV): subjective norms R2 ¼ 0.494 subjective norms
 JARHE where Y is the attitude toward knowledge sharing; X1 the trust, X2 the competition, X3
3,2 the anticipated reciprocal relationship, X4 the willingness to share knowledge, x the
error term.
It means that for every unit increase in trust, the attitude toward knowledge sharing
will increase by 0.322 units. For every unit increase in anticipated reciprocal
relationship, the attitude toward knowledge sharing will increase by 0.312 units. Also,
126 for every unit increase in willingness to share knowledge, the attitude will increase by
0.344 units. But, by each unit increase in competition, the attitude decreases by 0.097
units.
From Table IV, the regression equation can be derived as:
Downloaded by CHALMERS UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY At 14:58 31 January 2016 (PT)

Y ¼ 0:136 þ 0:543 X1 þ 0:103 X2 þ 0:294 X3 þ x

where Y is the subjective norms, X1 the identification, X2 the collectivism, X3 the
institutional culture.
From Table V, the regression equation will be extracted as below:

Y ¼ 1:036 þ 0:495 X1 þ 0:203 X2 þ x

where Y is the intention to virtual knowledge sharing, X1 the attitude toward virtual
knowledge sharing, X2 the subjective norms.
The research model from the findings is summarized in Figure 2, which shows
competition degree and collectivism factor are not contributed on students’ intention to
share their knowledge.

5. Discussion
This study validated and presented a multi-facet model to assist in understanding the
factors contributing to virtual knowledge sharing. With experimental analysis, several
implications were gained. Attitude toward knowledge sharing and subjective norms
appeared to be important variables in the context of intention to share knowledge.
Specially, willingness factor was found to have the most significant influence on
attitudes, with a coefficient higher than others (B ¼ 0.344). Furthermore, competition
degree had no positive effect on the student’s attitude to share knowledge.
The identification and institutional culture had significant influence on subjective
norms, which identification factor was found to have most significant affect on
subjective norms with a coefficient higher than others (B ¼ 0.543). And collectivism
item had no significant influence on subjective norms.
Students participating in virtual knowledge sharing activity were motivated to
contribute knowledge to others because of their positive attitude toward knowledge
sharing and institutional factors.

p Hypotheses
Independent variables B b t (significance) support

Constant 1.036 7.556 0.000

Table V. Attitude toward virtual knowledge sharing 0.495 0.561 10.258 0.000 (H8) Yes
Regression analysis for Subjective norms 0.203 0.269 4.924 0.011 (H9) Yes
intention to virtual
knowledge sharing Note: Dependent variable (DV): intention to virtual knowledge sharing R2 ¼ 0.589
 Trust Virtual
0.000*** knowledge
Competition
sharing
0.073
Attitude toward
Anticipated
knowledge
reciprocal 0.000***
relationship
sharing
0.000*** 127
Downloaded by CHALMERS UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY At 14:58 31 January 2016 (PT)

Willingness to 0.0001
share knowledge
Intention to
share
knowledge

Identification 0.000***
0.011
Subjective
Collectivism
0.129 norms

Organizational 0.000***
culture Figure 2.
Model from the
findings
Note: ***p< 0.001

6. Conclusions and future study

Effective knowledge sharing cannot be forced or mandated. Firms desiring to
institutionalize knowledge sharing behaviors must foster facilitative work contexts. By
surfacing motivational drivers associated with individuals’ intentions to share
personal knowledge with others, and providing empirical evidence regarding the
efficacy of these motivational drivers, we feel that we have contributed to the
development of a richer understanding of what must occur in order to encourage and
promote smoother work conditions.
Future research could investigate the results when the objective measure is
used as a dependent variable and when some other specified media, such as mobile
learning, is tested as the model (Hwang and Kim, 2007). It would be interesting, if
future studies could investigate the influencing factors in another facet such as
technological aspect. Also, the interrelationships among facets of these influencing
factors should be examined. Furthermore, additional investigations are required to
make sense of why individuals choose to participate in a virtual community, for
trading knowledge (two way) or receiving knowledge (one way) but do not share and
contribute.

References
Adler, P.S. (1995), “Interdepartmental interdependence and coordination: the case of the design/
manufacturing interface”, Organization Science, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 147-67.
 JARHE Ajzen, I. (1991), “The theory of planned behavior”, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, Vol. 50 No. 2, pp. 179-211.
3,2
Ajzen, I. and Fishbein, M. (1980), Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social Behavior,
Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Alavi, M. and Leidner, D.E. (2001), “Knowledge management and knowledge
management systems: conceptual foundations and research issues”, MIS Quart, Vol. 25
128 No. 1, pp. 107-36.
Alavi, M., Kayworth, T.R. and Leidner, D.E. (2006), “An empirical examination of the influence of
organizational culture on knowledge management practices”, J. MIS, Vol. 22 No. 3,
pp. 191-224.
Downloaded by CHALMERS UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY At 14:58 31 January 2016 (PT)

Ardichvili, A., Page, V. and Wentiling, 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.
Bagozzi, R.P. and Dholakia, U.M. (2002), “Intentional social actions in virtual communities”,
Journal of Interactive Marketing, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 2-21.
Bartol, K.M. and Srivastava, A. (2002), “Encouraging knowledge sharing: the role of
organizational reward systems”, Journal of Leadership and Organization Studies, Vol. 9
No. 1, pp. 64-76.
Bergami, M. and Bagozzi, R.P. (2000), “Self-categorization, affective commitment and group self-
esteem as distinct aspects of social identity in the organization”, British Journal of Social
Psychology, Vol. 39 No. 4, pp. 555-77.
Blau, P. (1967), Exchange and Power in Social Life, Wiley, New York, NY.
Bock, G., Zmud, R.W., Kim, Y. and Lee, J. (2005), “Behavioral intention formation in knowledge
sharing: examining the roles of extrinsic motivators, social-psychological forces, and
organizational climate”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 87-111.
Bond, R. and Smith, P.B. (1996), “Culture and conformity: a meta-analysis of studies using Asch’s
line judgment tas”, Psychological Bull, Vol. 119 No. 1, pp. 111-37.
Bradach, J.L. and Eccles, R.G. (1989), “Markets versus hierarchies: from ideal types to plural
forms”, Annual Review of Sociology, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 97-118.
Brief, A. and Motowidlo, S.J. (1986), “Prosocial Organizational Behaviors”, Academy of
Management Review, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 710-25.
Buckman, R.H. (1998), “Knowledge sharing at Buckman Labs”, Journal of Business Strategy,
Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 11-5.
Chang, M.K., Cheung, W. and Lai, V.S. (2005), “Literature derived reference models
for the adoption of online shopping”, Information and Management, Vol. 42 No. 4,
pp. 543-59.
Chidambaram, L. (1996), “Relational development in computer-supported groups”, MIS
Quarterly, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 143-65.
Chiu, C.M., Hsu, M.H. and Wang, E.T.G. (2006), “Understanding knowledge sharing in virtual
communities: an integration of social capital and social cognitive theories”, Decision
Support System, Vol. 42 No. 3, pp. 1872-88.
Cho, N., Li, G.Z. and Su, C.Z. (2007), “An empirical study on the effect of individual factors on
knowledge sharing by knowledge type”, Journal of Global Business and Technology, Vol. 3
No. 2, pp. 1-15.
Constant, D., Keisler, S. and Sproull, L. (1994), “What’s mine is ours, or is it? A study of attitudes
about information sharing”, Information Systems Research, Vol. 5 No. 4, pp. 400-21.
Constant, D., Kiesler, S. and Sproull, L. (1996), “The kindness of strangers”, Organization Science,
Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 119-35.
 Cummings, L.L. and Bromiley, P. (1996), “The organizational trust inventory (OTI): development Virtual
and validation”, in Kramer, R.M. and Tyler, T.R. (Eds), Trust in Organizations: Frontiers of
Theory and Research, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 302-30. knowledge
Daft, L., Lengel, H. and Trevino, K. (1987), “Message equivocality, media selection, and sharing
manager performance: implications for information systems”, MIS Quart, Vol. 11 No. 3,
pp. 355-66.
Davenport, T.H. and Prusak, L. (1997), Working Knowledge: How Organizations Manage What 129
They Know, Project Management Institute, Harvard Business, Boston, MA.
Davis, F.D. (1989), “Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of
information technology”, MIS Quart, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 319-40.
Downloaded by CHALMERS UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY At 14:58 31 January 2016 (PT)

Dholakia, U.M., Bagozzi, R.P. and Pearo, L.K. (2004), “A social influence model of consumer
participation in network- and small-group based virtual communities”, International
Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 241-63.
Dorfman, P.W. and Howell, J.P. (1998), “Dimensions of national culture and effective leadership
patterns: Hofstede revisited”, Advances Int. Comparative Manage, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 127-50.
Dyer, G. and McDonough, B. (2001), “The state of knowledge management”, Knowledge Manage,
Vol. 4 No. 5, pp. 31-6.
Ellemers, N., Kortekaas, P. and Ouwerkerk, J.W. (1999), “Self-categorization, commitment to the
group and group self-esteem as related but distinct aspects of social identity”, European
Journal of Social Psychology, Vol. 29 Nos 2-3, pp. 371-89.
Fishbein, M. and Ajzen, I. (1975), Beliefs, Attitude, Intention and Behavior: An Introduction to
Theory and Research, Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Reading, MA.
Fulk, J., Schmitz, J. and Steinfield, C. (1991), “A social influence model of technology use”, in
Fulk, J. and Steinfield, C. (Eds), Organizations and Communication Technology, Sage,
Newbury Park, CA, pp. 117-40.
Gefen, D. and Straub, D.W. (2004), “Consumer trust in B2C e-Commerce and the importance
of social presence: experiments in e-Products and e-Services”, Omega, Vol. 32 No. 6,
pp. 407-24.
Gefen, D., Karahanna, E. and Straub, D.W. (2003), “Trust and TAM in online shopping: an
integrated model”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 51-90.
Hall, E.T. and Hall, M.R. (1990), Understanding Cultural Differences, Intercultural Press,
Yarmouth, ME.
Hall, H. (2001), “Input-friendliness: motivating knowledge sharing across intranets”, Journal of
Information Science, Vol. 27 No. 3, pp. 139-46.
Hassandoust, F. and Perumal, V. (2010), “Socio-behavioral factors in virtual knowledge sharing:
theory of reasoned action and theory of planned behavior perspective”, Virtual Conference
on Business and Management, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 91-107.
Hofstede, G. (1994), Values Survey Modules Manual, IRIC, Tilburg University, Tilburg.
Hofstede, G. (2001), Culture’s Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions, and
Organizations Across Nations, 2nd ed., Sage Publication, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Hsu, C.L. and Lin, J.C. (2008), “Acceptance of blog usage: the roles of technology acceptance,
social influence and knowledge sharing motivation”, Information & Management, Vol. 45
No. 1, pp. 65-74.
Huber, G.P. (2001), “transfer of knowledge in knowledge management systems: unexplored
issues and suggested studies”, European Journal of Information Systems, Vol. 10 No. 2,
pp. 72-9.
Hui, H. and Triandis, H. (1985), “Measurement in cross-cultural psychology”, J. Cross-Cultural
Psychology, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 131-52.
 JARHE Hwang, Y. and Kim, J.D. (2007), “Understanding affective commitment, collectivist culture, and
social influence in relation to knowledge sharing in technology mediated learning”, IEEE
3,2 Transaction On Professional Communication, Vol. 50 No. 3, pp. 232-48.
Jarvenpaa, S. and Leidner, D. (1999), “Communication and trust in global virtual teams”,
Organization Science, Vol. 10 No. 6, pp. 791-815.
Ko, D., Kirsch, L.J. and King, W.R. (2005), “Antecedents of knowledge transfer from consultants to
130 clients in enterprise system implementations”, MIS Quart, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 59-85.
Kock, N. and Nosek, J. (2005), “Expanding the boundaries of e-collaboration”, IEEE Trans. Prof.
Commun, Vol. 48 No. 1, pp. 1-9.
Downloaded by CHALMERS UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY At 14:58 31 January 2016 (PT)

Lewis, J.D. and Weigert, A. (1985), “Trust as a social reality”, Social Forces, Vol. 63 No. 4,
pp. 967-85.
Limayem, M., Khalifa, M. and Frini, A. (2000), “What makes consumers buy from Internet?
A longitudinal study of online shopping”, IEEE Trans. Syst., Man, Cybern. A, Syst.,
Humans, Vol. 30 No. 4, pp. 421-32.
McCoy, S., Galletta, D. and King, W. (2005), “Integrating national culture into IS research: the need
for current individual-level measures”, Commun. AIS, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 211-24.
Malhotra, Y. and Galleta, D. (2005), “A multidimensional commitment model of volitional
systems adoption and usage behavior”, J. MIS, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 117-51.
Marcus, H. and Kitayama, S. (1991), “Culture and the self: implications for cognition, emotion,
and motivation”, Psychological Rev, Vol. 98 No. 3, pp. 224-53.
Mathieson, K. (1991), “Predicting user intentions: comparing the technology acceptance
model with the theory of planned behavior”, Information Systems Research, Vol. 2 No. 3,
pp. 173-91.
Mayer, R.C., Davis, J.H. and Schoorman, F.D. (1995), “An integrative model of organisational
trust”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 709-34.
Meyer, J.P., Stanley, D.J., Herscovitch, L. and Topolnyutsky, L. (2002), “Affective, continuance, and
normative commitment to the organization: a meta-analysis of antecedents, correlates,
and consequences”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 61 No. 1, pp. 20-52.
Nahapiet, J. and Ghoshal, S. (1998), “Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organizational
advantage”, The Academy of Management Review, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 242-66.
Nelson, K.M. and Cooprider, J.G. (1996), “The contribution of shared knowledge to IS group
performance”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 409-29.
Nonaka, I. (1994), “A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation”, Organization
Science, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 14-37.
O’Reilly, C. and Chatman, J. (1986), “Organizational commitment and psychological attachment:
the effects of compliance, identification, and internalization on prosocial behavior”,
J. Appl. Psychology, Vol. 71 No. 3, pp. 492-9.
Organ, D.W. and Konovsky, M. (1989), “Cognitive versus affective determinants of organizational
citizenship behavior”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 74 No. 1, pp. 157-64.
Orlikowski, W.J. (1993), “Learning from notes: organizational issues in groupware
implementation”, The Information Society Journal, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 237-50.
Pavlou, P. and Gefen, D. (2004), “Building effective online marketplaces with institution-based
trust”, Information Systems Research, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 37-59.
Powell, W.W. (1990), “Neither market nor hierarchy: network forms of organization”, Research in
Organizational Behavior, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 295-336.
Ridings, C., Gefen, D. and Arinze, B. (2002), “Some antecedents and effects of trust in virtual
communities”, Journal of Strategic Information Systems, Vol. 11 Nos 3-4, pp. 271-95.
 Saberwal, R. and Becerra-Fernandez, I. (2003), “An empirical study of the effect of knowledge Virtual
management processes at individual, group, and organizational levels”, Decision Sci,
Vol. 34 No. 2, pp. 225-60. knowledge
Short, J., Williams, E. and Christie, B. (1976), The Social Psychology of Telecommunications, John sharing
Wiley, New York, NY.
Sproull, L. and Kiesler, S. (1986), “Reducing social context cues: electronic mail in organizational
communication”, Manage. Sci, Vol. 32 No. 11, pp. 1492-512. 131
Srite, M. and Karahanna, E. (2006), “The role of espoused national cultural values in technology
acceptance”, MIS Quart, Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 679-704.
Downloaded by CHALMERS UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY At 14:58 31 January 2016 (PT)

Szulanski, G. (1996), “Exploring internal stickiness: impediments to the transfer of best

practice within the firm”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 17 (Winter Special Issue),
pp. 27-43.
Tan, N., Lye, Y., Ng, T. and San Lim, Y. (2010), “Motivational factors in influencing knowledge
sharing among banks in Malaysia”, International Research Journal of Finance and
Economics, No. 44, pp. 191-201.
Taylor, S. and Todd, P. (1995), “Understanding information technology usage: a test of competing
models”, Information Systems Research, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 144-76.
Thompson, R.L., Higgins, C.A. and Howell, J.M. (1991), “Personal computing: toward a
conceptual model of utilization”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 125-43.
Trice, H.M. and Beyer, J.M. (1993), The Cultures of Work Organizations, Prentice Hall, Englewood
Cliffs, NJ.
Tsai, W. and Ghoshal, S. (1998), “Social capital and value creation: an empirical study of intrafirm
networks”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 41 No. 4, pp. 464-76.
Tyler, T.R. (1999), “Why people cooperate with organizations: an identity-based perspective”,
Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 21, pp 201-46.
van den Hooff, B., Elving, W., Meeuwsen, M. and Dumoulin, C. (2003), “Knowledge sharing in
knowledge communities”, in Huysman, M., Wenger, E. and Wulf, V. (Eds), Communities
and Technologies, Kluwer, Deventer, pp. 119-41.
Venkatesh, V., Morris, M., Davis, G. and Davis, F.D. (2003), “User acceptance of information
technology: toward a unified view”, MIS Quart, Vol. 27 No. 3, pp. 425-78.
Walther, J.B. (1992), “Interpersonal effects in computer-mediated interaction: a relational
perspective”, Communication Research, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 52-90.
Walther, J.B. (1994), “Anticipated ongoing interaction versus channel effects on relational
communication in computer-mediated interaction”, Human Communication Research,
Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 473-501.
Walther, J.B. (1995), “Relational aspects of computer-mediated communication: experimental
observations over time”, Organization Science, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 186-203.
Walther, J.B. (1996), “Computer-mediated communication: impersonal, interpersonal, and
hyperpersonal interaction”, Commun. Res, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 3-43.
Walther, J.B. (1997), “Group and interpersonal effects in international computer-mediated
collaboration”, Human Communication Research, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 342-69.
Wangpipatwong, S. (2009), “Factors influencing knowledge sharing among university students”,
Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Computers in Education [CDROM],
Asia-Pacific Society for Computers in Education, Hong Kong.
Wasko, M.M. and Faraj, S. (2005), “Why should I share? Examining social capital and
knowledge contribution in electronic networks of practice”, MIS Quart, Vol. 29 No. 1,
pp. 35-57.
 JARHE Appendix. List of questionnaire items
3,2 Trust (TR)
TR1 We were usually considerate of one another’s feelings on online team working.
TR2 The people in group were friendly.
TR3 I could rely on those with whom I worked in my online group.
TR4 Overall, the people in online group were very trustworthy.
132
Competition (CO)
CO1 I feel that my final grade is dependent on a great extent on the relative performance of
Downloaded by CHALMERS UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY At 14:58 31 January 2016 (PT)

my team members/classmates.
CO2 I feel that my team members/classmates have the potential to perform better
than me.
CO3 I feel that my team members/classmates are my competitors.

Anticipated Reciprocal Relationship (AR)

AR1 My online knowledge sharing would strengthen the ties between existing members in
the team and myself.
AR2 My virtual knowledge sharing would get me well-acquainted with new members in
the class/team.
AR3 My virtual knowledge sharing would expand the scope of my association with other
members in the class/team.
AR4 My virtual knowledge sharing would draw smooth cooperation from outstanding
members in the future.
AR5 My virtual knowledge sharing would create strong relationships with members who
have common interests in the class/team.

Willingness to share knowledge (WS)

WS1 I am willing to share course materials with my team members/classmates through
online networks.
WS2 I am willing to discuss new ideas with my team members/classmates through online
networks.
WS3 I am willing to share knowledge that I acquire with my team members/classmates
through online networks.

Attitude toward online knowledge sharing (AT)

AT1 My knowledge sharing with group members by online networks is a good idea.
AT2 My knowledge sharing with group members by online networks is an enjoyable
experience.
AT3 My knowledge sharing with group members by online networks is valuable
to me.
AT4 My knowledge sharing with group members by online networks is a wise decision.

Social Norms (SN)

SN1 My lecturer thinks that I should share my knowledge with group members by online
networks.
SN2 My group members think that I should share my knowledge with group members by
online systems.
SN3 My close classmates think that I should share my knowledge with group members by
online networks.
 Identification (ID) Virtual
ID1 I am proud about sharing my knowledge by online networks in the group.
ID2 I talk up my knowledge sharing by online networks to my group members as having
knowledge
great utility for me. sharing
ID3 I feel a sense of “ownership” for the knowledge sharing by online networks in the
group.
133
Collectivism (CL)
CL1 Group success is more important than individual success.
CL2 Being accepted by the members of your group is very important.
Downloaded by CHALMERS UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY At 14:58 31 January 2016 (PT)

CL3 Group members may be expected to give up their personal goals in order to benefit
group success.
CL4 Group members should only pursue their personal goals after considering the success
of the group.

Intention to virtual knowledge sharing (IN)

IN1 I will share virtually my work reports and official documents with members of my
class/team more frequently in the future.
IN2 I will always provide virtually my manuals, methodologies and models for members
of my class/team.
IN3 I intend to share virtually my experience or know-how from work with other class/
team members more frequently in the future.
IN4 I will always provide my know-where or know-whom virtually at the request of other
class/team members.
IN5 I will try to share virtually my expertise from my education or training with other
team members in a more effective way.

Institutional Culture (IC)

IC1 Institutions must be highly flexible to motivate online knowledge sharing
process.
IC2 Students’ participation motivates online knowledge sharing.
IC3 Lecturer must lead their students to share knowledge virtually.

About the authors

Farkhondeh Hassandoust graduated from Guilan University, Iran, in the field of Electronic
Engineering in 2005. She started her career as Executive Manager in a biomedical company in Iran
until 2009. She completed her Master’s Degree in Knowledge Management at Multimedia University,
Cyberjaya, Malaysia in December 2010. She has been working for DIBTA group, Malaysia, as a
Knowledge Management Executive/Project Manager officer since January 2011. Farkhondeh
Hassandoust is the corresponding author and can be contacted at: Ferry.h.f@gmail.com
Rajasvaran Logeswaran received his B.Eng. (Hons) Computing Degree from the University of
London (Imperial College of Science, Technology and Medicine), UK in 1997, M.Eng.Sc. and PhD
degrees from Multimedia University, Cyberjaya, Malaysia in 2000 and 2006, respectively. He was
an Assistant Professor at The Global School of Media, Soongsil University, South Korea in 2008. He
is currently an Associate Professor and the Deputy Dean at the Faculty of Engineering, Multimedia
University, Cyberjaya, Malaysia. Dr Logeswaran has published over 80 international papers and
contributed to several books. His research interests include neural networks, data compression,
medical image processing, optical coherence tomography and web technology.
 JARHE Mehdy Farzaneh Kazerouni received his B.Eng. Degree in Electronics from the Guilan
University, Iran in 2000, M.Eng.Sc. in Electronics from the University of New South Wales,
3,2 UNSW, Sydney, Australia in 2005 where he also took several graduate courses in Technology
Management. He has been working as the Chief of Electrical Bureau at the Fon Aron Engineering
Company in Iran since February 2007. Mehdy was also a member of the board of directors in
Behsaman Medgostar Biomedical Engineering Company. He is currently a PhD student at the
134 Multimedia University, Cyberjaya Malaysia, working on optical coherence tomography image
processing.
Downloaded by CHALMERS UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY At 14:58 31 January 2016 (PT)

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
 This article has been cited by:

1. Peyman Akhavan, S. Mahdi Hosseini. 2016. Social capital, knowledge sharing, and innovation capability:
an empirical study of R&D teams in Iran. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management 28, 96-113.
[CrossRef]
2. Peyman Akhavan, S. Mahdi Hosseini, Morteza Abbasi, Manuchehr Manteghi. 2015. Knowledge-sharing
determinants, behaviors, and innovative work behaviors. Aslib Journal of Information Management 67:5,
562-591. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
3. Soon-Yau Foong, Choo-Hong Khoo. 2015. Attitude, learning environment and current knowledge
enhancement of accounting students in Malaysia. Journal of Accounting in Emerging Economies 5:2, 202-221.
Downloaded by CHALMERS UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY At 14:58 31 January 2016 (PT)

[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

4. Gangeswari Tangaraja, Roziah Mohd Rasdi, Maimunah Ismail, Bahaman Abu Samah. 2015. Fostering
knowledge sharing behaviour among public sector managers: a proposed model for the Malaysian public
service. Journal of Knowledge Management 19:1, 121-140. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
5. Arash Khosravi, Mohammad Nazir Ahmad. 2014. Examining antecedents of knowledge-sharing factors
on research supervision: An empirical study. Education and Information Technologies . [CrossRef]