A R T I C L E I N F O
A B S T R A C T
Article history:
Received 4 February 2008
Received in revised form 21 December 2009
Accepted 11 March 2010
Available online 27 March 2010
Professional virtual communities (PVCs) bring together geographically dispersed, like-minded people to
form a network for knowledge exchange. To promote knowledge sharing, it is important to know why
individuals choose to give or to receive knowledge with other community members. We identied
factors that were considered inuential in increasing community knowledge transfer and examined
their impact in PVCs. Data collected from 323 members of two communities were used in our structural
equation modeling (SEM). The results suggested that norm of reciprocity, interpersonal trust, knowledge
sharing self-efcacy, and perceived relative advantage were signicant in affecting knowledge sharing
behaviors in PVCs. The knowledge contributing and collecting behaviors were positively related to
knowledge utilization. Furthermore, while the collecting behavior had a signicant effect on community
promotion, the inuence of contributing behavior on community promotion was limited.
2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Keywords:
Knowledge contributing
Knowledge collecting
Virtual communities
Individual factors
Contextual factors
1. Introduction
The emergence of professional virtual communities (PVCs) has
provided a solution, new insights, and mechanisms into knowledge
management and sharing in organizations. VCs are groups of
people who communicate regularly in an organized manner via a
communication medium, such as a bulletin board or a news group.
Rapid exchange of information and knowledge through VCs has
dramatically changed lifestyles, enhancing individual and organizational learning. Community members share their ideas and
thoughts. Individuals take part in PVCs to secure knowledge,
resolve problems, improve individual capability, absorb specialized knowledge, and create innovations. Many organizations have
recognized PVCs as valuable in their knowledge management and
have begun to support their development and growth [1].
The process of knowledge sharing involves members contributing knowledge and seeking knowledge for reuse. Success of
PVCs requires knowledge contributors to be amenable to donating
their knowledge and be willing to reuse codied knowledge [2].
The same individual can, of course, be a giver or a receiver at
different times. The biggest challenge in facilitating a VC is the
continuous supply of knowledge from members. It is thus
227
228
229
230
Table 1
Sample characteristics (the number of subjects = 323).
Demographic characteristics
Table 3
Model t results for measurement and structural models.
Frequency
Percentage
Gender
Male
Female
266
57
82%
18%
Age
<21
2130
3140
4150
>50
60
103
95
42
23
19%
32%
29%
13%
7%
Education
33
64
140
72
14
10%
20%
43%
23%
4%
Working experience
<1 year
13
35
510
1015
1520
>20
43
22
41
115
62
27
13
13%
7%
13%
36%
19%
8%
4%
Job title
IS manager
Project manager
Programmer
Software engineer
Hardware engineer
Web application engineer
System engineer
Students
Others
21
14
44
38
36
27
29
45
69
7%
4%
14%
12%
11%
8%
9%
14%
21%
Member history
<3 months
36 months
6 months1 year
1 year2 years
2 years3 years
Over 3 years
28
38
42
88
54
73
8%
12%
13%
27%
17%
23%
Online history
<1 year
13 years
35 years
58 years
812 years
Over 12 years
13
22
43
89
77
79
4%
7%
13%
28%
24%
24%
7 = strongly agree) was used. Appendix A lists all survey items used
to measure each construct.
4. Data analysis and results
We used a two-step procedure for assessing the reliability and
validity of the measures before their use in the full model.
Fit index
2
x /d.f.
GFI
AGFI
NFI
CFI
SRMR
RMSEA
Measurement model
Structural model
282/241 = 1.17
0.94
0.93
0.97
0.99
0.03
0.02
334/252 = 1.32
0.92
0.90
0.96
0.99
0.04
0.03
Recommended value
3.00
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.95
0.08
0.05
Table 2
Denitions of constructs.
Construct (abbreviation)
Denition
Peoples salient beliefs that knowledge sharing would lead to future request for knowledge being met
The degree of belief in good intentions, benevolence, competence, and reliability of members sharing
knowledge in PVCs
The degree of members self-evaluation and condence in their skills and capabilities in responding
questions posted by others, and to provide knowledge that is valuable and useful
The degree to which encouraging knowledge sharing was perceived to benet the members
The degree to which encouraging knowledge sharing was perceived to t the value system and current
needs of members
The quantity of knowledge contributing based on the average volume of a members active knowledge
donating and posting per month
The quantity of knowledge collecting based on the average volume of a members knowledge collecting
and viewing per month
The degree of usage of knowledge obtained from PVCs
The degree to which promoting a virtual community is aggressive in inviting new members to join and
talk about the benets of the PVC
231
Table 4
Conrmatory factor analysis results of the measurement model.
Construct
Internal reliability
Convergent validity
Item
Cronbach a
CR
Norm of reciprocity
NR1
NR2
NR3
0.90
0.82 (18.5***)
0.86 (19.9***)
0.85 (19.6***)
0.88
Interpersonal trust
ITR1
ITR2
ITR3
0.92
0.82 (19.0***)
0.91 (22.2***)
0.87 (20.7***)
0.90
KSSE1
KSSE2
KSSE3
0.88
0.88 (21.4***)
0.89 (21.6***)
0.85 (20.1***)
0.91
PRA1
PRA2
PRA3
0.86
0.77 (16.3***)
0.79 (17.0***)
0.76 (16.2***)
0.82
Perceived compatibility
PC1
PC2
PC3
PC4
0.87
0.85
0.85
0.78
0.81
(20.0***)
(19.9***)
(17.6***)
(18.4***)
0.89
KCB1
n/a
1.00 (27.7***)
n/a
KCB2
n/a
1.00 (27.7***)
n/a
***
Knowledge utilization
KU1
KU2
KU3
0.75
0.70 (13.9 )
0.71 (14.1***)
0.76 (15.3***)
0.77
Community promotion
CP1
CP2
CP3
CP4
0.85
0.62
0.77
0.80
0.80
(12.6***)
(16.7***)
(17.5***)
(17.6***)
0.84
Notes: (1) CR = composite reliability; AVE = average variance extracted. (2) See Appendix A for the description of each construct and item.
***
p < 0.001.
was greater than the correlation shared between the construct and
other constructs in the model. Table 5 shows the correlations
among the constructs, with the square root of the AVE on the
diagonal. All the diagonal values exceeded the correlations
between any pair of constructs, indicating the measure has
adequate discriminant validity.
Four correlations of independent variables were above 0.45 (see
Table 5), highlighting the need to test strictly for discriminant
validity. We therefore adopted another procedure to assess the
discriminant validity of the subsets of measures. Within each
subset, we examined pairs of constructs in a series of two-factor
conrmatory factor models, using LISREL. We ran each model
twice, once constraining the correlations between the two
constructs to unity and once freeing this parameter. Then a chisquare different test was conducted. The results indicated that the
Table 5
Discriminant validity: correlations and AVE.
Construct
Mean
St. dev.
AVE
NR
ITR
KSSE
PRA
PC
KCB1
KCB2
KU
CP
NR
ITR
KSSE
PRA
PC
KCB1
KCB2
KU
CP
4.22
5.25
5.04
4.70
4.13
3.38
3.89
4.88
5.22
1.09
1.14
1.16
1.08
0.99
1.45
1.64
0.93
1.03
0.71
0.75
0.76
0.60
0.68
1.0
1.0
0.53
0.56
0.84
0.35**
0.25
0.12*
0.34**
0.24**
0.16**
0.07
0.08
0.87
0.48**
0.28**
0.54**
0.45**
0.55**
0.17**
0.21**
0.87
0.57**
0.49**
0.52**
0.48**
0.18**
0.20**
0.77
0.33**
0.55**
0.58**
0.20**
0.23**
0.82
0.39**
0.33**
0.13*
0.14*
1.0
0.41**
0.27**
0.25**
1.0
0.23**
0.31**
0.73
0.60**
0.75
Note: Diagonal elements are the square root of the average variance extracted (AVE). Off-diagonal elements are the correlations among constructs. For discriminant validity,
AVE should be larger than squared correlation between any pair of constructs; hence diagonal elements should be larger than off-diagonal elements.
*
p < 0.05.
**
p < 0.01 (two-tailed test).
232
Table 6
Discriminant validity analyses with pairs of constructs.
Constrained
model x2 (d.f.)
Unconstrained
model x2 (d.f.)
Dx2
NR with
ITR
KSSE
PRA
PC
162
183
204
247
32.4
28.1
34.0
27.8
(8)
(8)
(8)
(13)
130***
155***
170***
220***
ITR with
KSSE
PRA
PC
154 (9)
175 (9)
265 (14)
25.9 (8)
28.6 (8)
32.1 (13)
129***
146***
233***
KSSE with
PRA
PC
192 (9)
242 (14)
35.2 (8)
28.3 (13)
157***
214***
PRA with
PC
277 (14)
38.7 (13)
239***
Pairs of constructs
***
(9)
(9)
(9)
(14)
p < 0.001.
233
234
Sharing
Sharing
Sharing
Sharing
knowledge
knowledge
knowledge
knowledge
with
with
with
with
members
members
members
members
in
in
in
in
this
this
this
this
virtual
virtual
virtual
virtual
community
community
community
community
I
I
I
I
235
Items
Norm of reciprocity
NR1
NR2
NR3
0.83
0.87
0.85
0.13
0.14
0.13
0.08
0.11
0.12
0.13
0.15
0.09
0.27
0.23
0.19
0.13
0.22
0.16
0.26
0.29
0.10
Interpersonal trust
ITR1
ITR2
ITR3
0.23
0.32
0.23
0.82
0.92
0.87
0.20
0.04
0.26
0.08
0.25
0.22
0.23
0.17
0.19
0.11
0.17
0.11
0.08
0.28
0.09
KSSE1
KSSE2
KSSE3
0.21
0.11
0.15
0.20
0.29
0.10
0.87
0.90
0.85
0.20
0.20
0.31
0.21
0.11
0.26
0.13
0.28
0.25
0.22
0.11
0.16
PRA1
PRA2
PRA3
0.20
0.22
0.11
0.24
0.13
0.08
0.30
0.31
0.21
0.77
0.80
0.76
0.34
0.19
0.23
0.14
0.13
0.07
0.16
0.11
0.25
Perceived compatibility
PC1
PC2
PC3
PC4
0.16
0.26
0.19
0.11
0.12
0.11
0.00
0.13
0.25
0.20
0.12
0.22
0.19
0.22
0.18
0.17
0.85
0.86
0.79
0.81
0.08
0.15
0.23
0.27
0.23
0.19
0.25
0.24
Knowledge utilization
KU1
KU2
KU3
0.07
0.12
0.14
0.12
0.13
0.06
0.17
0.10
0.20
0.12
0.23
0.20
0.17
0.17
0.05
0.71
0.72
0.75
0.05
0.13
0.20
Community promotion
CP1
CP2
CP3
CP4
0.19
0.14
0.21
0.09
0.11
0.12
0.08
0.20
0.17
0.13
0.28
0.23
0.21
0.13
0.14
0.18
0.12
0.16
0.15
0.04
0.28
0.13
0.11
0.12
0.63
0.78
0.81
0.81
References
[1] P. Gongla, C.R. Rizzuto, Evolving communities of practice: IBM global services
experience, IBM Systems Journal 40 (4), 2001, pp. 842862.
[2] S. Ba, J. Stallaert, A.B. Whinston, Introducing a third dimension in information
systems design: the case for incentive alignment, Information System Research 12
(3), 2001, pp. 225239.
[3] C.M. Chiu, M.H. Hsu, E.T.G. Wang, Understanding knowledge sharing in virtual
communities: an integration of social capital and social cognitive theories,
Decision Support Systems 42 (3), 2006, pp. 18721888.
[4] H. Hall, D. Graham, Creation and recreation: motivating collaboration to generate
knowledge capital in online communities, International Journal of Information
Management 24 (3), 2004, pp. 235246.
[5] M.H. Hsu, T.L. Ju, C.H. Yen, C.M. Chang, Knowledge sharing behavior in virtual
communities: the relationship between trust, self-efcacy, and outcome expectations, International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 65, 2007, pp. 153169.
[6] J. Koh, Y.G. Kim, Knowledge sharing in virtual communities: an e-business
perspective, Expert Systems with Applications 26 (2), 2004, pp. 155166.
[7] M. Ma, R. Agarwal, Through a glass darkly: information technology design,
identity verication, and knowledge contribution in Online communities, Information Systems Research 18 (1), 2007, pp. 4267.
[8] G. Widen-Wulff, M. Ginman, Explaining knowledge sharing in organizations
through the dimensions of social capital, Journal of Information Science 30 (5),
2004, pp. 448458.
[9] C.P. Yu, T.H. Chu, Exploring knowledge contribution from an OCB perspective,
Information & Management 44 (3), 2007, pp. 321331.
[10] M.M. Wasko, S. Faraj, It is what one does: why people participate and help others
in electronic communities of practice, Journal of Strategic Information Systems 9
(23), 2000, pp. 155173.
[11] P.A. Pavlou, D. Gefen, Building effective online marketplaces with institutionbased trust, Information Systems Research 15 (1), 2004, pp. 3562.
[12] A. Kankanhalli, B.C.Y. Tan, K.K. Wei, Contributing knowledge to electronic knowledge repositories: an empirical investigation, MIS Quarterly 29 (1), 2005, pp. 113
143.
[13] R.M. Wachter, N.D.J. Gupta, M.A. Quaddus, IT takes a village: virtual communities
in support of education, International Journal of Information Management 20 (6),
2000, pp. 473489.
[14] G.W. Bock, Y.G. Kim, Breaking the myths of rewards: an exploratory study of
attitudes about knowledge sharing, Information Resource Management Journal
15 (2), 2002, pp. 1421.
[15] G.W. Bock, R.W. Zmud, Y.G. Kim, J.N. Lee, Behavioral intention information in
knowledge sharing: examining the roles of extrinsic motivators, social-psychological forces, and organizational climate, MIS Quarterly 29 (1), 2005, pp. 87111.
[16] C.L. Sia, H.H. Teo, B.C.Y. Tan, K.K. Wei, Effects of environmental uncertainty on
organizational intention to adopt distributed work arrangements, IEEE Transaction on Engineering Management 51 (3), 2004, pp. 253267.
[17] P.C. Verhoef, F. Langerak, Possible determinants of consumers adoption of
electronic grocery shopping in the Netherlands, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 8 (5), 2001, pp. 275285.
[18] J.B. Wu, P.W. Hom, L.E. Tetrick, L.M. Shore, L. Jia, C. Li, L.J. Song, The norm of
reciprocity: scale development and validation in the Chinese context, Management and Organization Review 2 (3), 2006, pp. 377402.
[19] W.S. Chow, L.S. Chan, Social network, social trust and shared goals in organizational knowledge sharing, Information & Management 45 (7), 2008, pp. 458465.
[20] C.L. Hsu, J.C.C. Lin, Acceptance of blog usage: the roles of technology acceptance,
social inuence and knowledge sharing motivation, Information & Management
45 (1), 2008, pp. 6574.
[21] H.F. Lin, Determinants of successful virtual communities: contributions from
system characteristics and social factors, Information & Management 45 (8),
2008, pp. 522527.
[22] J.B. Thatcher, M.L. Loughry, J. Lin, D.H. McKnight, Internet anxiety: an empirical
study of the effects of personality, belief, and social support, Information &
Management 44 (4), 2007, pp. 353363.
[23] D. Gefen, E. Karahanna, D.W. Straub, Trust and TAM in online shopping: an
integrated model, MIS Quarterly 27 (1), 2003, pp. 5190.
[24] P.A. Pavlou, M. Fygenson, Understanding and predicting electronic commerce
adoption: an extension of the theory of planned behavior, MIS Quarterly 30 (1),
2006, pp. 115143.
[25] D.L. Paul, R.R. McDaniel Jr., A eld study of the effect of interpersonal trust on
virtual collaborative relationship performance, MIS Quarterly 28 (2), 2004, pp.
183227.
[26] P.S. Adler, Market, hierarchy and trust; the knowledge economy and the future of
capitalism, Organization Science 12 (2), 2001, pp. 215235.
[27] H. Lee, B. Choi, Knowledge management enablers, processes, and organizational
performance: an integrative view and empirical examination, Journal of Management Information System 20 (1), 2003, pp. 179228.
[28] L.C. Abrams, R. Cross, E. Lesser, D.Z. Levin, Nurturing interpersonal trust in
knowledge-sharing networks, Academy of Management Executive 17 (4),
2003, pp. 6477.
[29] B.S. Bulter, Membership size, community activity, and sustainability: a resourcebased model of online social structures, Information Systems Research 12 (4),
2001, pp. 346362.
[30] B. Van den Hooff, F.D.L. Van Weenen, Knowledge sharing in context: the inuence
of organizational commitment, communication climate and CMC use on knowledge sharing, Journal of Knowledge Management 8 (6), 2004, pp. 117130.
[31] S.S. Srinvasan, R. Anderson, P. Kishore, Customer loyalty in e-commerce: an
exploration of its antecedents and consequences, Journal of Retailing 78 (1),
2002, pp. 4150.
[32] P.M. Podsakoff, S.B. MacKenzi, J.Y. Lee, N.P. Podsakoff, Common method biases in
behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies, Journal of Applied Psychology 88 (5), 2003, pp. 879903.
[33] M.M. Wasko, S. Faraj, Why should I share? Examining social capital and knowledge contribution in electronic networks of practice MIS Quarterly 29 (1), 2005,
pp. 3558.
[34] P. Palvia, The role of trust in e-commerce relational exchange: a unied model,
Information & Management 46 (4), 2009, pp. 213220.
[35] C.M. Ridings, D. Gefen, B. Arinze, Some antecedents and effects of trust in virtual
communities, Journal of Strategic Information Systems 11, 2002, pp. 271295.
236