The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/1468-4527.htm

Knowledge
Exploring knowledge sharing in sharing in virtual
virtual communities communities
Chechen Liao and Fang-Chih Hsu
Department of Information Management, National Chung Cheng University, 891
Chiayi, Taiwan, and
Pui-Lai To Received 8 November 2012
First revision accepted
Department of Management Information Systems, National Chiayi University, 15 February 2013
Chiayi, Taiwan Second revision accepted
16 February 2013

Abstract
Purpose – Knowledge sharing has played an important role in the proliferation of virtual
communities. However little research has provided an integrated view of knowledge sharing for a
general-purpose (non-professional) virtual community. This study aims to suggest that four driving
forces, i.e. utilitarian motivation, hedonic motivation, control belief (self-efficacy) and contextual force
(sharing culture), motivate users’ attitudes toward knowledge sharing.
Design/methodology/approach – The research participants are knowledge contributors who
participate in general-purpose virtual communities. A total of 473 valid questionnaires were collected.
Structural equation modelling was used to test the research hypothesis.
Findings – The results show that users’ attitude toward knowledge is determined by all four key
forces: utilitarian motivation (reciprocity, reputation), hedonic motivation (enjoying helping), control
belief (self-efficacy) and contextual force (sharing culture). Users’ attitude, self-efficacy and sharing
culture have an effect on continuance intention to share knowledge.
Research limitations/implications – Contrary to prior studies of professional knowledge sharing,
this study found that hedonic motivation is more important than utilitarian motivation in terms of
intention to continue sharing knowledge.
Practical implications – Virtual community service providers should provide mechanisms for
users to enjoy helping others, refine utilitarian benefits by improving honour and rewards systems,
support a fair and open sharing culture, and help users to gain a stronger sense of competence as
successful knowledge sharers.
Originality/value – This study articulates and empirically validates an integrated model of
knowledge sharing. It helps researchers better understand continued knowledge sharing behaviour in
virtual communities.
Keywords Knowledge sharing, Continuance intention, Hedonic motivation, Sharing culture,
Utilitarian motivation, Virtual community
Paper type Research paper

Introduction
The explosive diffusion of the internet has fostered the proliferation of virtual
communities. According to the Digital Media Research Group (2012) more than 50 per
cent of online consumers are affected by the information provided by virtual
communities or blogs while shopping. A survey conducted by the Research
Development and Evaluation Commission (2010) indicated that 17.0 per cent of Online Information Review
Vol. 37 No. 6, 2013
frequent internet users and 33.3 per cent of occasional internet users asked questions or pp. 891-909
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
sought knowledge in a virtual community. However only 22.0 per cent of internet users 1468-4527
share knowledge, with 4.4 per cent of these users sharing knowledge frequently. Most DOI 10.1108/OIR-11-2012-0196
OIR virtual community users search for knowledge when they need it. Relatively limited
37,6 numbers of people take the initiative to share knowledge or expertise. Thus
understanding the factors promoting knowledge sharing has become a topic of interest.
Bock et al. (2005) believe that knowledge sharing can be regarded as an act of social
exchange. Individuals who share knowledge with others tend to expect others to do the
same as well. Social exchange theory posits that individuals engage in social
892 interaction based on the considerations of cost and benefit. If positive benefits
outweigh negative costs, the likelihood of an individual engaging in this behaviour will
increase (Molm, 1997). Previous research has explored knowledge sharing based on
social exchange theory (Bock and Kim, 2002; Wasko and Faraj, 2000). Bartol and
Srivastava (2002) believe organisational reward is the key motivator of knowledge
sharing. Weir and Hutchings (2005) focus on personal networks and relationships.
However few studies have investigated the motivations of knowledge sharing from
utilitarian and hedonic perspectives. These perspectives have instead been explored in
the field of marketing (Arnold and Reynolds, 2003; Diep and Sweeney, 2008), electronic
commerce (Overby and Lee, 2006; To et al., 2007) and technology usage (Magni et al.,
2010). This study attempts to explore the factors that affect knowledge sharing from
the utilitarian and hedonic points-of-view.
This study suggests self-efficacy is an important factor affecting knowledge
sharing since the explanatory power of self-efficacy to predict technology adoption has
already been demonstrated (Vijayasarathy, 2004). Self-efficacy refers to an individual’s
beliefs about their capability to undertake certain behaviour (Bandura, 1986). In the
context of knowledge sharing, self-efficacy could be defined as an individual’s
self-assessment of their capability to provide knowledge. Confidence in one’s
knowledge sharing capability is a prerequisite for participating in knowledge
contribution. Self-efficacy is regarded as a control belief in other studies (Ajzen, 2006).
A control belief refers to an individual’s beliefs about the presence of factors that may
facilitate or impede performance of the behaviour (Ajzen, 2006).
Knowledge sharing is not only influenced by personal factors but also by contextual
forces. Bock et al. (2005) suggest organisational climate or culture could serve as a
contextual force. Organisational culture involves a contextual situation and its link to the
thoughts, feelings, and behaviours of organisational members. Prior studies state that
organisational climate or culture is important in fostering knowledge sharing in an
organisation or blogs (Bock et al., 2005; Yu et al., 2010). The development of a sharing
culture becomes an important driver of users’ subsequent knowledge sharing behaviour.
The success of a virtual community depends on users’ willingness to provide
knowledge. The purpose of this study is to investigate the four different perspectives
underlying the continuance intention to share knowledge, and to examine the relative
importance of these four aspects: utilitarian motivation, hedonic motivation,
self-efficacy, and sharing culture. An integrated model of the continuance intention
to share knowledge is formulated and the relative importance of each of the motivators
is also stated.

Literature review
Knowledge sharing in virtual communities
A virtual community is a social network of individuals who interact through social
media, potentially crossing geographical boundaries to pursue mutual interests or
goals (Rheingold, 2000). Virtual communities resemble real life communities in the sense Knowledge
that they both provide support, information, and acceptance among strangers. All types sharing in virtual
of virtual communities, including message boards, chat rooms, virtual worlds, or social
networking sites, encourage users to interact. Chat rooms and virtual worlds focus on communities
immediate responses and interaction. Social networking sites focus on creating and
maintaining relationships (Jansen et al., 2011; Kim et al., 2011). Only message boards
focus entirely on information or knowledge exchange. An online message board is a 893
forum where people can discuss thoughts or ideas on various topics. This study
examines online message boards due to their primary function as knowledge sharing
sites. Virtual communities are used for a variety of professional and non-professional
(general) purposes. While most studies of knowledge sharing focus on virtual
communities used for professional purposes (Bock et al., 2005; Chiu et al., 2011;
Kankanhalli et al., 2005; Lin, 2007; Wasko and Faraj, 2005), this study explores a more
general type of virtual community, such as those related to interests, life, etc.
Zhang et al. (2010) believe that knowledge sharing plays an important role in the
proliferation of virtual communities. Virtual communities without a supply of
productive knowledge are unable to satisfy members and thus the growth of the virtual
community is limited (Wasko and Faraj, 2000). Hendriks (1999) believes that
knowledge sharing is a process of communication in which the knowledge creator
externalises and the knowledge recipient internalises knowledge. In this study
knowledge sharing is defined as the sharing of community related information, ideas,
suggestions and expertise among individuals (Yu et al., 2010). The act of knowledge
sharing is related to individuals’ willingness to share the acquired knowledge with
others. Knowledge sharing cannot be forced, but can be encouraged and facilitated.
Prior research has explored the factors influencing knowledge sharing from different
perspectives. Some investigated knowledge sharing based on social exchange
(Kankanhalli et al., 2005), social capital (Chow and Chan, 2008; Wasko and Faraj, 2005),
social cognition (Hsu et al., 2007), and organisational climate (Bock et al., 2005). Others
examined knowledge sharing from the perspective of the individual, including
personal intrinsic and extrinsic motivations (Lin, 2007), trust (Hsu et al., 2007) and
psychological security (Zhang et al., 2010).

Utilitarian and hedonic motivations toward knowledge sharing

Holbrook and Hirschman (1982) believe that there are two aspects of consumption.
Consumers purchase products for instrumental reasons (utilitarian) as well as
emotional satisfaction (hedonic). Individuals intend to engage in behaviour either for
“acquiring certain benefit” or “enjoying the process”. From the perspective of
utilitarian and hedonic motivations, people participate in knowledge sharing to obtain
certain benefits and/or take pleasure in the process. Utilitarian motivation in the
context of knowledge sharing arises from the expected results of participating in
knowledge sharing. There is the expectation of obtaining external benefits, including
rewards, reciprocity, and reputation (Bock et al., 2005; Chiu et al., 2006; He and Wei,
2009; Hsu and Lin, 2008; Huang et al., 2008; Kankanhalli et al., 2005; Lin, 2007; Lin et al.,
2009; Wasko and Faraj, 2005). Rewards refer to the degree to which one believes that
one will receive extrinsic incentives for one’s knowledge sharing (Bock et al., 2005).
Reciprocity refers to the belief that current knowledge sharing would lead to future
requests for knowledge being met (Davenport and Prusak, 1998). Reputation refers to
OIR the belief that one would benefit from showing others that one possesses valuable
37,6 expertise (Kankanhalli et al., 2005). This study includes rewards, reciprocity and
reputation as the variables of utilitarian motivation.
Hedonic motivation in the context of knowledge sharing refers to the happiness and
enjoyment participants feel when knowledge sharing. The benefits of hedonic
motivation, which include enjoying helping and expected relationships, is experiential
894 and emotional (Bock et al., 2005; Chiu et al., 2006; He and Wei, 2009; Hsu and Lin, 2008;
Huang et al., 2008; Kankanhalli et al., 2005; Lin, 2007; Wasko and Faraj, 2005; Yu et al.,
2010). Enjoying helping refers to the perception of pleasure obtained from helping others
through knowledge contribution (Wasko and Faraj, 2005). Expected relationships refers
to the degree to which one believes one can improve mutual relationships with others
through one’s knowledge sharing (Bock et al., 2005). Expected relationships are
associated with social interaction which provides psychosocial benefits and could
influence one’s emotions. Social interaction was classified as a hedonic value in previous
studies (Diep and Sweeney, 2008; To et al., 2007). This study includes enjoying helping
and expected relationships as the variables of hedonic motivation.

Research model and research hypotheses

A research model which examines the impact of utilitarian motivation, hedonic
motivation, self-efficacy, and sharing culture on attitude toward knowledge sharing
and continuance intention to share knowledge is depicted in Figure 1.

Rewards
From a socioeconomic perspective, individuals engage in behaviour which promotes
their best interests. In the context of knowledge sharing, people are more willing to
share knowledge if some benefit is expected. Bock et al. (2005) believe that the success
or failure of knowledge management depends on whether organisations provide
incentives. The incentives in an organisation may include potential salary increases,
performance bonuses, or any other monetary incentives. More and more
non-commercial virtual communities reward members with virtual currencies, which
can be used to gain privileges in the community, and function as an incentive to
encourage members to share knowledge. This leads to the following hypothesis:
H1. Rewards have a positive impact on attitude toward knowledge sharing.

Reciprocity
According to social exchange theory, an individual who provides resources also
expects others to do the same for them (Blau, 1964). People who share knowledge in
virtual communities typically expect reciprocity (Wasko and Faraj, 2000, 2005).
Reciprocity represents a sense of mutual indebtedness. It ensures ongoing supportive
exchanges. Previous studies indicate that individuals who believe in reciprocity tend to
share knowledge (Chiu et al., 2006; Lin, 2007). This leads to the following hypothesis:
H2. Reciprocity has a positive impact on attitude toward knowledge sharing.

Reputation
According to social exchange theory, individuals engage in social interaction with the
expectation that it will lead to social rewards, such as approval, status, and respect
 Knowledge
sharing in virtual
communities

895

Figure 1.
Research model

(Blau, 1964). An individual’s active participation in a community can enhance their

personal reputation. Reputation is an important asset that an individual can leverage to
achieve status within a community ( Jones et al., 1997). The perception that sharing
knowledge will enhance one’s reputation may motivate an individual to share more
valuable knowledge with others (Wasko and Faraj, 2005). This leads to the following
hypothesis:
H3. Reputation has a positive impact on attitude toward knowledge sharing.

Enjoying helping
Some people may derive intrinsic enjoyment simply from helping others without
expecting anything in return. Davenport and Prusak (1998) indicate that knowledge
contributors may be motivated by a desire to help others. Through contributing
knowledge to be shared with other community members, one can gain pleasure from
solving others’ problems. Prior research has recognised that enjoying helping is an
important motivator of knowledge contribution (Kankanhalli et al., 2005; Wasko and
Faraj, 2005; Yu et al., 2010). This leads to the following hypothesis:
H4. Enjoying helping has a positive impact on attitude toward knowledge
sharing.
OIR Expected relationships
37,6 Through activities of social exchange, one can gain intangible benefits including
friendships, respect and concern from others (Blau, 1964). Some studies indicate that
community members willingly share knowledge to develop and maintain good
relations with others (Bock et al., 2005; Huang et al., 2008). He and Wei (2009) believe
that one can have continual social interaction with others through knowledge sharing.
896 Thus, if the expected relationships with others would be improved through knowledge
sharing, a person would have a positive attitude toward knowledge sharing:
H5. Expected relationships have a positive impact on attitude toward knowledge
sharing.

Self-efficacy
Self-efficacy can be viewed as a self-motivator. Individuals having a high level of
confidence in their ability to provide valuable knowledge are more willing to share
knowledge with others (Bock and Kim, 2002), and believe their knowledge contribution
helps others solve problems or improves performance (Wasko and Faraj, 2000).
Sharing knowledge could aid in the formation of self-worth and, in turn, increase the
willingness to contribute knowledge. Kankanhalli et al. (2005) indicate that self-efficacy
influences the usage of electronic knowledge repositories. Self-efficacy has also
received considerable empirical support as an important antecedent to behavioural
intention (Ajzen, 2006). This leads to the following hypotheses:
H6. Self-efficacy has a positive impact on attitude toward knowledge sharing.
H7. Self-efficacy has a positive impact on continuance intention to share knowledge.

Sharing culture
Culture refers to the deep structure of organisations which is rooted in the values,
beliefs and assumptions held by organisational members (Denison, 1996). Bock et al.
(2005) found that three factors – fairness, affiliation and innovativeness – constitute
the climate which stimulates knowledge sharing in an organisational setting. Yu et al.
(2010) also identified three sharing culture factors – fairness, identification and
openness – closely related to the factors found by Bock et al. (2005), but excluding the
organisational element. A sharing culture in a virtual community can be characterised
as a free flow of information (openness) based on trust (fairness) and pro-social norms
(identification). These three aspects represent different dimensions of sharing cultures.
Fairness reflects the perception that community practice is equitable (Bock et al.,
2005). Individuals experiencing fairness in a community tend to develop a sense of
trust and become inclined to share knowledge. Identification refers to an individual
having a sense of belonging to a community (Chiu et al., 2006). People who feel a sense
of belonging within a community will develop a positive feeling toward the community
and be more willing to share knowledge with other members. Openness reflects the
perception that community practice encourages the free flow of information (Yu et al.,
2010). Yu et al. (2010) suggest that an open culture is important to enable knowledge
sharing.
Previous studies indicate that a sharing culture would affect people’s perception of
knowledge sharing (Hall and Goody, 2007; Yu et al., 2010). Moreover culture or climate
has received empirical support as an important antecedent to behavioural intention in
the field of knowledge sharing (Bock et al., 2005). This leads to the following Knowledge
hypotheses: sharing in virtual
H8. A sharing culture has a positive impact on attitude toward knowledge sharing. communities
H9. A sharing culture has a positive impact on continuance intention to share
knowledge.
897
Attitude toward knowledge sharing
Attitude toward knowledge sharing is defined as the degree of a person’s positive
feelings about sharing their knowledge (Bock et al., 2005). Previous studies empirically
validated that an individual’s attitude determines behavioural intention (Ajzen and
Fishbein, 1980). Attitude has also been shown to be a major factor in continuance
intention to use information systems (Bhattacherjee, 2001). This leads to the following
hypothesis:
H10. Attitude toward knowledge sharing has a positive impact on continuance
intention to share knowledge.

Research methodology
Measurement development
To ensure the selection of reliable and valid scales, constructs were developed based on
prior research (see Appendix). Measures for rewards, expected relationships and
attitude toward knowledge sharing were adapted from Bock et al. (2005). Scales for
reciprocity and enjoying helping were adapted from Kankanhalli et al. (2005). The scale
items for reputation were adapted from Wasko and Faraj (2005); items for self-efficacy
were adapted from Vijayasarathy (2004); items for fairness, identification and
openness were adapted from Yu et al. (2010); and items for continuance intention to
share knowledge were adapted from Fang and Chiu (2010). All items in the
questionnaire adopted a seven-point Likert scale, with 1 representing “strongly
disagree” and 7 representing “strongly agree”. The preliminary questionnaire of the
study was pre-tested on three researchers to evaluate the suitability of wording and
format. A total of 40 senior undergraduate and graduate students, who have
experienced sharing knowledge in a virtual community, were used as the sample for
the pilot study. The results of the pilot study showed that Cronbach’s a value of each
construct met the standard of 0.7 suggested by Hair et al. (2005). The questionnaire was
thus used as the final instrument in this study.

Participants
This study attempts to understand the continuance intention to share knowledge of
experienced virtual community users. All research participants were experienced users
who share knowledge in a general-purpose, i.e. life or interest related, virtual
community. Data for this study were collected through online questionnaires.
Announcements were made in major knowledge forums, including Yahoo! Kimo
knowledge group and PPT, inviting experienced virtual community members to fill out
the questionnaire. As an incentive participants were enrolled in a lottery and two 16GB
USB storage drives and 20 7-11 gift certificates of NT$100 (approximately US$3.50)
were awarded at the completion of the survey. After eliminating duplicates, responses
OIR with missing values, and other invalid questionnaires, a total of 473 questionnaires
37,6 were regarded as valid. All valid respondents had knowledge sharing experience.
In regard to demographic distribution, 65.1 per cent of the respondents were aged 20
to 29 (see Table I). Around half of the respondents (52.0 per cent) had participated in a
virtual community for more than four years. Approximately half of the respondents
(48.6 per cent) shared knowledge one to three times each week. The top five types of
898 virtual communities respondents participated in were school and campus
organisations (30.7 per cent), movies and entertainment (26.4 per cent), electronic
products (20.0 per cent), food (18.6 per cent) and electronic games (16.7 per cent).
According to data collected by Insightxplorer (2012) – a marketing research company
in Taiwan – the most popular types of virtual community in order of popularity are
school and campus organisations, followed by food, electronic products, movies and
entertainment, and electronic games. It seems that the types of virtual communities
investigated in this study are consistent with actual usage of virtual communities.

Data analysis and results

Measurement model
For data analysis this study used the partial squares (PLS) method of structural
equation modelling which has the ability to handle highly complex predictive models.
The sharing culture construct is a second-order factor with three first-order factors as
formative indicators. Tables II and III show the number of items, composite reliability

Item Category No. %

Gender Male 304 64.3

Female 169 35.7
Age 19 or younger 36 7.6
20-24 169 35.7
25-29 139 29.4
30-34 51 10.8
35-39 18 3.8
. 40 60 12.7
History of virtual community , 1 yr 23 4.9
participation 1-2 yrs 54 11.4
2-3 yrs 78 16.5
3-4 yrs 72 15.2
. 4 yrs 246 52.0
Categories of virtual community Schools and campus organisations 145 30.7
participation Food 88 18.6
Electronic products 95 20.0
Electronic games 79 16.7
Sports 63 13.3
Cosmetics and clothing/accessories 48 10.1
Movies and entertainment 125 26.4
Others 45 9.5
Average times knowledge shared ,1 90 19.0
each week 1-3 230 48.6
Table I. 4-6 76 16.1
Descriptive statistics of 7-9 23 4.9
respondents . 10 54 11.4
 Knowledge
Items CR AVE
sharing in virtual
Rewards (RW) 3 0.898 0.748 communities
Reciprocity (RP) 3 0.946 0.854
Reputation (REP) 4 0.901 0.698
Enjoying helping (HELP) 4 0.933 0.777
Expected relationships (REL) 5 0.934 0.740 899
Self-efficacy (SE) 3 0.943 0.846
Fairness (FAIR) 3 0.937 0.846
Identification (ID) 4 0.866 0.684
Openness (OPEN) 3 0.851 0.656 Table II.
Attitude toward knowledge sharing (ATT) 5 0.953 0.803 Results of confirmatory
Continuance intention to share knowledge (INT) 2 0.972 0.921 factor analysis

RW RP REP HELP REL SE FAIR ID OPEN ATT INT

RW 0.865a
RP 0.079 0.924a
REP 0.309 0.394 0.835a
HELP 0.055 0.525 0.536 0.881a
REL 0.196 0.478 0.621 0.513 0.860a
SE 0.189 0.316 0.465 0.636 0.364 0.919a
FAIR 0.128 0.220 0.286 0.226 0.329 0.179 0.912a
ID 0.225 0.195 0.354 0.266 0.440 0.184 0.419 0.827a
OPEN 0.166 0.412 0.452 0.464 0.496 0.339 0.401 0.498 0.809a
ATT 0.148 0.515 0.555 0.760 0.489 0.647 0.305 0.340 0.580 0.896a
INT 0.117 0.483 0.445 0.694 0.441 0.542 0.333 0.275 0.513 0.727 0.959a Table III.
Correlation between
Note: aThe numbers in the diagonal row are square roots of the AVE constructs

(CR), average variance extracted (AVE), square root of the AVE, and correlations
between the constructs. As shown in Table II the CR ranged from 0.851 to 0.972 and the
constructs’ AVE ranged from 0.656 to 0.921. These values are higher than the
benchmarks of 0.70 and 0.50 recommended by Fornell and Larcker (1981). The data
exhibit satisfactory reliability and convergent validity. Discriminant validity is shown
when the square root of each construct’s AVE is larger than its correlation with other
constructs (Fornell and Larcker, 1981). The square root of the AVE is larger than its
correlations with the other constructs; therefore discriminant validity was achieved in
the study (see Table III).

Structural model assessment and hypotheses testing

The standardised PLS path coefficients for testing the structural model are shown in
Figure 2. The most important factor influencing attitude toward knowledge sharing is
enjoying helping, followed by sharing culture, self-efficacy, reciprocity, and reputation.
Therefore H2, H3, H4, H6 and H8 are all supported. Continuance intention to share
knowledge is significantly influenced by attitude toward knowledge sharing, sharing
culture and self-efficacy; therefore H7, H9 and H10 are supported. Rewards and
expected relationships do not have an impact on attitude toward knowledge sharing;
OIR
37,6

900

Figure 2.
Results of PLS analysis

therefore H1 and H5 are not supported. Both openness and fairness, but not identification,
characterise sharing cultures. The variances of attitude toward knowledge sharing and
continuance intention to share knowledge are 69.8 and 55.5 per cent, respectively. The
measure of the variance shows that the model has sufficient explanatory power and
therefore can predict the continuance intention to share knowledge.

Discussion and implications

Discussion
Prior studies explored knowledge sharing in organisational or professional settings
(Bock et al., 2005; Lin, 2007; Kankanhalli et al., 2005; Wasko and Faraj, 2005). Limited
research has been conducted to investigate knowledge sharing in a general, i.e. life or
interest related, virtual community scenario. This study attempts to gain an
understanding of the forces encouraging general virtual community users to share
knowledge. Attitude toward knowledge sharing is affected by utilitarian
(i.e. reciprocity and reputation) and hedonic (i.e. enjoying helping) motivations, a
control belief factor (i.e. self-efficacy), and a contextual factor (i.e. sharing culture).
Continuance intention to share knowledge is influenced by attitude toward knowledge
sharing, self-efficacy and sharing culture.
The study finds that rewards do not affect attitude toward knowledge sharing.
Previous studies provided complicated results. While Huang et al. (2008) and
Kankanhalli et al. (2005) validated the effectiveness of providing rewards to knowledge Knowledge
contributors in an organisational setting, others (Seba et al., 2012) found rewards did sharing in virtual
not have any significant impact on attitudes to knowledge sharing in public sector
organisations. An organisation-supported virtual community could always provide communities
more substantial rewards than a general type of virtual community. Users of a general
virtual community often receive virtual points, awarded with the aim of boosting the
level of sophistication of knowledge shared. These points cannot be redeemed for 901
anything tangible in the physical world. Normally points can be used to reward other
contributors, or allow contributors to reach higher levels of authorisation. Meyer (1975)
acknowledges that the incongruence between rewards offered and effort required
generally leads to a low level of performance. In virtual communities the incongruence
between rewards and effort would lead to a low level of knowledge sharing. The results
show that the rewards provided by a general type of virtual community may not be
attractive enough to stimulate knowledge sharing.
Consistent with expectations the results of this study show that both reciprocity and
reputation have an impact on attitude toward knowledge sharing. While some studies
indicated that reciprocity does little to increase the quality of knowledge shared
(Wasko and Faraj, 2005; Chiu et al., 2006), others recognised that reciprocity could still
influence users’ attitude toward knowledge sharing (Lin, 2007). The study validates
Lin’s findings that individuals who believe in the reciprocal benefits of virtual
community are more willing to share knowledge with others. Moreover Wasko and
Faraj (2005) indicated that the quantity and quality of shared knowledge increases
when individuals believe reputation enhancement results from knowledge sharing.
The study confirms that reputation is an important motivator to encourage individuals
to share knowledge.
Contrary to previous research the results of this study show that expected
relationships do not influence attitude toward knowledge sharing in general virtual
communities. Bock et al. (2005) indicated that employees feel positive about knowledge
sharing because they expect to extend their personal connections and grow closer to
colleagues through sharing knowledge. In a general type of virtual community, users
interact with other unknown users rather than colleagues. Users in a
non-organisational online community may not expect relationship development due
to the lack of a common goal, work or practice. The study acknowledges that the
impact of expected relationships is quite insignificant in a general virtual community
setting.
The results of this study show that enjoying helping is the strongest motivator of
attitude toward knowledge sharing. Prior studies regarding enjoying helping were
complicated. In studies regarding organisational knowledge sharing, both intrinsic
benefits, i.e. enjoying helping, and extrinsic benefits, such as organisational reward
(Kankanhalli et al., 2005) and reciprocal benefits (Lin, 2007), were equally important.
Wasko and Faraj (2005) provided weak evidence that individuals who enjoy helping
others could share helpful knowledge. Wasko and Faraj (2005, p. 50) suggest that “the
ability to leverage extrinsic rewards may become more salient than intrinsic returns
(i.e. enjoying helping) to motivate knowledge contribution” in professional virtual
communities. It seems that different types of virtual community may have different
motivations. Members of organisational or professional virtual communities may focus
more on extrinsic rewards. This study finds that enjoying helping is the most
OIR important driver compared to other extrinsic or utilitarian motivations. In terms of the
37,6 general type of virtual community, hedonic motivation is more useful for enhancing
users’ attitude toward knowledge sharing.
Consistent with expectations the results of this study show that both self-efficacy
and a sharing culture have an impact on attitude toward knowledge sharing and
continuance intention to share knowledge. It implies that a sense of competence may be
902 a requirement for users to participate in knowledge sharing. Users who believe in their
ability tend to have a strong motivation to share knowledge with others. Moreover a
culture conducive to knowledge sharing is essential to foster positive user attitudes.
Two dimensions – openness and fairness – constitute a sharing culture in a general
type of virtual community. Identification has been excluded from sharing culture.
While openness is the most important aspect of a sharing culture, identification seems
to be insignificant. Users anticipate a fair and open communication climate when
exchanging information in a virtual community. It may not be easy for users to develop
a sense of belonging toward a community that exchanges such a general type of
information. Bock et al. (2005) recognise affiliation, comparable to the construct of
identification, as a major aspect of an organisational culture. It is suggested that
developing a sense of belonging among an organisation’s members should be critical to
nourish the sharing culture in an organisation. The results of this study show that
identification is not important for a sharing culture if the virtual community is a
non-organisational or non-professional type. Future research could investigate the
sharing culture differences among different types of virtual communities.
The results of this study show that attitude toward knowledge sharing influences
continuance intention to share knowledge. The result is consistent with the theory of
reasoned action in which intention to engage in certain behaviour is determined by an
individual’s attitude toward that behaviour (Ajzen and Fishbein, 1980). Although user
attitude has the most significant effect, continuance intention to share knowledge is
also affected by other dimensions, such as self-efficacy (a control belief factor) and
sharing culture (a contextual factor). As supported by previous studies, having the
confidence to undertake the behaviour or providing appropriate contexts to users could
nurture people’s beliefs and affect their behavioural intentions (Bock et al., 2005;
Kankanhalli et al., 2005).

Implications
There are several practical implications which can assist virtual community service
providers to encourage knowledge sharing. First service providers should make an
effort to arouse users’ hedonic motivations by providing an enjoyable atmosphere for
the process of sharing knowledge. Developing a feedback mechanism provides a way
to induce users’ engagement. Allowing knowledge recipients the option to thank
knowledge sharers by means of a “thanks” button is a simple way to let users easily
experience the feelings associated with helping people. However some would say that
the virtual community is not a real community. The interaction between members is
not the same as in real life, especially for the general type of virtual community which
lacks common goals and practices between members. To enhance bonding between
members, service providers could hold physical gatherings periodically. Users could
meet face-to-face and expand personal relationship with others who share common
interests. The face-to-face meeting may enhance the reality of the virtual community.
Allowing users to experience helping others and providing users with opportunities to Knowledge
expand personal relationships is vital to stimulate users’ hedonic feelings and make the sharing in virtual
virtual community a success.
Second it seems that hedonic motivation is more important than utilitarian motivation communities
in terms of promoting attitude toward knowledge sharing. This result is different from
the results of previous studies regarding professional knowledge sharing. Prior studies
showed that utilitarian motivations and hedonic motivations are equally important 903
(Kankanhalli et al., 2005; Lin, 2007) in organisational knowledge sharing. Some even
suggested that hedonic motivations may have a weak effect in a professional virtual
community (Wasko and Faraj, 2005). Members participating in professional or
organisational virtual communities are strongly influenced by organisational incentives
as well as the prospect of improving their professional image. Users in these
communities provide information related to their work, profession, and practices. In
contrast the general type of virtual communities is designed to support various interests
and life experiences and therefore has a completely different purpose. By creating and
sharing knowledge, virtual community users are active creators and contributors.
Engaging in virtual communities is a pleasant diversion rather than career development
or professional improvement. Fun and enjoyment is experienced by users because of
altruistic rather than utilitarian motivations. Thus it is no surprise that enjoying helping
is the most important factor in users’ attitude toward knowledge sharing.
Third service providers should refine the utilitarian benefits by improving honour
and rewards systems. The study found that reputation and reciprocity have significant
impact on users’ attitude. It is recommended that service providers create a hierarchical
community membership mechanism. Members could progress to higher levels of a
ranking system or be granted expert status after contributing valuable knowledge
acknowledged by recipients. The hierarchical membership mechanism could be used
as an honour system and a motivation mechanism for knowledge contributors.
Moreover the study found that rewards do not significantly affect knowledge sharing.
Although some communities have given virtual points to motivate members, many
members are not interested in them. It is recommended that service providers refine the
rewards system by creating and extending methods of using virtual points. Virtual
points could allow users to access privileged content, post certain information,
download valuable content, alter their visual representation or identity, join selected
community clubs, obtain discount coupons or use them as a transaction medium for
bartering. Many ways could be considered to increase the utilitarian benefits of the
virtual points.
Finally service providers should make an effort to support a fair and open sharing
culture in the virtual community. It is recommended that the norms of the community
be explicitly stated. Administrators must take steps to ensure members abide by and
uphold the rules. All rules should be executed in a fair and transparent manner.
Administrators should create a free and open atmosphere to encourage the exchange of
ideas and thoughts. Creating a sharing culture conducive to knowledge sharing is
essential to foster positive user attitudes. Service providers should also make an effort
to help users establish a stronger sense of competence. Designing an easy-to-use
interface, having a simple registration procedure, providing guidelines to assist in
knowledge sharing, and supplying appropriate encouragement to boost users’
confidence are all ways to enhance users’ self-efficacy.
OIR This study provides several implications for researchers. First this study advances
37,6 theoretical development in knowledge sharing. It integrates four different perspectives
– utilitarian motivation, hedonic motivation, control belief, and contextual force –
underlying continuance intention to share knowledge. This research could serve as the
basis for further investigation on this topic. Second, contrary to prior studies of
professional knowledge sharing, this study found that hedonic motivation is more
904 important than utilitarian motivation in terms of continuance intention to share
knowledge. Some studies indicated that utilitarian motivation is a major predictor of
knowledge sharing in organisational or professional virtual communities (Kankanhalli
et al., 2005; Lin, 2007; Wasko and Faraj, 2005). For a general-purpose virtual
community, engaging in knowledge sharing is a pleasant diversion, not an opportunity
for career development or professional improvement. Future research could be
conducted to better understand hedonic and utilitarian motivations in different
contexts or virtual community settings. Finally this study found that fairness and
openness, but not identification, characterise sharing cultures. While a previous study
indicated that developing a sense of belonging, i.e. identification, is critical for
improving organisational culture (Bock et al., 2005), this study found identification is
not a constituent part of sharing culture in a general-purpose virtual community.
Future research could be conducted to investigate the role of identification and its
relation to knowledge sharing in different contexts. Moreover the differences in
knowledge sharing cultures between different types of virtual communities could also
be examined.

Limitations and future research

This study has several limitations. First sample bias may exist due to the fact that
participants were self-selected and recruited from knowledge forums. All the
participants were active participants in virtual communities. Individuals who are not
interested in knowledge sharing or had already left the virtual community may not
have taken part in the study. However active participants may be a better fit for the
sample since the focus of this study is the continued intention to share knowledge.
Future research could be conducted to investigate knowledge sharing from the
perspectives of non-contributors or ex-contributors. Second this study investigated
knowledge sharing from the contributor’s point-of-view. To gain a more holistic view
of knowledge sharing, the various perspectives of contributors and collectors should be
explored. Future research could be conducted to investigate the different roles of both
types of participants. Finally the study investigated the knowledge sharing
phenomenon in Taiwan. Although a prior study has already investigated cultural
differences in online sharing behaviour, a further study examining cultural differences
in knowledge sharing behaviour is also needed (Qiu et al., 2013).

References
Ajzen, I. (2006), “Perceived behavioral control, self-efficacy, locus of control, and the theory of
planned behavior”, Journal of Applied Social Psychology, Vol. 32 No. 4, pp. 665-683.
Ajzen, I. and Fishbein, M. (1980), Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social Behavior,
Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Arnold, M. and Reynolds, K. (2003), “Hedonic shopping motivations”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 79
No. 2, pp. 77-95.
Bandura, A. (1986), Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive Theory, Knowledge
Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Bartol, K.M. and Srivastava, A. (2002), “Encouraging knowledge sharing: the role of organizational
sharing in virtual
reward systems”, Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 64-76. communities
Bhattacherjee, A. (2001), “Understanding information systems continuance: an expectation-
confirmation model”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 351-370.
Blau, P. (1964), Exchange and Power in Social Life, Wiley, New York, NY. 905
Bock, G. and Kim, Y. (2002), “Breaking the myths of rewards: an exploratory study of attitudes
about knowledge sharing”, Information Resources Management Journal, Vol. 15 No. 2,
pp. 14-21.
Bock, G., Zmud, R., 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.
Chiu, C., Hsu, M. and Wang, E.T.G. (2006), “Understanding knowledge sharing in virtual
communities: an integration of social capital and social cognitive theories”, Decision
Support Systems, Vol. 42 No. 3, pp. 1872-1888.
Chiu, C., Wang, E.T.G., Shih, F. and Fan, Y. (2011), “Understanding knowledge sharing in virtual
communities: an integration of expectancy disconfirmation and justice theories”, Online
Information Review, Vol. 35 No. 1, pp. 134-153.
Chow, W.S. and Chan, L.S. (2008), “Social network, social trust and shared goals in organizational
knowledge sharing”, Information & Management, Vol. 45 No. 7, pp. 458-465.
Davenport, T.H. and Prusak, L. (1998), Working Knowledge: How Organizations Manage What
They Know, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.
Denison, D. (1996), “What is the difference between organizational culture and organizational
climate? A native’s point of view on a decade of paradigm wars”, Academy of Management
Review, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 619-654.
Diep, V. and Sweeney, J. (2008), “Shopping trip value: do stores and products matter?”, Journal of
Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 15 No. 5, pp. 399-409.
Digital Media Research Group (2012), “An analysis of consumer media contact for online
shopping”, Marketing Intelligence & Consulting Institute (MIC) Research Report, available
at: http://mic.iii.org.tw/aisp/reports/reportdetail.asp?docid¼CDOC20120330003&doctype
¼RC&smode¼1 (accessed 20 September 2012).
Fang, Y. and Chiu, C. (2010), “In justice we trust: exploring knowledge-sharing continuance
intentions in virtual communities of practice”, Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 26
No. 2, pp. 235-246.
Fornell, C. and Larcker, D. (1981), “Structural equation models with unobservable variables and
measurement error”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 39-50.
Hair, J., Black, W., Babin, B., Anderson, R. and Tatham, R. (2005), Multivariate Data Analysis,
6th ed., Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Hall, H. and Goody, M. (2007), “KM, culture and compromise: interventions to promote
knowledge sharing supported by technology in corporate environments”, Journal of
Information Science, Vol. 33 No. 2, pp. 181-188.
He, W. and Wei, K.-K. (2009), “What drives continued knowledge sharing? An investigation of
knowledge-contribution and -seeking beliefs”, Decision Support Systems, Vol. 46 No. 4,
pp. 826-838.
Hendriks, P. (1999), “Why share knowledge? The influence of ICT on the motivation for
knowledge sharing”, Knowledge and Process Management, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 91-100.
OIR Holbrook, M.B. and Hirschman, E.C. (1982), “The experiential aspects of consumption: consumer
fantasies, feelings, and fun”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 132-140.
37,6
Hsu, C. 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.
Hsu, M.-H., Ju, T.L., Yen, C.-H. and Chang, C.-M. (2007), “Knowledge sharing behavior in virtual
906 communities: the relationship between trust, self-efficacy, and outcome expectations”,
International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, Vol. 65 No. 2, pp. 153-169.
Huang, Q., Davison, R.M. and Gu, J. (2008), “Impact of personal and cultural factors on
knowledge sharing in China”, Asia Pacific Journal of Management, Vol. 25 No. 3,
pp. 451-471.
Insightxplorer (2012), “Special topic of virtual community”, available at: www.insightxplorer.
com/specialtopic/2012_07_09.htm (accessed 23 August 2012).
Jansen, B.J., Sobel, K. and Cook, G. (2011), “Classifying ecommerce information sharing
behaviour by youths on social networking sites”, Journal of Information Science, Vol. 37
No. 2, pp. 120-136.
Jones, C., Hesterly, W.S. and Borgatti, S.P. (1997), “A general theory of network governance:
exchange conditions and social mechanisms”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 22
No. 4, pp. 911-945.
Kankanhalli, A., Tan, B.C.Y. and Wei, K.-K. (2005), “Contributing knowledge to electronic
knowledge repositories: an empirical investigation”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 29 No. 1,
pp. 113-143.
Kim, Y., Sohn, D. and Choi, S. (2011), “Cultural difference in motivations for using social network
sites: a comparative study of American and Korean college students”, Computers in
Human Behavior, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 365-371.
Lin, H.F. (2007), “Effects of extrinsic and intrinsic motivation on employee knowledge sharing
intentions”, Journal of Information Science, Vol. 33 No. 2, pp. 135-149.
Lin, M.J., Hung, S. and Chen, C. (2009), “Fostering the determinants of knowledge sharing in
professional virtual communities”, Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 25 No. 4,
pp. 929-939.
Magni, M., Taylor, M.S. and Venkatesh, V. (2010), “To play or not to play: a cross-temporal
investigation using hedonic and instrumental perspectives to explain user intentions to
explore a technology”, International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, Vol. 68 No. 9,
pp. 572-588.
Meyer, H.H. (1975), “The pay-for-performance dilemma”, Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 3 No. 3,
pp. 39-50.
Molm, L. (1997), Coercive Power in Social Exchange, Cambridge University Press, New York, NY.
Overby, J. and Lee, E. (2006), “The effects of utilitarian and hedonic online shopping value on
consumer preference and intentions”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 59 Nos 10/11,
pp. 1160-1166.
Qiu, L., Lin, H. and Leung, A.K. (2013), “Cultural differences and switching of in-group sharing
behavior between an American (Facebook) and a Chinese (Renren) social networking site”,
Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, Vol. 44 No. 1, pp. 106-121.
Research, Development and Evaluation Commission (2010), “The survey report of person and
family households digital divide”, Executive Yuan, available at: www.rdec.gov.tw/public/
Attachment/0121411543371.pdf (accessed 20 September 2012).
Rheingold, H. (2000), The Virtual Community: Homesteading on the Electronic Frontier, MIT Knowledge
Press, London.
Seba, I., Rowley, J. and Lambert, S. (2012), “Factors affecting attitudes and intentions towards
sharing in virtual
knowledge sharing in the Bubai Police Force”, International Journal of Information communities
Management, Vol. 32 No. 4, pp. 372-380.
To, P., Liao, C. and Lin, T. (2007), “Shopping motivations on internet: a study based on utilitarian
and hedonic value”, Technovation, Vol. 27 No. 12, pp. 774-787. 907
Vijayasarathy, L.R. (2004), “Predicting consumer intentions to use on-line shopping: the case for
an augmented technology acceptance model”, Information & Management, Vol. 41 No. 6,
pp. 747-762.
Wasko, M. and Faraj, S. (2000), “It is what one does: why people participate and help others in
electronic communities of practice”, The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, Vol. 9
Nos 2/3, pp. 155-173.
Wasko, M. and Faraj, S. (2005), “Why should I share? Examining social capital and knowledge
contribution in electronic networks of practice”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 35-57.
Weir, D. and Hutchings, K. (2005), “Cultural embeddedness and contextual constraints:
knowledge sharing in Chinese and Arab cultures”, Knowledge & Process Management,
Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 89-98.
Yu, T.-K., Lu, L.-C. and Liu, T.-F. (2010), “Exploring factors that influence knowledge sharing
behavior via weblogs”, Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 32-41.
Zhang, Y., Fang, Y., Wei, K.-K. and Chen, H. (2010), “Exploring the role of psychological safety in
promoting the intention to continue sharing knowledge in virtual communities”,
International Journal of Information Management, Vol. 30 No. 5, pp. 425-436.

Appendix. Survey instrument

Rewards
.
I will receive monetary rewards (such as virtual currency) in return for my knowledge
sharing through the community.
.
I will receive additional points for promotion in return for my knowledge sharing through
the community.
.
I will receive extrinsic rewards in return for my knowledge sharing through the
community.

Reciprocity
.
When I share my knowledge through the community, I believe that my queries will be
answered in future.
.
When I share my knowledge through the community, I expect somebody to respond when
I’m in need.
.
When I contribute knowledge to the community, I expect to get back knowledge when I
need it.

Reputation
.
I earn respect from others by sharing knowledge in the community.
.
I feel that sharing knowledge in the community improves my status in the field.
.
I share knowledge with the community to improve my reputation in the field.
.
I feel that sharing knowledge with the community improves my image in the field.
OIR Enjoying helping
37,6 .
I enjoy sharing my knowledge with others through the community.
.
I enjoy helping others by sharing my knowledge through the community.
.
It feels good to help someone else by sharing my knowledge through the community.
.
Sharing my knowledge with others through the community gives me pleasure.
908 Expected relationships
.
My knowledge sharing would strength the ties between existing members in the
community and myself.
.
My knowledge sharing would enable me to become well-acquainted with new members in
the community.
.
My knowledge sharing would expand the scope of my association with other members in
the community.
. My knowledge sharing would enhance cooperation by outstanding members in the future.
.
My knowledge sharing would create strong relationships with members who have
common interests in the community.

Self-efficacy
.
I am proficient in sharing knowledge with the community.
.
I have the expertise needed to provide valuable knowledge to the community.
. I feel confident that I can share valuable knowledge with the community.

Fairness
.
Overall, I feel this community is fair.
.
The administrator of the community does not show favouritism to anyone.
.
I believe the administrator evaluation of the community to be good.

Identification
.
I am proud to be a member of this community.
.
When someone criticises the community, it feels like a personal insult.
.
I feel that my community does not care about me.
.
When I talk about this community, I ususally say “we” rather than “they”.

Openness
.
Open communication is a charactertisic of the community as a whole.
.
We are continuously encouraged to bring new knowledge into this community.
.
Sharing knowledge is encouraged by my community in action and not only in words.

Attitude toward knowledge sharing

.
My knowledge sharing with other community members is good.
.
My knowledge sharing with other community members is harmful.
 .
My knowledge sharing with other community members is an enjoyable experience. Knowledge
.
My knowledge sharing with other community members is valuable to me. sharing in virtual
.
My knowledge sharing with other community members is a wise move.
communities
Continuance intention to share knowledge
.
If I can, I would like to continue sharing knowledge with other community members in the 909
future.
. It is likely that I will continue sharing knowledge with other community members in the
future.

About the authors

Chechen Liao is Professor of Management Information Systems in the Department of
Information Management at National Chung Cheng University in Taiwan. He received his PhD
in MIS from the University of Memphis. He currently serves as Associate Editor for the Journal
of Global Information Technology Management. His current research interests focus on electronic
commerce, knowledge management, e-supply chain management and the impacts of IT on
organisations and individuals. His research has been published or is forthcoming in such
journals as Computers in Human Behavior, Electronic Commerce Research and Applications,
International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, International Journal of Information
Management and Technovation, among others.
Pui-Lai To is a Professor in the Department of Management Information Systems at National
Chiayi University in Taiwan. She received her PhD in MIS from the University of Memphis. Her
current research interests focus on electronic commerce, customer relationship management and
the impacts of IT on organisations and individuals. Her papers have appeared or have been
accepted for publication in such journals as the International Journal of Information
Management, Journal of Database Management, Journal of Business Research and
Cyberpsychology, Behavior and Social Networking, as well as various conference proceedings.
Pui-Lai To is the corresponding author and can be contacted at: plto@mail.ncyu.edu.tw
Fang-Chih Hsu received his MSc in Information Management at National Chung Cheng
University. His research interests include issues in electronic commerce and knowledge
management.

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

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints