Project Commitment (M1) Team Commitment (M2)
Coeff. 95% CI Coeff. 95% CI
Trustworthiness (X2) a1 → 0.735*** (0.137) 0.456, 1.014 a2 → 0.278 (0.191) 20. 114, 0.669
i iM1 → 1.974* (0.741) 0.459, 3.489 iM2 → 3.943** ( 1.039) 1.819, 6.067
Sum. R2 5 0.500, F ( 1. 29) 5 28.982*** R2 5 0.068, F ( 1, 29) 5 2. 107
Knowledge Sharing Climate ( Y1) Knowledge Sharing Behavior ( Y2)
Coeff. 95% CI Coeff. 95% CI
Trustworthiness (X2) c’ 1 → 0.296* (0.140) 0.010, 0.583 c’ 2 → 0.270 (0.202) 20.145, 0.685
M1 b1.1 → 0.464** (0.149) 0.157, 0.771 b1.2 → 0.683** (0.217) 0.238, 1. 127
M2 b2.1 → 0.049 (0.107) 20.170, 0.268 b2.2 → 20.044 (0.155) 20.360, 0.274
i i Y1 → 1.279 (0.656) 20.066, 2.624 i Y2 → 0.239 (0.951) 21.711, 2.190
R2 5 0.685, F ( 3. 27) 5 19.568*** R2 5 0.560, F ( 3. 27) 5 13.495***
Bootstrap Results for Indirect Effects
Knowledge Sharing Climate (Y1) Knowledge Sharing Behavior (Y2)
Indirect effect M SE LL 95% UL 95% M SE LL 95% UL 95%
M1 0.341** 0.150 0.077 0.676 0.502** 0.164 0.206 0.815
M2 0.014 0.033 20.031 0.116 20.012 0.450 20.178 0.043
*p , 0.05**p , 0.01***p , 0.001. ak 5 the direct effect of X on Mk. iMk 5 the direct effect of the constant on Mk. c’k 5 the direct effect of X on Y. bk 5 the
direct effect of M on Y. i Yk 5 the direct effect of the constant on Y.
Trustworthiness
(X2)
Project
Commitment (M1)
Team
Commitment (M2)
a1
a2
c' 1
c' 2
b1.1
b1.2
b2.1
b2.2
Y1
Y2
Figure 4: Conceptual model for the mediation models as reported in Table 3. The
predicted variables and their corresponding coefficients are performed in separate
regressions, indicated in the model with different line styles. Constant coefficients,
denoted iMk and i Yk in the table are not represented in the figure as they have only
technical statistical interest.
absence of a statistically significant
regression model for M2 and coefficients a2, b2.1, and b2.2 in both tables.
Coefficient a2 in model M2 does not
support the path from propensity to
trust to team commitment, and coef-
ficients b2.1 in model Y1 and b2.2 in
model Y2 also do not support the path
from team commitment to knowledge
sharing climate and behavior, respec-
tively, controlled for the direct paths
c’ 1 and c’ 2 from propensity to trust
to knowledge sharing (climate and
behavior).
Discussion
This study was undertaken to enhance
our understanding of the relationship
among trust, commitment, and knowledge sharing within a project team context. Specifically, our research aimed
to investigate whether the relationship
between trust and knowledge sharing is
direct or mediated by team and project
commitment.
Our prediction that the relationships
between propensity to trust and perceived trustworthiness, and knowledge
sharing behavior and knowledge sharing climate are positively mediated by
project commitment was supported. As
expected, project commitment, which
is a belief in the goals at hand and willingness to engage in the project, fully
mediated propensity and perceived
trustworthiness on knowledge sharing behavior, as well as propensity on
knowledge sharing behavior, whereas
perceived trustworthiness on knowledge sharing climate was only partially
