Skip to main content
Download PDF

Knowledge sharing among medical teachers: the interplay between personality and the theory of planned behavior

BMC Medical Education volume 25, Article number: 729 (2025) Cite this article

Abstract

Introduction

Knowledge sharing is critical to the quality of medical education and healthcare services. However, medical teachers encounter multiple barriers, such as content dispersion and a lack of shared knowledge management. Using structural equation modeling (SEM), this study aimed to (1) assess the predictive power of the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) in explaining knowledge-sharing intention and behavior among medical teachers and (2) examine the moderating effect of the Big Five personality traits on the relationship between knowledge-sharing intention and behavior.

Methods

This cross-sectional correlational study involved a sample of 237 medical teachers from Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Iran, who completed two validated and reliable questionnaires: a researcher-developed TPB questionnaire and a personality questionnaire developed by Rammstedt and John (2007). Data were collected in 2024 and analyzed using partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM).

Results

Structural equation modeling analysis, conducted using SmartPLS 3, revealed that knowledge-sharing intention was significantly influenced by perceived behavioral control (β = 0.37, p < 0.001), attitude (β = 0.24, p < 0.001), and subjective norms (β = 0.28, p < 0.001). Additionally, knowledge-sharing behavior was significantly predicted by knowledge-sharing intention (β = 0.20, p < 0.001) and perceived behavioral control (β = 0.12, p < 0.01). Among the Big Five personality traits, only conscientiousness significantly moderated the knowledge-sharing intention–behavior relationship (β = 0.41, p < 0.001).

Conclusion

By integrating the Five-Factor Model of personality into TPB, this study demonstrated that TPB is a suitable framework for predicting knowledge-sharing behavior among medical teachers. Furthermore, it revealed that personality traits, particularly conscientiousness, may mediate the relationship between knowledge-sharing intention and behavior. These findings have practical implications for medical administrators in designing effective systems and interventions to enhance knowledge sharing among academics.

Peer Review reports

Introduction

Knowledge is a strategic asset of universities [1], but it holds value only when shared [2,3,4]. In the fast-paced and ever-evolving field of medicine, where vast amounts of knowledge are continuously generated, knowledge sharing (KS) is of paramount importance [5, 6]. It ensures faculty members can access and utilize state-of-the-art knowledge to provide high-quality medical education and healthcare services.

Despite its critical role in the success of higher education institutions (HEIs), many academicians perceive knowledge as a form of power [7] and are thus reluctant to share it [7,8,9,10,11,12]. This issue is even more pronounced in medical settings, where faculty members engage in education and healthcare [13]. Empirical research also suggests that most faculty members are not inclined to actively participate in knowledge-sharing behavior (KSB) [14,15,16]. The problem is particularly severe in developing countries such as Iran, where KS is hindered by weak technological infrastructure and an inadequate organizational culture. In this regard, a qualitative study conducted in an Iranian medical setting identified multiple KS barriers, including the"lack of shared knowledge management,""dispersion of content,"and"lack of compliance with needs"[13]. This may explain why studies indicate that the KS status of Iranian academics is not"acceptable"[11].

Unlike the vast body of KS literature in HEIs that primarily focuses on non-behavioral perspectives [17], this study adopts a behavioral approach to examine KS among medical teachers, using the theory of planned behavior (TPB) as its primary theoretical framework. TPB is well-suited for studying KSB [18] since KSB is considered an intentional behavior [16, 18,19,20,21,22]. Accordingly, at the core of TPB, intention plays a crucial role in influencing knowledge-sharing practices [16, 20, 23]. This implies that if faculty members do not intend to share knowledge, they cannot be compelled to do so [22, 24]. This is particularly relevant in highly professional organizations such as medical schools, where academic autonomy prevents the enforcement of knowledge-sharing practices.

Several empirical studies have examined KS in HEIs using the TPB. However, KS in higher education remains an under-researched area [10, 21, 25,26,27], particularly in developing countries such as Iran, and all existing KS studies have been conducted in non-medical contexts. Therefore, this study aligns with scholars'calls for further research on KS in HEIs [27]. Additionally, prior research findings are inconsistent, highlighting a gap in the relationship between KS intention (KSI) and KSB, suggesting that other factors may influence this relationship. One possible explanation for the intention-behavior gap is the presence of moderating variables, such as personality traits, which may enhance behavior prediction [28]. However, no study to date has investigated the moderating role of personality in the intention-behavior relationship within the KS domain among medical teachers. As a result, little is known about the cognitive mechanisms linking personality traits to KSB. Therefore, this study employs the TPB as its primary theoretical framework to examine the relationship between medical teachers'personality traits, KSI, and KSB.

This study contributes twofold to the growing body of KS literature in HEIs. First, by integrating TPB with personality traits, it aims to explore the dynamics of KS at the individual level. Given that the fundamental mission of HEIs is knowledge creation, dissemination, and application [9, 29], any effort to enhance understanding of the KS process and its development is highly valuable. Second, this study provides insights for HEI administrators and policymakers by identifying individual-level factors that influence KSB, enabling the design of more effective systems and interventions to promote KS.

Conceptual framework

KS and relevance of the TPB

KS is a fundamental component of the knowledge management process [30,31,32]. It is defined as a set of discretionary, voluntary, or intentional behaviors [16, 18, 19, 22, 33] that involve the mutual exchange of experience, expertise, and information [10, 33, 34]. Given this definition, TPB is the most suitable and applicable framework for studying KS [35], focusing on partially volitional behaviors.

Developed by Ajzen [36], TPB posits that all human behaviors originate from an underlying intention and perceived behavioral control (PBC). Intention, in turn, is shaped by three primary determinants: attitude toward the behavior, subjective norms (SN), and PBC [37].

Attitude, a key determinant of intention, is “the degree to which a person has a favorable or unfavorable evaluation or appraisal of the behavior in question” [37]. Numerous empirical studies have explored the role of academics'KS attitudes, consistently identifying it as the strongest and most reliable predictor of KSI [17, 18, 23, 38,39,40,41,42,43]. However, a few studies have reported a weak [16] or moderate [21] relationship between KS attitude and KSI, highlighting inconsistencies that warrant further investigation.

Based on this discussion, the first hypothesis is formulated as follows:

  • H1. Medical teachers’ KS attitude positively affects their KSI.

SN, another crucial determinant of intention, is defined as “the perceived social pressure to perform or not to perform the behavior” [37]. Several empirical studies have demonstrated that academics’ SN positively and significantly influence their intention to share knowledge [17, 23, 38, 40, 42, 43]. However, other studies have found no significant correlation between SN and KSI among academics [18, 39, 41, 43]. For instance, Fauzi et al. (2019) reported an insignificant effect of SN on KSI, which might be attributed to the small sample size of 45 academics [43]. Given these inconsistencies, further investigation is warranted. Thus, the second hypothesis is formulated as follows:

  • H2. Medical teachers’ SN regarding KS affects their KSI.

PBC, another key component of TPB, is defined as “people’s perception of the ease or difficulty of performing the behavior of interest” [37]. This construct is hypothesized to influence both intention and actual behavior within TPB. Prior research has shown that PBC significantly predicts academics’ KSI [17, 18, 23, 39, 40, 42,43,44,45,46] and KSB [17, 21, 38, 39, 45]. However, findings on the relationship between PBC and KSI remain inconclusive. For example, Hosen, Chong, and Lau [38] found no significant relationship between PBC and academics’ KSI [38]. Additionally, most previous studies have overlooked the direct relationship between PBC and academics’ KSB, necessitating further examination. Based on these considerations, the following hypotheses are proposed:

  • H3. Medical teachers’ PBC over KS affects their KSI.

  • H4. Medical teachers’ PBC over KS positively affects their KSB.

In TPB, intention is the primary driving force behind behavior [36, 47]. Intentions are “indications of how hard people are willing to try, of how much effort they are planning to exert, to perform a behavior” [37]. Previous research has consistently demonstrated that academics’ KSI significantly predicts their KSB [17, 21, 38,39,40, 45, 48]. Accordingly, the final hypothesis is formulated as follows:

  • H5. Medical teachers’ KSI positively affects their KSB.

In addition to the inconsistencies and inconclusive findings discussed above, several other limitations exist in the studies above. First, these studies have primarily been conducted in four countries—Malaysia [49], Hong Kong [50], the UAE [2], and the UK [16]—with Malaysia being the most frequently studied. This geographical concentration limits the generalizability of findings to culturally distinct contexts such as Iran. Second, only a few studies have attempted to examine the full TPB model among academics [49]. Moreover, many previous studies have overlooked the KSB construct [18, 21, 23, 45] or failed to investigate the PBC-KSB relationship [21, 40]. Third, across all studies, the relationship between academics’ KSI and KSB is imperfect, raising the question of why some individuals act upon their intentions while others do not. As previously discussed, this suggests the presence of additional external variables influencing the relationship. Given these gaps, the present study examines the full TPB model among Iranian medical teachers.

Personality as a moderator of the KSI-KSB relationship

One significant conclusion derived from TPB studies is that academics differ in their KSB; while some follow through on their KSI, others do not. This variation can be explained by individual characteristics such as personality [10, 51,52,53], which plays a crucial role in KSB [10, 33]. Although a few empirical studies have established a relationship between personality traits and KSB [54, 55], the mechanisms through which personality influences behavior remain unclear [56], necessitating further investigation.

We postulate that medical teachers’ ability to follow through with their KSI depends on their personality traits. Specifically, they should exhibit open-mindedness, comfort, emotional positivity, and confidence in this follow-through. Some studies have applied personality frameworks to examine the moderating role of personality within the TPB. However, these studies have primarily focused on behaviors such as exercise [56, 57], consumption [58], purchasing [59], and smoking [60]. To date, no study has explored the moderating role of personality in the KSI-KSB relationship among medical teachers.

Moreover, as de Bruijn et al. [61] noted, these studies have concentrated mainly on conscientiousness, while other personality traits could also serve as potential moderators of the intention-behavior relationship. For example, highly neurotic individuals, who tend to be anxious and impulsive, are less likely to act on their intentions [61]. Additionally, the results of these studies are inconsistent. While some suggest that personality does not moderate the intention-behavior relationship [57,58,59], others argue that traits such as extraversion and conscientiousness [28], conscientiousness alone [28, 56, 60], or neuroticism [61] serve as moderators, with other dimensions like openness to experience and agreeableness showing no moderating effect. Conscientiousness appears to be the most potent moderator of the intention-behavior relationship. In a systematic review of the moderators of the intention-behavior relationship in the physical activity domain, Rhodes and Dickau [28] concluded that conscientiousness is the strongest personality trait influencing this relationship, followed by extraversion. These personality traits appear to strengthen the intention-behavior relationship.

The present study considers all dimensions of the Big Five Factor model (FFM), one of the most robust and frequently used personality models [33, 54], as moderators of the KSI-KSB relationship among medical teachers. Based on the above discussion, the following hypotheses are proposed:

  • H6. Conscientiousness moderates the KSI-KSB relationship among medical teachers.

  • H7. Extraversion moderates the KSI-KSB relationship among medical teachers.

  • H8. Neuroticism moderates the KSI-KSB relationship among medical teachers.

  • H9. Openness to experience moderates the KSI-KSB relationship among medical teachers.

  • H10. Agreeableness moderates the KSI-KSB relationship among medical teachers.

The research hypotheses are illustrated in Fig. 1 below.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Proposed research model

Full size image

Research methodology

This study employs a cross-sectional correlational research design to test the proposed research hypotheses.

Participants

The target population consisted of 811 faculty members from Shiraz Medical University who participated in medical education fellowship programs. These programs, designed as professional development and empowerment initiatives, cater to early-career medical teachers and are conducted twice a year for one month. The training covers various topics, including teaching methods, curriculum development, learning assessment, and academic scholarship.

To determine the required sample size, we followed the guidelines provided by Hair et al. [62]. Given that our model includes four independent variables (attitude, SN, PBC, and intention) and 25 indicators, a minimum sample size of 158 was required to achieve an 80% statistical power for detecting R2 values of at least 0.10 in any endogenous variable at a 1% significance level. However, to account for potential sample loss, we distributed 250 questionnaires, of which 237 were returned and deemed usable for data analysis.

Measurements

Two questionnaires were employed to collect data.

  1. 1.

    Researcher-Developed TBP Questionnaire. Pre-validated items were adapted and customized to measure KS attitude [41, 63], SN about KS [63, 64], PBC over KS [35, 63], KSI [26, 63], and KSB [6, 40, 65]. In designing the questionnaire, we followed Ajzen’s key recommendation to enhance internal consistency—ensuring that items measuring a specific behavior are phrased with an appropriate level of specificity. Accordingly, we incorporated "knowledge or experience from the medical education fellowship" in every item instead of the more general terms "knowledge" or "experience."

    All TPB-related items, except for the KSB scale, were measured using a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree. The KSB items were assessed using a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1 = very rarely to 5 = very frequently.

  2. 2.

    Personality Scale. To measure the FFM personality traits, we used the 10-item scale developed and validated by Rammstedt and John (2007) [66]. This concise scale is particularly suitable when participants have limited time, making it ideal for medical teachers. Each personality trait was assessed with two items, one reverse-scored. Responses were recorded using a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree.

The survey comprised 35 items and was estimated to take 15–20 min to complete. Table 1 provides a detailed description of the constructs, their theoretical and operational definitions, the number of items used to measure them, and the corresponding sources.

Table 1 Theoretical and operational definition of constructs
Full size table

Multiple techniques, including quantitative content validity and construct validity assessments, were employed to ensure the scales'validity and reliability.

For quantitative content validity, we calculated the Item Content Validity Index (I-CVI) for individual items and the aggregate mean I-CVI for each construct. A panel of 10 experts evaluated the 25 items of the TPB questionnaire based on three criteria: relevance, clarity, and simplicity. As shown in Table 2, the aggregate mean CVI exceeded 0.79 for all requirements—relevance (0.88), clarity (0.92), and simplicity (0.86)—confirming the questionnaire's content validity.

Table 2 I-CVI and S-CVI of the measures by 10 experts
Full size table

The results of construct validity are presented in the results section (see Tables 4, 5, and 6). Overall, all scales were demonstrated to be both valid and reliable.

Pilot study

Before administering the survey, a pretest was conducted with a panel of seven experts to evaluate the measurement tools regarding wording, comprehensibility, readability, and relevance. Based on their feedback, minor modifications were made to enhance clarity and precision.

Additionally, the questionnaire was pilot-tested with 35 medical teachers. The reliability analysis confirmed that all measures had acceptable Cronbach’s alpha (α) values, indicating good internal consistency.

Procedure

Before distributing the survey, phone calls were made to assess medical teachers'willingness to participate. After obtaining consent, a web-based survey was emailed to them in 2024. To improve response rates, follow-up calls were made on days 6 and 12, reminding participants to complete the survey. Of 250 distributed questionnaires, 237 valid responses were received, resulting in an 87% response rate.

Data analysis

Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM) was chosen for data analysis due to its exploratory nature and focus on theory development. PLS-SEM is particularly suitable for testing complex models with relatively small sample sizes [68].

The analysis followed a two-stage process [69], which is explained in detail in the following sections.

Results

Demographics of respondents

As shown in Table 3, the study included 237 participants, of whom 59.5% were male. Most respondents (46%) were between 41 and 45, and 60.33% held a Ph.D. Regarding work experience, the most significant proportion (40.5%) reported having 6 to 10 years of professional experience.

Table 3 Respondents’ demographic profile
Full size table

Assessment of measurement models

The first analysis stage involved assessing the reliability and validity of the measurement models. An initial evaluation revealed that six out of the 25 items in the TPB questionnaire had factor loadings below the acceptable threshold of 0.7, consequently removing them from the model. Following this refinement, the revised model was reassessed.

As presented in Table 4, key reliability and validity indicators—including composite reliability, Cronbach’s alpha, average variance extracted (AVE), and factor loadings—all exceed the established minimum acceptable values, confirming the robustness of the measurement model.

Table 4 Reliability and convergent validity of the measures
Full size table

As presented in Table 5, the Fornell-Larcker criterion confirms discriminant validity, as the square root of the average variance extracted (AVE) for each construct exceeds the corresponding inter-construct correlations.

Table 5 Correlation and discriminant validity of the measures (Fornell-Larcker Criterion)
Full size table

Additionally, Table 5 provides descriptive statistics (mean and standard deviation) and the correlation matrix of the study variables. The findings indicate significant positive correlations between PBC (r = 0.56, p < 0.01), attitude (r = 0.42, p < 0.01), and SN (r = 0.48, p < 0.01) with KSI. Moreover, KSI (r = 0.63, p < 0.01) and PBC (r = 0.49, p < 0.01) were positively correlated with KSB.

Regarding personality traits, conscientiousness exhibited a positive and significant correlation with all components of the TPB (p < 0.01). Furthermore, openness to experience was positively associated with attitude (r = 0.35, p < 0.01) and PBC (r = 0.16, p < 0.01), while extraversion correlated positively with attitude (r = 0.13, p < 0.05). Additionally, agreeableness was positively associated with SN (r = 0.21, p < 0.01). Conversely, neuroticism demonstrated a significant negative relationship with KSB (r = −0.14, p < 0.01).

As shown in Table 6, the Heterotrait-Monotrait Ratio (HTMT) values are below 0.90, indicating no issues with discriminant validity among the constructs. Therefore, the HTMT criterion for discriminant validity is satisfied in this study.

Table 6 HTMT discriminant validity
Full size table

Therefore, evaluating validity and reliability indicators confirms that the measurement models used in this study are both valid and reliable.

Assessment of the structural model

The second stage of SEM involves assessing the structural model. Before analyzing the structural model results, VIF was examined to check for collinearity between predictor variables. The first step involved assessing collinearity between KS attitude, SN about KS, and PBC over KS, as these serve as predictors of KSI. The second step involved evaluating the collinearity between KSI, PBC over KS, and the five dimensions of personality, which act as predictors of KSB. The VIF values ranged from 1.15 to 2.10, all below the threshold of 5, indicating that collinearity is not an issue.

The second step in the structural model assessment involves checking the relationships. As shown in Table 7, the bootstrapping results revealed that KS attitude significantly and positively influences KSI (β = 0.245, ρ < 0.001), SN about KS has a significant and positive direct effect on KSI (β = 0.280, ρ < 0.001), and PBC over KS significantly and positively influences KSI (β = 0.375, ρ < 0.001), providing support for hypotheses H1, H2, and H3. PBC over KS was the strongest predictor, followed by SN about KS and KS attitude. Furthermore, the results showed that KSI significantly and positively affects KSB (β = 0.202, ρ < 0.001), and PBC over KS also significantly and positively affects KSB (β = 0.121, ρ < 0.01), supporting hypotheses H4 and H5 (Fig 2).

Table 7 Path coefficients for hypothesis testing
Full size table
Fig. 2
figure 2

PLS model output

Full size image

The third step requires assessing the model’s explanatory power by examining the R2 values of the endogenous variables. The examination of R2 revealed that the TPB explains 44% of the variance in KSI. Given the relatively small number of exogenous variables in the model, this value can be considered satisfactory. Additionally, the moderating effect of the five personality traits was tested using the product indicator approach. All predictor and moderator indicators were standardized before forming interaction terms to minimize multicollinearity. The strength of the moderating effects was assessed using Cohen’s ƒ2 (Cohen, 1988). The results revealed that conscientiousness (β = 0.418, t = 7.79) significantly moderates the KSI-KSB relationship (H6). When added to the model, conscientiousness increased the R2 of KSB to 0.61, representing a significant improvement in the variance explained. The ƒ2 value for conscientiousness was 0.33, indicating a medium effect size. Therefore, H6 was supported, showing that high conscientiousness strengthens the TPB model by enhancing the KSI-KSB relationship. However, the other personality traits (extraversion, neuroticism, openness to experience, and agreeableness) were found to be non-significant moderators. As a result, hypotheses H7, H8, H9, and H10 were not supported.

The fourth step involves evaluating the model’s predictive power by checking the Q2 values. The blindfolding algorithm with an omission distance of seven yielded Q2 values of 0.26 and 0.37 for KSI and KSB, respectively, indicating the model’s predictive relevance.

Finally, the goodness of fit index (GoF), which assesses the overall fit of structural equation models, was calculated using the following formula:

$$\text{GoF}=\sqrt{average AVE*\text{average }R2}= \sqrt{average \left(0.65+0.77+0.75+0.62+0.65+0.78\right)*\text{average}(0.45+0.61}) =0.61$$

Three GoF values—0.01, 0.25, and 0.36—are considered small, medium, and large, respectively. In this study, the GoF value was 0.611, which is considered significant.

Discussion

This study aimed to predict KSB among Iranian medical teachers by integrating the FFM into the TPB. The findings confirmed the first hypothesis, aligning with TPB and previous research in higher education institutions (HEIs) [16,17,18, 20, 21, 23, 38,39,40,41,42,43,44]. This suggests that medical teachers'attitudes toward KS significantly influence their KSI. In other words, if they perceive KS as beneficial—enhancing their reputation, strengthening social ties with colleagues, creating academic opportunities, or improving teaching and scholarly work—they are more likely to engage in it [12, 26, 70, 71]. According to Al-Kurdi et al. [25], academics who do not fear losing their knowledge superiority tend to have a positive mindset toward KS and actively participate in KS activities [25].

The results also supported the second hypothesis, which is consistent with TPB and most prior studies [17, 23, 38, 40, 42, 43] but contradicts a few [18, 39, 41]. This indicates that social expectations and approval influence medical teachers’ willingness to engage in KS. If they perceive KS as an encouraged and expected practice among key stakeholders—such as top management, students, colleagues, and other higher education figures—their intention to share knowledge will likely increase. Although academicians typically enjoy a high degree of autonomy, the nature of academia inherently values KS, and knowledge hoarding is often seen as detrimental, potentially damaging one’s reputation and violating professional ethics [38, 43]. Therefore, academics tend to prioritize and respect KS expectations set by significant others [21].

The data supported the third hypothesis, aligning with TPB and several past studies [17, 18, 23, 39, 40, 42, 43, 46] but contradicting findings by Hosen, Chong, and Lau [38]. According to TPB, the ease of engaging in KS plays a crucial role. However, KS is often the most challenging among knowledge management components. Medical teachers must believe they can effectively share knowledge, a perception shaped by internal factors such as time availability [11, 43], KS self-efficacy [11], and conceptual and communication skills [18], as well as external factors like organizational support [38, 46] and infrastructure [46]. Consequently, even medical teachers with positive KS attitudes and supportive SN may hesitate to share knowledge if organizational conditions are unfavorable, time is limited, or they lack confidence in their KS abilities.

The data confirmed the fourth hypothesis, aligning with TPB and previous studies [17, 21, 38, 39]. This finding indicates that PBC can directly influence and predict KSB. According to D’Souza, Agarwal, and Chavali [72], highly educated individuals tend to exhibit a stronger internal locus of control and greater confidence, believing they have control over their actions [72]. Given this, medical teachers with higher education levels are more likely to engage directly in KSB, as they perceive KS as manageable and within their control, even when holding intention constant.

The results supported the fifth hypothesis, consistent with TPB and prior research [17, 21, 38,39,40, 43, 48]. This suggests that willingness and motivation are essential prerequisites for KSB. Intention is a key motivational driver—more motivated medical teachers are more likely to engage in KS. Notably, intention, as the strongest predictor of KSB, not only determines the extent of knowledge shared but also influences its quality.

The analysis confirmed the sixth hypothesis, aligning with most previous studies [28, 60, 73] but contradicting others [57,58,59]. Highly conscientious individuals are goal-oriented and persistent, making them less likely to abandon their intentions. Accordingly, medical teachers with high conscientiousness are more determined to follow through on their KSI than their less conscientious counterparts. Moreover, viewing KS as a professional duty, highly conscientious medical teachers actively strive to fulfill their intention to share knowledge with their peers.

Conversely, the analysis rejected the seventh hypothesis, indicating that extraversion does not moderate the KSI-KSB link among medical teachers. This finding aligns with several studies [57,58,59] but contradicts the study by Rhode et al. [73].

Similarly, the eighth hypothesis was not supported, suggesting that neuroticism does not moderate the KSI-KSB relationship. This result is consistent with prior studies [57,58,59] but contrasts with findings by de Bruijn et al. [61].

In addition, the ninth hypothesis was also not confirmed, indicating that openness to experience does not moderate the KSI-KSB relationship. This outcome aligns with previous studies [57,58,59].

Finally, the analysis did not support the tenth hypothesis, indicating that agreeableness does not moderate the KSI-KSB relationship. This finding aligns with previous studies [57,58,59].

Considering the findings for H7, H8, H9, and H10, medical teachers with strong motivation are inclined to participate in KSB regardless of their extraversion, neuroticism, openness to experience, or agreeableness levels.

Conclusion

Our study makes two key contributions to the existing body of KS research. Theoretically, the present study was an attempt to examine the role of individual-level factors in KSB among medical teachers by integrating the FFM into the TPB.

While previous studies have applied these two frameworks separately, our findings demonstrate that the TPB effectively explains and predicts KSI and KSB, addressing inconsistencies in prior research. Additionally, we identified conscientiousness as a significant moderator that strengthens the KSI-KSB relationship.

From a practical perspective, our study provides valuable insights for medical school administrators and policymakers in designing more effective KS policies and interventions. Specifically, our findings suggest that since KS attitudes significantly impact KSI, medical school administrators should implement training programs to foster positive attitudes toward KS. Research in training and development has shown that targeted training can enhance employees’ knowledge, skills, and attitudes. Given that SN about KS significantly influences KSI, administrators should develop appraisal and reward systems that recognize and incentivize KS practices. Previous studies highlight that well-structured reward systems effectively encourage employees to engage in KSB [7].

Since PBC significantly affects KS, institutions should invest in technological infrastructure and resources—such as online discussion forums, IT systems, research collaborations, and seminars—to facilitate KS among medical teachers. A supportive organizational climate and adequate technological resources are essential for fostering KSB [52, 74]. Assigning manageable workloads is crucial, as excessive administrative tasks can hinder knowledge-sharing efforts [43].

Since conscientiousness was found to moderate the KSI-KSB relationship, medical universities should consider personality traits—particularly conscientiousness—when recruiting faculty members. Unlike attitudes or motivations, personality traits are relatively stable and less influenced by training or incentives. Therefore, incorporating conscientiousness as a selection criterion can enhance the likelihood of fostering a strong KS culture within academic institutions.

limitations

Although this study integrated the FFM into the TPB, a substantial portion of the variance in KSB remains unexplained, suggesting that individual level factors can’t wholly account for KSB. So, future scholars can explore the role of group and organizational level variables in stimulating KSB among medical teachers. Second, the study relied on self-report measures, which may introduce social desirability bias or subjective misrepresentation. Future research should, thus, use other research methodologies like qualitative methodology to explore KSB. Third, since this study employed a cross-sectional design, it can’t establish causal relationships between variables. Therefore, a longitudinal approach in future studies would help determine the directionality and stability of the relationships over time. Fourth, the relatively small sample size restricts the generalizability of findings to other higher education institutions (HEIs). Future research should, therefore, include more extensive and diverse samples across public and private universities to gain a more comprehensive understanding of KSB among academicians.

Data availability

The datasets generated and/or analyzed during the current study are not publicly available due to privacy and ethical considerations but are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

References

  1. Usman SA, Kowalski KB, Andiappan VS, Parayitam S. Effect of knowledge sharing and interpersonal trust on psychological capital and emotional intelligence in higher-educational institutions in India: Gender as a moderator. FIIB Business Review. 2022;11(3):315–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Kaba A, Ramaiah CK. Investigating the use of ICT tools for knowledge sharing among faculty members in UAE. International Journal of Knowledge Management Studies. 2019;10(4):365–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Yigzaw ST, Jormanainen I, Tukiainen M. Knowledge sharing in the higher education environment of developing economies–The case of Eritrea. Afr J Inf Syst. 2021;13(3):6.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Li X, Roberts J, Yan Y, Tan H. Knowledge sharing in China–UK higher education alliances. Int Bus Rev. 2014;23(2):343–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Long Y, Cheng X, Chen J. Influence of study climate and trust on knowledge sharing and knowledge hiding among Chinese medical students. BMC Med Educ. 2024;24(1):1370.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Durand F, Bourgeault IL, Hebert RL, Fleury M-J. The role of gender, profession and informational role self-efficacy in physician–nurse knowledge sharing and decision-making. J Interprof Care. 2022;36(1):34–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Akosile A, Olatokun W. Factors influencing knowledge sharing among academics in Bowen University, Nigeria. J Librariansh Inf Sci. 2020;52(2):410–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Mutahar Y, Farea MM, Abdulrab M, Al-Mamary YH, Alfalah AA, Grada M. The contribution of trust to academic knowledge sharing among academics in the Malaysian research institutions. Cogent Bus Manag. 2022;9(1):2038762.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Ramayah T, Yeap JA, Ignatius J. Assessing knowledge sharing among academics: A validation of the knowledge sharing behavior scale (KSBS). Eval Rev. 2014;38(2):160–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Farrukh M, Sajid M, Zreen A, Khalid R. Knowledge sharing in higher education institutes: An empirical investigation of individual characteristics. J Appl Res Higher Educ. 2020;12(2):311–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Dokhtesmati M, Bousari RG. Knowledge sharing in Iranian academic institutions: meta analysis approach. Procedia Soc Behav Sci. 2013;73:383–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Annansingh F, Howell KE, Liu S, Baptista NM. Academics’ perception of knowledge sharing in higher education. Int J Educ Manag. 2018;32(6):1001–15.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Ramazanzade K, Ayati M, Abedi F, Shokohifard H. Strategies for sharing pedagogical knowledge in clinical education in adapting to the impact of COVID-19. J Educ Health Promot. 2022;11(1):85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Gagné M. A model of knowledge-sharing motivation. Human Resource Management: Published in Cooperation with the School of Business Administration, The University of Michigan and in alliance with the Society of Human Resources Management. 2009;48(4):571–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Riege A. Three-dozen knowledge-sharing barriers managers must consider. J Knowl Manag. 2005;9(3):18–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Fullwood R, Rowley J. An investigation of factors affecting knowledge sharing amongst UK academics. J Knowl Manag. 2017;21(5):1254–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Hosen M, Ogbeibu S, Lim WM, Ferraris A, Munim ZH, Chong Y-L. Knowledge sharing behavior among academics: Insights from theory of planned behavior, perceived trust and organizational climate. J Knowl Manag. 2023;27(6):1740–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Khan MN, Akhtar S. Developing and testing an inclusive model of academicians’knowledge sharing using the theory of planned behavior. PalArch’s Journal of Archaeology of Egypt/Egyptology. 2023;20(2):375–99.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Mansor ZD, Mustaffa M, Salleh LM. Motivation and willingness to participate in knowledge sharing activities among academics in a public university. Procedia Economics and Finance. 2015;31:286–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Nguyen T-M, Nham TP, Froese FJ, Malik A. Motivation and knowledge sharing: a meta-analysis of main and moderating effects. J Knowl Manag. 2019;23(5):998–1016.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Al-Kurdi OF, El-Haddadeh R, Eldabi T. The role of organizational climate in managing knowledge sharing among academics in higher education. Int J Inf Manage. 2020;50:217–27.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Afshar Jalili Y, Ghaleh S. Knowledge sharing and the theory of planned behavior: a meta-analysis review. VINE J Inf Knowledge Manag Syst. 2021;51(2):236–58.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Shekh Zain R, Syed Abdul Mutalib SKM, Dzulkafli N, Noor Aziz AS, Rosli NA, Yusuf FH, et al., editors. Factors affecting knowledge sharing intention among academic staff. Proceedings of the Second International Conference on the Future of ASEAN (ICoFA) 2017-Volume 1: Business and Social Sciences; 2019: Springer.

  24. Tan CN-L, Ramayah T. The role of motivators in improving knowledge-sharing among academics. Information Research: An International Electronic Journal. 2014;19(1):n1.

  25. Al-Kurdi O, El-Haddadeh R, Eldabi T. Knowledge sharing in higher education institutions: a systematic review. J Enterp Inf Manag. 2018;31(2):226–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Fullwood R, Rowley J, Delbridge R. Knowledge sharing amongst academics in UK universities. J Knowl Manag. 2013;17(1):123–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Fan Z, Beh L-S. Knowledge sharing among academics in higher education: A systematic literature review and future agenda. Educ Res Rev. 2024;42:100573.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Rhodes RE, Dickau L. Moderators of the intention-behaviour relationship in the physical activity domain: a systematic review. Br J Sports Med. 2013;47(4):215–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Javaid J, Soroya S, Mahmood K. Impact of personal and organizational factors on knowledge sharing attitude of university teachers in Pakistan. Electron Libr. 2020;38(2):317–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Bock GW, Kim Y-G. Breaking the myths of rewards: An exploratory study of attitudes about knowledge sharing. Information Resources Management Journal (IRMJ). 2002;15(2):14–21.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Lo MF, Tian F. How academic leaders facilitate knowledge sharing: a case of universities in Hong Kong. Leadersh Org Dev J. 2020;41(6):777–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Yu T-K, Lu L-C, Liu T-F. Exploring factors that influence knowledge sharing behavior via weblogs. Comput Hum Behav. 2010;26(1):32–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Shaukat R, Ahmad S, Naveed MA, Ur RS. Impact of personality traits on knowledge sharing behavior of academicians: a case of University of Sargodha, Punjab, Pakistan. SAGE Open. 2023;13(1):21582440231160984.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Van Den Hooff B, De Ridder JA. Knowledge sharing in context: the influence of organizational commitment, communication climate and CMC use on knowledge sharing. J Knowl Manag. 2004;8(6):117–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Chennamaneni A, Teng JT, Raja M. A unified model of knowledge sharing behaviours: theoretical development and empirical test. Behav Inf Technol. 2012;31(11):1097–115.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Ajzen I. From intentions to actions: A theory of planned behavior. Action control: From cognition to behavior: Springer; 1985. p. 11–39.

  37. Ajzen I. The theory of planned behavior. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process. 1991;50(2):179–211.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Hosen M, Chong Y-L, Lau L-S. Sharing knowledge through publishing research work in indexed journals: a vision of Malaysian private universities. Asia Pac Soc Sci Rev. 2020;20(4):5.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Abd-Mutalib H, Muhammad Jamil CZ, Mohamed R, Ismail SNA. The determinants of environmental knowledge sharing behaviour among accounting educators: a modified theory of planned behaviour. Int J Sustain High Educ. 2023;24(5):1105–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Skaik HA, Othman R. Determinants of knowledge sharing behaviour among academics in United Arab Emirates. Int J Knowl Syst Science (IJKSS). 2014;5(3):54–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Jolaee A, Md Nor K, Khani N, Md YR. Factors affecting knowledge sharing intention among academic staff. Int J Educ Manag. 2014;28(4):413–31.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Goh SK, Sandhu MS. Knowledge sharing among Malaysian academics: Influence of affective commitment and trust. Electron J Knowl Manag. 2013;11(1):pp38‑48-pp38‑48.

  43. Fauzi MA, Nya-Ling CT, Thurasamy R, Ojo AO, Shogar I. Muslim academics’ knowledge sharing in Malaysian higher learning institutions. J Islamic Mark. 2019;10(2):378–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Fauzi MA, Nya-Ling CT, Thursamy R, Ojo AO. Knowledge sharing: Role of academics towards research productivity in higher learning institution. VINE J Inf Knowl Manag Syst. 2019;49(1):136–59.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Fauzi MA, Tan CNL, Thurasamy R, Ojo AO. Evaluating academics’ knowledge sharing intentions in Malaysian public universities. Malays J Libr Inf Sci. 2019;24(1):123–43.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Sadiq Sohail M, Daud S. Knowledge sharing in higher education institutions: Perspectives from Malaysia. Vine. 2009;39(2):125–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Armitage CJ, Christian J. From attitudes to behaviour: Basic and applied research on the theory of planned behaviour. Current Psychology. 2003;22(3):187–95. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1007/s12144-003-1015-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Khalil O, Marouf L, Khalil N. Academics’ Knowledge Sharing Intentions and Behaviours: The Influence of Espoused Culture, Social Norm, and Attitude. J Inf Knowl Manag. 2021;20(02):2150016.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Paiman N, Fauzi MA, Norizan N, Abdul Rashid A, Tan CN-L, Wider W, et al. Exploring personality traits in the knowledge-sharing behavior: the role of agreeableness and conscientiousness among Malaysian tertiary academics. J Applied Res Higher Educ. 2024;16(5):1884–911.

  50. Ng PM, Wut TM, Lo MF. Enhancing knowledge sharing behaviour in building academics’ career capital in higher education: the mediating role of innovative climate. Technol Knowl Learn. 2024;29(1):91–111.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Pei-Lee T, Chen CY, Chin WC, Siew YY. Do the big five personality factors affect knowledge sharing behaviour? a study of malaysian univeristies. Malays J Libr Inf Sci. 2011;16(1):47–62.

    Google Scholar 

  52. Thi Chung D, Thi Tram Anh P. Factors affecting knowledge sharing behaviour in public higher education institutions: An empirical study of Vietnam. Cogent Bus Manag. 2022;9(1):2155002.

  53. Titi AA. Determinants of knowledge sharing in a public sector organization. J Knowl Manag. 2013;17(3):454–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Agyemang FG, Dzandu MD, Boateng H. Knowledge sharing among teachers: the role of the Big Five Personality traits. VINE Journal of Information and Knowledge Management Systems. 2016;46(1):64–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Jami Pour M, Taheri F. Personality traits and knowledge sharing behavior in social media: mediating role of trust and subjective well-being. On the Horizon. 2019;27(2):98–117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Conner M, Rodgers W, Murray T. Conscientiousness and the intention–behavior relationship: Predicting exercise behavior. J Sport Exerc Psychol. 2007;29(4):518–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. MacCann C, Todd J, Mullan BA, Roberts RD. Can personality bridge the intention-behavior gap to predict who will exercise? Am J Health Behav. 2015;39(1):140–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Monds LA, MacCann C, Mullan BA, Wong C, Todd J, Roberts RD. Can personality close the intention-behavior gap for healthy eating? An examination with the HEXACO personality traits. Psychol Health Med. 2016;21(7):845–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Charnsak Srisawatsakul, Gerald Quirchmayr, Borworn Papasratorn. Do Personality Traits Work as Moderator on the Intention to Purchase Mobile Applications Work? - A Pilot Study. 2nd Information and Communication Technology - EurAsia Conference (ICT-EurAsia). Bali, Indonesia.2014:56-65. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1007/978-3-642-55032-4_6.

  60. Conner M, Grogan S, Fry G, Gough B, Higgins AR. Direct, mediated and moderated impacts of personality variables on smoking initiation in adolescents. Psychol Health. 2009;24(9):1085–104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. de Bruijn G-J, Brug J, Van Lenthe FJ. Neuroticism, conscientiousness and fruit consumption: Exploring mediator and moderator effects in the theory of planned behaviour. Psychol Health. 2009;24(9):1051–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Hair Jr JF, Hult GTM, Ringle CM, Sarstedt M, Danks NP, Ray S. Partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) using R: A workbook: Springer Nature; 2021.

  63. Bock G-W, Zmud RW, Kim Y-G, Lee J-N. Behavioral intention formation in knowledge sharing: Examining the roles of extrinsic motivators, social-psychological forces, and organizational climate. MIS quarterly. 2005;29(1):87–111.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Phung VD, Hawryszkiewycz I, Chandran D, Ha BM. Promoting knowledge sharing amongst academics: A case study from Vietnam. J Inf Knowl Manag. 2019;18(03):1950032.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Akhavan P, Hosseini SM, Abbasi M, Manteghi M. Knowledge-sharing determinants, behaviors, and innovative work behaviors: An integrated theoretical view and empirical examination. Aslib J Inf Manag. 2015;67(5):562–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Jadin T, Gnambs T, Batinic B. Personality traits and knowledge sharing in online communities. Comput Hum Behav. 2013;29(1):210–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Rammstedt B, John OP. Measuring personality in one minute or less: A 10-item short version of the Big Five Inventory in English and German. J Res Pers. 2007;41(1):203–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Sarstedt M, Ringle CM, Hair JF. Partial least squares structural equation modeling. Handbook of market research: Springer; 2021. p. 587–632.

    Google Scholar 

  69. Henseler J, Fassott G. Testing moderating effects in PLS path models: An illustration of available procedures. Handbook of partial least squares: Concepts, methods and applications. 2010:713–35.

  70. Zhang X, Gao S, Cheng Y, Meng F. Encouraging physicians’ continuous knowledge-sharing in online health communities: A motivational perspective. Front Public Health. 2022;10:1036366.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Ramayah T, Yeap JA, Ignatius J. An empirical inquiry on knowledge sharing among academicians in higher learning institutions. Minerva. 2013;51:131–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. D’souza KC, Agarwal UA, Chavali U. Demographic profiling of the locus of control of employees: Evidence from India. Manag Labour Stud. 2013;38(4):335–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. Rhodes RE, Courneya KS, Jones LW. The theory of planned behavior and lower-order personality traits: Interaction effects in the exercise domain. Personality Individ Differ. 2005;38(2):251–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. Kathiravelu SR, Mansor NNA, Ramayah T, Idris N. Why organisational culture drives knowledge sharing? Procedia Soc Behav Sci. 2014;129:119–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We wish to thank all the medical teachers who participated in this study.

Clinical trial registration

Not applicable.

Funding

The Research Deputy of Shiraz University of Medical Sciences (SUMS) supported and funded this research under grant number 29482.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Literature and Humanities, Kerman University, Kerman, Iran

    Hatam Faraji Dehsorkhi

  2. Clinical Education Research Center, Department of Medical Education, Faculty of Medicine, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran

    Ali Asghar Hayat

Authors
  1. Hatam Faraji Dehsorkhi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ali Asghar Hayat
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

AAH and HF made a substantial contribution to the concept and design of the study and prepared the first draft of the manuscript. AAH supervised the study and participated in the analysis and interpretation of data and proofreading of the manuscript. AAH and HF contributed to the writing of the manuscript and substantially revised the manuscript. Finally, all authors have read and approved the final manuscript

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ali Asghar Hayat.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

This study was approved by the Ethics Committee of Shiraz University of Medical Sciences (IR.SUMS.REC.1403.124). All participants provided informed consent, and anonymous questionnaires were used to ensure confidentiality. All procedures were conducted following relevant ethical guidelines and regulations.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if you modified the licensed material. You do not have permission under this licence to share adapted material derived from this article or parts of it. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Dehsorkhi, H.F., Hayat, A.A. Knowledge sharing among medical teachers: the interplay between personality and the theory of planned behavior. BMC Med Educ 25, 729 (2025). https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1186/s12909-025-07323-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1186/s12909-025-07323-3

Keywords

BMC Medical Education

ISSN: 1472-6920

Contact us