True Heart for Knowledge: Intergenerational Contact Quality Impacts Mutual Knowledge Sharing Based on the Cross-Level Common Fate Model

Wang Dongyang; Zhao Jie; Guo Jiachen; Li Li; Gao Xiaocai

doi:10.16719/j.cnki.1671-6981.20250119

PDF(1289 KB)

Journal of Psychological Science ›› 2025, Vol. 48 ›› Issue (1) : 199-209. DOI: 10.16719/j.cnki.1671-6981.20250119

Social，Personality & Organizational Psychology

True Heart for Knowledge: Intergenerational Contact Quality Impacts Mutual Knowledge Sharing Based on the Cross-Level Common Fate Model

Wang Dongyang¹, Zhao Jie¹, Guo Jiachen², Li Li¹, Gao Xiaocai¹

Author information +

History +

Abstract

The growing age diversity in organizations presents challenges and opportunities for managers to maintain intergenerational harmony and stimulate intergenerational knowledge transfer in the service of organizational development. Previous scholars have mostly studied the positive impact of intergenerational knowledge transfer on organizations or individuals from different theoretical perspectives. However, few studies have examined the impact mechanism of intergenerational employees’ contact quality on mutual knowledge sharing from a positive intergenerational interaction perspective. Additionally, most of the existing research assumes that intergenerational knowledge transfer occurs in a top-down manner, neglecting to examine the two-way knowledge construction process involved in intergenerational knowledge transfer. To address the above gaps, this study adopted the cross-level common fate model (CL-CFM), which better explains the interdependence in intergenerational mutual knowledge sharing at the dyadic and individual level. Based on the CL-CFM, this study disentangled the interpersonal effect of intergenerational contact quality on mutual knowledge sharing and the cross-level chain mediating role of self-expansion and intergenerational mindfulness.
In this study, we obtained survey data from 174 age-diverse coworker dyads data based on the paired sampling method of field survey. Specifically, we collected survey data from 174 older employees (>45 years old) and asked each of them to designate a younger employee (with an age difference of 10 years or more) to complete the corresponding questions in the questionnaire, resulting in a matched “older-younger employee” data set. Mplus 8.0 software was used to test our theoretical model. The results showed that (a) intergenerational contact quality at the dyadic level positively predicted mutual knowledge sharing at the dyadic level (β = .66, p < .001). (b) Intergenerational contact quality at the dyadic level positively predicted self-expansion at the individual level (β_older = .38, p < .001; β_younger = .87, p < .001), and self-expansion at the individual level positively predicted intergenerational mindfulness at the individual level. Specifically, older employee’s self-expansion positively predicted downward mindfulness (β_{actor effect}= .28, p < .001), whereas younger employee’s self-expansion positively predicted upward mindfulness (β_{actor effect} = .29, p < .001). Younger employee’s self-expansion also positively predicted older employee’s downward mindfulness (β_{partner effect} = .38, p < .001), but not vice versa (β_{partner effect} = -.11, p > .05). (c) Individual-level self-expansion and intergenerational mindfulness had chain mediating effects between intergenerational contact quality at the dyadic level and mutual knowledge sharing at the dyadic level. There were three significant paths. Path 1 was “intergenerational contact quality - older employee’s self-expansion - older employee’s downward mindfulness - mutual knowledge sharing” (effect = .04); path 2 was “intergenerational contact quality - younger employee’s self-expansion - younger employee’s upward mindfulness - mutual knowledge sharing” (effect = .09), and path 3 was “intergenerational contact quality - younger employee’s self-expansion - older employee’s downward mindfulness - mutual knowledge sharing” (effect = .19).
Our findings contribute to the literature in three ways. First, this study models the process of mutual knowledge sharing among intergenerational employees based on the cross-level common fate model, which methodologically enriches the literature on knowledge sharing. Second, this study demonstrates that high-quality intergenerational contact contributes to intergenerational knowledge transfer from the perspective of positive intergenerational interactions in the workplace, extending the antecedent research on intergenerational knowledge transfer while providing support for intergroup contact theory. Finally, this study combines the self-expansion theory and the social mindfulness theory to unpack the interpersonal motivational mechanisms by which high-quality intergenerational contact achieves mutual knowledge sharing, adding new theoretical explanations to existing research on intergenerational knowledge transfer and helping to inspire research on intergenerational relationships in the Chinese context.

Key words

intergenerational contact quality / intergenerational knowledge transfer / social mindfulness / self-expansion / cross-level common fate model

Cite this article

EndNote

Ris (Procite)

Bibtex

Download Citations

Wang Dongyang, Zhao Jie, Guo Jiachen, Li Li, Gao Xiaocai. True Heart for Knowledge: Intergenerational Contact Quality Impacts Mutual Knowledge Sharing Based on the Cross-Level Common Fate Model[J]. Journal of Psychological Science. 2025, 48(1): 199-209 https://doi.org/10.16719/j.cnki.1671-6981.20250119

References

[1] 赖晓璐, 刘学兰, 黎莉. (2018). 亲密关系中的自我扩张. 心理科学进展, 26(12), 2170-2179.
[2] 刘怡婷, 范洁琼, 陈斌斌. (2022). 婚姻质量对父母协同养育的影响: 基于共同命运模型的跨层中介分析. 心理学报, 54(10), 1216-1233.
[3] 汤丹丹, 温忠麟. (2020). 共同方法偏差检验: 问题与建议. 心理科学, 43(1), 215-223.
[4] 田一, 王莉, 许燕, 焦丽颖. (2021). 中国人社会善念的心理结构. 心理学报, 53(9), 1003-1017.
[5] 汪长玉, 左美云. (2018). “印记感”、形象期望及人生发展阶段对员工代际知识转移意愿的影响. 管理评论, 30(4), 169-179.
[6] 王东阳, 李莉, 高晓彩. (2023). 中国文化情景下双向代际知识转移的激发路径差异——组态视角分析. 软科学, 37(12), 23-30.
[7] Aron A., Lewandowski G., Branand B., Mashek D., & Aron E. (2022). Self-expansion motivation and inclusion of others in self: An updated review. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 39(12), 3821-3852.
[8] Axtell C. M., Parker S. K., Holman D., & Totterdell P. (2007). Enhancing customer service: Perspective taking in a call centre. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 16(2), 141-168.
[9] Burmeister A., Fasbender U., & Deller J. (2018). Being perceived as a knowledge sender or knowledge receiver: A multistudy investigation of the effect of age on knowledge transfer. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 91(3), 518-545.
[10] Burmeister A., Hirschi A., & Zacher H. (2021). Explaining age differences in the motivating potential of intergenerational contact at work. Work, Aging and Retirement, 7(3), 197-213.
[11] Burmeister A., Wang M., & Hirschi A. (2020). Understanding the motivational benefits of knowledge transfer for older and younger workers in age-diverse coworker dyads: An actor-partner interdependence model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 105(7), 748-759.
[12] Cadieux J., Chasteen A. L., & Packer D. J. (2019). Intergenerational contact predicts attitudes toward older adults through inclusion of the outgroup in the self. The Journals of Gerontology: Series B, 74(4), 575-584.
[13] Carstensen, L. L. (2006). The influence of a sense of time on human development. Science, 312(5782), 1913-1915.
[14] Chen, F. F. (2007). Sensitivity of goodness of fit indexes to lack of measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 14(3), 464-504.
[15] Dietz, L., & Fasbender, U. (2022). Age-diverse workplace friendship: A systematic literature review and recommendations for future research. Work, Aging and Retirement, 8(2), 163-197.
[16] Fasbender U., Burmeister A., & Wang M. (2020). Motivated to be socially mindful: Explaining age differences in the effect of employees' contact quality with coworkers on their coworker support. Personnel Psychology, 73(3), 407-430.
[17] Fasbender, U., & Drury, L. (2022). One plus one equals one: Age-diverse friendship and its complex relation to employees' job satisfaction and turnover intentions. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 31(4), 510-523.
[18] Fasbender, U., & Gerpott, F. H. (2022a). Knowledge transfer between younger and older employees: A temporal social comparison model. Work, Aging and Retirement, 8(2), 146-162.
[19] Fasbender, U., & Gerpott, F. H. (2022b). Why do or don't older employees seek knowledge from younger colleagues? A relation-opportunity model to explain how age-inclusive human resources practices foster older employees' knowledge seeking from younger colleagues. Applied Psychology, 71(4), 1385-1406.
[20] Fasbender, U., & Wang, M. (2017). Intergenerational contact and hiring decisions about older workers. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 32(3), 210-224.
[21] Fowler, C., & Harwood, J. (2021). Does perceived normativity of intergenerational contact enhance the effects of imagined intergenerational contact? Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 24(7), 1151-1179.
[22] Galovan A. M., Holmes E. K., & Proulx C. M. (2017). Theoretical and methodological issues in relationship research: Considering the common fate model. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 34(1), 44-68.
[23] Gerpott F. H., Fasbender U., & Burmeister A. (2020). Respectful leadership and followers' knowledge sharing: A social mindfulness lens. Human Relations, 73(6), 789-810.
[24] Gerpott F. H., Lehmann-Willenbrock N., & Voelpel S. C. (2017). A phase model of intergenerational learning in organizations. The Academy of Management Learning and Education, 16(2), 193-216.
[25] Kenny, D. A., & Ledermann, T. (2010). Detecting, measuring, and testing dyadic patterns in the actor-partner interdependence model. Journal of Family Psychology, 24(3), 359-366.
[26] Lewandowski G. W., Jr., & Aron A. (2002). The self-expansion scale: Construction and validation. Paper presented at the Third Annual Meeting of the Society of Personality and Social Psychology, Savannah, GA.
[27] Liu C. R., Kuo T. M., Wang Y. C., Shen Y. J., Chen S. P., & Hong J. W. (2022). Perceived luxurious values and pay a price premium for Michelin-starred restaurants: A sequential mediation model with self-expansion and customer gratitude. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 103, Article 103185.
[28] Mattingly B. A., Lewandowski G. W., & McIntyre K. P. (2014). "You make me a better/worse person": A two-dimensional model of relationship self-change. Personal Relationships, 21(1), 176-190.
[29] McIntyre K. P., Mattingly B. A., & Lewandowski G. W. (2015). When "we" changes "me": The two-dimensional model of relational self-change and relationship outcomes. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 32(7), 857-878.
[30] Reina C. S., Mills M. J., & Sumpter D. M. (2023). A mindful relating framework for understanding the trajectory of work relationships. Personnel Psychology, 76(4), 1187-1215.
[31] Rudolph C. W., Rauvola R. S., & Zacher H. (2018). Leadership and generations at work: A critical review. The Leadership Quarterly, 29(1), 44-57.
[32] Tai K., Keem S., Lee K. Y., & Kim E. (2024). Envy influences interpersonal dynamics and team performance: Roles of gender congruence and collective team identification. Journal of Management, 50(2), 556-587.
[33] van Doesum N. J., van Lange, D. A. W., & van Lange, P. A. M. (2013). Social mindfulness: Skill and will to navigate the social world. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 105(1), 86-103.
[34] Wang C. Y., Dong Y. H., Ye Z. X., & Feng J. J. (2023). Linking online and offline intergenerational knowledge transfer to younger employees' innovative work behaviors: Evidence from Chinese hospitals. Journal of Knowledge Management, 27(3), 762-784.
[35] Wickham, R. E., & Macia, K. S. (2019). Examining cross-level effects in dyadic analysis: A structural equation modeling perspective. Behavior Research Methods, 51(6), 2629-2645.
[36] Wu, C. M., & Chen, T. J. (2019). Inspiring prosociality in hotel workplaces: Roles of authentic leadership, collective mindfulness, and collective thriving. Tourism Management Perspectives, 31, 123-135.