TABLE 4.

Study 1: Hierarchical regression analysis results.

	Team collective		Team performance
	efficacy (Time 1)		(Time 2)
	Step 1	Step 2	Step 3	Step 4	Step 5	Step 6
Constant	5.16∗∗∗	4.89∗∗∗	3.87∗∗∗	3.74∗∗∗	3.81∗∗∗	3.74∗∗∗
Team size	–0.00	–0.01	0.01	0.01	0.01	0.01
Average age	–0.06	–0.04	–0.02	–0.00	0.01	0.00
Female percentage	–0.01	–0.01	–0.01	0.00	0.00	0.02
Average education	–0.03	0.01	0.03	0.05	0.05	0.04
Average team tenure	0.02†	0.02†	0.01	0.01	0.00	0.00
Perceived supervisor support	0.02	–0.02	0.10	0.10	0.11	0.12†
EOR (Time 1)
Underinvestment		0.20†		0.19	0.13	0.14
Overinvestment		0.25∗		–0.01	–0.08	–0.06
Mutual investment		0.56∗∗∗		0.28∗∗	0.11	0.11
Team collective efficacy (Time 1)					0.31∗∗∗	0.34∗∗∗
Team cohesion (Time 1)						0.00
Team collective efficacy * team cohesion						0.27∗∗
R2	0.02	0.19∗∗∗	0.01	0.07†	0.14∗∗∗	0.18∗∗∗
ΔR2		0.17∗∗∗		0.05∗∗	0.08∗∗∗	0.04∗∗
F	0.97	6.62∗∗∗	0.45	1.81†	5.11∗∗∗	5.28∗∗∗
ΔF		15.85∗∗∗		4.08∗∗	19.24∗∗∗	4.85∗∗

^†p < 0.1, *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, and ***p < 0.001; N = 231. ΔF = (ΔR²/Δk)(N−k₂−1)/($1-R_2^2$) k is the number of predictors, and N is the sample size (Jaccard et al., 1990).