Results of the hypothesis testing for individual interaction effects

Based on prior research (e.g., Verwaal, Commandeur, & Verbeke, 2009; Zott & Amit, 2007), I ran additional robustness checks. In a first step, I tested the original results by running the regression with individual interaction effects only.

That is, I started with the individual interaction effects between joint team experience and intra-team trust, followed by the individual interaction effects between educational experience and intra-team trust. I then calculated the individual interaction effect between entrepreneurial experience and intra-team trust, followed by the individual interaction effect between technological experience and intra-team trust. Finally, I tested the individual interaction effect between tech-nological experience and intra-team trust. In a second step, I reran the regression with combinations of individual interaction effects. I started by testing the original results with the interaction effects belonging to one experience cat-egory. First, I looked at the interaction effect between joint team experience and intra-team trust for the team experience category, then at the combination of the interaction effects between educational experience and intra-team trust and between entrepreneurial experience and intra-team trust for the human capital experience category. Finally, I calculated the combination of the interaction effects between technology experience and intra-team trust and between industry experience and intra-team trust for the opportunity-related experience category. In addition, I combined different ex-perience categories to run the regression with combinations of the corresponding interaction effects.

For the first step, which included only individual interaction effects, I calculated five different interaction model re-gressions (Model 7 to Model 11), each with only one experience variable and intra-team trust as moderator. However, all regressions included the three selected control variables. Table 13 shows the results of the robustness checks with individual interaction effects for Model A. The relationship postulated in H1a, the negative relationship between joint team experience and the quality of the selected opportunity under the condition of intra-team trust, depicted in Model 7, is not supported (b = -0.21, p > 0,1). However, the negative relationship between entrepreneurial experience and the quality of the selected opportunity under the condition of intra-team trust (Model 9: b = -1.98, p < 0.05), as well as the negative relationship between industry experience and the quality of the selected opportunity under the condition of intra-team trust (Model 11: b = -0.26, p < 0.01), are confirmed by the tests. In addition, the rejection of the negative link between educational experience and the quality of the selected opportunity under the condition of intra-team trust (Model 8: b = -0.18, p > 0.1), as well as between technological experience and the quality of the selected opportunity under the condition of intra-team trust (Model 10: b = -0.06, p > 0.1), is supported by these robustness checks.

For the second step, which included combinations of interaction effects, I ran interaction model regressions with a combination of experience variables based on the defined experience categories (cf. Figure 19) and intra-team trust.

Model 12 focuses on the category team experience. As this category has only one experience variable, namely joint team experience, this robustness check is consistent with Model 7, the individual interaction effect between joint team experience and intra-team trust. Model 13 includes the human capital experience category and, thus, the experience

variables educational experience and entrepreneurial experience. Similarly, Model 14 focuses on the opportunity-re-lated experience category. Consequently, the regression model includes technological experience and industry experi-ence. The last three models, Model 15 to Model 17, refer to the combination of two experience categories. Model 15 focuses on team and human capital experience and thus includes joint team experience, educational experience, and entrepreneurial experience. Team and opportunity-related experience categories are the basis for Model 16. Conse-quently, the regression model includes the interactions between joint team experience and intra-team trust, between technological experience and intra-team trust, and between industry experience and intra-team trust. The combination of human capital experience and opportunity-related experience, comprising educational experience, entrepreneurial experience, technological experience, and industry experience, is depicted in Model 17. Consequently, each interaction between a specific experience variable and the moderator intra-team trust is part of three out of the six models illustrated in Table 14. The negative relationship between joint team experience and the quality of the selected opportunity under the condition of intra-team trust, which was found by the original results (cf. Table 6), is only supported by the robust-ness check of Model 16 (b = -0.88, p < 0.05). The coefficients of the other two regression results are negative but not significant (Model 12: b = -0.21, p > 0.1; Model 15: b = -0.49, p > 0.1). The negative relationship between entrepre-neurial experience and the quality of the selected opportunity under the condition of intra-team trust, which was found in the original results, is confirmed by the three respective robustness checks in Model 13 (b = -2.16, p < 0.05), Model 15 (b = -2.21, p < 0.05), and Model 17 (b = -2.24, p < 0.05). The third hypothesis, which is supported by the original results, is the one that focuses on industry experience. Model 14 (b = -0.27 p < 0.01) and Model 16 (b = -0.40, p < 0.05) show consistent results. The coefficient for Model 17 is negative but not significant (b = -0.23, p > 0.1). The negative relationships between educational experience and the quality of the selected opportunity under the condition of intra-team trust (H2a), as well as between technological experience and the quality of the selected opportunity under the condition of intra-team trust (H4a), are rejected in the original hypothesis testing. The robustness checks lead to similar results. Coefficients for the educational experience hypotheses are not significant in all models (Model 13: b = 0.03, p

> 0.1; Model 15: b = -0.13, p > 0.1; Model 17: b = 0.28, p > 0.1). Coefficients for the technological experience hypoth-eses are all negative,and also not significant (Model 14: b = -0.08, p > 0.1; Model 16: b = -0.24, p > 0.1; Model 17: b

= -0.16, p > 0.1).

Model A (interaction models)

n = 75; † p < 0.1; * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; dependent variable (DV) = quality of the selected opportunity; note: constant term not displayed; results derived from the robust regression

Table 13: Results of the hypothesis testing for individual experience variables (Model A)

Model A (interaction models) n = 75; † p < 0.1; * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; dependent variable (DV) = quality of the selected opportunity; note: constant term not displayed; results derived from the robust regression

Table 14: Results of the hypothesis testing for experience categories (Model A)

Despite the lack of strong support for the negative relationship between joint team experience and the quality of the selected opportunity under the condition of intra-team trust, overall the results of the robustness checks described above can be understood as support for the original hypothesis testing (cf. Table 6).

Consistent with Model A, I ran all robustness checks with individual interaction effects of one experience variable and the moderator intra-team trust as well as a combination of experience variables and the interaction with intra-team trust along the defined experience categories.

Table 15 shows the results for regression models with only one experience variable. The negative relationship between joint team experience and the selection performance under the condition of intra-team trust in model 18 (b = -0.32, p > 0.1) is not supported, similarly to Model A. However, the significant link between entrepreneurial experience and the selection performance under the condition of intra-team trust is fully supported (Model 20: b = -1.61, p < 0.05).

In addition, the coefficient for the interaction effect of industry experience and intra-team trust is negative, but this correlation does not reach conventional levels of significance (Model 22: b = -0.16, p < 0.1). The rejection of H2b, referring to entrepreneurial experience, and H4b, focusing on technological experience, is shown by the results of these robustness checks (Model 19 for entrepreneurial experience: b = -0.04, p > 0.1; Model 21 for technological experience:

b = 0.06, p > 0.1).

Table 16 illustrates the results of the robustness check with several interaction effects for Model B. Analogous to Model A, each interaction effect of an experience variable and intra-team trust is represented in three out of six robustness checks. The negative relationship between joint team experience and the selection performance under the condition of intra-team trust is supported by two out of three models (Model 23: b = -0.32, p > 0.1; Model 26: b = -0.51, p < 0.05;

Model 27: b = -0.86, p < 0.01). All three relevant models, namely Model 24 (b = -1.76, p < 0.05), Model 26 (b = -1.80, p < 0.01), and Model 28 (b = -1.93, p < 0.01), support the negative relationship between entrepreneurial experience and selection performance under the condition intra-team trust. The negative relationship between industry experience and selection performance under the condition of intra-team trust is supported by two models (Model 25: b = -0.19, p <

0.05; Model 27: b = -0.35, p < 0.01). The coefficient for Model 28 is negative but not significant (b = -0.18, p > 0.1).

In addition, all respective models support the rejection of H2b, referring to educational experience (Model 24: b = 0.13, p > 0.1; Model 26: b = -0.08, p > 0.1; Model 28: b = 0.32, p > 0.1), and H4b, focusing on technological experience (Model 25: b = 0.05, p > 0.1; Model 27: b = -0.09, p > 0.1; Model 28: b = 0.03, p > 0.1). In summary, the results of the robustness checks described above can be seen as support for the original hypothesis tests for Model B.

Model B (interaction models)

n = 75; † p < 0.1; * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; dependent variable (DV) = selection performance; note: constant term not displayed; results derived from the robust regression

Table 15: Results of the hypothesis testing for individual experience variables (Model B)

Model B (interaction models) n = 75; † p < 0.1; * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; dependent variable (DV) = selection performance; note: constant term not displayed; results derived from the robust regression

Table 16: Results of the hypothesis testing for experience categories (Model B)