Table 2. Regression analyses results on...

Table 2.

Regression analyses results on idea effectiveness (Study 2)

Predictor	B	SE	t	p	95% CI
Constant	0.84	2.06	0.41	0.68	−3.22; 4.91
Power	1.80	1.25	1.43	0.15	−0.68; 4.27
Gender	2.32	1.25	1.86	0.06	−0.15; 4.78
Creativity	2.20	1.21	1.82	0.07	−0.19; 4.59
Power × gender	−1.65	0.79	−2.10	0.04	−3.21; −0.09
Power × creativity	−0.55	0.77	−2.01	0.04	−3.08; −0.02
Gender × creativity	−2.00	0.77	−2.59	0.01	−3.53; −0.47
Power × gender × creativity	1.25	0.49	2.55	0.01	0.28; 2.21
Age	−0.01	0.01	1.74	0.08	−0.002; 0.03
Profession	−0.26	0.01	−1.95	0.05	−0.03; 0.001
Achieving a deal	0.10	0.24	0.42	0.68	−0.37; 0.57

Predictor	B	SE	t	p	95% CI
Constant	0.84	2.06	0.41	0.68	−3.22; 4.91
Power	1.80	1.25	1.43	0.15	−0.68; 4.27
Gender	2.32	1.25	1.86	0.06	−0.15; 4.78
Creativity	2.20	1.21	1.82	0.07	−0.19; 4.59
Power × gender	−1.65	0.79	−2.10	0.04	−3.21; −0.09
Power × creativity	−0.55	0.77	−2.01	0.04	−3.08; −0.02
Gender × creativity	−2.00	0.77	−2.59	0.01	−3.53; −0.47
Power × gender × creativity	1.25	0.49	2.55	0.01	0.28; 2.21
Age	−0.01	0.01	1.74	0.08	−0.002; 0.03
Profession	−0.26	0.01	−1.95	0.05	−0.03; 0.001
Achieving a deal	0.10	0.24	0.42	0.68	−0.37; 0.57

Notes:

Power and creativity were coded as 1 = low, 2 = high. Gender was coded as: 1 = woman, 2 = man. Achieving a deal was coded as: 1 = no, we did not make a deal, 2 = yes, we did make a deal, chronological age was measured in years; Occupational status was coded as 1= student, 2 = employee, 3 = self-employed, 4 = unemployed, 5 = retired. Idea effectiveness was coded as: 1 = not at all effective, 5 = very effective

Source:Authors’ own work

[ViewLarge]