Participants

Completed study = 49
Failed att’n checks = 9
Final N = 40

M age = 42.4

Vignettes

In this study, we are going to give you some information about an individual and ask you to imagine that you actually work with that person.
Regardless of your actual workplace experiences and relationships, please try your best to put yourself into the shoes of someone who works with this person and think about what it would feel like to have them as a coworker.
For the next few minutes, please immerse yourself in the following scenario.

The person you interact with the most at work is named Logan/ Lana (gender matched).
You and Logan not only work on many projects together, but you also share an office and regularly chat about things that are happening outside of work.

You and Logan are quite different in terms of your background and personalities.
Although you get along, you wouldn’t describe your relationship as particularly close. You’ve never hung out outside of the office, and if one of you left the company, you probably wouldn’t stay in touch.

High Shared Reality: Whenever you talk, however, you feel like you are immediately “on the same wavelength.” You usually share the same thoughts and feelings about things, and you tend to interpret events in the same way. In conversation, you often build on each other’s ideas and develop a joint perspective. You get the sense that you see the world in the same way.

Low Shared Reality: Whenever you talk, you feel like you are not really “on the same wavelength.” You don’t usually share the same thoughts or feelings about things, and you tend to interpret events differently. In conversation, you don’t really build on each other’s ideas or develop a joint perspective. You get the sense that you don’t see the world in the same way.

Take a moment to imagine coming to your office each day and interacting with Logan, and working with a coworker like her.

Please rate your agreement with the following statements as if you worked with Lana.

Shared Reality

(8-items; Rossignac-Milon et al 2021)
In my interactions with Lana… …we think of things at the exact same time….we often develop a joint perspective.

  srg
Predictors Estimates CI p
(Intercept) 2.34 1.97 – 2.71 <0.001
condition [1] 3.33 2.80 – 3.87 <0.001
Observations 40
R2 / R2 adjusted 0.806 / 0.801

Was our manipulation effective? YES

Friendship

(3-items; Colbert 2016)
Logan/Lana is my friend.
I spend time with Logan/Lana outside of work.
My relationship with Logan/Lana is more than just a work relationship.

  friend
Predictors Estimates CI p
(Intercept) 1.75 1.45 – 2.04 <0.001
condition [1] 0.96 0.53 – 1.38 <0.001
Observations 40
R2 / R2 adjusted 0.351 / 0.334

Did we experimentally control for friendship? NO

Perceived Similarity

(5-items; Rossignac-Milon et al., 2021)
Logan/Lana and I. . .
. . . are very similar people
. . . are very much alike
. . . are the same type of person
. . . have a lot of characteristics in common
. . . have similar personalities

  sim
Predictors Estimates CI p
(Intercept) 1.91 1.42 – 2.40 <0.001
condition [1] 2.88 2.16 – 3.59 <0.001
Observations 40
R2 / R2 adjusted 0.638 / 0.628

–> Did we experimentally control for similarity? NO

Work Meaning

(3-items; adapted from Spreitzer, 1995)
Please rate your agreement with the following statements as if you worked with Logan/Lana.
The work would feel very important to me
My job activities would be personally meaningful to me
The work would be meaningful to me

  wm
Predictors Estimates CI p
(Intercept) 4.00 3.48 – 4.52 <0.001
condition [1] 1.26 0.51 – 2.02 0.002
Observations 40
R2 / R2 adjusted 0.231 / 0.211

  wm
Predictors Estimates CI p
(Intercept) 2.79 1.72 – 3.85 <0.001
condition [1] 0.60 -0.28 – 1.48 0.175
friend 0.70 0.15 – 1.24 0.014
Observations 40
R2 / R2 adjusted 0.349 / 0.314

  wm
Predictors Estimates CI p
(Intercept) 2.71 1.64 – 3.78 <0.001
condition [1] 0.13 -1.04 – 1.30 0.824
friend 0.48 -0.16 – 1.13 0.139
sim 0.23 -0.15 – 0.62 0.227
Observations 40
R2 / R2 adjusted 0.375 / 0.323


Performance

(3-items; adapted from Appleton & Baker, 2015))
How well do you think you would perform at work?
How satisfied would you be with the amount of work you would produce?
How satisfied would you be with the quality of work you would produce?

  perf
Predictors Estimates CI p
(Intercept) 4.84 4.45 – 5.23 <0.001
condition [1] 0.97 0.40 – 1.53 0.001
Observations 40
R2 / R2 adjusted 0.240 / 0.219

  perf
Predictors Estimates CI p
(Intercept) 3.78 3.01 – 4.54 <0.001
condition [1] 0.38 -0.25 – 1.01 0.228
friend 0.61 0.22 – 1.00 0.003
Observations 40
R2 / R2 adjusted 0.401 / 0.369

  perf
Predictors Estimates CI p
(Intercept) 3.73 2.96 – 4.51 <0.001
condition [1] 0.12 -0.72 – 0.97 0.768
friend 0.49 0.02 – 0.96 0.040
sim 0.13 -0.15 – 0.41 0.358
Observations 40
R2 / R2 adjusted 0.415 / 0.366


mediation? no, indirect explains about 25% of total effect and is not significant (p=.18)
  perf
Predictors Estimates CI p
(Intercept) 4.07 3.04 – 5.11 <0.001
condition [1] 0.72 0.09 – 1.35 0.026
wm 0.19 -0.05 – 0.43 0.114
Observations 40
R2 / R2 adjusted 0.290 / 0.252


Imagine that you and Logan/Lana co-lead a project together. Rate your agreement with the following items.

Co-Lead Project Meaning

(3-items; adapted from Spreitzer, 1995)
Please rate your agreement with the following statements as if you worked with Logan/Lana.
The project would feel important to me The project tasks would feel personally meaningful to me The project I would be working on would be meaningful to me

  wm.proj
Predictors Estimates CI p
(Intercept) 4.71 4.19 – 5.24 <0.001
condition [1] 0.78 0.02 – 1.54 0.045
Observations 40
R2 / R2 adjusted 0.102 / 0.078

  wm.proj
Predictors Estimates CI p
(Intercept) 4.00 2.87 – 5.13 <0.001
condition [1] 0.38 -0.55 – 1.31 0.408
friend 0.41 -0.17 – 0.99 0.157
Observations 40
R2 / R2 adjusted 0.150 / 0.104

  wm.proj
Predictors Estimates CI p
(Intercept) 3.95 2.81 – 5.10 <0.001
condition [1] 0.13 -1.13 – 1.38 0.838
friend 0.29 -0.40 – 0.99 0.395
sim 0.13 -0.29 – 0.54 0.537
Observations 40
R2 / R2 adjusted 0.159 / 0.089


Co-Lead Project Performance

(3-items; adapted from Appleton & Baker, 2015))
How well do you think you would perform in this project?. How satisfied do you think you would be with the amount of work you produce for this project?.
How satisfied do you think you would be with the quality of work you produce for this project?

  perf.proj
Predictors Estimates CI p
(Intercept) 5.25 4.85 – 5.65 <0.001
condition [1] 0.71 0.13 – 1.29 0.018
Observations 40
R2 / R2 adjusted 0.140 / 0.117

  perf.proj
Predictors Estimates CI p
(Intercept) 4.34 3.52 – 5.16 <0.001
condition [1] 0.21 -0.46 – 0.88 0.531
friend 0.52 0.11 – 0.94 0.015
Observations 40
R2 / R2 adjusted 0.268 / 0.228

  perf.proj
Predictors Estimates CI p
(Intercept) 4.28 3.46 – 5.10 <0.001
condition [1] -0.16 -1.06 – 0.73 0.712
friend 0.35 -0.14 – 0.85 0.156
sim 0.19 -0.11 – 0.48 0.209
Observations 40
R2 / R2 adjusted 0.299 / 0.241


potential mediation? probably, explains nearly 50% of total effect
  perf.proj
Predictors Estimates CI p
(Intercept) 3.37 2.29 – 4.45 <0.001
condition [1] 0.40 -0.13 – 0.93 0.133
wm proj 0.40 0.18 – 0.62 0.001
Observations 40
R2 / R2 adjusted 0.375 / 0.342