Participants

Completed study = 59
Failed att’n checks = 0
Failed cog traps (2+ out of 3 LLM checks) = 1
Final N = 58

M age = 38.26

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.

Although you and Logan get along, you would not 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. You would not consider him a friend.

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 Logan

Shared Reality

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

  srg
Predictors Estimates CI p
(Intercept) 2.11 1.84 – 2.38 <0.001
condition [1] 3.55 3.16 – 3.94 <0.001
Observations 58
R2 / R2 adjusted 0.855 / 0.852

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) 1.91 1.55 – 2.27 <0.001
condition [1] 0.32 -0.20 – 0.83 0.228
Observations 58
R2 / R2 adjusted 0.026 / 0.008

Did we experimentally control for friendship? YES

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) 4.67 4.27 – 5.07 <0.001
condition [1] 0.76 0.19 – 1.34 0.010
Observations 58
R2 / R2 adjusted 0.112 / 0.096

  wm
Predictors Estimates CI p
(Intercept) 4.49 3.79 – 5.19 <0.001
condition [1] 0.73 0.15 – 1.32 0.015
friend 0.09 -0.21 – 0.39 0.534
Observations 58
R2 / R2 adjusted 0.118 / 0.086


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) 5.34 5.02 – 5.67 <0.001
condition [1] 0.79 0.32 – 1.25 0.001
Observations 58
R2 / R2 adjusted 0.169 / 0.154

  perf
Predictors Estimates CI p
(Intercept) 5.21 4.64 – 5.77 <0.001
condition [1] 0.76 0.29 – 1.24 0.002
friend 0.07 -0.17 – 0.31 0.558
Observations 58
R2 / R2 adjusted 0.175 / 0.144

mediation?
  perf
Predictors Estimates CI p
(Intercept) 3.58 2.63 – 4.53 <0.001
condition [1] 0.50 0.06 – 0.94 0.028
wm 0.38 0.18 – 0.57 <0.001
Observations 58
R2 / R2 adjusted 0.350 / 0.327


Table 1 Mediation of the association between shared reality (srg) and performance (perf) through work meaning (wm).
Effect B 95% CI p
Indirect effect (ACME) 0.076 [0.019, 0.155] = 0.004
Direct effect (ADE) 0.165 [0.058, 0.281] = 0.002
Total effect 0.241 [0.122, 0.366] < .001
Proportion mediated 0.317 [0.097, 0.635] = 0.004

Note. ACME = average causal mediation effect; ADE = average direct effect. Confidence intervals are bootstrap 95% confidence intervals based on 5,000 simulations.



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) 4.70 4.24 – 5.16 <0.001
condition [1] 1.12 0.46 – 1.78 0.001
Observations 58
R2 / R2 adjusted 0.173 / 0.158

  wm.proj
Predictors Estimates CI p
(Intercept) 4.54 3.74 – 5.34 <0.001
condition [1] 1.09 0.42 – 1.77 0.002
friend 0.08 -0.26 – 0.43 0.625
Observations 58
R2 / R2 adjusted 0.176 / 0.146


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) 5.08 4.68 – 5.47 <0.001
condition [1] 1.10 0.53 – 1.67 <0.001
Observations 58
R2 / R2 adjusted 0.211 / 0.196

  perf.proj
Predictors Estimates CI p
(Intercept) 4.98 4.28 – 5.67 <0.001
condition [1] 1.08 0.50 – 1.67 <0.001
friend 0.05 -0.24 – 0.35 0.724
Observations 58
R2 / R2 adjusted 0.212 / 0.184


potential mediation?
  perf.proj
Predictors Estimates CI p
(Intercept) 2.26 1.41 – 3.11 <0.001
condition [1] 0.43 -0.03 – 0.89 0.066
wm proj 0.60 0.43 – 0.77 <0.001
Observations 58
R2 / R2 adjusted 0.587 / 0.572