Participants

Completed study = 57
Failed att’n checks = 3 Failed cog traps (2+ out of 3 LLM checks) = 1
Final N = 53

M age = 40.79

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.

Your interactions with Logan are generally positive and pleasant.

That said, 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) 2.54 2.30 – 2.79 <0.001
condition [1] 3.13 2.80 – 3.47 <0.001
Observations 53
R2 / R2 adjusted 0.874 / 0.871

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) 1.92 1.54 – 2.30 <0.001
condition [1] 0.72 0.19 – 1.25 0.008
Observations 53
R2 / R2 adjusted 0.129 / 0.112

Did we experimentally control for friendship? YES

Positivity

(2-items)
My interactions with L are generally positive.
My conversations with L are typically pleasant.

  pos
Predictors Estimates CI p
(Intercept) 5.64 5.37 – 5.91 <0.001
condition [1] 0.66 0.29 – 1.03 0.001
Observations 53
R2 / R2 adjusted 0.202 / 0.187

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) 5.00 4.70 – 5.30 <0.001
condition [1] 0.57 0.16 – 0.98 0.007
Observations 53
R2 / R2 adjusted 0.133 / 0.116

  wm
Predictors Estimates CI p
(Intercept) 4.88 4.37 – 5.40 <0.001
condition [1] 0.53 0.08 – 0.97 0.021
friend 0.06 -0.16 – 0.28 0.583
Observations 53
R2 / R2 adjusted 0.138 / 0.103

  wm
Predictors Estimates CI p
(Intercept) 2.51 0.85 – 4.16 0.004
condition [1] 0.28 -0.15 – 0.70 0.196
pos 0.44 0.15 – 0.73 0.003
Observations 53
R2 / R2 adjusted 0.271 / 0.242

  wm
Predictors Estimates CI p
(Intercept) 2.38 0.66 – 4.09 0.008
condition [1] 0.23 -0.22 – 0.69 0.311
friend 0.06 -0.14 – 0.27 0.532
pos 0.44 0.15 – 0.73 0.004
Observations 53
R2 / R2 adjusted 0.277 / 0.232


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) 5.29 5.04 – 5.54 <0.001
condition [1] 0.49 0.15 – 0.84 0.006
Observations 53
R2 / R2 adjusted 0.140 / 0.123

  perf
Predictors Estimates CI p
(Intercept) 5.40 4.97 – 5.84 <0.001
condition [1] 0.53 0.16 – 0.90 0.006
friend -0.06 -0.24 – 0.13 0.535
Observations 53
R2 / R2 adjusted 0.147 / 0.112

  perf
Predictors Estimates CI p
(Intercept) 2.84 1.51 – 4.17 <0.001
condition [1] 0.20 -0.14 – 0.55 0.237
pos 0.43 0.20 – 0.67 <0.001
Observations 53
R2 / R2 adjusted 0.329 / 0.302

  perf
Predictors Estimates CI p
(Intercept) 2.95 1.57 – 4.33 <0.001
condition [1] 0.24 -0.12 – 0.61 0.186
friend -0.05 -0.22 – 0.11 0.512
pos 0.43 0.20 – 0.67 0.001
Observations 53
R2 / R2 adjusted 0.335 / 0.294

mediation?
  perf
Predictors Estimates CI p
(Intercept) 2.85 1.87 – 3.84 <0.001
condition [1] 0.21 -0.09 – 0.52 0.162
wm 0.49 0.30 – 0.68 <0.001
Observations 53
R2 / R2 adjusted 0.434 / 0.411


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) 0.087 [0.026, 0.179] = 0.002
Direct effect (ADE) 0.098 [0.002, 0.187] = 0.047
Total effect 0.185 [0.089, 0.284] < .001
Proportion mediated 0.472 [0.169, 0.98] = 0.002

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