Participants

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

M age = 40.41

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 your relationship with Logan is generally positive and pleasant, 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) 2.44 2.14 – 2.74 <0.001
condition [1] 3.40 2.98 – 3.82 <0.001
Observations 58
R2 / R2 adjusted 0.824 / 0.821

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) 1.66 1.39 – 1.92 <0.001
condition [1] 0.17 -0.21 – 0.55 0.365
Observations 58
R2 / R2 adjusted 0.015 / -0.003

Did we experimentally control for friendship? YES

Positivity

(2-items)
My relationship with L is generally positive.
My relationship with L is pleasant.

  pos
Predictors Estimates CI p
(Intercept) 5.28 5.02 – 5.53 <0.001
condition [1] 0.95 0.59 – 1.30 <0.001
Observations 58
R2 / R2 adjusted 0.338 / 0.326


Mood

(10-item PANAS)
Please answer the following items as if you worked with Logan. When at work, to what extent would you generally feel:
Alert, Inspired, Determined, Attentive, Active
Upset, Hostile , Ashamed , Nervous , Afraid

  pos.mood
Predictors Estimates CI p
(Intercept) 3.45 3.21 – 3.68 <0.001
condition [1] 0.52 0.19 – 0.86 0.003
Observations 58
R2 / R2 adjusted 0.150 / 0.135

  neg.mood
Predictors Estimates CI p
(Intercept) 1.39 1.21 – 1.56 <0.001
condition [1] -0.12 -0.36 – 0.13 0.344
Observations 58
R2 / R2 adjusted 0.016 / -0.002


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) 4.53 4.16 – 4.89 <0.001
condition [1] 1.22 0.70 – 1.73 <0.001
Observations 58
R2 / R2 adjusted 0.286 / 0.273

  wm
Predictors Estimates CI p
(Intercept) 3.93 3.24 – 4.62 <0.001
condition [1] 1.16 0.65 – 1.66 <0.001
friend 0.36 0.01 – 0.72 0.046
Observations 58
R2 / R2 adjusted 0.336 / 0.312

  wm
Predictors Estimates CI p
(Intercept) 2.86 0.81 – 4.91 0.007
condition [1] 0.92 0.29 – 1.54 0.005
pos 0.32 -0.07 – 0.70 0.104
Observations 58
R2 / R2 adjusted 0.320 / 0.295

  wm
Predictors Estimates CI p
(Intercept) 5.55 3.46 – 7.63 <0.001
condition [1] 1.21 0.65 – 1.77 <0.001
pos mood -0.09 -0.54 – 0.36 0.678
neg mood -0.50 -1.11 – 0.11 0.108
Observations 58
R2 / R2 adjusted 0.320 / 0.283

  wm
Predictors Estimates CI p
(Intercept) 4.48 1.67 – 7.28 0.002
condition [1] 1.01 0.40 – 1.63 0.002
friend 0.44 0.07 – 0.81 0.019
pos 0.16 -0.25 – 0.56 0.449
pos mood -0.18 -0.62 – 0.26 0.427
neg mood -0.65 -1.28 – -0.02 0.044
Observations 58
R2 / R2 adjusted 0.408 / 0.351


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) 5.69 5.43 – 5.95 <0.001
condition [1] 0.55 0.19 – 0.91 0.003
Observations 58
R2 / R2 adjusted 0.143 / 0.128

  perf
Predictors Estimates CI p
(Intercept) 5.77 5.27 – 6.27 <0.001
condition [1] 0.56 0.19 – 0.93 0.003
friend -0.05 -0.30 – 0.21 0.720
Observations 58
R2 / R2 adjusted 0.145 / 0.114

  perf
Predictors Estimates CI p
(Intercept) 3.30 1.98 – 4.62 <0.001
condition [1] 0.12 -0.28 – 0.52 0.543
pos 0.45 0.21 – 0.70 0.001
Observations 58
R2 / R2 adjusted 0.313 / 0.288

  perf
Predictors Estimates CI p
(Intercept) 5.16 3.92 – 6.40 <0.001
condition [1] 0.31 -0.02 – 0.64 0.068
pos mood 0.35 0.09 – 0.62 0.011
neg mood -0.50 -0.86 – -0.13 0.008
Observations 58
R2 / R2 adjusted 0.412 / 0.380

  perf
Predictors Estimates CI p
(Intercept) 3.79 2.09 – 5.49 <0.001
condition [1] 0.09 -0.28 – 0.46 0.629
friend -0.01 -0.23 – 0.21 0.934
pos 0.28 0.03 – 0.53 0.029
pos mood 0.29 0.02 – 0.56 0.034
neg mood -0.40 -0.78 – -0.02 0.041
Observations 58
R2 / R2 adjusted 0.467 / 0.415

mediation?
  perf
Predictors Estimates CI p
(Intercept) 4.64 3.79 – 5.48 <0.001
condition [1] 0.27 -0.14 – 0.68 0.192
wm 0.23 0.05 – 0.41 0.012
Observations 58
R2 / R2 adjusted 0.238 / 0.210


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) 0.089 [0.022, 0.163] = 0.008
Direct effect (ADE) 0.046 [-0.065, 0.155] = 0.410
Total effect 0.135 [0.036, 0.229] = 0.010
Proportion mediated 0.656 [0.173, 2.145] = 0.018

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