Participants

(Original N = 219; excluded 7 who failed at least 1 of 2 attn chks)

N = 212
M age = 36.54

Males = 129
Females = 83

Remote Status:
Remote: 120
In Person: 77
Mix: 15

Example moments

Recall a moment during a group meeting or event at work when you exchanged glances with a colleague where you had the feeling you were thinking the same thing.

What was the meeting or event about?

What exactly happened that prompted you to share a glance?

Was there any backstory/history to the shared glance (e.g., an inside joke, prior conversations, shared experiences, etc.)?

When you exchanged glances, how did you feel towards your colleague (with whom you exchanged the glance)?

When you exchanged glances, how did you feel towards the other people in the meeting?

Shared Reality During Glance

In that moment, how much did you feel like you and your colleague had the same thoughts and feelings about whatever you were responding to?

M = 6.11, SD = 1.08

Shared Reality & Closeness During Glance

In that moment, how close did you feel to your colleague?

  close.s
Predictors Estimates CI p
(Intercept) -0.00 -0.10 – 0.10 1.000
srt.s 0.65 0.55 – 0.76 <0.001
Observations 212
R2 / adjusted R2 0.426 / 0.423


Emotions during Shared Glance


Emotion Types Communicated during Glance
Please rate the extent to which you and your colleague were communicating each of the following emotions through your shared glance. 

##           emotion mean.emo
## 1      Solidarity     3.64
## 2         Support     3.49
## 3       Amusement     3.42
## 4      Complicity     3.00
## 5       Annoyance     2.65
## 6        Sympathy     2.62
## 7     Frustration     2.58
## 8       Happiness     2.36
## 9    Exasperation     2.27
## 10          Pride     2.25
## 11       Smugness     2.23
## 12        Concern     2.19
## 13     Skepticism     2.18
## 14     Excitement     2.11
## 15       Superior     2.06
## 16 Disappointment     2.04
## 17      Affection     1.98
## 18     Self.Right     1.94
## 19       Surprise     1.89
## 20    Resignation     1.85
## 21           Love     1.67
## 22          Anger     1.67
## 23   Hopelessness     1.58
## 24        Anxiety     1.57
## 25      Confusion     1.56
## 26        Disgust     1.51
## 27  Embarrassment     1.49
## 28        Sadness     1.46
Emotion Change

positive emotion change
If you were communicating any positive emotions, how did the intensity of these emotions change as a result of your shared glance? Mark “NA” if you were not communicating any positive emotions

M = 5.04, SD = 1.09


~Potentially add in analysis showing this distribution is sig diff from midpoint!~
Shared reality during glance predicts positive emotion change

  pos.emo.ch.s
Predictors Estimates CI p
(Intercept) 0.00 -0.15 – 0.16 0.984
srt.s 0.26 0.09 – 0.42 0.002
Observations 150
R2 / adjusted R2 0.061 / 0.054


negative emotion change

M = 4.17, SD = 1.15

~Potentially add in analysis showing this distribution is NOT sig diff from midpoint!~
Shared reality during glance doesn’t predict negative emotion change

  neg.emo.ch.s
Predictors Estimates CI p
(Intercept) 0.00 -0.16 – 0.16 0.989
srt.s -0.03 -0.19 – 0.14 0.739
Observations 147
R2 / adjusted R2 0.001 / -0.006



Emotion after glance
Please indicate which of the emotions below that you felt after sharing a glance

V1 V2 V3 V4 V5 V6 V7 V8 V9 V10 V11
emo excited happy special unique validated superior self-righteous smug self-satisfied intelligent powerful
num 29 60 29 23 139 31 17 34 62 39 11

Goals of Glance

When you shared the glance, how much were you looking for X to validate what you were thinking?

M = 5.02, SD = 1.51


validation goal predicts shared reality

  srt.s
Predictors Estimates CI p
(Intercept) -0.00 -0.13 – 0.13 1.000
valid.goal.s 0.31 0.18 – 0.44 <0.001
Observations 212
R2 / adjusted R2 0.094 / 0.090


When you shared the glance, how much were you looking to connect with X?

M = 4.69, SD = 1.58


connection goal predicts shared reality


  srt.s
Predictors Estimates CI p
(Intercept) -0.00 -0.13 – 0.13 1.000
connect.goal.s 0.34 0.22 – 0.47 <0.001
Observations 212
R2 / adjusted R2 0.118 / 0.114


Which type of goal best predicts shared reality?
  srt.s
Predictors Estimates CI p
(Intercept) -0.00 -0.13 – 0.13 1.000
connect.goal.s 0.25 0.09 – 0.41 0.002
valid.goal.s 0.15 -0.01 – 0.31 0.061
Observations 212
R2 / adjusted R2 0.133 / 0.125



How correlated are these goals?
  connect.goal.s
Predictors Estimates CI p
(Intercept) -0.00 -0.11 – 0.11 1.000
valid.goal.s 0.61 0.50 – 0.72 <0.001
Observations 212
R2 / adjusted R2 0.374 / 0.371



Naive Realism during Glance

2 items: In that moment, X and I were viewing things in an objective way / saw things as they really are.

M = 5.24, SD = 1.11


Shared reality predicts naive realism


  naive.real.s
Predictors Estimates CI p
(Intercept) 0.00 -0.12 – 0.12 1.000
srt.s 0.42 0.29 – 0.54 <0.001
Observations 212
R2 / adjusted R2 0.174 / 0.170

holds controlling for closeness to colleague
  naive.real.s
Predictors Estimates CI p
(Intercept) 0.00 -0.12 – 0.12 1.000
srt.s 0.32 0.16 – 0.48 <0.001
close.s 0.15 -0.01 – 0.31 0.066
Observations 212
R2 / adjusted R2 0.187 / 0.179


Other colleagues in meeting

Did anyone else notice the glance your shared with X?

## `stat_bin()` using `bins = 30`. Pick better value with `binwidth`.

What percentage of the other people in the group meeting do you think were thinking the same thing as you and your colleague?

M = 46.68, SD = 30.07

no relation to SR


  srt.s
Predictors Estimates CI p
(Intercept) -0.00 -0.13 – 0.13 1.000
sh.oth.s 0.00 -0.13 – 0.14 0.952
Observations 212
R2 / adjusted R2 0.000 / -0.005


Correlation between others thinking same thing and validation goal
  valid.goal.s
Predictors Estimates CI p
(Intercept) 0.00 -0.13 – 0.13 1.000
sh.oth.s -0.02 -0.16 – 0.11 0.736
Observations 212
R2 / adjusted R2 0.001 / -0.004


Correlation between others thinking same thing and connection goal
  connect.goal.s
Predictors Estimates CI p
(Intercept) -0.00 -0.13 – 0.13 1.000
sh.oth.s -0.03 -0.16 – 0.11 0.693
Observations 212
R2 / adjusted R2 0.001 / -0.004


What percentage of other people in the group meeting did you also exchange glances with?

M = 13.23, SD = 22.6

negatively predicts shared reality


  srt.s
Predictors Estimates CI p
(Intercept) -0.00 -0.13 – 0.13 1.000
glance.oth.s -0.19 -0.32 – -0.05 0.006
Observations 212
R2 / adjusted R2 0.035 / 0.030

testing interaction effects
  close.s
Predictors Estimates CI p
(Intercept) 0.02 -0.08 – 0.12 0.693
glance.oth.s 0.02 -0.08 – 0.13 0.692
srt.s 0.64 0.53 – 0.74 <0.001
glance.oth.s:srt.s 0.11 0.01 – 0.21 0.026
Observations 212
R2 / adjusted R2 0.439 / 0.431
  naive.real.s
Predictors Estimates CI p
(Intercept) 0.00 -0.12 – 0.13 0.987
glance.oth.s 0.05 -0.08 – 0.18 0.470
srt.s 0.42 0.30 – 0.55 <0.001
glance.oth.s:srt.s 0.01 -0.11 – 0.12 0.926
Observations 212
R2 / adjusted R2 0.176 / 0.164

Communication after Meeting

After the meeting, did you communicate with X about whatever you were exchanging a glance about?
Yes: 72%
No: 28%

Was X thinking what you thought they were thinking, or did you learn that they were actually thinking about something else?
They were thinking what I thought: 151
They were thinking something else: 1

Colleague with whom they frequently share glances

How frequently do you share glances with X?
M = 3.45, SD = 1.17

1 - it only happened once (1)
2 - it happened a couple of times (2)
3 - it happens every few meetings (3)
4 - it happens most meetings (4)
5 - it happens nearly every meeting (5)
6 - it happens multiple times per meeting (6)


Compared to the other people you work with, how would you rank X in terms of how close you are?

## `stat_bin()` using `bins = 30`. Pick better value with `binwidth`.


1 - my closest colleague (1)
2 - one of my closest colleagues (2)
3 - about average (3)
4 - one of the colleagues I am the least close to (4)
5 - the colleague I am the least close to (5)


Which of the following describe X?
We have the same role at work : 42%
We’re on the same team at work : 83%
We socialize outside of work : 37%


X’s Status in the organization:
Lower: 16%
Same: 65%
Higher: 19%

Relational Consequences of Frequently Sharing Glances

Closeness
Overall, how close are you and X?

  chron.close.s
Predictors Estimates CI p
(Intercept) -0.00 -0.12 – 0.12 1.000
freq.glance.s 0.52 0.41 – 0.64 <0.001
Observations 212
R2 / adjusted R2 0.272 / 0.269



Significant indirect effect through SR-G

## 
## Causal Mediation Analysis 
## 
## Nonparametric Bootstrap Confidence Intervals with the Percentile Method
## 
##                Estimate 95% CI Lower 95% CI Upper p-value    
## ACME              0.216        0.144         0.31  <2e-16 ***
## ADE               0.330        0.205         0.45  <2e-16 ***
## Total Effect      0.546        0.428         0.67  <2e-16 ***
## Prop. Mediated    0.395        0.269         0.57  <2e-16 ***
## ---
## Signif. codes:  0 '***' 0.001 '**' 0.01 '*' 0.05 '.' 0.1 ' ' 1
## 
## Sample Size Used: 212 
## 
## 
## Simulations: 500


Solidarity with colleague (6 items)
I feel a sense of “brotherhood” or “sisterhood” with X
I feel a sense of solidarity with X
It is important to challenge the power structures that disadvantage X
I feel connected to the issues affecting X


  solidarity.col.s
Predictors Estimates CI p
(Intercept) -0.00 -0.12 – 0.12 1.000
freq.glance.s 0.41 0.29 – 0.54 <0.001
Observations 212
R2 / adjusted R2 0.170 / 0.166



Significant indirect effect through SR-G

## 
## Causal Mediation Analysis 
## 
## Nonparametric Bootstrap Confidence Intervals with the Percentile Method
## 
##                Estimate 95% CI Lower 95% CI Upper p-value    
## ACME             0.2430       0.1752         0.33  <2e-16 ***
## ADE              0.1434       0.0261         0.25   0.016 *  
## Total Effect     0.3865       0.2858         0.49  <2e-16 ***
## Prop. Mediated   0.6289       0.4324         0.92  <2e-16 ***
## ---
## Signif. codes:  0 '***' 0.001 '**' 0.01 '*' 0.05 '.' 0.1 ' ' 1
## 
## Sample Size Used: 212 
## 
## 
## Simulations: 500


Organizational Consequences of Frequently Sharing Glances


Solidarity with colleagues (6 items)
I feel a sense of “brotherhood” or “sisterhood” with my coworkers
I feel a sense of solidarity with my coworkers
It is important to challenge the power structures that disadvantage my coworkers
I feel connected to the issues affecting my coworkers


  solidarity.grp.s
Predictors Estimates CI p
(Intercept) -0.00 -0.13 – 0.13 1.000
freq.glance.s 0.07 -0.06 – 0.21 0.281
Observations 212
R2 / adjusted R2 0.006 / 0.001



Significant indirect effect through SR-G

## 
## Causal Mediation Analysis 
## 
## Nonparametric Bootstrap Confidence Intervals with the Percentile Method
## 
##                Estimate 95% CI Lower 95% CI Upper p-value    
## ACME             0.1386       0.0638         0.22  <2e-16 ***
## ADE             -0.0654      -0.2079         0.08    0.46    
## Total Effect     0.0732      -0.0675         0.23    0.32    
## Prop. Mediated   1.8925     -21.0120        17.37    0.32    
## ---
## Signif. codes:  0 '***' 0.001 '**' 0.01 '*' 0.05 '.' 0.1 ' ' 1
## 
## Sample Size Used: 212 
## 
## 
## Simulations: 500


Authenticity (6 items)
In this job, I feel alive
In this job, I can be who I really am
I feel this job is what I am meant to do


  auth.s
Predictors Estimates CI p
(Intercept) 0.00 -0.13 – 0.13 1.000
freq.glance.s 0.21 0.08 – 0.34 0.002
Observations 212
R2 / adjusted R2 0.044 / 0.040



Significant indirect effect through SR-G

## 
## Causal Mediation Analysis 
## 
## Nonparametric Bootstrap Confidence Intervals with the Percentile Method
## 
##                Estimate 95% CI Lower 95% CI Upper p-value    
## ACME             0.2368       0.1387         0.34  <2e-16 ***
## ADE              0.0200      -0.1589         0.16    0.82    
## Total Effect     0.2568       0.0858         0.40  <2e-16 ***
## Prop. Mediated   0.9222       0.5187         2.80  <2e-16 ***
## ---
## Signif. codes:  0 '***' 0.001 '**' 0.01 '*' 0.05 '.' 0.1 ' ' 1
## 
## Sample Size Used: 212 
## 
## 
## Simulations: 500


Facades of Conformity (6 items)
I don’t share certain things about myself in order to fit in at work.
I suppress personal values that are different from those of the organization.
I say things that I don’t really believe at work.



  fac.conf.s
Predictors Estimates CI p
(Intercept) 0.00 -0.13 – 0.13 1.000
freq.glance.s -0.08 -0.21 – 0.06 0.254
Observations 212
R2 / adjusted R2 0.006 / 0.001


Meaning (3 items)
The work I do is very important to me.
My job activities are personally meaningful to me.
The work I do is meaningful to me.


  meaning.s
Predictors Estimates CI p
(Intercept) -0.00 -0.13 – 0.13 1.000
freq.glance.s 0.25 0.12 – 0.38 <0.001
Observations 212
R2 / adjusted R2 0.063 / 0.059



Significant indirect effect through SR-G

## 
## Causal Mediation Analysis 
## 
## Nonparametric Bootstrap Confidence Intervals with the Percentile Method
## 
##                Estimate 95% CI Lower 95% CI Upper p-value    
## ACME             0.1985       0.0829         0.32  <2e-16 ***
## ADE              0.1365      -0.0498         0.30    0.16    
## Total Effect     0.3351       0.1785         0.49  <2e-16 ***
## Prop. Mediated   0.5925       0.2592         1.26  <2e-16 ***
## ---
## Signif. codes:  0 '***' 0.001 '**' 0.01 '*' 0.05 '.' 0.1 ' ' 1
## 
## Sample Size Used: 212 
## 
## 
## Simulations: 500


Commitment (6 items)
I do not feel like “part of the family” at my organization (r)
I feel I would be very happy to spend the rest of my career with this organization


  commit.s
Predictors Estimates CI p
(Intercept) -0.00 -0.13 – 0.13 1.000
freq.glance.s 0.10 -0.03 – 0.24 0.138
Observations 212
R2 / adjusted R2 0.010 / 0.006



Significant indirect effect through SR-G

## 
## Causal Mediation Analysis 
## 
## Nonparametric Bootstrap Confidence Intervals with the Percentile Method
## 
##                Estimate 95% CI Lower 95% CI Upper p-value    
## ACME             0.2004       0.0952         0.31  <2e-16 ***
## ADE             -0.0726      -0.2771         0.12    0.50    
## Total Effect     0.1278      -0.0527         0.30    0.16    
## Prop. Mediated   1.5679     -13.6695        16.16    0.16    
## ---
## Signif. codes:  0 '***' 0.001 '**' 0.01 '*' 0.05 '.' 0.1 ' ' 1
## 
## Sample Size Used: 212 
## 
## 
## Simulations: 500



Satisfaction (4 items)
Right now, all in all, I am very satisfied with my current job.
Right now, if a good friend of mine told me that he/she was interested in working in a job like mine I would strongly recommend it.


  sat.s
Predictors Estimates CI p
(Intercept) 0.00 -0.13 – 0.13 1.000
freq.glance.s 0.10 -0.03 – 0.24 0.134
Observations 212
R2 / adjusted R2 0.011 / 0.006



Significant indirect effect through SR-G

## 
## Causal Mediation Analysis 
## 
## Nonparametric Bootstrap Confidence Intervals with the Percentile Method
## 
##                Estimate 95% CI Lower 95% CI Upper p-value   
## ACME             0.1487       0.0438         0.24   0.008 **
## ADE             -0.0175      -0.2091         0.20   0.860   
## Total Effect     0.1311      -0.0535         0.31   0.188   
## Prop. Mediated   1.1338      -7.7955         8.30   0.196   
## ---
## Signif. codes:  0 '***' 0.001 '**' 0.01 '*' 0.05 '.' 0.1 ' ' 1
## 
## Sample Size Used: 212 
## 
## 
## Simulations: 500


Relational Consequences of Generalized Shared Reality with Colleague

Generalized shared reality (8-items)
We frequently think of things at the exact same time.
Through our discussions, we often develop a joint perspective.
We typically share the same thoughts and feelings about things
We often feel like we have created our own reality.

M = 4.56, SD = 1.2

Overall Closeness


  chron.close.s
Predictors Estimates CI p
(Intercept) -0.00 -0.11 – 0.11 1.000
srg.s 0.58 0.47 – 0.69 <0.001
Observations 212
R2 / adjusted R2 0.340 / 0.337


Solidarity with colleague
I feel a sense of “brotherhood” or “sisterhood” with X
I feel a sense of solidarity with X
It is important to challenge the power structures that disadvantage X
I feel connected to the issues affecting X


  solidarity.col.s
Predictors Estimates CI p
(Intercept) -0.00 -0.11 – 0.11 1.000
srg.s 0.62 0.51 – 0.72 <0.001
Observations 212
R2 / adjusted R2 0.381 / 0.378


Organizational Consequences of Generalized Shared Reality with Colleague

Authenticity (6 items)
In this job, I feel alive
In this job, I can be who I really am
I feel this job is what I am meant to do


SR predicts authenticity at work
  auth.s
Predictors Estimates CI p
(Intercept) 0.00 -0.12 – 0.12 1.000
srg.s 0.42 0.29 – 0.54 <0.001
Observations 212
R2 / adjusted R2 0.173 / 0.169

holds controlling for closeness:
  auth.s
Predictors Estimates CI p
(Intercept) 0.00 -0.12 – 0.12 1.000
srg.s 0.33 0.18 – 0.48 <0.001
chron.close.s 0.14 -0.01 – 0.29 0.062
Observations 212
R2 / adjusted R2 0.187 / 0.179


Facades of Conformity (6 items)
I don’t share certain things about myself in order to fit in at work.
I suppress personal values that are different from those of the organization.
I say things that I don’t really believe at work.


SR does not predict facades of conformity
  fac.conf.s
Predictors Estimates CI p
(Intercept) 0.00 -0.13 – 0.13 1.000
srg.s -0.01 -0.15 – 0.12 0.841
Observations 212
R2 / adjusted R2 0.000 / -0.005


Meaning (3 items)
The work I do is very important to me.
My job activities are personally meaningful to me.
The work I do is meaningful to me.


SR predicts meaning

  meaning.s
Predictors Estimates CI p
(Intercept) -0.00 -0.13 – 0.13 1.000
srg.s 0.36 0.24 – 0.49 <0.001
Observations 212
R2 / adjusted R2 0.131 / 0.126

holds controlling for closeness:
  meaning.s
Predictors Estimates CI p
(Intercept) 0.00 -0.12 – 0.12 1.000
srg.s 0.26 0.11 – 0.42 0.001
chron.close.s 0.17 0.02 – 0.32 0.031
Observations 212
R2 / adjusted R2 0.150 / 0.142


Commitment (6 items)
I do not feel like “part of the family” at my organization (r)
I feel I would be very happy to spend the rest of my career with this organization


SR predicts commitment

  commit.s
Predictors Estimates CI p
(Intercept) -0.00 -0.13 – 0.13 1.000
srg.s 0.31 0.18 – 0.44 <0.001
Observations 212
R2 / adjusted R2 0.095 / 0.091

holds controlling for closeness:
  commit.s
Predictors Estimates CI p
(Intercept) -0.00 -0.13 – 0.13 1.000
srg.s 0.26 0.11 – 0.42 0.001
chron.close.s 0.08 -0.08 – 0.24 0.339
Observations 212
R2 / adjusted R2 0.099 / 0.091


Satisfaction (4 items)
Right now, all in all, I am very satisfied with my current job.
Right now, if a good friend of mine told me that he/she was interested in working in a job like mine I would strongly recommend it.


SR predicts satisfaction

  sat.s
Predictors Estimates CI p
(Intercept) 0.00 -0.13 – 0.13 1.000
srg.s 0.24 0.11 – 0.37 <0.001
Observations 212
R2 / adjusted R2 0.057 / 0.053

holds controlling for closeness:
  sat.s
Predictors Estimates CI p
(Intercept) 0.00 -0.13 – 0.13 1.000
srg.s 0.20 0.04 – 0.36 0.017
chron.close.s 0.07 -0.09 – 0.23 0.396
Observations 212
R2 / adjusted R2 0.061 / 0.052


Absent/ Virtual communication

Have you ever been in a meeting and felt like you wanted to share glances with X but they weren’t present at the meeting?
Yes: 54%
No: 46%

Did you reach out to them afterwards?
Yes: 80
No: 34

How often, if ever, do you communicate with X through social media (e.g. sending each other a tweet, meme, or instagram post)? Mark NA if you don’t use social media. M = 3.09, SD = 1.76

How often, if ever, do you communicate with X through texting or messaging apps (e.g., iMessage, What’s App)? Mark NA if you don’t text or use messaging apps M = 3.92, SD = 1.65

We are also interested in examining whether, on virtual conference platforms (e.g., Zoom), there is a replacement for physically glancing at a colleague to see if they are thinking the same thing. If you work remotely now (or have in the past), what do you do on virtual conference platforms instead of exchanging glances?