diff --git a/.gitignore b/.gitignore
index 1afd441..42d6a0f 100644
--- a/.gitignore
+++ b/.gitignore
@@ -5,11 +5,11 @@ docs/
 *.Rmarkdown
 
 # Tracking version in docs/
-exp1_files/
-exp2_files/
-exp3_files/
-exp4_files/
-supplementary_analyses_files/
+1_exp_files/
+2_exp_files/
+3_exp_files/
+4_exp_files/
+6_supplementary_analyses_files/
 
 # History files
 .Rhistory
diff --git a/0_abstract.qmd b/0_abstract.qmd
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..ae02808
--- /dev/null
+++ b/0_abstract.qmd
@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+# Abstract {.unnumbered}
+
+Singular *they* is becoming increasingly common and accepted, but many people find it difficult to learn, instead making seemingly-counterintuitive errors like “she uses they/them pronouns.” Existing pronoun production models argue that speakers select pronouns based on morphosyntactic information associated with a name, or based on semantic/conceptual knowledge about a person. However, learning to use singular *they* may require a change in production processes. The first three experiments argue for a model where speakers may instead need to retrieve information from episodic memory about a person’s stated pronouns or which pronouns other speakers use to refer to them. Experiment 1 establishes a measure for how people learn to associate pronouns with a person, and how they use this information to select which pronouns to produce. Experiment 2 investigates how providing people with information about why paying attention to gendered language is important and how seeing singular *they* modeled can support memory for and production of singular *they*. Experiment 3 moves from written to spoken production, testing how including pronouns on nametags and in introductions---common EDI recommendations---affects pronoun choice. Experiment 4 investigates online comprehension, using the visual world paradigm to characterize how singular *they* is being integrated into existing processing mechanisms. The results demonstrate that people can learn that someone uses they/them after only brief introductions, and that a PSA, including pronouns on nametags, and including pronouns in introductions can support accurate production of singular *they*. These findings help extend processing models to account for a wider range of people’s language use and contribute to evidence-based best practices for creating gender-inclusive environments.
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/introduction.qmd b/0_introduction.qmd
similarity index 72%
rename from introduction.qmd
rename to 0_introduction.qmd
index fcb07b6..c6dfb24 100644
--- a/introduction.qmd
+++ b/0_introduction.qmd
@@ -27,25 +27,25 @@ In addition to learning that the grammatical representation of *they* allows it
 
 ### 0.2.1 Coreference {#coreference}
 
-In conversations and writing, we use a variety of expressions to refer to the same entity, and keeping track of this---doing [coreference resolution]{#def-coreference .link-primary}---is one of the core problems of language comprehension [@cornish2006; @garnham2006; @huang2006]. When talking about people, speakers have the choice between proper names (*Bethany, Bethany Gardner*), pronouns (*they, she*), role nouns (*the author*), and other noun phrase descriptions (*the author of this dissertation*). Comprehenders have to identify who is being talked about when a person is first mentioned, then match later referring expressions back to that [referent]{#def-referent .link-primary}. Pronouns nearly always refer to someone mentioned previously---an [antecedent]{#def-antecedent .link-primary}---instead of introducing a new referent [@kennison2009]. However, in many contexts there are multiple possible antecedents for the same pronoun, and understanding how comprehenders successfully manage this has been the focus of decades of psycholinguistics research. As a brief summary, one class of theories argues that comprehenders identify the referent based on which entities are currently "centered" in attention, which is determined primarily based on grammatical roles (e.g., the subject of the sentence) and information structure (e.g., topic changes) [@gordon1993; @grosz1986; @joshi2006; @walker2002]. The second major class of theories, coherence-driven approaches, argues that coreference resolution is a consequence of broader inferential reasoning using world knowledge to construct an interpretation of the conversation as a whole [@greene1992; @mckoon1996]. While centering and coherence approaches have generally been considered mutually exclusive, one way of reconciling them is a probabilistic model where comprehenders are using coherence-driven expectations about what entities the speaker will refer to next, and speakers are using centering-driven likelihoods to choose referential forms [@kehler2013]. Aside from the terminology used for reference resolution, the key takeaway for the rest of this dissertation is that coreference---even for neutral, established, uncontroversial pronouns like *he* and *she*---is complicated.
+In conversations and writing, we use a variety of expressions to refer to the same entity, and keeping track of this---doing [coreference resolution]{#def-coreference .link-primary title="definition: coreference"}---is one of the core problems of language comprehension [@cornish2006; @garnham2006; @huang2006]. When talking about people, speakers have the choice between proper names (*Bethany, Bethany Gardner*), pronouns (*they, she*), role nouns (*the author*), and other noun phrase descriptions (*the author of this dissertation*). Comprehenders have to identify who is being talked about when a person is first mentioned, then match later referring expressions back to that [referent]{#def-referent .link-primary title="definition: referent"}. Pronouns nearly always refer to someone mentioned previously---an [antecedent]{#def-antecedent .link-primary title="definition: antecedent"}---instead of introducing a new referent [@kennison2009]. However, in many contexts there are multiple possible antecedents for the same pronoun, and understanding how comprehenders successfully manage this has been the focus of decades of psycholinguistics research. As a brief summary, one class of theories argues that comprehenders identify the referent based on which entities are currently "centered" in attention, which is determined primarily based on grammatical roles (e.g., the subject of the sentence) and information structure (e.g., topic changes) [@gordon1993; @grosz1986; @joshi2006; @walker2002]. The second major class of theories, coherence-driven approaches, argues that coreference resolution is a consequence of broader inferential reasoning using world knowledge to construct an interpretation of the conversation as a whole [@greene1992; @mckoon1996]. While centering and coherence approaches have generally been considered mutually exclusive, one way of reconciling them is a probabilistic model where comprehenders are using coherence-driven expectations about what entities the speaker will refer to next, and speakers are using centering-driven likelihoods to choose referential forms [@kehler2013]. Aside from the terminology used for reference resolution, the key takeaway for the rest of this dissertation is that coreference---even for neutral, established, uncontroversial pronouns like *he* and *she*---is complicated.
 
 ### 0.2.2 Gender in Linguistics {#gender-linguistics}
 
-In a linguistics context, *gender* can refer to multiple concepts: grammatical, conceptual, and social. First, [grammatical gender]{#def-grammatical-gender .link-primary} refers to linguistic features. Languages with grammatical gender systems (e.g., Spanish, French, and German) classify nouns by gender; and determiners, pronouns, and adjectives have morphosyntactic features that mark agreement with the noun's gender [@gygax2019]. For example, *book* is a masculine noun in Spanish (*libro~[MASC]{.smallcaps}~*), so the masculine forms of determiners are used (e.g., *el~[MASC]{.smallcaps}~* instead of *la~[FEM]{.smallcaps}~*) and adjectives are conjugated with the masculine ending (e.g., *nuevo~[MASC]{.smallcaps}~* instead of *nueva~[FEM]{.smallcaps}~*), resulting in phrases like *el~[MASC]{.smallcaps}~ libro~[MASC]{.smallcaps}~ nuevo~[MASC]{.smallcaps}~* for *the new book*. Here, *gender* means something more like *kind* or *class*, and while many grammatical gender languages label the classes as masculine, feminine, and neutral, some languages have more than two or three genders [@corbett2013a]. Most gender classifications of nouns in grammatical gender languages are clearly arbitrary---there is nothing about a book that makes it masculine or feminine. Instead, grammatical gender can be thought of as a component of the word's structure, not its meaning [@anton-mendez2002; @wang2019].
+In a linguistics context, *gender* can refer to multiple concepts: grammatical, conceptual, and social. First, [grammatical gender]{#def-grammatical-gender .link-primary title="definition: grammatical gender"} refers to linguistic features. Languages with grammatical gender systems (e.g., Spanish, French, and German) classify nouns by gender; and determiners, pronouns, and adjectives have morphosyntactic features that mark agreement with the noun's gender [@gygax2019]. For example, *book* is a masculine noun in Spanish (*libro~[MASC]{.smallcaps}~*), so the masculine forms of determiners are used (e.g., *el~[MASC]{.smallcaps}~* instead of *la~[FEM]{.smallcaps}~*) and adjectives are conjugated with the masculine ending (e.g., *nuevo~[MASC]{.smallcaps}~* instead of *nueva~[FEM]{.smallcaps}~*), resulting in phrases like *el~[MASC]{.smallcaps}~ libro~[MASC]{.smallcaps}~ nuevo~[MASC]{.smallcaps}~* for *the new book*. Here, *gender* means something more like *kind* or *class*, and while many grammatical gender languages label the classes as masculine, feminine, and neutral, some languages have more than two or three genders [@corbett2013a]. Most gender classifications of nouns in grammatical gender languages are clearly arbitrary---there is nothing about a book that makes it masculine or feminine. Instead, grammatical gender can be thought of as a component of the word's structure, not its meaning [@anton-mendez2002; @wang2019].
 
-Languages without grammatical gender, such as English, are typically referred to as natural gender languages. Natural gender languages do not group nouns into gender classes, but many do mark gender for pronouns referring to people [@gygax2019; @siewierska2013]. Gender marking of pronouns in natural gender languages is so-called because it is assumed to reflect inherent biological categories (e.g., @corbett2013b; critiqued by @mcconnell-ginet2014). This becomes a problem if you acknowledge that gender (and to some degree, biological sex) is a social construction with the potential to have more than two binary categories. With regard to pronouns, a better explanation---in terms of gender theory as well as simply explaining linguistic behavior---is to treat pronouns as reflecting a shared social understanding, instead of an ontological or biological claim (@conrod2019, discussed in more detail later in [Section 0.5](#production "Production")). With regard to nouns, instead of calling this natural gender, I refer to this as [conceptual gender]{#def-conceptual-gender .link-primary}, following @ackerman2019.
+Languages without grammatical gender, such as English, are typically referred to as natural gender languages. Natural gender languages do not group nouns into gender classes, but many do mark gender for pronouns referring to people [@gygax2019; @siewierska2013]. Gender marking of pronouns in natural gender languages is so-called because it is assumed to reflect inherent biological categories (e.g., @corbett2013b; critiqued by @mcconnell-ginet2014). This becomes a problem if you acknowledge that gender (and to some degree, biological sex) is a social construction with the potential to have more than two binary categories. With regard to pronouns, a better explanation---in terms of gender theory as well as simply explaining linguistic behavior---is to treat pronouns as reflecting a shared social understanding, instead of an ontological or biological claim (@conrod2019, discussed in more detail later in [Section 0.5](#production "Production")). With regard to nouns, instead of calling this natural gender, I refer to this as [conceptual gender]{#def-conceptual-gender .link-primary title="definition: conceptual gender"}, following @ackerman2019.
 
-In addition to accounting for modern concepts of [social gender]{#def-social-gender .link-primary}, decoupling gendered language from claims about inherent natural categories also facilitates making distinctions between two different ways that nouns can carry conceptual gender information, which become relevant in psycholinguistics experiments. In [definitionally-gendered]{#def-definitional-gender .link-primary} nouns, the gender information is part of the meaning itself, e.g., *son* or *queen*. In [stereotypically-gendered]{#def-stereotypical-gender .link-primary} nouns, gender information is part of our knowledge about gender stereotypes, distributions, and expectations, e.g., *mechanic* or *nurse*. Even if they do not believe this should be the case, people know that being a mechanic fits better into expectations for men and being a nurse fits better into expectations for women, and that people employed as mechanics are more likely to be men and people employed as nurses are more likely to be women. Similarly, English first names carry probabilistic information about gender. When talking about names for the design of the experiments in this dissertation, I refer to people's knowledge about gender associations of a name (i.e., that most people named *Mary* are women, or that people named *Jordan* are commonly men or women).[^introduction-1]
+In addition to accounting for modern concepts of [social gender]{#def-social-gender .link-primary title="definition: social gender"}, decoupling gendered language from claims about inherent natural categories also facilitates making distinctions between two different ways that nouns can carry conceptual gender information, which become relevant in psycholinguistics experiments. In [definitionally-gendered]{#def-definitional-gender .link-primary title="definition: definitional gender"} nouns, the gender information is part of the meaning itself, e.g., *son* or *queen*. In [stereotypically-gendered]{#def-stereotypical-gender .link-primary title="definition: stereotypical gender"} nouns, gender information is part of our knowledge about gender stereotypes, distributions, and expectations, e.g., *mechanic* or *nurse*. Even if they do not believe this should be the case, people know that being a mechanic fits better into expectations for men and being a nurse fits better into expectations for women, and that people employed as mechanics are more likely to be men and people employed as nurses are more likely to be women. Similarly, English first names carry probabilistic information about gender. When talking about names for the design of the experiments in this dissertation, I refer to people's knowledge about gender associations of a name (i.e., that most people named *Mary* are women, or that people named *Jordan* are commonly men or women).[^0_introduction-1]
 
-[^introduction-1]: See @bjorkman2017 and @konnelly2020 for a discussion of how proper names may have morphosyntactic gender features used to evaluate agreement with pronouns, a question that this dissertation remains agnostic about.
+[^0_introduction-1]: See @bjorkman2017 and @konnelly2020 for a discussion of how proper names may have morphosyntactic gender features used to evaluate agreement with pronouns, a question that this dissertation remains agnostic about.
 
 Part of [coreference resolution](#def-coreference) requires evaluating whether a potential [antecedent](#def-antecedent) matches the pronoun for features including gender and number. Which aspect(s) of gender, precisely, are being evaluated? Grammatical, conceptual, or social? Since modern English does not have grammatical gender, @ackerman2019 argues that we are using conceptual gender (see @sato2013 for similar empirical findings). In order to distinguish how grammatical, conceptual, and social gender may be cognitively and linguistically encoded, Ackerman presents a three-tier model of gender agreement. The exemplar tier represents knowledge about our experiences with cues about gender, including the gender associations of first names, clothing and hair styles, vocal pitch, and other speech characteristics indexed as masculine or feminine. The distribution on the exemplar tier is strongly bimodal for most people, but would change as someone gains more experience with gender-nonconforming and [nonbinary](#def-nonbinary) people. The category tier represents our cognitive categorizations about gender, conceptualized as two discrete, non-overlapping categories laid over the bimodal distribution of the exemplar tier. Children develop categories for gender early on, and people automatically categorize others as male or female, regardless of whether these inferences are accurate or necessary [@bussey1999; @fagot1993; @friedman2014; @martin2002; @martin2004; @waxman2010]. This tendency in language comprehension is discussed later in [Section 0.4.1](#production "Processing Gender Agreement"). Finally, the feature tier represents labels and grammatical features associated with the categories on the category tier. In summary, being precise about what we mean when we say *conceptual gender* requires making distinctions between the knowledge and experiences we use to make gender inferences, the categories we infer from that knowledge and experience, and the labels we assign to those categories.
 
 ### 0.2.3 Forms of Singular *They* {#they-forms}
 
-Forms of singular *they* vary in three primary aspects---definiteness, specificity, and gender information---and the usage becomes more contested as [referents](#def-referent) become more definite, specific, and gender-known [@bjorkman2017; @conrod2019; @konnelly2020]. Broadly speaking, [definite]{#def-definite .link-primary} forms, including proper names and noun phrases with *the*, allow the comprehender to identify a referent; [indefinite]{#def-indefinite .link-primary} forms, including noun phrases with *a/an*, do not [@abbott2006]. [Generic]{#def-generic .link-primary} forms refer to a group of people, while [specific]{#def-specific .link-primary} forms refer to an individual [@carlson2006; @farkas2006; @fodor1982]. Definiteness and specificity are distinct features here, since expressions can be specific but indefinite---referring to one referent within a group, but not specifying which one.
+Forms of singular *they* vary in three primary aspects---definiteness, specificity, and gender information---and the usage becomes more contested as [referents](#def-referent) become more definite, specific, and gender-known [@bjorkman2017; @conrod2019; @konnelly2020]. Broadly speaking, [definite]{#def-definite .link-primary title="definition: definite referents"} forms, including proper names and noun phrases with *the*, allow the comprehender to identify a referent; [indefinite]{#def-indefinite .link-primary title="definition: indefinite referents"} forms, including noun phrases with *a/an*, do not [@abbott2006]. [Generic]{#def-generic .link-primary title="definition: generic referents"} forms refer to a group of people, while [specific]{#def-specific .link-primary title="definition: specific referents"} forms refer to an individual [@carlson2006; @farkas2006; @fodor1982]. Definiteness and specificity are distinct features here, since expressions can be specific but indefinite---referring to one referent within a group, but not specifying which one.
 
-The oldest and most common form of singular *they* is the [generic indefinite]{#def-generic-indefinite .link-primary}:
+The oldest and most common form of singular *they* is the [generic indefinite]{#def-generic-indefinite .link-primary title="definition: generic indefinite singular they"}:
 
 ::: {#exm-shakespeare .example-formatting}
 \
@@ -62,7 +62,7 @@ Everybody~i~ was punctual, everybody~i~ in their~i~ best looks: not a tear, and
 
 This form dates back to late Middle English, with some of the earliest examples appearing in Chaucer's *Canterbury Tales*, and has been in continuous use since then [@balhorn2004; @baskervill1895; @oedonline2021]. In the 18th century, prescriptive grammarians started pushing for the exclusive use of *he* as a generic [@bodine1975], which I discuss more in [Section 0.8](#sociopolitical-context "Sociopolitical Context"). Currently, generic indefinite singular *they* is widely accepted [@hekanaho2020]. The majority of style guides allow it, but still recommend using the phrase *he or she* or rephrasing the sentence to be plural [@robertson2021].
 
-Compared to the generic indefinite, [specific definite]{#def-specific-definite .link-primary} forms of singular *they* show much more variation in acceptability and frequency. It can be used in several [gender-unspecified]{#def-gender-unspecified .link-primary} contexts, such as when the speaker does not know the referent's gender. This context implies that the referent's gender is unknown, not necessarily that they are nonbinary or use they/them pronouns [@conrod2019]. The other speaker can add more information, either directly as in @exm-tma1, or indirectly through modeling pronoun use in a subsequent utterance.
+Compared to the generic indefinite, [specific definite]{#def-specific-definite .link-primary title="definition: specific definite singular they"} forms of singular *they* show much more variation in acceptability and frequency. It can be used in several [gender-unspecified]{#def-gender-unspecified .link-primary title="definition: gender-unspecified singular they"} contexts, such as when the speaker does not know the referent's gender. This context implies that the referent's gender is unknown, not necessarily that they are nonbinary or use they/them pronouns [@conrod2019]. The other speaker can add more information, either directly as in @exm-tma1, or indirectly through modeling pronoun use in a subsequent utterance.
 
 ::: {#exm-tma1 .example-formatting}
 \
@@ -85,7 +85,7 @@ B: Got it, great.\
 --- *The College Tapes*, pre-scripted podcast [@snow2021]
 :::
 
-The specific, definite, and [gender-specified]{#def-gender-specified .link-primary} form of singular *they*---the context described by "using they/them pronouns"---is the newest and most contested form. Although English first names do not carry definitive gender information, most carry strong probabilistic information and are perceived as gendered. Singular *they* coreferring with a proper name is carrying information about the referent's gender, not leaving it unspecified, e.g.:
+The specific, definite, and [gender-specified]{#def-gender-specified .link-primary title="definition: gender-specified singular they"} form of singular *they*---the context described by "using they/them pronouns"---is the newest and most contested form. Although English first names do not carry definitive gender information, most carry strong probabilistic information and are perceived as gendered. Singular *they* coreferring with a proper name is carrying information about the referent's gender, not leaving it unspecified, e.g.:
 
 ::: {#exm-atlantic .example-formatting}
 \
@@ -109,7 +109,7 @@ Singular *they* coreferring with [definitionally-gendered](#def-definitional-gen
 
 ### 0.2.4 LGBTQ Identity {#lgbtq}
 
-Here, I use [trans and gender diverse (TGD)]{#def-TGD .link-primary} as an umbrella term for anyone whose gender is different than their [sex assigned at birth]{#def-SAB .link-primary} (what was put on their birth certificate) and [cisgender]{#def-cis .link-primary} as an umbrella term for anyone whose gender matches their sex assigned at birth. People use a variety of terms to describe their identities, which currently include *transgender, nonbinary, genderqueer, genderfluid, gender non-conforming*, and *queer* [@cassian2021; @cassian2022; @glaad2020; @harrison2012; @james2016; @kuper2012]. Currently, [nonbinary]{#def-nonbinary .link-primary} is the most common label for people whose gender is not entirely within the categories of male or female, some of whom also identify as trans [@cassian2021; @cassian2022; @glaad2020; @james2016; @wilson2021]. While many nonbinary people use they/them pronouns, not all do, and not all people who use they/them are nonbinary. Pronouns are one of the cues we use to convey gender, and they strongly correlate with gender identity, but the mapping is not a one-to-one rule. Because of this, I specify "people who use they/them pronouns" instead of "nonbinary people" or "nonbinary pronouns." Otherwise, when describing prior research findings, I use the authors' terminology, noting that variations in the language used to recruit and describe participants select for different subsets of the TGD community.
+Here, I use [trans and gender diverse (TGD)]{#def-TGD .link-primary title="definition: trans and gender diverse"} as an umbrella term for anyone whose gender is different than their [sex assigned at birth]{#def-SAB .link-primary title="definition: sex assigned at birth"} (what was put on their birth certificate) and [cisgender]{#def-cis .link-primary title="definition: cisgender"} as an umbrella term for anyone whose gender matches their sex assigned at birth. People use a variety of terms to describe their identities, which currently include *transgender, nonbinary, genderqueer, genderfluid, gender non-conforming*, and *queer* [@cassian2021; @cassian2022; @glaad2020; @harrison2012; @james2016; @kuper2012]. Currently, [nonbinary]{#def-nonbinary .link-primary title="definition: nonbinary"} is the most common label for people whose gender is not entirely within the categories of male or female, some of whom also identify as trans [@cassian2021; @cassian2022; @glaad2020; @james2016; @wilson2021]. While many nonbinary people use they/them pronouns, not all do, and not all people who use they/them are nonbinary. Pronouns are one of the cues we use to convey gender, and they strongly correlate with gender identity, but the mapping is not a one-to-one rule. Because of this, I specify "people who use they/them pronouns" instead of "nonbinary people" or "nonbinary pronouns." Otherwise, when describing prior research findings, I use the authors' terminology, noting that variations in the language used to recruit and describe participants select for different subsets of the TGD community.
 
 ## 0.3 Acceptability and Grammaticality {#acceptability}
 
@@ -123,11 +123,11 @@ Many of the predictors of attitudes about singular *they* are highly correlated.
 
 ## 0.4 Comprehension {#comprehension}
 
-Turning to comprehension, research has examined both [offline comprehension]{#def-offline .link-primary}---asking people about their interpretation of a sentence *after* reading or listening to it---and [online comprehension]{#def-online .link-primary}---using measures such as reading time or eye gaze to observe people's interpretation of a sentence *while* reading or listening to it [@allopenna1998; @liversedge2000; @tanenhaus1995; @tanenhaus2000]. Most studies of reading use one of two paradigms. In [self-paced reading]{#def-SPR .link-primary} tasks, participants press a button to advance through the text one phrase or word at a time, measuring how long they spend at each region. In [eyetracking while reading]{#def-eyetracking-reading .link-primary} tasks, participants' eye movements are recorded while they read (relatively) naturalistically, measuring the sequence and duration of their [saccades]{#def-saccade .link-primary} to (eye movements directed towards) and [fixations]{#def-fixation .link-primary} on (gaze focused on) each word or phrase [@liversedge1998; @rayner2006]. Generally, longer durations at and regressions back to a region are assumed to reflect having more difficulty understanding the text [@carpenter1983; @henderson2013; @rayner1988]. This is referred to as a [processing cost]{#def-cost .link-primary} or penalty. The following section is organized using the same three categories of singular *they* as [Section 0.2.3](#they-forms "Forms of Singular They"): generic indefinite, specific definite gender-unspecified, and specific definite gender-specified (i.e., coreferring with proper names). But before discussing the existing research about comprehending singular *they*, I first review the prior research on gender agreement processing that it is based on.
+Turning to comprehension, research has examined both [offline comprehension]{#def-offline .link-primary title="definition: offline comprehension"}---asking people about their interpretation of a sentence *after* reading or listening to it---and [online comprehension]{#def-online .link-primary title="definition: online comprehension"}---using measures such as reading time or eye gaze to observe people's interpretation of a sentence *while* reading or listening to it [@allopenna1998; @liversedge2000; @tanenhaus1995; @tanenhaus2000]. Most studies of reading use one of two paradigms. In [self-paced reading]{#def-SPR .link-primary title="definition: self-paced reading"} tasks, participants press a button to advance through the text one phrase or word at a time, measuring how long they spend at each region. In [eyetracking while reading]{#def-eyetracking-reading .link-primary title="definition: eyetracking while reading"} tasks, participants' eye movements are recorded while they read (relatively) naturalistically, measuring the sequence and duration of their [saccades]{#def-saccade .link-primary title="definition: saccade"} to (eye movements directed towards) and [fixations]{#def-fixation .link-primary title="definition: fixation"} on (gaze focused on) each word or phrase [@liversedge1998; @rayner2006]. Generally, longer durations at and regressions back to a region are assumed to reflect having more difficulty understanding the text [@carpenter1983; @henderson2013; @rayner1988]. This is referred to as a [processing cost]{#def-cost .link-primary title="definition: processing cost"} or penalty. The following section is organized using the same three categories of singular *they* as [Section 0.2.3](#they-forms "Forms of Singular They"): generic indefinite, specific definite gender-unspecified, and specific definite gender-specified (i.e., coreferring with proper names). But before discussing the existing research about comprehending singular *they*, I first review the prior research on gender agreement processing that it is based on.
 
 ### 0.4.1 Processing Gender Agreement {#gender-agreement}
 
-The majority of studies about gender agreement have used [stereotype mismatch tasks]{#def-stereotype-mismatch .link-primary}, classically illustrated with:
+The majority of studies about gender agreement have used [stereotype mismatch tasks]{#def-stereotype-mismatch .link-primary title="definition: stereotype mismatch task"}, classically illustrated with:
 
 ::: {#exm-surgeon-riddle .example-formatting}
 \
@@ -136,7 +136,7 @@ A man and his son were away for a trip. They were driving along the highway when
 
 Many readers are confused by this story (see @morehouse2022 for a more recent overview). If, following the gender stereotype, the surgeon was assumed to be male, how could the boy's father be both dead in the accident and working at the hospital? It takes time to come to the correct interpretation, that the surgeon is the boy's mother. In the basic mismatch paradigm, participants read a sentence where a character is first referred to by a [stereotypically-gendered](#def-stereotypical-gender) role noun (usually a profession) and later referred to with a pronoun that matches or mismatches the stereotype. Stereotype-mismatching pronouns (e.g., *surgeon...she*) take longer to read than stereotype-matching pronouns (e.g., *surgeon...he*), suggesting that when readers had first encountered the new [referent](#def-referent), they used gender stereotype information to make an inference about the referent's gender [@kennison2003; @reynolds2006]. Upon reaching the mismatching pronoun, readers have to revise their interpretation, which incurs a processing cost. Alternatively, if a gender inference had not been made at the role noun, the process of making a gender inference at the pronoun would be the same regardless of stereotype match.
 
-Converging evidence is also available from event-related potential [(ERP)]{#def-ERP .link-primary} data, which uses electrodes placed on the scalp to measure changes in the brain's electrical field caused by neural activity [@samar2006]. Stereotype-mismatching pronouns elicit a [P600 effect]{#def-P600 .link-primary}: a positive wave in the centro-parietal regions, occurring 600--100ms after the word [@friederici2002]. Some argue that the P600 indexes syntactic processing, and it can be observed when listeners encounter a syntactic error, a sentence with a complex syntactic structure, or new information that requires revising their interpretation of the sentence's syntactic structure [@hagoort1993; @kaan2000; @osterhout1994; @osterhout1992]. Like a longer reading time, a P600 is interpreted as indicating that the sentence's syntactic structure is harder to understand. Notably, the P600 effect was still observed when participants judged the sentences with stereotype-mismatching pronouns to be acceptable [@osterhout1997; see @banaji1996; @oakhill2005 for similar findings in a priming paradigm]. Generally, the mismatch paradigm tends to remain agnostic about whether the mismatch effect arises more from gender stereotype beliefs or more from distributional knowledge. However, the fact that it occurs in the absence of negative metalinguistic judgments can be interpreted in favor of the gender mismatch being more due to statistical expectations in language processing (i.e., that *surgeon* occurs more frequently with *he* than *she*) than to higher-level beliefs about gender (i.e., that surgeons should be men).
+Converging evidence is also available from event-related potential [(ERP)]{#def-ERP .link-primary title="definition: ERP"} data, which uses electrodes placed on the scalp to measure changes in the brain's electrical field caused by neural activity [@samar2006]. Stereotype-mismatching pronouns elicit a [P600 effect]{#def-P600 .link-primary title="definition: P600 effect"}: a positive wave in the centro-parietal regions, occurring 600--100ms after the word [@friederici2002]. Some argue that the P600 indexes syntactic processing, and it can be observed when listeners encounter a syntactic error, a sentence with a complex syntactic structure, or new information that requires revising their interpretation of the sentence's syntactic structure [@hagoort1993; @kaan2000; @osterhout1994; @osterhout1992]. Like a longer reading time, a P600 is interpreted as indicating that the sentence's syntactic structure is harder to understand. Notably, the P600 effect was still observed when participants judged the sentences with stereotype-mismatching pronouns to be acceptable [@osterhout1997; see @banaji1996; @oakhill2005 for similar findings in a priming paradigm]. Generally, the mismatch paradigm tends to remain agnostic about whether the mismatch effect arises more from gender stereotype beliefs or more from distributional knowledge. However, the fact that it occurs in the absence of negative metalinguistic judgments can be interpreted in favor of the gender mismatch being more due to statistical expectations in language processing (i.e., that *surgeon* occurs more frequently with *he* than *she*) than to higher-level beliefs about gender (i.e., that surgeons should be men).
 
 [Grammatical gender](#def-grammatical-gender) languages provide stronger evidence for early, automatic inferences about the gender of referents when they are introduced into the discourse context. @carreiras1996 compared English results to Spanish, which marks gender on determiners and nouns. In English, the role noun provides stereotype information, and the referent's gender is not specified until the pronoun; in Spanish, the referent's gender is specified at the determiner:
 
@@ -163,9 +163,9 @@ An alternative explanation to these results, at least in English, is that the ge
 3 gave birth half an hour later.
 :::
 
-Here, both the role noun and the verb are stereotypically gendered, compared to prior experiments that paired a [stereotypically-gendered](#def-stereotypical-gender "stereotypical gender") role noun with a [definitionally-gendered](#def-definitional-gender "definitional gender") pronoun.[^introduction-2] A mismatch effect will only occur if inferences about the referent's gender are made at both the role noun (line 1 in [-@exm-garnham]) and at the stereotypically-gendered verb (line 3 in [-@exm-garnham]), not just at the verb. In other words, *the soldier...gave birth* would not take longer to read than *the housekeeper...gave birth* unless the reader had already inferred that the soldier was male before reaching *gave birth*. Results showed mismatch effects for reading time and acceptability judgment reaction times, which indicates that definitionally-gendered language is not necessary to assign a gender to referents. Instead, comprehenders use probabilistic information such as gender stereotype and distributional knowledge about role nouns to make an inference about the referent's gender. This inference may be proven wrong after encountering further information, and needing to revise an interpretation of a referent who has been represented as (probably) one gender incurs a [processing cost](#def-cost).
+Here, both the role noun and the verb are stereotypically gendered, compared to prior experiments that paired a [stereotypically-gendered](#def-stereotypical-gender "stereotypical gender") role noun with a [definitionally-gendered](#def-definitional-gender "definitional gender") pronoun.[^0_introduction-2] A mismatch effect will only occur if inferences about the referent's gender are made at both the role noun (line 1 in [-@exm-garnham]) and at the stereotypically-gendered verb (line 3 in [-@exm-garnham]), not just at the verb. In other words, *the soldier...gave birth* would not take longer to read than *the housekeeper...gave birth* unless the reader had already inferred that the soldier was male before reaching *gave birth*. Results showed mismatch effects for reading time and acceptability judgment reaction times, which indicates that definitionally-gendered language is not necessary to assign a gender to referents. Instead, comprehenders use probabilistic information such as gender stereotype and distributional knowledge about role nouns to make an inference about the referent's gender. This inference may be proven wrong after encountering further information, and needing to revise an interpretation of a referent who has been represented as (probably) one gender incurs a [processing cost](#def-cost).
 
-[^introduction-2]: Arguably, pronouns are not definitionally gendered, since not all people who use she/her are women and not all women use she/her, and vice versa for men and he/him. However, treating pronouns as probabilistic cues---nearly all people who use she/her are women and nearly all women use she/her---would make the same predictions. Even if it is not a binary rule, the pronoun would still be a stronger cue about gender than the stereotypes associated with a role noun.
+[^0_introduction-2]: Arguably, pronouns are not definitionally gendered, since not all people who use she/her are women and not all women use she/her, and vice versa for men and he/him. However, treating pronouns as probabilistic cues---nearly all people who use she/her are women and nearly all women use she/her---would make the same predictions. Even if it is not a binary rule, the pronoun would still be a stronger cue about gender than the stereotypes associated with a role noun.
 
 Another benefit of using [grammatical gender](#def-grammatical-gender) languages to study agreement processing is that they allow grammatical and [social gender](#def-social-gender) cues to be manipulated separately, potentially providing conflicting information [@reali2015]. Results from multiple languages suggest that stereotypical knowledge is activated independently from morphosyntactic cues [@molinaro2016; @schmitt2002]. In addition to integrating potentially-conflicting gender cues, gender inferences need to be integrated with other cues about reference. Having the prior context indicate the gender of the referent eliminates the mismatch effect [@duffy2004; @kreiner2008]:
 
@@ -189,13 +189,13 @@ Translated, maintaining the German word order: L.K. makes appointments, deals wi
 
 The mismatch effects for masculine pronouns coreferring with feminine jobs and for feminine pronouns coreferring with masculine jobs were different. In examples such as [-@exm-german], masculine pronouns in a feminine context caused readers to look at the masculine pronoun for longer and to be more likely to look back at it, indicating that the gender mismatch effect occurred during both early and late stages of processing. In contrast, feminine pronouns in masculine contexts did elicit a mismatch effect, but only during late stages of processing. While female referents were interpreted to be compatible with both masculine and feminine contexts, male referents were only compatible with masculine contexts [@reali2015]. This suggests that in the absence of definitive grammatical cues, gender stereotype information is interpreted more flexibly for women than men. Similarly, a priming task showed a slower reaction time for feminine-stereotyped role nouns followed by masculine pronouns, but no parallel effect for masculine-stereotyped role nouns followed by feminine pronouns [@cacciari2007]. This asymmetry likely reflects that changes in gender norms over the last 50 years have consisted more of women being able to do masculine things than men being able to do feminine things.
 
-Finally, in some contexts comprehenders interpret gender-mismatched pronouns as referring to an unknown, upcoming referent, instead of trying to establish coreference with a referent that does not agree in gender. Hearing pronouns that mismatched definitionally-gendered antecedents (e.g., *aunt...he*) elicited an [Nref]{#def-Nref .link-primary} ERP response---a negative, left-frontal shift starting 300ms after the pronoun and continuing for the rest of the sentence [@nieuwland2014]. The authors argue this indexes a high degree of referential ambiguity, where the listener fails to match the pronoun to a referent. In this example, the Nref occurs if the listener assumes that because *aunt* and *he* mismatch in gender, *he* refers to someone not mentioned yet.
+Finally, in some contexts comprehenders interpret gender-mismatched pronouns as referring to an unknown, upcoming referent, instead of trying to establish coreference with a referent that does not agree in gender. Hearing pronouns that mismatched definitionally-gendered antecedents (e.g., *aunt...he*) elicited an [Nref]{#def-Nref .link-primary title="definition: Nref effect"} ERP response---a negative, left-frontal shift starting 300ms after the pronoun and continuing for the rest of the sentence [@nieuwland2014]. The authors argue this indexes a high degree of referential ambiguity, where the listener fails to match the pronoun to a referent. In this example, the Nref occurs if the listener assumes that because *aunt* and *he* mismatch in gender, *he* refers to someone not mentioned yet.
 
 ### 0.4.2 Generic Indefinite Singular *They* {#generic-indefinite}
 
-The studies discussed so far show that comprehenders automatically[^introduction-3] and rapidly make inferences about gender when a new referent is mentioned---even when gender is irrelevant for comprehension---and that revising these gender inferences incurs [processing costs](#def-cost "processing cost"). Turning to singular *they*, the earliest published data compared the processing cost incurred by [generic indefinite](#def-generic-indefinite "generic indefinite singular they") singular *they* to those incurred by stereotype-mismatching *he* and *she* [@foertsch1997]. Participants read "should" statements using an [indefinite](#def-indefinite "indefinite") [antecedent](#def-antecedent "antecedent") and a pronoun, then decided whether or not they agreed:
+The studies discussed so far show that comprehenders automatically[^0_introduction-3] and rapidly make inferences about gender when a new referent is mentioned---even when gender is irrelevant for comprehension---and that revising these gender inferences incurs [processing costs](#def-cost "processing cost"). Turning to singular *they*, the earliest published data compared the processing cost incurred by [generic indefinite](#def-generic-indefinite "generic indefinite singular they") singular *they* to those incurred by stereotype-mismatching *he* and *she* [@foertsch1997]. Participants read "should" statements using an [indefinite](#def-indefinite "indefinite") [antecedent](#def-antecedent "antecedent") and a pronoun, then decided whether or not they agreed:
 
-[^introduction-3]: I make a distinction between our higher-level beliefs about gender and our lower-level, automatic cognitive processing. The fact that comprehenders immediately infer a gender categorization for new referents reflects statistical knowledge about how language is used, but does not necessarily reflect a belief in gender as binary and transparent. For a theory of how automatic categorization processes interact with higher-level beliefs about gender in the context of making gender attributions, see @friedman2014.
+[^0_introduction-3]: I make a distinction between our higher-level beliefs about gender and our lower-level, automatic cognitive processing. The fact that comprehenders immediately infer a gender categorization for new referents reflects statistical knowledge about how language is used, but does not necessarily reflect a belief in gender as binary and transparent. For a theory of how automatic categorization processes interact with higher-level beliefs about gender in the context of making gender attributions, see @friedman2014.
 
 ::: {#exm-foertsch .example-formatting}
 \
@@ -230,7 +230,7 @@ Participants' eye movements were analyzed over three regions at and immediately
 
 The findings so far show that when singular *they* refers to a [specific definite](#def-specific-definite "specific definite singular they")---but [gender-unspecified](#def-gender-unspecified "gender-unspecified singular they")---referent, it does incur a [processing cost](#def-cost "processing cost"), but one that is easily accommodated. The few studies about they coreferring with proper names (specific definite and [gender-specified](#def-gender-specified "gender-specified singular they")) also show a processing cost, but the magnitude and cause are still unclear. Early self-paced reading results have been inconclusive [@ackerman2018a; @ackerman2018b; @ackerman2020]. An [ERP](#def-ERP "ERP measures") study on people who used they/them pronouns for themselves or someone close to them---and thus were highly familiar with specific, gender-specified *they*---yielded mixed results [@prasad2020]. Participants showed no [P600](#def-P600 "P600 effect") effects, which index agreement and syntactic violations, for *themselves* coreferring with specific indefinite (e.g., *someone*) and specific definite gender-unspecified (e.g., *the participant*) referents, but did show P600 effects for specific definite gender-specified referents (e.g., proper names).
 
-More recent preliminary findings showed that *they* coreferring with proper names elicited a P600 effect like gender-mismatching *he* and *she* (e.g., *Mary...he*), but only mismatching *he* and *she* elicited an [Nref](#def-Nref "Nref effect") effect. This suggests that singular *they* is causing some degree of grammatical processing difficulty for listeners, but that it is not causing referential failure like strong gender mismatches [@chen2023]. A related study used a [maze task]{#def-maze .link-primary}, which presents participants with a sentence one word at a time, and at each word, they have to pick which of two words could continue the sentence grammatically. At the critical location, participants have to decide between a pronoun (*he*, *she*, plural *they*, or singular *they*) and a different part of speech that is not grammatical at that location, e.g., *Mary watched TV before bed because \[they or liked\]*, where a pronoun but not a verb can follow *because*. Participants were slower to decide that singular *they* could continue the sentence compared to gender-matching *he/she*, but not as slow as with gender-mismatching *he/she* (e.g., *Mary...she* \< *Mary...they* \< *Mary...he*) [@shenkar2023].
+More recent preliminary findings showed that *they* coreferring with proper names elicited a P600 effect like gender-mismatching *he* and *she* (e.g., *Mary...he*), but only mismatching *he* and *she* elicited an [Nref](#def-Nref "Nref effect") effect. This suggests that singular *they* is causing some degree of grammatical processing difficulty for listeners, but that it is not causing referential failure like strong gender mismatches [@chen2023]. A related study used a [maze task]{#def-maze .link-primary title="definition: maze task"}, which presents participants with a sentence one word at a time, and at each word, they have to pick which of two words could continue the sentence grammatically. At the critical location, participants have to decide between a pronoun (*he*, *she*, plural *they*, or singular *they*) and a different part of speech that is not grammatical at that location, e.g., *Mary watched TV before bed because \[they or liked\]*, where a pronoun but not a verb can follow *because*. Participants were slower to decide that singular *they* could continue the sentence compared to gender-matching *he/she*, but not as slow as with gender-mismatching *he/she* (e.g., *Mary...she* \< *Mary...they* \< *Mary...he*) [@shenkar2023].
 
 Finally, two sets of studies have investigated how comprehenders use discourse context to understand singular *they*, one using an offline comprehension question and one using mouse tracking. In the [offline comprehension](#def-offline "offline comprehension") task [@arnold2021], participants learned about three characters (1 he/him, 1 she/her, and 1 they/them), then read two-sentence stories with comprehension questions probing which character(s) they interpreted the pronoun as referring to. In the training phase, participants read stories with only one character, which strongly supported interpreting *they* as singular, e.g., [-@exm-arnold-1char]. In addition to seeing the character's pronouns modeled in the stories, some participants were given more direct information, e.g., *Alex uses they/them pronouns*. The majority of participants endorsed the singular interpretation (Alex is the one who fell down) during the training phase, and only participants who interpreted *they* as singular in all training trials were included in the primary analysis. After confirming that participants understood that the character uses they/them pronouns, the test phase investigated how *they* was interpreted in stories with two characters, where *they* could plausibly be singular or plural, e.g., [-@exm-arnold-2char-first].
 
@@ -252,7 +252,7 @@ Finally, two sets of studies have investigated how comprehenders use discourse c
 "Liz went running with Alex. They fell down." Who fell down?
 :::
 
-Two factors increased the proportion of singular interpretations: direct information and discourse context. Among participants who had always chosen the singular interpretation in the one-character training trials, participants who had also been directly told that the character uses they/them pronouns were more likely to choose the singular interpretation in the two-character context. This demonstrates that people can learn about someone's pronouns and use that information to disambiguate singular from plural *they*. Participants were also more likely to choose the singular interpretation when the they/them character was named first ([-@exm-arnold-2char-first]) than when the they/them character was named second ([-@exm-arnold-2char-second]), which replicates prior findings for when *he* or *she* is ambiguous between two referents [@arnold2000; @arnold2007; @brown-schmidt2017; @gernsbacher1989] (see [Section 4.1](exp4.qmd#motivation)).
+Two factors increased the proportion of singular interpretations: direct information and discourse context. Among participants who had always chosen the singular interpretation in the one-character training trials, participants who had also been directly told that the character uses they/them pronouns were more likely to choose the singular interpretation in the two-character context. This demonstrates that people can learn about someone's pronouns and use that information to disambiguate singular from plural *they*. Participants were also more likely to choose the singular interpretation when the they/them character was named first ([-@exm-arnold-2char-first]) than when the they/them character was named second ([-@exm-arnold-2char-second]), which replicates prior findings for when *he* or *she* is ambiguous between two referents [@arnold2000; @arnold2007; @brown-schmidt2017; @gernsbacher1989] (see [Section 4.1](4_exp.qmd#motivation)).
 
 In the [online comprehension](#def-online "online comprehension") task [@arnold2023], participants listened to stories about pairs of the characters interacting with objects:
 
@@ -275,23 +275,23 @@ In addition to how speakers can learn to produce they/them pronouns for a person
 
 ## 0.6 Frequency {#frequency}
 
-As society has become more accepting of LGBTQ+ identities, the [TGD](#def-TGD "trans and gender diverse") community in the United States has grown in both size and visibility. A meta-analysis of population-based, probability samples from 2006--2016 estimated that 1 in 250 U.S. adults are transgender [@meerwijk2017]. In 2014, the CDC Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System Survey---a representative, probability-based survey about the health behaviors and conditions of U.S. adults---added a set of demographic questions about sexuality and gender, which around 30 states now include. An average of 1 in 200 people have said they considered themself transgender [CDC, -@cdc2014; -@cdc2015; analyzed in @crissman2017; @herman2022], with the rate rising to 1 in 128 in the most recent survey [CDC, -@cdc2021]. The TGD community skews younger, even more so than the broader LGBTQ+ community [@harrison2012; @herman2022; @james2016; @streed2017]. While the sample sizes of population-based surveys of teens are smaller than those of adults, a larger proportion of U.S. teens identify as[^introduction-4] transgender---between 1 in 50 and 1 in 75 [CDC, -@cdc2019; @eisenberg2017; @herman2022; @kidd2021; @perez-brumer2017; @shields2013; @twenge2023].
+As society has become more accepting of LGBTQ+ identities, the [TGD](#def-TGD "trans and gender diverse") community in the United States has grown in both size and visibility. A meta-analysis of population-based, probability samples from 2006--2016 estimated that 1 in 250 U.S. adults are transgender [@meerwijk2017]. In 2014, the CDC Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System Survey---a representative, probability-based survey about the health behaviors and conditions of U.S. adults---added a set of demographic questions about sexuality and gender, which around 30 states now include. An average of 1 in 200 people have said they considered themself transgender [CDC, -@cdc2014; -@cdc2015; analyzed in @crissman2017; @herman2022], with the rate rising to 1 in 128 in the most recent survey [CDC, -@cdc2021]. The TGD community skews younger, even more so than the broader LGBTQ+ community [@harrison2012; @herman2022; @james2016; @streed2017]. While the sample sizes of population-based surveys of teens are smaller than those of adults, a larger proportion of U.S. teens identify as[^0_introduction-4] transgender---between 1 in 50 and 1 in 75 [CDC, -@cdc2019; @eisenberg2017; @herman2022; @kidd2021; @perez-brumer2017; @shields2013; @twenge2023].
 
-[^introduction-4]: To be clear, I use language like "identify as" and "consider themself" not to imply that people's identities are less real, but to describe surveys asking people about the labels they use. Decisions about how to describe gender and sexuality are complicated and personal, and I want to maintain a distinction between the set of people who *do* say "yes, I am X," and the set of people who fall under the definition of X and *could* say "yes, I am X" or may be grouped as X in research analyses. Often in LGBTQ+ research the set of people who could identify as X is larger than the set of people who do identify as X, which makes estimating and talking about population sizes tricky.
+[^0_introduction-4]: To be clear, I use language like "identify as" and "consider themself" not to imply that people's identities are less real, but to describe surveys asking people about the labels they use. Decisions about how to describe gender and sexuality are complicated and personal, and I want to maintain a distinction between the set of people who *do* say "yes, I am X," and the set of people who fall under the definition of X and *could* say "yes, I am X" or may be grouped as X in research analyses. Often in LGBTQ+ research the set of people who could identify as X is larger than the set of people who do identify as X, which makes estimating and talking about population sizes tricky.
 
 An increasing proportion of the transgender community is [nonbinary](#def-nonbinary "nonbinary"): In 2014, 17% of transgender respondents in the CDC BRFSS survey did not identify as men or women; in 2021, this increased to 33% [CDC, -@cdc2014; -@cdc2021; similar or higher rates in @grant2011; @harrison2012; @james2016; @parks2023; @uk2018; @wilson2021]. The majority of the population-based surveys discussed so far ask if the person identifies as transgender, and then if so, if they are a man, a woman, or gender-nonconforming/something else. Since not all nonbinary people also identify as trans, the size of the broader TGD community is likely still underestimated [@james2016; @meerwijk2017; @wilson2021]. The U.S. Household Pulse survey, which asks American adults every few weeks about employment, living, and health conditions, added a survey question about gender in 2021. The response options include male, female, transgender, and none of these. While this is not the ideal way of asking about gender [NASEM, -@nasem2022], the data set is large enough that it is able to start correcting for the under-count of nonbinary people. Rates of nonbinary identity are increasing particularly for Gen Z adults (ages 18--26 in 2021 and 2022): 2.3% identify as trans and 3.3% as "none of these." To put this into perspective, out of the 39 million Gen Z adults in the U.S., about 2 million are trans and/or nonbinary, which is more than the population of Phoenix, AZ---the fifth-largest city [@twenge2023]. Analyzing changes in the Household Pulse survey over the past few years, Twenge argues that Gen Z represents a massive, ongoing generational shift in views about gender [-@twenge2023].
 
 While the changes are largest in younger generations, support for and familiarity with TGD people has been growing across generational, political, and religious groups. Currently, 40% of U.S. adults know a trans person and 16% know a nonbinary person, and the proportion who have a trans family member or close friend has more than doubled from 11% in 2011 to 24% in 2019 [@jones2019; @minkin2021; PRRI, -@prri2021]. The majority (70%) say they would be somewhat or very comfortable learning that a friend, coworker, or community member was trans, and a slim majority (55%) say the same for their child [PRRI, -@prri2021]. On average, 60% of adults said they became more supportive of transgender rights between 2012 and 2019, compared to 25% who said they became less supportive. 40% said that trans people face "a lot of stigma or negative social judgment in their community" [@jones2019]. Among young adults specifically (ages 15--24), the majority (80%) said that there is a lot of discrimination against trans people, and only 12% perceived it as decreasing during 2017 [@jones2018].
 
-Within the growing TGD community, around 80% of nonbinary people and 50% of trans people say that they use they/them pronouns [@cassian2021; @cassian2022; @cheung2020; @parks2023]. This corresponds to rapid increases in familiarity with singular *they* in recent years: Around 70% of people under 40, 60% of people 40--55, and just under 50% of people 55+ say they have heard a little or a lot about "people preferring that others use gender-neutral pronouns such as *they* instead of *he* or *she* when referring to them" [@parker2019]. 46% of people ages 18--29, 29% of people 30--49, 18% of people 50--64, and 11% of people 65+ personally know someone who prefers gender-neutral pronouns in 2021, up from 8--32% in 2018.[^introduction-5] Correspondingly, about 60% of people 18--29, 50% of people 30--64, and 40% of people 65+ say they would be somewhat or very comfortable using gender-neutral pronouns---which would most likely be singular *they*---for someone who asked. Political affiliation is a stronger predictor than age here, with 40% of Democrats saying they would be very comfortable and 40% of Republicans saying they would be very uncomfortable [@minkin2021]. Compared to gender-neutral pronoun use, U.S. adults are more divided about the concept of the gender binary, with 40% saying they somewhat or strongly believe there are a range of genders and 60% saying they somewhat or strongly believe there are only two [@jones2019; PRRI, -@prri2021; @twenge2023].
+Within the growing TGD community, around 80% of nonbinary people and 50% of trans people say that they use they/them pronouns [@cassian2021; @cassian2022; @cheung2020; @parks2023]. This corresponds to rapid increases in familiarity with singular *they* in recent years: Around 70% of people under 40, 60% of people 40--55, and just under 50% of people 55+ say they have heard a little or a lot about "people preferring that others use gender-neutral pronouns such as *they* instead of *he* or *she* when referring to them" [@parker2019]. 46% of people ages 18--29, 29% of people 30--49, 18% of people 50--64, and 11% of people 65+ personally know someone who prefers gender-neutral pronouns in 2021, up from 8--32% in 2018.[^0_introduction-5] Correspondingly, about 60% of people 18--29, 50% of people 30--64, and 40% of people 65+ say they would be somewhat or very comfortable using gender-neutral pronouns---which would most likely be singular *they*---for someone who asked. Political affiliation is a stronger predictor than age here, with 40% of Democrats saying they would be very comfortable and 40% of Republicans saying they would be very uncomfortable [@minkin2021]. Compared to gender-neutral pronoun use, U.S. adults are more divided about the concept of the gender binary, with 40% saying they somewhat or strongly believe there are a range of genders and 60% saying they somewhat or strongly believe there are only two [@jones2019; PRRI, -@prri2021; @twenge2023].
 
-[^introduction-5]: Knowing a person who uses gender-neutral pronouns is more common than knowing a nonbinary person [@minkin2021; PRRI, -@prri2021], but this is not particularly surprising given that not all people who use gender-neutral pronouns are nonbinary, and that people may tell others what gendered language they prefer, without getting into the details of their gender identity.
+[^0_introduction-5]: Knowing a person who uses gender-neutral pronouns is more common than knowing a nonbinary person [@minkin2021; PRRI, -@prri2021], but this is not particularly surprising given that not all people who use gender-neutral pronouns are nonbinary, and that people may tell others what gendered language they prefer, without getting into the details of their gender identity.
 
 ## 0.7 Misgendering {#misgendering}
 
-Despite these increases in visibility, [TGD](#def-TGD "trans and gender diverse") people in the U.S. continue to face high rates of discrimination and harassment in workplaces, schools, healthcare centers, and public spaces [@cruz2014; @grant2011; @james2016; @uk2018]; and are more likely to struggle with depression, anxiety, suicidality, and overall poor health than their [cisgender](#def-cis "cisgender") LGBQ+ peers and the general population [@bockting2013; @chodzen2019; @cruz2014; @eisenberg2017; @kattari2019; @perez-brumer2017; @streed2017]. For [nonbinary](#def-nonbinary "nonbinary") people specifically, health disparities and experiences of discrimination tend to be similar, or even worse, than other groups in the TGD community [@budge2014; @burgwal2019; @butler2019; @cheung2020; @clark2018; @harrison2012; @james2016; @kattari2020; @keuroghlian2015; @lagos2018; @lefevor2019; @morris2019; @newcomb2020; @sterzing2017; @tebbe2016; @veale2017b]. Recent work has contextualized these experiences in the [minority stress]{#def-minority-stress .link-primary} framework, where health disparities in a marginalized group arise from the array of stressors caused by societal stigma against them [@chodzen2019; @howe2019; @lindley2020; @puckett2020; @rood2016; @tebbe2016; @testa2015; @valentine2018; @whitehughto2015].
+Despite these increases in visibility, [TGD](#def-TGD "trans and gender diverse") people in the U.S. continue to face high rates of discrimination and harassment in workplaces, schools, healthcare centers, and public spaces [@cruz2014; @grant2011; @james2016; @uk2018]; and are more likely to struggle with depression, anxiety, suicidality, and overall poor health than their [cisgender](#def-cis "cisgender") LGBQ+ peers and the general population [@bockting2013; @chodzen2019; @cruz2014; @eisenberg2017; @kattari2019; @perez-brumer2017; @streed2017]. For [nonbinary](#def-nonbinary "nonbinary") people specifically, health disparities and experiences of discrimination tend to be similar, or even worse, than other groups in the TGD community [@budge2014; @burgwal2019; @butler2019; @cheung2020; @clark2018; @harrison2012; @james2016; @kattari2020; @keuroghlian2015; @lagos2018; @lefevor2019; @morris2019; @newcomb2020; @sterzing2017; @tebbe2016; @veale2017b]. Recent work has contextualized these experiences in the [minority stress]{#def-minority-stress .link-primary title="definition: minority stress"} framework, where health disparities in a marginalized group arise from the array of stressors caused by societal stigma against them [@chodzen2019; @howe2019; @lindley2020; @puckett2020; @rood2016; @tebbe2016; @testa2015; @valentine2018; @whitehughto2015].
 
-[Misgendering]{#def-misgendering .link-primary}---where someone is referred to using gendered language that does not match their identity---is a commonly reported minority stressor affecting the TGD community. TGD people describe being misgendered as alienating, devaluing, invalidating, and painful [@cordoba2020; @goldberg2019; @gunn2020; @johnson2019; @pitcher2017; @saltzburg2010; @truszczynski2020]. This is because the language we use to refer to ourselves---names, pronouns, kinship roles, community affiliations---creates and reflects parts of our identity:
+[Misgendering]{#def-misgendering .link-primary title="definition: misgendering"}---where someone is referred to using gendered language that does not match their identity---is a commonly reported minority stressor affecting the TGD community. TGD people describe being misgendered as alienating, devaluing, invalidating, and painful [@cordoba2020; @goldberg2019; @gunn2020; @johnson2019; @pitcher2017; @saltzburg2010; @truszczynski2020]. This is because the language we use to refer to ourselves---names, pronouns, kinship roles, community affiliations---creates and reflects parts of our identity:
 
 > If, as posited by social constructionism, language constitutes and creates the meaning of our lives, then not having language to fit how \[genderqueer youth\] view themselves leaves them feeling outside of and "not counted" in the human experience...It seems that in trying to fit gender variant young people into a languaged existence that does not correspond to how they view themselves, society deprives them of sense of self, self-value, and a recognized social existence.\
 > --- @saltzburg2010
@@ -302,7 +302,7 @@ Nonbinary TGD people are misgendered frequently: only 1 in 10 nonbinary youth re
 
 Using they/them pronouns often places TGD people in a double bind, where they are forced to choose between experiencing more discrimination by openly identifying as TGD, or between getting misgendered. For example, when searching for jobs, the majority of nonbinary people said that identifying themselves as nonbinary to a potential employer would hurt their job search somewhat (60%) or very much (25%). These expectations were confirmed by an experiment that measured how adding they/them pronouns to a resume affected application outcomes. The otherwise-identical resume received 9% more interest, and when asked directly about their impressions, hiring managers rated the applicant with a resume including they/them pronouns as 7% less qualified and were 4% less likely to invite them for an additional interview [@mcgonagill2023].
 
-Misgendering is a form of [microaggression]{#def-microaggression .link-primary} [@chang2015; @nadal2014; @nadal2016; @nadal2019]. In the original microaggression framework, developed to describe experiences with racism, microaggressions fall into three categories: microinsults, which carry subtle or implied snubs (i.e., that the speaker did not expect the person to be as competent as they are); microassaults, which insult someone through name-calling or avoidant behavior; and microinvalidations, which deny the experience, beliefs, or emotions of the person (i.e., "but I don't see color" as negating someone's experience of how their race affects how they are treated) [@sue2007]. Intentional misgendering---where someone deliberately uses the wrong name or pronouns to insult someone or deny the legitimacy of their identity---would fall under the category of microassaults [@conrod2019b; @nadal2013]. Unintentional misgendering---where someone uses the wrong name or pronouns because of an incorrect inference about someone they don't know (i.e., that all people they perceive as feminine use she/her) or because of a speech error after someone changes names or pronouns---would fall more under the category of microinvalidations [@gunn2020; @mclemore2015]. The key idea of the microaggressions framework is that while many individual events may be minor or perpetrated unintentionally, the toll of experiencing them frequently is substantial and cumulative. Nonbinary people described their reactions to being misgendered using similar distinctions as the microaggressions framework, where both the perceived intent and the proximity of the speaker mattered [@cordoba2020]. Being misgendered by people they were close to was interpreted as more intentional and experienced as more hurtful. While being misgendered by acquaintances or strangers was interpreted as less intentional and hurt less, these negative experiences accumulate constantly. One genderqueer person described their experience as:
+Misgendering is a form of [microaggression]{#def-microaggression .link-primary title="definition: microaggression"} [@chang2015; @nadal2014; @nadal2016; @nadal2019]. In the original microaggression framework, developed to describe experiences with racism, microaggressions fall into three categories: microinsults, which carry subtle or implied snubs (i.e., that the speaker did not expect the person to be as competent as they are); microassaults, which insult someone through name-calling or avoidant behavior; and microinvalidations, which deny the experience, beliefs, or emotions of the person (i.e., "but I don't see color" as negating someone's experience of how their race affects how they are treated) [@sue2007]. Intentional misgendering---where someone deliberately uses the wrong name or pronouns to insult someone or deny the legitimacy of their identity---would fall under the category of microassaults [@conrod2019b; @nadal2013]. Unintentional misgendering---where someone uses the wrong name or pronouns because of an incorrect inference about someone they don't know (i.e., that all people they perceive as feminine use she/her) or because of a speech error after someone changes names or pronouns---would fall more under the category of microinvalidations [@gunn2020; @mclemore2015]. The key idea of the microaggressions framework is that while many individual events may be minor or perpetrated unintentionally, the toll of experiencing them frequently is substantial and cumulative. Nonbinary people described their reactions to being misgendered using similar distinctions as the microaggressions framework, where both the perceived intent and the proximity of the speaker mattered [@cordoba2020]. Being misgendered by people they were close to was interpreted as more intentional and experienced as more hurtful. While being misgendered by acquaintances or strangers was interpreted as less intentional and hurt less, these negative experiences accumulate constantly. One genderqueer person described their experience as:
 
 > But sometimes it just feels like a thousand paper cuts. And you know, by the end of the day you're like, "how many times has someone misgendered me today?" It's really difficult to speak about someone without using a pronoun, particularly when you're not aware that's a problem. And so, sometimes by the end of the day you just feel like, you've just been rubbed raw and you're like, "How many billions of times did someone refer to me as she and Ms. today?"\
 > --- interviewed in @cordoba2020
@@ -316,9 +316,9 @@ Like other language innovations in the LGBTQ+ community, singular *they* evokes
 > I've been thinking about the language and behavioral directives that have been coming at us from the social and sexual justice warriors who are renaming things and attempting to control the language in America. In one way it's the nonsense we've all grown used to, but it should be said that there's an aspect of self-infatuation, of arrogance, in telling people they must reorder the common language to suit your ideological preferences. There is something mad in thinking you should control the names of things...Offices and schools are forced to grapple with all the new gender-neutral pronouns...Use "they" a lot. It's gender neutral...This is grammatically incorrect but so what? Correct grammar, and the intelligibility it allows, is a small price to pay for inclusion and equality. We are being asked to memorize all this, to change hundreds of years of grammar and usage, to accommodate the needs or demands of a group that perceives itself as beleaguered.\
 > --- "What were Robespierre's Pronouns?" [-@noonan2019]
 
-On its face, the opposition to singular *they* is about grammatical correctness and clarity, presuming that English grammar exists in some pure form which must be guarded and preserved. While some people claim that "correct" grammar cannot change, others argue that change is simply too difficult a request. For people like Noonan, the costs of changing language use are massive, and the costs of misgendering others are grossly exaggerated.[^introduction-6] Arguments about grammar frequently mask arguments about gender: are nonbinary identities real and important enough to warrant consideration in our language use? Noonan implies that they are not when she dismisses TGD people as "a group that perceives itself as beleaguered." Former academic social psychologist turned conservative influencer Jordan Peterson is more overt about opposing TGD identities more than he supports traditional grammar:
+On its face, the opposition to singular *they* is about grammatical correctness and clarity, presuming that English grammar exists in some pure form which must be guarded and preserved. While some people claim that "correct" grammar cannot change, others argue that change is simply too difficult a request. For people like Noonan, the costs of changing language use are massive, and the costs of misgendering others are grossly exaggerated.[^0_introduction-6] Arguments about grammar frequently mask arguments about gender: are nonbinary identities real and important enough to warrant consideration in our language use? Noonan implies that they are not when she dismisses TGD people as "a group that perceives itself as beleaguered." Former academic social psychologist turned conservative influencer Jordan Peterson is more overt about opposing TGD identities more than he supports traditional grammar:
 
-[^introduction-6]: See @conrod2019's analysis of politeness, discussed in [Section 0.5](#production).
+[^0_introduction-6]: See @conrod2019's analysis of politeness, discussed in [Section 0.5](#production).
 
 > I don't recognize another person's right to decide what words I'm going to use, especially when the words they want me to use, first of all, are non-standard elements of the English language and they are constructs of a small coterie of ideologically motivated people. They might have a point but I'm not going to say their words for them...There's not enough evidence to make the case that gender identity and biological sexuality are independently varying constructs. I don't believe that it's reasonable for our society to undermine the entire concept of binary gender in order to hypothetically accommodate a tiny minority of people.\
 > --- "I'm not a bigot" Meet the U of T prof who refuses to use genderless pronouns [-@peterson2016]
@@ -332,21 +332,21 @@ While the debate about singular *they* and nonbinary identities is relatively re
 
 Complaints about singular *they* and *he or she* as alternatives to generic *he* were essentially the same: they were argued to be grammatically incorrect and unclear, despite common usage [@bodine1975]. More critically, non-sexist language reform was considered unnecessary [@blaubergs1980; @martyna1980; @parks1998]. Women's opposition to using generic masculine language was trivial and unreasonable, a statement that is far more political than linguistic [@ehrlich1992; @penelope1982]. In each of these arguments, the underlying assumption is that the status quo and defense of it is not ideologically motivated, but support for language change is.
 
-This dissertation takes it for granted that people asking to have their identities respected and to not be misgendered is not, as the subtitle of Noonan's essay claims, "the work of sociopaths who politicize language" [-@noonan2019]. Unfortunately, pronouns have become an overt symbol of whether or not you acknowledge that trans and gender diverse people exist, with "using pronouns" escalating from a dog whistle to one of the focuses of current anti-LGBTQ+ legislation. 2023 has already seen a record number of bills introduced in U.S. state legislatures targeting transgender rights [HRC, -@hrc2023]. Many of these bills include policies about misgendering---alongside more extreme policies such as outlawing all gender-affirming medical care [ACLU, -@aclu2023]. The majority of the current bills focus on public school contexts and minors. Multiple states have successfully banned [TN @tn2023] or attempted to ban [AZ @az2022; IN @in2023a; ND @nd2023b] public schools from requiring that employees refer to a student using pronouns different than he/him or she/her corresponding to the student's [sex assigned at birth](#def-SAB "sex assigned at birth").[^introduction-7] The proposed legislation frequently moves beyond banning consequences for misgendering to banning the promotion of not misgendering [IN @in2023a]. For example, one Oklahoma bill bans "creating, enforcing, or endorsing a policy that respects, favors, endorses, or promotes non-secular self-asserted sex-based identity narratives or sexual orientation orthodoxy." This includes "mandating non-obvious pronoun changes that respect gender identity ideology and sexual orientation orthodoxy" because these are "naked assertions that are implicitly religious and have a tendency to erode community standards of decency and promote licentiousness" [OK @ok2023].[^introduction-8]
+This dissertation takes it for granted that people asking to have their identities respected and to not be misgendered is not, as the subtitle of Noonan's essay claims, "the work of sociopaths who politicize language" [-@noonan2019]. Unfortunately, pronouns have become an overt symbol of whether or not you acknowledge that trans and gender diverse people exist, with "using pronouns" escalating from a dog whistle to one of the focuses of current anti-LGBTQ+ legislation. 2023 has already seen a record number of bills introduced in U.S. state legislatures targeting transgender rights [HRC, -@hrc2023]. Many of these bills include policies about misgendering---alongside more extreme policies such as outlawing all gender-affirming medical care [ACLU, -@aclu2023]. The majority of the current bills focus on public school contexts and minors. Multiple states have successfully banned [TN @tn2023] or attempted to ban [AZ @az2022; IN @in2023a; ND @nd2023b] public schools from requiring that employees refer to a student using pronouns different than he/him or she/her corresponding to the student's [sex assigned at birth](#def-SAB "sex assigned at birth").[^0_introduction-7] The proposed legislation frequently moves beyond banning consequences for misgendering to banning the promotion of not misgendering [IN @in2023a]. For example, one Oklahoma bill bans "creating, enforcing, or endorsing a policy that respects, favors, endorses, or promotes non-secular self-asserted sex-based identity narratives or sexual orientation orthodoxy." This includes "mandating non-obvious pronoun changes that respect gender identity ideology and sexual orientation orthodoxy" because these are "naked assertions that are implicitly religious and have a tendency to erode community standards of decency and promote licentiousness" [OK @ok2023].[^0_introduction-8]
 
-[^introduction-7]: As of May 30, 2023, the Indiana bill is dead, the Arizona and North Dakota bills were vetoed by the governor, and the Tennessee bill was signed into law.
+[^0_introduction-7]: As of May 30, 2023, the Indiana bill is dead, the Arizona and North Dakota bills were vetoed by the governor, and the Tennessee bill was signed into law.
 
-[^introduction-8]: Advancing as of May 30, 2023.
+[^0_introduction-8]: Advancing as of May 30, 2023.
 
-The prohibition of promoting not misgendering often moves to creating consequences for not misgendering. In most variations of this bill, school employees would not be allowed to use a student's chosen pronouns unless the school has written permission from a parent [AZ @az2022; IN @in2023a; ND @nd2023a; @nd2023b; NH @nh2023; OK @ok2022],[^introduction-9] as well as medical documentation for diagnosed gender dysphoria [IN @in2023a]. This would make it difficult for TGD students to be out at school without proactive support from a parent, which many teenagers do not have [@baum2012; @trevorproject2020; @trevorproject2022]. Instead, school employees would be legally required to notify parents if student uses "expresses or indicates a desire to change...(A) name; (B) attire; or (C) pronoun, title or word to identify the student; in a manner that is inconsistent with the student's biological sex assigned at birth" [IN @in2023b].[^introduction-10] In 2022, only half of TGD youth said their school was supportive, but only a third said their home was supportive [@trevorproject2022]. This indicates that while schools are not supportive enough overall, they are still an environment where many TGD youth receive support that they are not otherwise receiving at home---a possibility that the current legislation aims to remove.
+The prohibition of promoting not misgendering often moves to creating consequences for not misgendering. In most variations of this bill, school employees would not be allowed to use a student's chosen pronouns unless the school has written permission from a parent [AZ @az2022; IN @in2023a; ND @nd2023a; @nd2023b; NH @nh2023; OK @ok2022],[^0_introduction-9] as well as medical documentation for diagnosed gender dysphoria [IN @in2023a]. This would make it difficult for TGD students to be out at school without proactive support from a parent, which many teenagers do not have [@baum2012; @trevorproject2020; @trevorproject2022]. Instead, school employees would be legally required to notify parents if student uses "expresses or indicates a desire to change...(A) name; (B) attire; or (C) pronoun, title or word to identify the student; in a manner that is inconsistent with the student's biological sex assigned at birth" [IN @in2023b].[^0_introduction-10] In 2022, only half of TGD youth said their school was supportive, but only a third said their home was supportive [@trevorproject2022]. This indicates that while schools are not supportive enough overall, they are still an environment where many TGD youth receive support that they are not otherwise receiving at home---a possibility that the current legislation aims to remove.
 
-[^introduction-9]: As of May 23, 2023, the Indiana and New Hampshire bills are dead, the Oklahoma bill is advancing, and the Arizona and North Dakota bills were vetoed by the governor.
+[^0_introduction-9]: As of May 23, 2023, the Indiana and New Hampshire bills are dead, the Oklahoma bill is advancing, and the Arizona and North Dakota bills were vetoed by the governor.
 
-[^introduction-10]: Dead as of May 23, 2023.
+[^0_introduction-10]: Dead as of May 23, 2023.
 
-Anti-LGBTQ legislation also targets education more broadly, not just policies about specific transgender students. Schools would not be allowed to provide instruction "recognizing expressed gender" in classrooms or in professional development [ND @nd2023b], or to teach "different pronouns other than those in common use in the English language when referring to the male or female" [NH @nh2023]. Books that "promote gender fluidity or gender pronouns" would be in the category of books that parents could report and have removed from schools [AZ @az2023].[^introduction-11]
+Anti-LGBTQ legislation also targets education more broadly, not just policies about specific transgender students. Schools would not be allowed to provide instruction "recognizing expressed gender" in classrooms or in professional development [ND @nd2023b], or to teach "different pronouns other than those in common use in the English language when referring to the male or female" [NH @nh2023]. Books that "promote gender fluidity or gender pronouns" would be in the category of books that parents could report and have removed from schools [AZ @az2023].[^0_introduction-11]
 
-[^introduction-11]: As of May 23, 2023, the North Dakota bills are vetoed and not advanced to a full vote, respectively. The Arizona bill has passed the senate and is being considered by the house.
+[^0_introduction-11]: As of May 23, 2023, the North Dakota bills are vetoed and not advanced to a full vote, respectively. The Arizona bill has passed the senate and is being considered by the house.
 
 Why talk about pronouns now? Given how legal protections and healthcare access are being eroded in the U.S., misgendering is far from the most immediate or severe hardship facing trans and gender diverse people. A similar argument was made in the non-sexist language debates [@blaubergs1980; @parks1998], and probably comes up in every language reform effort. Claiming that misgendering is worth addressing is not claiming that language is the worst problem, and a form of injustice does not need to be one of the most severe to be worth fighting. Much as we might like to ignore gendered language in favor of other, bigger problems---or at least people who aren't linguists might like to think less about language---English does not give us the option of ignoring it. Because Standard English requires us to encode gender in many of the pronouns, titles, and other terms we use to refer to people, gender is part of "thinking for speaking" [@slobin1996], where we have to think about and assert gender even in contexts where we might otherwise prefer not to. In the words of one genderqueer trans person:
 
diff --git a/exp1.qmd b/1_exp.qmd
similarity index 96%
rename from exp1.qmd
rename to 1_exp.qmd
index 0150abe..47ba61a 100644
--- a/exp1.qmd
+++ b/1_exp.qmd
@@ -36,13 +36,13 @@ source("resources/formatting/printing.R")  # model results in text
 source("resources/formatting/aesthetics.R")  # plot and table themes
 ```
 
-[![](resources/icons/preregistered.svg){title="Preregistration" width="30"}](https://osf.io/cmkw5) [![](resources/icons/open-materials.svg){title="Materials" width="30"}](https://github.com/bethanyhgardner/dissertation/blob/main/materials/exp1) [![](resources/icons/open-data.svg){title="Data" width="30"}](https://github.com/bethanyhgardner/dissertation/blob/main/data) [![](resources/icons/file-code-fill.svg){title="Analysis Code" width="30"}](https://github.com/bethanyhgardner/dissertation/blob/main/exp1.qmd)
+[![](resources/icons/preregistered.svg){title="Preregistration" width="30"}](https://osf.io/cmkw5) [![](resources/icons/open-materials.svg){title="Materials" width="30"}](https://github.com/bethanyhgardner/dissertation/blob/main/materials/exp1) [![](resources/icons/open-data.svg){title="Data" width="30"}](https://github.com/bethanyhgardner/dissertation/blob/main/data) [![](resources/icons/file-code-fill.svg){title="Analysis Code" width="30"}](https://github.com/bethanyhgardner/dissertation/blob/main/1_exp.qmd)
 
 <br>
 
 ## Motivation
 
-In addition to learning that the grammatical representation of *they* allows it to corefer with specific singular referents, learning to use they/them pronouns may require a change in how speakers access pronouns during language production. Extending existing models of pronoun production from [grammatical gender](introduction.qmd#def-grammatical-gender "grammatical gender") to [social gender](introduction.qmd#def-social-gender "social gender") [@ackerman2019; @mcconnell-ginet2014] would predict that pronouns are accessed based on morphosyntactic gender marking associated with a person's name [e.g., @schmitt1999] or based on semantic/conceptual features of a person [e.g., @anton-mendez2010]. In order to use they/them for a person instead of the expected he/him or she/her, speakers may instead need to recall episodic information about the person's stated pronouns or which pronouns other speakers use to refer to them. It is clear from other contexts, such as referring to pets with *he* and *she*, that people can learn which gender-marked pronouns to use in contexts with few gender cues based on name or appearance. This suggests that learning [specific](introduction.qmd#def-specific "specific singular they") singular *they* should be feasible, but may involve retrieving a person's pronouns from memory, rather than inferring them based on cues such as their name.
+In addition to learning that the grammatical representation of *they* allows it to corefer with specific singular referents, learning to use they/them pronouns may require a change in how speakers access pronouns during language production. Extending existing models of pronoun production from [grammatical gender](0_introduction.qmd#def-grammatical-gender "grammatical gender") to [social gender](0_introduction.qmd#def-social-gender "social gender") [@ackerman2019; @mcconnell-ginet2014] would predict that pronouns are accessed based on morphosyntactic gender marking associated with a person's name [e.g., @schmitt1999] or based on semantic/conceptual features of a person [e.g., @anton-mendez2010]. In order to use they/them for a person instead of the expected he/him or she/her, speakers may instead need to recall episodic information about the person's stated pronouns or which pronouns other speakers use to refer to them. It is clear from other contexts, such as referring to pets with *he* and *she*, that people can learn which gender-marked pronouns to use in contexts with few gender cues based on name or appearance. This suggests that learning [specific](0_introduction.qmd#def-specific "specific singular they") singular *they* should be feasible, but may involve retrieving a person's pronouns from memory, rather than inferring them based on cues such as their name.
 
 The first experiment investigated how people learn to associate pronouns with a person when someone's pronouns cannot be inferred from the gender association of their first name. Participants read a series of vignettes which introduced 12 characters, each of whom was associated with a name, pronouns (he/him, she/her, or they/them), a pet, and a job. Memory for pronouns was tested in a multiple-choice recognition task, and production of pronouns was tested in a written sentence completion task.
 
@@ -106,7 +106,7 @@ Participants read descriptions of each character in the frame *\[Name\] uses \[p
 
 ### Predictions
 
-Given that people who use they/them pronouns report high rates of both unintentional errors and intentional [misgendering](introduction.qmd#def-misgendering "misgendering") [@cordoba2020; @goldberg2019; @james2016; @mclemore2018; @trevorproject2020], we predict that he/him and she/her will be remembered and produced more accurately than they/them. This outcome could be observed for one or more reasons: Participants may be unfamiliar with singular *they*, or familiar with comprehending it but unused to producing it. Singular *they* is also less frequent than *he* and *she*, and as a result may be more difficult to use, even for speakers already familiar with it. Additionally, if participants avoid using they/them as an option, instead choosing the pronouns typically associated with the character's name, accuracy for they/them would also be lower than accuracy for he/him and she/her. Alternatively, the relative novelty of they/them may improve memory, as distinctive information tends to be remembered better [@vonrestorff1933; @wallace1965]. Under this account, accuracy remembering and producing they/them would be higher than for he/him and she/her.
+Given that people who use they/them pronouns report high rates of both unintentional errors and intentional [misgendering](0_introduction.qmd#def-misgendering "misgendering") [@cordoba2020; @goldberg2019; @james2016; @mclemore2018; @trevorproject2020], we predict that he/him and she/her will be remembered and produced more accurately than they/them. This outcome could be observed for one or more reasons: Participants may be unfamiliar with singular *they*, or familiar with comprehending it but unused to producing it. Singular *they* is also less frequent than *he* and *she*, and as a result may be more difficult to use, even for speakers already familiar with it. Additionally, if participants avoid using they/them as an option, instead choosing the pronouns typically associated with the character's name, accuracy for they/them would also be lower than accuracy for he/him and she/her. Alternatively, the relative novelty of they/them may improve memory, as distinctive information tends to be remembered better [@vonrestorff1933; @wallace1965]. Under this account, accuracy remembering and producing they/them would be higher than for he/him and she/her.
 
 We hypothesize that learning to use singular *they* requires a change from inferring a person's pronoun (*he* or *she*) based on semantic/conceptual features of a person [e.g., @anton-mendez2010] or based on morphosyntactic gender associated with a person's name [e.g., @schmitt1999], and instead recalling episodic information about a person's stated pronouns. In the context of this experiment, the gender association of the character's name cannot predict whether that character uses *he/she* or *they*, meaning that the only way to consistently produce the correct pronouns is to remember the information from the character introductions. As a result, we predict that correctly remembering that a character uses they/them in the multiple-choice task should predict correctly producing *they* in the sentence completion task. Alternatively, pronoun choice in the production task may not be influenced by episodic memory for which pronouns a character uses. This would occur if, in language production, a speaker attempts to infer the character's pronouns based on their name rather than retrieving them from memory, or if a speaker chooses to not produce singular *they*. In this scenario, accuracy in the memory task would not predict accuracy in the production task.
 
diff --git a/exp2.qmd b/2_exp.qmd
similarity index 98%
rename from exp2.qmd
rename to 2_exp.qmd
index 05bed65..2cfd91d 100644
--- a/exp2.qmd
+++ b/2_exp.qmd
@@ -33,13 +33,13 @@ source("resources/formatting/printing.R")  # model results in text
 source("resources/formatting/aesthetics.R")  # plot and table themes
 ```
 
-[![](resources/icons/preregistered.svg){title="Preregistration" width="30"}](https://osf.io/3dze4) [![](resources/icons/open-materials.svg){title="Materials" width="30"}](https://github.com/bethanyhgardner/dissertation/blob/main/materials/exp2) [![](resources/icons/open-data.svg){title="Data" width="30"}](https://github.com/bethanyhgardner/dissertation/blob/main/data) [![](resources/icons/file-code-fill.svg){title="Analysis Code" width="30"}](https://github.com/bethanyhgardner/dissertation/blob/main/exp2.qmd)
+[![](resources/icons/preregistered.svg){title="Preregistration" width="30"}](https://osf.io/3dze4) [![](resources/icons/open-materials.svg){title="Materials" width="30"}](https://github.com/bethanyhgardner/dissertation/blob/main/materials/exp2) [![](resources/icons/open-data.svg){title="Data" width="30"}](https://github.com/bethanyhgardner/dissertation/blob/main/data) [![](resources/icons/file-code-fill.svg){title="Analysis Code" width="30"}](https://github.com/bethanyhgardner/dissertation/blob/main/2_exp.qmd)
 
 <br>
 
 ## Motivation
 
-The results of Experiment 1 suggest that people can learn to associate pronouns with a person, but that accuracy for they/them remains lower than for he/him and she/her. Although remembering which characters used they/them was a strong predictor of producing singular *they*, accuracy in the sentence completion task was significantly lower than in the multiple-choice memory task. Experiment 2 investigated what kinds of exposure can support accurately remembering and producing singular *they*. The first factor tested is the role of conceptual knowledge about singular *they* and discussing gendered language preferences. Recent results show that participants are more likely to interpret *they* as the intended singular, instead of plural, after being told explicitly that the character uses they/them pronouns [@arnold2021] (see [Section 0.4.4](#names)). This is also supported by prior experiments about the [generic](introduction.qmd#def-generic "generic") masculine: When a course instructor included information about why they would be using generic *she* instead of generic *he* [@adamsky1981], and when alternatives were taught as options to students [@flanagan1982], students were less likely to use generic *he* in their assignments and more likely to use gender-neutral alternatives or generic *she*. Similarly, in German (where nouns are gender-marked) reading brief arguments in favor of gender-neutral language increased participants' use of gender-neutral generic nouns [@koeser2014].
+The results of Experiment 1 suggest that people can learn to associate pronouns with a person, but that accuracy for they/them remains lower than for he/him and she/her. Although remembering which characters used they/them was a strong predictor of producing singular *they*, accuracy in the sentence completion task was significantly lower than in the multiple-choice memory task. Experiment 2 investigated what kinds of exposure can support accurately remembering and producing singular *they*. The first factor tested is the role of conceptual knowledge about singular *they* and discussing gendered language preferences. Recent results show that participants are more likely to interpret *they* as the intended singular, instead of plural, after being told explicitly that the character uses they/them pronouns [@arnold2021] (see [Section 0.4.4](#names)). This is also supported by prior experiments about the [generic](0_introduction.qmd#def-generic "generic") masculine: When a course instructor included information about why they would be using generic *she* instead of generic *he* [@adamsky1981], and when alternatives were taught as options to students [@flanagan1982], students were less likely to use generic *he* in their assignments and more likely to use gender-neutral alternatives or generic *she*. Similarly, in German (where nouns are gender-marked) reading brief arguments in favor of gender-neutral language increased participants' use of gender-neutral generic nouns [@koeser2014].
 
 The second factor tested is exposure. As singular *they* becomes more common and accepted [@balhorn2004; @camilliere2021; @hekanaho2020; @minkin2021; @parker2019], speakers are increasingly likely to be exposed to it via media and social circles, and many of these instances do not come prefaced with a discussion about pronouns or gender identity. Potentially-comparable results from studies about non-sexist language reforms are mixed: students who saw alternatives to generic masculine forms modeled in task instructions increased their use of non-sexist forms, but did not decrease their use of generic masculine forms [@cronin1995]. In German, women were more likely to use alternatives to generic masculine role nouns after reading a text modeling them, but men did not change their language use until the instructions drew their attention to the gendered language used [@koeser2015].
 
diff --git a/exp3.qmd b/3_exp.qmd
similarity index 97%
rename from exp3.qmd
rename to 3_exp.qmd
index 28728f3..54114ad 100644
--- a/exp3.qmd
+++ b/3_exp.qmd
@@ -47,7 +47,7 @@ source("resources/formatting/aesthetics.R")  # plot and table themes
 source("resources/data-functions/demographics.R")  # demographics tables
 ```
 
-[![](resources/icons/preregistered.svg){title="Preregistration" width="30"}](https://osf.io/bt7yn) [![](resources/icons/open-materials.svg){title="Materials" width="30"}](https://github.com/bethanyhgardner/dissertation/blob/main/materials/exp3) [![](resources/icons/open-data.svg){title="Data" width="30"}](https://github.com/bethanyhgardner/dissertation/blob/main/data) [![](resources/icons/file-code-fill.svg){title="Analysis Code" width="30"}](https://github.com/bethanyhgardner/dissertation/blob/main/exp3.qmd)
+[![](resources/icons/preregistered.svg){title="Preregistration" width="30"}](https://osf.io/bt7yn) [![](resources/icons/open-materials.svg){title="Materials" width="30"}](https://github.com/bethanyhgardner/dissertation/blob/main/materials/exp3) [![](resources/icons/open-data.svg){title="Data" width="30"}](https://github.com/bethanyhgardner/dissertation/blob/main/data) [![](resources/icons/file-code-fill.svg){title="Analysis Code" width="30"}](https://github.com/bethanyhgardner/dissertation/blob/main/3_exp.qmd)
 
 <br>
 
@@ -75,7 +75,7 @@ exp3_d_full <- exp3_load_data_dist()
 
 ## Motivation
 
-Encouraging people to include their pronouns when introducing themselves and providing space for people to indicate their pronouns in display names, email signatures, and nametags are common recommendations for making environments inclusive of [TGD](introduction.qmd#def-TGD "trans and gender diverse") people [@richards2013]. Options to specify your pronouns are currently included in many social media platforms such as Instagram and LinkedIn, in institutional platforms such as Brightspace and Slack, and in tools such as Zoom and Github. Ideally, group norms of indicating pronouns makes disclosure less marked, which supports the individuals who need to explicitly state their pronouns in order to avoid being [misgendered](introduction.qmd#def-misgendering)---which is the majority of people who use they/them pronouns, in the majority of contexts.
+Encouraging people to include their pronouns when introducing themselves and providing space for people to indicate their pronouns in display names, email signatures, and nametags are common recommendations for making environments inclusive of [TGD](0_introduction.qmd#def-TGD "trans and gender diverse") people [@richards2013]. Options to specify your pronouns are currently included in many social media platforms such as Instagram and LinkedIn, in institutional platforms such as Brightspace and Slack, and in tools such as Zoom and Github. Ideally, group norms of indicating pronouns makes disclosure less marked, which supports the individuals who need to explicitly state their pronouns in order to avoid being [misgendered](0_introduction.qmd#def-misgendering)---which is the majority of people who use they/them pronouns, in the majority of contexts.
 
 Some recent research has investigated the effects of pronoun-sharing practices. Both TGD and other LGBQ+ people evaluated a potential workplace more positively when a biography of a staff member included that she used she/her pronouns, when she/her would have been assumed [@johnson2021]. This suggests that other people indicating their pronouns can act as an identity-safety cue when TGD and LGBQ+ people are forming initial appraisals of an environment, so they may be more likely to choose that environment and be more comfortable being out.[^exp3-1] Additionally, directly explaining that a character used they/them supported people's ability to correctly comprehend *they* as singular, not plural [@arnold2021] (see [Section 0.4.4](#names)).
 
@@ -355,7 +355,7 @@ Participants saw 1 example trial for each character, which demonstrated the fram
 
 #### Survey
 
-After the speech production task, participants completed a  [survey](https://github.com/bethanyhgardner/dissertation/blob/main/materials/exp3/survey.md "Experiment 3 Survey") measuring their prior beliefs about singular *they* and [TGD](introduction.qmd#def-TGD "trans and gender diverse") identities. First, they judged 6 sentences using singular *they*: coreferring with [generic](introduction.qmd#def-generic "generic singular they") [antecedents](introduction.qmd#def-antecedent "antecedent") (e.g., *the ideal barista*), quantified antecedents (e.g., *each dog owner*, *every music fan*), and proper names (masculine, feminine, and gender-neutral). Items were drawn from @conrod2019, and participants rated them on a Likert scale with 1 being "very unnatural" and 7 being "very natural." Second, participants were asked about their prior familiarity with using they/them and pronoun-sharing practices. They could choose one or more options: use they/them for themself, close to someone who uses they/them, have met someone who uses they/them, have heard about using they/them but have not met anyone who does, and have not heard anything about using they/them. For including pronouns in introduction and in places like nametags or signatures, participants indicated frequency in the groups they were a part of (all, most, some, a few, none) and for themselves (always, usually, sometimes, rarely, never because prefer not to, never because had not heard of it). Third, participants completed Nagoshi et al.'s Transphobia Scale, which measures endorsement of gender essentialism and the gender binary, and discomfort with people who violate these expectations [@nagoshi2008; see also @tebbe2012]; this is referred to as the Gender Beliefs measure from here forward.
+After the speech production task, participants completed a  [survey](https://github.com/bethanyhgardner/dissertation/blob/main/materials/exp3/survey.md "Experiment 3 Survey") measuring their prior beliefs about singular *they* and [TGD](0_introduction.qmd#def-TGD "trans and gender diverse") identities. First, they judged 6 sentences using singular *they*: coreferring with [generic](0_introduction.qmd#def-generic "generic singular they") [antecedents](0_introduction.qmd#def-antecedent "antecedent") (e.g., *the ideal barista*), quantified antecedents (e.g., *each dog owner*, *every music fan*), and proper names (masculine, feminine, and gender-neutral). Items were drawn from @conrod2019, and participants rated them on a Likert scale with 1 being "very unnatural" and 7 being "very natural." Second, participants were asked about their prior familiarity with using they/them and pronoun-sharing practices. They could choose one or more options: use they/them for themself, close to someone who uses they/them, have met someone who uses they/them, have heard about using they/them but have not met anyone who does, and have not heard anything about using they/them. For including pronouns in introduction and in places like nametags or signatures, participants indicated frequency in the groups they were a part of (all, most, some, a few, none) and for themselves (always, usually, sometimes, rarely, never because prefer not to, never because had not heard of it). Third, participants completed Nagoshi et al.'s Transphobia Scale, which measures endorsement of gender essentialism and the gender binary, and discomfort with people who violate these expectations [@nagoshi2008; see also @tebbe2012]; this is referred to as the Gender Beliefs measure from here forward.
 
 Finally, participants completed [demographic questions](https://github.com/bethanyhgardner/dissertation/blob/main/materials/exp3/demographics.md "Experiment 3 Demographic Questions"). They were asked about their age, gender, and sexuality, as prior work indicates that being younger and part of the LGBTQ+ community correlates with higher acceptability ratings for singular *they* [@camilliere2021; @conrod2019; @hekanaho2020; @hernandez2020]. The question about gender was two steps: a free-response box, then options to indicate whether their gender was the same or different than the sex indicated on their original birth certificate. This follows recommendations for identifying the broadest set of TGD people: anyone whose gender does not match their sex assigned at birth, of whom not all call themselves transgender. This format also accounts for the fact that terms for gender vary widely, allowing participants to choose the language that best describes them, but avoiding relying on terms that many participants may not be familiar with [@ansara2014; @cameron2019; NASEM, -@nasem2022; @zimman2017]. In addition to or instead of the options for sex assigned at birth, participants could indicate whether they considered themselves cisgender, transgender, or neither. Although these factors do not relate directly to the current research questions, participants were also asked about their race, ethnicity, and education level, in order to characterize the participant sample [@buchanan2021]. All demographic questions included the option to not respond. The experiment was coded and hosted using PCIbex [@zehr2018].
 
@@ -1405,7 +1405,7 @@ remove(cl6)
 #| label: exp3-cov-model-results
 
 exp3_m_subj_cov <- readRDS("r_data/exp3_subj-covariates.RDS")
-summary(exp3_m_subj_cov)
+summary(exp3_m_subj_cov@model)
 
 exp3_r_subj_cov <- exp3_m_subj_cov@model %>% tidy_model_results()
 
diff --git a/exp4.qmd b/4_exp.qmd
similarity index 90%
rename from exp4.qmd
rename to 4_exp.qmd
index 84cdc4a..0d89c25 100644
--- a/exp4.qmd
+++ b/4_exp.qmd
@@ -41,21 +41,21 @@ source("resources/formatting/aesthetics.R")   # plot and table themes
 source("resources/data-functions/demographics.R")  # demographics tables
 ```
 
-[![](resources/icons/preregistered.svg){title="Preregistration" width="30"}](https://osf.io/r3fy9) [![](resources/icons/open-materials.svg){title="Materials" width="30"}](https://github.com/bethanyhgardner/dissertation/blob/main/materials/exp4) [![](resources/icons/open-data.svg){title="Data" width="30"}](https://github.com/bethanyhgardner/dissertation/blob/main/data) [![](resources/icons/file-code-fill.svg){title="Analysis Code" width="30"}](https://github.com/bethanyhgardner/dissertation/blob/main/exp4.qmd)
+[![](resources/icons/preregistered.svg){title="Preregistration" width="30"}](https://osf.io/r3fy9) [![](resources/icons/open-materials.svg){title="Materials" width="30"}](https://github.com/bethanyhgardner/dissertation/blob/main/materials/exp4) [![](resources/icons/open-data.svg){title="Data" width="30"}](https://github.com/bethanyhgardner/dissertation/blob/main/data) [![](resources/icons/file-code-fill.svg){title="Analysis Code" width="30"}](https://github.com/bethanyhgardner/dissertation/blob/main/4_exp.qmd)
 
 <br>
 
 ## Motivation
 
-One of the most common objections to singular *they* is that both [generic](introduction.qmd#def-generic "generic singular they") and [specific](introduction.qmd#def-specific "specific singular they") forms are too ambiguous [@hekanaho2020]. However, it is unclear whether this opinion arises from actual difficulties in [coreference resolution](introduction.qmd#def-coreference "coreference"), or if it is more a product of language and gender attitudes. According to the processing fluency account [@alter2009], processing difficulty and language attitudes are connected both directly and indirectly. First, processing fluency can be a cue to language attitudes: if a listener attributes their difficulty understanding a speaker to that speaker being unable or unwilling to communicate in a way that the listener finds clear, experiencing less processing fluency will cause them to evaluate the speaker more negatively. Second, harder processing tends to elicit more negative affect, which may bias listeners' language attitudes [@dragojevic2020]. One line of experiments has connected the processing fluency account specifically to perceptions of nonnative-accented speech. Participants listened to audio recordings of fictional stories, and while their task was ostensibly to remember enough of the story to complete a fill-in-the-blanks memory task, the dependent measures were how much processing fluency they experienced (e.g., rating as clear, easy to understand), how positively they felt about the speaker (1‍--‍100 scale), and status (e.g., intelligence, competence) and solidarity (e.g., friendliness, niceness) judgments about the speaker. The experiments manipulated various ways of making the audio easier or harder to understand, independent of the speaker's accent. Adding background white noise to the audio decreased listeners' fluency ratings when the speaker used a Punjabi accent, more so than when the same speaker used a Standard American English accent. The lower processing fluency then resulted in more negative affect and lower status attributions to the speaker. When a Mandarin-accented speaker was accompanied with subtitles or participants had read a transcript of the story first, participants reported higher processing fluency, which resulted in more positive feelings about and higher status attributions to the speaker. In both sets of experiments, the effects of making the listening conditions easier or harder on status attributions were mediated by processing fluency and sequentially by fluency and affect [@dragojevic2020; @dragojevic2016; @dragojevic2017].
+One of the most common objections to singular *they* is that both [generic](0_introduction.qmd#def-generic "generic singular they") and [specific](0_introduction.qmd#def-specific "specific singular they") forms are too ambiguous [@hekanaho2020]. However, it is unclear whether this opinion arises from actual difficulties in [coreference resolution](0_introduction.qmd#def-coreference "coreference"), or if it is more a product of language and gender attitudes. According to the processing fluency account [@alter2009], processing difficulty and language attitudes are connected both directly and indirectly. First, processing fluency can be a cue to language attitudes: if a listener attributes their difficulty understanding a speaker to that speaker being unable or unwilling to communicate in a way that the listener finds clear, experiencing less processing fluency will cause them to evaluate the speaker more negatively. Second, harder processing tends to elicit more negative affect, which may bias listeners' language attitudes [@dragojevic2020]. One line of experiments has connected the processing fluency account specifically to perceptions of nonnative-accented speech. Participants listened to audio recordings of fictional stories, and while their task was ostensibly to remember enough of the story to complete a fill-in-the-blanks memory task, the dependent measures were how much processing fluency they experienced (e.g., rating as clear, easy to understand), how positively they felt about the speaker (1‍--‍100 scale), and status (e.g., intelligence, competence) and solidarity (e.g., friendliness, niceness) judgments about the speaker. The experiments manipulated various ways of making the audio easier or harder to understand, independent of the speaker's accent. Adding background white noise to the audio decreased listeners' fluency ratings when the speaker used a Punjabi accent, more so than when the same speaker used a Standard American English accent. The lower processing fluency then resulted in more negative affect and lower status attributions to the speaker. When a Mandarin-accented speaker was accompanied with subtitles or participants had read a transcript of the story first, participants reported higher processing fluency, which resulted in more positive feelings about and higher status attributions to the speaker. In both sets of experiments, the effects of making the listening conditions easier or harder on status attributions were mediated by processing fluency and sequentially by fluency and affect [@dragojevic2020; @dragojevic2016; @dragojevic2017].
 
-The processing fluency account would predict that dislike of singular *they* is caused, at least in part, by lower-level processing difficulty. Multiple factors could cause listeners to experience lower processing fluency for singular *they* compared to other pronouns: a larger set of possible [antecedents](introduction.qmd#def-antecedent "antecedent") may make it more ambiguous, it may elicit a number or gender mismatch agreement violation, it may be newly learned, and it is overall less frequent even for speakers familiar with it. The processing fluency account also predicts that making singular *they* easier to understand would reduce people's negative reactions to it, and therefore the people who use it.
+The processing fluency account would predict that dislike of singular *they* is caused, at least in part, by lower-level processing difficulty. Multiple factors could cause listeners to experience lower processing fluency for singular *they* compared to other pronouns: a larger set of possible [antecedents](0_introduction.qmd#def-antecedent "antecedent") may make it more ambiguous, it may elicit a number or gender mismatch agreement violation, it may be newly learned, and it is overall less frequent even for speakers familiar with it. The processing fluency account also predicts that making singular *they* easier to understand would reduce people's negative reactions to it, and therefore the people who use it.
 
-However, the actual amount of processing difficulty for singular *they*---particularly for [definite specific gender-specified](introduction.qmd#def-gender-specified "gender-specified singular they") forms---is unclear. Only a few studies to date have investigated [online comprehension](introduction.qmd#def-online "online processing") of *they* coreferring with proper names. These are described in more detail in the [Section 0.4.4](#names), but to review briefly, people are slower to identify the referent for *they* compared to *he* and *she*, as measured through a [maze task](introduction.qmd#def-maze "maze task") while reading [@shenkar2023] and a mouse tracking task while listening [@arnold2023]. In two [ERP](introduction.qmd#def-ERP "ERP measures") experiments, a [P600 effect](introduction.qmd#def-P600 "P600 effects") was observed for *they* coreferring with proper names (gender-specified), but not with specific gender-unspecified referents (e.g., *the participant*) [@chen2023; @prasad2020]. Since the P600 indexes detecting a syntactic error or having difficulty comprehending a sentence's syntactic structure [@hagoort1993; @kaan2000; @osterhout1994; @osterhout1992], Prasad & Morris interpret their results to indicate that *they* coreferring with proper names still causes a gender agreement error, even though participants in their experiment all had significant experience with using they/them pronouns and considered it grammatical in offline acceptability judgments.
+However, the actual amount of processing difficulty for singular *they*---particularly for [definite specific gender-specified](0_introduction.qmd#def-gender-specified "gender-specified singular they") forms---is unclear. Only a few studies to date have investigated [online comprehension](0_introduction.qmd#def-online "online processing") of *they* coreferring with proper names. These are described in more detail in the [Section 0.4.4](#names), but to review briefly, people are slower to identify the referent for *they* compared to *he* and *she*, as measured through a [maze task](0_introduction.qmd#def-maze "maze task") while reading [@shenkar2023] and a mouse tracking task while listening [@arnold2023]. In two [ERP](0_introduction.qmd#def-ERP "ERP measures") experiments, a [P600 effect](0_introduction.qmd#def-P600 "P600 effects") was observed for *they* coreferring with proper names (gender-specified), but not with specific gender-unspecified referents (e.g., *the participant*) [@chen2023; @prasad2020]. Since the P600 indexes detecting a syntactic error or having difficulty comprehending a sentence's syntactic structure [@hagoort1993; @kaan2000; @osterhout1994; @osterhout1992], Prasad & Morris interpret their results to indicate that *they* coreferring with proper names still causes a gender agreement error, even though participants in their experiment all had significant experience with using they/them pronouns and considered it grammatical in offline acceptability judgments.
 
 However, results like @prasad2020 do not necessarily require that *they* for specific gender-specified antecedents is still ungrammatical for these participants. Even in LGBTQ+ communities, *they* coreferring with a name is still relatively infrequent overall and would not be expected in many contexts. Stimuli in sentence processing experiments are typically unrelated, with each sentence using a different name and referring to a new character. When singular *they* corefers with a new referent in each trial, it is unclear whether *they* is consistently perceived as syntactically anomalous, or if it is originally unexpected, but could be processed smoothly once anticipated to corefer with a particular referent. Experiment 4 tests processing in the context of repeated reference, where listeners can come to expect singular *they* to corefer with certain characters. This is potentially somewhat easier, and it more closely resembles the real-world contexts in which we hear pronouns referring to people.
 
-Additionally, the majority of processing studies, particularly for [generic indefinite](introduction.qmd#def-generic-indefinite "generic indefinite singular they") *they*, have used [self-paced reading](introduction.qmd#def-SPR "self-paced reading tasks") and [eyetracking while reading](introduction.qmd#def-eyetracking-reading "eyetracking while reading tasks") measures. Experiment 4 is one of the first to use the [visual world paradigm]{#def-VWP .link-primary}, which measures eye movements while participants listen to sentences describing a visual scene. Gaze at pictured characters provides a measure of online processing as the sentence unfolds, since listeners automatically look at what they think is being talked about [@allopenna1998; @sedivy1999; @spivey2002; @tanenhaus1995; @tanenhaus2000]. The visual world paradigm has advantages compared to other tasks, as it provides detailed time-course information about *which* alternative interpretations are being considered, in addition to *when* processing difficulties occur.
+Additionally, the majority of processing studies, particularly for [generic indefinite](0_introduction.qmd#def-generic-indefinite "generic indefinite singular they") *they*, have used [self-paced reading](0_introduction.qmd#def-SPR "self-paced reading tasks") and [eyetracking while reading](0_introduction.qmd#def-eyetracking-reading "eyetracking while reading tasks") measures. Experiment 4 is one of the first to use the [visual world paradigm]{#def-VWP .link-primary title="Definition: visual world paradigm"}, which measures eye movements while participants listen to sentences describing a visual scene. Gaze at pictured characters provides a measure of online processing as the sentence unfolds, since listeners automatically look at what they think is being talked about [@allopenna1998; @sedivy1999; @spivey2002; @tanenhaus1995; @tanenhaus2000]. The visual world paradigm has advantages compared to other tasks, as it provides detailed time-course information about *which* alternative interpretations are being considered, in addition to *when* processing difficulties occur.
 
 Experiment 4 investigates the degree of processing difficulty of singular *they* compared to *he* and *she*, if the processing of singular *they* follows the same patterns as *he* and *she*, and if processing measures correspond with offline judgments. The design is based on a prior line of work investigating ambiguous pronoun resolution. In Arnold et al. [-@arnold2000; -@arnold2007], participants looked at illustrated scenes of cartoon characters and listened to stories about them:
 
@@ -63,11 +63,11 @@ Experiment 4 investigates the degree of processing difficulty of singular *they*
 > [2]{#stim-arnold-2} He's/She's carrying an\
 > [3]{#stim-arnold-3} umbrella and it looks like they're both going to need it.
 
-Part [1](#stim-arnold-1) introduced 2 named characters (*Donald, Mickey/Minnie*), using a verb (*bringing*) that allows for a subsequent pronoun to refer to either of the characters individually [@garnham2001; @gordon1993; @sanford1981]. While *he* or *she* (part [2](#stim-arnold-2)) is more likely to refer to the character mentioned first in the prior sentence (*Donald*) [@arnold2000; @arnold2007; @gernsbacher1989; @kaiser2011], it can also refer to the character mentioned second (*Mickey/Minnie*). In other words, the character mentioned first is more accessible [@ariel2006]. This structure makes it possible for the referent of *he* or *she*---called the [target]{#def-VWP-target .link-primary} character in visual world experiments---to remain ambiguous until the next phrase (part [3](#stim-arnold-3)) can be compared to the illustration. In this example, either Donald or Mickey/Minnie is carrying an umbrella ([Figure @fig-exp4-arnold2000]A). This allows for enough time to observe processing of the pronoun (*is carrying an*), but without creating a discourse context too different from actual language use.
+Part [1](#stim-arnold-1) introduced 2 named characters (*Donald, Mickey/Minnie*), using a verb (*bringing*) that allows for a subsequent pronoun to refer to either of the characters individually [@garnham2001; @gordon1993; @sanford1981]. While *he* or *she* (part [2](#stim-arnold-2)) is more likely to refer to the character mentioned first in the prior sentence (*Donald*) [@arnold2000; @arnold2007; @gernsbacher1989; @kaiser2011], it can also refer to the character mentioned second (*Mickey/Minnie*). In other words, the character mentioned first is more accessible [@ariel2006]. This structure makes it possible for the referent of *he* or *she*---called the [target]{#def-VWP-target .link-primary title="definition: VWP target"} character in visual world experiments---to remain ambiguous until the next phrase (part [3](#stim-arnold-3)) can be compared to the illustration. In this example, either Donald or Mickey/Minnie is carrying an umbrella ([Figure @fig-exp4-arnold2000]A). This allows for enough time to observe processing of the pronoun (*is carrying an*), but without creating a discourse context too different from actual language use.
 
-The stories in @arnold2000 manipulated 2 factors: the ambiguity of the pronoun (target and [competitor]{#def-VWP-competitor .link-primary} characters using the same vs different pronouns) and the accessibility of the referent (target mentioned first vs second). The results showed that listeners rapidly use both gender and accessibility cues to identify which character the pronoun referred to ([Figure @fig-exp4-arnold2000]B). If gender was unambiguous (top right in [Figure @fig-exp4-arnold2000]A), the pronoun referred to the character mentioned first (bottom left), or both (top left), participants looked at the target character starting at approximately 200ms after the pronoun. This is about as quickly as effects in the visual world paradigm can be observed [@hallett1986; @tanenhaus1995]. When neither gender nor accessibility cues disambiguated the referent (bottom right), participants looked at the target and competitor characters almost equally. For the purposes of the present experiment, these results provide a validated stimuli design and a baseline for how we expect *he* and *she* to be processed.
+The stories in @arnold2000 manipulated 2 factors: the ambiguity of the pronoun (target and [competitor]{#def-VWP-competitor .link-primary title="definition: VWP competitor"} characters using the same vs different pronouns) and the accessibility of the referent (target mentioned first vs second). The results showed that listeners rapidly use both gender and accessibility cues to identify which character the pronoun referred to ([Figure @fig-exp4-arnold2000]B). If gender was unambiguous (top right in [Figure @fig-exp4-arnold2000]A), the pronoun referred to the character mentioned first (bottom left), or both (top left), participants looked at the target character starting at approximately 200ms after the pronoun. This is about as quickly as effects in the visual world paradigm can be observed [@hallett1986; @tanenhaus1995]. When neither gender nor accessibility cues disambiguated the referent (bottom right), participants looked at the target and competitor characters almost equally. For the purposes of the present experiment, these results provide a validated stimuli design and a baseline for how we expect *he* and *she* to be processed.
 
-![@arnold2000. \[A\] Recreation of design, showing the pronoun <br>ambiguity and order of mention conditions. The original materials were illustrated <br>using the Disney characters. \[B\] Results, with 0 indicating pronoun onset and <br>horizontal lines indicating the verb (*carrying*).](materials/exp4/figures/arnold2000.png){#fig-exp4-arnold2000 width="80%"}
+![@arnold2000. \[A\] Recreation of design, showing the pronoun ambiguity and order of mention conditions. The original materials were illustrated using the Disney characters. \[B\] Results, with 0 indicating pronoun onset and horizontal lines indicating the verb (*carrying*).](materials/exp4/figures/arnold2000.png){#fig-exp4-arnold2000 width="80%"}
 
 A later set of studies used a similar design to examine how listeners process pronouns acoustically ambiguous between *he* and *she* [@brown-schmidt2017; @falandays2020]. This experiment used similar stories as Arnold et al. [-@arnold2000; -@arnold2007], but different images. Instead of 2 characters being drawn to match the scene, characters were pictured in colored shapes. The target character was disambiguated by describing their location, e.g., *he's standing on a blue square* instead of *he's carrying an umbrella*. This allows for a larger range of stimuli to be created, and the prior results demonstrate that listeners can process *he* and *she* smoothly in these types of stories. Critically, while the descriptions may seem odd and somewhat discontinuous, the discourse structure matches how speakers introduce new referents and when they tend to use pronouns instead of names.
 
diff --git a/general_discussion.qmd b/5_general_discussion.qmd
similarity index 62%
rename from general_discussion.qmd
rename to 5_general_discussion.qmd
index 612877a..0f9e4a8 100644
--- a/general_discussion.qmd
+++ b/5_general_discussion.qmd
@@ -1,16 +1,16 @@
 # General Discussion {.unnumbered}
 
-Using singular *they* when a [referent's](introduction.qmd#def-referent "referent") gender is unknown or unspecified has become increasingly common and accepted by U.S. English speakers in recent years. Using they/them pronouns is not exclusive to [nonbinary](introduction.qmd#def-nonbinary "nonbinary") people, but it is a particularly common choice for them, since singular *they* is the most common gender-neutral alternative to he/him and she/her [@cassian2021; @cassian2022; @cheung2020; @parks2023]. The majority of U.S. adults (50--70% across age groups) know at least a little about people using they/them pronouns, and 11--46% personally know someone who uses they/them in 2021, up from 8--32% in 2018. While these proportions are highest in younger generations, they have been increasing across all generations, as well as across political affiliations and religious groups [@minkin2021; @parker2019]. This increase in familiarity with gender-neutral pronouns corresponds to increases in both the visibility and the size of the [trans and gender diverse (TGD)](introduction.qmd#def-TGD "TGD") community. Estimates based on probability-sampling surveys suggest that 1 in 200 adults in the U.S. consider themselves^[4](introduction.qmd#fn-ref4)^ transgender [@crissman2017; @herman2022; @meerwijk2017]. This number has been increasing since the mid-2010s [CDC, -@cdc2021], especially as population-based surveys are changing their question designs to recognize nonbinary people who fall under the TGD umbrella, but may not also identify as transgender. Among Gen Z adults (ages 18--26 in 2021 and 2022), 2.3% identify as trans and 3.3% as *none of these* (out of *man*, *woman*, *transgender*), which corresponds to the population of the fifth-largest city in the U.S. [@twenge2023].
+Using singular *they* when a [referent's](0_introduction.qmd#def-referent "referent") gender is unknown or unspecified has become increasingly common and accepted by U.S. English speakers in recent years. Using they/them pronouns is not exclusive to [nonbinary](0_introduction.qmd#def-nonbinary "nonbinary") people, but it is a particularly common choice for them, since singular *they* is the most common gender-neutral alternative to he/him and she/her [@cassian2021; @cassian2022; @cheung2020; @parks2023]. The majority of U.S. adults (50--70% across age groups) know at least a little about people using they/them pronouns, and 11--46% personally know someone who uses they/them in 2021, up from 8--32% in 2018. While these proportions are highest in younger generations, they have been increasing across all generations, as well as across political affiliations and religious groups [@minkin2021; @parker2019]. This increase in familiarity with gender-neutral pronouns corresponds to increases in both the visibility and the size of the [trans and gender diverse (TGD)](0_introduction.qmd#def-TGD "TGD") community. Estimates based on probability-sampling surveys suggest that 1 in 200 adults in the U.S. consider themselves^[4](0_introduction.qmd#fn-ref4)^ transgender [@crissman2017; @herman2022; @meerwijk2017]. This number has been increasing since the mid-2010s [CDC, -@cdc2021], especially as population-based surveys are changing their question designs to recognize nonbinary people who fall under the TGD umbrella, but may not also identify as transgender. Among Gen Z adults (ages 18--26 in 2021 and 2022), 2.3% identify as trans and 3.3% as *none of these* (out of *man*, *woman*, *transgender*), which corresponds to the population of the fifth-largest city in the U.S. [@twenge2023].
 
-The backlash to an increasing number of teens and young adults openly expressing TGD identities has been severe. 2023 has seen a record number of bills introduced in U.S. state legislatures targeting healthcare for, civil rights protections for, and education about TGD people [@hrc2023]. Many of these bills include policies preventing people from respecting that someone has changed their pronouns, particularly in educational contexts [e.g., the recently-passed TN @tn2023]. "Using pronouns" has become a symbol of whether or not you acknowledge and respect TGD people's existence. Indeed, people describe being [misgendered](introduction.qmd#def-misgendering "misgendering") as alienating, devaluing, invalidating, and painful [@cordoba2020; @goldberg2019; @gunn2020; @johnson2019; @pitcher2017; @saltzburg2010; @truszczynski2020], and people who are misgendered more frequently show higher rates of depression, stress, suicidality, disordered eating, body dissatisfaction, and low self-esteem [@galupo2020; @mclemore2015; @mclemore2018; @mitchell2021; @trevorproject2020].
+The backlash to an increasing number of teens and young adults openly expressing TGD identities has been severe. 2023 has seen a record number of bills introduced in U.S. state legislatures targeting healthcare for, civil rights protections for, and education about TGD people [@hrc2023]. Many of these bills include policies preventing people from respecting that someone has changed their pronouns, particularly in educational contexts [e.g., the recently-passed TN @tn2023]. "Using pronouns" has become a symbol of whether or not you acknowledge and respect TGD people's existence. Indeed, people describe being [misgendered](0_introduction.qmd#def-misgendering "misgendering") as alienating, devaluing, invalidating, and painful [@cordoba2020; @goldberg2019; @gunn2020; @johnson2019; @pitcher2017; @saltzburg2010; @truszczynski2020], and people who are misgendered more frequently show higher rates of depression, stress, suicidality, disordered eating, body dissatisfaction, and low self-esteem [@galupo2020; @mclemore2015; @mclemore2018; @mitchell2021; @trevorproject2020].
 
-However, this opposition represents a loud minority. Many people are open to learning: across age groups, 40--60% of U.S. adults say they would be somewhat or very comfortable using a gender-neutral pronoun for someone who asked [@minkin2021]. Still, learning a new language form can be hard, and many people continue to make errors, despite supportive intentions. This often results in seemingly-counterintuitive errors like "she uses they/them pronouns" (e.g., @exm-lovato). I began by arguing that errors like these occur because learning to use they/them pronouns requires a change in pronoun production processes. Instead of selecting pronouns based on morphosyntactic gender features of a name [e.g., @schmitt1999] or based on [semantic/conceptual gender](introduction.qmd#def-conceptual-gender "conceptual gender") features of a person [e.g., @anton-mendez2010], speakers may need to retrieve an episodic memory of a person's stated pronouns or the pronouns they have observed other speakers using in reference to that person. To that end, this dissertation investigated how people learn to associate pronouns with a person, how they use that information in language production and comprehension, and what factors can support learning.
+However, this opposition represents a loud minority. Many people are open to learning: across age groups, 40--60% of U.S. adults say they would be somewhat or very comfortable using a gender-neutral pronoun for someone who asked [@minkin2021]. Still, learning a new language form can be hard, and many people continue to make errors, despite supportive intentions. This often results in seemingly-counterintuitive errors like "she uses they/them pronouns" (e.g., @exm-lovato). I began by arguing that errors like these occur because learning to use they/them pronouns requires a change in pronoun production processes. Instead of selecting pronouns based on morphosyntactic gender features of a name [e.g., @schmitt1999] or based on [semantic/conceptual gender](0_introduction.qmd#def-conceptual-gender "conceptual gender") features of a person [e.g., @anton-mendez2010], speakers may need to retrieve an episodic memory of a person's stated pronouns or the pronouns they have observed other speakers using in reference to that person. To that end, this dissertation investigated how people learn to associate pronouns with a person, how they use that information in language production and comprehension, and what factors can support learning.
 
 Experiment 1 demonstrated that speakers can learn to associate pronouns with a person, in a context where the use of they/them could not be predicted from the name. While explicit memory for a person's pronouns strongly predicted accurate production, it did not guarantee it. In Experiment 2, reading a brief PSA about gendered language increased the proportion of speakers who produced singular *they* at least once and their accuracy when doing so---arguably by motivating participants to pay more attention to information about the character's pronouns during the introductions, then to attempt to retrieve the information later during the sentence completion task. Experiment 3 then showed that when information about a person's pronouns is made more salient by directly stating it during introductions and made more available by including it on nametags, speakers can and do use this information to correctly produce singular *they*. These results all support a model where speakers can use episodic memory for a person's stated pronouns to select which pronoun to produce, behavior that is not accounted for in current processing models.
 
-One of the primary focuses of research on pronoun production has been *when* speakers choose to use pronouns instead of other referring expressions [@arnold2019], but the subsequent choice of *which* pronoun to use is less well understood. If applied to proper names and pronouns referring to people, production models either assume that speakers select pronouns based on morphosyntactic features of the name, or based on semantic/conceptual features of a person. As an example of the first approach, Schmitt et al.'s [-@schmitt1999] model of lexical access in pronoun production argues that if a lexical concept is activated and sufficiently "in focus" in the discourse, the speaker will produce a pronoun instead of a full noun phrase. In this model, tested with object labels in German, activating the lexical concept for the noun also activates the corresponding [grammatical gender](introduction.qmd#def-grammatical-gender "grammatical gender") node (masculine, feminine, or neuter). If the speaker uses a pronoun, the gender node is selected in order to produce the correct pronoun [@jescheniak1994; @levelt1999; @roelofs1992]. When producing gender-marked pronouns or determiners, competition between different forms can arise from the grammatical gender features of other lexical concepts that are also activated [@schiller2003]. If each lexical concept can only correctly be associated with a single grammatical gender, models of grammatical gender selection may not need to include competition between multiple grammatical gender features activated by the same lexical concept. The closest analogue may be languages where the singular and plural forms of determiners vary for the same grammatical gender, and one approach argues that the singular form is activated by default and can interfere with activating the plural form [@jescheniak2014; @schriefers2002].
+One of the primary focuses of research on pronoun production has been *when* speakers choose to use pronouns instead of other referring expressions [@arnold2019], but the subsequent choice of *which* pronoun to use is less well understood. If applied to proper names and pronouns referring to people, production models either assume that speakers select pronouns based on morphosyntactic features of the name, or based on semantic/conceptual features of a person. As an example of the first approach, Schmitt et al.'s [-@schmitt1999] model of lexical access in pronoun production argues that if a lexical concept is activated and sufficiently "in focus" in the discourse, the speaker will produce a pronoun instead of a full noun phrase. In this model, tested with object labels in German, activating the lexical concept for the noun also activates the corresponding [grammatical gender](0_introduction.qmd#def-grammatical-gender "grammatical gender") node (masculine, feminine, or neuter). If the speaker uses a pronoun, the gender node is selected in order to produce the correct pronoun [@jescheniak1994; @levelt1999; @roelofs1992]. When producing gender-marked pronouns or determiners, competition between different forms can arise from the grammatical gender features of other lexical concepts that are also activated [@schiller2003]. If each lexical concept can only correctly be associated with a single grammatical gender, models of grammatical gender selection may not need to include competition between multiple grammatical gender features activated by the same lexical concept. The closest analogue may be languages where the singular and plural forms of determiners vary for the same grammatical gender, and one approach argues that the singular form is activated by default and can interfere with activating the plural form [@jescheniak2014; @schriefers2002].
 
-In models of grammatical gender processing, it is reasonable to assume that once a speaker decides to produce a pronoun, there is typically only one correct pronoun to use. If extended from pronouns referring to objects to third person gendered pronouns referring to people, Schmitt et al.'s model might predict that the lexical entry for a masculine name would automatically activate the masculine gender node, which is linked to he/him pronouns, and the lexical entry for a feminine name would automatically activate the feminine gender node, which is linked to she/her pronouns. However, this approach would need to be modified to account for how speakers use singular *they*. One option would be to add a neutral gender node,[^general_discussion-1] which is linked to singular they/them pronouns. The lexical entry for a name could activate the neutral gender node, in addition to or instead of the masculine or feminine nodes. This is similar to how Konnelly & Cowper's morphosyntax model of gender agreement (described in [Section 0.3](#acceptability)) could function in a processing model. They propose that "innovative" speakers, who only accept [specific definite](introduction.qmd#def-specific-definite "specific definite singular they") antecedents for singular *they* that are [gender-unspecified](introduction.qmd#def-gender-unspecified "gender-unspecified singular they"), can accommodate a proper name by adding a new lexical entry for the name that does not have a masculine or feminine feature [-@konnelly2020].
+In models of grammatical gender processing, it is reasonable to assume that once a speaker decides to produce a pronoun, there is typically only one correct pronoun to use. If extended from pronouns referring to objects to third person gendered pronouns referring to people, Schmitt et al.'s model might predict that the lexical entry for a masculine name would automatically activate the masculine gender node, which is linked to he/him pronouns, and the lexical entry for a feminine name would automatically activate the feminine gender node, which is linked to she/her pronouns. However, this approach would need to be modified to account for how speakers use singular *they*. One option would be to add a neutral gender node,[^general_discussion-1] which is linked to singular they/them pronouns. The lexical entry for a name could activate the neutral gender node, in addition to or instead of the masculine or feminine nodes. This is similar to how Konnelly & Cowper's morphosyntax model of gender agreement (described in [Section 0.3](#acceptability)) could function in a processing model. They propose that "innovative" speakers, who only accept [specific definite](0_introduction.qmd#def-specific-definite "specific definite singular they") antecedents for singular *they* that are [gender-unspecified](0_introduction.qmd#def-gender-unspecified "gender-unspecified singular they"), can accommodate a proper name by adding a new lexical entry for the name that does not have a masculine or feminine feature [-@konnelly2020].
 
 [^general_discussion-1]: A related question is if the model would need separate nodes for gender-unspecified and gender-specified singular *they*. But since the experiments here only elicit gender-specified *they*, I focus on that form.
 
@@ -20,14 +20,14 @@ Instead of proposing that pronouns are selected via lexical information associat
 
 [^general_discussion-2]: Accounts of grammatical gender errors assume the opposite. Grammatical gender marking errors remain common even in highly-proficient learners, particularly if they are native speakers of a language without grammatical gender (e.g., English speakers learning Spanish) [@anton-mendez2010; @gruter2012]. These errors occur when a speaker selects the wrong grammatical gender feature for a word, then produces the pronoun corresponding to that wrong grammatical gender category.
 
-An approach where speakers select pronouns based on semantic or conceptual information about the person's gender can better account for they/them pronouns, particularly if you assume that information about a person's pronouns could be encoded as part of conceptual gender. Traditional approaches treat conceptual gender as primarily automatic inferences (see the mismatching gender stereotype experiments discussed in [Section 0.4.1](#gender-agreement)), but one option is to assume episodic information can be added. If someone states that they use they/them pronouns or other speakers are using they/them pronouns for them, this could prompt a revision of the original gender inference that directed to he/him or she/her.[^general_discussion-3] This model would also need to be modified to account for multiple pronouns being associated with a person, instead of having a one conceptual gender inference to one set of pronouns mapping. Speakers often alternate between they/them and he/him or she/her, like the errors in these experiments or in the Demi Lovato article [@towers2021]. Alternating between pronouns can also be intentional when referring to people who accept multiple pronouns [e.g., @gurley2021; @monae2022]. A one-to-one model also does not account for [gender-unspecified](introduction.qmd#def-gender-unspecified "gender-unspecified singular they") [specific](introduction.qmd#def-specific "specific referents") singular *they*, particularly when it is used when the speaker *does* know the referent's gender, but does not include that information. In this case, the conceptual gender information is not driving pronoun selection, because the speaker is choosing to not specify gender. Overall, the behavior of participants producing singular *they* in the first three experiments demonstrates that speakers are incorporating additional sources of information and choosing between more options than are accounted for by existing processing models, where pronouns are selected based on the lexical information connected to the name or the gender categorization connected to the person.
+An approach where speakers select pronouns based on semantic or conceptual information about the person's gender can better account for they/them pronouns, particularly if you assume that information about a person's pronouns could be encoded as part of conceptual gender. Traditional approaches treat conceptual gender as primarily automatic inferences (see the mismatching gender stereotype experiments discussed in [Section 0.4.1](#gender-agreement)), but one option is to assume episodic information can be added. If someone states that they use they/them pronouns or other speakers are using they/them pronouns for them, this could prompt a revision of the original gender inference that directed to he/him or she/her.[^general_discussion-3] This model would also need to be modified to account for multiple pronouns being associated with a person, instead of having a one conceptual gender inference to one set of pronouns mapping. Speakers often alternate between they/them and he/him or she/her, like the errors in these experiments or in the Demi Lovato article [@towers2021]. Alternating between pronouns can also be intentional when referring to people who accept multiple pronouns [e.g., @gurley2021; @monae2022]. A one-to-one model also does not account for [gender-unspecified](0_introduction.qmd#def-gender-unspecified "gender-unspecified singular they") [specific](0_introduction.qmd#def-specific "specific referents") singular *they*, particularly when it is used when the speaker *does* know the referent's gender, but does not include that information. In this case, the conceptual gender information is not driving pronoun selection, because the speaker is choosing to not specify gender. Overall, the behavior of participants producing singular *they* in the first three experiments demonstrates that speakers are incorporating additional sources of information and choosing between more options than are accounted for by existing processing models, where pronouns are selected based on the lexical information connected to the name or the gender categorization connected to the person.
 
 [^general_discussion-3]: Here, I can only claim that information about gendered language forms is added to knowledge about a person, which could but does not necessarily correspond to changing an underlying gender categorization. See @friedman2014 for a theoretical model and behavioral data about how people revise their original automatic categorizations of a person's gender.
 
-Experiment 4 turned from production to comprehension, but with the same underlying question: [specific definite](introduction.qmd#def-specific-definite "specific definite singular they") singular *they* does show a [processing cost](introduction.qmd#def-cost "processing costs") compared to *he* and *she*, but it is still unclear how large and how persistent those costs are, and how singular *they* is fitting into the existing processing mechanisms comprehenders have for *he* and *she*. Results from a visual world study showed that, in a context where participants could come to expect certain characters to be referred to with they/them, listeners were able to use singular *they* to identify the referent, just to a lesser degree than with *he* and *she*. This resembles patterns seen in young children [@arnold2007; @song2005] and in adult second language learners [@cunnings2017; @gruter2012; @speyer2019]. One open question is how these findings will replicate in future years as people continue to gain experience with using they/them pronouns, and if the learning trajectory will be similar to those observed for other pronouns during language development and second language acquisition.
+Experiment 4 turned from production to comprehension, but with the same underlying question: [specific definite](0_introduction.qmd#def-specific-definite "specific definite singular they") singular *they* does show a [processing cost](0_introduction.qmd#def-cost "processing costs") compared to *he* and *she*, but it is still unclear how large and how persistent those costs are, and how singular *they* is fitting into the existing processing mechanisms comprehenders have for *he* and *she*. Results from a visual world study showed that, in a context where participants could come to expect certain characters to be referred to with they/them, listeners were able to use singular *they* to identify the referent, just to a lesser degree than with *he* and *she*. This resembles patterns seen in young children [@arnold2007; @song2005] and in adult second language learners [@cunnings2017; @gruter2012; @speyer2019]. One open question is how these findings will replicate in future years as people continue to gain experience with using they/them pronouns, and if the learning trajectory will be similar to those observed for other pronouns during language development and second language acquisition.
 
-Unlike prior findings for when *he* or *she* is ambiguous between two referents [@arnold2000; @arnold2007; @brown-schmidt2017; @falandays2020] and preliminary findings for singular *they* using a different task [@arnold2023], participants in Experiment 4 did not show an order of mention effect for singular *they*. The pronouns in these stories can refer to either of the two named characters, but is more likely to refer to the character named first than the character named second [@gernsbacher1989; @kaiser2011]. Listeners can use this information to help disambiguate the referent, and thus start looking at the target character---which the [visual world paradigm](exp4.qmd#def-VWP "visual world paradigm") takes to mean that they understand who the sentence is referring to---earlier for characters mentioned first. This pattern was not observed in *they* trials. The third finding in Experiment 4 was that after hearing *he* or *she*, listeners were more likely to be looking at the target character if the competitor character used she/her or he/him than if the competitor character used they/them. The lack of an order of mention effect and the observation that they/them characters behaved differently as competitors than he/him and she/her characters both suggest that while listeners can successfully comprehend *they* as singular, they may be using different strategies to do so, leaving a number of follow-up research questions.
+Unlike prior findings for when *he* or *she* is ambiguous between two referents [@arnold2000; @arnold2007; @brown-schmidt2017; @falandays2020] and preliminary findings for singular *they* using a different task [@arnold2023], participants in Experiment 4 did not show an order of mention effect for singular *they*. The pronouns in these stories can refer to either of the two named characters, but is more likely to refer to the character named first than the character named second [@gernsbacher1989; @kaiser2011]. Listeners can use this information to help disambiguate the referent, and thus start looking at the target character---which the [visual world paradigm](4_exp.qmd#def-VWP "visual world paradigm") takes to mean that they understand who the sentence is referring to---earlier for characters mentioned first. This pattern was not observed in *they* trials. The third finding in Experiment 4 was that after hearing *he* or *she*, listeners were more likely to be looking at the target character if the competitor character used she/her or he/him than if the competitor character used they/them. The lack of an order of mention effect and the observation that they/them characters behaved differently as competitors than he/him and she/her characters both suggest that while listeners can successfully comprehend *they* as singular, they may be using different strategies to do so, leaving a number of follow-up research questions.
 
-I want to emphasize here that the processing cost for singular *they* is large enough to be statistically significant and relevant for understanding language processing mechanisms, but that this does not necessarily correspond to meaningful differences in processing fluency---people's subjective experience of how easy it was to understand the story [@alter2009]. In this experiment, visual inspection of the data shows that around 50% of participants were looking at the target character half a second after the onset of *he* or *she*, compared to around 35% half a second after the onset of *they* (@fig-exp4-3panel). Similarly, in one reading time study, indefinite gender-unspecified *they* (e.g., *a person, someone*) took about 100ms longer than *he* and *she*, which the authors note is a smaller, more easily accommodated processing cost than other types of gender and number agreement mismatches [@sanford2007] (see [Section 0.4.2](#generic-indefinite)). The processing fluency account predicts that language that is more difficult to understand elicits more negative attitudes about the speaker [@dragojevic2016; @dragojevic2017; @dragojevic2020] (see [Section 4.1](exp4.qmd#motivation)). However, it is an open question how processing costs in psycholinguistics measures correspond to processing fluency---how the time course in a visual world study matches how hard a listener consciously perceives singular *they*. Like Sanford & Filik I would argue that, when compared to the processing costs seen in other experiments, the processing costs observed here with singular *they* are within the range that comprehenders can normally accommodate. Instead of singular *they* being dramatically or permanently more difficult to understand, reference resolution is already complicated and ambiguous, even in contexts that are less socio-politically marked.
+I want to emphasize here that the processing cost for singular *they* is large enough to be statistically significant and relevant for understanding language processing mechanisms, but that this does not necessarily correspond to meaningful differences in processing fluency---people's subjective experience of how easy it was to understand the story [@alter2009]. In this experiment, visual inspection of the data shows that around 50% of participants were looking at the target character half a second after the onset of *he* or *she*, compared to around 35% half a second after the onset of *they* (@fig-exp4-3panel). Similarly, in one reading time study, indefinite gender-unspecified *they* (e.g., *a person, someone*) took about 100ms longer than *he* and *she*, which the authors note is a smaller, more easily accommodated processing cost than other types of gender and number agreement mismatches [@sanford2007] (see [Section 0.4.2](#generic-indefinite)). The processing fluency account predicts that language that is more difficult to understand elicits more negative attitudes about the speaker [@dragojevic2016; @dragojevic2017; @dragojevic2020] (see [Section 4.1](4_exp.qmd#motivation)). However, it is an open question how processing costs in psycholinguistics measures correspond to processing fluency---how the time course in a visual world study matches how hard a listener consciously perceives singular *they*. Like Sanford & Filik I would argue that, when compared to the processing costs seen in other experiments, the processing costs observed here with singular *they* are within the range that comprehenders can normally accommodate. Instead of singular *they* being dramatically or permanently more difficult to understand, reference resolution is already complicated and ambiguous, even in contexts that are less socio-politically marked.
 
 From a theoretical perspective, the four experiments in this dissertation demonstrate how singular *they* pushes language processing models to incorporate additional factors---especially social ones---to account for the full range of people's language use. From a practical perspective, these experiments show that while learning singular *they* is hard, it *is* doable. Multiple strategies can support learning, including providing information about why paying attention to gendered language is important, showing examples of singular *they* in use, making information about pronouns more salient by including it in introductions, and making information about pronouns more accessible by including it in places like nametags and display names. Learning to use they/them pronouns is worthwhile, because misgendering is a key aspect of how respected and welcome trans and gender diverse people feel in a community, and reducing misgendering is something that individual allies have the opportunity to concretely change.
diff --git a/supplementary_analyses.qmd b/6_supplementary_analyses.qmd
similarity index 97%
rename from supplementary_analyses.qmd
rename to 6_supplementary_analyses.qmd
index 654f82e..839f89c 100644
--- a/supplementary_analyses.qmd
+++ b/6_supplementary_analyses.qmd
@@ -1026,7 +1026,7 @@ demographics_table(
 
 <br>
 
-The difference in naturalness ratings between singular *they* coreferring with generic and quantified referents [\[Indefinite\]](introduction.qmd#def-indefinite "indefinite singular they") and with masculine, feminine, and gender-neutral names \[Proper Name\] was tested using a linear mixed-effects model, with Referent Type mean-center effects coded. The model also included by-item intercepts and by-participant slopes. Ratings were mean centered such that a score of 0 indicated the center of the Likert scale, so the significant intercept means that both types of sentences were rated as more natural than unnatural (`r exp3_r_ratings['Intercept', 'Text']`). The significant effect of Referent Type indicated that singular *they* was rated as more natural with indefinites than with proper names (`r exp3_r_ratings['Type=Name_Indefinite', 'Text']`) (@tbl-exp3-ratings).
+The difference in naturalness ratings between singular *they* coreferring with generic and quantified referents [\[Indefinite\]](0_introduction.qmd#def-indefinite "indefinite singular they") and with masculine, feminine, and gender-neutral names \[Proper Name\] was tested using a linear mixed-effects model, with Referent Type mean-center effects coded. The model also included by-item intercepts and by-participant slopes. Ratings were mean centered such that a score of 0 indicated the center of the Likert scale, so the significant intercept means that both types of sentences were rated as more natural than unnatural (`r exp3_r_ratings['Intercept', 'Text']`). The significant effect of Referent Type indicated that singular *they* was rated as more natural with indefinites than with proper names (`r exp3_r_ratings['Type=Name_Indefinite', 'Text']`) (@tbl-exp3-ratings).
 
 |                                                               |
 |---------------------------------------------------------------|
@@ -1501,7 +1501,7 @@ exp4_d_survey %>%
 
 <br>
 
-As in Experiment 3, the difference in naturalness ratings between singular *they* coreferring with generic and quantified referents [\[Indefinite\]](introduction.qmd#def-indefinite "indefinite singular they") and with masculine, feminine, and gender-neutral names \[Proper Name\] was tested using a linear mixed-effects model (@tbl-exp4-ratings). Referent Type was mean-center effects coded, and the model also included by-item intercepts and by-participant slopes. Ratings were mean centered such that a score of 0 indicated the center of the Likert scale, so the significant intercept means that both types of sentences were rated as more natural than unnatural (`r exp4_r_ratings['Intercept', 'Text']`). There was no significant difference between proper name and indefinite referents (`r exp4_r_ratings['Type=Name_Indefinite', 'Text']`).
+As in Experiment 3, the difference in naturalness ratings between singular *they* coreferring with generic and quantified referents [\[Indefinite\]](0_introduction.qmd#def-indefinite "indefinite singular they") and with masculine, feminine, and gender-neutral names \[Proper Name\] was tested using a linear mixed-effects model (@tbl-exp4-ratings). Referent Type was mean-center effects coded, and the model also included by-item intercepts and by-participant slopes. Ratings were mean centered such that a score of 0 indicated the center of the Likert scale, so the significant intercept means that both types of sentences were rated as more natural than unnatural (`r exp4_r_ratings['Intercept', 'Text']`). There was no significant difference between proper name and indefinite referents (`r exp4_r_ratings['Type=Name_Indefinite', 'Text']`).
 
 |                                                               |
 |---------------------------------------------------------------|
@@ -1943,3 +1943,9 @@ exp4_tb_AR$knitr %<>%
 
 exp4_tb_AR
 ```
+
+```{r}
+#| label: clear-environment
+
+rm(list = ls())
+```
diff --git a/_quarto.yml b/_quarto.yml
index 5808437..b0f3ec5 100644
--- a/_quarto.yml
+++ b/_quarto.yml
@@ -15,15 +15,18 @@ book:
   # Structure
   chapters:
     - index.qmd
-    - introduction.qmd
-    - exp1.qmd
-    - exp2.qmd
-    - exp3.qmd
-    - exp4.qmd
-    - general_discussion.qmd
+    - 0_abstract.qmd
+    - 0_introduction.qmd
+    - part: Experiments
+      chapters:
+        - 1_exp.qmd
+        - 2_exp.qmd
+        - 3_exp.qmd
+        - 4_exp.qmd
+    - 5_general_discussion.qmd
   appendices:
-    - references.qmd
-    - supplementary_analyses.qmd
+    - 6_supplementary_analyses.qmd
+    - 7_references.qmd
 
   # Links/tools
   repo-url: https://github.com/bethanyhgardner/dissertation
diff --git a/r_data/exp1.RData b/r_data/exp1.RData
index 83fa9fc..a8ec771 100644
--- a/r_data/exp1.RData
+++ b/r_data/exp1.RData
@@ -1,3 +1,3 @@
 version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1
-oid sha256:cb3ce88a04b6b4c8ee2aa9a4b0df4723470bd653da983f03309dd2f1bdc696db
-size 167175134
+oid sha256:497eba58ed594f1dbcb35b9b76ab5afe3ed1f6ad237bae0c9d7987028166a287
+size 165114482
diff --git a/r_data/exp2.RData b/r_data/exp2.RData
index 40ad02b..70671d5 100644
--- a/r_data/exp2.RData
+++ b/r_data/exp2.RData
@@ -1,3 +1,3 @@
 version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1
-oid sha256:fbf2cdbd55c4ce4b0659c3cdd536984a562a03d352d32a3ba682d38d0f2eed0a
-size 11274635
+oid sha256:afbccfa6e4be8c995d562848cae82502ee89bcf855049d741457acd35438c623
+size 5774114
diff --git a/r_data/exp3.RData b/r_data/exp3.RData
index fd7a5b5..e0cef66 100644
--- a/r_data/exp3.RData
+++ b/r_data/exp3.RData
@@ -1,3 +1,3 @@
 version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1
-oid sha256:0c39eab6f18b3d7958f58197a9ab8a7b0b07c2eb537fb63613ce6c0692a47ba9
-size 77782977
+oid sha256:700633d06bf10a89d7b9eb6bf8b87e1ffbd41985ae47e3c535121cfeadef9b61
+size 70022439
diff --git a/r_data/exp4.RData b/r_data/exp4.RData
index 88c3319..f5820ca 100644
--- a/r_data/exp4.RData
+++ b/r_data/exp4.RData
@@ -1,3 +1,3 @@
 version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1
-oid sha256:1e8b2d099f4869940a6385b8ee3b63fad98016633d574824e9a1b5ff7f3113d7
-size 488739478
+oid sha256:9949a19ddc5ca96e93c217be0ba5369ce4e26578e534a0568024010b2de98570
+size 488249206