Private group, 11/11 participants were SOV-dominant for non-reversibles, whereas 4/11 were SOV-dominant for reversibles (p < .01). In the shared group, 10/11 participants were SOV-dominant for nonreversibles, and 6/11 were SOV-dominant for reversibles (p = .07). We also used Fisher's exact test to determine whether the between-subjects manipulation of gestural consistency influenced the probability of participants being SOV-dominant by comparing baseline to private and baseline to shared for each level of reversibility. For nonreversible events, the number of SOV-dominant participants in the baseline group (10/11) was not significantly different from the number of SOV-dominant participants in the private (11/11) or shared (10/11) groups. For reversible events, the number of SOV-dominant participants in the baseline group (0/11) was significantly different from the number of SOV-dominant participants in the private group (4/11, p < .05) and the shared group (6/11, p < .01). Prevalence of SVO--Following the above logic, the proportion of trials that had SVO order was analyzed at both the group and individual level. Group-level data are displayed in Figure 2. Group results: The 2 x 3 ANOVA revealed a trend for SVO to be more common in some groups than others, although the main effect of group did not reach significance [F(2,33) = 2.54, p = .10]. Planned comparisons found that the prevalence of SVO was not significantly different between the baseline and private groups [F(1,30) = 1.47, p = .24], but that SVO was significantly more common in the shared group than in the baseline group [F(1,30) = 5.08, p < .04]. SVO was also significantly more common in reversible events than in nonreversible events [F(1,30) = 7.64, p < .01], complementing the results with SOV orders. The was no interaction between group and reversibility [F(2,30) = 1.56, p = .23]. Individual results: At the individual level, we used Fisher's exact test to determine whether the reversibility manipulation influenced the probability of participants being SVOdominant. In the baseline group, 0/11 participants were Ro4402257 chemical information SVO-dominant for non-reversible events, and 0/11 were SVO-dominant for reversible events (p = 1). In the private group, 0/Cogn Sci. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2015 June 01.Hall et al.Pagewere SVO-dominant for non-reversibles, and 3/11 were SVO-dominant for reversibles (p = . 11). In the shared group, 1/11 was SVO-dominant for non-reversibles, and 4/11 were SVOdominant for reversibles (p = .14). Likewise, we also used Fisher’s exact test to determine whether the manipulation of group influenced the probability of participants being SVO-dominant by comparing baseline to private and baseline to shared for each level of reversibility. For non-reversible events, there were no differences between the number of SVO-dominant participants in the baseline (0/11), private (0/11), and shared (1/11) groups (all p values > .5). For reversible events, the BAY1217389 solubility difference between baseline (0/11) and private (3/11) did not reach significance (p = .11), but there was a significant difference between the number of SVO-dominant participants in the baseline (0/11) and shared (4/11) groups (p < .05). Combined analysis of Experiments 1 and 2 (group level)--Finally, we combined the results from both experiments using a 2 x 2 x 3 ANOVA with reversibility (no, yes) as a within-subjects factor, and native language (English, Turkish) and group (baseline, private, shared) as between-subjects fa.Private group, 11/11 participants were SOV-dominant for non-reversibles, whereas 4/11 were SOV-dominant for reversibles (p < .01). In the shared group, 10/11 participants were SOV-dominant for nonreversibles, and 6/11 were SOV-dominant for reversibles (p = .07). We also used Fisher's exact test to determine whether the between-subjects manipulation of gestural consistency influenced the probability of participants being SOV-dominant by comparing baseline to private and baseline to shared for each level of reversibility. For nonreversible events, the number of SOV-dominant participants in the baseline group (10/11) was not significantly different from the number of SOV-dominant participants in the private (11/11) or shared (10/11) groups. For reversible events, the number of SOV-dominant participants in the baseline group (0/11) was significantly different from the number of SOV-dominant participants in the private group (4/11, p < .05) and the shared group (6/11, p < .01). Prevalence of SVO--Following the above logic, the proportion of trials that had SVO order was analyzed at both the group and individual level. Group-level data are displayed in Figure 2. Group results: The 2 x 3 ANOVA revealed a trend for SVO to be more common in some groups than others, although the main effect of group did not reach significance [F(2,33) = 2.54, p = .10]. Planned comparisons found that the prevalence of SVO was not significantly different between the baseline and private groups [F(1,30) = 1.47, p = .24], but that SVO was significantly more common in the shared group than in the baseline group [F(1,30) = 5.08, p < .04]. SVO was also significantly more common in reversible events than in nonreversible events [F(1,30) = 7.64, p < .01], complementing the results with SOV orders. The was no interaction between group and reversibility [F(2,30) = 1.56, p = .23]. Individual results: At the individual level, we used Fisher's exact test to determine whether the reversibility manipulation influenced the probability of participants being SVOdominant. In the baseline group, 0/11 participants were SVO-dominant for non-reversible events, and 0/11 were SVO-dominant for reversible events (p = 1). In the private group, 0/Cogn Sci. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2015 June 01.Hall et al.Pagewere SVO-dominant for non-reversibles, and 3/11 were SVO-dominant for reversibles (p = . 11). In the shared group, 1/11 was SVO-dominant for non-reversibles, and 4/11 were SVOdominant for reversibles (p = .14). Likewise, we also used Fisher's exact test to determine whether the manipulation of group influenced the probability of participants being SVO-dominant by comparing baseline to private and baseline to shared for each level of reversibility. For non-reversible events, there were no differences between the number of SVO-dominant participants in the baseline (0/11), private (0/11), and shared (1/11) groups (all p values > .5). For reversible events, the difference between baseline (0/11) and private (3/11) did not reach significance (p = .11), but there was a significant difference between the number of SVO-dominant participants in the baseline (0/11) and shared (4/11) groups (p < .05). Combined analysis of Experiments 1 and 2 (group level)--Finally, we combined the results from both experiments using a 2 x 2 x 3 ANOVA with reversibility (no, yes) as a within-subjects factor, and native language (English, Turkish) and group (baseline, private, shared) as between-subjects fa.