\section{Analyses}
We investigate the effects of author and rater characteristics on the story's language and ratings.
Unless otherwise specified, we only consider the male and female gender labels\footnote{Gender is a social construct that goes beyond the man-woman binary \cite{lorber1991social}, however a more complex analysis is not possible given the limited number of individuals not identifying as male or female in our data.} and use a continuous representation of age and personality. We also explore the impact the writing setup---whether authors wrote stories all at once or in sequential chunks---has on story ratings.\footnote{We exclude author and reader education from our findings, as we did not find any signification effects for those variables.}

% \ms{Moved the limitation caveat here, but maybe we should put it somewhere else?}
Note that our findings are simply measuring associations between aggregate categories (e.g., number of pronouns used, authors over age 45) and should not be interpreted as applying to individual data points with specific contexts.

\subsection{Author Identity (RQ1)}\label{ssec:author-analyses}

% \ta{Suggestion to move to appendix or take out?}\ms{Made an appendix version (Appendix \ref{sup:author-image-choice})}
% We examine the effect of author identity on their topic choice and the type of language they used in stories.\footnote{Participants were randomly assigned writing conditions, and there were no significant differences between writing setups (in full or sequentially) for age, gender, or any other demographics.} 
% First, we find that only an author's agreeableness affected their choice of image prompt, with highly agreeable authors preferring the dog story (Cohen's $d=0$.30, $p<0$.001) and low agreeableness authors preferring the jail story ($d=0$.41, $p<0$.001).
% Other demographic variables were comparable for every image prompt (as measured by one-way ANOVAs.)

To analyze which types of words are associated with different demographic identities, we extract psychologically relevant linguistic categories from stories, using the Linguistic Inquiry Word Count \cite[LIWC;][]{liwc2015}.
For each LIWC category, we compute a linear regression model on the $z$-scored features, controlling for writing setup and topic choice.
We only report regression coefficients ($\beta$s) that are significant after Holm correction for multiple comparisons \cite{holm1979simple}.
% with Each feature is then $z$-scored
% We report the results of linear regression models, using $z$-scored LIWC features for easier interpretation of the regression coefficients ($\beta$s). 

\paragraph{Gender, age}
We find that the author's age, gender, and personality correlate with differential usage of linguistic categories, controlling for image choice and writing setup.\footnote{See Appendix \ref{sup:author-image-choice} for associations between author demographics and image choice.}
Specifically, we find that men used more personal pronouns ($|\beta|=0$.30, $p<0$.001) and social words ($|\beta|=0$.28, $p<0$.001) to describe characters (specifically, female characters, $|\beta|=0$.33, $p<0$.001), compared to women.
Controlling for gender effects, our findings show that older authors wrote more emotional and positive stories ($|\beta|=0$.05 and $|\beta|=0$.04, respectively, $p<0$.05) that contained more visual descriptions ($|\beta|=0$.05, $p<0$.001), whereas younger authors used past tense more ($|\beta|=0$.04, $p<0$.05).%\ta{Is Older/younger 45+?}\ms{No I used age as a continuous variable, could re-run in 45+ vs $<$45 if needed. Either specify or change analyses.}

\paragraph{Personality}
We find significant correlations between LIWC categories and an author's personality traits, controlling for age and gender (see Appendix \ref{sup:liwc-author-res} for the full set of results).
Notably, highly conscientious authors focused on character motivations ($|\beta|=0$.12, $p<0$.05) and used a more positive tone ($|\beta|=0$.14, $p<0$.01), compared to low-conscientiousness authors who wrote stories that tended to be more negative ($|\beta|=0$.11, $p<0$.1).
Finally, less agreeable authors used more swearing ($|\beta|=0$.15, $p<0$.1), and more differentiating words ($|\beta|=0$.10, $p<0$.1) compared to more agreeable authors. 
%\liz{I know full results are in the appendix, but is there any way point to relevant numbers in the text? maybe with ``(a\% vs. b\%)'' type notation?}


% \ms{We hypothesize that the associations between these LIWC categories and demographic variables will be similar but not identical to ones found by previous work on Facebook posts.}

% % We explore whether men and 
% \ms{LIWC personality \& demographic analyses, explain what we're controlling for. Maybe add a table?}

% \subsection{Shared author and rater traits}

% Past work has suggested that people respond more favorably to language more similar to their own. Considering we found that 
\subsection{Rater Identity (RQ2)}\label{ssec:reader-analyses}
% \ta{mention we also explore education, but not significant anywhere, so removed from regressions.}
We examine the association between rater traits and their story ratings using linear regressions controlling for image type and writing setup (similar to \S\ref{ssec:author-analyses}).
% To analyze , we ran linear regression models using story ratings as dependent variables and rater demographics and personality traits as independent variables in the model.
% We report $p$-value and $\beta$ coefficients for each regression feature.
% We include story and image type in each model as controlling variables. 
% To control for any interaction effects between rater and author demographics, 
We also investigate interaction effects with author demographics, 
%We also include author demographics and interaction features in these regressions, to control for interaction effects.
% We report on these interaction effects in \S\ref{ssec:interaction}, 
and show the full results of our regressions in Appendix~\ref{sup:rater-author-traits}.

% (-0.07807899260466722, 3.1370271030878045e-05)
% (-0.04135458315654655, 0.027618636692706578)
% (-0.08039771829103043, 1.8084351146010698e-05)
% (0.029420793385611505, 0.11718416698298315)
% (-0.059669989424431524, 0.001474454305808984)
% (-0.0631707411726776, 0.0007610806520565849)

\paragraph{Gender, age}
For age, we first noticed that older workers rated stories noticeably more negatively than younger workers (e.g., $r=-.08$, $p<.001$ for both the like and entertaining ratings). When inspecting the data we noticed this trend was most defined for raters  age 45 or older, and so we perform our analyses below using a binarized age variable, splitting raters as either 45 or older ($N=921$) and younger than 45 ($N=1916$).

% of age 45 and older rated stories noticeably more negatively than those under the age of 45 () For this reason, we perform our analyses using a binarized age variable, splitting raters as either 45 or older and younger than 45.
%\ms{we binarized writers too? There aren't that many writers over 45 I think right?} \ta{283 total, I binarized both as a way making the comparable.} \ta{Though considering there are no sig effects for input age one way or another, what do you think is clearer?}
Our findings indicate that, compared to younger raters, raters of age 45 and older liked the stories significantly less ($|\beta|=0$.42, $p<0$.001), and rated them as substantially less entertaining ($|\beta|=0$.39, $p<0$.001), less creative ($|\beta|=0$.25, $p<0$.05), more confusing ($|\beta|=0$.27, $p<0$.05), and less grammatical ($|\beta|=0$.30, $p<0$.05).
Interestingly, there was no significant association between annotator gender and story ratings. 


\paragraph{Personality}

Openness to experience is often linked to creativity~\cite{mccrae1987creativity}, so we explore how ratings of creativity are associated with rater and author openness to experience personality scores. 
We find significant correlations between story ratings and rater openness to experience.
Specifically, raters with higher openness to experience thought stories were generally more creative ($|\beta|=0$.38, $p<0$.05) and less confusing ($|\beta|=0$.64, $p<0$.001). Additionally, authors with higher openness scores wrote stories that were rated more creative ($|\beta|=0$.35, $p<0$.1)

\subsection*{Author-Rater Identity Interactions}
%\label{ssec:interaction}
% \ms{Potentially make a paragraph instead, for consistency}
We also investigate story ratings through the lens of author and rater demographics to see if any shared traits across raters and authors were associated with rater preferences.
Full details on the regression models are reported in Appendix~\ref{sup:rater-author-traits}.

% \paragraph{Gender, age}

% We find some evidence of an interaction between author and rater age for story ratings. While raters over 45 tended to rate stories as less entertaining and overall liking them less, when both the rater and the author were over the age of 45, raters found stories more entertaining ($|\beta|=0$.21, $p=0$.1) and overall liked them more ($|\beta|=0$.21, $p<0$.1) compared to stories authored by those under 45. 

%\paragraph{Personality - openness to experience}
While both reader and writer openness to experience were associated with significantly higher ratings of creativity, 
the interaction between the two was negative ($|\beta|=0$.50, $p<0.1$), meaning that as writer and reader openness to experience increased, the reader's rating of the story's creativity actually decreased. 
No other interactions (e.g., age, gender) were significant in our sample.

\subsection{Differences in writing setup (RQ3)}
\label{sec:writing-setup-analyses}
We quantify the differences in ratings for our two writing setups.
We average the ratings for each story, and report differences in Table \ref{tab:data-stats} using Cohen's $d$.
We find that stories written in full are rated as being higher quality across all dimensions, compared to stories written sequentially.

We also find that certain story topics were preferred over others ($F=26.17$, $p<0.$001). 
Specifically, stories written about the dog prompt were liked significantly more than others ($p<0.$001), and those about the jail prompt significantly less ($p<0.$001).
%and stories written about the jail scenes were liked significantly less than all other stories ($p<0.$001).
%To account for these effects, we control for story images and writing setup in all subsequent analyses. 


% Both reader and writer  openness to experience was associated with significantly higher ratings of creativity ($|\beta|=0$.49, $p<0$.001, $|\beta|=0$.38, $p=0$.05, respectively). However, the interaction between reader and writer openness was negative ($|\beta|=-0$.58, $p=0$.05 ), meaning that as writer and reader openness to experience increases, the reader's rating of the story's creativity actually decreases. 

% \ta{for discussion: This is surprising considering that reader and writer openness are individually associated with increased ratings of creativity, and it may suggest that the benefits of this personality trait associated with increased creativity ratings are mitigated when both the reader and writer share high  openness to experience. } \ta{did I interpret that correctly?}. 



% We specifically focus this analysis on personality traits, as past work has indicated the personality can strongly influence a person's response to stories written differently~\cite{}\ta{?}.  \footnote{We control for image choice in all of our rater demographic analyses.}

% \paragraph{Gender, age}

% We found that raters over the age of 45 on average found stories significantly less entertaining ($|\beta|=-0$.29, $p<0$.001), creative ($|\beta|=-0$.2, $p<0$.05), more confusing ($|\beta|=0$.21, $p<0$.05) and overall liking ($|\beta|=-0$.31, $p<0$.001) them less than raters younger 45. 

% Interestingly, there was a significant interaction between rater and author age in the opposite direction. When both the rater and the author were over the age of 45, raters found stories significantly more entertaining ($|\beta|=0$.21, $p<0$.05) and overall liked them more ($|\beta|=0$.21, $p<0$.05) compared to stories authored by those under 45. 
% \textit{Gender}

% We did not see any significant association of gender for either the rater or author on story quality metrics. Full details are in Appendix~\ref{sup:}\ta{Make this}.
% While we see come evidence that female authors generally have more highly rated stories, we observed no significant influence of rater gender on ratings or interaction between the two.  


% Gender: 

% Hypotheses: \ta{Something about what words we expect women/men to use more often.} \ta{Something about how we expect raters with those demographics to also prefer stories with those traits.} \ta{Finally something on how we do find that women prefer stories more written by women.}

% Analysis: Linear regression with writing condition as controlling variable, and annotator and writer gender, and interaction.

% Results: Woman:Woman matched to have higher ratings of stories. 


% \paragraph{Personality -  openness to experience}


% We were also curious how writer and rater personality might influence stories and their ratings. Past work has shown that people who have high openness~\cite{} tend to be more creative. Does this hold for writers in our dataset? 

% We collected  openness to experience scores for both writers and readers using the \ta{Big personality quiz}~\cite{}. Based on past work exploring creativity and  openness to experience, we expect to see writers with high  openness to experience to have more highly rated stories in terms of creativity. We also except reader openness to correlate with higher ratings of creativity, as this personality trait is associated with an ability to leverage one's imagination, which could make readers more open to different story telling modes ~\cite{}\ta{?}. 

% We run a linear regression with writing condition as a controlling variable, and reader and writer  openness to experience, as well as their interaction. 

% We found that both reader and writer  openness to experience is associated with significantly higher ratings of creativity ($|\beta|=0$.49, $p<0$.001, $|\beta|=0$.38, $p<0$.05, respectively). Interestingly, the interaction between reader and writer openness is negative ($|\beta|=-0$.58, $p<0$.01 ), meaning that as writer and reader  openness to experience increases, the reader's rating of the story's creativity actually decreases. This is surprising considering that reader and writer openness are individually associated with increased ratings of creativity, and it may suggest that the benefits of this personality trait associated with increased creativity ratings are mitigated when both the reader and writer share high  openness to experience.  \ta{did I interpret that correctly?}. 

% One explanation for this is that readers with high  openness to experience expect more creativity from stories, and those written by authors with potentially lower creativity are punished more. This could also act in the opposite direction, where readers who are less open to imaginative thinking are turned off by wild, imaginative stories, think them less creative or maybe unclear \ta{check if this also is corroborated by coherence analysis.} Indeed, we see some evidence of that when looking at confusing ratings. Raters with higher openness rate stories significantly less confusing compared to participants with higher openness \ta{p vals}. 



