TABLE 3.
Concert 1 models and their predictive performance.
| Model fit | Elpd difference | SE difference |
| Concert 1 | ||
| Simple Models | ||
| Model 2: Preference played | 0 | 0 |
| Model 4: Shared agency | –1.7 | 4.3 |
| Model 3: Self-agency | –1.7 | 4.3 |
| Model 5: All | –3.0 | 3.1 |
| Model 1: Vote | –3.0 | 3.5 |
| Complex Models | ||
| Model 2: Preference played | 0 | 0 |
| Model 3: Self-agency | –5.0 | 3.4 |
| Model 1: Vote | –5.3 | 3.6 |
| Model 4: Shared agency | –5.5 | 3.2 |
| Model 5: All | –9.0 | 3.2 |
| Concert 2 | ||
| Simple Models | ||
| Model 2: Presence | 0 | 0 |
| Model 1: Group | –4.1 | 3.5 |
| Model 3: Group + presence | –4.3 | 3.0 |
| Complex Models | ||
| Model 1: Group | 0 | 0 |
| Model 2: Presence | –0.9 | 4.8 |
| Model 3: Group + presence | –7.3 | 5.2 |
| Concert 3 | ||
| Simple Models | ||
| Model 2: Group + presence | 0 | 0 |
| Model 1: group | –14.7 | 3.7 |
| Complex Models | ||
| Model 2: Group + presence | 0 | 0 |
| Model 1: Group | –6.8 | 3.9 |
A meaningful difference is 2x the standard error.