Relational disparity: (2, 201) = 5.02, = 0.007; same as above F p Model 3: Three predictors, varies, and are fixed r g f AIC = -185.55 Gradient: (1, 200) = 6.78, = 0.0099; same as above F p Relational disparity: (2, 200) = 5.38, = 0.02; same as above F p Familiarity: (1, 200) = 65.12, < 0.0001; significantly improves explanatory power, F p but it is not yet clear whether its strength should vary across groups Model 4: Three predictors, and vary, is fixed r f g AIC = -187.74 Gradient: (1, 198) = 7.25, = 0.0077; same as above F p Relational disparity: (2, 198) = 6.02, = 0.015; same as above F p Familiarity: (2, 198) = 3.23, = 0.042; significant difference in strength of across F p f groups Final model: All three predictors included, strength of is constant, strengths of both and g r f vary across groups Model selection for Lazareva, Wasserman, & Young (2005) Model 1: Two predictors (r and both vary g), AIC = -99.41 Gradient: (2, 69) = 0.18, = 0.22; no evidence that strength of varies across groups F p g Relational disparity: (2, 69) = 22.27, < 0.00001; significant difference in strength of F p r across groups Model 2: Two predictors, varies, is fixed r g AIC = -103.07
Relational disparity: F (2, 201) = 5.02, p = 0.007; same as above Model 3: Three predictors, r varies, g and f are fixed AIC = -185.55 Gradient: F (1, 200) = 6.78, p = 0.0099; same as above Relational disparity: F (2, 200) = 5.38, p = 0.02; same as above Familiarity: F (1, 200) = 65.12, p < 0.0001; significantly improves explanatory power, but it is not yet clear whether its strength should vary across groups Model 4: Three predictors, r and f vary, g is fixed AIC = -187.74 Gradient: F (1, 198) = 7.25, p = 0.0077; same as above Relational disparity: F (2, 198) = 6.02, p = 0.015; same as above Familiarity: F (2, 198) = 3.23, p = 0.042; significant difference in strength of f across groups Final model: All three predictors included, strength of g is constant, strengths of both r and f vary across groups Model selection for Lazareva, Wasserman, & Young (2005) Model 1: Two predictors (r and g), both vary AIC = -99.41 Gradient: F (2, 69) = 0.18, p = 0.22; no evidence that strength of g varies across groups Relational disparity: F (2, 69) = 22.27, p < 0.00001; significant difference in strength of r across groups Model 2: Two predictors, r varies, g is fixed AIC = -103.07