Recent work has formalized the explanation process in the context of automated planning as one of model reconciliation - i.e. a process by which the planning agent can bring the explainee's (possibly faulty) model of a planning problem closer to its understanding of the ground truth until both agree that its plan is the best possible. The content of explanations can thus range from misunderstandings about the agent's beliefs (state), desires (goals) and capabilities (action model). Though existing literature has considered different kinds of these model differences to be equivalent, literature on the explanations in social sciences has suggested that explanations with similar logical properties may often be perceived differently by humans. In this brief report, we explore to what extent humans attribute importance to different kinds of model differences that have been traditionally considered equivalent in the model reconciliation setting. Our results suggest that people prefer the explanations which are related to the effects of actions.