# difference between interaction with anova and contrast functions

I'm trying to understand the difference between the interaction with the anova function and the interaction with the contrast function

library(emmeans)
pigs2 <- subset(pigs, pigs\$percent<15)
pigs.lm <- lm(log(conc) ~ source*factor(percent), data = pigs2)
anova(pigs.lm)


This is the output for the interaction

                        Df   Sum Sq  Mean Sq F value   Pr(>F)
source:factor(percent)  2 0.003116 0.001558  0.1211 0.887130


Now using emmeans

emm <- emmeans(pigs.lm, ~ source * factor(percent))
contrast(emm, list(con = c(1,0,-1,-1,0,1)))


which gives me

     contrast    estimate        SE df t.ratio p.value
con      -0.01946701 0.1389334 11   -0.14  0.8911


I realize that the significance is very similar, but shouldn't they be exactly the same? Also shouldn't the F value in the anova output above be the same as the t.ratio squared?

You will note in the anova table that the interaction has 2 d.f. That means that the interaction comprises two dimensions, and you need to see two interaction contrasts to explain it all. Try this:

(cons = contrast(emm, interaction = "consec"))


That shows one example of two contrasts involved in the interaction, and tests for each one. Do:

coef(cons)


to see exactly the contrast coefficients.

Finally, do

test(cons, joint = TRUE)


to see a test of the two contrasts jointly.