Table 4 compares participants' interaction statement responses to those of a specified statement.
Vague, because merely presenting the term "interaction" and statements that alleles from different loci must interact in the determination of mutation fails to give the reader any clue to the molecular genetic mechanisms of allele interactions (alleles merely being variants of genes and not genes or retroposons etc. per se) and how they could modify an additional locus in a heritable mode.
Based on the interaction between statements 1 and 21, students who think that there is evidence against evolution are either more likely to agree that mutations cannot cause complex traits or are undecided on the issue.
Of these latter students, 69.4% agree that if a pond dried up, descendants of the current ducks living there will lose their webbed feet (interaction of statements 12 and 18; Table 3).
The interaction between statements 1 and 20 shows that students who agree that there is a lack of evidence supporting evolution more often have the opinion that evolution cannot be proven, whereas 68% of the students who think that there is not much evidence against evolution think that evolution can be proven.
The intermediate format describes the behavior with the help of synchronous guarded actions [31], which turned out to be well suited to eliminate the complex interaction of statements of the source language on the one hand, while preserving the synchronous semantics and allowing efficient analysis and generation of hardware and software code on the other hand.
Both, nevertheless, ultimately seek to render the complex relationships represented in these interactions to statements about abilities separate from the tasks or interactional situations.
Finally, the interactions between statements 5 and 11 ("Humanity came to be through evolution, which was controlled by God") are interesting.
As preliminary analysis confirmed a significant main effect of recognition statement type (p < 0.001) and a significant 3-way interaction between recognition statement type, recognition statement valence and training group (p < 0.001), we conducted separate 2 × 2 × 2 ANOVAs for target and foil ratings.
As our first mixed-measures ANOVA analysis showed a significant 3-way interaction between recognition statement type, recognition statement valence and training group [F 1,42) = 15.67, p < .001], we conducted separate 2 × 2 × 2 ANOVAs for target and foil ratings.
