TABLE 3.
Variable estimates for covariance and A, C, and E that underlie children’s vegetable liking, fruit liking, and FF1
| Variance components for bivariate A, C, and E, phenotypic correlation, % (bivariate estimates)3 |
Etiologic correlation (95% CI)4 |
||||||
| Food preference and FF scales | Phenotypic correlation (95% CI)2 | A | C | E | rg | rc | re |
| Vegetable liking × FF | −0.60 (−0.66, −0.55) | 70 (0.42) | 21 (0.13) | 9 (0.05) | −0.65 (−0.71, −0.59) | −0.97 (−1.00, −0.78) | −0.38 (−0.46, −0.29) |
| Fruit liking × FF | −0.40 (−0.46, −0.36) | 66 (0.26) | 24 (0.10) | 10 (0.04) | −0.42 (−0.50, −0.34) | −0.75 (−0.96, −0.39) | −0.27 (−0.36, −0.18) |
n = 2660 children. A, additive genetic effects, C, shared environment effects; E, unique environment effects; FF, food fussiness; rc, shared environmental correlation; re, unique environmental correlation; rg, genetic correlation.
Phenotypic correlations were derived from structural equation modeling.
Proportions of variance in the phenotypic correlation that are explained by common A, C, and E derived from structural equation modeling and converted to percentages for ease of interpretation. The sum of the bivariate components (shown in parentheses) equals the phenotypic correlation. All bivariate estimates were significant.
A genetic, shared environmental or unique environmental correlation was significant if the 95% CI did not include zero; all correlations in the model were significant.