The influence of disgust sensitivity on self-reported food hygiene behaviour

Ammann, Jeanine; Siegrist, Michael; Hartmann, Christina

doi:10.1016/j.foodcont.2019.03.023

Cited by 22 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 45 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…FDS‐SHORT scores did not differ between Canada and England, suggesting that it may be a better choice than the FDS‐LONG for cross‐cultural research. Consistent with other literature, we found that males had lower FDS scores than females (Ammann et al, 2020; Ammann, Hartmann, & Siegrist, 2019; Ammann, Siegrist, & Hartmann, 2019; Egolf et al, 2019; Hartmann & Siegrist, 2018). As no males were included in the cross‐cultural analysis portion of our study, it is currently not known if food disgust in males differs between Canada and England.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

“…It is well‐established that women have higher levels of disgust than men (reviewed in: Al‐Shawaf, Lewis, & Buss, 2018). Consistent with this trend, mean FDS and FDS‐SHORT scores are higher for female subjects than male subjects (Ammann, Egolf, Hartmann, & Siegrist, 2020; Ammann, Hartmann, & Siegrist, 2019; Ammann, Siegrist, & Hartmann, 2019; Egolf et al, 2019; Hartmann & Siegrist, 2018). While cross‐cultural differences are difficult to interpret (Ares, 2018), Chinese and Swiss subjects rated the disgust elicited by 5 of 8 food related disgust‐eliciting images differently (Ammann et al, 2020).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 57%

“…If the current scores for the FDS‐LCON, FDS‐HUCO and FDS‐HYG do not represent the “true” extreme responses for food‐related disgust, increasing the number of scale point may also improve the performance of these subscales. However, the low number of males in our sample (22 of 155) may have inflated the ceiling effects, as on average females are more sensitive to disgust than are males (Ammann et al, 2020; Ammann, Hartmann, & Siegrist, 2019; Ammann, Siegrist, & Hartmann, 2019; Egolf et al, 2019; Hartmann & Siegrist, 2018).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 92%

“…For example, individuals with low food disgust sensitivity were more likely to consume or report intent to consume insects (Ammann, Hartmann, & Siegrist, 2018b; Lammers, Ullmann, & Fiebelkorn, 2019), meat substitutes (Siegrist & Hartmann, 2019), or cultured meat (Ruzgys & Pickering, 2020), and were more likely to have suffered a foodborne illness (Egolf, Siegrist, & Hartmann, 2018; Hartmann & Siegrist, 2018). Conversely, individuals with high disgust sensitivity were more likely to score high on food neophobia, germ aversion (Egolf et al, 2018; Hartmann & Siegrist, 2018) and food pickiness (Hartmann & Siegrist, 2018), and were more likely to participate in hygienic food preparation techniques (Ammann, Siegrist, & Hartmann, 2019).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

English version of the food disgust scale: Optimization and other considerations

Thibodeau

Yang

Ford

et al. 2021

Journal of Sensory Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The disgust elicited by food plays an important role in food choice and consumption. Recently, Hartmann and Siegrist (Food Quality and Preference, 2018, 63, 38–50) developed and validated in German the food disgust scale (FDS), a 32‐item instrument designed to measure visceral disgust elicited by food. In Study 1, we tested the English language translation of the FDS and its shortened version (FDS‐SHORT) in England (n = 85) and Canada (n = 70). The internal reliability (Cronbach's alpha and mean interitem correlation [MCI]) was acceptable for both the FDS (α = .90, MIC = .22) and the FDS‐SHORT (α = .73, MIC = .25). Exploratory factor analysis revealed that the English and German versions of the FDS had similar underlying structure and good discriminant validity. In Study 2, female participants (n = 159) who completed the FDS where the anchor term disgusted was used had higher FDS‐SHORT scores than either their male counterparts or females for whom the anchor term grossed out was used (F[2, 266] = 11.1, p < .001). As grossed out captures only visceral rather than moral disgust, we recommend its adoption in English versions of these scales. These studies confirm that, as modified, the English FDS and FDS‐SHORT are reliable and can be used with confidence in future research. Practical application This study has further assessed and optimized an English translation of the food disgust scale, which will allow for its use by food researchers and practitioners in English‐speaking countries. The finding that food disgust scores vary with sex and culture provides guidance to producers and marketers of novel food products and flavors.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 57%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 92%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

English version of the food disgust scale: Optimization and other considerations

Thibodeau

Yang

Ford

et al. 2021

Journal of Sensory Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A recently published food disgust scale predicts people's tendency to experience feelings of disgust when the food has some cues that might be considered indications of pathogen presence (for example, mould) or contamination (for example, touched by another person) 72 . Undoubtedly, disgust sensitivity can have an impact, not only on people's hygienic behaviour (for example, hand washing, kitchen hygiene) 73,74 , but also on their food selection behaviours and routines 75 . Concerning the acceptance of food technologies, researchers have just started to understand the influence of disgust.…”

Section: Individual Differences Among Peoplementioning

confidence: 99%

Consumer acceptance of novel food technologies

Siegrist¹,

Hartmann²

2020

Nat Food

Self Cite

415

212

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Novel food technologies are important for food security, safety and sustainability. Consumers, however, are often hesitant to accept them. In this narrative Review, we organize the research describing how heuristics and individual differences among consumers influence the acceptance of agri-food technologies. Associations evoked by a food technology, its perceived naturalness and trust in the industry using it influence consumer acceptance. Food neophobia, disgust sensitivity and cultural values are crucial personality factors for explaining individual differences. Using gene technology, nanotechnology, cultured meat and food irradiation as cases, we explore factors that may explain consumers' acceptance or lack of acceptance. Climate change, food supply shocks caused by crises such as pandemics and population growth are imminent threats to the food system. Therefore, disruptive food technologies will be needed to progress towards a more resilient food system. Taking into account the factors influencing consumers' perceptions of novel food technologies during the early stage of development and introduction will hopefully result in a higher acceptance of such technologies.

show abstract

Disgust and Eating Behavior

Hartmann,

Siegrist

2024

Handbook of Eating and Drinking

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The influence of disgust sensitivity on self-reported food hygiene behaviour

Cited by 22 publications

References 45 publications

English version of the food disgust scale: Optimization and other considerations

English version of the food disgust scale: Optimization and other considerations

Consumer acceptance of novel food technologies

Disgust and Eating Behavior

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About