Decaying vegetables
Read the 4 decaying vegetables items: raw mean, concrete examples, missing responses and interpretation limits.
Add the 4 numeric 1–6 ratings and divide by 4, rounding to one decimal. Any unscored response withholds this part’s mean. The eight means are separate; no total, norm or cutoff is calculated.
The four vegetable-related source items
- This part names brown-colored avocado pulp, an overripe cucumber that can already be bent, shrunken radishes and salad that is no longer crispy. The source label is decaying vegetables. The prompts are reproduced as hypothetical situations, not as instructions for inspecting or deciding whether to eat real food.
- You are rating imagined disgust rather than the frequency of eating vegetables. A respondent may picture appearance, texture, a remembered meal or something unfamiliar. The questionnaire does not collect those details or establish a cause for the reaction. An unscored option is available whenever you cannot or prefer not to rate.
Four equal-weight numeric choices
- For ratings of 2, 2, 5 and 6, the sum is 15 and the mean is 3.75, displayed as 3.8. Each source item contributes one rating between 1 and 6. No vegetable item is reversed, and the raw mean is not rescaled into a percentage or adjusted against a population average.
- All four must be numeric for this part’s mean. Three numeric choices plus one unscored choice do not form the complete four-item result, even if the three values agree. The website shows numeric coverage and keeps the mean unavailable, while calculating any other fully rated part independently.
Read the scene ratings without a diet label
- A greater mean indicates greater stated disgust across the four named scenes. It does not show a dislike of all vegetables, a nutritional deficiency, food selectivity or how often a person eats a balanced meal. None of those facts is collected by these four hypothetical ratings.
- A lower mean gives no assurance about an actual food and no instruction to accept it. There is no normal-versus-abnormal threshold in this result. The number describes a response to a particular set of words, rather than certifying knowledge, resilience or the correctness of a food choice.
Texture changes may not feel alike
- One person may give a greater rating to the bendable cucumber than to salad losing its crispness. Another may find the avocado color change more evocative. These item differences are retained in the response review. A single mean cannot identify the detail each person pictured or why they responded.
- You do not need to know a named food well to finish the questionnaire, because unscored responses are allowed. Guessing a number only to obtain every mean may obscure that uncertainty. This full guide stays available whether the vegetable part has four numeric answers or none.
Vegetable, fruit and mold parts differ
- Fruit prompts concern overripe fruit, a spotted banana, pressure marks and apple browning. Mold prompts explicitly add mold and its removal. The three source parts remain distinct here. A vegetable response does not supply missing data for either of the other parts or create a general spoilage-detection score.
- Different raw means can reflect the different situations you were asked to imagine. Comparing two items can be more informative than naming the largest mean as a dominant trait. The website does not award such a trait and does not combine all eight parts into one food-avoidance identity.
Equal means can hide unequal responses
- Ratings of 1, 2, 5 and 6 average 3.5. Ratings of 3, 3, 4 and 4 also average 3.5. The sharper contrast in the first pattern remains real within the response record, even though the display means match. The number alone cannot describe every vegetable-related experience.
- A person might make the same practical food decision as another person while reporting a different imagined reaction. Conversely, the same reported reaction need not lead to the same choice. These possibilities show why a disgust mean cannot be used as a menu, a safety test or a judgment about another person.
Reflect on wording without recreating scenes
- If you want to reflect, pick two items and notice the details already stated in the wording. You can stop at noticing a difference without explaining it. Do not leave food to change, taste it or handle it to check a response; this activity contains no real-food task.
- Ending here is a complete outcome. You can review or clear device-local responses through the test controls. Optional public sharing contains the test title and entry link, with no vegetable mean or individual answer added to the public message.
Source, edition and attribution
- The 32 English prompts come from Supplementary Table 2 of García-Gómez L, Romero-Rebollar C, Hartmann C, Siegrist M, Ferreira G, Gutierrez-Aguilar R, Villalpando S and Pacheco-Lopez G (2020), Food Disgust Scale: Spanish Version, Frontiers in Psychology 11:165, DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00165, reused under CC BY 4.0. The document was supplied through NLM’s PMC open-access collection. This page selects the complete English bank and the article’s 1–6 endpoints; the Spanish table’s printed 1–5 format is not used.
- Changes comprise a fresh Chinese working translation from English, optional unscored responses, complete-part missingness handling, one-decimal display and original explanatory readings. This is not the validated Spanish administration or a validated Chinese version, and source research does not validate this website. No original-author endorsement, norm, diagnosis or food-safety judgment is implied.