Fish
Read the 4 fish 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.
Four different fish-related details
- The fish part asks about a whole fish with its head on the plate, raw fish such as sushi, the smell in a fish shop or fresh-fish section, and the texture of some fish in the mouth. These are the four published English items, kept as distinct prompts.
- Rate the disgust each imagined detail evokes if you wish. The task does not require seeing a photograph, smelling a shop, eating fish or recalling a private event. If a scene is outside your experience or too hard to imagine, an unscored answer is available without explanation.
The complete four-item fish mean
- Numeric responses range from 1 to 6. For example, 2, 3, 4 and 6 sum to 15; dividing by four gives 3.75, displayed as 3.8. The four items have equal weight. A response of 6 contributes six scale points, not a 60 percent chance of a reaction.
- Every item must have a numeric answer to show this part’s mean. A single unscored answer leaves the mean unavailable, with numeric coverage shown. No value is borrowed from the animal-flesh part, no zero is inserted, and fully rated parts elsewhere in the result remain available.
Describe fish-scene disgust precisely
- A greater mean means greater reported disgust for this particular set of four scenes. It does not measure taste preferences, fishing knowledge, seafood intake or a nutritional need. A lower mean likewise does not establish that every fish-related detail is comfortable or that any actual preparation is suitable.
- No clinical cutoff or population percentile is applied. The mean cannot show an allergy, an intolerance or whether a food is safe for an individual. These questions collect an imagined emotional response; they do not collect the information needed to answer practical dietary or health questions.
Appearance, smell and texture can diverge
- A person may rate the sight of a whole fish mildly and the imagined mouth texture strongly. Another may find the shop smell most evocative. The source groups the scenes together, but your average does not show which detail led the response; the individual choices retain that information.
- You may picture a familiar preparation or a scene you have only heard described. The wording cannot standardize every detail in that image. Your rating is therefore a report on the situation as you understood it, not a controlled sensory experiment or an objective comparison with another respondent.
The fish and animal-flesh parts stay separate
- Animal-flesh items name cartilage, raw meat, a bloody steak and a whole pig en brochette. They are not duplicates of the four fish items. Different means across the parts do not imply inconsistent answers, and the website does not merge them into one general meat-disgust or dietary-identity score.
- Poor-hygiene and living-contaminant scenes also provide different details. A greater fish mean does not explain how you would respond to those situations. Each complete part retains its own arithmetic, and the eight means have no overall total, ranking-based type or recommended diet attached.
The same mean is not the same fish reaction
- Ratings of 1, 1, 5 and 5 average 3.0, as do four ratings of 3. The first person reports a sharper distinction between scenes. Neither average identifies the exact item they would accept or avoid in daily life, and the questionnaire cannot infer a reason from the number alone.
- Someone may avoid fish for a reason unrelated to disgust, while someone who eats it may still report a strong reaction to one scene. The score cannot adjudicate either practice. It also cannot establish that another person should share the same reaction or change a food preference.
A comparison without sensory testing
- You can compare the wording of two fish items and notice whether they involve sight, smell, texture or another imagined detail. This is optional reflection. Do not recreate a scene or seek out a food to prove your score; no exposure activity is part of this questionnaire.
- It is also fine to stop with an unavailable mean. This full guide does not depend on giving every item a number. Sharing the public entry is optional and contains no personal fish score, answers or private response pattern.
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.