Skip to main content
NCBI home page
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2021 Jul 14;16(7):e0254648. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0254648

Food disgust sensitivity predicts disease-preventing behaviour beyond the food domain in the COVID-19 pandemic in Germany

Jeanine Ammann 1,*, Meret Casagrande 1
Editor: Valerio Capraro2
PMCID: PMC8279350  PMID: 34260657

Abstract

In the fight against the COVID-19 pandemic, personal hygiene behaviours such as proper handwashing have gained significantly more attention and interpersonal contact is performed with great care. Disgust, as a disease-avoidance mechanism, can play an important role in the promotion of hygiene behaviour. We know from previous research that pathogen disgust can be a predictor of an individual’s behaviour in the pandemic. Given that the pandemic greatly affects our food and eating behaviour, the current study aims to add to the existing evidence and to complement it by investigating the role of food-specific disgust in the pandemic. For that, we conducted an online survey in Germany in April 2020, while the pandemic was spreading in Europe. A total of 519 participants completed the survey and provided information about their COVID-19-related attitudes and behaviours and about their food disgust sensitivity. The results show that food disgust sensitivity is an important predictor for an individual’s feelings, shopping behaviour, and disease-preventive behaviour related to the COVID-19 pandemic. Given that the success of political measures to fight the pandemic critically depends on the population to support and follow the proposed measures, a better understanding of the factors driving individual behaviour is key. Implications for pandemic management are discussed.

1 Introduction

In times of a global health crisis, quick mitigation is of crucial importance to weaken the impact the crisis has on people’s health and wealth. Besides governmental action aiming to fight the crisis, public support is key for the success of these actions. Both demographic and psychological factors influence an individual’s compliance. The current paper investigates what role sociodemographic variables and the psychological factor food disgust, which can be seen as a disease-avoidance mechanism, play in the successful mitigation of a pandemic.

1.1 COVID-19

In December 2019, the first cases of infection with the novel coronavirus, COVID-19, were reported in Wuhan, China, from where the virus spread rapidly across the globe [1]. In March 2020, the virus has developed into a pandemic and by July 2020, more than 12 million cases of COVID-19 have been reported [2, 3]. Symptoms caused by the virus include fever, cough, fatigue, and pneumonia [4, 5]. Older patients have a significantly higher risk of severe or fatal progression of the infection than younger people [1, 6]. Importantly, infected individuals can also appear asymptomatic and thus unknowingly help the transmission of the virus [7].

1.2 Mitigating the spread of COVID-19

To contain the spread of the virus form one person to another, the World Health Organisation (WHO) has proposed various measures including regular and proper handwashing with soap, wearing masks, and physical distancing [8, 9]. Adopting these behaviours helps reduce or delay the local spread of the virus, aims to avoid an overloading of the healthcare system, and to protect vulnerable groups [3, 10]. Countries differ widely in their attempts to mitigate the spread of the virus and in the measures they choose to do so [3]. Individuals, on the other side, differ in the extent to which they follow these government recommendations and whether and how they take health precautions. The best measures are worthless if the public is unwilling to comply [11]. With that, individual behaviour can be decisive for the success of the measures aiming to control the spread of the virus [3].

1.3 Motivation for compliance with virus-mitigating behaviour

Various factors influence whether individuals comply with behaviour recommendations or not. Besides sociodemographic information such as sex [12] and risk perception [13], personal abilities, people’s intrinsic motivation and individual differences in psychological variables were found to play an important role in whether they follow virus-mitigating behaviour recommendations [14, 15]. One of these psychological factors is disgust [16]. It is part of the behavioural immune system, a proactive system, which aims to mitigate the threat of disease before infection occurs [16, 17]. Tybur, Lieberman [18] identified three domains of disgust: (1) pathogen disgust, (2) sexual disgust and (3) moral disgust. Pathogen disgust can be seen as reactiveness to contamination threats and motivates avoidance of infectious microorganisms, resulting in reduced pathogen contact and lower risk of infection [19–21]. Minimising exposure to pathogens, disgust also impacts our hygiene, sexual, and social behaviour [22, 23]. Social behaviour is especially important in a pandemic, when physical distancing is recommended [24].

1.4 Disgust and virus-mitigating behaviour

We know from previous research, that pathogen disgust correlates with food disgust sensitivity [25]. However, food disgust covers more than the avoidance of pathogens [26]. It also includes cues that are neither pathogen-related nor pose a health risk. Nevertheless, food disgust can play a crucial role in hygiene behaviour. For instance, food disgust sensitivity was identified as an important driver for hygiene behaviour in the home kitchen [27]. Individuals with higher levels of food disgust sensitivity reported to perform hygiene behaviour more frequently than individuals with lower levels of food disgust sensitivity, thereby maintaining higher levels of food safety in their home kitchen. Similarly, disgust sensitive individuals were more reluctant to consume food that has passed its expiration date as compared to less disgust sensitive individuals [27]. Disgust has further been identified as important motivator for handwashing [28, 29], the frequency of cleaning or disinfecting [30], and disgust-based cues have successfully been used to promote handwashing [31]. Given this evidence, it is not surprising that disgust was also found to play an important role in the context of COVID-19, where hygiene behaviour and pathogen avoidance are crucial to contain the spread of the virus. Specifically, participants’ behaviour in terms of hygiene and physical distancing was predicted by pathogen disgust [32].

1.5 Aim

It has been argued that without the hygiene behaviour motivated by disgust, infectious diseases would cause far higher mortality [33]. Furthermore, mortality and disease threats have been associated with elevated levels of disgust [17]. Given that disgust helps disease avoidance and has been linked to individuals’ intention to comply with behaviour recommendations in the context of COVID-19, the present study explored the role of food disgust sensitivity as predictor for attitudes and behaviours related to the current pandemic. We chose a food-specific measure of disgust sensitivity for three reasons. First, it has been demonstrated that there is a relationship between pathogen disgust and behaviours related to the pandemic [32]. Given that we know that pathogen disgust and food disgust sensitivity are positively correlated [25], we aimed to add to the evidence by investigating the role food disgust sensitivity plays in mitigating the effects of the pandemic. Second, the current pandemic has a huge impact on how we buy, prepare, and consume food. Therefore, we expect some conceptual overlap between food disgust sensitivity, hygiene, and behaviours related to the pandemic. Third, we aim to investigate whether food disgust sensitivity, due to its risk avoidance nature, explains variance beyond the domain of food. Given that enforcement of virus-mitigating measures is costly and public compliance cannot be taken for granted [11], a better understanding of the mechanisms and motivations underlying virus-mitigating behaviours and attitudes can crucially contribute to the success of political measures aiming to contain the spread of the virus.

2 Methods

2.1 Participants

In April 2020, we conducted an online study with participants from Germany. We used an internet panel obtained from a commercial, ISO-certified panel provider (Respondi AG) to recruit participants. Equal numbers of male and female participants were obtained by applying quotas. We aimed for at least 250 male and female participants each. Assuming small to medium effect sizes (d = .25), this sample size provides ample power (.80) to detect possible effects (α = .05) with a one-tailed test [34]. Similarly, a sample of 500 provides sufficient power to compare dependent Pearson’s correlations with common index [35].

Completion of the online survey took between 10 and 15 minutes. Before starting with the survey, participants provided their written consent. This study was approved by the Ethics Committee of ETH Zurich (application 2020-N-47). The survey was completed by a total of 538 participants, of which we excluded 19 participants because the time they took to complete the survey was less than half the median of the survey duration calculated for the whole sample [for example, 36]. As a result, the final sample consisted of 519 participants (50% females). Participants’ age ranged from 21 to 71 years (M = 50, SD = 13).

2.2 Questionnaire

The final questionnaire consisted of three sections. In the first section, we asked participants about demographic and individual data, such as participants’ age, sex, educational level, and dietary habits, for example, whether they were vegan or vegetarian. This section also included questions about who was mainly responsible for grocery shopping in the household, how often they used to cook before the pandemic, and how often they cooked at the time of data collection. Furthermore, we asked participants to indicate whether they considered themselves as part of the group of people with higher risk from COVID-19.

Given that previous research reported a relationship between risk perception and behaviour related to the pandemic [13], we investigated self-reported behaviour and feelings regarding the COVID-19 pandemic in the second section (COVID-19 items). We asked participants to indicate their level of agreement with 24 items. When selecting the items, we aimed to cover the three domains of feelings and fears, preventive and protective behaviour, and shopping and stocking up. The domain feelings and fears describes is a measure for how and how much individuals feel threatened or affected by the virus (e.g., I am afraid of contracting the virus). Items selected for the domain preventive and protective behaviour are mostly behaviours which are commonly recommended to help contain the virus (e.g., washing hands with soap). Finally, the domain shopping and stocking up describes shopping behaviours that either help fight the virus (e.g., buying disinfectant) or which help reduce exposure to the virus (e.g., stock buying to reduce trips to the store). Responses for all items were given on a six-point scale from 1 (do not agree at all) to 6 (agree very much). The complete list of selected items can be found in the S1 Appendix.

The third and final section included a measure of disgust sensitivity. To the best of our knowledge, the FDS short is the only available disgust measure that specifically focuses on the domain of food. As a result, we used the 8-item short version of the Food Disgust Scale [FDS short, 26] as a measure of food-specific disgust. The FDS short includes eight food-specific items from different domains of food disgust (meat, mould, fruit, fish, hygiene, vegetable, human contamination, and living contamination). Participants rated these eight situations or products on a scale from 1 (not disgusting at all) to 6 (extremely disgusting). Sample items were “To eat with dirty silverware in a restaurant” or “To eat brown-coloured avocado pulp”. The scale had good reliability (8 items, α = .79, M = 4.11, SD = 1.00).

2.3 Data analysis

We conducted principal component analysis (PCA) to confirm the assumed one-dimensional structure of the three domains feelings and fears, preventive and protective behaviour, and shopping and stocking up which we used to measure participants’ self-reported disease-preventive behaviour. We considered factors with eigenvalues larger than one as relevant and made use of the interpretability criterion, that is, we made sure that all factors were interpretable. We used the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure (KMO ≥ .5) and Bartlett’s test of sphericity (p < .05) to determine the adequacy of the dataset for a factor analysis [37]. We calculated Cronbach’s alpha coefficients to check the reliability and internal consistencies of the new scales (values > .6 were considered adequate). In addition, we investigated the relationship between the factors and food disgust sensitivity using Pearson’s correlations, and finally, we assessed the influence of food disgust sensitivity on disease-preventive behaviour using multiple hierarchical regression models. We analysed all data with Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) version 25 (IBM, New York, USA) for Windows. Power calculations to compute the required sample size were done using G*Power version 3.1.9.4 for Windows [34].

3 Results

3.1 Participants

About half of our sample (52%) indicated not to belong to the group of people with higher risk from COVID-19, 38% believed themselves to be at a higher risk, and 10% did not know. Only 1% of the sample stated that they had already contracted COVID-19. Asking participants how frequently they used to cook meals at home before the pandemic and at the time of data collection revealed that the self-reported cooking frequency during the pandemic was higher than before the pandemic (t = 5.93, p < .001).

3.2 Disease-preventing behaviour and fears related to COVID-19

Reliability analyses revealed that one of the feelings and fears items was problematic (see Table 4 in S1 Appendix for the complete list of items). We ran a PCA on the remaining six items. The results confirmed the one-dimensional structure. The overall KMO measure was .84 and Bartlett’s test of sphericity was statistically significant (p < .001). Three of the preventive and protective behaviour had to be excluded on the basis of the reliability analyses. We ran a PCA on the remaining seven items. The results confirmed the one-dimensional structure. The overall KMO measure was .82 and Bartlett’s test of sphericity was statistically significant (p < .001). Reliability analyses revealed that one of the shopping and stocking up items was problematic. We ran a PCA on the remaining 6 items. The results confirmed the one-dimensional structure. The overall KMO measure was .78 and Bartlett’s test of sphericity was statistically significant (p < .001). For each of the three factors, we computed an averaged rating scale. All scales had good reliabilities (α < .75). The final list of items, including mean values, reliabilities, and factor loadings, can be found in Table 1.

Table 1. Items used to assess attitudes and behaviours related to the COVID-19 pandemic, including their factor loadings, means (M), 95% confidence intervals (CI), and standard deviations (SD), N = 519.

# Item Factor loading M SD
Feelings and fears (6 items, α = 0.87)
20 I am afraid of contracting the coronavirus. .858 3.75 1.75
21 I am afraid of contracting my family and friends with the coronavirus. .821 4.30 1.71
2 I feel threatened by the current situation regarding the spread of the coronavirus in Germany. .795 3.62 1.59
22 I am afraid of contracting strangers with the coronavirus. .785 3.91 1.68
23 I am afraid of an overloading of the health care system. .757 3.91 1.68
1 I feel affected by the current situation regarding the spread of the coronavirus in Germany. .673 4.28 1.53
Preventive and protective behaviour (7 items, α = 0.77)
17 I keep distance when I meet or come across people. .784 5.44 1.02
8 I avoid shaking hands with other people. .715 5.49 1.09
6 I always wash my hands thoroughly with soap. .684 5.34 1.04
4 I consciously try not to touch my face with my hands. .672 4.56 1.48
19 When I develop symptoms like fever or cough, I stay at home. .634 5.51 1.04
18 I try not to touch door handles any more. .620 4.22 1.73
14 I try to avoid public transport. .560 4.99 1.66
Shopping and stocking up (6 items, α = 0.77)
12 I am increasingly buying long-life food (e.g. canned food, pasta, …). .813 3.04 1.68
5 I have built up an emergency supply of food. .771 2.97 1.67
7 I have built up an emergency supply of toilet paper. .754 2.44 1.64
10 I am increasingly buying packed food (e.g. packed vegetables instead of vegetables in open sale). .682 2.61 1.75
9 I bought disinfectant. .599 3.68 2.08
24 I am afraid of no longer being able to get the products of daily use (food, toilet paper, …). .507 2.79 1.65
Open in a new tab

Note. Statements were rated on a scale from 1 (do not agree at all) to 6 (completely agree).

3.3 Disease-preventing behaviour and food disgust sensitivity

Table 2 depicts the relationship between food disgust sensitivity, the COVID-19 items, age, and sex. As widely reported in the literature [for instance, 38, 39], food disgust sensitivity was significantly associated with sex, with females being more disgust sensitive than males. Furthermore, food disgust sensitivity was significantly associated with all three domains feelings and fears, preventive and protective behaviour, and shopping and stocking up. With increasing food disgust sensitivity, participants reported higher levels of fear related to COVID-19, higher frequencies for preventive or protective behaviour and higher frequencies for shopping and stocking behaviour that aims to reduce exposure to the virus.

Table 2. Pearson’s correlations for food disgust sensitivity, attitudes or behaviours related to the COVID-19 pandemic, age, and sex N = 519.

1 2 3 4 5 6
1. FDS short 1
2. Feelings and fears .15*** 1
3. Preventive and protective behaviour .20*** .46*** 1
4. Shopping and stocking up .27*** .38*** .25*** 1
5. Age .03 .10* .20*** <-.01 1
6. Sex -.16*** -.16*** -.25*** -.07 -.09* 1
Open in a new tab

Note. FDS short: eight-item Food Disgust Scale [26]; feelings and fears: items related to fears and feelings; preventive and protective behaviour: items related to COVID-19-preventive behaviours, shopping and stocking up: items related to shopping and hoarding behaviours; sex: 0 = females, 1 = males.

*p < .05

**p < .01

*** p < .001.

To investigate the influence of food disgust sensitivity on the coronavirus-related behaviours and feelings while controlling for the effect of age and sex, multiple hierarchical regression analyses were run. The final models predicting COVID-19-related feelings, shopping behaviour, and behaviours aiming to minimise the infection rate were significant and explained 5%, 8%, and 12% of the variance, respectively (Table 3). After controlling for age and sex, food disgust sensitivity was a significant predictor in all three models.

Table 3. Multiple regression analysis predicting the attitudes or behaviours related to the COVID-19 pandemic from age, sex, and food disgust sensitivity, N = 519.

Feelings and fears Preventive and protective behaviour Shopping and stocking up
Variable B SE ß B SE ß B SE ß
Step 1
    Constant 3.680*** .240 4.676*** .153 3.043*** .223
    Sex -.386** .114 -.148 -.393*** .072 -.229 -.158 .106 -.066
    Age .008 .004 .082 .012*** .003 .179 -.001 .004 -.009
    R2 .03 .09 < .01
    F 8.17*** 26.09*** 1.11
Step 2
    Constant 2.957*** .338 4.086*** .214 1.679*** .306
    Sex -.331** .114 -.127 -.348*** .072 -.202 -.053 .103 -.022
    Age .008 .004 .080 .012*** .003 .177 -.001 .004 -.014
    FDS short .172** .057 .131 .140*** .036 .163 .325*** .052 .270
    R2 .05 .12 .08
    F 8.55*** 22.92*** 13.97***
Open in a new tab

Note. Sex: 0 = females, 1 = males

4 Discussion

The amount of scientific literature dealing with the COVID-19 pandemic has increased massively, in the medical domain and beyond [40]. To optimise the efforts to mitigate the spread of the virus, it is crucial to understand individuals’ motivation to follow behaviour recommendations. So far, relatively few studies have looked at psychological factors predicting behaviours related to the COVID-19 pandemic [14]. On the basis that disgust has been associated with both behaviours related to the pandemic [32], general hygiene behaviour such as hand-washing behaviour [29, 41], and food-specific hygiene behaviour in the home kitchen [27], the present paper investigated the role food disgust sensitivity plays in this major health crisis caused by COVID-19. Specifically, the paper investigated the predictive power of food disgust sensitivity for various behaviours related to the mitigation of the pandemic, which are important to understand the related attitudes and behaviours.

4.1 Disgust

Our results indicated that individuals with high food disgust sensitivity tend to express more fear related to the COVID-19 pandemic, perform the recommended behaviours more frequently, and show a higher tendency for hoarding behaviour than individuals with lower food disgust sensitivity. With that, it seems that these individuals maintain higher levels of safety. Fear, as a response to an infection risk, can cause avoidance behaviour and thereby reduce the risk of infection [16]. The virus-mitigating behaviours specifically aim to reduce the risk of infection or spread of the virus, and hoarding behaviour can reduce the necessity to go shopping and thereby reduces possible exposure to the virus. Still, it needs to be acknowledged that correlation does not equal causation. The pandemic comes with an increased pathogen pressure, which in turn can up-regulate disgust sensitivity. For instance, Stevenson, Saluja [42] found that disgust levels assessed during the time of the pandemic were higher than the values reported before the pandemic. Similarly, we noticed that the average food disgust sensitivity in our sample was higher than the values reported in previous studies conducted in Germany before the pandemic [M = 3.84 [females] and M = 3.58 [males]; 25]. These findings may serve as an indication that increased pathogen threat, as imposed through the pandemic, leads to an increase in disgust sensitivity. However, these interpretations should be further underpinned by additional research.

The regression models explained between 5 and 12% of variance in COVID-19-related attitudes and behaviour. Not surprisingly, these values are in a slightly lower range than what previous studies reported for food-related behaviours [27, 43]. Given that the FDS short is a domain-specific disgust measure which focuses on food, this finding was expected. The correlations reported herein between attitudes and behaviours related to COVID-19 and food disgust sensitivity ranged from 0.15 to 0.27, which can be seen as small- to large-sized effects [44].

The highest correlation values were found for the shopping and stocking up items. One explanation for this finding certainly stems from the fact that four out of the six shopping items deal with food. Given that these behaviours ultimately aim to reduce the risk of infection with the virus (e.g., by buying products that help prevent an infection), they serve the same risk avoidance purpose as disgust. For the hoarding behaviours, we reason that these behaviours are a means for individuals to deal with the uncertainty and panic caused by the pandemic. Obtaining emergency supplies of food and toilet paper not only provides individuals with a certain degree of power and agency in these uncertain times but also reduces the risk of infection by making sure that basic supplies are available and thereby turning frequent shopping trips unnecessary. Similar effects were found for books, as Nguyen, Tran [45] reported that due to the pandemic, many consumers no longer go to the stores but avoid taking this health risk by buying the products online instead.

4.2 Sociodemographic correlates

In line with previous research [3, 11, 15], we found that females showed more compliance with the COVID-19 behaviour recommendations than males. For instance, Capraro and Barcelo [12] found that females were more likely to wear face coverings than males. Our research shows that this effect also applies to other types of preventive behaviours such as staying at home or keeping some distance. Females also reported higher levels of fear related to the COVID-19 pandemic than males. Given that with older age, individuals face a higher risk of mortality caused by COVID-19, a relationship with age was to be assumed. Indeed, age was a significant predictor for virus-mitigating behaviour. This is further in line with previous research conducted in France [11].

4.3 Limitations and outlook

Our study has a few limitations that need to be addressed. Our data relies on self-report, which makes it subject to individual bias. It might be interesting for future research to compare our findings with observational data. Another question that should be addressed henceforth is whether these findings can be translated to other pandemics as well. Given that similar constructs for food disgust sensitivity have been used cross-culturally [25, 46], another interesting endeavour would be to test whether these relationships can be found across different countries. Not only have individuals been affected differently by the pandemic depending on their socio-demographic background [47], but individual disgust sensitivity also depends strongly on the environment in which an individual lives [see 48 for a discussion].

Our research has implications for research and practice. The field of food disgust is still young, and many discoveries remain to be made. Our study adds another piece to the puzzle. In terms of practice, the design of interventions to mitigate the spread of the virus can build on our findings. As the pandemic progresses, it becomes harder to motivate the public to follow the behaviour recommendations. In this regard, social science can play an important role in supporting behaviour change [49]. Based on our results, we suggest that the use of disgust cues can be used as a measure to motivate preventive behaviour. Young, Reimer [50] found that for most safe food handling constructs, there were no consistent relationships between knowledge and behaviour. As argued elsewhere [27], we reason that disgust can trigger an automatic response and thereby help promote disease avoidant behaviour in addition and in support to the promotion of knowledge. The COVID-19 pandemic not only shapes people’s behaviour during the pandemic but it is also expected to affect behaviour patterns in the long term [51]. It will be interesting for future research to examine whether the pandemic has led to a change in individual disgust sensitivity.

5 Conclusion

The present study demonstrates the important role food disgust can play as disease avoidance mechanism in the context of a global health crisis and beyond the domain of food. Specifically, our results indicate that food disgust sensitivity is a significant predictor for an individual’s feelings, shopping behaviour, and disease-preventive behaviour related to the COVID-19 pandemic. With that, our findings can be used to support policy and practice in the design and implementation of measures and recommendations to help contain the spread of a virus. Further research is needed to test these associations in an experimental setting and investigate whether they translate into actual behaviour. Finally, we find that individuals with high food disgust sensitivity may not only protect themselves from foodborne diseases but may also contribute significantly to the mitigation of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Supporting information

S1 Appendix

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file. (16.4KB, docx)

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Prof. Dr. Michael Siegrist for his valuable support in the study design and critical feedback on the manuscript.

Data Availability

The data underlying the results presented in the study are available from https://doi.org/10.3929/ethz-b-000490138.

Funding Statement

The authors received no specific funding for this work.

References

  • 1.Wang W.E., Tang J.M., and Wei F.Q., Updated understanding of the outbreak of 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) in Wuhan, China. Journal of Medical Virology, 2020. 92(4): p. 441–447. doi: 10.1002/jmv.25689 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.World Health Organization (WHO). situation report. 2020; Available from: https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/coronaviruse/situation-reports/20200712-covid-19-sitrep-174.pdf?sfvrsn=5d1c1b2c_2.
  • 3.Clark C., et al., Predictors of COVID-19 voluntary compliance behaviors: An international investigation. Global Transitions, 2020. 2: p. 76–82. doi: 10.1016/j.glt.2020.06.003 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Adhikari S.P., et al., Epidemiology, causes, clinical manifestation and diagnosis, prevention and control of coronavirus disease (COVID-19) during the early outbreak period: a scoping review. Infectious Diseases of Poverty, 2020. 9(1). doi: 10.1186/s40249-020-00646-x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Holshue M.L., et al., First Case of 2019 Novel Coronavirus in the United States. New England Journal of Medicine, 2020. 382(10): p. 929–936. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Feng Y., et al., COVID-19 with Different Severities: A Multicenter Study of Clinical Features. American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, 2020. 201(11): p. 1380–1388. doi: 10.1164/rccm.202002-0445OC [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Shen K.L., et al., Diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of 2019 novel coronavirus infection in children: experts’ consensus statement. World Journal of Pediatrics, 2020. 16(3): p. 223–231. doi: 10.1007/s12519-020-00343-7 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.World Health Organization (WHO). Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) advice for the public. 2020. 15.05.2020]; Available from: https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/advice-for-public. [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Wilder-Smith A. and Freedman D.O., Isolation, quarantine, social distancing and community containment: pivotal role for old-style public health measures in the novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) outbreak. Journal of Travel Medicine, 2020. 27(2). doi: 10.1093/jtm/taaa020 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Sheikh A., Sheikh Z., and Sheikh A., Novel approaches to estimate compliance with lockdown measures in the COVID-19 pandemic. J Glob Health, 2020. 10(1): p. 010348. doi: 10.7189/jogh.10.010348 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Brouard S., Vasilopoulos P., and Becher M., Sociodemographic and Psychological Correlates of Compliance with the COVID-19 Public Health Measures in France. Canadian Journal of Political Science, 2020: p. 1–6. [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Capraro V. and Barcelo H., The effect of messaging and gender on intentions to wear a face covering to slow down COVID-19 transmission. Journal of Behavioral Economics for Policy, 2020. 4(Special Issue 2): p. 45–55. [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Dryhurst S., et al., Risk perceptions of COVID-19 around the world. Journal of Risk Research, 2020. 23(7–8): p. 994–1006. [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Harper C.A., et al., Functional Fear Predicts Public Health Compliance in the COVID-19 Pandemic. International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction, 2020. doi: 10.1007/s11469-020-00281-5 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.van Rooij B., et al., Compliance with COVID-19 mitigation measures in the United States. PsyArXiv, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Troisi A., Fear of Covid-19: Insights from Evolutionary Behavioral Science. Clinical Neuropsychiatry, 2020. 17(2): p. 72–75. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Ackerman J.M., Hill S.E., and Murray D.R., The behavioral immune system: Current concerns and future directions. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 2018. 12(2). [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Tybur J.M., Lieberman D., and Griskevicius V., Microbes, mating, and morality: individual differences in three functional domains of disgust. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2009. 97(1): p. 103–22. doi: 10.1037/a0015474 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Curtis V., Why disgust matters. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B-Biological Sciences, 2011. 366(1583): p. 3478–3490. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2011.0165 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.van Overveld M., de Jong P.J., and Peters M.L., The Disgust Propensity and Sensitivity Scale—Revised: Its predictive value for avoidance behavior. Personality and Individual Differences, 2010. 49(7): p. 706–711. [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Shook N.J., Thomas R., and Ford C.G., Testing the relation between disgust and general avoidance behavior. Personality and Individual Differences, 2019. 150. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2019.07.003 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Lenk M., et al., The source effect as a natural function of disgust in interpersonal context and its impairment in mental disorders. Sci Rep, 2019. 9(1): p. 4239. doi: 10.1038/s41598-019-40802-4 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Terrizzi J., et al., The behavioral immune system and social conservatism: A meta-analysis. Evolution Human Behavior, 2013. 34(2): p. 99–108. [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Olivera-La Rosa A., Chuquichambi E.G., and Ingram G.P.D., Keep your (social) distance: Pathogen concerns and social perception in the time of COVID-19. Pers Individ Dif, 2020. 166: p. 110200. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2020.110200 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Egolf A., et al., Cross-cultural validation of the Food Disgust Scale (FDS) short in ten countries. Appetite, 2019. doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2019.104420 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Hartmann C. and Siegrist M., Development and validation of the Food Disgust Scale. Food Quality and Preference, 2018. 63: p. 38–50. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Ammann J., Siegrist M., and Hartmann C., The influence of disgust sensitivity on self-reported food hygiene behaviour. Food Control, 2019. 102: p. 131–138. [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Curtis V., Danquah L.O., and Aunger R.V., Planned, motivated and habitual hygiene behaviour: an eleven country review. Health Education Research, 2009. 24(4): p. 655–673. doi: 10.1093/her/cyp002 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Pellegrino R., Crandall P.G., and Seo H.S., Hand washing and disgust response to handling different food stimuli between two different cultures. Food Research International, 2015. 76: p. 301–308. [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Shook N.J., et al., Disease avoidance in the time of COVID-19: The behavioral immune system is associated with concern and preventative health behaviors. PLoS One, 2020. 15(8): p. e0238015. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0238015 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Porzig-Drummond R., et al., Can the emotion of disgust be harnessed to promote hand hygiene? Experimental and field-based tests. Social Science & Medicine, 2009. 68(6): p. 1006–1012. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2009.01.013 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Gul P., et al., Disease avoidance motives trade-off against social motives, especially mate-seeking, to predict social distancing: Evidence from the Covid-19 pandemic. PsyArXiv, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Curtis V., de Barra M., and Aunger R., Disgust as an adaptive system for disease avoidance behaviour. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B-Biological Sciences, 2011. 366(1563): p. 389–401. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2010.0117 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Faul F., et al., G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 2007. 39(2): p. 175–191. doi: 10.3758/bf03193146 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Faul F., et al., Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research Methods, 2009. 41(4): p. 1149–1160. doi: 10.3758/BRM.41.4.1149 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Hartmann C., Keller C., and Siegrist M., Compensatory beliefs, nutrition knowledge and eating styles of users and non-users of meal replacement products. Appetite, 2016. 105: p. 775–781. doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2016.07.013 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Yong A.G. and Pearce S., A beginner’s guide to factor analysis: focusing on exploratory factor analysis. Tutorials in Quantitative Methods for Psychology, 2013. 9(2): p. 79–94. [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Ammann J., Hartmann C., and Siegrist M., Development and validation of the Food Disgust Picture Scale. Appetite, 2018. 125: p. 367–379. doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2018.02.020 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Egolf A., Siegrist M., and Hartmann C., How people’s food disgust sensitivity shapes their eating and food behaviour. Appetite, 2018. 127: p. 28–36. doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2018.04.014 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Haghani M., et al., The scientific literature on coronaviruses, COVID-19 and its associated safety-related research dimensions: A scientometric analysis and scoping review. Saf Sci, 2020: p. 104806. doi: 10.1016/j.ssci.2020.104806 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Thorpe S.J., et al., The mediating roles of disgust sensitivity and danger expectancy in relation to hand washing behaviour. Behavioural and Cognitive Psychotherapy, 2011. 39(2): p. 175–190. doi: 10.1017/S1352465810000676 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Stevenson R.J., Saluja S., and Case T.I., The Impact of the Covid-19 Pandemic on Disgust Sensitivity. Front Psychol, 2020. 11: p. 600761. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.600761 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Ammann J., Hartmann C., and Siegrist M., Does food disgust sensitivity influence eating behaviour? Experimental validation of the Food Disgust Scale. Food Quality and Preference, 2018. 68: p. 411–414. [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Funder D.C. and Ozer D.J., Evaluating effect size in psychological research: sense and nonsense. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 2019. 2(2): p. 156–168. [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Nguyen H.V., et al., Online book shopping in Vietnam: The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic situation. Publishing Research Quarterly, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Ammann J., et al., Cross-national comparison of the Food Disgust Picture Scale between Switzerland and China using confirmatory factor analysis. Food Quality and Preference, 2020. 79. [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Martinez I.Z., et al., Corona und Ungleichheit in der Schweiz. Eine erste Analyse der Verteilungsauswirkungen der Covid-19-Pandemie, in KOF Studien. 2021. [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Ammann J., Hartmann C., and Siegrist M., A bitter taste in the mouth: The role of 6-n-propylthiouracil taster status and sex in food disgust sensitivity. Physiology & Behavior, 2019. 204: p. 219–223. doi: 10.1016/j.physbeh.2019.02.036 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Bavel J.J.V., et al., Using social and behavioural science to support COVID-19 pandemic response. Nat Hum Behav, 2020. 4(5): p. 460–471. doi: 10.1038/s41562-020-0884-z [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Young I., et al., Psychosocial and health-status determinants of safe food handling among consumers: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Food Control, 2017. 78: p. 401–411. [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Wen J., et al., COVID-19: potential effects on Chinese citizens’ lifestyle and travel. Tourism Review, 2020. [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Valerio Capraro

21 May 2021

PONE-D-21-12532

Food disgust sensitivity predicts disease-preventing behaviour beyond the food domain in the COVID-19 pandemic in Germany.

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Ammann,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please find below the reviewer's comments, as well as those of mine.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jul 05 2021 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Valerio Capraro

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments:

I have now collected one review from one expert in the field. I was unable to find a second reviewer, but I am myself familiar with the topic of this manuscript, therefore I feel confident in making a decision with only one review. The reviewer is positive and suggests minor revision. I agree with the reviewer. Therefore, I would like to invite you to revise your work for Plos One. Needless to say that all the reviewer's comments should be addressed. Moreover, I would like to add a few more comments from my own reading of the paper, mainly regarding the literature review. Indeed, you report several interesting results that are in line with previous work, and so they should be discussed in this larger context: (i) You report a correlation between feeling of fears and preventative behaviour. This correlation has been reported also in other studies (Capraro & Barcelo, 2020; Dryhurst et al. 2020); (ii) you find gender differences in preventative behavior. This was also reported previously (Capraro & Barcelo, 2020); (iii) This "perspective article" on what social and behavioural science can do to support pandemic response can be useful: Van Bavel et al. (2020).

I am looking forward for the revision.

Capraro V, Barcelo H (2020) The effect of messaging and gender on intentions to wear a face covering to slow down COVID-19 transmission. Journal of Behavioral Economics for Policy 4, Special Issue 2, 45-55.

Dryhurst, S., Schneider, C. R., Kerr, J., Freeman, A. L., Recchia, G., Van Der Bles, A. M., ... & van der Linden, S. (2020). Risk perceptions of COVID-19 around the world. Journal of Risk Research, 23(7-8), 994-1006.

Van Bavel JJ, et al (2020) Using social and behavioural science to support COVID-19 pandemic response. Nature Human Behaviour 4, 460-471.

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

3. We note that you have indicated that data from this study are available upon request. PLOS only allows data to be available upon request if there are legal or ethical restrictions on sharing data publicly. For more information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions.

In your revised cover letter, please address the following prompts:

a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially sensitive information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent.

b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories.

We will update your Data Availability statement on your behalf to reflect the information you provide.

4. We note you have included a table to which you do not refer in the text of your manuscript. Please ensure that you refer to Table 3 and 4 in your text; if accepted, production will need this reference to link the reader to the Table.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Partly

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: No

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The study investigated the link between food disgust sensitivity and an individual’s feelings, shopping behavior, and disease-preventive behavior related to the COVID-19 pandemic. The research question is interesting and the data are a valuable contribution to the field. Overall, it is an interesting and well-written manuscript. I enjoyed reading the submission very much. I have only minor comments to further improve the manuscript.

1. My main concern: causation needs to be more carefully addressed. It seems, that authors assumed that increased food disgust sensitivity may predict higher levels of fear related to COVID-19. However, higher pathogen threat (i.e. fear related to COVID-19) may influence disgust sensitivity and pathogen avoidance behavior. It is worth citing some research that demonstrates experimental manipulations of pathogen threat might up-regulate disgust sensitivity (i.e., behavioral immune system processes). The following two papers may (or may not) be useful for some of the discussion on the link between disgust sensitivity and pathogen threat during COVID-19 pandemic: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.600761 https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.622634

The language throughout needs to be more cautious and authors should be more attentive to other potential causal scenarios.

2. As a general rule, a full stop is not used at the end of a title.

3. In the introduction, Authors write, “A common disgust response is avoidance, resulting in reduced pathogen contact and lower risk of infection (…) disgust is a pathogen-avoidance mechanism….” Consider specifying pathogen disgust here (reactiveness to contamination threats), since sexual and moral disgust do not appear to neutralize infection (see https://doi.org/10.1037/a0030778).

4. Perhaps a little more justification as to why, only food disgust sensitivity was measured. More space should be devoted in the introduction and methods to describing why you chose the measures you chose (the Food Disgust Scale), and why certain related measures (e.g., the Three Domain Disgust Scale, the Disgust Scale-Revised or sets of images associated with contagion risk) were not included. More transparency about your design decisions would be helpful for readers to evaluate the study's methods.

5. Any a priori decisions that factored into your sample size (rules of thumb, power analyses) should reported.

6. In affluent parts of the world it is possible to choose to avoid a pathogen if you think one may be present e.g. in expired food as other meals are available. In some environments people have no way to avoid similar warning signs – can it be assessed in future research directions?

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2021 Jul 14;16(7):e0254648. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0254648.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0

21 Jun 2021

Reviewer #1:

The study investigated the link between food disgust sensitivity and an individual’s feelings, shopping behavior, and disease-preventive behavior related to the COVID-19 pandemic. The research question is interesting and the data are a valuable contribution to the field. Overall, it is an interesting and well-written manuscript. I enjoyed reading the submission very much. I have only minor comments to further improve the manuscript.

*

We thank the reviewer for this positive feedback and the helpful comments.

**

1. My main concern: causation needs to be more carefully addressed. It seems, that authors assumed that increased food disgust sensitivity may predict higher levels of fear related to COVID-19. However, higher pathogen threat (i.e. fear related to COVID-19) may influence disgust sensitivity and pathogen avoidance behavior. It is worth citing some research that demonstrates experimental manipulations of pathogen threat might up-regulate disgust sensitivity (i.e., behavioral immune system processes). The following two papers may (or may not) be useful for some of the discussion on the link between disgust sensitivity and pathogen threat during COVID-19 pandemic: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.600761 https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.622634

The language throughout needs to be more cautious and authors should be more attentive to other potential causal scenarios.

*

We thank the reviewer for this remark. We worked through the manuscript, adapting the language, and adding more caution to the formulations. Importantly, we added more detail to the discussion:

… Still, it needs to be acknowledged that correlation does not equal causation. The pandemic comes with an increased pathogen pressure, which in turn can up-regulate disgust sensitivity (Stevenson, Saluja, & Case, 2020). For instance, Stevenson et al. (2020) found that disgust levels assessed during the time of the pandemic were higher than the values reported before the pandemic. Similarly, we noticed that the average food disgust sensitivity in our sample was higher than the values reported in previous studies conducted in Germany before the pandemic (M = 3.84 [females] and M = 3.58 [males]; Egolf et al., 2019). These findings may serve as an indication that increased pathogen threat, as imposed through the pandemic, leads to an increase in disgust sensitivity. However, these interpretations should be further underpinned by additional research.

**

2. As a general rule, a full stop is not used at the end of a title.

*

We thank the reviewer for this remark. Full stop has been removed from the title.

**

3. In the introduction, Authors write, “A common disgust response is avoidance, resulting in reduced pathogen contact and lower risk of infection (…) disgust is a pathogen-avoidance mechanism….” Consider specifying pathogen disgust here (reactiveness to contamination threats), since sexual and moral disgust do not appear to neutralize infection (see https://doi.org/10.1037/a0030778).

*

We agree with the reviewer that the pathogen disgust should be defined, especially as some of our argumentation builds on pathogen disgust (see comment below). Therefore, we have added the following definition to the introduction:

Tybur, Lieberman, and Griskevicius (2009) identified three domains of disgust: (1) pathogen disgust, (2) sexual disgust and (3) moral disgust. Pathogen disgust can be seen as reactiveness to contamination threats and motivates avoidance of infectious microorganisms, resulting in reduced pathogen contact and lower risk of infection A common disgust response is avoidance, resulting in reduced pathogen contact and lower risk of infection (Curtis, 2011; Shook, Thomas, & Ford, 2019; van Overveld, de Jong, & Peters, 2010).

**

4. Perhaps a little more justification as to why, only food disgust sensitivity was measured. More space should be devoted in the introduction and methods to describing why you chose the measures you chose (the Food Disgust Scale), and why certain related measures (e.g., the Three Domain Disgust Scale, the Disgust Scale-Revised or sets of images associated with contagion risk) were not included. More transparency about your design decisions would be helpful for readers to evaluate the study's methods.

*

We thank the reviewer for this remark. We have added the following explanations.

Introduction:

… We chose a food-specific measure of disgust sensitivity for three reasons. First, it has been demonstrated that there is a relationship between pathogen disgust and behaviours related to the pandemic (Gul et al., 2021). Given that we know that pathogen disgust and food disgust sensitivity are positively correlated (Egolf et al., 2019), we aimed to add to the evidence by investigating the role food disgust sensitivity plays in mitigating the effects of the pandemic. Second, the current pandemic has a huge impact on how we buy, prepare, and consume food. Therefore, we expect some conceptual overlap between food disgust sensitivity, hygiene, and behaviours related to the pandemic. Third, we aim to investigate whether food disgust sensitivity, due to its risk avoidance nature, explains variance beyond the domain of food. Given that enforcement of virus-mitigating measures is costly and public compliance cannot be taken for granted (Brouard et al., 2020), a better understanding of the mechanisms and motivations underlying virus-mitigating behaviours and attitudes can crucially contribute to the success of political measures aiming to contain the spread of the virus.

Methods:

The third and final section included a measure of disgust sensitivity. To the best of our knowledge, the FDS short is the only available disgust measure that specifically focuses on the domain of food. As a result, we used the 8-item short version of the Food Disgust Scale (FDS short, Hartmann & Siegrist, 2018) as a measure of food-specific disgust.

**

5. Any a priori decisions that factored into your sample size (rules of thumb, power analyses) should reported.

*

We thank the reviewer for pointing out that this information is missing. We have added it to the methods section:

We aimed for at least 250 male and female participants each. Assuming small to medium effect sizes (d = .25), this sample size provides ample power (.80) to detect possible effects (α = .05) with a one-tailed test (Faul, Erdfelder, Lang, & Buchner, 2007). Similarly, a sample of 500 provides sufficient power to compare dependent Pearson’s correlations with common index (Faul, Erdfelder, Buchner, & Lang, 2009).

**

6. In affluent parts of the world it is possible to choose to avoid a pathogen if you think one may be present e.g. in expired food as other meals are available. In some environments people have no way to avoid similar warning signs – can it be assessed in future research directions?

*

We agree with the reviewer. We believe the environment is a very important aspect that needs to be investigated and discussed. We added it to the limitations and outlook section:

… Given that similar constructs for food disgust sensitivity have been used cross-culturally (Ammann, Egolf, Hartmann, & Siegrist, 2020; Egolf et al., 2019), another interesting endeavour would be to test whether these relationships can be found across different countries. Not only have individuals been affected differently by the pandemic depending on their socio-demographic background (Martinez, Kopp, Lalive, Pichler, & Siegenthaler, 2021), but individual disgust sensitivity also depends strongly on the environment in which an individual lives (see Ammann, Hartmann, & Siegrist, 2019 for a discussion).

Attachment

Submitted filename: Reviewer_comments_R1.docx

Click here for additional data file. (23KB, docx)

Decision Letter 1

Valerio Capraro

1 Jul 2021

Food disgust sensitivity predicts disease-preventing behaviour beyond the food domain in the COVID-19 pandemic in Germany

PONE-D-21-12532R1

Dear Dr. Ammann,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Valerio Capraro

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Acceptance letter

Valerio Capraro

6 Jul 2021

PONE-D-21-12532R1

Food disgust sensitivity predicts disease-preventing behaviour beyond the food domain in the COVID-19 pandemic in Germany

Dear Dr. Ammann:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Valerio Capraro

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

RESOURCES