Open Psychology 2023; 5: 20220131

Research Article

Antonio Laguna-Camacho*

Contextual Specificity of (Un)Healthy

Food/Drink Intake in Everyday Life:
A Study Based on Episodic Memories
https://doi.org/10.1515/psych-2022-0131
received June 9, 2021; accepted December 19, 2022

Abstract: Identifying the contexts of episodes of (un)healthy food/drink intake could inform strategies for
eating more healthily. This study assessed memories of recent episodes of healthy and unhealthy eating
from adults in Mexico. For each (un)healthy eating episode participants recalled place, time of day, people
present and food/drink intake. Categories were formed for the contextual features and foods/drinks that
were reported, then the relative frequency of each category was tested between healthy and unhealthy
eating episodes. Overall, there was a large set of categories of (un)healthy food/drink choices, and there
were more healthy eating episodes with family at home and unhealthy eating episodes with friends out of
home. However, as expected, a more specific context as well as food/drink intake was identified for each
sort of recalled (un)healthy eating episode of the day. Additionally, eating out of home, later in the day and
with people present were features related to higher estimated energy content across (un)healthy eating
episodes. These findings support the assessment of self-reported memories of recent eating episodes to
generate evidence that contribute to contexts that support healthy eating habits.

Keywords: eating behaviour, contextual specificity, eating healthiness, energy intake, episodic memory,
psychological situations

1 Introduction
Mexico is among the countries with the highest prevalence of cardiometabolic diseases such as obesity,
type 2 diabetes, hypertension and dyslipidaemia (Lozano et al., 2013). The prevention and therapy of these
chronic conditions includes primarily modifiable factors like lifestyle habits. In addition to healthy eating
guidelines for the population (Secretaría de Salud, 2012), current nutritional policy includes taxation and
front-of-pack warning labels for high-energy dense food/drink products (Barrientos-Gutierrez et al., 2017;
White & Barquera, 2020). These policies are, however, limited to only a few of the multiple factors involved
in eating behaviour (Dhurandhar et al., 2015a). Solutions are needed that address more broadly the
immediate context of food/drink consumption. Identifying contextual features of common patterns of
eating/drinking in a culture is a first step towards further investigation of environmental influences on
such prevalent behaviour in order to inform nutritional policy interventions.
People remember well everyday eating episodes from the preceding week span. Such recent episodic
memories are very accessible near-experience perceptions of past personal events (Conway, 2009; Zacks,
2020). There is good agreement between records in real time and recalls of recent daily activities


* Corresponding author: Antonio Laguna-Camacho, School of Medicine, Autonomous University of the State of Mexico, Jesús
Carranza 105, Colonia Universidad, 50130, Toluca, Mexico, e-mail: alagunaca@uaemex.mx

Open Access. © 2023 the author(s), published by De Gruyter. This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0
International License.
2  Antonio Laguna-Camacho

(Kristo et al., 2009; Radvansky et al., 2022), including eating episodes (Armstrong et al., 2000). Likewise,
wider research shows that although errors occur about what is perceived, these are small (e.g. Jussim, 2012).
Misconceptions are common about retrospective and self-reported data. For example, errors in auto-
biographical memory involve events dated many months/years ago (Brewer, 1994). In the case of self-
report, biases relate to leading questioning (Schwarz, 2007) as well as opportunity to retrieve information
from semantic memory (Schacter & Madore, 2016). These errors are minimising targeting memories of
recent autobiographical episodes (Conway, 2009) as well as using non-suggestive open-ended questions
(Fisher & Geiselman, 1992). Moreover, inducing the recall of features of a past autobiographical episode
further enhances retrieval of real details of that event (Schacter & Madore, 2016). It is the estimation of
portion sizes, energy and nutrient intake from recalled or self-reported intake that can be grossly inaccurate
(Dhurandhar et al., 2015b; Krall & Dwyer, 1987; Krall et al., 1988). However, this may partly result from
people recalling or reporting the most salient foods/drinks as well as contextual features that configure a
past eating episode (Alba & Hasher, 1983; Brown-Kramer et al., 2009; Zacks, 2020).
A memory of a recent eating episode is elicited with questions that prompt perceived objective (such as
place, day and time, people present, food consumed, etc.) and subjective (such as mood, appetite, healthi-
ness, etc.) features of the event (Fisher & Geiselman, 1992). Words selected by people to describe these
features of an everyday eating episode within a culture are ecologically valid (Booth & Booth, 2011). An
indicator of this validity is the percentage of people who mention the same or similar terms for a feature of a
particular episode. A report of a past personal event can be verified by video recording that instance from
start to end in order to test the match between recalled and actual physical features of the behaviour
scenario (Mair et al., 2017). There is also the perspective that the subjective experience (and its recounting),
including awareness of salient features of an event, is an objective performance of analogies with a shared
reality with others (Booth, 2003).
The ability to re-construct in memory a salient scheme of a past autobiographical (eating) episode
provides the basis for behaviour change approaches. For instance, the habit theories propose that memories
of repeated behaviour in consistent context influence or guide behaviour when features of that context are
encountered (Booth, 2022; Gardner, 2015; Papies et al., 2022).
Self-reported memories of recent eating episodes have shown differences between (un)healthy meals
that individuals consume in normal life. While reports of healthy eating episodes were characterised by
more mentions of water, fruits and vegetables consumed at home with family members, those of unhealthy
eating episodes were characterised by more mentions of high-calorie foods/drinks consumed out of home
with friends (Laguna-Camacho & Booth, 2015; Laguna-Camacho et al., 2018). These findings agree with
those from momentary ecological assessments showing that people consume high-calorie food/drink in
company of other people out of home (Elliston et al., 2017; McNaughton et al., 2020). However, limitations
of the momentary ecological assessment are behavioural reactivity from recording an eating episode in real
time (Booth & Laguna-Camacho, 2015) and high cost of mobile technology. Also, previous studies have only
assessed context and intake of general rather than particular sorts of (un)healthy eating episodes.
Correlational analyses can be applied to further explore connections between self-reported contextual
features and intake of eating episodes. For instance, former studies from food diaries showed positive
correlation between number of people present and estimated calorie intake at eating episodes (de
Castro, 1994). There is additional evidence for negative correlation between perceived healthiness and
estimated calorie intake of recalled eating episodes (Laguna-Camacho et al., 2018), indicating that people
are sensitive about how healthily they eat/drink.
The aim of the present work was to assess the characteristic context and intake of (un)healthy eating
episodes recalled by adults from the (urban) Mexican midlands. The expectation was that similar to former
studies (Laguna-Camacho & Booth, 2015; Laguna-Camacho et al., 2018) there would be in general more
consumption of healthy food/drink with family at home and more consumption of unhealthy food/drink
with friends out of home, however, there would be a more detailed characterisation of these features sorting
(un)healthy eating episodes according to conventional meal periods of the day.
The present work assessed also if there was a relationship between the basic contextual features (place,
time and people present) with the estimated calorie intake across recalled (un)healthy eating episodes, as
 Contextual Specificity of (Un)Healthy Food/Drink Intake in Everyday Life  3

wider research indicates (e.g. Lachat et al., 2012). The expectation was that higher estimated energy intake
would correlate with carrying out episodes out of the home, later in the day and with people present. Also,
the perceived healthiness of eating episodes was expected to correlate negatively with their estimated
energy intake, as previously observed (Laguna-Camacho et al., 2018).
The current investigation explored additionally if “meals” differ from “snacks” simply by drawing a line
a priori through energy estimates (e.g. at 250 or 300 kcal) because “meal” means substantial intake and so
meal periods should usually have larger intakes than between-meal periods.

2 Methods

2.1 Participants

Volunteers with no chronic illnesses were recruited from university (students and staff) and non-university
(general public that attended university services) adults from Toluca, Mexico. All were informed that they
would answer a brief survey about local eating practices. Eligible volunteers signed consent to take part. Data
were collected between January 2015 and December 2016. The research ethics board of the Autonomous
University of the State of Mexico reviewed and approved the protocol (Register 2924/2015SF).

2.2 Procedure and Instrument

Research assistants approached people at different outdoor areas of the University campus. All the
exchanges were conducted in Spanish. Similar to the procedure followed in a previous study (Laguna-
Camacho & Booth, 2015), the paper questionnaire asked participants to write down a recent episode when
they ate either healthy or unhealthy. These two versions of the questionnaire were alternately assigned in
order to balance conditions with respect to participant characteristics (Mathe et al., 2015). To avoid
imposing the reporting of an eating episode on those who were unwilling to report such behaviour,
participants were allowed if they preferred to shift to the other condition, i.e. to describe a healthy rather
than unhealthy episode, or vice versa. Participants wrote the time and date of that day at the start of the
questionnaire and then described either a healthy or unhealthy eating episode using open-ended questions
with prompts for the consumed food and drinks (with rough amounts), the place, the people present and
the time and day of the event. They rated additionally the perceived healthiness of the eating episode (scale
0–10, anchors not healthy at all and totally healthy) and reported how many times per week they eat/drink
in that either healthy or unhealthy way. They reported finally their age, sex, occupation, weight and height.

2.3 Data Analyses

The contextual factors and foods/drinks reported in these eating episodes were categorised as in previous
studies (Laguna-Camacho & Booth, 2015; Laguna-Camacho et al., 2018). That is, the reported location was
classified as either “at home” or “out of home.” The report of people present was classified into “family
members,” “friends/acquaintances” or “alone.” The sort of episode was classified according to the reported
time of occurrence into “breakfast,” “between breakfast and lunch,” “lunch,” “between lunch and dinner”
or “dinner.” The reported foods and beverages were categorised considering verbal or culinary similarity
and using categories formerly identified in the studied population (Laguna-Camacho, 2021). The reports of
foods and beverages were also classified into food groups from the official healthy eating guidance (Secre-
taría de Salud, 2012). The energy content and macronutrient distribution of eating episodes was estimated
4  Antonio Laguna-Camacho

according to the reported portions of each food group following a procedure described elsewhere (Laguna-
Camacho et al., 2018).
Differences in the mentions of each category of context and intake between recalled healthy and
unhealthy breakfasts, episodes between breakfast and lunch, lunches, episodes between lunch and dinner,
and dinners were tested with chi-squared test. The relationships between the reported number of people
present, place (coded as 0 = home, 1 = out of the home) and time (coded as 0 = breakfast, 1 = between
breakfast and lunch, 2 = lunch, 3 = between lunch and dinner and 4 = dinner) as well as the perceived
episode healthiness with the estimated kilocalorie content of eating episodes were analysed with bivariate
correlations. The difference in estimated energy consumption at (un)healthy eating episodes between meal
and between-meal periods was tested with one-way analysis of variance. The statistical analyses were
performed with SPSS 22.

3 Results

3.1 Participant Characteristics

A total of 832 (un)healthy eating episodes were correctly recalled, 10 recalls with incomplete or erroneous
data were excluded. Characteristics were similar between participants who recalled healthy and unhealthy
eating episodes (Table 1); they included mostly young people, women, students and people with healthy
weight/overweight.

3.2 Recalled Context and Food/Drink Intake of (Un)Healthy Eating Episodes

Overall, healthy eating episodes were characterised by more mentions of fruit, cereal, milk, yogurt, eggs,
sandwich, pasta, vegetable soup, Mexican homemade stew, meat, vegetables, tortillas, beans and water
intake with family members at home (Table 2). In contrast, unhealthy eating episodes were characterised by
more mentions of pastry, Mexican street food, fast food, savoury snacks, sweets, soft drinks and alcohol
intake with friends out of home. However, a more specific context and intake was identified for each sort of
(un)healthy eating episode (Tables 3 and 4). The categories of contextual features and food/drink intake
reported more by participants in each sort of healthy than unhealthy eating episode of the day, and
vice versa, are presented next.

Table 1: Participant characteristics

HE UE
n = 447 n = 369

Age (years) 24.8 [18.0, 39.0] 24.6 [18.0, 38.5]

Sex (%)
Women 81 82
Men 19 18
Occupation (%)
Student 65 67
Home 11 12
Employee 24 21
Body mass index (kg/m2) 25.0 [18.8, 32.9] 26.0 [18.8, 35.8]

Note. HE = Healthy eating episodes, UE = Unhealthy eating episodes. Values are expressed as proportion (%) of participants in
each condition and mean (95% confidence limits).
 Contextual Specificity of (Un)Healthy Food/Drink Intake in Everyday Life  5

Table 2: Categories of foods/drinks identified in recalled (un)healthy eating episodes (literal translations from Spanish to
English or traditional names of preparations in Spanish are presented)

Category Examples of mentioned foods or beverages

Fruit Fruits, diced fruit, papaya, juice, natural juice, orange juice
Cereal Cereal, oats, muesli
Bread Bread, roll bread
Milk Milk, whole milk, shake, fruit shake
Yogurt Yogurt
Eggs Eggs, omelette, Mexican eggs, scrambled eggs, huevos rancheros
Sandwich Sandwich, torta, quesadillas, sincronizadas, mollete
Pasta Pasta, rice, sopa de pasta
Vegetable soup Sopa de vegetales
Mexican homemade stew Tinga, milanesa, breaded chicken breast, albondigas, carne en chile verde, chiles rellenos,
chilaquiles, enchiladas, mole
Meat Chicken, chicken breast, grilled chicken, meat, tuna, fish, salmon, turkey ham, cheese
Vegetables Salad, vegetables, cucumber, tomato
Tortilla Tortilla, tortillas
Beans Beans
Water Water, agua de fruta
Tea/coffee Tea, coffee
Pastry Pastry, waffle, hotcake, bread with butter and sugar, bread with caramel, biscuits, cake,
cheese cake
Mexican street food Pambazos, tacos dorados, pozole, tacos, garnachas, pambazos, empanada, carnitas,
barbacoa, tamales, torta de tamal
Fast food Pizza, nuggets, KFC, McDonalds, French fries, chips
Savoury snacks Crisps, Doritos, Sabritas, chicharrones, salty nuts, popcorns
Sweets Sweets, honey, jam, jelly, chocolate, ice cream
Soft drink Soft drink, Coca-Cola, Boing
Alcohol Alcohol, beer, vodka, tequila, shots

3.2.1 Breakfast Episodes

Fruit, cereal, milk, eggs, meat and vegetables appeared more in healthy breakfasts and these episodes took
place more at home. In contrast, unhealthy breakfast had more mentions of Mexican street food as well as
pastry, savoury snacks and soft drinks.

3.2.2 Episodes between Breakfast and Lunch

Fruit, cereal, milk, yogurt, eggs, sandwich as well as meat, vegetables and water were commoner in healthy
episodes between breakfast–lunch and these occurred more at home. Mexican street food, fast food, pastry,
savoury snacks, sweets and soft drinks were reported more in unhealthy episodes between breakfast–lunch.

3.2.3 Lunch Episodes

Healthy lunches had more incidence of pasta, homemade stews, tortillas, beans and water as well as
vegetable soup, meat and vegetables, and they occurred more with family at home. In contrast, Mexican
street food, fast food, savoury snacks, soft drinks and alcohol were commoner in unhealthy lunches, and
these episodes took place more with friends out of home.
 6

Antonio Laguna-Camacho

Table 3: Context of recalled healthy (HE) and unhealthy (UE) eating episodes (%)

Home Out Alone Family Friends

2 2 2 2
Sort of episode HE UE V χ HE UE V χ HE UE V χ HE UE V χ HE UE V χ2

Breakfast 87 44 0.14 6.33* 13 56 0.23 16.95** 30 27 0.018 0.1 57 48 0.034 0.38 13 25 0.093 2.77
Breakfast–lunch 47 22 0.239 5.48* 53 78 0.148 2.09 18 24 0.08 0.61 32 17 0.18 3.11 50 59 0.061 0.36
Lunch 78 29 0.224 11.48** 22 71 0.25 14.3** 15 17 0.021 0.1 70 37 0.149 5.05* 15 47 0.215 10.61**
Lunch–dinner 79 55 0.144 1.86 21 45 0.244 5.37* 16 24 0.113 1.15 63 41 0.16 2.31 21 35 0.158 2.26
Dinner 87 55 0.195 3.03 13 45 0.382 11.65** 17 24 0.103 0.85 74 41 0.235 4.41* 9 35 0.371 11.03**

The frequency of each category is expressed as the percentage of participants who reported that category in each condition.
n HE breakfast = 217, n UE breakfast = 104, n HE between breakfast and lunch = 38, n UE between breakfast and lunch = 58, n HE lunch = 150, n UE lunch = 79, n HE between lunch and dinner =
19, n UE between lunch and dinner = 71, n HE between lunch and dinner = 23, n UE between lunch and dinner n = 57. Reliable differences between UE and HE are indicated in bold font. V = size
effect. *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01.
 Contextual Specificity of (Un)Healthy Food/Drink Intake in Everyday Life  7

Table 4: Intake and context of recalled healthy (HE) and unhealthy (UE) eating episodes (%)

Food/drink Home Out Alone Family Friends

2
HE UE V χ HE UE HE UE HE UE HE UE HE UE

(a) Breakfast episodes

Fruit 69 12 0.277 24.6** 85 50 15 50 32 17 55 58 13 25
Cereal 22 3 0.192 11.83** 88 100 12 0 35 67 52 33 13 0
Bread 25 23 0.014 0.06 85 58 15 42 22 33 67 54 11 13
Milk 44 17 0.154 7.64** 93 61 7 39 30 33 62 44 8 22
Yogurt 11 5 0.078 1.95 87 0 13 100 30 40 61 20 9 40
Eggs 19 5 0.144 6.67** 93 100 7 0 22 0 68 100 10 0
Sandwich 9 8 0.013 0.05 84 37 16 63 16 37 58 25 26 37
Pasta 4 3 0.02 0.13 89 67 11 13 0 0 78 100 22 0
Vegetable soup 1 0 0.056 0.99 100 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 0
Mexican homemade stew 6 13 0.082 2.18 85 23 15 77 23 8 62 69 15 23
Meat 9 2 0.112 4.03* 85 50 15 50 35 50 50 50 15 0
Vegetables 13 1 0.169 9.12** 100 100 0 0 0 0 54 100 18 0
Tortilla 7 2 0.089 2.55 100 60 0 40 27 0 73 80 0 20
Beans 2 2 0 0 0 50 0 50 0 50 100 50 0 0
Water 9 4 0.073 1.71 90 25 10 75 30 25 70 50 0 25
Tea, coffee 22 21 0.008 1.96 0 50 100 50 0 25 0 0 100 100
Pastry 7 18 0.11 3.9* 73 47 27 53 20 53 60 26 20 21
Mexican street food 4 30 0.219 15.42** 100 23 0 77 12 16 87 48 0 36
Fast food 0 5 0.061 1.2 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 0
Savoury snacks 0 8 0.152 7.45** 88 62 12 37 37 12 50 63 13 25
Sweets 7 9 0.026 0.22 81 33 19 67 19 33 69 11 13 56
Soft drink 1 23 0.229 16.79** 0 42 100 58 0 21 0 63 100 17
Alcohol 0 2 0.078 1.96 0 50 0 50 0 0 0 50 0 50
(b) Episodes between breakfast and lunch
Fruit 71 7 0.594 33.89** 37 50 63 50 18 25 30 25 52 50
Cereal 11 2 0.24 5.55* 75 100 25 0 25 0 50 0 25 100
Bread 5 3 0.069 0.46 25 0 75 100 25 0 0 0 75 100
Milk 16 2 0.312 9.36* 83 0 17 100 33 0 33 0 33 100
Yogurt 13 3 0.238 5.43* 40 0 60 100 20 50 20 0 60 50
Eggs 8 0 0.279 7.45** 67 0 33 100 0 0 33 100 67 0
Sandwich 13 3 0.238 5.43* 20 0 80 100 0 0 0 0 100 100
Pasta 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Vegetable soup 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Mexican homemade stew 3 9 0.167 2.69 100 20 0 80 0 20 100 0 0 80
Meat 18 0 0.403 15.62** 57 0 43 0 0 0 57 0 43 0
Vegetables 26 0 0.474 21.55** 30 0 70 0 30 0 20 0 50 0
Tortilla 3 2 0.045 0.19 0 100 100 0 0 0 0 100 100 0
Beans 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Water 26 2 0.417 16.66** 40 100 60 0 10 0 30 0 60 100
Tea, coffee 5 3 0.069 0.46 80 33 20 67 20 0 60 33 20 67
Pastry 11 28 0.237 5.41* 100 25 0 75 0 19 50 13 50 69
Mexican street food 0 9 0.294 8.31** 0 40 0 60 0 40 0 20 0 40
Fast food 0 21 0.432 17.89** 0 17 0 83 0 17 0 25 0 58
Savoury snacks 0 40 0.569 31.11** 0 13 0 87 0 17 0 22 0 61
Sweets 8 30 0.314 9.47** 0 31 100 69 33 19 0 25 67 56
Soft drink 0 40 0.569 31.11** 0 26 0 74 0 26 0 26 0 48
Alcohol 0 2 0.143 1.96 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100
(c) Lunch episodes
Fruit 17 8 0.107 2.61 64 50 36 50 32 17 52 33 16 50
Cereal 2 0 0.093 1.96 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 0
Bread 2 3 0.029 0.19 67 100 33 0 33 0 33 100 33 0
Milk 1 2 0.037 0.32 100 100 0 0 0 0 100 100 0 0
Yogurt 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

(Continued)
8  Antonio Laguna-Camacho

Table 4: Continued

Food/drink Home Out Alone Family Friends

2
HE UE V χ HE UE HE UE HE UE HE UE HE UE

Eggs 2 1 0.037 0.32 100 0 0 100 0 0 100 100 0 0

Sandwich 3 8 0.095 2.05 75 0 25 100 25 0 50 0 25 100
Pasta 33 3 0.291 19.32** 50 50 50 50 4 0 4 100 4 0
Vegetable soup 13 0 0.244 13.67** 63 0 37 0 11 0 68 0 22 0
Mexican homemade stew 34 11 0.191 8.32** 75 56 25 44 16 11 71 45 14 44
Meat 39 1 0.349 27.84** 81 0 19 100 10 0 70 0 20 100
Vegetables 57 5 0.362 30.01** 81 25 19 75 13 0 72 25 15 75
Tortilla 18 7 0.131 3.9* 63 50 37 50 26 17 63 50 11 50
Beans 9 1 0.16 5.85* 77 0 23 100 8 0 69 0 23 100
Water 65 6 0.377 32.55** 81 60 19 40 16 20 72 40 12 40
Tea, coffee 3 4 0.024 0.13 0 67 0 33 0 33 0 33 0 33
Pastry 3 9 0.108 2.69 50 14 50 86 25 29 25 29 50 43
Mexican street food 0 18 0 15.62** 0 36 0 64 0 14 0 43 0 43
Fast food 1 29 0.303 21.08** 50 26 50 74 0 4 100 35 0 61
Savoury snacks 1 20 0.252 14.57** 50 25 50 75 0 25 50 19 50 56
Sweets 4 11 0.112 2.85 33 22 67 78 33 0 17 22 50 78
Soft drink 1 53 0.4 36.7** 100 21 0 79 0 14 100 38 0 48
Alcohol 0 4 0.13 3.85* 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 100
(d) Episodes between lunch and dinner
Fruit 53 4 0.575 29.73** 80 67 20 33 10 100 70 0 20 0
Cereal 16 0 0.395 14.06** 100 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0
Bread 5 1 0.167 2.52 100 100 0 0 100 0 0 100 0 0
Milk 11 3 0.212 4.03* 100 50 0 50 0 50 100 50 0 0
Yogurt 11 1 0.289 7.50** 100 0 0 100 50 0 50 0 0 100
Eggs 5 1 0.167 2.52 100 0 0 100 0 0 100 0 0 100
Sandwich 11 3 0.212 4.03* 100 50 0 50 50 50 50 50 0 100
Pasta 11 0 0.333 10.01** 50 0 50 0 0 0 50 0 50 0
Vegetable soup 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Mexican homemade stew 21 0 0.446 17.89** 75 0 25 0 0 0 75 0 25 0
Meat 26 0 0.489 21.55** 80 0 20 0 20 0 70 0 30 0
Vegetables 53 0 0.661 39.36** 80 0 20 0 0 0 13 0 13 0
Tortilla 16 1 0.358 11.5** 100 0 0 100 33 0 67 100 0 0
Beans 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Water 68 0 0.733 48.41** 85 0 15 0 15 0 62 0 23 0
Tea, coffee 0 4 0.207 3.85** 100 100 0 0 33 75 50 25 17 0
Pastry 5 23 0.32 9.22** 100 63 0 38 0 31 100 38 0 31
Mexican street food 0 7 0.27 6.57* 0 40 0 60 0 20 0 20 0 60
Fast food 5 17 0.245 5.42* 0 58 100 42 0 25 0 50 100 25
Savoury snacks 5 48 0.525 24.76** 0 56 100 44 0 21 100 41 0 38
Sweets 5 30 0.39 13.70** 100 43 0 57 0 5 100 43 0 42
Soft drink 5 49 0.531 25.35** 100 71 0 29 0 29 100 46 0 26
Alcohol 0 4 0.207 3.85* 0 67 0 33 0 0 0 67 0 33
(e) Dinner episodes
Fruit 35 0 0.589 27.79** 88 0 12 0 25 0 75 0 0 0
Cereal 9 0 0.322 8.31** 100 0 0 0 0 0 50 0 50 0
Bread 4 8 0.155 1.92 100 50 0 50 100 25 0 75 0 0
Milk 9 4 0.146 1.71 100 100 0 0 0 50 100 50 0 0
Yogurt 4 0 0.219 3.85* 100 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0
Eggs 17 0 0.431 14.84** 100 0 0 0 25 0 75 0 0 0
Sandwich 4 5 0.035 0.1 100 33 0 67 0 0 0 33 100 67
Pasta 4 2 0.089 0.63 0 100 100 3 0 100 100 0 0 0
Vegetable soup 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Mexican homemade stew 4 2 0.089 0.63 100 100 0 0 0 100 100 0 0 0

(Continued)
 Contextual Specificity of (Un)Healthy Food/Drink Intake in Everyday Life  9

Table 4: Continued

Food/drink Home Out Alone Family Friends

2
HE UE V χ HE UE HE UE HE UE HE UE HE UE

Meat 35 2 0.534 22.81** 75 100 25 0 25 0 75 2 0 0

Vegetables 44 0 0.649 33.7** 80 0 20 0 20 0 70 0 10 0
Tortilla 13 5 0.195 3.03 100 33 0 67 33 0 67 33 0 67
Beans 4 0 0.219 3.85* 100 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0
Water 22 2 0.415 13.8** 85 59 15 41 21 32 68 50 11 18
Tea, coffee 26 7 0.324 8.4** 100 100 0 0 20 0 80 100 0 0
Pastry 17 21 0.062 0.31 100 83 0 17 25 50 75 42 0 8
Mexican street food 0 30 0.552 24.38** 0 35 0 65 0 6 0 77 0 18
Fast food 0 16 0.421 14.16** 0 67 0 33 0 11 0 67 0 22
Savoury snacks 0 14 0.395 12.47** 0 88 0 12 0 37 0 50 0 13
Sweets 0 9 0.322 8.31** 0 100 0 0 0 60 0 40 0 0
Soft drink 4 37 0.499 19.93** 100 67 0 33 0 14 100 67 0 19
Alcohol 0 4 0.219 3.85* 0 50 0 50 0 0 0 100 0 0

The frequency of each category is expressed as the percentage of participants who reported that category in each condition.
n HE breakfast = 217, n UE breakfast = 104, n HE between breakfast and lunch = 38, n UE between breakfast and lunch = 58,
n HE lunch = 150, n UE lunch = 79, n HE between lunch and dinner = 19, n UE between lunch and dinner = 71, n HE between lunch
and dinner = 23, n UE between lunch and dinner n = 57. Reliable differences between UE and HE are indicated in bold font.
V = size effect. *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01.

3.2.4 Episodes between Lunch and Dinner

Healthy episodes between lunch–dinner included more mentions of pasta, homemade stews, meat and
vegetables, tortillas as well as fruit, cereal, milk, yogurt, eggs and sandwich. Unhealthy episodes between
lunch–dinner had more incidence of tea/coffee, pastry, Mexican street food, fast food, savoury snacks,
sweets, soft drinks and alcohol and they took place more out of home.

3.2.5 Dinner Episodes

Fruit, cereal, yogurt, eggs and sandwich as well as meat, vegetables, beans, water and tea/coffee appeared
more in healthy dinners, and these episodes occurred more with family members. Unhealthy dinners had
more mentions of Mexican street food, fast food, pastry, savoury snacks, sweets, soft drinks and alcohol,
and they took place more with friends out of home.

3.3 Estimated Food Group Portions, Kilocalories and Macronutrient Content

While more portions of fruits, vegetables and protein were reported in healthy eating episodes, more
portions of fat and sugar were reported in unhealthy eating episodes (Table 5). The estimated kilocalorie
content was higher for unhealthy than healthy eating episodes. The energy from carbohydrates tended to be
lower in healthy than unhealthy lunches and dinners; the energy from protein tended to be higher in all
sorts of healthy than unhealthy eating episode of the day; and the energy from fat tended to be lower for
healthy than unhealthy eating episodes between breakfast–lunch and between lunch–dinner.
 10


Table 5: Estimated food group portions, energy content and macronutrient distribution of recalled healthy (HE) and unhealthy (UE) eating episodes, and additional quantitative evaluations
(values expressed as mean [95% confidence limits])

Breakfast Between breakfast and lunch Lunch Between lunch and dinner Dinner
Antonio Laguna-Camacho

HE UE HE UE HE UE HE UE HE UE
n = 217 n = 104 n = 38 n = 58 n = 150 n = 79 n = 19 n = 71 n = 23 n = 57

Fruit 1.0 [0.0, 3.0] 0.1 [0.0, 1.0] 1.1 [0.0, 3.0] 0.1 [0.0, 1.0] 0.3 [0.0, 1.0] 0.1 [0.0, 1.0] 0.8 [0.0, 2.0] 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] 0.5 [0.0, 2.8] 0.0 [0.0, 0.0]
Vegetables 0.3 [0.0, 1.0] 0.1 [0.0, 1.0] 0.4 [0.0, 2.0] 0.0 [0.0, 0.1] 1.0 [0.0, 2.5] 0.3 [0.0, 1.0] 0.6 [0.0, 1.1] 0.0 [0.0, 0.4] 0.6 [0.0, 2.0] 0.1 [0.0, 1.0]
Grains 1.3 [0.0, 4.0] 3.1 [0.0, 8.8] 0.9 [0.0, 3.2] 3.5 [0.0, 10.0] 1.6 [0.0, 5.0] 3.1 [0.0, 9.0] 1.1 [0.0, 3.0] 3.4 [0.0, 8.4] 1.1 [0.0, 3.0] 3.5 [0.0, 10.1]
Protein 0.9 [0.0, 3.0] 0.8 [0.0, 3.8] 0.9 [0.0, 3.1] 0.5 [0.0, 4.0] 2.3 [0.0, 5.0] 0.8 [0.0, 3.8] 1.2 [0.0, 3.1] 0.1 [0.0, 1.0] 1.8 [0.0, 7.2] 1.6 [0.0, 5.0]
Dairy 0.5 [0.0, 1.0] 0.2 [0.0, 1.0] 0.3 [0.0, 1.1] 0.1 [0.0, 1.0] 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] 0.2 [0.0, 1.0] 0.2 [0.0, 1.0] 0.2 [0.0, 1.0] 0.0 [0.0, 0.1]
Fat 0.3 [0.0, 7.0] 1.2 [0.0, 4.0] 0.3 [0.0, 1.1] 2.3 [0.0, 8.1] 0.7 [0.0, 3.0] 1.9 [0.0, 6.0] 0.3 [0.0, 2.0] 2.6 [0.0, 6.4] 0.9 [0.0, 3.0] 2.3 [0.0, 9.1]
Sugar 0.2 [0.0, 1.0] 1.4 [0.0, 6.0] 0.1 [0.0, 1.0] 2.4 [0.0, 8.1] 0.2 [0.0, 1.0] 2.2 [0.0, 6.0] 0.4 [0.0, 2.2] 3.2 [0.0, 8.0] 0.3 [0.0, 2.8] 2.1 [0.0, 8.0]
kcal 285 [53, 637] 399 [71, 795] 229 [23, 550] 478 [0, 1131] 324 [0, 748] 509 [113, 1232] 247 [24, 573] 516 [91, 1104] 291 [0, 643] 524 [0, 1,170]
Carbohydrates% 63 [18, 100] 65 [24, 95] 66 [0, 100] 66 [0, 100] 40 [0, 84] 58 [0, 100] 67 [12, 100] 62 [21, 100] 43 [0, 100] 56 [0, 100]
Protein% 19 [0, 37] 15 [0, 35] 17 [0, 49] 8 [0, 19] 27 [0, 48] 15 [0, 28] 20 [0, 35] 9 [0, 29] 22 [0, 48] 15 [0, 32]
Lipids% 15 [0, 36] 18 [0, 41] 15 [0, 50] 21 [0, 40] 26 [0, 55] 24 [0, 56] 13 [0, 41] 23 [0, 41] 27 [0, 63] 24 [0, 43]
People present 2.0 [0.0, 5.0] 2.2 [0.2, 7.1] 1.9 [0.0, 5.0] 3.1 [0.0, 12.2] 2.9 [0.0, 6.0] 3.2 [0.0, 10.0] 1.7 [0.0, 4.0] 3.2 [0.0, 17.0] 2.6 [0.0, 8.6] 4.1 [0.0, 15.5]
Episode 4.1 [0.1, 11.3] 2.8 [0.1, 7.1] 2.9 [0.1, 8.3] 2.4 [0.1, 7.2] 4.7 [0.6, 15.1] 3.5 [0.9, 8.2] 2.7 [0.7, 6.0] 3.2 [0.5, 10.0] 2.4 [0.1, 11.4] 3.9 [0.5, 9.6]
recency (days)
Behaviour frequency 4.3 [2.0, 7.0] 2.9 [1.0, 7.0] 4.0 [1.0, 7.2] 3.2 [0.5, 7.0] 3.6 [1.0, 7.0] 2.5 [1.0, 4.5] 3.7 [1.5, 7.0] 2.3 [1.0, 5.0] 3.8 [1.0, 7.0] 2.6 [1.0, 5.1]
(times per week)
Healthiness 8.0 [5.0, 10.0] 2.7 [0.0, 7.0] 7.7 [5.0, 10.0] 2.5 [0.0, 7.0] 7.8 [5.0, 10.0] 2.7 [0.0, 6.0] 7.7 [5.0, 9.1] 2.1 [0.0, 5.0] 7.7 [5.0, 10.0] 2.3 [0.0, 6.1]
(scale 0–10)
 Contextual Specificity of (Un)Healthy Food/Drink Intake in Everyday Life  11

Table 6: Correlations between remembered context, estimated energy content and perceived healthiness across recalled
healthy and unhealthy eating episodes (N = 816)

Model variables 1 2 3 4 5

1. Place — 0.04 0.07* 0.17** −0.33**

2. Time of day — 0.15** 0.19** −0.26**
3. People present — 0.18** −0.11**
4. Kilocalories — −0.31**
5. Healthiness —

*p < 0.05, **p < 0.01.

3.4 Behaviour Healthiness, Frequency and Recency

The mean perceived healthiness was higher for healthy than unhealthy eating episodes. The reported
frequency of each sort of (un)healthy eating episode ranged on average from 2 to 4 times per week and
tended to be once per week higher for healthy than unhealthy eating episodes. The mean recalled timing of
(un)healthy eating episodes was 2–5 days before the completion of the study questionnaire (Table 5), i.e.
within the span for reliable recall.

3.5 Relationships between Contextual Features, Kilocalorie Intake and

Healthiness

As expected, eating out of home, later in the day and with more people correlated positively with estimated
kilocalorie content across (un)healthy eating episodes (Table 6). Also, the perceived healthiness of (un)
healthy eating episodes correlated negatively with their estimated kilocalorie content (Figure 1).

3.6 Energy Intake at Meals and between Meals

For healthy eating episodes, mean estimated energy consumption was higher at meal than between-meal
periods, however, for unhealthy eating episodes, no difference in mean estimated energy consumption
between meal and between-meal periods was observed (Figure 2).

Figure 1: Association between perceived healthiness and estimated energy content of recalled healthy and unhealthy eating
episodes (see corresponding statistics in Table 6).
12  Antonio Laguna-Camacho

Figure 2: Estimated energy consumption of recalled eating episodes at meal and between-meal periods. (Left) Episodes at meal
periods n = 390, episodes between-meal periods n = 57. F = 5.44, p < 0.02. (Right) Episodes at meal periods n = 240, episodes
between-meal periods n = 129. F = 1.1, p = 0.30.

4 Discussion
The present investigation assessed the context and food/drink intake of sorts of (un)healthy eating episodes
recalled by Mexican adults. There were more occurrences at home for healthy than unhealthy breakfasts,
episodes between breakfast–lunch and lunches, and more occurrences out of home for all sorts of
unhealthy than healthy eating episode except episodes between breakfast–lunch. Healthy eating episodes
featured, however, less at home between breakfast–lunch than at other times of the day, which would be
the interval when most participants attended school/work. For lunches and dinners, there were more
occurrences of healthy than unhealthy eating with family and more occurrences of unhealthy than healthy
eating with friends. Hence although there is a general tendency for healthy eating episodes to be with
family at home and unhealthy eating episodes to be with friends out of home (Laguna-Camacho & Booth,
2015; Laguna-Camacho et al., 2018), the findings of the current study confirmed, as hypothesised, a parti-
cular context by sort of (un)healthy eating episode.
The present study identified as well particular food/drink intake that varied in mentions by sort of (un)
healthy eating episode of the day. These variations had to do most likely with the patterns of intake, i.e.
usual preparations, menus or combos of food/drinks in the studied culture. Meat and vegetables were
common in all sorts of healthy eating episode, indicating a particular pattern of healthy intake. There were
more mentions of pasta, Mexican homemade food, tortillas and water in healthy lunches and episodes
between lunch–dinner, which would relate to having a typical meal after attending school/work. Fruit,
cereal, milk, yogurt, egg preparations and sandwich were less common in healthy lunches than in other
sorts of healthy eating episode. Mexican street food was mentioned more in all sorts of unhealthy eating
episodes, which indicated a popular pattern of unhealthy intake. Fast food was mentioned less in
unhealthy breakfasts than in unhealthy eating episodes at other periods of the day, possibly because
most fast food outlets operate after breakfast time. Savoury snacks and sweets were commonly mentioned
in unhealthy eating episodes, particularly in episodes between breakfast–lunch and between lunch–
dinner. Soft drinks were common in all sorts of unhealthy eating episode, which is consistent with the
reported high-sweetened beverage consumption in Mexican population (Sánchez-Pimienta et al., 2016).
Such identified categories of contextual features and food/drink intake in (un)healthy eating episodes
contrast with intake patterns in epidemiology based on energy estimations from food frequency questions
out of context (Schulze et al., 2018).
Even so, there is still a more specific context and food/drink intake for the (un)healthy eating episodes
than the assessed in the current study. The higher intake at meal than between-meal periods found for
healthy but not unhealthy eating episodes indicated that intake patterns were highly variable through the
day and perhaps beyond the conventional classification of intakes into meal and between-meal episodes
held by nutritionists. Here the categorisation of contextual features was simplified and so a more detailed
 Contextual Specificity of (Un)Healthy Food/Drink Intake in Everyday Life  13

categorisation is needed of the places, sorts of occasion and people present that characterise (un)healthy
eating episodes. Combinations of (un)healthy food/drink intake categories could also have been identified
in the present work. Hence future research is warranted on characterisation of context of specific eating
patterns or habits.
In addition, the present study found the expected positive correlations of eating out of home, later in
the day and with people present with estimated calorie intake of recalled (un)healthy eating episodes and
negative correlation of estimated calorie intake of recalled (un)healthy eating episodes with perceived
episode healthiness. These findings extend former evidence (de Castro, 1994; Laguna-Camacho et al.,
2018) and show the usefulness of data from recall of recent eating episodes for testing relationships
between features that characterise those events.
Further evaluation is required on how notions about inaccuracies in retrospective reports of eating
episodes relate to theoretical and methodological deficiencies (Booth, 2022; Brown et al., 2021; Munafò
et al., 2017; Podsakoff et al., 2003; Scheel et al., 2020, 2021). Recent research applying open science practices
supports the precision of episodic memory. For instance, a registered report found losses in accessibility but
not in precision of recalled features of personal past events that are remembered (Berens et al., 2020).
Moreover, memory could be better for eating than non-eating episodes (Seitz et al., 2021). Nonetheless,
research is still needed on biases in self-reported memories of recent eating episodes. For instance, distor-
tions in recall of eating episodes can surge from semantic memory (Schacter & Madore, 2016). Demand
effects may contribute to consistent reports, e.g. when asked about detail(s) of a past personal event, to
construct such answer people would fill gaps in episodic memory with semantic schemas or beliefs (e.g.
Delivett et al., 2022) mainly if little attention was paid to such detail(s) during the episode.
Since the findings of the present work were mostly derived from undergraduate students in Mexican
midlands, potential applications are limited to this group. The identified contexts of (un)healthy food/drink
intake can help formulate guidance about what foods/drinks these student group can eat, where, when and
with whom, as well as to design scenarios for eating more healthily in their campus and surroundings.
The present study supports the value of systematically assessing memories shared by people about
their everyday eating episodes. This work moved towards a cultural perspective to describe the context of
customary eating patterns. Dietary recommendations based on contextualised food/drink combinations are
a novel intervention for improving eating habits in a culture (e.g. Booth et al., 2004; Laguna-Camacho &
Booth, 2021; Laguna-Camacho & Serrano-Plata, 2021). Monitoring episodes of such specified eating patterns
applies also to measure the effect on health outcomes of maintained change in their frequency as well as to
identify contextual triggers for lapsing (Booth & Booth, 2011; Booth & Laguna-Camacho, 2022).

Acknowledgments: The author thanks Daniela Pérez Vargas Albarrán and Gustavo A. Castro Nava for
assisting in data collection and integration of the dataset, and Brandon A. Matias Cruz and Aura C.
Hernández Salguero for assisting in the food categorisation and calculations of food group portions, energy
content and macronutrient distribution of eating episodes.

Funding information: There is no external funding to report.

Author contributions: Antonio Laguna-Camacho designed the study, analysed the data and wrote the
manuscript.

Conflict of interest: None.

Data availability statement: The datasets generated during and/or analysed during the current study are
available in the Open Science Framework repository, https://osf.io/u24vz.
14  Antonio Laguna-Camacho

References
Alba, J. W., & Hasher, L. (1983). Is memory schematic? Psychological Bulletin, 93(2), 203–231. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.93.
2.203.
Armstrong, A. M., MacDonald, A., Booth, I. W., Platts, R. G., Knibb, R. C., & Booth, D. A. (2000). Errors in memory for dietary
intake and their reduction. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 14, 183–191. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1099-0720(200003/04)14:2 <
183: AID-ACP645 > 3.0.CO;2-%23.
Barrientos-Gutierrez, T., Zepeda-Tello, R., Rodrigues, E. R., Colchero, M. A., Rojas-Martínez, R., Lazcano-Ponce, E., Hernández-
Ávila, M., Rivera-Dommarco, J., & Meza, R. (2017). Expected population weight and diabetes impact of the 1-peso-per-litre
tax to sugar sweetened beverages in Mexico. PloS One, 12(5), e0176336. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0176336.
Berens, S. C., Richards, B. A., & Horner, A. J. (2020). Dissociating memory accessibility and precision in forgetting. Nature
Human Behaviour, 4(8), 866–877. doi: 10.1038/s41562-020-0888-8.
Booth, D. A. (2003). Phenomenology is art, not psychological or neural science. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 26, 408–409.
doi: 10.1017/S0140525X03220094.
Booth, D. A., Blair, A. J., Lewis, V. J., & Baek, S. H. (2004). Patterns of eating and movement that best maintain reduction in
overweight. Appetite, 43(3), 277–283. doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2004.06.007.
Booth, D. A. (2022). How an individual’s mind works. Attention centers on the best discrimination between present and past.
PsyArXiv, ebwuf, 1–91. doi: 10.31234/osf.io/ebwuf.
Booth, D. A., & Booth, P. (2011). Targeting cultural changes supportive of the healthiest lifestyle patterns. A biosocial evidence-
base for prevention of obesity. Appetite, 56(1), 210–221. doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2010.12.003.
Booth, D. A., & Laguna-Camacho, A. (2015). Physical versus psychosocial measures of influences on human obesity. Comment
on Dhurandhar et al. International Journal of Obesity (2005), 39(7), 1177–1178. doi: 10.1038/ijo.2015.62.
Booth, D. A., & Laguna-Camacho, A. (2022). Improving weight loss RCTs. Measuring the step weight change from a sustained
change in frequency of a particular eating or exercise pattern. European Journal of Clinical Nutrition. (Advance online
publication). doi: 10.1038/s41430-022-01247-7.
Brewer, W. F. (1994). Autobiographical memory and survey research. In N. Schwarz & S. Sudman (Eds.), Autobiographical
memory and the validity of retrospective reports. New York, NY: Springer.
Brown, A. W., Aslibekyan, S., Bier, D., Ferreira da Silva, R., Hoover, A., Klurfeld, D. M., Loken, E., Mayo-Wilson, E.,
Menachemi, N., Pavela, G., Quinn, P. D., Schoeller, D., Tekwe, C., Valdez, D., Vorland, C. J., Whigham, L. D., & Allison, D. B.
(2021). Toward more rigorous and informative nutritional epidemiology: The rational space between dismissal and defense
of the status quo. Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition, 1–18. Advance online publication. doi: 10.1080/
10408398.2021.1985427.
Brown-Kramer, C. R., Kiviemi, M. T., & Winseman, J. A. (2009). Food exemplar salience: What foods do people think of when you
tell them to change their diet? Appetite, 52, 753–756. doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2009.01.005.
Conway, M. A. (2009). Episodic memories. Neuropsychologia, 47(11), 2305–2313. doi: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2009.
02.003.
de Castro, J. M. (1994). Family and friends produce greater social facilitation of food intake than other companions. Physiology
& Behavior, 56(3), 445–455. doi: 10.1016/0031-9384(94)90286-0.
Delivett, C. P., Farrow, C. V., Thomas, J. M., & Nash, R. A. (2022). Front-of-pack health imagery on both ‘healthy’ and ‘unhealthy’
foods leads people to misremember seeing health claims: Two memory experiments. Appetite, 174, 106013. doi: 10.1016/j.
appet.2022.106013.
Dhurandhar, E. J., Kaiser, K. A., Dawson, J. A., Alcorn, A. S., Keating, K. D., & Allison, D. B. (2015a). Predicting adult weight
change in the real world: A systematic review and meta-analysis accounting for compensatory changes in energy intake or
expenditure. International Journal of Obesity, 39(8), 1181–1187. doi: 10.1038/ijo.2014.184.
Dhurandhar, N. V., Schoeller, D., Brown, A. W., Heymsfield, S. B., Thomas, D., Sørensen, T. I. A., Speakman, J. R., Jeansonne, M.,
Allison, D. B., & The Energy Balance Measurement Working Group. (2015b). Energy balance measurement: When some-
thing is not better than nothing. International Journal of Obesity, 39(7), 1109–1113. doi: 10.1038/ijo.2014.199.
Elliston, K. G., Ferguson, S. G., Schüz, N., & Schüz, B. (2017). Situational cues and momentary food environment predict
everyday eating behavior in adults with overweight and obesity. Health Psychology, 36(4), 337–345. doi: 10.1037/
hea0000439.
Fisher, R. P., & Geiselman, R. E. (1992). Memory-enhancing techniques for investigative interviewing: The cognitive interview.
Charles C. Thomas.
Gardner, B. (2015). A review and analysis of the use of ‘habit’in understanding, predicting and influencing health-related
behaviour. Health Psychology Review, 9(3), 277–295. doi: 10.1080/17437199.2013.876238.
Jussim, L. (2012) Social perception and social reality: Why accuracy dominates bias and self-fulfilling prophecy. Oxford
University Press.
Krall, E. A., & Dwyer, J. T. (1987). Validity of a food frequency questionnaire and a food diary in a short-term recall situation.
Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 87(10), 1374–1377.
Krall, E. A., Dwyer, J. T., & Coleman, K. A. (1988). Factors influencing accuracy of dietary recall. Nutrition Research, 8, 829–841.
 Contextual Specificity of (Un)Healthy Food/Drink Intake in Everyday Life  15

Kristo, G., Janssen, S. M., & Murre, J. M. (2009). Retention of autobiographical memories: An Internet-based diary study.
Memory, 17(8), 816–829. doi: 10.1080/09658210903143841.
Lachat, C., Nago, E., Verstraeten, R., Roberfroid, D., Van Camp, J., & Kolsteren, P. (2012). Eating out of home and its association
with dietary intake: A systematic review of the evidence. Obesity Reviews, 13(4), 329–346. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-789X.2011.
00953.x.
Laguna-Camacho, A. (2021). Language of eating practices in the population: A communication on the need to culturally adapt
dietetic guidelines. Language and Health, 2, 1–6. doi: 10.37287/jlh.v2i1.410.
Laguna-Camacho, A., & Booth, D. A. (2015). Meals described as healthy or unhealthy match public health education in England.
Appetite, 87, 283–287. doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2015.01.007.
Laguna-Camacho, A., & Booth, D. A. (2021). Measurement of weight change after change in frequency of a locally recognised
habit. How much weight is lost while one higher-protein breakfast more is eaten per week? PsyArXiv, kcetd, 1–31.
doi: 10.31234/osf.io/kcetd.
Laguna-Camacho, A., García-Manjarrez, E., Frayn, M., Knäuper, B., Domínguez-García, M. V., & Escalante-Izeta, E. I. (2018).
Perceived healthiness of breakfasts in women with overweight or obesity match expert recommendations. Open
Psychology, 1, 25–35. doi: 10.1515/psych-2018-0003.
Laguna-Camacho, A., & Serrano-Plata, M. J. (2021). Efecto en peso de una dieta “casera” en mujeres mexicanas con sobrepeso
u obesidad: Un ensayo controlado aleatorio. Psicología Conductual, 20, 743–762. doi: 10.51668/bp.8321313s.
Lozano, R., Gómez-Dantés, H., Garrido-Latorre, F., Jiménez-Corona, A., Campuzano-Rincón, J. C., Franco-Marina, F., Medina-
Mora, M. E., Borges, G., Naghavi, M., Wang, H., Vos, T., Lopez, A. D., & Murray, C. J. (2013). La carga de enfermedad,
lesiones, factores de riesgo y desafíos para el sistema de salud en México [Burden of disease, injuries, risk factors and
challenges for the health system in Mexico]. Salud Pública de México, 55(6), 580–594.
Mair, A., Poirier, M., & Conway, M. A. (2017). Supporting older and younger adults’ memory for recent everyday events:
A prospective sampling study using SenseCam. Consciousness and Cognition, 49, 190–202. doi: 10.1016/j.concog.2017.
02.008.
Mathe, N., Johnson, S. T., Wozniak, L. A., Majumdar, S. R., & Johnson, J. A. (2015). Alternation as a form of allocation for quality
improvement studies in primary healthcare settings: The on-off study design. Trials, 16, 375. doi: 10.1186/s13063-015-
0904-x.
McNaughton, S. A., Pendergast, F. J., Worsley, A., & Leech, R. M. (2020). Eating occasion situational factors and sugar-
sweetened beverage consumption in young adults. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 17(1),
71. doi: 10.1186/s12966-020-00975-y.
Munafò, M. R., Nosek, B. A., Bishop, D., Button, K. S., Chambers, C. D., du Sert, N. P., Simonsohn, U., Wagenmakers, E. J.,
Ware, J. J., & Ioannidis, J. (2017). A manifesto for reproducible science. Nature Human Behaviour, 1, 0021. doi: 10.1038/
s41562-016-0021.
Papies, E. K., Barsalou, L., Claassen, M. A., Davis, T., Farrar, S., Gauthier, E., Rodger, A., Tatar, B., Wehbe, L. H., &
Werner, J. (2022). Grounding motivation for behaviour change. PsyArXiv. doi: 10.31234/osf.io/j94vb.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research:
A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903.
doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879.
Radvansky, G. A., Doolen, A. C., Pettijohn, K. A., & Ritchey, M. (2022). A new look at memory retention and forgetting. Journal of
Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 48(11), 1698–1723. doi: 10.1037/xlm0001110.
Sánchez-Pimienta, T. G., Batis, C., Lutter, C. K., & Rivera, J. A. (2016). Sugar-sweetened beverages are the main sources of
added sugar intake in the Mexican population. The Journal of Nutrition, 146(9), 1888S–1896S. doi: 10.3945/jn.115.220301.
Schacter, D. L., & Madore, K. P. (2016). Remembering the past and imagining the future: identifying and enhancing the
contribution of episodic memory. Memory Studies, 9(3), 245–255. doi: 10.1177/1750698016645230.
Scheel, A. M., Schijen, M. R. M. J., & Lakens, D. (2021). An excess of positive results: Comparing the standard psychology
literature with registered reports. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 4(2). doi: 10.1177/
25152459211007467.
Scheel, A. M., Tiokhin, L., Isager, P. M., & Lakens, D. (2020). Why hypothesis testers should spend less time testing hypoth-
eses. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 16(49), 744–755. doi: 10.1177/1745691620966795.
Schulze, M. B., Martínez-González, M. A., Fung, T. T., Lichtenstein, A. H., & Forouhi, N. G. (2018). Food based dietary patterns
and chronic disease prevention. BMJ, 361, k2396. doi: 10.1136/bmj.k2396.
Schwarz, N. (2007). Cognitive aspects of survey methodology. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 21(2), 277–287. doi: 10.1002/acp.1340.
Secretaría de Salud. (2012). Norma Oficial Mexicana NOM-043-SSA2-2012, Servicios básicos de salud. Promoción y educación
para la salud en materia alimentaria. Criterios para brindar orientación. http://dof.gob.mx/nota_detalle.php?codigo=
5285372&fecha=22/01/2013.
Seitz, B. M., Tomiyama, A. J., & Blaisdell, A. P. (2021). Eating behavior as a new frontier in memory research. Neuroscience and
Biobehavioral Reviews, 127, 795–807. doi: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2021.05.024.
White, M., & Barquera, S. (2020). Mexico adopts food warning labels, why now? Health Systems and Reform, 6(1), e1752063.
doi: 10.1080/23288604.2020.1752063.
Zacks, J. M. (2020). Event perception and memory. Annual Review of Psychology, 71, 165–191. doi: 10.1146/annurev-psych-
010419-051101.