The Say-Do Gap: Why Singapore Consumer Research Keeps Lying to You
A skincare brand conducts pre-launch research in Singapore. Results look promising: 72% of surveyed consumers say they'd "definitely" or "probably" try the product. Six months post-launch, actual trial sits at 9%.
This isn't a research failure in the traditional sense. The methodology was sound. The sample was representative. The questions were clear. The problem is deeper: research captured what consumers believed about themselves, not what they actually do.
The gap between stated intention and actual behavior—what researchers call the "say-do gap"—isn't unique to Singapore. But Singapore's high-context culture makes it particularly pronounced. Understanding why reveals how to design research that actually predicts behavior.
Why Singapore Consumers Say What They Don't Mean
The Harmony Preference
In cultures that value social harmony, expressing disagreement or negativity feels rude—even in research settings designed for honest feedback. When a moderator asks "would you try this product?", saying no feels like criticism of whoever created it. Saying yes costs nothing.
This isn't lying. Participants genuinely believe, in that moment, that they might try the product. The gap emerges when the hypothetical meets reality—when saying yes means spending actual money, changing actual routines, taking actual risk.
The Aspiration Projection
Consumers describe themselves as they wish to be, not as they are. In focus groups about healthy eating, participants emphasize vegetables and lean proteins. Their Grab receipts tell different stories.
Singapore's aspirational middle-class identity intensifies this. Admitting to cheap purchases, unhealthy habits, or impulsive decisions feels like status failure. Research settings amplify the performance.
The Context Collapse
Research environments strip away the context that shapes actual decisions. A consumer evaluating a product in a focus group has time, attention, and no competing priorities. The same consumer in a pharmacy aisle has thirty seconds, a buzzing phone, and three other errands to run.
The considered preference expressed in research rarely survives contact with real shopping conditions.
How the Gap Manifests Across Categories
In Price Research
Consumers consistently claim they'll pay more for quality, sustainability, or convenience. In practice, price sensitivity dominates most categories. The gap is widest for products where quality is hard to evaluate before purchase. A consumer who says she'd pay $80 for "premium" skincare might hesitate at the shelf and grab the $45 option.
In Brand Switching
"I'm open to trying new brands" might be the most common research fiction. Most consumers are trapped by habit, convenience, and risk aversion. The switching costs they'll actually tolerate are far lower than those they claim to accept in surveys.
In Ethical Consumption
Sustainability research consistently overestimates ethical purchasing. Singapore consumers say they care about environmental impact. Their behavior shows that price, convenience, and habit still dominate. The gap creates a market for "virtue at no cost" products—sustainable-ish options that don't require sacrifice.
Questions Worth Exploring
For brands interpreting research: Are you measuring intention or behavior? If your research shows high purchase intent, what evidence do you have that intent predicts actual purchase in your category?
For researchers designing studies: Which of your questions ask about hypothetical behavior versus past behavior? How are you validating stated preferences against observable actions?
For marketers planning campaigns: Does your strategy assume consumers will behave as they claim? What happens to your plan if actual behavior is 60% less favorable than stated intention?
Research Designs That Reveal Truth
Framework 1: Behavioral Question Audit
Converting Attitudinal Questions to Behavioral Ones
For each question in your research, ask: am I capturing what people do or what they believe?
| ❌ Attitudinal (What They Believe) | ✅ Behavioral (What They Do) |
|---|---|
| "Would you try this product?" | "Tell me about the last three new products you tried. What made you try them?" |
| "How much would you pay for this?" | "What's the most you've paid for something in this category in the past year?" |
| "Do you care about sustainability?" | "Walk me through your last five purchases. Which ones were influenced by sustainability?" |
| "Are you loyal to any brands?" | "What did you buy last time? The time before? Has it been the same brand?" |
| "Would price affect your decision?" | "Tell me about a time you wanted something but didn't buy it. What stopped you?" |
Past behavior predicts future behavior more reliably than stated intentions.
Framework 2: The Intention-Reality Discount
How Much Should You Discount Stated Purchase Intent?
Apply these discount factors based on category and claim type:
| Claim Type | Discount Factor | Why |
|---|---|---|
| "Definitely would buy" | 50-60% | Strongest claims have largest gaps |
| "Probably would buy" | 70-80% | Hedged claims slightly more reliable |
| "Willing to pay premium" | 60-70% | Price reality hits harder than expected |
| "Would switch brands" | 75-85% | Habit is stronger than stated openness |
| "Would recommend to friends" | 40-50% | Recommendation is social risk; easily claimed, rarely done |
Calibrate discount factors with historical data from your category when available.
Conclusion
The say-do gap isn't a flaw to eliminate. It's a feature of human psychology to design around. Research that asks "what do you want?" will always mislead. Research that reveals "what do you actually do?" can change business outcomes.
At Singapore Insights, we design research that captures actual behavior, not just stated intention. If you've been disappointed by research that didn't predict market reality, let us have a conversation. You can also write to our Research Lead, Felicia at felicia@assembled.sg or give us a call at +65 8118 1048.
