Consumer BehaviorNCT07186270
Decoding the Interplay of Front-of-Pack Labels, Price, and Consumer Perceptions: Impact on Food Choices in Korea and Singapore
A study testing Positively framed FOP labels (present versus absent) x Price (high versus low) and Graded FOP labels (no label vs. high rating (grade A) vs. low rating (grade D)) x Price (average vs. premium) in people with Consumer Behavior, run by Duke-NUS Graduate Medical School.
Trial summary
The global epidemic of obesity and chronic diseases has led to widespread use of front-of-package (FOP) nutrition labels. While existing research has established a link between FOP labels and consumer choices, the interplay between product types, consumer perceptions, and label effectiveness is underexplored. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages Up to 65 years
- Conditions the study is for
- Consumer Behavior
- What is being tested?
- Positively framed FOP labels (present versus absent) x Price (high versus low) and Graded FOP labels (no label vs. high rating (grade A) vs. low rating (grade D)) x Price (average vs. premium)
- Type of treatment
- Lifestyle or therapy programme
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 1,000 participants
- Where
- No sites listed yet
- Study dates
- Oct 2025to Dec 2025
- Phase
- Interventional
- Are there results?
- Not yet: the study is under way
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages Up to 65 years
- All sexes
- No healthy volunteers
- Child, Adult, Older adult
Who may be able to join
- Adults aged 18-65 years residing in Korea
- Adults aged 21-65 years residing in Singapore
Who cannot join
None listed.
Trial locations and contacts
No sites are listed yet. Contact the study team or a site near you to ask about taking part.
About this study
The global epidemic of obesity and chronic diseases has led to widespread use of front-of-package (FOP) nutrition labels. While existing research has established a link between FOP labels and consumer choices, the interplay between product types, consumer perceptions, and label effectiveness is underexplored. This study examines: 1) whether consumers perceive healthier food item as more expensive when healthiness is less obvious; 2) how FOP labels mediate the relationship among product characteristics, price, and consumer's belief about food healthiness and price on choices; and 3) whether food choice changes given a price, with and without FOP labels, are more prominent for products where the perceived healthiness by consumers significantly differs from label indications. The investigators will conduct experiments with online panelists in Korea and Singapore in two settings: restaurant menus and grocery items. Results will inform more impactful nutritional information policies for healthier food choices and improved population health.
Read the detailed description
The investigators will conduct experiments in both Korea and Singapore, focusing on two settings with various food items: restaurant menu choices and grocery item selections. For each item, investigators will elicit consumers' prior belief about its healthiness. Our research builds upon the work of Haws et al. (2017), which demonstrated that US consumers tend to overgeneralize their belief about "expensive=healthy" to product categories where it is not true. This tendency potentially biases perceptions of healthy foods. The investigators aim to test this "expensive=healthy" intuition and its impact on food choice, with and without FOP labels, in Asian contexts. The investigators hypothesize that absent FOP labels, consumers will infer healthiness from price information (i.e., this product is expensive, so it must be healthy) and that providing FOP labels will reduce the reliance on this inference. The investigators also hypothesize that such effects of FOP labels are more prominent for products where the perceived healthiness by consumers significantly differs from the healthiness indicated by the labels. When the FOP labels show 'less healthy' for those expensive and perceived as 'healthy' products, consumers will update their prior belief about its healthiness and be more likely to drop the intuition 'expensive=healthiness' in decision-making and respond to a greater extent.
- Conditions
- Consumer Behavior
- Being tested
- Positively framed FOP labels (present versus absent) x Price (high versus low), Graded FOP labels (no label vs. high rating (grade A) vs. low rating (grade D)) x Price (average vs. premium)
- Keywords
- Front-of-pack labelling
- Medical subject headings
- Consumer Behavior
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
Positively framed FOP labels (present versus absent) x Price (high versus low)Behavioural
The intervention combines either a front-of-pack (FOP) label that frames high nutrition or no FOP label with price variation. Products are randomly assigned to either receive a positively-framed FOP label or no label, and to either a high or a low price.
This yields four experimental arms:
- Positively framed FOP label with high price
- Positively framed FOP label with low price
- No label with high price
- No label with low price
Graded FOP labels (no label vs. high rating (grade A) vs. low rating (grade D)) x Price (average vs. premium)Behavioural
The intervention combines either a graded front-of-pack (FOP) labelling or no FOP labelling with price variation. Products are randomly assigned to either receive a graded label or no label, and to either a premium or an average price.
This yields six experimental arms:
- High grade (A) with premium price
- Low grade (D) with premium price
- No label with premium price
- High grade (A) with average price
- Low grade (D) with average price
- No label with average price
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Study 1: Restaurant menu choice experiment | Experimental | Participants will read a hypothetical scenario about ordering a meal for a coworker. Participants will be told that their coworker has no dietary restrictions and is trying to eat healthier. They will be presented with two similar restaurant meal options, one priced higher than the other, with randomized assignments. In the label condition, a nutritional label for healthy foods, called the Healthy Choice Symbol adopted in Singapore, will be provided with an explanation of the labelling system. For both label and non-label conditions, participants will be asked to assess the healthfulness of each option using a standard 5-point scale (1-least healthy to 5-healthiest). Participants will then be asked to indicate which option to order for their coworker.
Participants will be randomly assigned to one in four experimental arms. Receives: Behavioral: Positively framed FOP labels (present versus absent) x Price (high versus low) |
| Study 2: Grocery Food Item Choice Experiment | Experimental | Participants will read a hypothetical cover story about a new brand of a grocery item with generic health claims and see pictures of different flavors of this brand. Participants will be randomly assigned to either an average or a premium price condition and informed about the average price of other brands of the same item. They will be asked to indicate their perceived relative healthiness of the product compared to the products in other brands on a 5-point scale (1- least healthy to 5- healthiest). After assessment, they will see a high-grade label (grade A), low-grade label (grade D), or no label. For those exposed to labels, they will be given an explanation of the label and asked to indicate their perceived relative healthiness of the product again. In the end, all participants will indicate their intention to purchase items on a 7-point scale (1: least likely - 7: most likely).
Participants will be assigned to one in six experimental arms. Receives: Behavioral: Graded FOP labels (no label vs. high rating (grade A) vs. low rating (grade D)) x Price (average vs. premium) |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Consumers behavior
Study 1: Participants achieve a response by choosing between two menu food items they would purchase for their co-worker in online experimental platform.
Study 2: Participants rate their intention to purchase grocery items on a 7-point scale (1 = least likely, 7 = most likely) in online experimental platform.
Measured: Participants are expected to complete the online experiment in one sitting (within 24 hours). If they are disconnected from the survey platform, they are allowed up to two attempts to resume, with access to the platform disabled after 48 hours.
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted22 Sep 2025
- Study startOct 2025 (estimated)
- Primary completionDec 2025 (estimated)
- Study completionDec 2025 (estimated)
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Other trials for Consumer BehaviorStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Interventional
- Phase
- Phase N/A
- Primary purpose
- Health services research
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Sequential
- Model description
- At baseline, participants rate 8 menu items and 8 grocery items on a 5-point healthiness scale (1= least healthy, 5= healthiest) and their confidence. 6 menu items and 6 grocery items will be selected for experiment in study 1 and 2 respectively, prioritizing items with the largest perceived-actual healthiness gap, while ensuring varied confidence levels among items with similar gaps. Study 1: Participants read a hypothetical scenario about ordering meal for a co-worker. They will be randomized to 1 of the 4 conditions and asked to choose a menu item to order for their coworker. Study 2: Participants read a hypothetical cover story about a new brand Y of grocery item W and see pictures of different flavors with general health claim. They will be randomized to 1 of the 6 conditions. Participants indicate their likelihood of buying Brand Y in the hypothetical situation that they intend to purchase item W. Details of experiments in each study are discussed in the next section.
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Enrolment
- 1,000 participants (estimated)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- Duke-NUS Graduate Medical School
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- Korea University, National University of Singapore
- Responsible party
- Principal investigator, Soye Shin, Duke-NUS Graduate Medical School
- Investigators
- Sang Hyeon Lee, Principal investigator, Korea UniversitySoye Shin, Principal investigator, Duke-NUS Graduate Medical School
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT07186270
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- 000273
- Status last verified
- Sep 2025
- First submitted
- 11 Sep 2025
- Last updated
- 23 Sep 2025
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- No
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 23 Sep 2025. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Decoding the Interplay of Front-of-Pack Labels, Price, and Consumer Perceptions: Impact on Food Choices in Korea and Singapore
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT07186270
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- 000273
- Conditions
- Consumer Behavior
- Keywords
- Front-of-pack labelling
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Not yet recruiting
- Enrolment
- 1,000 participants (estimated)
- Lead sponsor
- Duke-NUS Graduate Medical SchoolUniversity, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- Korea University, National University of Singapore
- Study start
- Oct 2025 (estimated)
- Primary completion
- Dec 2025 (estimated)
- Study completion
- Dec 2025 (estimated)
- First posted
- 22 Sep 2025 (actual)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
The global epidemic of obesity and chronic diseases has led to widespread use of front-of-package (FOP) nutrition labels. While existing research has established a link between FOP labels and consumer choices, the interplay between product types, consumer perceptions, and label effectiveness is underexplored. This study examines: 1) whether consumers perceive healthier food item as more expensive when healthiness is less obvious; 2) how FOP labels mediate the relationship among product characteristics, price, and consumer's belief about food healthiness and price on choices; and 3) whether food choice changes given a price, with and without FOP labels, are more prominent for products where the perceived healthiness by consumers significantly differs from label indications. The investigators will conduct experiments with online panelists in Korea and Singapore in two settings: restaurant menus and grocery items. Results will inform more impactful nutritional information policies for healthier food choices and improved population health.
Detailed description
The investigators will conduct experiments in both Korea and Singapore, focusing on two settings with various food items: restaurant menu choices and grocery item selections. For each item, investigators will elicit consumers' prior belief about its healthiness. Our research builds upon the work of Haws et al. (2017), which demonstrated that US consumers tend to overgeneralize their belief about "expensive=healthy" to product categories where it is not true. This tendency potentially biases perceptions of healthy foods. The investigators aim to test this "expensive=healthy" intuition and its impact on food choice, with and without FOP labels, in Asian contexts. The investigators hypothesize that absent FOP labels, consumers will infer healthiness from price information (i.e., this product is expensive, so it must be healthy) and that providing FOP labels will reduce the reliance on this inference. The investigators also hypothesize that such effects of FOP labels are more prominent for products where the perceived healthiness by consumers significantly differs from the healthiness indicated by the labels. When the FOP labels show 'less healthy' for those expensive and perceived as 'healthy' products, consumers will update their prior belief about its healthiness and be more likely to drop the intuition 'expensive=healthiness' in decision-making and respond to a greater extent.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Health services research
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Sequential
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Number of arms
- 2
- Model description
- At baseline, participants rate 8 menu items and 8 grocery items on a 5-point healthiness scale (1= least healthy, 5= healthiest) and their confidence. 6 menu items and 6 grocery items will be selected for experiment in study 1 and 2 respectively, prioritizing items with the largest perceived-actual healthiness gap, while ensuring varied confidence levels among items with similar gaps. Study 1: Participants read a hypothetical scenario about ordering meal for a co-worker. They will be randomized to 1 of the 4 conditions and asked to choose a menu item to order for their coworker. Study 2: Participants read a hypothetical cover story about a new brand Y of grocery item W and see pictures of different flavors with general health claim. They will be randomized to 1 of the 6 conditions. Participants indicate their likelihood of buying Brand Y in the hypothetical situation that they intend to purchase item W. Details of experiments in each study are discussed in the next section.
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Study 1: Restaurant menu choice experiment | Experimental | Behavioral: Positively framed FOP labels (present versus absent) x Price (high versus low)Participants will read a hypothetical scenario about ordering a meal for a coworker. Participants will be told that their coworker has no dietary restrictions and is trying to eat healthier. They will be presented with two similar restaurant meal options, one priced higher than the other, with randomized assignments. In the label condition, a nutritional label for healthy foods, called the Healthy Choice Symbol adopted in Singapore, will be provided with an explanation of the labelling system. For both label and non-label conditions, participants will be asked to assess the healthfulness of each option using a standard 5-point scale (1-least healthy to 5-healthiest). Participants will then be asked to indicate which option to order for their coworker. Participants will be randomly assigned to one in four experimental arms. |
| Study 2: Grocery Food Item Choice Experiment | Experimental | Behavioral: Graded FOP labels (no label vs. high rating (grade A) vs. low rating (grade D)) x Price (average vs. premium)Participants will read a hypothetical cover story about a new brand of a grocery item with generic health claims and see pictures of different flavors of this brand. Participants will be randomly assigned to either an average or a premium price condition and informed about the average price of other brands of the same item. They will be asked to indicate their perceived relative healthiness of the product compared to the products in other brands on a 5-point scale (1- least healthy to 5- healthiest). After assessment, they will see a high-grade label (grade A), low-grade label (grade D), or no label. For those exposed to labels, they will be given an explanation of the label and asked to indicate their perceived relative healthiness of the product again. In the end, all participants will indicate their intention to purchase items on a 7-point scale (1: least likely - 7: most likely). Participants will be assigned to one in six experimental arms. |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- Up to 65 years
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Not accepted
- Age groups
- Child, Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (2 listed)
- Adults aged 18-65 years residing in Korea
- Adults aged 21-65 years residing in Singapore
Key exclusion criteria (0 listed)
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| Positively framed FOP labels (present versus absent) x Price (high versus low)The intervention combines either a front-of-pack (FOP) label that frames high nutrition or no FOP label with price variation. Products are randomly assigned to either receive a positively-framed FOP label or no label, and to either a high or a low price. This yields four experimental arms: 1. Positively framed FOP label with high price 2. Positively framed FOP label with low price 3. No label with high price 4. No label with low price | Behavioural | Study 1: Restaurant menu choice experiment |
| Graded FOP labels (no label vs. high rating (grade A) vs. low rating (grade D)) x Price (average vs. premium)The intervention combines either a graded front-of-pack (FOP) labelling or no FOP labelling with price variation. Products are randomly assigned to either receive a graded label or no label, and to either a premium or an average price. This yields six experimental arms: 1. High grade (A) with premium price 2. Low grade (D) with premium price 3. No label with premium price 4. High grade (A) with average price 5. Low grade (D) with average price 6. No label with average price | Behavioural | Study 2: Grocery Food Item Choice Experiment |
Primary outcome
Consumers behavior
Time frame: Participants are expected to complete the online experiment in one sitting (within 24 hours). If they are disconnected from the survey platform, they are allowed up to two attempts to resume, with access to the platform disabled after 48 hours.
Study 1: Participants achieve a response by choosing between two menu food items they would purchase for their co-worker in online experimental platform. Study 2: Participants rate their intention to purchase grocery items on a 7-point scale (1 = least likely, 7 = most likely) in online experimental platform.
Results and safety
This study is still under way. Results are not available in the source record yet.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 23 Sep 2025.
Related trials for Consumer Behavior
Recruiting
The Impact of the Family Room App on Caregivers
Well-Being, Psychological, Engagement
RecruitingObservational study
téléwork and Consumer Behavior: Longitudinal Study
Addictions
Active, not recruiting
Wellness App for Sleep Disturbance in Hematological Cancer Patients
Cancer, Sleep Disturbance
Not yet recruitingObservational study
University Survey on Consumer Behavior and Mental Health
Consumer Behavior, Mental Health
Not yet recruiting
A Physical Activity Programme Focussed on Step Volume and Intensity for People With Cardiovascular Disease: Getting Active and Staying Active After Cardiac Rehabilitation
Coronary Artery Disease
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part.
Sang Hyeon Lee principal investigator
Korea University
Soye Shin principal investigator
Duke-NUS Graduate Medical School
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing Positively framed FOP labels (present versus absent) x Price (high versus low) and Graded FOP labels (no label vs. high rating (grade A) vs. low rating (grade D)) x Price (average vs. premium) in people with Consumer Behavior, run by Duke-NUS Graduate Medical School.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 2 inclusion and 0 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: opening soon, as of the sponsor's last update on 23 Sep 2025. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
Are results available for this study?
This study is still under way. Results are not available in the source record yet.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
Contact Soye Shin (+6566013319, syshin@duke-nus.edu.sg), or a site near the patient. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Consumers behavior (time frame: Participants are expected to complete the online experiment in one sitting (within 24 hours). If they are disconnected from the survey platform, they are allowed up to two attempts to resume, with access to the platform disabled after 48 hours.). It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 23 Sep 2025.