A newly released study in the Journal of Consumer Psychology highlights a quiet contradiction within ethical consumer behaviour. While many shoppers express strong moral approval for companies that employ people experiencing homelessness, those same consumers often become less inclined to purchase from those businesses. Beneath public support lies a more profound social discomfort that subtly shapes buying decisions, revealing how good intentions do not always translate into real-world action.

The research was led by Brandon Reich, an Associate Professor of Marketing at Portland State University, and focused on a growing business practice known as impact hiring. This approach centres on employing individuals from marginalised communities as a way to create social good alongside commercial success. Through five carefully designed experiments, the researchers examined how consumers reacted when they learned a company hired people experiencing homelessness, tracking both moral judgment and purchase behaviour.

Across the studies, participants consistently praised the companies for doing the right thing. However, when it came to evaluating the products themselves, a different pattern emerged. Purchase intentions dropped noticeably once the hiring practice became prominent. The researchers traced this response to unconscious “contagion concerns” — emotional reactions rooted in long-standing social stigma rather than rational assessment of product quality or company values.

This disconnect illustrates what the authors describe as a Say–Do Gap. Consumers may genuinely believe a company is ethical and socially responsible, yet instinctive feelings of discomfort override those beliefs. The presence of homeless employees triggered automatic emotional responses, particularly disgust, linked to stereotypes about hygiene, safety, and risk. Even though participants knew these reactions were unfair, the emotions still influenced their choices at the checkout.

Reich explained that when people experiencing homelessness were placed in visible, customer-facing roles, consumers often claimed to support the initiative but were simultaneously less likely to buy from the company. The stigma surrounding homelessness quietly shaped perceptions of the products themselves, leading shoppers to distance themselves despite their stated moral approval. It was not a conscious rejection, but an emotional reflex driven by deeply ingrained bias.

The study also explored ways businesses could counteract this effect without abandoning their social mission. One particularly effective solution involved using social proof in marketing. When consumers were shown that many other people already purchased and enjoyed the products, their concerns diminished. Signals of popularity and trust helped reassure shoppers about safety and quality, weakening the emotional response linked to stigma.

These findings offer a hopeful message for socially driven companies. With thoughtful communication strategies, businesses can support marginalised workers while maintaining consumer confidence and sales. More broadly, the research exposes how ethical values often compete with unconscious emotional reactions in everyday decisions. Understanding this tension is crucial for creating markets where social impact and commercial success can truly work hand in hand.

More information: Brandon J. Reich et al, Homelessness-based impact hiring and consumers’ contagion concerns, Journal of Consumer Psychology. DOI: 10.1002/jcpy.70010

Journal information: Journal of Consumer Psychology Provided by Portland State University