Our Relationship to Stuff

We Americans have a complicated relationship with our stuff. Overall, we are building bigger houses and filling them with easily accessible, non-essential items. This “stuff” fills valuable space in our homes and even overflows to costly storage units. Stuff takes up valuable time, and we spend hours shopping in person and online. We spend an exorbitant amount of money on stuff we don’t need, sometimes more money than we actually have. Stuff is destroying our planet. Manufacturing stuff uses precious global resources, and discarding the stuff destroys land, sea and wildlife. And the craziest part of it all is that we don’t use or want most of the stuff we own.

According to Randy O. Frost, psychologist and hoarding expert, there are three main aspects to consumer behavior that leads to stuff-filled houses:

Acquisition
Saving
Disorganization

This outlines consumer behavior of the majority of Americans. Although hoarders make up only 6 percent of the population, they exhibit the same behavior as most consuming Americans but to an extreme degree. The severity of such conduct is usually caused by an underlying mental disparity such as obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) or depression.

Acquisition of stuff, or consumerism, is a learned behavior, which means it is taught and shaped over time by extraneous factors. The human relationship to things—possessions such as clothing, books, papers, furniture, mementoes, cleaning supplies, toys, decorations, pantry items—spans back centuries.

In order to understand the American consumer today, it is helpful to start in the 1930s and The Great Depression. In 1929, the Roaring Twenties, a time of scintillating excess, came to a halt. Most citizens unexpectedly lost everything. Women were selling handmade clothing for income and men were waiting in line for soup and bread. The relationship with stuff changed: people found new ways to use old things. They repaired items and used them as long as they could, for fear of losing it all again.

During this time, real estate broker Bernard London penned an essay on his idea of Planned Obsolescence (3). He proposed that items such as appliances or shoes should be assigned a life span by the government. People use the items for the allotted amount of time and then return them to the government for a refund worth the sales tax of the item. London mentions that “legally ‘dead’” products will then be destroyed. He does not specify how, or seem to consider any secondary consequences of this idea. His disregard for waste is both interesting and troubling, and perhaps a catalyst or precursor to the waste issues that we face today. Planned Obsolescence was largely adopted, which affected consumer economics immensely. Today, the shorter the lifespan of the object, the more often consumers will have to buy a new one. The focus has shifted to quantity over quality.

Fact: Planned obsolescence was readily adopted by the automobile industry. Even with tax benefits most Americans could not buy a new car every year or so, which led to the birth of the loan. (2)

By the 1950s a perfect storm of cars, highways, and malls created a shopping boom (2). Using money from the G.I. Bill, veterans and their families were buying cars and taking advantage of the newly established freeway system to move to the suburbs. They bought televisions for their new homes. TVs brought advertisements; with catchy jingles and flashy pictures you were told what you needed, and who you could be if you bought this and used that. This is also when malls grew more prevalent, popping up all over the country and labeled as an adventure destination. Take your car, fill it with friends and family, and venture to the mall, where you can pack your trunk with goods!

By the 1970s a portion of the younger generation questioned consumption and the society it was creating. The first Earth Day was celebrated on April 22, 1970. The oil scare in 1974 made people realize that resources are finite. But then, the 1980s Reagan era pushed the idea that it was cool to consume. In this case, the Reagans started off with a bang when the first lady wore a $15,000 dress to the inaugural ball.

Throughout the 1980s the advertising industry continued to boom, billboards took over the highways, and the age of Affluenza (the relentless pursuit of more) began (2). Consumerism was exacerbated in the 1990s with the prosperity of the technology industry and dot-com days. Americans were told it was cool to consume, and now many had the money to do so. Leading into the 2000s, factories could produce more items faster than ever before. The fashion industry set a precedent of overproduction and overconsumption. The term “Fast Fashion” was first coined in the 1990s to describe popular clothing brands: Gap, H&M, Forever 21, and many more that produce inexpensive, trendy (short life) products made with low-quality material and construction. It is estimated that 60 percent of products produced from fast fashion lines end up in landfills.

It wasn’t just politicians telling us it was cool to consume. In the 2000s we were idolizing the rich and famous. Do you remember VH1’s the “Fabulous Life Of…”? This show, chronicling celebrities’ lives of luxury, was popular starting in 2003. And let’s not forget MTV Cribs, inviting viewers into over-the-top celebrity homes, first aired in 2000. And no one can seem to forget Keeping Up With the Kardashian on E!, which first aired in 2007. The Kardashian were initially popular primarily for being rich, and now fittingly stay relevant by producing many products (clothing, makeup, perfume, oh my!) for us over-consumers.

So, here we are today. There is ample evidence showing that we are constantly in the pursuit of stuff, but once it gets in to our homes and we are overwhelmed by it.

Storage facilities are the fastest growing real estate industry in the country.
The home organizing industry has doubled in size since the early 2000s.
Professional organizers such as Marie Kondo and The Home Edit have best-selling books and popular Netflix series.
The Minimalists claim to have helped over 20 million people downsize their possessions since 2010.

As discussed above, the consumer system has been set up for us to buy, buy, buy! Even you, babies! Have you noticed that Bed Bath & Beyond’s kids’ branch is called Buy Buy Baby? It’s a part of our habits, recreation, and identity. Here is what is happening during the act of buying.

Acquisition

Research shows that humans start a relationship with stuff as soon as we see it. Once we obtain an item, it immediately has more value to us (1). We’ve also created memories associated with the acquisition of the thing, and oftentimes a fantasy for how we might use this item. We also buy to live in the moment. You may have heard of “shoppers high”—making a purchase sends a dopamine (pleasure) response to the brain (5). Similar to gambling, this “gain” of an item feels good. Here are some other mechanisms at play in different acquisition circumstances:

· In-person shopping: It has been ingrained in us that shopping is an adventure, an activity, a to-do. And the shopping experience is set up for our pleasure. Most department stores are designed to be bright (literally) beacons of opportunity (6). Many stores are manned with cheery employees ready to help you and tell you how fabulous you are and look. Not only do you get to leave the store with your new item, but with a pleasant human interaction.

· Online shopping: Why do many people love to shop online? It’s EASY! You can achieve a dopamine hit in your pajamas, from your couch, with just a few clicks. Shopping online is like virtual window shopping. And the thing about virtual window shopping is that you are never allowed to forget about those items you browsed on a whim. There are a lot of successful companies that sell marketing software to send you strategic ads and emails. Emails saying “did you forget…?” and ads reminding you about the sweater you looked at two months ago: it’s now on sale. Just the other day I received an email that said “It’s an add to cart kind of day”.

· Gifts: Gifts are a tricky topic, and they are not necessarily a bad thing. As we have seen, once we find and purchase an item it has more value to us than just the price tag. And we have learned that we can now bestow that value onto someone else. As gift givers we get the pleasure of the shoppers high with the additional satisfaction of altruistic giving. Giving gifts assuages guilt—for example, if you cannot be somewhere for Christmas, send a gift instead. From a young age we are even taught that the party can go on through gifts in the form of goody bags. Perhaps the better the goody bag, the better lasting memory of the party. Gift giving is not inherently a negative activity. However, being aware of how, why, when, and how often we give gifts is important. Breaking the pattern of learned behavior or advertising propaganda can be a healthy approach to buying and exchanging gifts.

· Unintentional stuff: I find this increasingly prevalent and difficult to combat. Here are some examples of unintentional stuff. Purchases often come with a free gift. The last time I bought kitchen towels, I got home and noticed my bag also contained a free gift of an eye mask. As I look around my office right now, I see a branded pennant and bell gifted to my husband from his employer; I see a purple frame that I received instead of the white one I ordered. I was instructed by the manufacturer to keep the mistake frame and the correct one would soon arrive in the mail. Does this sound familiar to you? It’s sneaky stuff. You didn’t seek it out, but it ends up in your home all the same.

Saving

Now that we have discussed acquisition of stuff and the psychological connection to things, it makes sense why stuff is so hard to part with. Your item holds a value to you that is more than the dollar value you paid for it:

Objects immortalize memories in tangible form. (1)

No one wants to throw away memories, especially ones formed around a dopamine response.

Back to psychologist Randy O. Frost. He outlines three main reasons for saving stuff. Additional psychology research as well as information gathered by professional organizers adds detail to these three reasons (1).

Sentimental:

The item is connected to a person, place, or event.
The item has been anthropomorphized: “I gave it a home.”
The item represents craftsmanship: the quality of object reflects a time when values were different; when things were handled with care and time was spent on creation.
The item was a gift.

Utility:

The item might help a future generation to be secure: “I want to hand it down.”
The item might be needed in the future: It’s an uncertain world.
The item might be worth something someday.
The item is in great condition.
The item is fixable: “I’ll do it someday.”

Fondness:

The item was expensive.
The item was on sale: “I got a good deal.”
You just like it.

Getting Rid:

One of my personal theories as to why we keep, is that the process of getting rid is too hard. Getting rid of stuff is usually more time consuming and less enjoyable than obtaining it. Additionally:

You want to resist waste and be environmentally responsible.
You don’t want to add it to a landfill, and figuring out the best place for it to go takes time.

Why Let Go

All the bullets above are mostly legitimate reasons to keep items. We just need to find the line between a reason to keep the item and an excuse not to get rid of it. If our homes are filled with things that we need, use, and love and we purge items we’re making excuses for, we will be happier and more efficient. This is scientifically accurate: clutter (excess, unorganized stuff) causes stress and raises our cognitive load. We have so much stimuli coming at us at all times that our brains use shortcuts to create meaning.

At a basic perceptual level our visual system uses shortcuts called Gestalt Principles. The principles, such as proximity, similarity, closure and continuation are ways our brains make a whole out of parts. For example, in the similarity depiction at left, our eye groups the similar circles: follows the white ones or groups the blue ones. When bombarded with high volumes of dissimilar and scattered items, the shortcut is disrupted. Our eye cannot settle and requires a higher level of effort to visually survey the scene.

left: pintererst.com. right: thehomeedit.com

Then, on a deeper level of analysis, our brains work to problem solve or make decisions by using shortcuts called heuristics. For example, if you see a hammer and a dog, the brain categorizes as living or inanimate because the living object may be a threat. A chaotic scene requires more analysis, adding to cognitive load (4). Picture this: you are walking through your home thinking about how much time you have until you have to pick up your child, whether or not the dog was fed, if you responded to that email…when you realize you are hungry. You open the cabinet to find a can of soup. The left pantry requires far more mental effort to analyze than the right one. In essence, an organized home, literally opens your mind to be able to focus on other things. And, because your brain is striving for order and simplification the exposed clutter feels like a constant to-do, something to deal with and fix.

There are also more tangible problems with too much stuff.

It gets in the way. It hinders movement, which can be dangerous, especially for the older population.
It takes up valuable space, one study showed that three quarters of garages examined were too full to fit a car.
It takes up your time: you spend far more time looking for things, even if they are not lost, because they do not have a designated spot. Research shows we search for up to nine items every day.
Not being able to easily locate objects also wastes money: you buy duplicates of things.

What To Do

So, what can we do about all of this? Three key actions: disrupt the acquisition phase, think twice about keeping, and teach younger generations. Knowing the pieces at play as described in this article will help.

When shopping:

Take a picture of the item and think about it.
Think of the place it will exist in your home. Is there space? If not, will you take the time to remove the item that your new item is replacing?
Ask yourself would you still get it if it wasn’t on sale?
Look for sustainable products.

Think twice about keeping:

Connected to a person, place, event – That memory will not go away if you get rid of the item. If you want the item as an occasional reminder of the memory, take a picture of it. If you want the item for a constant reminder of the memory, keep it.
Craftsmanship – This is a tricky one, it depends on how useful the object actually is to you. If it just serves as a connection, refer to suggestions above.
Anthropomorphized objects – Stuff does not have feelings. You have feelings projected onto your items.
The item was a gift – I refer to a Konmari tip on this one. If you don’t need, use, or love it, then it already served its purpose: the thrill of gift exchange or the shopper’s high for the gift giver. This also goes for the excuses “it was expensive” or “I got it on sale”.
Utility, the “it might be” reasons – A tip from the minimalists: 20/20, if it takes less than 20 minutes and costs less than $20 to replace, you don’t need to keep it.
Don’t want to be wasteful – There are usually two avenues to avoid unnecessary waste: donation & responsible removal.
- Donating helps with the excuse “it’s still in good condition”. Great! Whoever needs it, will get a like-new item.
- Donating is easier than you think. A quick google map search of donation centers will help, and programs such as Big Brother Big Sister (MA based) and more will pick up right from your doorstep.
- Responsible removal: here are some resources for the tricky how-do-I-trash-this objects.
Don’t want to add to a landfill – Let me give you a new way to think about waste. When you decide to discard your items and live with more intentional stuff, there will be an out-flux of stuff going to the trash, at first. Once your home is simplified and you can find everything, you will buy less. You will buy fewer duplicates. You will purchase mindfully.
Here are some other general questions you can ask yourself if you are hesitating to purge:
- If you were moving would you want to bring it to your new place? Would you want to pack it, move it and find a new place for it?
- Would you buy it again?

Teach the younger generation:

In general, bask in the glory of experiences over things. Show children that excess does not equal happiness. We’re coming into a generation that can have a healthy relationship with stuff. The Silent Generation faced The Depression and passed the conservation of stuff down to Baby Boomers. Baby Boomers faced a difficult mix of learned conservation AND a push for consumption. Generation X and Y have mostly lived with excess, and are beginning to appreciate that less is more. We are also in a time filled with research and evidence on the negative consequences of our stuff-focused ways. I think we’re headed in the right direction.

End Goals

With less stuff you will feel less stressed, have more time on your hands, and feel more in control. There is a reason people exclaim when revealed their newly organized space. You will consume less, and consume smartly. You will help the planet and yourself. Don’t worry, this doesn’t mean that you should only own enough stuff to fit in a suitcase. Perhaps, though, we could all live comfortably with less stuff.

Non-Linked References

1. Cherrier, H., & Ponnor, T. (2010). A study of hoarding behavior and attachment to material possessions. Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, 13(1), 8-23.

2. De Graaf, J. (2002). Affluenza: The all‐consuming epidemic. Environmental Management and Health.

3. London, Bernard. 1932. Ending the Depression Through Planned Obsolescence.

4. Paas, F., Tuovinen, J. E., Tabbers, H., & Van Gerven, P. W. (2003). Cognitive load measurement as a means to advance cognitive load theory. Educational psychologist, 38(1), 63-71.

5. Voon, V., Reynolds, B., Brezing, C., Gallea, C., Skaljic, M., Ekanayake, V., ... & Hallett, M. (2010). Impulsive choice and response in dopamine agonist-related impulse control behaviors. Psychopharmacology, 207(4), 645-659.

6. Zukin, S., & Maguire, J. S. (2004). Consumers and consumption. Annu. Rev. Sociol., 30, 173-197.

Thanks to Astrid Lium for editing!

Breanne HawesNovember 19, 2020