Consumers are battling two types of disorder—messiness and overabundance—but often mistake one for the other.
The way we view our stuff—through either a “possessive” or “post-materialist” lens—shapes how (and if) we ever regain control.
Decluttering efforts often fail because consumers misdiagnose the problem, applying the wrong strategy to the wrong kind of disorder.
“I’m not proud of this"
A new academic study dives deep into the personal turmoil and social contradictions faced by consumers trying—and often failing—to control clutter in their homes. Drawing on interviews and ethnographic research with relatively affluent individuals in Switzerland and Germany, the researchers argue that most homes are simultaneously fighting not one, but two material disorders: untidiness (disorder of placement) and clutteredness (disorder of quantity).
Yet consumers, social media influencers, and even decluttering experts routinely collapse the two, leaving people stuck in a frustrating cycle of tidying up without ever solving the real problem.
“Material disorder is easy to see but hard to fix,” the authors note. “That’s because we focus on the wrong kind of mess.”
The study appears in the August 2025 Journal of Consumer Research, published by Oxford University.
Two lenses, two problems
To explain why clutter persists, the researchers introduce two powerful conceptual frameworks:
The Possessive Materialist Lens views possessions as extensions of the self. Disorder, in this view, is about misplaced objects—solved through tidying, categorizing, and finding a “right place” for everything. Think: color-coded bookshelves, storage bins, and home organization hacks.
The Post-Materialist Lens sees clutter as an overabundance that oppresses rather than empowers. Here, disorder isn’t about where stuff is—it’s about how much of it there is. The solution isn’t tidying, but purging.
Both lenses are valid, the study finds—but dangerously incomplete when applied in isolation. A home may be perfectly tidy but feel suffocatingly full. Or it may be sparse in quantity but visually chaotic.
“Clutter returns”
The findings explain why millions of consumers turn to social media, self-help books, and Netflix shows like Tidying Up with Marie Kondo, yet still feel defeated. Misdiagnosis is the core issue: we try to declutter when we should be tidying, or tidy when we should be letting go.
Popular advice also stacks the odds against consumers. For instance, Kondo’s brand promises transformation through “tidying,” even though her process often requires significant disposal. The confusion creates what the authors call a “conceptual mess”—one that mirrors the physical mess in many homes.
Understanding disorder
The study’s key contribution is a redefinition of clutter as plural—not one disorder, but several, often overlapping. By distinguishing between disorder-as-untidiness and disorder-as-clutteredness, consumers can better target their efforts and win back control of their spaces.
“What we’ve done in the past isn’t working,” one frustrated Facebook user says. This study suggests they’re right—not because they lack discipline, but because the problem has been misframed.
To truly clear the clutter, consumers must ask not just “Where does this go?” but “Should this even be here?” Only by viewing disorder through both lenses can we stop our possessions from possessing us.
