The Journal of Positive Psychology

Dedicated to furthering research and promoting good practice

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rpos20

Minimalism, voluntary simplicity, and well-being: A

systematic review of the empirical literature

Joshua N. Hook, Adam S. Hodge, Hansong Zhang, Daryl R. Van Tongeren &
Don E. Davis

To cite this article: Joshua N. Hook, Adam S. Hodge, Hansong Zhang, Daryl R. Van Tongeren &
Don E. Davis (2021): Minimalism, voluntary simplicity, and well-being: A systematic review of the
empirical literature, The Journal of Positive Psychology, DOI: 10.1080/17439760.2021.1991450

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2021.1991450

Published online: 25 Oct 2021.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 2709

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rpos20
THE JOURNAL OF POSITIVE PSYCHOLOGY
https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2021.1991450

Minimalism, voluntary simplicity, and well-being: A systematic review of the

empirical literature
a
Joshua N. Hook , Adam S. Hodgea, Hansong Zhang a
, Daryl R. Van Tongerenb and Don E. Davisc
a
Department of Psychology, University of North Texas, Denton, United States; bDepartment of Psychology, Hope College, Holland United
States; cDepartment of Counseling and Psychological Services, Georgia State University, Atlanta, United States

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Research has accumulated over the years to support the adage that ‘money can’t buy happiness.’ Received 13 April 2021
As an alternative to the high-consumption lifestyle often found in Western cultures, voluntary Accepted 24 September 2021
simplicity (also referred to as minimalism), involves a lifestyle that is focused on reducing con­ KEYWORDS
sumption and the excess in one’s life so that individuals can focus on prioritizing their values. We Minimalism; voluntary
reviewed the empirical literature for studies that explored the relationship between voluntary simplicity; well-being;
simplicity and well-being. Twenty-three empirical studies were identified. Overall, a consistent happiness
positive relationship was found between voluntary simplicity and well-being. Potential mechan­
isms to explain this relationship included the control of consumption desires and psychological
need satisfaction. Potential moderator variables included income, age, and the extent to which
voluntary simplicity was self- vs. other-initiated. We concluded by discussing limitations and future
directions for research.

“Money has never made man happy, nor will it, there is
nothing in its nature to produce happiness. The more of
it one has the more one wants.”
-Benjamin Franklin
The age-old adage that ‘money can’t buy happiness’
is mostly supported by research. Namely, the relation­
ship between income and subjective well-being within
nations, although positive, is usually quite small (Diener
& Oishi, 2000). The benefits of income on happiness
seem more pronounced for individuals who are poor
(Biswas-Diener & Diener, 2001). Therefore, income can
have a large impact on happiness when it helps indivi­
duals meet basic physical needs (i.e., avoiding poverty),
but additional income appears to have a negligible
impact on well-being for more well-off individuals, per­
haps because their material desires rise with their
income (Diener & Biswas-Diener, 2002). Similarly,
research on hedonic adaptation (i.e., the hedonic tread­
mill) suggests that increasing income does not propor­
tionately increase happiness, in part because people
adapt to their increased wealth, and in part because of
continued comparison to new peers (Frederick &
Loewenstein, 1999). Supporting these points, research
on materialism and well-being has generally found a
small negative relationship between materialistic orien­
tation and personal well-being (Dittmar et al., 2014).
Some self-help movements have intentionally sought
to counter the cultural pressure to seek more money and
material possessions through framing the pursuit of
‘more’ as a threat to the pursuit of what is most important.
In recent years, the lifestyle of minimalism has increased
in popularity, as seen in popular books (e.g., Millburn &
Nicodemus, 2011; Sasaki, 2017), blogs (e.g., theminimal­
ists.com, becomingminimalist.com, zenhabits.net), pod­
casts (e.g., The Minimalists Podcast), and documentaries
(e.g., Minimalism: A Documentary about the Important
Things; The Minimalists: Less is Now). Although there are
a variety of definitions of minimalism, Joshua Fields
Millburn and Ryan Nicodemus describe minimalism as ‘a
tool to rid yourself of life’s excess in favor of focusing on
what’s important – so you can find happiness, fulfillment,
and freedom’ (Millburn & Nicodemus, n.d.). In other
words, minimalism helps individuals reduce or cut out
the excess in their lives so they can focus on their most
important values. Interestingly, in describing minimalism,
Millburn and Nicodemus (n.d.) make an explicit connec­
tion between minimalism and well-being – part of the
popular appeal to minimalism is that it can help people
live a happier and more meaningful life.
Social scientists are only recently beginning to study
people attracted to this movement toward minimalism
(Kang et al., 2021; Lloyd & Pennington, 2020). However,

CONTACT Joshua N. Hook Joshua.hook@unt.edu

© 2021 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
2 J. N. HOOK ET AL.
the concept of minimalism is similar to the construct of
voluntary simplicity, which has received considerable
scientific attention over the years (Reboucas & Soares,
2021). The term voluntary simplicity was originally
coined by Richard Gregg in 1936, who described it as a
lifestyle involving limiting possessions and clutter in
order to live deliberately according to one’s purpose.
Elgin and Mitchell (1977) expanded on this definition
and described voluntary simplicity as a way of life that
‘embraces frugality of consumption, a strong sense of
environmental urgency, a desire to return to living and
working environments which are of a more human scale,
and an intention to realize our higher human potential –
both psychological and spiritual – in community with
others’ (p. 2). Although individual definitions of volun­
tary simplicity vary, the core values of this lifestyle
appear to include material simplicity, self-determination
and self-sufficiency, ecological awareness, social respon­
sibility, and spirituality and personal growth (Boujbel &
d’Astous, 2012).
Definitions of voluntary simplicity and minimalism
share several core features, including reducing con­
sumption and reducing focus on accumulating material
goods and wealth, as well as an increased focus on
personal growth and values. Some definitions of volun­
tary simplicity also focus on environmental and social
responsibility (e.g., Elgin & Mitchell, 1977), whereas defi­
nitions of minimalism tend to be less specific about
these areas, instead letting individuals define their own
values. In the current paper, we focus our attention on
voluntary simplicity because it has received the vast
majority of research attention in this area. However, we
do review empirical studies on both voluntary simplicity
and minimalism because of the similarities between
these two constructs. It may be useful for future theory
and research to further explore the differences and
boundary conditions of these constructs, especially if
minimalism receives increased research attention.
The descriptions of voluntary simplicity, as in the ear­
lier descriptions of minimalism, propose potential asso­
ciations with well-being. But why might there be a
connection between voluntary simplicity and well-
being? Although this research is still in its beginning
stages, social scientists have proposed at least three
potential mechanisms, including restraint of consump­
tion desires, replacement of materialistic values, and
psychological need satisfaction (Connelly, 2020).
First, voluntary simplicity might be associated with
well-being through the restraint of consumption desires.
Consumption desires can lead to feelings of discomfort,
because individuals may experience inner tension when
they are unable to satisfy a desire that they have
(Boujbel & d’Astous, 2012). The feelings of discomfort
associated with consumption desires can include disap­
pointment, frustration, stress, and anger (Boujbel &
d’Astous, 2012). Voluntary simplicity may lead to lower
levels of consumption desires, which in turn may lead to
higher levels of well-being.
Second, voluntary simplicity might affect well-being
through the replacement of materialistic values.
Research has consistently found that materialistic goals
and values are negatively related to well-being (Diener &
Biswas-Diener, 2002; Dittmar et al., 2014). In a multi-
nation sample, placing a high importance on money
was negatively related to life satisfaction (Diener &
Oishi, 2000). Perhaps voluntary simplicity enables indivi­
duals to replace materialistic values with other types of
values that are more likely to lead to well-being (e.g.,
relationships, health, personal growth).
Third, voluntary simplicity might also influence well-
being through psychological need satisfaction. Self-
determination theory proposes that the values of
autonomy, competence, and relatedness are psycholo­
gical needs that lead to optimal psychological growth
(Ryan & Deci, 2000). This theory also places a high
importance on intrinsic motivation (Ryan & Deci,
2000). It is possible that voluntary simplicity enables
individuals to shift their focus from external factors,
such as accumulating wealth and possessions to be
happy, to internal factors that are more likely to satisfy
their core psychological needs.
Although there are sound theoretical reasons for why
voluntary simplicity might have a positive impact on
well-being, it is important to examine this question
empirically. There have been two previous reviews of
the literature that have examined the relationship
between voluntary simplicity and well-being (Reboucas
& Soares, 2021; Rich, Hanna, Wright, & Bennett, 2017).
The Reboucas and Soares (2021) paper was a general
review of the literature on voluntary simplicity, and only
five studies were reviewed that specifically explored the
relationship between voluntary simplicity and well-
being. The Rich, Hanna, Wright, & Bennett (2017) review
focused on the relationship between voluntary simpli­
city in well-being, and in each of the studies reviewed,
there was a significant positive relationship between the
two variables. However, the authors only identified four
empirical studies in their review, making the results
necessarily tentative. Empirical research on voluntary
simplicity and well-being has increased in recent years.
Thus, we thought it was important to review the current
status of the empirical research, including possible
mechanisms that might explain the relationship
between voluntary simplicity and well-being, as well as
potential moderators that might impact the relationship
between the two variables.

Method
Inclusion criteria
The literature search was conducted by the first author.
Two primary inclusion criteria were utilized. First, all
studies were empirical; theoretical papers and case stu­
dies were excluded from the present review. Second,
included studies needed to report a relationship
between (a) voluntary simplicity (or minimalism) and
(b) well-being. Thus, all studies either measured volun­
tary simplicity (or minimalism) or included participants
who self-identified as voluntary simplifiers (or minimal­
ists), and assessed well-being in some way, either
through a questionnaire or interview. There were no
restrictions based on publication date or publication
status. Both published and non-published studies (e.g.,
dissertations, theses, unpublished manuscripts, presen­
tations) were included. Both quantitative and qualitative
studies were included.
Literature search
We followed the Preferred Reporting Items for
Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) state­
ment guidelines to identify, screen, and select studies
reviewed in this systematic review (Page et al., 2021).
Four steps were implemented during the literature
search. First, we searched two databases through 1
February 2021, including PsycINFO and ProQuest for
dissertations and theses. For key words, we paired the
terms ‘minimalism’ and ‘voluntary simplicity’ with ‘well-
being or wellbeing,’ ‘happiness,’ and ‘life satisfaction.’
Second, we reviewed the reference sections of each of
the studies to identify other relevant studies. Third, we
explored two previous reviews of the literature (e.g.,
Reboucas & Soares, 20211; Rich, Hanna, Wright, &
Bennett, 2017) to identify any other relevant studies.
Finally, when possible, we contacted the primary
authors of the identified studies to inquire about possi­
ble unpublished data we may have missed. Studies were
included in the review if they were empirical and
assessed the relationship between voluntary simplicity
(or minimalism) and well-being.
To determine whether studies met inclusion criteria,
the titles and abstracts of all identified articles were
screened by the first author. Additionally, the first author
independently coded all data from the studies that met
inclusion criteria and organized this information in Table
1. The coding of studies included citation, email of cor­
responding author, publication status, research design,
sample size, demographic information of the partici­
pants, measurement of voluntary simplicity (or minimal­
ism) and well-being, and main findings.
THE JOURNAL OF POSITIVE PSYCHOLOGY 3
Results
Sixty-eight records were identified in the initial search.
After removing duplicates and reviewing the records, we
found a total of 23 independent samples that met inclu­
sion criteria. We have organized our review of findings
into three main areas, including: (a) methodology of the
studies, (b) overall relationship between voluntary sim­
plicity and well-being, and (c) potential mediators and
moderators of the relationship between voluntary sim­
plicity and well-being.
Methodology
In this section, we review the methods of the studies
included in the present review, including (a) research
design, (b) participants, and (c) measures.
Research design
Of the 23 independent samples in the present review,
about two-thirds (i.e., 16) were published. Regarding the
methodology of the studies, about 60% (i.e., 14) were
quantitative, seven were qualitative, and two used
mixed-method designs. The majority of studies (i.e., 22)
were cross-sectional and one was longitudinal. No stu­
dies used experimental designs.
Participants
Regarding the participants included in the research,
there were 10,842 participants across the 23 studies.
There was some diversity in the nationality of the parti­
cipants, including from the United States, Germany,
Belgium, Australia, Ireland, India, Canada, and Turkey,
and one study used a multi-national sample. Of the 19
studies that reported gender, the participants were 53%
female and 47% male. Of the five studies that reported
race/ethnicity, the participants were about two-thirds
white (63%, 37% racial/ethnic minority). Of the 10 stu­
dies that reported mean age, the mean age across parti­
cipants was 36 years.
Measures
To measure voluntary simplicity, two main measurement
strategies were used. First, several studies recruited par­
ticipants who identified as voluntary simplifiers or
minimalists. These studies often recruited participants
from groups or organizations that focused on simplicity.
The second main strategy was to utilize a self-report
measure of voluntary simplicity, which assessed values
and behaviors related to voluntary simplicity. Several
4 J. N. HOOK ET AL.

Table 1. Summary of empirical articles (n = 23).

Research Measure of Well-
Citation Published Design Sample Measure of Minimalism or VS Being Main Findings
Alexander Y Quantitative 2268 self- Self-identified Single-item questions 87% of participants reported that
and Cross- identified they were happier living more
Ussher sectional voluntary simply (retrospective compared
(2012) simplifiers to the past when they were living
less simply).
Ambrose N Qualitative 50 self-identified Self-identified Qualitative interview Benefits of VS included feeling
(2010) Cross- voluntary healthy and experiencing a sense
sectional simplifiers of well-being, happiness and
58%F, 42%M peace of mind, and personal
control.
Balderjahn Y Quantitative 450 German VS (Balderjahn et al., 2013) Flourishing Scale There as a significant positive
et al. Cross- university (Diener et al., 2010) relationship between VS and
(2020), sectional students Subjective flourishing, subjective happiness,
Study 1 39%F, 60%M Happiness Scale and life satisfaction.
M age = 23 (Lyubomirsky & No significant relationship
Lepper, 1999) between VS and financial well-
Life satisfaction being.
(single-item
question)
Incharge Financial
Distress/Financial
Well-Being Scale
(Prawitz et al.,
2006)
Balderjahn Y Quantitative 640 German VS (Balderjahn et al., 2013) Flourishing Scale There as a significant positive
et al. Cross- participants (Diener et al., 2010) relationship between VS and
(2020), sectional 55%F, 45%M Subjective flourishing, subjective happiness,
Study 2 Happiness Scale life satisfaction, and financial
(Lyubomirsky & well-being.
Lepper, 1999)
Life satisfaction
(single-item
question)
Incharge Financial
Distress/Financial
Well-Being Scale
(Prawitz et al.,
2006)
Bayat and Y Quantitative 203 Turkish VS Lifestyles Scale (Iwata, Satisfaction with Life Three aspects of VS were examined
Sezer Cross- university staff 1997) Scale (Diener et al., (i.e., planned shopping, self-
(2018) sectional and students 1985) sufficiency, and non-material
life).
Self-sufficiency was positively
correlated with satisfaction with
life (r = .15).
Planned shopping and non-
material life were not
significantly correlated with
satisfaction with life.
Beecher N Qualitative 12 participants Self-identified Qualitative interview Benefits of VS included personal
(2007) Cross- who practiced fulfillment, health benefits, and
sectional VS increased relationship quality.
58%F, 42%M
92%W, 8%REM
M Age = 43
Boujbel and Y Quantitative 261 Canadian VS (Shama & Wisenblit, 1984) Satisfaction with Life VS was positively correlated with
d’Astous Cross- adults Scale (Diener et al., satisfaction with life (r = .13).
(2015), sectional 46%F, 54%M 1985)
Study 3 M Age = 35
Boujbel and Y Quantitative 353 Canadian VS (Shama & Wisenblit, 1984) Satisfaction with Life VS was positively correlated with
d’Astous Cross- participants Scale (Diener et al., satisfaction with life (r = .32).
(2017), sectional 63%F, 37%M 1985)
Study 1 M Age = 45
Boujbel and Y Quantitative 105 Belgian VS (Shama & Wisenblit, 1984) Satisfaction with Life VS was positively correlated with
d’Astous Cross- participants Scale (Diener et al., satisfaction with life (r = .50).
(2017), sectional 60%F, 40%M 1985)
Study 2 M Age = 50
(Continued)
 THE JOURNAL OF POSITIVE PSYCHOLOGY 5

Table 1. (Continued).
Research Measure of Well-
Citation Published Design Sample Measure of Minimalism or VS Being Main Findings
Boujbel and Y Quantitative 344 self-identified VS (Shama & Wisenblit, 1984) Satisfaction with Life For low-income participants, VS was
d’Astous Cross- Canadian Scale (Diener et al., positively related to satisfaction
(2012) sectional voluntary 1985) with life. Also, control of desires
simplifiers and partially mediated the
267 Canadian relationship between VS and
non-simplifiers satisfaction with life.
56%F, 44%M For high-income participants, the
M Age = 41 relationship between VS and
satisfaction with life was not
significant.
Brown and Y Quantitative 200 self-identified Self-identified Pleasant and Voluntary simplifiers reported
Kasser Cross- voluntary More voluntary simplifiers unpleasant affect higher levels of affect balance (i.
(2005), sectional simplifiers reported voluntary (Diener et al., 1985) e., pleasant affect – unpleasant
Study 2 34%F, 66%M reductions in personal Temporal affect) and subjective well-being
93%W, 7%REM spending and personal Satisfaction with than did control participants.
M Age = 43 income than control Life Scale (Pavot et
200 matched participants. al., 1998)
control
participants
34%F, 66%M
90%W, 10%REM
M Age = 44
Chowdhury Y Quantitative 457 Australian VS scale (Iyer & Muncy, 2009) Communal/personal VS was positively related to
(2018) Cross- participants well-being (Gomez communal/personal well-being
sectional 52%F, 48%M & Fisher, 2003) (r = .39).
Connelly N Qualitative 12 participants Participants who practiced Qualitative interview VS was associated with
(2020) Cross- 58%F, 42%M VS and xperience psychological benefits, including
sectional 83%W, 17%REM psychological benefits. increased mindfulness,
M Age = 41 decreased stress/anxiety,
improved relationships, and
increased independence.
Ezell (2019) N Mixed Study 1: Study 1: Study 1: Study 1:
Cross- 31 individuals Live in tiny house Qualitative Participants reported feeling
sectional who live in tiny Study 2: interview calm, comfortable, happier,
houses. VS Lifestyle Scale Study 2: healthier, proud, and having
Study 2: (Leonard-Barton, 1981) Satisfaction with peace of mind.
500 participants Life Scale (Diener et Study 2:
from Amazon al., 1985) VS was positively related to
Mechanical Turk satisfaction with life (r = .27).
Kang et al. Y Quantitative 1050 participants 13 minimalism items from a Flourishing scale Minimalism was positively
(2021) Cross- 51%F, 48%M variety of scales (Diener et al., 2010) associated with flourishing.
sectional 52%W, 48%REM
Kuanr et al. Y Quantitative 315 Indian 3 Items from VS scale (Iyer & Satisfaction with Life VS was positively related to
(2020), Cross- participants Muncy, 2009) scale (Diener et al., satisfaction with life (r = .31).
Study 2 sectional from executive 1985)
postgraduate
course.
31%F, 69%M
Lloyd and Pennington Y Qualitative 10 self-identified Self-identified
(2020) Cross-sectional voluntary
simplifiers
70%F, 30%M
(Continued)
6 J. N. HOOK ET AL.

Table 1. (Continued).
Research Measure of Well-
Citation Published Design Sample Measure of Minimalism or VS Being Main Findings
Qualitative Benefits included authenticity),
interview of VS autonomy competence (e.
(e.g., g., feeling in
freedom/ control of
liberation, environment,
aligning less stress and
with values, anxiety), mental
space (e.g.,
saving mental
energy, internal
reflecting
external),
awareness (e.g.,
reflection,
mindfulness,
savoring), and
positive
emotions (e.g.,
joy,
peacefulness).
McGouran Y Qualitative 8 Irish participants. Participants were asked to Qualitative interviews VS had both positive and negative
and Longitudinal 100%F engage in VS over the (3 interviews per effects on participants’ well-
Prothero course of the study. participant, time being.
(2016) period ranged from Positive effects of VS included
2 months to 1 year) personal satisfaction, fulfillment,
and happiness.
Negative effects of VS included
problems with self-concept,
body image, and consumer
anxiety.
Melhorn N Qualitative 15 participants Self-identified Qualitative interview Benefits of VS included improved
(2019) Cross- who practiced health, creativity, human
sectional VS connections, continued learning,
67%F, 33%M experiences, and freedom.
Monopolis N Mixed Quantitative: Self-identified Quantitative: Quantitative:
(2010) Cross- 1027 self- Fordyce Emotions Voluntary simplifiers reported
sectional identified Questionnaire higher levels of happiness and
voluntary (Fordyce, 1988) satisfaction with life than did
simplifiers Satisfaction with control participants.
1003 control Life Scale (Diener et Voluntary simplifiers reported
participants al., 1985) higher levels of happiness and
Qualitative: Qualitative: satisfaction with life than they
83 self- Qualitative did prior to engaging in VS
identified interview (retrospective report).
voluntary Qualitative:
simplifiers Participants expressed life
dissatisfaction and unhappiness
prior to VS.
Participants identify VS as a
conscious pursuit that
contributes to their sense of
meaning and purpose.
Participants believed VS was a
direct cause to their increased
subjective well-being.
Murray N Qualitative 7 participants who Self-identified Qualitative interview Participants viewed wellness
(2005) Cross- practiced VS holistically in terms of balancing
sectional 43%F, 57%M physical, mental, and spiritual
86%W, 14%REM aspects of life.
M Age = 64 Participants had low utilization of
allopathic healthcare services
and high levels of self-
responsibility for health
promotion and health
maintenance.
Rich, Hanna, Y Quantitative 571 participants Revised version of VS Index Satisfaction with Life VS was positively related to life
& Wright. Cross- 88%F, 12%M (Leonard-Barton, 1981) Scale (Diener et al., satisfaction.
(2017) sectional 80% Australian 1985) Psychological need satisfaction
M Age = 45 mediated the relationship
between VS and life satisfaction.
(Continued)

Table 1. (Continued).
Research
Citation Published Design Sample
Seegebarth Y Quantitative 400 German
et al. Cross- college students
(2016) sectional 44%F, 56%M
Study 3
Notes. VS = voluntary simplicity. Y = yes, N = no. M = male, F = female. W = white, REM = racial/ethnic minority. M = mean.
different self-report measures were used across studies
(e.g., *Balderjahn et al., 2013; Iwata, 1997; Iyer & Muncy,
2009; Leonard-Barton, 1981; Shama & Wisenblit, 1984).
Interestingly, perhaps reflecting the variety of definitions
of voluntary simplicity, the measures of voluntary sim­
plicity varied in their focus as well. Some measures were
primarily focused on reduced consumption (e.g.,
*Balderjahn et al., 2013), whereas other measures were
broader and included items related to environmental
and social responsibility (e.g., Shama & Wisenblit, 1984).
To measure well-being, two main measurement stra­
tegies were used. First, several studies used self-report
measures of well-being. The most commonly used mea­
sure was the Satisfaction with Life Scale (Diener et al.,
1985). The second main strategy was to utilize a qualita­
tive interview. Most studies used broad interview proto­
cols covering a wide range of topics, which included
questions about the benefits of practicing voluntary
simplicity.
Overall relationship
Regarding the overall relationship between voluntary
simplicity and well-being, the majority of studies found
that voluntary simplicity was positively related to well-
being. Of the 16 studies that included a quantitative
component, 13 found a positive relationship between
voluntary simplicity and well-being. For example, Brown
and Kasser (2005) compared 200 self-identified volun­
tary simplifiers and 200 matched control participants
and found that voluntary simplifiers reported higher
levels of affect balance (i.e., pleasant affect – unpleasant
affect) and subjective well-being than did control parti­
cipants. Across studies, the effect size was usually small
to medium. Although the vast majority of research
found a positive relationship between voluntary simpli­
city and well-being, one study found a non-significant
relationship (Seegebarth et al., 2016) and two studies
reported mixed findings – the relationship between
voluntary simplicity and well-being was positive for
some measures and non-significant for other measures
(Balderjahn et al., 2020; Bayat & Sezer, 2018).
Of the nine studies that included a qualitative com­
ponent, eight found that participants reported a positive
impact of voluntary simplicity on their level of well-
THE JOURNAL OF POSITIVE PSYCHOLOGY 7
Measure of Well-
Measure of Minimalism or VS Being Main Findings
VS (Balderjahn et al., 2013) Flourishing (Diener et No significant relationship between
al., 2010) VS and flourishing.
being. For example, Connelly (2020) interviewed 12 par­
ticipants who practiced voluntary simplicity, and found
that voluntary simplicity was associated with psycholo­
gical benefits such as increased mindfulness, decreased
stress and anxiety, improved relationships, and
increased independence. Although the majority of qua­
litative studies found positive effects of voluntary sim­
plicity on well-being, one study found that participants
reported a mix of positive and negative effects on well-
being (McGouran & Prothero, 2016). McGouran and
Prothero (2016) interviewed eight participants who
were asked to engage in voluntary simplicity over the
course of the study, and found that participants reported
both positive effects such as personal satisfaction, fulfill­
ment, and happiness; as well as negative effects such as
problems with self-concept, body image, and consumer
anxiety.
Potential mediators and moderators
There are several potential mediators and moderators of
the relationship between voluntary simplicity and well-
being, although the findings in this section should be
interpreted with caution because there were very few
studies that tested specific mediators and moderators.
However, these findings could be interesting and helpful
for future work on this topic.
Potential mediators
Potential mediators include control of consumption
desires and psychological need satisfaction. First, control
of consumption desires may mediate the relationship
between voluntary simplicity and well-being. In a sam­
ple of 344 self-identified voluntary simplifiers and 267
non-simplifiers, Boujbel and d’Astous (2012) found that,
for low-income participants, control of consumption
desires partially mediated the positive relationship
between voluntary simplifiers and satisfaction with life.
In other words, voluntary simplicity was related to higher
levels of control of consumption desires, which in turn
was related to higher levels of satisfaction with life.
Second, psychological need satisfaction may mediate
the relationship between voluntary simplicity and well-
being. In a sample of 571 participants, Rich, Hanna, &
8 J. N. HOOK ET AL.
Wright (2017) found that psychological need satisfaction
mediated the relationship between voluntary simplicity
and life satisfaction. In other words, voluntary simplicity
was related to higher levels of psychological need satis­
faction, which in turn was related to higher levels of
satisfaction with life.
We do caution readers that cross-sectional tests of
mediation provide a weak test, because all it takes to
find an indirect effect is covariation between three vari­
ables (Cole & Maxwell, 2003). In many cases, indirect
effects found in cross-sectional studies do not replicate
when a more appropriate research design is used. So,
these findings should be considered with caution.
Potential moderators
Potential moderators include income, age, and the
extent to which the voluntary simplicity was self- vs.
other-initiated. First, income may moderate the relation­
ship between voluntary simplicity and well-being.
Specifically, the relationship between voluntary simpli­
city and well-being may be stronger for low-income
participants than for high-income participants. In a sam­
ple of 344 self-identified voluntary simplifiers and 267
non-simplifiers, Boujbel and d’Astous (2012) found that
voluntary simplicity was positively related to satisfaction
with life for low-income participants, but the relation­
ship between voluntary simplicity and satisfaction with
life was not significant for high-income participants.
Second, age may moderate the relationship between
voluntary simplicity and well-being. Specifically, the rela­
tionship between voluntary simplicity and well-being
may be stronger for older participants than for younger
participants. For example, three quantitative studies
reported the mean age of participants, as well as the
zero-order correlations between voluntary simplicity
and well-being (Boujbel & d’Astous, 2015; Boujbel &
d’Astous, 2017, Study 1, Study 2). The strength of the
correlation increased as the mean age of the sample was
older (Mage = 35, r = .13; Mage = 45, r = .32; Mage = 50, r =
.50). Also, three quantitative studies used samples of
university students (Seegebarth et al., 2016; Balderjahn
et al., 2020; Bayat & Sezer, 2018). These three studies
either found no significant relationship between volun­
tary simplicity and well-being (Seegebarth et al., 2016) or
found mixed findings (Balderjahn et al., 2020; Bayat &
Sezer, 2018).
Third, the extent to which voluntary simplicity was
self- vs. other-initiated may moderate the relationship
between voluntary simplicity and well-being.
Specifically, the relationship between voluntary simpli­
city and well-being may be more positive for self-
initiated participants than for other-initiated
participants. The majority of studies in the present
review either recruited samples of voluntary simplifiers
or assessed participants’ levels of voluntary simplicity
using a questionnaire. Thus, the voluntary simplicity
practices tended to be self-initiated. One qualitative
study was unique in that researchers recruited partici­
pants and asked them to engage in voluntary simplicity
practices over the course of a longitudinal study
(McGouran & Prothero, 2016). Thus, the voluntary sim­
plicity practices were other-initiated. This was the only
qualitative study that reported both positive and nega­
tive effects of voluntary simplicity on well-being.
Discussion
The present study reviewed the empirical literature that
examined the relationship between voluntary simplicity
and well-being. Overall, the vast majority of studies
found a positive relationship between voluntary simpli­
city and well-being. This finding was mostly consistent
irrespective of how voluntary simplicity and well-being
were measured, and it was also consistent across both
quantitative and qualitative research designs. Thus, the
empirical research is consistent with theory and popular
writing on voluntary simplicity and minimalism that has
posited close connections between these constructs and
happiness and meaning (Elgin & Mitchell, 1977; Millburn
& Nicodemus, n.d.). The research is also consistent with
findings from related fields such as income and subjec­
tive well-being (Diener & Biswas-Diener, 2002) and mate­
rialism and well-being (Dittmar et al., 2014), which has
found that materialistic values and having a high value
on money is negatively related to well-being.
Exploration of the potential mediators and modera­
tors give more details and nuance to the relationship
between voluntary simplicity and well-being, as well as
some exciting areas for future research. (Again, it should
be noted that these findings should be interpreted with
caution, because very few studies in the present review
tested mediators or moderators, and appropriate tests of
mediation require research designs that support a causal
inference; Cole & Maxwell, 2003). Regarding potential
mechanisms, two mediators were supported by
research: control of consumption desires and psycholo­
gical need satisfaction. Thus, voluntary simplicity may
impact well-being through reducing urges to buy mate­
rial possessions and satisfying one’s core needs for
autonomy, competence, and relatedness.
Regarding potential moderators, several interesting
moderators emerged. One potential moderator was
income – one study found that the relationship between
voluntary simplicity and well-being was stronger for low-
income participants than for high-income participants.
 THE JOURNAL OF POSITIVE PSYCHOLOGY 9

Voluntary simplicity may be a protective factor for lower- Limitations and areas for future research
income individuals by enabling them to live within their
There were several limitations of the current body of
means and experience a sense of satisfaction irrespective
empirical literature. First, almost all the studies in the
of their level of income. This finding is somewhat discre­
review were cross-sectional, and none were experimen­
pant with past research on income and well-being that
tal. Thus, causal conclusions cannot be made. Although
suggests income has a stronger positive effect on well-
most of the theory has discussed ways in which volun­
being for poor individuals (Diener & Biswas-Diener, 2002).
tary simplicity might positively be related to well-being,
However, the study that found the significant moderation
it may be that people who are happier to begin with are
for income used a sample from a developed country that
more likely to engage in voluntary simplicity practices.
has generally high levels of government social support (i.
Or, there might be an unmeasured third variable that
e., Canada), so it may be that low-income individuals in
affects both voluntary simplicity and well-being, result­
this study were still able to meet their basic needs. More
ing in a spurious correlation between these two vari­
research on the effect of income on the relationship
ables. Thus, we temper any causal conclusions from our
between voluntary simplicity and well-being is needed.
review. In addition, the long-term impact of voluntary
A second potential moderator was age – overall, a
simplicity practices, especially self-initiated, is unclear
pattern emerged in which the relationship between
within the current literature. Therefore, more experimen­
voluntary simplicity and well-being was weaker (and in
tal and longitudinal research is needed to clarify the
some cases non-significant) for younger individuals than
causal relationship between these variables.
older individuals. Perhaps this reflects developmental
Second, the measurement of voluntary simplicity and
norms in which younger individuals may be more
well-being could be improved in future studies. As noted
focused on building a life for themselves (which might
in the introduction, we included studies that examined
include making money and accruing possessions).
both voluntary simplicity and minimalism in the present
Voluntary simplicity may not fit as well with this mindset.
review because of the similarities in their definitions;
Middle-aged and older adults, however, may have
however, future theory and research may want to
already tried making money and accruing possessions,
explore the differences and boundary conditions of
and have come to realize that it did not lead to increased
these constructs. Also, perhaps reflecting the variety in
happiness and meaning. Alternatively, middle-aged and
definitions of voluntary simplicity, the measures of
older adults may have established sources of financial
voluntary simplicity likewise varied in their focus. For
security (e.g., retirement, investments) that provide sup­
example, some measures focused specifically on
port and psychological equanimity, leaving room for
reduced consumption, whereas other measures were
voluntary simplicity with the safety net of additional
broader and also included items related to environmen­
resources. For these individuals, then, perhaps the effect
tal and social responsibility. Many measures of voluntary
of voluntary simplicity on well-being is stronger.
simplicity utilized a combination of values and beha­
A third potential moderator was the extent to which
viors, and some of the measures were quite dated; so it
voluntary simplicity was self- vs. other-initiated. One
is uncertain whether they reflect current trends in volun­
study recruited participants and asked them to engage
tary simplicity and minimalism. It will be important for
in voluntary simplicity practices over the course of the
future research on voluntary simplicity to clarify their
study. Interestingly, this was the only qualitative study in
definition and utilize measures that are a good match
which participants reported some negative effects of
for their definition. Although we did not find evidence
voluntary simplicity practices on well-being. This is not
that the relationship between voluntary simplicity and
surprising, given that voluntary simplicity has been pos­
well-being was moderated by specific measures of
tulated to increase well-being by allowing people to voluntary simplicity, it would be interesting to explore
align their behavior with their values; if one does not whether certain aspects of voluntary simplicity are more
intrinsically value voluntary simplicity – rather, it is strongly related to well-being than others. Other studies
forced – they may be experiencing a misalignment of compared self-identified voluntary simplifiers and non-
behavior and values. Perhaps the ‘voluntary’ aspect of simplifiers. This strategy has limitations as well because
these practices is quite important – to have a positive people may have different definitions of what it means
effect on well-being, the voluntary simplicity practices to self-identify as a ‘voluntary simplifier.’ Future research
may need to reflect the intrinsic motivation of the indi­ could also explore the effects of different aspects of
vidual and be self-initiated. voluntary simplicity on well-being.
10 J. N. HOOK ET AL.
Well-being was measured mostly using self-report
measures of satisfaction with life or qualitative inter­
views. Although these measures have considerable evi­
dence supporting their reliability and validity (e.g.,
Diener et al., 1985), future research could explore the
role of voluntary simplicity on different aspects of well-
being (e.g., life satisfaction, positive and negative affect,
hedonic and eudemonic well-being, etc.).
Future research could also further explore the poten­
tial mediators of the relationship between voluntary
simplicity and well-being in more detail. Some evidence
was found for two mechanisms: the control of consump­
tion desires and psychological need satisfaction. Other
potential mediators that could be explored include the
replacement of materialistic values with other values
such as relationships, health, and personal growth; self-
control; and higher levels of meaning and purpose.
Finally, future research could also further explore the
potential moderator variables of the relationship
between voluntary simplicity and well-being. There
was evidence for three potential moderator variables –
income, age, and the extent to which voluntary simpli­
city was self- vs. other-initiated. However, in most cases,
only one or two studies examined these potential mod­
erators, making conclusions necessarily tentative.
Examining these potential moderators in more detail
will help us explore the contextual factors that impact
the potential effects of voluntary simplicity on well-
being. Other potential moderator variables that have
not yet been explored include gender, culture, and reli­
gion/spirituality.
Conclusion
Happiness and life satisfaction are central human ideals
(Scoffham & Barnes, 2011). Many people, at least in
Western cultures, have bought into the ‘American
Dream’ that having a higher income and accumulating
more possessions will result in higher levels of well-
being. However, this ‘dream’ has not been supported
by psychological research. Materialism has not consis­
tently led to happier, more satisfying lives. Alternatively,
voluntary simplicity and minimalism offer a different
perspective on the relationship between material pos­
sessions and happiness. Instead of accumulating money
and possessions, the perspectives of voluntary simplicity
and minimalism invite people to reduce the excess in
their lives so they can focus on living a meaningful life
marked by purpose. The results from the present review
found that voluntary simplicity was positively related to
well-being consistently across a wide range of studies.
More research is needed to explore this relationship
using more sophisticated research designs and to
further explore potential mechanisms and moderator
variables of this relationship.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
ORCID
Joshua N. Hook http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2645-7060
Hansong Zhang http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4036-3784
References
*Alexander, S., & Ussher, S. (2012). The voluntary simplicity
movement: A multi-national survey analysis in theoretical
context. Journal of Consumer Culture, 12(1), 66–86. https://
doi.org/10.1177/1469540512444019
*Ambrose, M. (2010). Voluntary simplicity as an urban lifestyle:
Resisting a consumer economy. (Unpublished doctoral dis­
sertation). The University of Calgary.
*Balderjahn, I., Buerke, A., Kirchgeorg, M., Peyer, M.,
Seegebarth, B., & Wiedmann, K. P. (2013). Consciousness
for sustainable consumption: Scale development and new
insights in the economic dimension of consumers’ sustain­
ability. AMS Review, 3(4), 181–192. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s13162-013-0057-6
*Balderjahn, I., Lee, M. S. W., Seegebarth, B., & Peyer, M. (2020).
A Sustainable Pathway to Consumer Wellbeing. The Role of
Anticonsumption and Consumer Empowerment. The
Journal of Consumer Affairs, 54(2), 456–488. https://doi.org/
10.1111/joca.12278
*Bayat, M., & Sezer, A. (2018). Evaluating Individuals’ Voluntary
Simplicity Lifestyles and Life Satisfaction in Terms of the
Tradition Value: The Example of Düzce University. Turkish
Journal of Business Ethics, 11(1), 69–87. http://dx.doi.org/10.
12711/tjbe.2018.11.1.0009
*Beecher, T. S. (2007). Questioning the consumer culture: A
qualitative study on voluntary simplicity. (Unpublished doc­
toral dissertation). University of North Dakota.
*Boujbel, L., & d’Astous, A. (2012). Voluntary simplicity and life
satisfaction: Exploring the mediating role of consumption
desires. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 11(6), 487–494.
https://doi.org/10.1002/cb.1399
*Boujbel, L., & d’Astous, A. (2015). Exploring the feelings and
thoughts that accompany the experience of consumption
desires. Psychology and Marketing, 32(2), 219–231. https://
doi.org/10.1002/mar.20774
*Brown, K. W., & Kasser, T. (2005). Are psychological and eco­
logical well-being compatible? The role of values, mindful­
ness, and lifestyle. Social Indicators Research, 74(2), 349–368.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-004-8207-8
*Chowdhury, R. M. M. I. (2018). Religiosity and voluntary sim­
plicity: The mediating role of spiritual well-being. Journal of
Business Ethics, 152(1), 149–174. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10551-016-3305-5
*Connelly, J. (2020). The experience of voluntary simplicity: A
consensual qualitative research study. (Unpublished doctoral
dissertation.) Marquette University.

*Ezell, D. (2019). Consumer well-being: A typology and examina­
tion of voluntary simplicity. (Unpublished doctoral disserta­
tion). University of Mississippi.
*Kang, J., Martinez, C. M. J., & Johnson, C. (2021). Minimalism as
a sustainable lifestyle: Its behavioral representations and
contributions to emotional well-being. Sustainable
Production and Consumption, 27, 802–813. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.spc.2021.02.001
*Kuanr, A., Pradhan, D., & Chaudhuri, H. R. (2020). I (do not)
consume; therefore, I am: Investigating materialism and
voluntary simplicity through a moderated mediation
model. Psychology and Marketing, 37(2), 260–277. https://
doi.org/10.1002/mar.21305
*Lloyd, K., & Pennington, W. (2020). Towards a theory of minim­
alism and wellbeing. International Journal of Applied Positive
Psychology, 5(3), 121–136. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41042-
020-00030-y
*Monopolis, A. N. (2010). Voluntary simplicity, authentic happi­
ness, and ecological sustainability: An empirical psychological
analysis of deliberate reductions in consumption and the cul­
tivation of intrinsic values on subjective well-being in addition
to a conceptual exploration regarding the impact of individual
simplicity and socio-economic localization on global economic
sustainability. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University
of California-Santa Barbara.
*Murray, M. C. (2005). Simple wellness: Perceptions of health in
persons who practice voluntary simplicity. (Unpublished doc­
toral dissertation). Seattle University.
*Rich, S. A., Hanna, S., & Wright, B. J. (2017). Simply satisfied:
The role of psychological need satisfaction in the life satis­
faction of voluntary simplifiers. Journal of Happiness
Studies, 18, 89–105. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-016-
9718-0
*Seegebarth, B., Peyer, M., Balderjahn, I., & Wiedmann, K. P.
(2016). The sustainability roots of anti-consumption life­
styles and initial insights regarding their effects on consu­
mers’ well-being. The Journal of Consumer Affairs, 50(1), 68–
99. https://doi.org/10.1111/joca.12077
*Seegebarth, B., Peyer, M., Balderjahn, I., & Wiedmann, K. P.
(2016). The sustainability roots of anti-consumption life­
styles and initial insights regarding their effects on consu­
mers’ well-being. The Journal of Consumer Affairs, 50(1), 68–
99. https://doi.org/10.1111/joca.12077
*Seegebarth, B., Peyer, M., Balderjahn, I., & Wiedmann, K. P.
(2016). The sustainability roots of anti-consumption life­
styles and initial insights regarding their effects on consu­
mers’ well-being. The Journal of Consumer Affairs, 50(1), 68–
99. https://doi.org/10.1111/joca.12077
*Seegebarth, B., Peyer, M., Balderjahn, I., & Wiedmann, K. P.
(2016). The sustainability roots of anti-consumption life­
styles and initial insights regarding their effects on consu­
mers’ well-being. The Journal of Consumer Affairs, 50(1), 68–
99. https://doi.org/10.1111/joca.12077
Biswas-Diener, R., & Diener, E. (2001). Making the best of a bad
situation: Satisfaction in the slums of Calcutta. Social
Indicators Research, 55(3), 329–352. https://doi.org/10.1023/
A:1010905029386
Boujbel, L., & d’Astous, A. (2017). Marketing and consumers’
well-being: A voluntary simplicity value perspective. Revue
Francaise Du Marketing, 260, 43–58.
THE JOURNAL OF POSITIVE PSYCHOLOGY 11
Cole, D. A., & Maxwell, S. E. (2003). Testing Mediational Models
With Longitudinal Data: Questions and Tips in the Use of
Structural Equation Modeling. Journal of Abnormal
Psychology, 112(4), 558–577. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-
843X.112.4.558
Diener, E., & Biswas-Diener, R. (2002). Will money increase
subjective well-being? A literature review and guide to
needed research. Social Indicators Research, 57(2), 119–169.
https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1014411319119
Diener, E., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, S. (1985). The
satisfaction with life scale. Journal of Personality Assessment,
49(1), 71–75. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa4901_13
Diener, E., & Oishi, S. (2000). Money and happiness: Income and
subjective well-being across nations. In E. Diener & E. M. Suh
(Eds.), Subjective well-being across cultures (pp. 185–218). MIT
Press.
Dittmar, H., Bond, R., Hurst, M., & Kasser, T. (2014). The relation­
ship between materialism and personal well-being: A meta-
analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 107(5),
879–924. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037409
Elgin, D., & Mitchell, A. (1977). Voluntary simplicity. The Co-
Evolution Quarterly, (Summer), 1977. https://doi.org/10.
1108/eb053820
Frederick, S., & Loewenstein, G. (1999). Hedonic adaptation. In
D. Kahneman, E. Diener, & N. Schwarz (Eds.), Well-Being:
Foundations of Hedonic Psychology (pp. 302–329). Russell
Sage Foundation.
Gregg, R. B. (1936). Voluntary simplicity. Visva-Bharati Quarterly,
2, 27–46.
Iwata, O. (1997). Attitudinal and behavioral correlates of volun­
tary simplicity lifestyles. Social Behavior & Personality, 25(3),
233–240. https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.1997.25.3.233
Iyer, R., & Muncy, J. A. (2009). Purpose and object of anti-
consumption. Journal of Business Research, 62(2), 160–168.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2008.01.023
Leonard-Barton, D. (1981). Voluntary simplicity lifestyles and
energy conservation. The Journal of Consumer Research, 8(3),
243–252. https://doi.org/10.1086/208861
McGouran, C., & Prothero, A. (2016). Enacted voluntary simpli­
city – Exploring the consequences of requesting consumers
to intentionally consume less. European Journal of
Marketing, 50(1/2), 189–212. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJM-
09-2013-0521
McGouran, C., & Prothero, A. (2016). Enacted voluntary simpli­
city – Exploring the consequences of requesting consumers
to intentionally consume less. European Journal of
Marketing, 50(1/2), 189–212. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJM-
09-2013-0521
McGouran, C., & Prothero, A. (2016). Enacted voluntary simpli­
city – Exploring the consequences of requesting consumers
to intentionally consume less. European Journal of
Marketing, 50(1/2), 189–212. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJM-
09-2013-0521
McGouran, C., & Prothero, A. (2016). Enacted voluntary simpli­
city – Exploring the consequences of requesting consumers
to intentionally consume less. European Journal of
Marketing, 50(1/2), 189–212. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJM-
09-2013-0521
Millburn, J. F., & Nicodemus, R. (n.d.). What is minimalism?
https://www.theminimalists.com/minimalism/
12 J. N. HOOK ET AL.
Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann,
T. C., Mulrow, C. D., & Moher, D. (2021). The PRISMA 2020
statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic
reviews. PLoS Med, 18(3), e1003583. https://doi.org/10.1371/
journal.pmed.1003583
Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann,
T. C., Mulrow, C. D., & Moher, D. (2021). The PRISMA 2020
statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic
reviews. PLoS Med, 18(3), e1003583. https://doi.org/10.1371/
journal.pmed.1003583
Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann,
T. C., Mulrow, C. D., & Moher, D. (2021). The PRISMA 2020
statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic
reviews. PLoS Med, 18(3), e1003583. https://doi.org/10.1371/
journal.pmed.1003583
Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann,
T. C., Mulrow, C. D., & Moher, D. (2021). The PRISMA 2020
statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic
reviews. PLoS Med, 18(3), e1003583. https://doi.org/10.1371/
journal.pmed.1003583
Pavot, W., Diener, E., & Suh, E. (1998). The temporal satisfaction
with life scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 70, 340–
354.
Reboucas, R., & Soares, A. M. (2021). Voluntary simplicity: A
literature review and research agenda. International Journal
of Consumer Studies. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijcs.12621
Rich, S. A., Hanna, S., Wright, B. J., & Bennett, P. C. (2017). Fact or
fable: Increased wellbeing in voluntary simplicity.
International Journal of Wellbeing, 7(2), 64–77. https://doi.
org/10.5502/ijw.v7i2.589
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and
the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development,
and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68–78. https://
doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.68
Sasaki, F. (2017). Goodbye, things: The new Japanese minimal­
ism. W. W. Norton & Company.
Shama, A., & Wisenblit, J. 1984. Values of voluntary simplicity:
Lifestyle and motivation. Psychological Reports, 55(1), 231–
240. https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1984.55.1.231.
* indicates a study included in the literature review