Many people struggle with decluttering, a challenge that can extend beyond mere physical tidiness to involve complex emotional and cognitive processes. Emily Falk, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania and author of “What We Value: The Neuroscience of Choice and Change,” explores the neuroscience behind why it is often difficult to part with possessions, even those that have little practical use.
Falk’s research highlights that the brain regions responsible for determining value overlap with those linked to our sense of self. This neural connection means that personal belongings often feel like extensions of identity, making it challenging to let them go. Studies confirm that individuals assign greater value to objects they own compared to identical items owned by others. For example, when participants sort objects into “theirs” and “others’” baskets, their brains show heightened activity in self-relevance areas for their own items, increasing attachment and preference.
Loss aversion also plays a significant role. Brain imaging reveals that sellers who find it difficult to part with items display increased activity in regions associated with pain, risk, and attention. This helps explain why people tend to hold onto family heirlooms as well as items that have outlived their usefulness, such as clothes that no longer fit or duplicate household goods.
Beyond the physical value of objects, possessions can serve as powerful memory cues, temporarily reconnecting people with past experiences or former versions of themselves. According to one study, the brain compresses past selves similarly to how distant objects appear blurred, making it harder to sever ties with personal items that evoke these memories.
To counteract these ingrained tendencies, Falk suggests re-framing the decision-making process. One effective strategy is to shift from the perspective of a possessor to that of a buyer, asking, “Would I purchase this item today?” This approach can alter the neural reward calculations and reduce attachment, transforming the object into a choice rather than a loss.
Taking another person’s perspective has also been shown to influence behavior. Participants who imagine how someone else views their belongings are more inclined to part with items. In Falk’s own experience, discussing old notebooks with her partner helped her confront the sentimental value she assigned to them, as he lacked the same emotional connection.
Additional techniques to facilitate letting go include taking photographs of items before donating them. Research involving college dormitories found that encouraging students to capture images of belongings increased donation rates by 15 percent, suggesting that preserving memories visually can ease emotional barriers.
Falk emphasizes that decluttering need not mean eliminating every possession but rather making more intentional choices about what to keep. She notes that addressing wider societal factors—such as pervasive advertising, effortless purchasing, and mass production—can help reduce the accumulation of unnecessary items before the need to declutter arises.
Ultimately, Falk concludes that the difficulty of letting go stems less from the objects themselves and more from the brain’s perception of identity and change. By employing strategies that engage imagination and social connection, individuals can better navigate these emotional complexities and declutter in a way that honors their sense of self.