Investigating the Demographics and Behavioural Characteristics Associated with Voluntary Simplicity Lifestyles in a Developed and a Developing Country: A Comparison between US and Turkish Simplifiers

Abstract

This study aims to compare the demographics and behavioural characteristics of consumers who adopt voluntary simplicity as a daily lifestyle process, focusing on one developed country and one developing country. Data were accordingly collected from 589 US and Turkish consumers who define themselves as voluntary simplifiers. Although other studies found that voluntary simplifiers have same demographic characteristics, our results indicate that Turkish and US simplifiers do not vary statistically in terms of demographic variables such as income class, marital status, number of children and gender but do vary statistically in terms of education, age and working hours. They also vary in terms of the deliberate shortening of working hours. The results reveal that several behavioural and demographic characteristics of consumers who adopt the same lifestyle philosophy may vary based on their culture and the conditions of their country. Findings in the discussion section are aligned with previous studies in the literature and with socioeconomic and demographic indicators of the two countries.

Keywords

Voluntary simplicity consumer lifestyle lifestyle segmentation simple living cross-cultural comparison

Introduction

As society has increasingly been described as a consumer culture, the notions of consumers as citizens, consumers as activists and consumers as voluntary simplifiers have appeared.¹ Still, the search for alternatives to consumerism continues to attract people. Consumer lifestyles with regard to their voluntary simplified levels of consumption that play an important role in marketing practices also affect local cultures and the capitalist system in different ways. Counter movements such as voluntary simplicity undermine the legitimacy of the capitalist system and also seek to build strong local communities by promoting interdependence on local resources. Activists and social movement members urge us to think about consumer society in new ways by confronting what they consider to be an ethically blind and consumption-oriented society.

Lifestyle research is based on the assumption that an individual’s lifestyle commits him to a certain consistency of behaviour (Berkman & Gilson, 1974) and patterns of behaviour (including consumption behaviours) that are linked to values and socio-demographic characteristics. However, in addition to socio-demographic factors, consumer lifestyles are also influenced by structural forces, such as the development level of countries (Veal, 1993). In other words, characteristics inherent to a specific capitalist system influence the consumption behaviours of individuals belonging to that culture. For instance, constant increases in consumption are encouraged in a developing economy (Zavestoski, 2002). However, individuals belonging to a specific culture may avoid adopting a lifestyle imposed on them by the dominant culture and revise their consumption behaviours accordingly. The concept of voluntary simplicity is, therefore, a stance against the lifestyle imposed by that dominant culture, and voluntary simplicity can be described as an anti-materialistic cultural movement (Grisby, 2004). However, dominant culture may also play an important role in practicing voluntary simplicity at different levels.

This article is structured as follows: It presents a review of the literature available on voluntary simplicity as a consumer lifestyle. This serves as groundwork for identifying study objectives; demographic profile of the respondents is presented followed by the presentation of scale measurement and its reliability. Results of the analysis and the discussion section are then presented.

Review of Literature

Voluntary Simplicity as a Consumer Lifestyle

Due to the complexity of human behaviour and the subjectivity of lifestyles, it is impossible to suggest a widely accepted definition for the concept of voluntary simplicity. Nelson, Rademacher, and Paek (2007) emphasize that minimizing consumption and voluntary simplicity are synonymous and that divorcing oneself from material possessions is a lifestyle choice. In addition, the authors noted that an individual’s avoidance of unnecessary and excessive items in their lives is synonymous with voluntary simplicity (Elgin, 1981, 1993; Gregg, 1936; Iyer & Muncy, 2008; Zavestoski, 2002). When considered in the context of consumption, voluntary simplicity includes an attitude against overconsumption (Iyer & Muncy, 2008). Although different impulses underlie this attitude, it can be stated that simplicity is closely related to non-materialism. Materialism emphasizes acquiring more possessions while voluntary simplicity can be regarded as an antidote to the social and personal problems brought on by materialist consumption. The desire to acquire more possessions comes with an intense work ethic and a minimized relationship with the environment, whereas voluntary simplicity is a consumer lifestyle philosophy that offers spiritual richness by reinforcing and increasing the relationship with the social and natural environments (Elgin & Mitchell, 1977). In addition,

As an alternative to consumerism, voluntary simplicity explicitly challenges predominant cultural norms. Accordingly, recent issues and research, such as green consumption, ethical consumption, and sustainability, can be associated with voluntary simplicity (Walther & Sandlin, 2013). Chatzidakis and Lee (2013) stated that researchers interested in these issues in the early 1970s first aimed to understand these phenomena using demographical variables. However, such attempts were proven elusive. Following these attempts, later research considered the role of psychological and attitudinal constructs (Chatzidakis & Lee, 2013). As a result, voluntary simplicity has been associated with many recent phenomena relating to consumption, such as energy conservation (Leonard-Barton, 1981), ethical consumption (Shaw & Newholm, 2002), disposition and recycling behaviour (Ballantine & Creery, 2010; Bekin, Carrigan, & Szmigin, 2005; Cherrier, 2009), and sustainable consumption (McDonald, Oates, Young, & Hwang, 2006; Young, Hwang, McDonald, & Oates, 2010). However, despite its relation to anti-consumption research, the practice of voluntary simplicity should not be viewed only in terms of anti-consumption (Shaw & Newholm, 2002) because different motivations direct people to choose this lifestyle. For example, a consumer’s decision to buy a product carries the potential to contribute to a more sustainable natural environment (Uddin & Khan, 2016, p. 2). This realization may also encourage voluntary simplicity lifestyles. Individuals may choose simpler lifestyles from a desire to achieve a better work–life balance to spend more time with children or to reconnect with nature (Bekin et al., 2005, p. 415).

No research has yet been conducted comparing the demographics and behavioural characteristics of voluntary simplifiers, focusing on one developed and one developing country. For this reason, our main purpose is to fill this gap in the literature. The next section of the study summarizes the behavioural and demographic characteristics associated with voluntary simplicity.

Demographic and Behavioural Characteristics of Voluntary Simplifiers

The demographic and behavioural characteristics of voluntary simplicity as a consumer lifestyle have been discussed in marketing literature since the 1970s. Much of this literature explains who the people adopting voluntary simplicity are, why they prefer this lifestyle, and how they maintain it). Accordingly, consumers who adopt voluntary simplicity are from the middle class, have the potential to earn a high income, and have obtained an advanced education (Craig-Lees & Hill, 2002; Pierce, 2000). Research by Brown and Kasser (2005) revealed that 77 per cent of the subjects possessed at least an associate degree and half of these had a post-graduate degree. Elgin and Mitchell (1977), Nolen and Clawson (1995) and Schor (1998) highlighted that more than 60% of the individuals adopting voluntary simplicity are female. Elgin and Mitchell (1977), in their research conducted in the USA, found that people adopting voluntary simplicity were predominantly white Americans.

Huneke (2005) listed the most important activities of those adopting voluntary simplicity as avoiding impulse purchases, recycling, eliminating clutter, holding a satisfying job, and buying locally grown products. Leonard-Barton (1981) concluded that the most distinct characteristics of people adopting voluntary simplicity include changing their car’s oil, making gifts instead of purchasing them, preferring meatless meals, and getting instructions to increase self-reliance. Shama and Wisenblit (1984) noted that individuals living in rural areas maintain a simpler life compared with those living in cities. Similarly, differences were observed in the manner of adoption of voluntary simplicity by individuals living in cities versus those living in rural areas. For instance, individuals living in rural areas care more about recycling, while individuals living in cities prefer eating meatless meals and use bicycles. Etzioni (1998) stated that individuals adopting voluntary simplicity spend their time with nature or contribute to companies sensitive to the environment. Individuals that choose voluntary simplicity avoid stressed environments, work over time less often and make radical decisions about rebuilding their lives.

Research that tried to explain voluntary simplicity from a theoretical framework (Etzioni, 1998; Huneke, 2005; Zavestoski, 2002) benefited from Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs (Maslow, 1954). Such studies argued that individuals whose basic needs are met continuously have the option of a simpler life. In this sense, the research argued that those adopting voluntary simplicity approached this lifestyle at different levels (Elgin & Mitchell, 1977; Etzioni, 1998; Leonard-Barton, 1981). Although researchers named these classifications differently, the common point is that the behavioural characteristics of voluntary simplifiers vary in terms of frequency and level.

It is nevertheless difficult to generalize about demographic and behavioural characteristics of voluntary simplifiers (Cowles & Crosby, 1986). Bekin et al. (2005) emphasize that one is required to make comprehensive cultural comparisons before making generalizations about the attitudes and behaviours of voluntary simplifiers. They also note that the characteristics of voluntary simplifiers may vary based on culture. However, only a limited number of studies have so far made intercultural comparisons of voluntary simplifiers.

In general, research on the behavioural characteristics of voluntary simplicity has been carried out in developed countries. Roubanis (2008) proved in his comparison between two developed countries (the USA and Japan) that attitudes and behaviours about voluntary simplicity do not change statistically. Alexander and Usher (2012) focused on how simplifiers are living a simple life in the most developed regions of the world, such as the United States of America, England, Eastern Europe, Australia and New Zealand (other countries were excluded from the study). Few studies make cultural comparisons, and no study thus far has compared voluntary simplicity with a country’s development level and its socio- economic and demographic characteristics.

Objectives of the Study

The main purpose of this study is to investigate demographic and behavioural characteristics of voluntary simplifiers living in a developed and a developing country. This will be achieved through comparing US and Turkish consumers’ level of adoption of voluntary simplicity behaviour and its associated demographic variables. This will help us understand how socio-economic differences and development levels of countries influence counter movements.

Rationale of the Study

Although motivations behind anti-materialistic movements have been largely discussed in consumer research literature, no study has yet questioned whether voluntary simplicity, as an alternative consumer lifestyle, differs according to the developmental level of countries where simplifiers live. Since every country is endowed with their cultural heritage (Rehman, 2017, p. 2) and countries’ level of development are different, lifestyle research should be conducted on a country-by-country basis.

Methodology

Data Collection

Online questionnaire application was used for data collection. The purposive sampling method, a method not based on probability, was used in the sample determination. The online versions of the questionnaire were added to two websites, one in English and the other in Turkish.² These websites are voluntary simplicity blogs that were developed by one of the authors of this study. The target audience for the blogs are voluntary simplifiers. We collected the data from these blogs because we thought the sample must be appropriate and comprise participants who best represent the research topic. Respondents were asked to indicate their nationality and current residency on the questionnaire forms. Respondents were also asked to read the definition of voluntary simplicity at the top of the questionnaires before answering it. Later, respondents were asked whether they had been practicing such a lifestyle on their sole discretion for at least a year. Those who answered ‘Yes’ were deemed to prefer voluntary simplicity and included in the research. Respondents who answered this question negatively (N = 57), and respondents from other countries and nationalities (N = 21), were not included in the research. No control over the composition of the sample was exerted. The definition of voluntary simplicity and the related form, which the respondents were asked to read, have been submitted in the Appendix. Data were collected from a total of 589 individuals who preferred voluntary simplicity, 297 Americans and 292 Turkish consumers.

Survey Instrument

The 18-item Voluntary Simplicity Lifestyle Scale (Leonard-Barton, 1981) was revised for this study. After consultation with colleagues from the USA and Turkey, one item that might be classified as an old way of living simply, ‘change oil in car’, and two items ‘have compost pile’ and ‘belong to a cooperative’ were removed from the scale. In the original scale, Leonard-Barton measured composting and cooperative engagement using a two-point scale (yes/no). This was the main reason why we removed these two items from the scale. For the same reason, Richins and Dawson (1992) used a shorter version of the scale. In addition, factor loadings of these two items in Leonard-Barton’s study were relatively low (lower than 0.4). The final form of the scale consisted of 15 items rated on a 5-point Likert scale. The items included in the original scale were used for questionnaire forms. In addition, the questionnaire included some demographic questions, shown in Table 1. These demographic questions were adapted from the voluntary simplicity literature. Items included in the scale, originally in English, were translated by the authors into Turkish for the Turkish questionnaire form, which was finalized by a translator and linguist whose native language is Turkish. However, we should note that the scale is relevant to a comparative study and can draw relevant finding in the developing country context since some studies point out similar lifestyle characteristics between US and Turkish consumers regarding consumption and environmental issues (Aydoğan, 2009; Kaynak, Kara, & Unusan, 1998).

Reliability and Validity of the Voluntary Simplicity Scale (VSS)

Two structural equation models for these samples of American and Turkish simplifiers were estimated based on the partial least squares (PLS) approach, using SmartPLS 3.0. The three-construct structure for the scale proposed by Cowles and Crosby (1986) was used because this structure resulted in a better prediction than the six-factor structure proposed by Leonard-Barton (1981). Cowles and Crosby (1986) named their constructs ‘material simplicity’ (which involves relying on bicycles instead of automobiles for transportation), ‘self-determination’ (making rather than buying items and attempting to do home repairs oneself) and ‘ecological awareness’ (recycling). The results allowed us to assess the reliability and validity of the VSS in both countries. ‘Construct reliability and validity’ was tested using composite reliability, item factor loadings and item cross-loadings. For both samples, factor loadings of each item were above 0.4, and composite reliability was above 0.7 for each dimension and for both samples (Hulland, 1999). In addition, when looking at the item cross-loadings, each item loaded higher on its respective factor than on any other factor for both the US and Turkish samples (Chin & Dibbern, 2009).

Analysis and Results

Demographic characteristics of the voluntary simplifiers who participated in the research are presented in Table 1. Table 1 shows that the age brackets and education levels of voluntary simplifiers living in the USA are higher than those of voluntary simplifiers living in Turkey. A majority of US voluntary simplifiers are 35–54 years old, while Turkish voluntary simplifiers are 18–34 years old. However, in the USA, almost 74 per cent voluntary simplifiers have a college graduate degree compared with 47.3 per cent for Turkish voluntary simplifiers.

Table 1 shows that 45.5 per cent US voluntary simplifiers responded ‘Yes’ to the question regarding intentionally reducing working hours, and 29.5 per cent voluntary simplifiers in Turkey responded ‘Yes’ to the same question. However, in our study, the highest percentage of US voluntary simplifiers (37%) noted that they work 10 hours or less, and the highest percentage of Turkish voluntary simplifiers (33.6%) stated that they work 41 hours or more. Results also shows that a majority of the voluntary simplifiers who participated in this study (USA, 88.9%; Turkey, 82.9%) were living in urban areas.

Table 1.

Demographic Characteristics of Voluntary Simplifiers

Demographic Indicators		USA (%) n = 297	Turkey (%) n = 292	Total (%) n = 589
Age	18–24	11.8	20.2	16.0
	25–34	15.8	36	25.8
	35–44	32.7	20.9	26.8
	45–54	19.5	11.3	15.4
	55–64	12.1	8.9	10.5
	65+	8.1	2.7	5.4
Gender	Female	49.2	52.7	50.9
	Male	50.8	47.3	49.1
Education	Some high school and below	11.1	15.1	13.1
	High school graduate	15.2	37.7	26.3
	College graduate	24.6	13.7	19.2
	Bachelor’s degree	34.3	25.0	29.7
	Postgraduate	14.8	8.6	11.7
Income	Low income class	11.4	14.0	12.7
	Low middle class	19.9	16.4	18.2
	Middle income class	37.7	47.6	42.6
	Upper middle income class	25.3	19.5	22.4
	High income class	5.7	2.4	4.1
Working hours	10 h or less	37.0	25.7	31.4
	11–20 h	8.1	14.4	11.2
	21–30 h	10.4	8.6	9.5
	31–40 h	25.6	17.8	21.7
	41 h or more	18.9	33.6	26.1
Reducing work hours	Yes	45.5	29.5	37.5
Intentionally
	No	54.5	70.5	62.5
Living area	Rural	11.1	17.1	14.1
	Urban	88.9	82.9	85.9
Number of children in Household	None	62.6	57.5	60.1
	1	17.8	21.9	19.9
	2	11.4	11.3	11.4
	3	6.1	5.5	5.8
	4 and more	2.0	3.8	2.9
Marital Status	Married	45.8	53.4	49.6
	Single	54.2	46.6	50.4

Source: The Authors.

An independent sample t-test was used to analyse whether the demographic characteristics of individuals adopting voluntary simplicity statistically vary. The analysis results are exhibited in Table 2. Table 2 shows that the US and Turkish consumers who adopt voluntary simplicity do not vary significantly in terms of the number of children, marital status, gender and income but vary in terms of age, education, working hours, interest in reducing working hours and living area. In other words, considering income, gender, number of children and marital status, voluntary simplifiers from both cultures possess similar demographic characteristics.

Table 2.

Demographic Characteristics of Voluntary Simplifiers: Mean Scores and Independent Samples T-Test for Equality of Means

Demographic Indicators	US Simplifiers		Turkish Simplifiers		T-Value/Significance
Demographic Indicators	Mean	SD	Mean	SD	T-Value/Significance
Age Gender Education Income Work hours Reducing work Hours living area Number of children marital status	3.28 1.50 3.26 2.93 2.81 1.54 1.88 1.67 1.45	1.40 0.50 1.21 1.06 1.59 0.49 0.31 1.02 0.49	2.60 1.47 2.74 2.79 3.19 1.70 1.82 1.76 1.53	1.31 0.50 1.22 0.98 1.63 0.45 0.37 1.09 0.49	6.03 NS 5.20 NS –2.86 –4.05 2.10* NS NS

Source: The Authors.

Notes: Significance levels: *p < 0•05; **p < 0•01; Statistical analysis is performed by an independent sample t-test.

SD = Standard Deviation

ns = non-significant.

Averages regarding the voluntary simplicity scale for the US and Turkish simplifiers are provided in Table 3. As can be seen from the table, statements with the highest and lowest averages in both cultures are similar. However, averages of the US voluntary simplifiers are higher than those of Turkish voluntary simplifiers for all statements. An independent sample t-test was used to reveal whether statement averages vary statistically. Analysis results indicate that all values regarding statement averages, except for ‘bike on errands’, vary significantly for both cultures.

Table 3.

Behavioural Characteristics of Voluntary Simplifiers: Mean Scores and Independent Samples T-Test for Equality of Means

Itemsª	US Simplifiers		Turkish Simplifiers		T-Value/Significance
Itemsª	Mean	SD	Mean	SD	T-Value/Significance
Recycle glass Plan meatless meals Recycle paper Exchange goods or services Get instructions to increase self-reliance Bike for exercise Recycle cans Make gifts Contribute to ecology Organizations Grow vegetables Buy at garage sales Make clothes/Furniture Bike to work Bike on errands Buy second-hand clothes	4.00 3.61 3.47 3.43 3.42 3.26 3.24 3.10 2.99 2.80 2.80 2.57 2.48 2.41 2.20	1.17 1.08 1.34 1.23 1.04 1.30 1.28 1.05 1.16 1.03 0.98 1.03 1.09 1.31 .99	3.29 2.76 2.80 2.50 2.49 2.44 2.59 2.14 2.05 1.75 1.82 1.66 1.61 2.23 1.41	1.37 1.19 1.43 1.30 1.10 1.38 1.42 1.06 1.19 1.10 0.99 0.95 1.11 1.37 0.89	6.74 9.02 5.84 8.89 10.41 7.39 5.87 10.95 9.70 11.98 12.04 11.03 9.48 NS 10.10

Source: The Authors.

Notes: 1. Each question was rated on a 5-point scale; ‘never, rarely, sometimes, often, and very often’, ‘never, sometimes, frequently, usually, always’, ‘none, some, many, most, all’.

Significance level: **p < 0•01; Statistical analysis is performed by an independent sample t-test

SD = Standard deviation

ns = Non-significant.

Discussion

This study attempted to investigate whether demographic and behavioural characteristics of voluntary simplifiers differ according to the developmental level of countries. Results suggest that individuals adopting voluntary simplicity vary in terms of specific demographic and behavioural characteristics, based on a country’s development level. Results show that demographic characteristics of respondents who state that they prefer voluntary simplicity as a lifestyle for a year or longer vary between the USA and Turkey. Variances include age, education, working hours, interest in reducing working hours intentionally and preferred living area. However, the US and Turkish simplifiers do not vary in terms of the number of children, marital status, gender and income group. Regarding behavioural characteristics of respondents, the mean scores of answers given by the US and Turkish simplifiers are significantly different and that the mean scores of the US respondents are higher for every statement.

These findings pose an important question about whether demographic and behavioural characteristics regarding voluntary simplicity can be generalized. Therefore, universal and cultural characteristics indigenous to this lifestyle should be researched, using different studies that examine behavioural and demographic characteristics of voluntary simplicity in both developing and developed countries. In sum, the varying demographic characteristics of voluntary simplifiers in this study may be associated with the lifestyle structure indigenous to a culture or to a country’s level of development. Nevertheless, according to research results, unvarying demographic characteristics between two countries may be caused by common demographic characteristics of those who adopt voluntary simplicity. More studies are necessary to test the accuracy of this hypothesis.

Results suggest that there are some structural possibilities to engage in voluntary simplicity lifestyles. For instance, it can be argued that increasing leisure time and an enhanced relationship with social and natural environments are likely to be related to reducing working hours. Also, ‘intentionally reducing working hours’ depends on structural, economic, social and political forces in a country. It is clear that the nature of work and the number of working hours differ considerably between industry, service and agricultural sectors. As discussed before, service and agricultural employment rates are much different in the USA and Turkey. Accordingly, only 29.5 per cent Turkish simplifiers answered ‘yes’ to the question ‘intentionally reducing working hours’, whereas 45.5 per cent US simplifiers answered ‘no’ to the same question. In their study, Alexander and Usher (2012) found that 48 per cent voluntary simplifiers living in developed countries responded ‘yes’ to the same question. In addition, the working hours of Turkish simplifiers are higher than those of the US simplifiers. These results might be explained by the proposition that people in richer countries value income less (an important finding of a recent study [Delhey, 2010], who compared affluent and poor countries), or the fact that people in poorer countries have to work more to survive.

In their study, Alexander and Usher (2012) argued that voluntary simplicity is not a lifestyle indigenous to rural areas. They revealed that 79 per cent voluntary simplifiers live in urban areas. Similarly, we found that a majority of the voluntary simplifiers who participated in this study (USA, 88.9%, and Turkey, 82.9%) were living in urban areas.

Results also show that 64.3 per cent US simplifiers are above 35 years of age, while 56.2 per cent Turkish simplifiers are below the age of 35. This may be associated with the population pyramids of the USA and Turkey. As discussed before, statistics show that Turkey has a younger population structure than the USA. Taken together, the results indicate that in addition to the nature of lifestyles, a country’s level of development and other indicators, such as population structure and the nature of work, should be considered in lifestyle research.

The fact that the mean scores of answers given by the US and Turkish simplifiers are significantly different and that the mean scores of the US respondents are higher for every statement can be evaluated with Maslow’s Needs Hierarchy model. Etzioni (1998) claimed that arguments against voluntary simplicity in capitalist societies can be explained by the Needs Hierarchy theory. Using Maslow’s model, Etzioni (1998) argued that an increasing welfare level in a society causes the formation of a simplicity-based counterculture in that society. The fact that research results yield higher average answers to scale statements by the US simplifiers, compared to Turkish voluntary simplifiers, reinforces the idea that it may be easier to sustain voluntary simplicity in the USA than in Turkey. Accordingly, Veal (1993) noted that the idea of choice in contemporary capitalist societies is misleading and that certain groups are very restricted in the range of choices available to them (p. 245). He adds that in any society, consumers are constrained by structural social, economic and political forces in a fundamental way. This argument supports the above discussion that the development levels of countries are likely to play an important role in the voluntary choice of a lifestyle.

One of the important findings of the research is that the statements’ highest and lowest mean scores are similar in both cultures. Considering that respondents’ average answers to statements reflect the strength of an exhibited behaviour, it can be concluded that those adopting voluntary simplicity may implement similar behaviours regarding this lifestyle at different levels. This may be associated with voluntary simplicity levels mentioned in the literature.

Conclusion and Implications

These results allow us to make certain theoretical and practical implications regarding consumer lifestyles. The literature suggests that voluntary simplicity is a lifestyle choice unique to members of developed countries and that researchers aim to categorize simplifiers by similar demographic characteristics. However, this study indicates that this assumption seems to be controversial. Although behaviours associated with voluntary simplicity may be similar in different countries, the extent to which people practice this lifestyle and their socio-demographic profile vary according to countries’ relative development. This is particularly important for researchers, who categorize consumers by universal characteristics. From this perspective, as indicated by the research results, it should be discussed whether voluntary simplifiers living in developed countries are ‘stronger’ simplifiers, compared to those living in less developed and developing countries.

This study advances the research on voluntary simplicity by exploring how demographic and behavioural characteristics of simplifiers differs according to the developmental level of countries. As the authors of this study, we are of the opinion that voluntary simplicity is not a lifestyle indigenous only to developed societies, but an important lifestyle adopted in developing and less developed countries as well. Therefore, we call for interested researchers to conduct studies on developing and less developed countries.

Limitations and Future Research

Lifestyle research generally has not been based on theoretical foundations; rather, it has been analysed using dozens of questionnaires (Craig-Lees & Hill, 2002). In contrast, Wahlen and Laamanen (2015) claim that consumption-based lifestyles become localized and mobilized. In this regard, conducting future research on voluntary simplifiers (living in both less developed and developed countries), using a country’s development level, population structure and demographic profile as a basis, will allow stronger theoretical inferences on voluntary simplicity.

Lifestyle is a dynamic concept that changes with consumption behaviours, which differs every day. It is important for researchers who study the relationship between lifestyle and consumption to regionally classify and compare lifestyle differences. However, more studies are required on the subject to be able to make generalizations about consumer lifestyles, considering demographic and behavioural characteristics.

In this study, we preferred using the VSS developed by Leonard-Barton (1981) because of its behavioural orientation. It can be argued that using such an old scale in lifestyle research is contradictory to the dynamic nature of lifestyles. However, the items in this scale still represent basic values of voluntary simplicity lifestyles when looking at the findings of recent studies in the literature. We also note that quantitative research on voluntary simplicity is sparse (Cowles & Crosby, 1986; Iwata, 2006; Leonard-Barton, 1981), and the instruments that can be used are limited. In addition, the purposive sampling method was chosen as the most appropriate method for this research. However, purposive sampling does somewhat limit the generalizability of research findings. Therefore, this represents a limitation of the study.

Appendix

The voluntary simplicity movement offers ideology and techniques for arriving at a personal definition of what is enough and promises a more fulfilling life to those who consume in more sustainable ways, reduce clutter, minimize activities they don’t find meaningful. Simple livers try to get by on less conspicuous consumption and less income from waged work in order to buy time for the well-being of the global environment, and for themselves to pursue more fulfilling and pleasurable activities. (Grisby, 2004, p. 2)

Voluntary simplicity (VS) is both a lifestyle choice and a cultural movement based upon a system of intrinsic values focused on lightening and unburdening one’s life from things and experiences that interfere with a higher quality of life and, instead, concentrating on the things one genuinely needs and cherishes. This is primarily done by deliberately and mindfully reducing one’s consumption of goods and services, living with fewer possessions, cultivating non-materialistic sources of satisfaction and meaning and developing deeper connections with one’s social and ecological community. VS practitioners, also known as ‘downshifters,’ work on developing lifestyles aimed at minimizing the traditional pursuit of wealth, conspicuous consumption and the acquisition of possessions and the attainment of image/status. The voluntary component of VS denotes a selection that is deliberate, purposeful and rooted in free will. In other words, a conscious choice in embracing VS over other lifestyles, in particular, the ‘more = better’ pursuit of wealth and consumption. VS is distinguished from poverty and other forms of simple living in that VS is a voluntary lifestyle choice; not one within which an individual is forced or coerced into because of economic or other reasons such as government austerity programs or imprisonment. (Monopolis, 2010, pp. 124–125)

Based on the above definition, do you consciously practise VS as a daily lifestyle process, rather than a dogmatic goal, and have you been doing so for at least 1 year (even if you have not achieved all of your individual goals related to that practice)?

( ) Yes ( ) No

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The authors are grateful to the anonymous referees of the journal for their extremely useful suggestions to improve the quality of this article. Usual disclaimers apply.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

Notes

References

Alexander

& Ussher

(2012). Voluntary simplicity movement: A multi-national survey analysis in theoretical context. Journal of Consumer Culture, 12(1), 66–86.

Aydoğan

(2009). Tüketim kültürünün gölgesinde kentler. MU Iktisadi ve Idari Bilimler Dergisi, 27(2), 203–215.

Ballantine

P. W.

& Creery

(2010). The consumption and disposition behaviour of voluntary simplifiers. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 9(1), 45–56.

Bekin

Carrigan

& Szmigin

(2005). Defying marketing sovereignty: Voluntary simplicity at new consumption communities Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, 8(4), 413–429.

Berkman

H. W.

& Gilson

C. C.

(1974). Consumer life styles and market segmentation. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 2(1), 189–200.

Brown

K. W.

& Kasser

(2005). Are psychological and ecological well-being compatible? The role of values, mindfulness, and lifestyle. Social Indicators Research, 74(2), 349–368.

Chatzidakis

& Lee

M. S.

(2013). Anti-consumption as the study of reasons against. Journal of Macromarketing, 33(3), 190–203.

Cherrier

(2009) Disposal and simple living: Exploring the circulation of goods and the development of sacred consumption. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 8(6), 327–339.

Chin

W. W.

& Dibbern

(2009). A permutation based procedure for multi-group (PLS) analysis: Results of tests of practices on simulated data. In Vinzi

V. Esposito

Chin

W. W.

Henseler

& Wang

(Eds.), Handbook of partial least squares: Concepts, methods and applications in marketing and related fields. Heidelberg: Springer.

10.

Cowles

& Crosby

L. A.

(1986). Measure validation in consumer research: A confirmatory factor analysis of the voluntary simplicity lifestyle scale. Advances in Consumer Research, 13(1), 392–397.

11.

Craig-Lees

& Hill

(2002). Understanding voluntary simplifiers. Psychology & Marketing, 19(2), 187–210.

12.

Delhey

(2010). From materialist to post-materialist happiness? National affluence and determinants of life satisfaction in cross-national perspective. Social Indicators Research, 97(1), 65–84.

13.

Elgin

(1981). Voluntary simplicity: Toward a way of life that is outwardly simple, inwardly rich. New York, NY: William Morrow and Company.

14.

Elgin

(1993). Voluntary simplicity: Toward a way of life that is outwardly simple, inwardly rich. New York, NY: Quill.

15.

Elgin

& Mitchell

(1977). Voluntary simplicity. The Co-Evolution Quarterly, 3(Summer), 5–18.

16.

Etzioni

(1998). Voluntary simplicity, characterization, select psychological implications, and societal, consequences. Journal of Economic Psychology, 19(5), 619–643.

17.

Grisby

(2004). Buying time and getting by: The voluntary simplicity movement. Albany: State University of New York Press.

18.

Gregg

(1936). The value of voluntary simplicity. Wallingford, PA: Pendle Hill.

19.

Hulland

(1999). Use of partial least squares (PLS) in strategic management research: A review of four recent studies. Strategic Management Journal, 20(2), 195–204.

20.

Huneke

M. E.

(2005). The face of the un-consumer: An empirical examination of the practice of voluntary simplicity in the United States. Psychology & Marketing, 22(7), 527–550.

21.

Iwata

(2006). An evaluation of consumerism and lifestyle as correlates of a voluntary simplicity lifestyle. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 34(5), 557–568.

22.

Iyer

& Muncy

J. A.

(2008). Purpose and object of anti-consumption. Journal of Business Research, 62(2), 160–168.

23.

Kaynak

Kara

& Unusan

(1998). Product-country images (PCI) in an advanced developing country. Journal of Euro-Marketing, 1, 51–66.

24.

Leonard-Barton

(1981). Voluntary simplicity lifestyles and energy conservation. Journal of Consumer Research, 8(3), 243–252.

25.

Maslow

A. H.

(1954). Motivation and personality. New York, NY: Harper.

26.

McDonald

Oates

C. J.

Young

C. W.

& Hwang

(2006). Toward sustainable consumption: Researching voluntary simplifiers. Psychology & Marketing, 23(6), 515–534.

27.

Monopolis

A. N.

(2010). Voluntary simplicity, authentic happiness, and ecological sustainability: An empirical psychological analysis of deliberate reductions in consumption and the cultivation 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 ecological sustainability (Doctoral Dissertation). Santa Barbara, CA: University of California.

28.

Nelson

M. R.

Rademacher

M. A.

& Paek

H. J.

(2007). Downshifting consumer upshifting citizen? An examination of a local freecycle community. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 611(1), 141–156.

29.

Nolen

T. P.

& Clawson

(1995). Choosing voluntary simplicity as a lifestyle. Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences Education, 13(2), 62–76.

30.

Pierce

L. B.

(2000). Choosing simplicity: Real people finding peace and fulfillment in a complex world. Carmel, CA: Gallagher Press.

31.

Rehman

(2017). Looking through the Glass of Indian Culture: Consumer behaviour in modern and postmodern era. Global Business Review, 18(3S), 1–18.

32.

Richins

M. L.

& Dawson

(1992). A consumer values orientation for materialism and its measurement: Scale development and validation. Journal of Consumer Research, 19(December), 303–316.

33.

Roubanis

J. L.

(2008). Comparison of environmentally responsible consumerism and voluntary simplicity lifestyle between US and Japanese female college students. Family and Consumer Sciences Research Journal, 37(2), 210–218.

34.

Schor

J. B.

(1998). The overspent American: Upscaling, downshifting and the new consumer. New York, NY: Basic Books.

35.

Shama

& Wisenblit

(1984). Values of voluntary simplicity: Lifestyle and motivation. Psychological Reports, 55(1), 231–240.

36.

Shaw

& Newholm

(2002). Voluntary simplicity and the ethics of consumption. Psychology & Marketing, 19(2), 167–185.

37.

Veal

A. J.

(1993). The concept of lifestyle: A review. Leisure Studies, 12(4), 233–252.

38.

Wahlen

& Laamanen

(2015). Consumption, lifestyle and social movements. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 39(5), 397–403.

39.

Walther

C. S.

& Sandlin

J. A.

(2013). Green capital and social reproduction within families practising voluntary simplicity in the US. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 37(1), 36–45.

40.

Uddin

S. F.

& Khan

M. N.

(2016). Green purchasing behaviour of young Indian consumers: An exploratory study. Global Business Review, 17(6), 1469–1479.

41.

Young

Hwang

McDonald

& Oates

C. J.

(2010). Sustainable consumption: Green consumer behaviour when purchasing products. Sustainable development, 18(1), 20–31.

42.

Zavestoski

(2002). The social–psychological bases of anticonsumption attitudes. Psychology & Marketing, 19(2), 149–165.