Across TikTok and Instagram, young women are choosing simplicity: soft silhouettes, quiet colours, unfussy basics and a visual language of ease. The trend has been dubbed “low-energy dressing”, a term that captures both the“I don’t care” aesthetic and the mood behind it.
But beneath the minimalist aesthetic lies a deeper psychological story – but is it shaped by overstimulation, shifting social expectations or a desire for stability?
To understand why “low-energy dressing” has caught fire, we need to look at the emotional environment shaping this generation. Fashion psychologist, Dr Dion Terrelonge, argues that the movement is less about style and more about survival in a time where algorithm fatigue is rife.
“Life right now is incredibly energy-zapping,” she explains. “With the 24-hour news cycle, social media and our phones always on, there’s no off button. It takes emotional energy just to process what’s happening politically, economically and environmentally; and still get on with your day. Low-energy dressing gives people a sense of simplicity and stability.”
For Gen Z, who came of age during multiple global crises, overstimulation has become their “normal” state. Paring back their wardrobe becomes a small but meaningful form of control and consumer psychologist Kate Nightingale, founder of Humanising Brands, agrees. “We are living through an unprecedented frequency of existential crises,” she says. “Our psychological needs for safety and belonging are threatened multiple times per day. Simplicity and even refusing to conform becomes a coping mechanism.”
Many commentators claim low-energy dressing is a backlash against trend fatigue and Terrelonge does see a connection. “We’ve been told every week that something is the ‘next big trend’,” she says. “But when a trend disappears in days, it loses meaning. People begin opting out entirely.”
Shakaila Forbes-Bell, fashion psychologist and author of Big Dress Energy, believes the story is actually more complicated. “I don’t think this shift is about trend exhaustion,” she says. “It reflects a broader lack of joy. People are going out less, connecting less, and feeling less vibrant. That emotional decline is showing up in their clothes.”
She adds that the continued influence of quiet luxury has reshaped what we consider desirable. “Minimalism is now tied to wealth. Bright colours and partywear became associated with low-quality, fast fashion. So simplicity has become a signifier of refinement; even when the pieces themselves are fast fashion.”
Why do we associate simplicity with confidence? Part of the appeal of low-energy dressing lies in the way we perceive it. Simplicity, culturally, signals confidence.
Terrelonge explains: “When someone dresses simply, it suggests decisiveness. It reads as knowing who you are. Overly-complicated outfits can look like uncertainty. Not trying to impress gives the impression of security.”
But Forbes-Bell stresses that the psychology is more nuanced. “There are studies showing that unconventional dressers, like people who wear statement shoes in corporate settings, are seen as confident and creative. Confidence isn’t synonymous with minimalism; it’s about coherence with your identity.”
Social media definitely has a part to play in this shift, with TikTok and Instagram glamourising effortlessness to the point where it has become its own aesthetic: messy buns that take twenty minutes, no-makeup makeup routines with nine products, ‘simple’ outfits carefully engineered for visual impact.
Nightingale says TikTok in particular has shaped this shift. “It started as a more authentic, raw form of self-expression, but quickly evolved into another aesthetic. The performance of ease became aspirational.”
She notes two psychological drivers behind this: reduced sensitivity to judgement – especially among Gen Z – as well as cognitive optimisation, which is the idea that simple dressing frees up mental bandwidth for creativity and productivity. These drivers help to reduce decisions around clothes and can indeed reduce stress. Nightingale cites enclothed cognition, a psychological effect in which clothes influence how we think and feel. “If you associate your clothes with comfort, confidence or strength, you will experience more of that. Reducing cognitive load always improves wellbeing.”
“Low-energy dressing” is all about simple outfits that promote comfort
The irony, of course, is that looking effortless often requires effort. So is low-energy dressing freeing, or simply a new aesthetic pressure?
“It began as a coping mechanism,” Nightingale says, “but anything that becomes popular risks becoming a new form of pressure.”
Forbes-Bell is direct: “Yes, this is another beauty standard. But performance isn’t always negative. Fashion is always a performance, we present a version of ourselves to the world.”
Women, she notes, feel this acutely due to the “beauty premium”, whereby those who conform to beauty standards experience social and economic advantages. “The pressure to look polished, effortlessly or not still remains.”
For many, the appeal of low-energy dressing is tied to the fantasy of a life that runs smoothly.
“Time is the ultimate luxury now,” Forbes-Bell says. “Effortless dressing suggests you have more of it. Being time-rich has become a new status symbol.”
Terrelonge adds that simplicity reinforces psychological security. “It reads as knowing what matters. It signals self-possession.”
Low-energy dressing is not confined to fashion. We’re seeing parallel movements in interiors, wellness, and culture: the rise of neutral palettes, decluttering, slow living, soft aesthetics. Nightingale views it as part of a wider search for safety and control. “When life feels unstable, we are drawn to nostalgia, simplicity and traditionalism,” she says. “It activates our sense of control.”
The rise of remote work has also played a role. As Forbes-Bell notes, “People realised that comfort dressing can improve work performance and cognitive processing. Once you experience that, you want to keep it.”
The experts agree that while the aesthetic itself may be temporary, the psychology behind it is long-term.
Nightingale predicts that the underlying need for stability will last another five to ten years. “But this specific fashion expression won’t fulfil the need indefinitely. Once it becomes too popular, it shifts from freedom to responsibility.”
Forbes-Bell sees the future depending on society’s emotional climate. “If people remain isolated and the economy remains strained, the shift will hold. But if we return to joy, celebration and connection, the pendulum may swing back.”
Evidently, low-energy dressing reflects a generation navigating burnout, overstimulation and uncertainty; but it also signals something quietly hopeful. In choosing clothes that feel grounding rather than performative, women are redefining what style can look like when it’s guided by intention rather than pressure and ultimately, if simplicity is the starting point, it may also be the foundation on which new forms of creativity can grow.