The urgency of studying transformative behavioural change

Researchers working within mainstream psychological and behavioural science are increasingly recognizing that addressing the world’s most pressing issues, from the climate crisis to socioeconomic inequalities, will require studying transformative behavioural change (Basso and Krpan, 2022; Krpan, 2024; Whitmarsh and Hampton, 2024). Throughout this comment, “mainstream psychological and behavioural science” refers to the dominant research tradition developed in largely Euro‑American contexts that focuses on WEIRD (Western, Educated, Industrialised, Rich, and Democratic) populations and relies heavily on large samples, standardized measures, reductionism, and related characteristics (Henrich et al. 2010b, a; Cumming and Calin-Jageman, 2016; Shrout and Rodgers, 2018; Sassenberg and Ditrich, 2019; Scholtz et al. 2020; Uher, 2020; Apicella et al. 2020; Speelman et al. 2024). Transformative behavioural change can be defined as a significant and radical shift in someone’s actions that is highly challenging to achieve and involves a profound transformation of their way of living (Krpan, 2024). An example is adopting a lifestyle of minimal consumption and environmental sustainability, such as living in a smaller home, repairing items instead of replacing them, avoiding environmentally harmful travel, and adhering to a plant-based diet (Hickel et al. 2022a; Krpan, 2024; Whitmarsh and Hampton, 2024). Nevertheless, transformative behavioural change is not confined to sustainability and can occur across any domain of life (Krpan, 2024). It may involve significant career transitions that reshape personal and professional identity in response to economic or social upheavals, profound lifestyle adaptations for health or spiritual awakening to address growing healthcare challenges, or radical personal adjustments to the technological revolution to mitigate potential negative impacts of rapid digital change (e.g., embracing digital minimalism by drastically reducing screen time and social media use).

Deepening scientific understanding of transformative behavioural change is urgent because it underpins efforts to address these crises. However, studying it with contemporary methods in mainstream psychological and behavioural science is challenging. For example, while mainstream psychological research typically requires large sample sizes and focuses on averages, transformative behavioural change is infrequent, thus making large samples implausible (Shrout and Rodgers, 2018; Sassenberg and Ditrich, 2019; Krpan, 2024; Whitmarsh and Hampton, 2024). Moreover, such change is often unique to each individual, rendering averages less informative and potentially misleading in capturing its complexity (Krpan, 2024; Speelman et al. 2024).

In this comment, we focus on mainstream psychological and behavioural science (Henrich et al. 2010b, a; Apicella et al. 2020) and argue that researchers working in this tradition could adopt methods from anthropology to study transformative behavioural change. The ethnographic methodology, first developed in anthropology, is particularly well equipped to developing an understanding of unique micro-level behaviours and radical value change, in the context of broader cultural and structural processes. Against this background, we structure the comment in three parts. First, we briefly acknowledge well‑established ethnographic, participatory, and indigenous psychologies outside the WEIRD mainstream to clarify that our critique targets only hegemonic methods. Second, we provide a comprehensive examination of the challenges in quantitative and qualitative methods practised inside mainstream psychological and behavioural science that limit the study of transformative behavioural change. Third, we show how core anthropological approaches, especially ethnography, can overcome these limitations and outline practical strategies for integrating them into mainstream research programmes. We conclude with a call to action for psychological and behavioural science researchers.

Beyond the mainstream: established ethnographic traditions in psychology

Although this comment critiques mainstream psychological and behavioural science, it is important to acknowledge long‑standing psychological traditions that already integrate ethnographic, participatory, and emancipatory approaches. Community, liberation, and indigenous psychologies, as well as critical and feminist strands, have employed embedded participant‑observation, action research, and autoethnography for decades, often positioning researchers as insider-partners rather than neutral observers (Parker, 1999; Cornish et al. 2023). Seminal examples range from Marie Jahoda’s mixed‑method study of the 1930s Great Depression community (Jahoda et al. 2017) to recent Kaupapa Māori projects that locate knowledge production within relational world‑views and collective action (King et al. 2015; Rua et al. 2017, 2023).

These scholar‑activist traditions demonstrate how ethnography has been used to co‑create knowledge for transformative social change (Cornish et al. 2023). Participatory Action Research, for instance, iterates through cycles of research, reflection, and community‑led action to confront structural inequities across the Global South and Global North (Cornish et al. 2023). Critical psychologists have likewise exposed the individualising biases of behaviourist “nudge” models (Rose, 1979; Cromby, 2022) and advanced relational theories of the self (Gergen, 2009). Our focus, however, remains on hegemonic mainstream traditions, where large‑sample quantification and short‑burst interviews still dominate. By highlighting anthropology’s immersive tools, we complement (rather than replicate) community, liberation, and indigenous psychologies, offering concrete strategies for researchers who operate inside mainstream disciplinary settings yet wish to engage with behaviour change in culturally grounded, relationally informed ways.

Finally, we note that the most urgent cases of transformative behavioural change are concentrated in WEIRD, high‑income nations themselves (Hickel et al. 2022a; Krpan et al. 2025). Ecological‑economics and post‑growth research shows that these countries are overwhelmingly responsible for resource overshoot and for the bulk of historical greenhouse‑gas emissions (Wiedmann et al. 2020; Hickel, 2020; Jackson, 2021; Hickel et al. 2022b, a; Kallis et al. 2025). Degrowth and post‑growth scholars therefore call on rich societies to reduce excessive production and consumption, particularly in carbon‑intensive sectors, while safeguarding wellbeing through public provisioning and just transitions (Hickel and Kallis, 2020; Jackson, 2021; Hickel et al. 2022a; Kallis et al. 2025). Positioning transformative behavioural change within this macro‑structural context helps avoid an individualising “nudge” logic and aligns the agenda with collective, system‑level responsibility.

Challenges in mainstream psychological methods for understanding transformative behaviour

In Table 1, we summarize key challenges in studying transformative behavioural change using the methods that dominate mainstream psychological and behavioural science. This table does not suggest that there is one method or that all methods are similar. Indeed, we use the term “mainstream psychological methods” in reference to research designs and analytic techniques that are commonly employed by researchers working in this tradition (Scholtz et al. 2020; Krpan, 2020). The aspects covered in the table broadly apply across all these methods. We classify the methods into quantitative and qualitative categories, a standard distinction in psychology (Willig, 2019). Notably, quantitative methods dominate the field, utilized by 80–90% of researchers (Scholtz et al. 2020).

Table 1 Aspects of mainstream psychological methods hindering the study of transformative behavioural change and how anthropological approaches can overcome them.
Full size table

From Table 1, it can be seen that quantitative methods used in mainstream psychological and behavioural science are generally problematic for studying transformative behavioural change because such changes are rare, making it difficult to achieve the large sample sizes and repeated measurements typically required, and because these changes often involve unique, unpredictable, and deeply personal phenomena that cannot be adequately captured by standardized measurements or group averages. Although qualitative methods allow for more nuanced and richer insights, they also have various disadvantages, such as relying heavily on verbal articulations that may overlook implicit, embodied, or culturally ingrained aspects of transformative change, and often involving short-term data collection that fails to capture the temporal trajectories and broader structural influences shaping such changes.

Furthermore, transformative behavioural shifts often unfold through non-linear, iterative processes in which individuals may cycle between newfound motivations and returning to earlier mindsets or actions. These fluctuations are poorly captured by methods that prioritize stable measurements or group averages over extended observation. Even within qualitative designs, short-term interviews may miss critical turning points that arise months after an initial transformation begins. Researchers must also contend with the influence of evolving life circumstances (e.g., changing family obligations, social networks, or economic conditions) that can accelerate, decelerate, or redirect the path of transformative change. The focus on the individual can also occlude the relational nature of values and behaviours. Understanding the broader cultural conceptions of sociality and personhood, which vary from bounded individuals to more dividual and porous persons that extend across bodily boundaries and non-human entities (Smith, 2012), are essential to understanding environmentally oriented transformative behavioural change. While the overall emphasis on the individual may be justified for the study of values and behavioural change in the global north, ethnographic approach produces an understanding of a person as part of their social world. Such complexities underscore the need for more immersive, flexible methodologies.

Leveraging anthropological approaches to overcome these challenges

Adopting methods from anthropology can help address the limitations of mainstream psychological methods identified in Table 1. The core methodology of anthropology is ethnography (Campbell and Lassiter, 2014; Galman, 2018; Hammersley and Atkinson, 2019), which centres around participant observation (DeWalt and DeWalt, 2010; Spradley, 2016) and is supplemented by other methods (e.g., interviews, surveys). Participant observation involves immersion in the daily lives of research participants, sharing their activities, events and conversations, and asking questions in an informal way. It is best described as an apprenticeship, giving primacy to observation through sharing of experiences, over asking people to explicitly articulate their thoughts, beliefs, and feelings (Astuti and Bloch, 2015). Observations are repetitive and detailed over a sustained period of time. This allows researchers to capture implicit, embodied, and culturally ingrained aspects of behaviour that may be missed by other approaches. Ethnographic methodology prioritizes open-ended exploration over rigid hypothesis testing, enabling the discovery of unanticipated patterns and insights. Where fields such as cognitive anthropology have integrated controlled methods of comparison and hypothesis testing (e.g., experiments, domain analysis techniques) into ethnographic fieldwork (Astuti and Bloch, 2012; Kajanus et al. 2019, 2020; Kajanus, 2019; Weisman et al. 2021; Sequeira et al. 2024), participant observation has maintained its explorative character.

Participant observation involves working with a small number of people and is not well-suited for achieving large, representative samples. Rather, its aim is to provide in-depth understanding of complex phenomena. This should not be taken to mean that ethnography has no value beyond producing idiosyncratic descriptive accounts. Another key feature of ethnographic approach is the contextualization of findings within broader cultural, social, and structural frameworks. This contextualisation of complex phenomena makes ethnography a powerful tool for understanding transformative behavioural change and the diverse factors involved. An ethnographer will learn about the specific political, economic, and environmental processes individual experiences are embedded in, analyse the social positioning of their research participants, and identify the cultural models available in their environment. Offering this holistic perspective can produce richer and more integrated insights than qualitative methods used in mainstream psychological and behavioural science.

Through long-term observations and thick description (Geertz, 1973), ethnographic approach can provide a nuanced and comprehensive understanding of complex phenomena linked to everyday human life and experiences. Thick description is produced by interpreting human behaviours in their cultural contexts, in contrast to thin description, which limits analysis to observable parts of behaviour. The classic example of thick description is the ability to interpret a wink (Geertz, 1973). The simple act of contracting eyelid muscles could be interpreted as a muscle spasm. But the contextual knowledge gained through ethnographic research, of cultural code for such gestures, the relationships between those present, hierarchies and display rules, etc., will enable a thick description of the act. The wink could be playful, a signal of conspiracy or flirtation, a parody of a wink, and so on. A thick description of a social event or action takes into account not only the immediate behaviours, but also the contextual and experiential understandings of those behaviours that render the event or action meaningful.

As emphasised in Table 1, anthropological methods can address the challenges that mainstream psychological methods face in studying transformative behavioural change because they provide a more flexible and immersive approach to understanding complex human experiences. By relying on participant observation and long-term engagement with participants in their everyday environments, these methods enable researchers to study rare phenomena like transformative behavioural change without needing large sample sizes or rigid measurement schedules. Anthropological approaches also prioritize trust-building and collaborative knowledge-production, allowing participants to share deeply personal and nuanced experiences that are essential for understanding the multifaceted nature of such changes. Additionally, these methods avoid reductionism by embracing a holistic perspective that brings together changing cultural, social, and structural contexts, ensuring that unique and extreme cases, often dismissed as outliers in mainstream psychological research, are given the attention they deserve. Participant observation also sheds light on how behavioural transformation is relationally embedded and shaped by cultural conceptions of personhood and the self, which may move the individual from the centre of the analysis where necessary. Finally, by fostering open-ended exploration rather than being constrained by pre-existing hypotheses, anthropological methods enable the discovery of new insights and patterns that might otherwise remain obscure.

How mainstream psychological and behavioural scientists can adopt anthropological methods to investigate transformative behavioural change

Integrating anthropological methods into mainstream psychological and behavioural science offers a unique opportunity to overcome the limitations of traditional psychological approaches in studying transformative behavioural change. To achieve this, psychological and behavioural researchers can start by adopting participant observation or shadowing (Quinlan, 2008; Trouille and Tavory, 2019) as complementary methods. Rather than relying solely on self-reported data or standardized surveys, researchers can immerse themselves in participants’ environments to observe behaviours, interactions, and cultural practices directly. This approach allows for the capture of rich, contextualized data and provides insights into the situational and structural influences that shape transformative experiences. By embedding themselves in the participants’ everyday lives, researchers can uncover implicit, embodied, and culturally ingrained dimensions of behaviour that are often inaccessible through standard psychological tools. The open-ended approach of ethnography can increase the possibility of discovering unexpected connections and patterns, which characterise transformative behavioural change.

Mainstream psychological and behavioural scientists can also incorporate long-term engagement into their research design. Unlike studies typically used in mainstream psychology, which are either short-term or involve only several contact points between researchers and participants within some longer period of time, the ethnographic method emphasizes sustained observation over weeks or months to capture the dynamic and unfolding nature of transformative change. It is not possible for most mainstream psychological and behavioural scientists to carry out standard anthropological fieldwork for a year or more, but participant observation can be used in a more targeted way, by focusing on key life transitions or cultural domains where transformative change is more likely to occur. In balancing time constraints with the aim of gaining rich and comprehensive contextual data, mainstream psychologists can draw insights from anthropologists who have carefully developed approaches to time-efficient ethnography in applied, medical, and community-based research contexts (Handwerker, 2001; Sangaramoorthy and Kroeger, 2020). Collaboration with anthropologists or training in ethnographic approaches can further enhance mainstream psychologists’ ability to employ these methods effectively. By leveraging anthropological principles such as thick description, researchers can ensure that their findings account for broader contextual factors, including cultural frameworks, social dynamics, and structural forces, which are often neglected in mainstream psychological studies.

A practical way to integrate these methods could involve hybrid designs that combine the strengths of both disciplines. There are at least three broad ways of integrating ethnography in psychological research: (1) for initial exploration, to inform the design of standardised interviews and measures; (2) for interpretation and validation of findings and to explore emergent patterns; and (3) in an interactive loop between psychological and anthropological approaches, further elaborated below.

As transformative behavioural change is a rare and profound phenomenon, typical large-scale recruitment approaches common in mainstream psychology are a good starting point for more targeted samples. For example, researchers can recruit participants through universities or online research platforms, targeting individuals who have experienced, are currently experiencing, or are connected to someone who has undergone such changes. This broad outreach allows identification of potential participants for further study. Participant observation with the carefully identified sample can then provide a rich understanding of participants’ experiences, cultural frameworks, and social dynamics. Researchers can use this in-depth ethnographic understanding to conduct qualitative interviews to hone in on significant patterns emerging though participant observation. This interactive use of methods can provide a holistic understanding of transformative behavioural changes by leveraging mainstream psychology’s scalability and anthropology’s contextual richness.

Table 2, which summarizes integration strategies, could guide researchers in this process. By adopting these strategies, mainstream psychological and behavioural scientists can integrate anthropological methods into their research in a practical, scalable manner. This integration not only enriches the depth and contextual relevance of their findings but also positions their work to make meaningful contributions to understanding transformative behavioural change in a way that bridges disciplinary boundaries.

Table 2 Strategies for integrating anthropological methods with mainstream psychological and behavioural science methods.
Full size table

Conclusion and call to action

Building on the above, it is crucial to clarify who should implement these integrated approaches to advance the study of transformative behavioural change, and how. First, scholars operating in mainstream psychological and behavioural science could begin by incorporating short-term, targeted participant observation into existing research designs, especially in studies involving life transitions or major shifts in personal behaviour. Departments and funding agencies should encourage cross-disciplinary collaboration, enabling anthropologists to join mainstream psychology research teams. Over periods ranging from a few months to a year, systematic observation of participants’ lived contexts can produce rich data on transformative processes that might otherwise go unnoticed.

Second, university ethics boards and institutional review boards should adapt their guidelines to accommodate ethnographic immersion. Establishing trust with participants is vital for investigating deep, personal transformations; therefore, ethical protocols must allow flexible methods suited to open-ended field-based inquiry. Finally, journals and conferences could create special tracks for interdisciplinary studies that combine anthropological and mainstream psychological methods, incentivizing collaborative efforts.

If researchers heed this call to action, the impact could be significant. Transformative behavioural changes lie at the heart of crucial global challenges, from climate change mitigation to the adoption of healthier lifestyles. Gaining a more accurate and comprehensive understanding of these shifts could accelerate the development of interventions that are socially and culturally grounded, thereby improving their effectiveness. Conversely, if disciplinary silos persist, our grasp of how individuals truly undergo profound change will remain incomplete, limiting society’s ability to drive collective progress. By embracing an interdisciplinary framework, the stage is set for developing powerful, context-sensitive strategies to foster transformative change at individual and community levels.