What does psychology say about hobby hunters?

What drives people to kill animals in their free time?

Editorial Team Wild beim Wild — March 20, 2026

Psychology has addressed this question, with some uncomfortable findings.

Hobby hunters are not a homogeneous group, and their motives are diverse. However, research paints a more nuanced picture than hunting associations portray in their self-presentation: In addition to genuine experiences in nature, the need for dominance, motives for control, and desensitization effects play a measurable role.

The Heubrock study: Pioneering work from Bremen

The most comprehensive German-language psychological study on recreational hunters to date comes from Prof. Dr. Dietmar Heubrock, a legal psychologist at the University of Bremen. In his 2006 study, published in the journal "Zeitschrift für Rechtspsychologie" (Journal of Legal Psychology), he and his colleagues examined the personality traits, motives, and attitudes of German recreational hunters in comparison to a control group of non-hunters.

The study included several hundred participants and used standardized psychological instruments, including the NEO Personality Inventory and scales for assessing aggression and dominance tendencies. Key findings: Hobby hunters reported statistically significantly higher levels of dominance orientation and a lower willingness to show empathy towards animals. At the same time, they strongly affirmed statements regarding a connection to nature and a sense of conservation—a finding that demonstrates that both motivations can coexist.

Heubrock interpreted the results cautiously: it wasn't a matter of a "hunter type," but rather a tendency within the group. Not every recreational hunter exhibits elevated dominance levels. Nevertheless, the frequency is striking enough to justify further research. The dossier "Psychology of Hunting" summarizes the entire body of research.

The Grohs dissertation: Aggressiveness and motives for dominance

Another important work is the dissertation "Psychological and sociological differences between hobby hunters and non-hunters" by Ursula Grohs. Grohs surveyed hobby hunters and a matched control group using questionnaires on self-assessment, conflict styles, and attitudes towards animals.

Grohs found that hobby hunters rated themselves as significantly more aggressive than non-hunters. They more frequently preferred dominance-based conflict resolution strategies. Furthermore, a statistically significant decrease in animal empathy was observed – an effect that appeared to intensify with increasing hunting experience, suggesting desensitization processes.

The dissertation was not published in a mainstream journal and therefore has limited academic standing. However, alongside Heubrock's work, it is one of the few empirical sources that explicitly define recreational hunters as a study group.

Dark Triad: Narcissism, Machiavellianism, Psychopathy

The so-called "Dark Triad"—a construct comprising narcissism, Machiavellianism, and subclinical psychopathy—has received considerable attention in personality psychology over the past 20 years. Individuals with high Dark Triad scores tend to have a lack of empathy, a propensity to instrumentalize others, and reduced susceptibility to guilt.

Several studies have linked Dark Triad scores with attitudes toward animals and a propensity for violence against animals. A meta-analysis by Kavanagh, Signal & Taylor (2013) in "Anthrizoös" found robust negative correlations between Dark Triad scores and animal empathy. Individuals with higher psychopathy scores more frequently reported positive attitudes toward hunting and animal cruelty.

Important: This does not mean that recreational hunters are Dark Triad personalities. However, the overlaps in their motivational structures—desire for control, experience of dominance, and distancing themselves from animal suffering—deserve scientific attention. The research gap is particularly concerning because recreational hunters in Switzerland represent a legally armed, socially privileged group.

Motives for dominance and control: Why killing brings satisfaction

Social psychology has explored why killing animals can be psychologically satisfying. The concept of the "dominance" motive describes the experience of power and control over living beings. In interviews conducted by wildlife researcher and anthropologist Roger Caras with recreational hunters, similar statements repeatedly emerged: the feeling of having the power to decide over life and death, the intensity of the moment, the "authenticity" of the experience.

These motives are not automatically pathological. But they show that killing itself – not just the experience of nature or the meat – represents a psychological incentive. This explains why recreational hunters continue to hunt even when the meat is not needed, when trophies are irrelevant, and when population control is demonstrably dysfunctional.

For some recreational hunters, the act of killing itself has an intrinsic value – this is not a moral judgment, but a psychological finding relevant to the public debate. More on this in the dossier "Ending Recreational Violence Against Animals" .

Desensitization through repeated killing

A well-documented effect in the psychology of war and violence is that repeated performance of emotionally charged actions leads to desensitization. Soldiers who kill repeatedly report emotional numbness. Similar processes are described for slaughterhouse workers.

Hunting psychology offers evidence of comparable mechanisms. New recreational hunters often report excitement, but also unease, after their first kill. This unease diminishes with increasing experience. Grohs' dissertation found that empathy for animals decreases with increasing hunting experience – which can be interpreted as an adaptation to the repeated act of killing.

This desensitization effect is relevant insofar as it explains why long-time hobby hunters increasingly objectify certain animals (and their pain) and perceive them less as sentient beings. This is not necessarily a personality change, but rather a learning-psychological effect.

Hunting photos: What the photos reveal about the motive

Photos of the hunter with the harvested animal are an integral part of hunting culture. They are shared on social media, printed in hunting magazines, and shown at club meetings. Psychologically, they are highly interesting: they serve as a means of status communication, self-presentation, and social recognition within the group.

Studies on the presentation of trophy photos show that displaying the dead animal serves as proof of one's own competence and superiority. The dead animal becomes an object of self-affirmation. Those who grew up outside of hunting culture often find such images repulsive – because in their culture, killing animals is not considered a status symbol.

Our dossier on hunter images analyzes this phenomenon in detail and asks: What do such images reveal about the values conveyed within the hunting community?

Group pressure in hunting parties

Hunting in Switzerland is often a social activity. Landowners, hunting associations, and hunting clubs create strong social bonds. Those who grow up in or are socialized into such a community are under considerable pressure to conform.

Social psychology tells us that group identity and social pressure can lead to the maintenance of behaviors that an individual might question or reject on their own. In hunting societies, this can mean that those who don't shoot are seen as weak or sentimental. Those who describe animals as capable of suffering risk social sanctions. These dynamics prevent open reflection within the group.

The socialization of children within hunting culture is particularly problematic. The dossier "Hunting and Children" examines the psychological effects of children being introduced to killing rituals at an early age and learning that killing animals is a recreational activity.

The Link hypothesis: Animal cruelty as a predictor of violence against humans?

The so-called "Link Hypothesis" or "The Link" refers to the empirically proven connection between animal cruelty and interpersonal violence. Criminological studies show that individuals who tortured or killed animals as children or adolescents have an increased risk of later committing violent acts against people.

Hunting is not the same as animal cruelty – that is an important distinction. However, research on the link hypothesis has occasionally discussed legal forms of killing animals as possible influencing factors, especially when killing is normalized early and uncritically. The evidence here is less clear than regarding the connection between explicit animal cruelty and violence – but the question is scientifically valid.

Relevant in this context: In Switzerland, several serious acts of violence have been committed in recent years by individuals holding hunting licenses. A systematic analysis of these cases is lacking. The dossier "Ending Recreational Violence Against Animals" discusses the societal consequences of a serious examination of this issue.

Positive aspects – without the killing?

It would be unfair to deny that amateur hunters often seek genuine contact with nature and experience a real connection with wildlife. Getting up early, spending hours in nature, recognizing animal tracks, observing behavior – all of these are real, valuable experiences.

The crucial question, however, is: Is killing necessary for these experiences? The answer from psychology and environmental education is unequivocal: No. Experiencing nature, slowing down, a sense of community, and a connection to nature can be achieved through hiking, birdwatching, wildlife photography, field biology, and other forms of contact with nature – without weapons, without shooting, without causing suffering to another being.

If killing were eliminated, some recreational hunters would choose these alternatives. Others would quit. This suggests that for a segment of the recreational hunting community, killing is not a byproduct but a central motivation – a finding that society should discuss.

Socialization and the transmission of violence to animals

Hunting is a traditional practice in many families. Children grow up with the killing of animals as the norm. From a developmental psychology perspective, this is significant: what is experienced as normal in childhood is less frequently questioned as an adult. Children who participate in hunting events from an early age and experience the killing of animals as socially positive develop a different moral compass towards animals than children who are presented with animals as beings worthy of protection.

This is not a criticism of individual families – it is a structural observation. Cultures that normalize killing reproduce this norm. This raises questions such as: What message does a society send when it legally protects, subsidizes, and culturally glorifies the killing of animals as a recreational activity? The dossier "Hunting and Children" explores this question in greater depth, considering child protection and developmental psychology.

Constructions of masculinity and hunting

Hunting in Switzerland remains heavily male-dominated – around 80 percent of all hunting license holders are men. This is no coincidence. Historically, hunting is deeply intertwined with notions of masculinity: strength, endurance, superiority over nature, and the ability to kill as a sign of maturity and sovereignty.

Social psychological research on masculinity shows that men who strongly adhere to traditional norms of masculinity are more likely to be willing to use violence against animals and less empathy for sentient beings. This is a correlation, not a determinism – but it is statistically significant enough not to be ignored in discussions about hunting psychology.

The trend is also interesting: Among the younger generation, hunting as a male initiation ritual is declining in importance. The proportion of female hunting license holders is slowly increasing. Whether this changes the psychological motivational structure of hunting is an open research question.

What research calls for: Independent psychology of hunting

Research on the psychology of hunting is limited – considering its societal relevance. There are few well-funded, independent studies. The main reason is likely political: hunting associations have no interest in research that critically examines their members. Government research funding favors topics with broader societal consensus.

What's missing: large-scale, methodologically robust longitudinal studies that follow recreational hunters over several years. Standardized surveys on personality profiles, motivational structures, and psychological changes resulting from hunting. International comparative studies that highlight cultural differences.

This research would be socially important – not to criminalize hobby hunters, but to understand the psychological processes that accompany the voluntary killing of animals and the resulting societal consequences. The silence of the scientific community on this issue is itself a telling finding.

Conclusion: The research situation is inconvenient, but relevant.

Psychology doesn't offer a simple picture of the "evil hunter." Hobby hunters are people with complex motives. But research shows that dominance motives, a need for control, desensitization effects, and decreasing empathy for animals are statistically significant characteristics in this group. These findings deserve public debate—especially since these are legally armed individuals who kill over 100,000 animals annually.

Further content can be found at wildbeimwild.com:

You can find more background information on current hunting policy in Switzerland in our dossier on wildbeimwild.com .