What Does Psychology Say About Hobby Hunters?

What drives people to kill animals in their spare time?

Editorial Team Wild beim Wild — March 20, 2026

Psychology has taken up this question, with findings that are sometimes uncomfortable.

Hobby hunters are not a homogeneous group, and their motivations are varied. Yet research paints a more nuanced picture than hunting associations convey in their self-presentation: alongside a genuine experience of nature, the need for dominance, control motives, and desensitization effects all play a measurable role.

The Heubrock Study: Pioneering Work from Bremen

The most comprehensive German-language psychological study of hobby hunters to date comes from Prof. Dr. Dietmar Heubrock, a forensic psychologist at the University of Bremen. In his 2006 study, published in the journal «Zeitschrift für Rechtspsychologie», he and his colleagues examined personality traits, motivations, and attitudes of German hobby hunters in comparison with a control group of non-hunters.

The study included several hundred participants and used standardized psychological instruments, including the NEO Personality Inventory and scales measuring tendencies toward aggression and dominance. Key findings: hobby hunters reported statistically significantly higher levels of dominance orientation and a lower willingness to show empathy toward animals. At the same time, they strongly endorsed statements about a connection to nature and conservation awareness — a finding that shows both motivations can coexist.

Heubrock interpreted the results cautiously: the data did not point to a single “hunter type,” but rather to a tendency within the group. Not every hobby hunter showed elevated dominance scores. Nevertheless, the clustering was notable enough to justify further research. The Dossier: Psychology of Hunting summarizes the entire body of research.

The Grohs Dissertation: Aggression and Dominance Motives

Another important work is the dissertation «Psychologisch-soziologische Unterschiede zwischen Hobby-Jägern und Nichtjägern» (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 toward animals.

Grohs found that hobby hunters rated themselves as significantly more aggressive than non-hunters. They more frequently preferred dominance-based conflict resolution strategies. In addition, a statistically significant reduction 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 academic journal and therefore has a limited scientific standing. Nevertheless, alongside Heubrock, it represents one of the few empirical sources that explicitly defines hobby 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 toward a lack of empathy, a willingness to instrumentalize others, and reduced susceptibility to guilt.

Several studies have linked Dark Triad scores to attitudes toward animals and to a willingness to commit acts of 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.

The most important international peer-reviewed studies on this body of findings — including Kavanagh et al. (2013), Grohs, and the Dutch E-Screener model — are documented in the article what international psychology studies say about hobby hunters.

Important: This does not mean that hobby hunters have Dark Triad personalities. However, the overlaps in motivational structures — a desire for control, the experience of dominance, and detachment from animal suffering — warrant scientific attention. Precisely because hobby hunters in Switzerland constitute a legally armed, socially privileged group, the gap in research is cause for concern.

Dominance and Control Motives: Why Killing Provides Satisfaction

Social psychology has examined 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 hobby hunters, similar statements recurred repeatedly: the feeling of decision-making power 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 as such — not just the experience of nature or the meat — represents a psychological incentive. This explains why hobby hunters continue hunting even when the harvested meat is not needed, when trophies play no role, and when population management is demonstrably dysfunctional.

The act of killing itself holds intrinsic value for a portion of the hobby hunting community — this is not a moral judgment, but a psychological finding that is relevant to the public debate. More on this in the Dossier: End Leisure Violence Against Animals.

Desensitization Through Repeated Killing

A well-documented effect in the psychology of war and violence: repeatedly carrying out actions that were emotionally burdensome leads to desensitization. Soldiers who kill repeatedly report emotional numbing. Similar processes have been described for slaughterhouse workers.

In the psychology of hunting, there is evidence of comparable mechanisms. Novice hobby hunters often report excitement but also discomfort at their first kill. As experience increases, the discomfort fades. The Grohs dissertation found that empathy toward animals decreases with growing hunting experience — which can be interpreted as an adaptation to the repeatedly performed act of killing.

This desensitization effect is relevant insofar as it explains why hobby hunters with decades of experience increasingly objectify certain animals (and their pain) and perceive them less as beings capable of suffering. This is not necessarily a personality change, but rather an effect rooted in learning psychology.

Trophy Photos: What the Images Reveal About Motivation

Trophy photos — pictures of the hunter posing with the animal they have killed — are a firmly established part of hunting culture. They are shared on social media, printed in hunting magazines, and displayed at club evenings. Psychologically, they are highly fascinating: they serve as a means of status communication, self-presentation, and social recognition within the group.

How this dynamic manifests itself in the concrete behavior of a cantonal official is illustrated by the documented case of the St. Gallen department head Dominik Thiel, who hunted wolves in Russia at taxpayers' expense.

Studies on the presentation of trophy photos show that the depiction of the dead animal functions as proof of one's own competence and superiority. The dead animal becomes an object of self-reassurance. People who grew up outside of hunting culture often find such images repulsive — because in their culture, killing animals is not considered worthy of status.

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

Peer Pressure in Hunting Societies

Hunting in Switzerland is often a social affair. Territory holders, hunting societies, and hunting fraternities create strong social bonds. Anyone who grows up within such a community or is socialized into it faces considerable pressure to conform.

Social psychology tells us that group identity and social pressure can lead to behaviors being maintained that the individual alone might question or reject. In hunting societies, this can mean: those who do not 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.

Particularly troubling is the socialization of children into hunting culture. The dossier on hunting and children examines the question of what psychological effects arise when children are introduced to killing rituals at an early age and learn that killing animals is a leisure pursuit.

The Link Hypothesis: Animal Cruelty as a Predictor of Violence Against Humans?

The so-called “Link Hypothesis” or “The Link” refers to the empirically documented connection between animal cruelty and interpersonal violence. Studies from criminology show: individuals who tortured or killed animals during childhood or adolescence have an elevated risk of later committing acts of violence against people.

Hunting is not the same as animal cruelty — that is an important distinction. However, in research on the Link Hypothesis, legal forms of killing animals have occasionally been discussed as possible influencing variables, particularly when killing is normalized early and uncritically. The evidence here is less clear than the relationship between explicit animal cruelty and violence — but the question is scientifically legitimate.

Relevant in this context: In Switzerland, several serious violent crimes in recent years were committed by individuals who held a hunting license. A systematic analysis of these cases is lacking. The Dossier on Ending Recreational Violence Against Animals discusses what societal consequences a serious engagement with this topic would entail.

Positive Aspects — Without the Killing?

It would be dishonest to deny that hobby hunters often seek genuine contact with nature and experience real connection with wildlife. Early mornings, hours spent 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 nature education is unambiguous: No. Experiencing nature, slowing down, a sense of community, and a connection to the natural world are all achievable through hiking, birdwatching, wildlife photography, field biology, and other forms of contact with nature — without a weapon, without a kill, without the suffering of another being.

If killing were removed from the equation, some hobby hunters would choose these alternatives. Others would stop altogether. This suggests that for a portion of hobby hunters, killing is not a byproduct but a central motivation — a finding that society ought to discuss.

Socialization and the Transmission of Violence Against Animals

Hunting is a time-honored tradition in many families. Children grow up with the killing of animals as a normal part of life. From a developmental psychology perspective, this is significant: what is experienced as normal in childhood is less frequently questioned in adulthood. Children who participate in hunting events at an early age and experience the killing of animals as something socially valued develop a different moral baseline toward animals than children who are introduced to animals as beings worthy of protection.

This is not an accusation directed at individual families — it is a structural observation. Cultures that normalize killing reproduce that norm. This includes questions such as: What message does a society send when it legally protects, publicly subsidizes, and culturally glorifies the killing of animals as a leisure activity? The Dossier on Hunting and Children explores this question in greater depth with regard to child protection and developmental psychology.

Constructions of Masculinity and Hunting

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

The case of St. Gallen agency director Dominik Thiel illustrates how such motivational patterns can influence the conduct of public office: wolf hunting as “further education,” shooting squirrels for fun, and two years of withholding documents from SRF.

Social-psychological masculinity research shows that men who are strongly committed to traditional masculine norms more frequently display a willingness to use violence against animals and less empathy toward sentient beings. This is a correlation, not determinism — but it is statistically notable enough that it cannot be ignored in discussions about the psychology of hunting.

Also noteworthy is the trend: among younger generations, hunting as a male initiation ritual is declining in significance. The proportion of female hunting license holders is slowly rising. Whether this is changing the psychological motivational structure of hunting remains an open research question.

What Research Demands: An Independent Psychology of Hunting

Research on the psychology of hunting is sparse — given its social relevance. There are few well-funded, independent studies. The main reason is likely political: hunting associations have no interest in research that scrutinizes their members. Government research funding favors topics with broader social consensus.

What is missing: large-scale, methodologically robust longitudinal studies that follow hobby hunters over the course of years. Standardized surveys of personality profiles, motivational structures, and psychological changes brought about by hunting. International comparative studies that identify cultural differences.

Such research would be socially important — not to criminalize hobby hunters, but to understand what psychological processes accompany the voluntary killing of animals and what social consequences follow from this. The silence of science on this question is itself a finding.

Conclusion: Research landscape uncomfortable, but relevant

Psychology does not paint a simple picture of the “evil hunter.” Hobby hunters are people with complex motivations. But the research shows: dominance motives, need for control, desensitization effects, and declining empathy toward animals are statistically notable characteristics within this group. These findings deserve public debate — particularly because these are legally armed individuals who kill over 100’000 animals each year.

Further content on wildbeimwild.com:

Find more background on current hunting policy in Switzerland in our Dossier on wildbeimwild.com.