What Does Psychology Say About Recreational Hunters?

Psychology has taken up this question, with some uncomfortable findings.

Recreational hunters are not a homogeneous group, and their motives are varied. Yet research paints a more nuanced picture than hunting associations convey in their self-portrayal: alongside genuine appreciation of nature, needs for dominance, control motives and desensitisation effects play a measurable role.

The Heubrock study: pioneering work from Bremen

The most extensive German-language psychological study of 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», he and his colleagues examined the personality traits, motives and attitudes of German recreational hunters in comparison with a control group of non-hunters.

The study included several hundred participants and used standardised psychological instruments, including the NEO Personality Inventory and scales measuring aggression and dominance tendencies. Key findings: recreational hunters reported statistically significantly higher levels of dominance orientation and a lower willingness to show empathy towards animals. At the same time, they strongly agreed with statements about connection to nature and stewardship awareness – a finding showing that both motives can coexist.

Heubrock interpreted the results cautiously: this was not a matter of a “hunter type”, but rather a tendency within the group. Not every recreational hunter showed elevated dominance scores. Nevertheless, the pattern was striking enough to justify further research. The Psychology of Hunting Dossier summarises the entire body of research.

The Grohs dissertation: aggression and dominance motives

Another important work is the dissertation «Psychological-Sociological Differences between Recreational Hunters and Non-Hunters» by Ursula Grohs. Grohs surveyed recreational hunters and a matched control group using questionnaires on self-assessment, conflict styles and attitudes towards animals.

Grohs found: recreational 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 empathy towards animals was observed – an effect that appeared to intensify with increasing hunting experience, suggesting desensitisation processes.

The dissertation was not published in a mainstream academic journal and therefore has limited scientific standing. Nevertheless, alongside Heubrock, it represents 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 towards a lack of empathy, a willingness to instrumentalise others, and a reduced susceptibility to guilt.

Various studies have linked Dark Triad scores to attitudes towards animals and to violence against animals. Kavanagh, Signal & Taylor (2013, «Personality and Individual Differences») surveyed 227 people online: those with higher Dark Triad scores held less positive attitudes towards animals and reported having mistreated animals themselves more frequently. For context: this is a single survey study conducted on a general sample, not on recreational hunters. Whether the finding can be transferred to recreational hunting has not yet been empirically tested.

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 on what international psychological studies say about recreational hunters.

Important: this does not mean that recreational hunters are Dark Triad personalities. But the overlaps in motivational structures – enjoyment of control, experience of dominance, distancing from animal suffering – deserve scientific attention. Precisely because recreational hunters in Switzerland constitute a legally armed, socially privileged group, this research gap is a cause for concern.

Dominance and control motives: why killing brings satisfaction

Social psychology has examined the question of 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 recurred again and again: the feeling of having 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 itself – not merely the experience of nature or the meat – represents a psychological incentive. This explains why recreational hunters continue to hunt even when the meat taken is not needed, when trophies play no role, and when population regulation has demonstrably proven dysfunctional.

For a portion of the recreational hunting community, killing itself carries an intrinsic value – this is not a moral judgement, but a psychological finding that is relevant to the public debate. More on this in the dossier Ending recreational violence against animals.

Desensitisation through repeated killing

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

In hunting psychology, there are indications of comparable mechanisms. Recreational hunters who are just starting out often report excitement, but also unease at their first kill. As experience grows, this unease fades. The Grohs dissertation found that empathy for animals decreases with increasing hunting experience – which can be interpreted as an adaptation to the repeatedly performed act of killing.

This desensitisation effect is relevant insofar as it explains why recreational hunters, over decades, increasingly objectify certain animals (and their pain) and perceive them less as sentient beings capable of suffering. This is not necessarily a change in personality, but a psychological learning effect.

Trophy photos: What the images reveal about motivation

Trophy photos – images of the hunter with the killed animal – are a firmly established part of hunting culture. They are shared on social media, printed in hunting magazines and shown at club gatherings. Psychologically, they are highly interesting: they serve status communication, self-presentation and social recognition within the group.

How this dynamic manifests concretely in the behaviour of a cantonal official is shown by the documented case of St. Gallen department head Dominik Thiel, who hunted wolves in Russia at the state's expense.

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

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

Peer pressure in hunting groups

In Switzerland, hunting is often a social occasion. Hunting ground holders, hunting groups and hunting fellowships create strong social bonds. Those who grow up in, or are socialised into, such a community are subject to considerable pressure to conform.

Social psychology tells us that group identity and social pressure can lead to behaviours being maintained that the individual, alone, might otherwise question or reject. Within hunting groups, 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.

The socialisation of children into hunting culture is particularly problematic. 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: Cruelty to Animals 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 in criminology show that individuals who tormented or killed animals in childhood or adolescence have an elevated 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 also discussed legal forms of killing animals as possible influencing variables, particularly when killing is normalised early and uncritically. The evidence here is less clear than for the link between explicit animal cruelty and violence – but the question is scientifically legitimate.

Relevant in this context: in Switzerland, several serious violent crimes have been committed in recent years by individuals who held a hunting licence. A systematic evaluation of these cases is lacking. The dossier Ending recreational violence against animals discusses what social consequences a serious examination of this topic would entail.

Positive aspects – without the killing?

It would be disingenuous to deny that recreational hunters often seek genuine contact with nature and experience a real connection with wild animals. Getting up early, spending hours out in nature, recognising animal tracks, observing behaviour – all of this constitutes real, valuable experience.

But the decisive question is: is killing necessary for these experiences? The answer from psychology and outdoor education is clear: no. Experiencing nature, slowing down, a sense of community and connection with nature can all be achieved 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 recreational hunters would choose these alternatives. Others would stop altogether. This suggests that, for part of the recreational hunting community, killing is not a by-product but a central motive – a finding that society ought to discuss.

Socialisation and the transmission of violence towards animals

Hunting is a traditional craft in many families. Children grow up with the killing of animals as a normal state of affairs. From a developmental psychology perspective, this is significant: what is experienced as normal in childhood is less often questioned in adulthood. Children who take part in hunting events from an early age and experience the killing of animals as being socially valued develop a different moral baseline towards animals than children who are presented with animals as beings deserving of protection.

This is not an accusation against individual families – it is a structural observation. Cultures that normalise killing reproduce this norm. This includes questions such as: what messages does a society send when it legally protects, subsidises through the state, and culturally glorifies the killing of animals as a leisure pastime? 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 strongly male-dominated – around 80 percent of all hunting licence holders are men. This is no coincidence. Hunting is historically deeply interwoven with notions of masculinity: strength, endurance, superiority over nature, and the ability to kill as a sign of maturity and sovereignty.

The case of St. Gallen department head Dominik Thiel illustrates how such motivational patterns can flow into public office: wolf hunting as "further training", shooting squirrels for fun, and two years of refusing to release documents to SRF.

Social-psychological research into masculinity shows that men who are strongly committed to traditional masculine norms more frequently display a willingness to commit violence against animals and less empathy towards sentient beings. This is a correlation, not a determinism – but it is statistically conspicuous enough not to be ignored in the discussion of the psychology of hunting.

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

What research demands: an independent psychology of hunting

The research landscape on the psychology of hunting is thin – measured against its social 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. State research funding tends to favour topics with broader societal consensus.

What is missing: large-scale, methodologically robust longitudinal studies that follow recreational hunters over years. Standardised surveys on personality profiles, motivational structures and psychological changes brought about by hunting. International comparative studies that highlight cultural differences.

This research would be socially important – not to criminalise recreational hunters, but to understand which psychological processes accompany the voluntary killing of animals and what societal consequences follow from this. Science's silence on this question is itself a finding.

Conclusion: an uncomfortable but relevant research landscape

Psychology does not provide a simple picture of the «evil hunter». Recreational hunters are people with multifaceted motives. But research shows: dominance motives, need for control, desensitisation effects and diminishing empathy for animals are statistically conspicuous traits within this group. These findings deserve societal debate – particularly because they concern legally armed individuals who kill over 100,000 animals every year.

Further content on wildbeimwild.com:

• Dossier: The psychology of hunting – why people kill animals
• Dossier: Trophy photos – double standards, dignity and the blind spot of recreational hunting
• Dossier: Ending recreational violence against animals
• Dossier: Hunting and children
• Dossier: The hunter – self-image, public image, reality

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