‘Goal-Oriented’ Aggression, Not Emotions, Tied to Hunting Attitudes
Only about 2-6% of the U.S. population take part in hunting for sport, and the numbers are said to be declining; yet it continues to be an activity that concerns animal advocates. Sport hunting is qualitatively different than subsistence hunting, and is generally seen as an activity that is cruel for the sake of it — an egotistical “demonstration of coordination, stealth, patience, and prowess.” This study sheds new light on the motivations of hunting for sport, and reveals several interesting nuances about the people who hunt and why.
The paper differentiates between emotional aggression and “instrumental” aggression (the latter being aggression that is not emotional for the sake of it, but is more pre-meditated and goal-oriented.) The researchers found that, although some stereotypes about hunting may hold — for example, more men engage in sport hunting and participants have higher levels of aggression — this does not mean that all aggression is equal. Aggressive emotions and spontaneous aggression tended to actually predict more opposition to hunting. Those who expressed more instrumental aggression tended to support and engage in hunting.
Animal advocates tend to perceive sport hunting as a macho, emotionally aggressive activity, but this study shows that the motivations for engaging in it are more nuanced and subtle than that. These findings can help us better understand hunters and their aggression, which is vital if we are going to gear our advocacy efforts so that they address and redirect motivations away from hunting and cruelty.

