Predicting Hunting Intentions and Behavior:

An Application of the Theory of Planned Behavior

Daniel Hrubes and Icek Ajzen

University of Massachusetts – Amherst

John Daigle

University of Maine

Short Title: Hunting Attitudes and Behavior

Key words: Attitudes, beliefs, outdoor recreation, values, wildlife

Correspondence
Icek Ajzen
Department of Psychology
Tobin Hall – Box 37710
University of Massachusetts
Amherst, MA 01003-7710
Tel: 413.545.0509
Fax: 413.545.0996
E-mail: aizen@psych.umass.edu
Hunting Attitudes and Behavior –2–

Abstract
Using a mail survey (n = 395) of outdoor recreationists, the theory of planned behavior (Ajzen,
1991) was applied to the prediction and explanation of hunting. In a series of hierarchical
regression analyses, it was found that hunting intentions, but not perceptions of behavioral control,
contributed to the prediction of self-reported hunting frequency. Hunting intentions, in turn, were
strongly influenced by attitudes, subjective norms, and perceptions of behavioral control, and
these predictors correlated highly with theoretically derived sets of underlying beliefs. Broad
values related to wildlife and to life in general correlated weakly with hunting behavior, and their
effects were largely mediated by the components of the theory of planned behavior.

Over the past 25 years, research has
furnished a great deal of descriptive
information about the advantages of hunting and
other wildlife-related activities. It has become
clear that hunting is not merely a means to
harvest game; it also affords opportunities to
actualize a variety of social, psychological,
emotional, and physical benefits (Hautaluoma
& Brown, 1979; Hendee, 1974; Kellert, 1978;
More, 1973; Potter, Hendee, & Clark, 1973;
Stankey, Lucas, & Ream, 1973). This work
has provided a detailed account of the major
outcomes associated with hunting, of the
disparate benefits derived by different types of
individuals, and of people’s beliefs and
attitudes regarding this behavior.
Going beyond a description of beliefs and
attitudes, investigators have also attempted to
identify broad values related to hunting and
other wildlife-related activities. A number of
studies have demonstrated that values can
influence behavior through their impact on
lower-order beliefs and attitudes (see Homer
& Kahle, 1988). A value-attitude-behavior
model has been suggested to delineate more
clearly the effect of values on attitudes,
behavioral intentions, and actual recreation and
environmental behaviors (Fulton, Manfredo, &
Lipscomb, 1996; Tarrant, Bright, & Cordell,
1997; Vaske & Donnelly, 1999; Zinn,
Manfredo, Vaske, & Wittmann, 1998). The
cognitive hierarchy investigations related to
recreation and environmental behaviors have
focused on relatively specific value
orientations rather than more fundamental
values to life (e.g., universalism, achievement,
power). Value orientations, in contrast to
fundamental values, are composed of patterns
of beliefs relative to a particular topic (e.g.,
wildlife rights, wildland preservation). Fulton,
Manfredo, and Lipscomb (1996) identified
eight basic wildlife beliefs that comprised two
distinct wildlife orientation domains, one
consumptive in orientation and one
appreciative. These two value orientations
toward wildlife explained a considerable
proportion of variability in respondents’
attitudes toward wildlife-related recreation
activities. The discovery of parsimonious,
well-defined, and cross-culturally stable
structures of broad, fundamental values to life
(Schwartz, 1992; Schwartz, 1994; Schwartz &
Bilsky, 1987) may help further these efforts by
facilitating theoretical links between general
values on one hand and more specific value
orientations, attitudes, beliefs, and behavior on
the other.
Although we now have detailed
descriptions of beliefs, attitudes, and values
associated with such wildlife-related activities
as hunting, the effort to build a cumulative body
of knowledge has been hampered by lack of a
sound theoretical foundation (Manfredo, Vaske,
& Decker, 1995). Such a foundation is needed
Hunting Attitudes and Behavior
to help integrate the diverse research findings
and to provide a framework for the prediction
and explanation of wildlife-related and other
outdoor activities (see Decker, Brown, Driver,
& Brown, 1987; Driver, Brown, & Peterson,
1991; Hammit, McDonald, & Patterson, 1990;
Manfredo & Larson, 1993; Vaske, Fedler, &
Graefe, 1986). The present study tried to meet
this need in the context of the theory of planned
behavior (Ajzen, 1991), a theory that has been
used extensively to model the determinants of
human social behavior (see Ajzen, in press;
Armitage & Conner, 1999; Conner & Sparks,
1996; Sutton, 1998 for reviews), including
such outdoor recreational activities as
mountain climbing, boating, and biking (Ajzen
& Driver, 1991; Ajzen & Driver, 1992) as
well as hunting (Rossi & Armstrong, 1999).
A schematic representation of the theory is
shown in Figure 1. Briefly, according to the
theory of planned behavior, human action is
guided by three kinds of considerations: beliefs
about the likely consequences of the behavior
(behavioral beliefs), beliefs about the
normative expectations of others (normative
beliefs), and beliefs about the presence of
factors that may further or hinder performance
of the behavior (control beliefs). In their
respective aggregates, behavioral beliefs
produce a favorable or unfavorable attitude
toward the behavior; normative beliefs result
in perceived social pressure or subjective
norm; and control beliefs give rise to
perceived behavioral control, the perceived
ease or difficulty of performing the behavior.
In combination, attitude toward the behavior,
subjective norm, and perception of behavioral
control lead to the formation of a behavioral
intention. As a general rule, the more
favorable the attitude and subjective norm, and
the greater the perceived control, the stronger
should be the person’s intention to perform the
behavior in question. Finally, given a
–3–
sufficient degree of actual control over the
behavior, people are expected to carry out their
intentions when the opportunity arises.
Intention is thus assumed to be the immediate
antecedent of behavior. However, because
many behaviors pose difficulties of execution
that may limit volitional control, it is useful to
consider perceived behavioral control in
addition to intention. To the extent that people
are realistic in their judgments of a behavior’s
difficulty, a measure of perceived behavioral
control can serve as a proxy for actual control
and contribute to the prediction of the behavior
in question (see Ajzen, 1991).
(Insert Figure 1 about here)
The theory of planned behavior also
specifies the nature of the relations between
beliefs and attitudes, relying on an expectancy
– value model. According to this model,
people's evaluations of, or attitudes toward, a
behavior are determined by their accessible
beliefs about the behavior, where a belief is
defined as the subjective probability that the
behavior will produce a certain outcome
(Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975). According to the
expectancy – value model, a person's overall
attitude toward a behavior is determined by the
subjective values of the outcomes associated
with the behavior and by the strength of these
associations (Fishbein, 1963\; 1967; Fishbein
& Ajzen, 1975). Specifically, the evaluation of
each outcome contributes to the attitude in
direct proportion to the person's subjective
probability that the behavior produces the
outcome in question. The basic structure of the
model is shown in the following equation
(Feather, 1959; Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975):
AB % 3biei
where AB is the attitude toward behavior B, bi
is the strength of the belief (the subjective
probability) that the behavior will produce
outcome i, ei is the evaluation of outcome i, and
the sum is taken over all accessible outcomes.
Hunting Attitudes and Behavior
The present article reports the results of a
survey that used the theory of planned behavior
in an attempt to predict and explain hunting
behavior. The survey contained items assessing
the main components of the theory, as well as
questions designed to assess wildlife-related
value orientations and fundamental life values.
According to the theory of planned behavior,
values — whether relatively specific to
wildlife or global values to life — are
background factors that should influence
behavior indirectly by guiding a person’s
beliefs and attitudes with respect to hunting.
One objective of the investigation, therefore,
was to examine the extent to which the theory
affords prediction of hunting behavior, and
whether the effect of values on behavior is
indeed mediated by the theory’s more
immediate determinants (attitudes, subjective
norms, perceptions of control, and intentions).
In addition, the theory proposes that attitudes,
subject norms, and perceptions of control are
derived from the relevant information, or belief
systems, associated with engaging in hunting.
A second objective, therefore, was to
investigate the strength of the associations
between direct measures of attitude, subjective
norm, and perceived control, and belief
systems related to behavioral consequences,
normative pressures, and performance
difficulties, respectively.
Method
Sampling Procedure
In order to ensure that both hunters and
non-hunters were well represented among the
participants, two sampling methods were
employed. The first method used a random
sample of 388 individuals from the population
who purchased hunting licenses in Vermont in
1997. The sample of licensees was provided
by the State of Vermont Department of Fish and
Wildlife. The second sampling method
obtained volunteers by means of direct contact
–4–
with visitors to the Green Mountain National
Forest (GMNF) in Vermont. Sampling took
place at a wide variety of recreational settings
in the forest including trail heads,
campgrounds, waterfalls, summits, and
information stations.1 A total of 339 GMNF
visitors agreed to participate. In all, 727
individuals were recruited to participate in the
study.
Questionnaire
The questionnaire assessed variables
associated with three outdoor recreational
activities: hunting, wildlife viewing, and
outdoor recreation unrelated to wildlife. Only
items related to hunting are described here.
The questionnaire contained several separate
sections. Items assessing attitudes, subjective
norms, perceived behavioral control, and
intentions with respect to hunting were
grouped together. Similarly, items designed to
assess behavioral beliefs, normative beliefs,
and control beliefs were also each grouped
together. For all of these items, the target
behavior was hunting over the next twelve
months. In addition, there were separate
sections dealing with wildlife-related values
and fundamental values to life.
Behavior. One open-ended item asked
participants to indicate how frequently they had
hunted over the previous year. Although,
strictly speaking, this measure refers to past
behavior, it is assumed that participation in
hunting is an activity that is relatively stable
over time (Bissell, Duda, & Young, 1998;
Mannell & Kleiber, 1997) and that reports of
past behavior can serve as an indication of
likely future behavior. Similar questions were
also asked with respect to the number of times
respondents had engaged in wildlife viewing
and in outdoor recreation unrelated to wildlife.
Intentions. Two 7-point bipolar adjective
scales were used to assess participants’
intentions to engage in hunting. On the first
Hunting Attitudes and Behavior
scale, respondents indicated whether they
“intended” to engage in hunting (extremely
unlikely – extremely likely). The second scale
asked them whether they were “planning” to
engage in hunting (definitely no – definitely
yes).
Attitudes. Attitudes toward the behavior
were assessed directly by asking respondents
to evaluate hunting on two 7-point scales with
endpoints labeled extremely bad – extremely
good and extremely pleasant – extremely
unpleasant.
Subjective norms. Two 7-point scales
were also used to measure subjective norms
concerning hunting. The first scales required
participants to rate the truth of the statement
that most people important to them think that
they should hunt (not at all true – completely
true). On the second scale, respondents
indicated whether “most people who are
important to me would” (disapprove –
approve) of their engaging in hunting.
Perceived behavioral control. Two 7-
point scales were used to measure perceived
behavioral control by asking respondents to
rate the difficulty of engaging in hunting
(extremely difficult – extremely easy) and the
truth of the statement, “If I wanted to, I could
easily go hunting in the next twelve months.”
(definitely false – definitely true).
Behavioral beliefs. In order to assess
participants’ beliefs about the benefits (or
costs) resulting from hunting, i.e., their
behavioral beliefs, a list of twelve potential
outcomes was compiled. These included
important outcomes associated with wildlife-
related activities identified in previous
research pertaining to the goals of achievement,
affiliation, and appreciation (Decker, Brown,
Driver, & Brown, 1987) as well as some
negative outcomes (Enck & Decker, 1991).
Among these outcomes were observing and
learning about wildlife behavior, feeling tired
–5–
and exhausted, and feeling a sense of
competence. Participants rated the likelihood
that hunting would produce each of the twelve
outcomes on an 11-point scale ranging from 0
(extremely unlikely) to 10 (extremely likely).
After completing the likelihood ratings,
participants indicated their evaluations of the
12 outcomes by rating the desirability of each
on a 7-point scale (extremely undesirable –
extremely desirable).
Normative beliefs. In addition to the
direct measure of normative beliefs regarding
the expectations of important others, two
survey questions assessed normative beliefs
regarding two specific referents: friends and
family. Respondents were asked to indicate
the extent to which they thought that their
friends and their families encouraged them to
engage in hunting, using the same 11-points
scale (0 = extremely unlikely, 10 = extremely
likely).
Control beliefs. Four items were
included to assess specific control beliefs, in
addition to the two items that assessed
perceived behavioral control directly.
Employing the same 11-point scale that was
used to assess behavioral and normative
beliefs, respondents rated how likely it was
that they were too busy to go hunting, that they
had the knowledge and skills, that they could
afford the cost, and that it takes a great effort
for them to engage in hunting.
Wildlife value orientations. Wildlife-
related value orientations were assessed by
having participants indicate their agreement
with eight statements regarding enjoyment and
management of wildlife. These value
statements were selected to represent the
orientation domains of wildlife enjoyment and
animal rights/management reported in the
literature (Fulton, Manfredo, & Lipscomb, 1996;
see Table 1 for a list of value statements).
Agreement with the statements was expressed
Hunting Attitudes and Behavior
on 7-point scales ranging from 1 (strongly
disagree) to 7 (strongly agree).
Fundamental life values. The Schwartz
Value Survey (Schwartz, 1992; Schwartz &
Bilsky, 1987) was used to assess participants’
fundamental values to life. This survey asks
respondents to rate the importance of 56
motivational goals using a 9-point scale that
ranges from -1 (is opposed to my values) to 7
(is of supreme importance). These
motivational goals correspond to ten value
dimensions that are located in a two-
dimensional space described by two higher-
order bipolar value dimensions of self-
transcendence versus self-enhancement and
openness versus conservation. The first
dimension contrasts self-transcendence, which
values the acceptance of others and the concern
for the welfare of others, to self-enhancement,
which values personal success and the
domination of others. Scores on this dimension
can range from 8 (high self-transcendence) to -
8 (high self-enhancement). The second
dimension contrasts openness, which values
independent thought and change, to
conservation, which values self-restriction and
tradition. Scores on this dimension can range
from 8 (high openness) to -8 (high
conservation). The validity of the structure and
content of these values has been demonstrated
across 97 samples in 44 countries (Schwartz,
1994).
Results
Response Rates and Demographics
Of the 727 individuals who were mailed a
survey, 395 ultimately responded. This
represents a final overall response rate of
54%. Of the hunters who received a
questionnaire, 41% responded; of visitors who
received a questionnaire, 74% responded. The
rather large difference in response rates could
be due to the verbal commitment to complete
the survey that was obtained from the visitors
–6–
during the initial contact. The hunting sample
was not contacted prior to the mailing, and
these individuals made no verbal commitment
prior to receiving the questionnaire. The length
and scope of the questionnaire may have also
contributed to the low response rates from
hunters. Visitors were informed that the
questionnaire would take 20 to 30 minutes
when they were contacted so they may have
been more willing to expend the time required.
The respondents were predominantly male
(73%) and white (79%) with a mean age of
40.5 years. Forty-seven percent of the
respondents reported annual family incomes
between $20,000 and $61,000, 35% reported
incomes above $61,000 and 11% reported
incomes below $20,000. Over half of the
sample (53%) graduated from college, 16%
attended at least some college, and 29%
achieved a high school education or less.
Preliminary Analyses
Theory of planned behavior measures.
As an indication of reliability, the internal
consistency of item pairs that assessed the
different components of the theory of planned
behavior directly was tested by calculating
Pearson correlations. Overall, the correlations
were of acceptable magnitude (rs = .99, .96,
.84, and .85, for intention, attitude, subjective
norm, and perceived control, respectively).
The item pairs for each of the components
were therefore averaged to form aggregate
indices.
Wildlife value orientations. The eight
individual wildlife value measures were
submitted to a principal components factor
analysis which confirmed the two-dimensional
factor structure previously identified in the
literature (see Fulton, Manfredo, & Lipscomb,
1996). The two dimensions involve values that
have to do with benefits or enjoyment derived
from wildlife on one hand, and wildlife rights
on the other (see Table 1). The individual
Hunting Attitudes and Behavior
beliefs that loaded highest on each factor were
averaged to create measures of the
corresponding value orientations.
(Insert Table 1 about here)
Fundamental life values. Before the
Schwarz value scale is submitted to analysis, it
is common practice to eliminate participants
who do not discriminate between values
(Schwartz, personal communication).
Therefore, respondents who used the highest
rating more than 21 times were dropped as
were respondents who used any single
response more than 35 times. Using these
criteria, 63 participants were eliminated from
the life values analyses.
As is the usual practice, a smallest space
analysis (Borg & Lingoes, 1987) was
conducted on the 56 individual value measures,
yielding a structural solution very similar to the
solutions obtained in previous research (see
Schwartz, 1992).2 The values were therefore
collapsed to create measures of the 10
superordinate values. The appropriate subsets
of these 10 superordinate values were then
combined into the two higher-order bipolar
dimensions corresponding to self-
transcendence versus self-enhancement and
openness versus conservation.
Descriptive Data
Based on their self-reports of behavior in
the previous year, participants were divided
into three groups. The first group consisted of
individuals who reported engaging in wildlife
viewing but not hunting (wildlife viewers; N =
101). The second group consisted of
individuals who reported engaging in hunting
but not wildlife viewing (hunters; N = 69). The
third group consisted of individuals who
reported participating in outdoor recreation
unrelated to wildlife but not wildlife viewing
or hunting (outdoor recreationists; N = 110).
The three groups were similar in mean age and
marital status, and wildlife viewers and
–7–
outdoor recreationists also were much alike in
other demographic characteristics. However,
hunters differed from the other two groups in
that they were almost exclusively male and,
compared to the other two groups, somewhat
less educated and of lower income levels. In
addition, the sample of hunters also contained
fewer Caucasians and more Native Americans
and people of mixed ethnicity.
Components of the theory of planned
behavior. The means and standard deviations
of the main components in the theory of planned
behavior are shown in the upper part of
Table 2. It can be seen that hunters reported
extremely positive mean attitudes, subjective
norms, perceptions of behavioral control, and
intentions with respect to hunting. The
differences between the mean scores for
hunters on these variables and those for the
other two groups were quite large and
significant. Wildlife viewers and outdoor
recreationists reported similar and quite
negative mean scores on perceptions of
behavioral control and intentions with respect
to hunting. Their attitudes and subjective
norms regarding hunting were also
unfavorable, although outdoor recreationists
reported somewhat more negative attitudes and
subjective norms than did wildlife viewers.
(Insert Table 2 about here)
Value scales. The middle part of Table 2
shows the means and standard deviations for
the two wildlife value scales. The pattern of
means on the wildlife enjoyment dimension
indicates that the three groups were very
similar in their high valuation of the enjoyment
of wildlife, although wildlife viewers and
hunters displayed somewhat higher scores than
did outdoor recreationists. The groups
differed, however, in their valuation of animal
rights. Wildlife viewers and outdoor
recreationists had similar mean animal rights
scores near the midpoint of the scale. By
Hunting Attitudes and Behavior
contrast, hunters' mean animal rights scores
were substantially below the scale midpoint
which indicates a general disagreement with
the idea that animal rights should be equal to
human rights.
The mean group scores on the higher-
order bipolar value dimensions of self-
transcendence versus self-enhancement and
openness versus conservation are shown in the
lower part of Table 2. Hunters were somewhat
less concerned with others and somewhat less
open to change than wildlife viewers, with
outdoor recreationists falling between these
two groups. Hunters tended to place relatively
more weight on the self-enhancement values of
power and achievement, while also showing
somewhat less concern for others and greater
conservatism.
Main Analyses
In the following sections we examine the
findings relevant to our major hypotheses. In a
series of hierarchical regression analyses, we
tested the predictive validity of the theory of
planned behavior, as well as the extent to
which values related to wildlife and to life in
general can account for additional variance in
intentions and behavior. These analyses are
followed by an examination of the relations
between the direct measures of attitudes,
subjective norms, and perceptions of control
and their respective belief-based counterparts.
Prediction of intention and behavior.
Table 3 displays the results of hierarchical
regression analyses that examined the
effectiveness of the theory of planned behavior
in predicting hunting intentions and behavior.
In the first set of analyses presented in the
upper half of Table 3, behavior was the
dependent variable. The relevant components
of the theory — intentions and perceptions of
behavioral control — were entered in the first
step, followed by the two wildlife values in the
second step, and the fundamental life values in
–8–
the last step.
The multiple correlation in the first step
was of relatively high magnitude (R = .62). It
is worth noting that only intention contributed
significantly to the prediction of behavior
while perceived behavioral control failed to
explain additional variance. A likely
explanation for this finding is that hunting is
largely under volitional control. The more
volitional control one has over a behavior, the
less important perceived behavioral control
should be (Madden, Ellen, & Ajzen, 1992).
Turning now to the role of the two
wildlife-related and the two fundamental life
values, it is instructive to first examine their
zero-order correlations with reported hunting
behavior (see the first column of Table 3).
Reported behavior demonstrated significant
correlations with all four value dimensions.
Hunting behavior was positively correlated
with values related to wildlife enjoyment and
negatively correlated with values related to
wildlife rights. In addition, hunting behavior
was negatively correlated with the fundamental
life value dimensions of openness and self-
transcendence. Generally speaking, however,
these broad values showed rather modest
correlations with hunting behavior, a pattern
similar to the usually reported low correlations
between global attitudes toward an object and
specific behaviors directed at that object (see
Ajzen & Fishbein, 1977).
(Insert Table 3 about here )
As can be seen in Table 3, addition of the
wildlife values in step two of the hierarchical
regression analysis did not lead to a significant
increase in explained variance for hunting
behavior. The addition of fundamental life
values in step three, however, did lead to a
small though statistically significant increase in
the explained variance for hunting (R2 change =
.02). Examination of the regression
coefficients indicated that it was the self-
Hunting Attitudes and Behavior
transcendence versus self-enhancement
dimension that made a significant contribution
to behavioral prediction.
To summarize, of all the measures
included in the analyses, intentions proved to
be most closely related to reported hunting
behavior. Consistent with the theory of
planned behavior, the effects of wildlife-
related values as well as fundamental values to
life appeared to be largely mediated by
intentions. However, the fundamental life
value of self-transcendence derived from
Schwartz’s value scale afforded a small but
significant improvement in the prediction of
reported hunting.
Similar, though considerably stronger
results emerged in the regression of hunting
intentions on the relevant components of the
theory of planned behavior (attitudes,
subjective norms, and perceptions of
behavioral control), on wildlife value
orientations, and on fundamental life values.
Inspection of the lower part of Table 3 shows
that the multiple correlation for the first step
based on the theory of planned behavior was
significant and quite high (R = .93). Attitude,
subjective norms, and perceived behavioral
control all made significant contributions to the
prediction of hunting intentions.
The zero-order correlations between
intentions and the four value measures (two
wildlife and two fundamental life values) were
very similar and of small magnitude, similar to
the correlations with respect to behavior.
When added to the equation in the second step
of the hierarchical regression analysis, the
increase in explained variance due to the two
wildlife value orientations was small but
statistically significant (R2 change = .02). Of
the two wildlife value orientations, only
wildlife rights scores made a significant
contribution to predicting intentions to hunt.
The addition of fundamental life values in
–9–
step three of the analysis significantly
increased the explained variance in hunting
intentions as well but, as was the case with
behavior, the magnitude of this increase was
very small. The dimension of self-
transcendence versus self-enhancement was
again responsible for the significant
contribution to the prediction. In sum, the
addition of wildlife values and fundamental
values to life did increase the amount of
variance in intentions accounted for by the
model, but this increase was small in
comparison to the amount of variance
accounted for by components of the theory of
planned behavior.
Informational foundation. According to
the theory of planned behavior, in their
respective aggregates, behavioral beliefs
provide the basis for attitudes, normative
beliefs for subjective norms, and control
beliefs for perceived behavioral control3. To
test these predictions with respect to attitudes,
the measures of behavioral belief strength were
multiplied by the corresponding outcome
evaluations and the resulting products were
summed over all 12 beliefs.4 The sum was
then correlated with the direct attitude measure,
in accordance with the expectancy–value
model of attitude. The procedure was easier
for the normative and control beliefs:
responses to the two normative belief items
were averaged, as were responses to the four
control belief items, and the resulting means
were correlated with the direct measures of
subjective norm and perceived behavioral
control, respectively. All three correlations
were significant and of high magnitude (.76,
.74, .72, ps < .001, for attitude, subjective
norm, and perceived control, respectively),
thus supporting the informational foundations
for attitude, subjective norm, and perceived
control proposed by the theory.
Discussion and Conclusions
Hunting Attitudes and Behavior
The theory of planned behavior was found
to afford quite accurate prediction of hunting
intentions and behavior. In accordance with
the theory, attitudes toward hunting, subjective
norms, and perceptions of behavioral control
were significant determinants of intentions, and
intentions correlated strongly with self-
reported behavior. Perceived behavioral
control did not account for additional variance
in hunting behavior, suggesting that hunting-
related activities are largely under volitional
control. The successful application of the
theory of planned behavior to hunting is
consistent with other research in which the
theory effectively predicted participation in a
variety of recreational activities (Ajzen &
Driver, 1991; Ajzen & Driver, 1992; Rossi &
Armstrong, 1999). One caveat, noted in the
method section, is that our measure of hunting
behavior referred to behavior performed in the
past. Although such measures are common in
research with the theory of planned behavior
(see Armitage & Conner, 1999), this practice
leaves open the possibility that participants
provided biased self-reports of behavior to be
consistent with their expressed attitudes and
intentions. It would thus be important for future
research to establish the theory’s predictive
validity in relation to subsequent hunting
behavior.
The inclusion of wildlife value
orientations and fundamental life values
furthered our understanding of the role these
constructs play in determining behavior. Our
findings provided evidence in support of a
value-attitude-behavior cognitive hierarchy.
Wildlife-related value orientations and
fundamental life values were modestly
correlated with behavior, but these relations
were largely mediated by beliefs, attitudes, and
intentions specifically dealing with the
behavior of hunting. These findings are
consistent with the results of other studies
– 10 –
which indicated that the influence of wildlife-
related value orientations on intentions is
mediated by attitudes (Fulton, Manfredo, &
Lipscomb, 1996). They are also consistent
with the theory of planned behavior according
to which broad values are background
variables that influence behavior indirectly
through their influence on beliefs and attitudes
(Ajzen, 1991). In addition to replicating
previous findings regarding the value-attitude-
behavior relationship, our findings add to the
understanding of the relationship between
values and behavior by demonstrating that not
only specific value orientations, but also broad
fundamental life values may influence
intentions and behaviors indirectly through
their influence on beliefs and attitudes.
Beyond demonstrating the effectiveness of
the theory in predicting intentions and
behavior, our findings also provide evidence
supporting the proposed informational
foundations of attitudes, subjective norms, and
perceptions of control. The strong correlations
between the direct measures of these constructs
and their respective belief-based aggregates
supports the assumption in the theory of
planned behavior that attitudes toward a
behavior are derived from beliefs about the
behavior’s consequences, that subjective norms
are derived from beliefs about the normative
expectations of others, and that perceptions of
control are derived from beliefs about the
presence of factors that may facilitate or
impede performance of the behavior.
Though the results of this investigation
strongly support the effectiveness of the theory
of planned behavior as a conceptual framework
for predicting and understanding wildlife-
related activities such as hunting, a limiting
condition with respect to our measure of
general life values should be noted. A
relatively large number of respondents (63)
were dropped from the value analyses due to
Hunting Attitudes and Behavior
missing or questionable Schwartz data. This
number represented a considerable proportion
of our sample. It could be argued that these
individuals differed in the some way that
would affect the theory of planned behavior’s
ability to predict their participation in hunting
activities. In order to rule out this possibility,
we recomputed the regression analyses without
the fundamental life value data so that these
individuals would be included. The resulting
multiple correlations and regression
coefficients were nearly identical to those in
the original analyses. Therefore, it seems
unlikely that those individuals who were
– 11 –
originally omitted differed in any way that
would affect the predictive power of the theory
of planned behavior.
In sum, the present research demonstrated
that the theory of planned behavior offers
considerable power in predicting and
explaining participation in hunting intentions
and behavior. Further, it indicates that wildlife
value orientations and fundamental life values
may help to account for some of the variance in
wildlife related beliefs and attitudes that
ultimately determine the decision to engage or
not to engage in hunting.
Hunting Attitudes and Behavior
References
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned
behavior. Organizational Behavior and
Human Decision Processes, 50, 179-211.
Ajzen, I. (in press). Nature and operation of
attitudes. Annual Review of Psychology.
Ajzen, I., & Driver, B. L. (1991). Prediction of
leisure participation from behavioral,
normative, and control beliefs: An
application of the theory of planned
behavior. Leisure Sciences, 13, 185-204.
Ajzen, I., & Driver, B. L. (1992). Application
of the theory of planned behavior to
leisure choice. Journal of Leisure
Research, 24, 207-224.
Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1977). Attitude-
behavior relations: A theoretical analysis
and review of empirical research.
Psychological Bulletin, 84, 888-918.
Armitage, C. J., & Conner, M. (1999). Efficacy
of the theory of planned behavior: A
meta-analytic review. Manuscript
submitted for publication.
Bissell, S. J., Duda, M. D., & Young, K. C.
(1998). Recent studies on hunting and
fishing participation in the United States.
Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 3(1), 75-
80.
Borg, I., & Lingoes, J. C. (1987).
Multidimensional similarity structure
analysis. New York: Springer Verlag.
Conner, M., & Sparks, P. (1996). The theory of
planned behaviour and health behaviours.
In M. Conner & P. Norman (Eds.),
Predicting health behaviour: Research
and practice with social cognition
models. (pp. 121-162). Buckingham,
England: Open University Press.
Decker, D. J., Brown, T. L., Driver, B. L., &
Brown, P. J. (1987). Theoretical
developments in assessing social values
of wildlife: Toward a comprehensive
understanding of wildlife recreation
– 12 –
involvemen. In D. J. Decker & G. R. Goff
(Eds.), Valuing wildlife: Economic and
social perspectives (pp. 76-95). Boulder,
CO: Westview Press.
Driver, B. L., Brown, P. J., & Peterson, G. L.
(Eds.). (1991). Benefits of leisure. State
College, PA: Venture Publishing.
Enck, J. W., & Decker, D. J. (1991). Hunters'
perspectives on satisfying and
dissatisfying aspects of the deer-hunting
experience in New York, Human
Dimensions Research Unit Series
Number 91-4 . Ithaca, NY: Human
Dimensions Research Unit, Cornell
University.
Feather, N. T. (1959). Subjective probability
and decision under uncertainty.
Psychological Review, 66, 150-164.
Fishbein, M. (1963). An investigation of the
relationships between beliefs about an
object and the attitude toward that object.
Human Relations, 16, 233-240.
Fishbein, M. (1967). Attitude and the
prediction of behavior. In M. Fisbein
(Ed.), Readings in attitude theory and
measurement (pp. 477-492). New York:
Wiley.
Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief,
attitude, intention, and behavior: An
introduction to theory and research.
Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Fulton, D. C., Manfredo, M. J., & Lipscomb, J.
(1996). Wildlife value orientations: A
conceptual and measurement approach.
Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 1(2), 24-
47.
Hammit, W. E., McDonald, C. D., & Patterson,
M. E. (1990). Determinants of multiple
satisfaction for deer hunting. Wildlife
Society Bulletin, 18, 331-337.
Hautaluoma, J. E., & Brown, P. J. (1979).
Attributes of the deer hunting experience:
A cluster analytic study. Journal of
Hunting Attitudes and Behavior
Leisure Research, 10, 271-287.
Hendee, J. C. (1974). A multiple satisfaction
approach to game management. Wildlife
Society Bulletin, 2, 104-113.
Homer, P. M., & Kahle, L. R. (1988). A
structural equation test of the value-
attitude-behavior hierarchy. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 54,
638-646.
Kellert, S. R. (1978). Attitudes and
characteristics of hunters and antihunters.
Transactions of the North American
Wildlife and Natural Resources
Conference, 43, 412-423.
Madden, T. J., Ellen, P. S., & Ajzen, I. (1992).
A comparison of the theory of planned
behavior and the theory of reasoned
action. Personality & Social Psychology
Bulletin, 18(1), 3-9.
Manfredo, M. J., & Larson, R. A. (1993).
Managing for wildlife viewing recreation
experiences: An application in Colorado.
Wildlife Society Bulletin, 21, 226-236.
Manfredo, M. J., Vaske, J. J., & Decker, D. J.
(1995). Human dimensions of wildlife
management: Basic concepts. In R. L.
Knight & K. J. Gutzwiller (Eds.), Wildlife
and recreationists. Covelo: CA: Island
Press.
Mannell, R. C., & Kleiber, D. A. (1997). A
social psychology of leisure. State
College, PA: Venture Press.
More, T. A. (1973). Attitudes of Massachusetts
hunters. Transactions of the North
American Wildlife and Natural Resource
Conference, 38, 230-234.
Potter, D. R., Hendee, J. C., & Clark, R. N.
(1973). Hunting satisfaction: Game, guns,
or nature. In J. C. Hendee & C. Schoenfeld
(Eds.), Human Dimensions in Wildlife
Programs (pp. 62-71). Washington, DC:
Mercury Press.
Rossi, A. N., & Armstrong, J. B. (1999).
– 13 –
Theory of reasoned action vs. theory of
planned behavior: Testing the suitability
and sufficiency of a popular behavior
model using hunting intentions. Human
Dimensions of Wildlife, 4, 40-56.
Schwartz, S. H. (1992). Universals in the
content and structure of values:
Theoretical advances and empirical tests
in 20 countries. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.),
Advances in experimental social
psychology (Vol. 25, pp. 1-65). San
Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Schwartz, S. H. (1994). Are there universal
aspects in the structure and contents of
human values? Journal of Social Issues,
50(4), 19-45.
Schwartz, S. H., & Bilsky, W. (1987). Toward
a psychological structure of human values.
Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 53, 550-562.
Stankey, G. H., Lucas, R. C., & Ream, R. R.
(1973). Relationship between hunting
success and satisfaction. Transactions of
the North American Wildlife and Natural
Resource Conference, 38, 235-245.
Sutton, S. (1998). Predicting and explaining
intentions and behavior: How well are we
doing? Journal of Applied Social
Psychology, 28(15), 1317-1338.
Tarrant, M. A., Bright, A. D., & Cordell, H. K.
(1997). Attitudes toward wildlife species
protection: Assessing moderating and
mediating effects in the value-attitude
relationship. Human Dimensions of
Wildlife, 2(2), 1-20.
Vaske, J. J., & Donnelly, M. P. (1999). A
value-attitude-behavior model predicting
wildland preservation voting intentions.
Society & Natural Resources, 12(6), 523-
537.
Vaske, J. J., Fedler, A. J., & Graefe, A. R.
(1986). Multiple determinants of
satisfaction from a specific waterfowl
Hunting Attitudes and Behavior – 14 –

hunting trip. Leisure Sciences, 8, 149-166. beliefs to determine the acceptability of

Zinn, H. C., Manfredo, M. J., Vaske, J. J., & wildlife management actions. Society &
Wittmann, K. (1998). Using normative Natural Resources, 11, 649-662.
Hunting Attitudes and Behavior – 15 –

Author Notes

We are grateful to Shalom Schwartz for his comments on an earlier draft of this article. The
research reported in this article was supported by Cooperative Research Agreement 23-265 with
the U. S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service’s Northeastern Research Station.

Correspondence concerning this article should be sent to Icek Ajzen, Department of

Psychology, Tobin Hall - Box 37710, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA 01003-7710; or
by e-mail to aizen@psych.umass.edu.
Hunting Attitudes and Behavior – 16 –

Footnotes
1. We are grateful to the managers of the Green Mountain National Forest for their help and
guidance in sampling visitors.

2. We greatly appreciate the assistance with the smallest space analysis provided by Olga
Mazo.

3. For the purposes of this paper, only the correlation between the aggregate belief
measures and their respective direct measures is reported. Data concerning the individual beliefs
and outcome evaluations will be published in a separate report.

4. An optimal scaling analysis (see Ajzen, 1991) was conducted to test whether the belief
scales should be scored in a bipolar or unipolar fashion. Based on the results of this analysis,
bipolar scoring was applied.
Hunting Attitudes and Behavior – 17 –

Table 1
Principal Components Factor Analysis of Wildlife Values

Factor loadings

Items Factor 1 Factor 2

It is important to manage the populations

of wildlife for benefit of humans.a –.13 .62*

I enjoy watching wildlife when I take a trip. .77* –.04

It is important to protect wildlife for

future generations. .58* .08

Hunting and fishing are cruel and inhumane

to the animals. –.19 .77*

I notice birds and wildlife around me every day. .76* –.13

People should not cause pain and suffering to wildlife,

regardless of how much we may benefit. .05 .71*

It is important that we learn all we can about wildlife. .80* .00

Animals should have rights similar to the rights of humans. .24 .75*

Eigenvalue 2.30 2.05

% explained variance 28.80 25.60

Note. Wildlife values were rated on a scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree).
a
This item was reverse coded. * Indicates factor assignments.
Hunting Attitudes and Behavior – 18 –

Table 2
Means and Standard Deviations for Wildlife Viewers, Hunters, and Other Outdoor
Recreationists

Wildlife viewers Hunters Outdoor recreationists

(N = 101) (N = 69) (N = 110)

Theory of planned behavior

Attitudes 2.35a (1.76) 6.72b (0.91) 1.92c (1.36)

Subjective norms 2.23a (1.44) 6.34b (1.14) 1.85c (1.02)
Perceived control 3.12a (1.95) 6.69b (0.63) 2.92a (2.17)
Intentions 1.25a (0.94) 6.91b (0.41) 1.09a (0.42)
Past behavior frequency 0.00 26.75 (27.61) 0.00

Wildlife value scales

Wildlife enjoyment 6.68a (0.41) 6.64a (0.60) 6.27b (0.69)

Wildlife rights 4.04a (1.46) 2.20b (1.04) 4.02a (1.39)

General life values

Self-transcendence vs.
Self-enhancement 1.81a (1.06) 0.58b (1.12) 1.22c (0.95)
Openness vs. conservation 0.94a (1.37) –.02b (0.98) 0.63a (1.38)

Note. Standard deviations in parentheses. Attitudes, subjective norms, perceived control, and
intentions measured on a scale from 1 to 7 with higher numbers indicating more positive attitudes
and norms, higher perceptions of control and intentions. Scores could range from 1 to 7 for
wildlife values and from from –8 to 8 for general life values. For each variable, different
superscripts indicate a significant difference at p < .01.
Hunting Attitudes and Behavior – 19 –

Table 3
Multiple Regressions of Hunting Behavior and Intentions on Components of the Theory of
Planned Behavior, Wildlife Value Orientations, and Fundamental Values to Life

Dependent Variable r b R )R2

Behavior (N = 301)

Step 1: Intention .62** .58**

Perceived control .48** .05 .62** .38a
Step 2: Intention .57**
Perceived control .04
Wildlife enjoyment .16** .02
Wildlife rights -.36** -.03 .62** .00
Step 3: Intention .53**
Perceived control .03
Wildlife enjoyment .06
Wildlife rights -.01
Self-transcendence -.33** -.14
Openness -.14* .00 .63** .02a

Intention (N = 311)

Step 1: Attitude .91** .58**

Subjective norm .89** .37**
Perceived control .75** .07* .93** .86a
Step 2: Attitude .56**
Subjective norm .39**
Perceived control .07
Wildlife enjoyment .25** .01
Wildlife rights -.54** .08* .93** .00
Step 3: Attitude .55**
Subjective norm .36**
Perceived control .07*
Wildlife enjoyment .03
Wildlife rights .09**
Self-transcendence -.37** -.06**
Openness -.26** -.04 .94** .02a

Note. Sample sizes vary due to missing data. r = zero-order correlation, b = standardized
regression coefficient, R = multiple correlation; a significant increase in R2 (p < .05).
*
p < .05; ** p < .01.
Hunting Attitudes and Behavior – 20 –

Figure Caption

Figure 1. The theory of planned behavior.

Hunting Attitudes and Behavior – 21 –