This is an early access version, the complete PDF, HTML, and XML versions will be available soon.
No More Evasion: Redefining Conflict Behaviour in Human–Horse Interactions
1
Independent Researcher, 959 Bacchus Marsh Road, Bullengarook, VIC 3437, Australia
2
Independent Researcher, The Cottage, Church Road, Market Weston, Diss IP22 2NX, UK
3
Independent Researcher, 3 Wonderland Ave, Tuerong, VIC 3915, Australia
4
Sydney School of Veterinary Science, Faculty of Science, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Animals 2025, 15(3), 399; https://doi.org/10.3390/ani15030399
Submission received: 1 December 2024
/
Revised: 20 January 2025
/
Accepted: 29 January 2025
/
Published: 31 January 2025
(This article belongs to the Special Issue The Influence of Human Behaviour and Cognition on Sustainable Equine Welfare and Horse–Human Interaction)
Simple Summary
Unwanted horse behaviours in human–horse interactions are often labelled with historical terms such as evasion, resistance, and disobedience, which fail to recognise current knowledge of the horse’s nature, as well as its mental and sensory abilities. These common labels often inadvertently place the horse at fault without acknowledging the many mechanisms that may be affecting or motivating the behaviour shown. If we are to continue riding horses, it is imperative that we endeavour to protect them from mental distress and pain. This commentary discusses the multiple influences on equine behaviour in human–horse interactions and proposes a multidisciplinary redefinition of the term ‘conflict behaviour’ for human–horse interactions that encompasses this complexity. Our proposed definition is as follows: Responses reflective of competing motivations for the horse that may exist on a continuum from subtle to overt, with frequencies that range from a singular momentary behavioural response to repetitive displays when motivational conflict is prolonged. We suggest that by using this redefined term and recognising the primary contributing factors involved in undesirable equine responses, future research can continue to determine how best to interpret the possible causes of unwanted behaviour.
Abstract
Euphemisms, anthropomorphisms, and equivocation are established characteristics of traditional equestrian language. ‘Evasion’, ‘resistance’, and ‘disobedience’ are common labels assigned to unwelcome equine behaviours, implying that the horse is at fault for not complying with the human’s cues and expectations. These terms appear to overlook multiple motivations that may directly result in the horse offering unwelcome responses, which may then inadvertently be reinforced. This article revisits some of the anthropocentric inferences in these terms and explores the harmful consequences of such convenient but incorrect labels before proposing a redefinition of ‘conflict behaviour’ in human–horse interactions: Responses reflective of competing motivations for the horse that may exist on a continuum from subtle to overt, with frequencies that range from a singular momentary behavioural response to repetitive displays when motivational conflict is prolonged. Addressing how inadequate terms may mask pain, obscure the horse’s motivation, and deflect human culpability, this commentary highlights the merits of a multidisciplinary approach to terminology across equine research. Acknowledging that variables contributing to behaviour can be biological, environmental and anthropogenic, it emphasises the need for more investigation into the relationships between equicentric motivations reflecting equine telos and problematic horse behaviours.
