No More Evasion: Redefining Conflict Behaviour in Human-Horse Interactions

Area of Science:

• Equine Ethology
• Animal Behaviour Studies
• Human-Animal Interaction

Background:

• Traditional equestrian language often uses anthropocentric terms like 'evasion', 'resistance', and 'disobedience' for equine behaviors.
• These labels imply fault lies with the horse, overlooking potential underlying motivations or external factors.
• Such terminology can inadvertently reinforce undesirable behaviors and obscure the true cause.

Purpose of the Study:

• To critically examine anthropocentric inferences in equestrian terminology.
• To explore the negative consequences of using imprecise labels for equine behaviors.
• To propose a redefinition of 'conflict behaviour' in human-horse interactions.

Main Methods:

• Revisiting existing equestrian terminology and its anthropocentric biases.
• Analyzing the implications of current labels on understanding equine motivation.
• Conceptualizing a new framework for defining equine behavioral responses.

Main Results:

• Current terms like 'disobedience' mask pain, obscure equine motivation, and deflect human responsibility.
• Proposed 'conflict behaviour' encompasses responses stemming from competing equine motivations.
• Behavioral conflict exists on a continuum from subtle to overt, and from momentary to repetitive.

Conclusions:

• A multidisciplinary approach to terminology in equine research is essential.
• Understanding equine behavior requires considering biological, environmental, and anthropogenic variables.
• Further investigation into equicentric motivations is needed to address problematic horse behaviors effectively.