FREE SHIPPING over $40
OVER 10000 FIVE-STAR REVIEWS
5% OFF ALL SUBSCRIPTIONS
100% HAPPINESS GUARANTEE
Analyze Diet
0
Animal welfare (South Mimms, England)2026; 35; e38; doi: 10.1017/awf.2026.10093

“At what line does poor horsemanship cross the line to abuse, for you?” Social media discourse around high-profile incidents in the performance horse world reveals polarised views on animal welfare.

Abstract: High profile equestrians set an example for equestrian culture as well as public perception of horse sports. The present instrumental case study considers two incidents shared across social media. One is a dressage session featuring an elite equestrian striking at a horse 24 times with a long whip during a two-minute video. The second scenario shows a high-profile rider whipping and spurring a horse for a jump refusal during an international showjumping competition. We collected (and anonymised) 416 social media responses from a performance horse welfare equestrian group, general horse welfare advocacy groups, and public comments on the case videos. Using discourse analysis, we aimed to examine: (1) how individuals respond to the potentially welfare-compromising actions of high-profile equestrians; (2) what the responses tell us about people's attitudes towards performance horses and their welfare; and (3) what we can learn about the social construction of animal welfare. Two polarised discourses encompassing the topics of the equestrians, the horse, the practice, and the industry are described. Findings demonstrate how enculturated practices and attitudes may prompt moral disengagement from potential horse welfare issues. We suggest that tribalism between those who support the horse training practices observed and other members of society may underpin the observed polarisation of views on horse welfare. Furthermore, this case study provides insight into the social construction of animal welfare in a social media setting. Consideration of these findings brings important insight into the sociocultural barriers and opportunities for the promotion of improved animal welfare.
© The Author(s) 2026.
Get Full Text
Publication Date: 2026-07-15 PubMed ID: 42466062PubMed Central: PMC13372727DOI: 10.1017/awf.2026.10093Google Scholar: Lookup
The Equine Research Bank provides access to a large database of publicly available scientific literature. Inclusion in the Research Bank does not imply endorsement of study methods or findings by Mad Barn.
LinkedInCopy
  • Journal Article

Summary

This research summary has been generated with artificial intelligence and may contain errors and omissions. Refer to the original study to confirm details provided. Submit correction.

Overview

  • This study investigates public responses on social media to two high-profile incidents of horse training methods that some viewers perceive as potentially abusive.
  • It explores how differing attitudes reflect broader tensions around animal welfare in the performance horse community and society at large.

Research Context and Purpose

  • High-profile equestrians influence both equestrian culture and public perception of horse sports, making their training methods highly visible and subject to public scrutiny.
  • Two specific incidents were analyzed:
    • A dressage session video showing an elite rider striking a horse 24 times with a whip over two minutes.
    • An international showjumping event where a rider whipped and spurred a horse following a jump refusal.
  • The study sought to understand:
    • How individuals responded to these welfare-compromising actions captured on video.
    • What these reactions reveal about people’s attitudes towards the welfare of performance horses.
    • What this reveals about how animal welfare is socially constructed in discourse, particularly on social media.

Methodology

  • An instrumental case study approach was used focusing on these two incidents.
  • 416 anonymized social media comments were collected for analysis.
  • Comments came from:
    • A performance horse welfare equestrian group.
    • General horse welfare advocacy groups.
    • Public comments on the videos themselves.
  • Discourse analysis was employed to analyze patterns and themes in the social media responses.

Key Findings

  • Two strongly polarized discourses emerged:
    • Supporters who viewed the actions as acceptable or necessary training practices within the equestrian world.
    • Critics who saw the actions as crossing the line into abuse and detrimental to horse welfare.
  • The debates centered on four main focal points:
    • The equestrians’ roles and responsibilities.
    • The treatment and welfare of the horses.
    • The training practices being employed.
    • The wider horse sport industry and culture.
  • Social and cultural norms within equestrian communities may encourage moral disengagement, allowing some riders or observers to justify or normalize potentially harmful behavior.
  • Tribalism—strong allegiance to insider community norms versus outsiders—was identified as a key driver of the polarized views, reinforcing divides over what constitutes acceptable welfare.

Implications and Insights

  • This study highlights the complexity of defining animal welfare within the highly specialized and tradition-bound world of performance horse sports.
  • Social media acts as a crucial arena where competing ideas about welfare are debated, illustrating how welfare is socially constructed and negotiated publicly.
  • Understanding these sociocultural barriers—such as tribalism and moral disengagement—can inform strategies to promote better welfare practices within the equestrian community.
  • The findings suggest opportunities exist to bridge divides by fostering dialogue that respects equestrian expertise while also emphasizing welfare concerns grounded in broader societal values.

Conclusion

  • The research underscores the importance of recognizing cultural differences in welfare perceptions when addressing animal welfare issues in sport horses.
  • It calls for more nuanced approaches that engage with the complex social identities and values shaping equestrian practices and public opinion.
  • Ultimately, this study contributes to a deeper understanding of how animal welfare is debated and shaped in modern, digital public spheres.

Cite This Article

APA
Cheung E, Mills D, Ventura BA. (2026). “At what line does poor horsemanship cross the line to abuse, for you?” Social media discourse around high-profile incidents in the performance horse world reveals polarised views on animal welfare. Anim Welf, 35, e38. https://doi.org/10.1017/awf.2026.10093

Publication

Animal welfare (South Mimms, England)
ISSN: 2054-1538
NlmUniqueID: 9214272
Country: England
Language: English
Volume: 35
Pages: e38
PII: e38

Researcher Affiliations

Cheung, Erica
  • Department of Life Sciences, University of Lincoln - Brayford Campus, Lincoln, UK.
Mills, Daniel
  • Department of Life Sciences, University of Lincoln - Brayford Campus, Lincoln, UK.
Ventura, Beth Ann
  • College of Veterinary Medicine, Department of Large Animal Clinical Sciences, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, USA.

Conflict of Interest Statement

None.

References

This article includes 127 references
  1. Abelson RP. Beliefs are like possessions. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour 1986;16(3):223–250.
    doi: 10.1111/j.1468-5914.1986.tb00078.xgoogle scholar: lookup
  2. Abrams D, De Randsley Moura G, Travaglino GA. A double standard when group members behave badly: Transgression credit to ingroup leaders. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 2013;105(5):799–815.
    doi: 10.1037/a0033600pubmed: 23895265google scholar: lookup
  3. Abrams KM, Zimbres T, Carr C. Communicating sensitive scientific issues: The interplay between values, attitudes, and euphemisms in communicating livestock slaughter. Science Communication 2015;37(4):485–505.
    doi: 10.1177/1075547015588599google scholar: lookup
  4. Anthony M. Web Wide Warfare. Part 1: The Blue Shadow. Journal of Futures Studies 2020;24(4):35–50.
    doi: 10.6531/JFS.202003google scholar: lookup
  5. Armstrong G. Football hooligans: Knowing the score. .
  6. Ashokkumar A, Galaif M, Swann WB. Tribalism can corrupt: Why people denounce or protect immoral group members. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 2019;85:103874.
    doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2019.103874google scholar: lookup
  7. Aquino K, Reed A. The self-importance of moral identity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 2002;83(6):1423–1440.
    doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.83.6.1423pubmed: 12500822google scholar: lookup
  8. Bail CA, Argyle LP, Brown TW, Bumpus JP, Chen H, Hunzaker MBF, Lee J, Mann M, Merhout F, Volfovsky A. Exposure to opposing views on social media can increase political polarization. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 2018;115(37):9216–9221.
    doi: 10.1073/pnas.1804840115pmc: PMC6140520pubmed: 30154168google scholar: lookup
  9. Bandura A. Selective activation and disengagement of moral control. Journal of Social Issues 1990;46(1):27–46.
    doi: 10.1111/j.1540-4560.1990.tb00270.xgoogle scholar: lookup
  10. Bandura A. Selective moral disengagement in the exercise of moral agency. Journal of Moral Education 2002;31(2):101–119.
    doi: 10.1080/0305724022014322google scholar: lookup
  11. Bastian B, Jetten J, Radke HR. Cyber-dehumanization: Violent video game play diminishes our humanity. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 2012;48(2):486–491.
    doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2011.10.009google scholar: lookup
  12. Bastian B, Jetten J, Chen H, Radke HR, Harding JF, Fasoli F. Losing our humanity: The self-dehumanizing consequences of social ostracism. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 2013;39(2):156–169.
    doi: 10.1177/0146167212471205pubmed: 23386654google scholar: lookup
  13. Bastian B, Loughnan S. Resolving the meat-paradox: A motivational account of morally troublesome behavior and its maintenance. Personality and Social Psychology Review 2017;21(3):278–299.
    doi: 10.1177/1088868316647562pubmed: 27207840google scholar: lookup
  14. Berger PL, Luckmann T. The social construction of reality: A treatise in the sociology of knowledge. .
  15. Bond R. Conformity across cultures. Encyclopedia of Applied Psychology 2004;1:457.
  16. Borovali M. Ad hominem argumentation in politics. Philosophy & Social Criticism 44(4): 426–436.
    doi: 10.1177/0191453718755206google scholar: lookup
  17. Bouvier G. What is a discourse approach to Twitter, Facebook, YouTube and other social media: Connecting with other academic fields?. Journal of Multicultural Discourses 10(2): 149–162.
    doi: 10.1080/17447143.2015.1042381google scholar: lookup
  18. Boyd R, Richerson PJ. The origin and evolution of cultures. .
  19. Brady WJ, Crockett MJ, Van Bavel JJ. The MAD model of moral contagion: The role of motivation, attention, and design in the spread of moralized content online. Perspectives on Psychological Science 15(4): 978–1010.
    doi: 10.1177/1745691620917336pubmed: 32511060google scholar: lookup
  20. Bradley C, Roland J. Critical Thinkers for a Critical Time: Debate as a Foundation for Youth Civic Engagement. National Civic Review 111(2): 14–22.
  21. Braun V, Clarke V. Conceptual and design thinking for thematic analysis. Qualitative Psychology 9(1): 3.
    doi: 10.1037/qup0000196google scholar: lookup
  22. Burr V, Dick P. Social constructionism. The Palgrave Handbook of Critical Social Psychology pp 59–80.
  23. Capezza NM, Arriaga XB. Why do people blame victims of abuse? The role of stereotypes of women on perceptions of blame. Sex Roles 59(11–12): 839–850.
    doi: 10.1007/s11199-008-9488-1google scholar: lookup
  24. Cherry E. I was a teenage vegan: Motivation and maintenance of lifestyle movements. Sociological Inquiry 85(1): 55–74.
    doi: 10.1111/soin.12061google scholar: lookup
  25. Cheung E, Mills D, Ventura BA. ‘But my horse is well cared for’: A qualitative exploration of cognitive dissonance and enculturation in equestrian attitudes toward performance horses and their welfare. Animal Welfare 34(50).
    doi: 10.1017/awf.2025.10028pmc: PMC12304784pubmed: 40735428google scholar: lookup
  26. Chung W, Zeng D. Dissecting emotion and user influence in social media communities: An interaction modeling approach. Information & Management 57(1): 103108.
    doi: 10.1016/j.im.2018.09.008google scholar: lookup
  27. Clark KM, Bain-Selbo E. Tribalism and compassion in the age of a pandemic. Soundings: An Interdisciplinary Journal 105(2): 143–223.
    doi: 10.5325/soundings.105.2.0143google scholar: lookup
  28. Clark CJ, Liu BS, Winegard BM, Ditto PH. Tribalism is human nature. Current Directions in Psychological Science 28(6): 587–592.
  29. Costello K, Hodson G. Exploring the roots of dehumanization: The role of animal–human similarity in promoting immigrant humanization. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations 13(1): 3–22.
    doi: 10.1177/1368430209347725google scholar: lookup
  30. Cova B, Cova V. Tribal aspects of postmodern consumption research: The case of French in-line roller skaters. Journal of Consumer Behaviour 1(1): 67–76.
    doi: 10.1002/cb.54google scholar: lookup
  31. Cova B, Cova V. Tribal marketing: The tribalisation of society and its impact on the conduct of marketing. European Journal of Marketing 36(5/6): 595–620.
    doi: 10.1108/03090560210423023google scholar: lookup
  32. Cowen T. Market failure for the treatment of animals. Society 43(2): 39–44.
    doi: 10.1007/BF02687369google scholar: lookup
  33. Creswell JW, Poth CN. Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing Among Five Approaches. .
  34. Croney CC, Reynnells RD. The ethics of semantics: Do we clarify or obfuscate reality to influence perceptions of farm animal production?. Poultry Science 87(2): 387–391.
    doi: 10.3382/ps.2007-00404pubmed: 18212386google scholar: lookup
  35. Darwin C. The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex. .
  36. Denzin NK, Lincoln YS. The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research. .
  37. Ekman M. Anti-immigration and racist discourse in social media. European Journal of Communication 34(6): 606–618.
  38. Engel SM, Philosophy Documentation Center. The five forms of the ad hominem fallacy. Inquiry: Critical Thinking Across the Disciplines 14(1): 19–36.
    doi: 10.5840/inquiryctnews199414123google scholar: lookup
  39. Engel RM, Silver CC, Veeder CL, Banks RE. Cognitive dissonance in laboratory animal medicine and implications for animal welfare. Journal of the American Association for Laboratory Animal Science 59(2): 132–138.
    doi: 10.30802/AALAS-JAALAS-19-000073pmc: PMC7073402pubmed: 31918791google scholar: lookup
  40. Eriksson P, Kovalainen A. Qualitative Methods in Business Research. .
  41. Espinosa R, Treich N. Animal welfare as a public good. Ecological Economics 216: 108025.
    doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2023.108025google scholar: lookup
  42. Ferrera SJ. Tribalism: biological roots and emotional process. Family Systems: A Journal of Natural Systems Thinking in Psychiatry & the Sciences 11(1).
  43. Flynn A, Cama E, Powell A, Scott AJ. Victim-blaming and image-based sexual abuse. Journal of Criminology 56(1): 7–25.
    doi: 10.1177/26338076221135327google scholar: lookup
  44. Fraser D, Weary DM, Pajor EA, Milligan BN. A scientific conception of animal welfare that reflects ethical concerns. Animal Welfare 6(3): 187–205.
    doi: 10.1017/S0962728600019795google scholar: lookup
  45. Gee JP. An Introduction to Discourse Analysis: Theory and Method, Fourth Edition. .
  46. Gilbert I, Poole R, Niemi L. The sociomoral construction of the dairy industry on social media. Qualitative Research in Psychology 22(1): 286–313.
    doi: 10.1080/14780887.2024.2319760google scholar: lookup
  47. Gill R. Discourse analysis. image and sound 1: 172–190.
    doi: 10.4135/9781849209731.n10google scholar: lookup
  48. Goodwin D, McGreevy P, Waran N, McLean A. How equitation science can elucidate and refine horsemanship techniques. The Veterinary Journal 181(1): 5–11.
    doi: 10.1016/j.tvjl.2009.03.023pubmed: 19394880google scholar: lookup
  49. Greene J. Moral tribes: Emotion, reason, and the gap between us and them. .
  50. Grefe G, Pickel-Chevalier S. The equine business: the spectacular growth of a new equine segment market in France. The New Equine Economy in the 21st Century .
  51. Guba EG, Lincoln YS. Competing paradigms in qualitative research. Handbook of Qualitative Research 2(163–194): 105.
  52. Haidt J. The Righteous Mind: Why Good People are Divided by Politics and Religion. .
  53. Haidt J. Tribalism, Forbidden Baserates, and the Telos of Social Science. Psychological Inquiry 31(1): 53–56.
    doi: 10.1080/1047840X.2020.1722602google scholar: lookup
  54. Hart PS, Nisbet EC. Boomerang effects in science communication: How motivated reasoning and identity cues amplify opinion polarization about climate mitigation policies. Communication Research 39(6): 701–723.
    doi: 10.1177/0093650211416646google scholar: lookup
  55. Henning K, Holdford R. Minimization, denial, and victim blaming by batterers: How much does the truth matter?. Criminal Justice and Behavior 33(1): 110–130.
    doi: 10.1177/0093854805282322google scholar: lookup
  56. Herskovits MJ. Man and his works; the science of cultural anthropology. .
  57. Hofstede G. Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related values. .
  58. Hornsey MJ, Esposo S. Resistance to group criticism and recommendations for change: Lessons from the intergroup sensitivity effect. Social and Personality Psychology Compass 3: 275–291.
    doi: 10.1111/j.1751-9004.2009.00178.xgoogle scholar: lookup
  59. Hull K, Warren C, Smith K. Politics makes bastards of us all: Why moral judgment is politically situational. Political Psychology 45(6): 1013–1029.
    doi: 10.1111/pops.12954google scholar: lookup
  60. Hyvärinen H, Beck R. Emotions trump facts: The role of emotions in on social media: A literature review. Proceedings of the Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences pp 1797–1806.
  61. Jaquet F. Speciesism and tribalism: Embarrassing origins. Philosophical Studies 179(3): 933–954.
    doi: 10.1007/s11098-021-01700-6google scholar: lookup
  62. Jetten J, Postmes T, McAuliffe BJ. ‘We’re all individuals’: Group norms of individualism and collectivism, levels of identification and identity threat. European Journal of Social Psychology 32(2): 189–207.
    doi: 10.1002/ejsp.65google scholar: lookup
  63. Jerit J. Issue framing and engagement: Rhetorical strategy in public policy debates. Political Behavior 30(1): 1–24.
    doi: 10.1007/s11109-007-9041-xgoogle scholar: lookup
  64. Johansson-Stenman O. Animal welfare and social decisions: Is it time to take Bentham seriously?. Ecological Economics 145: 90–103.
    doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2017.08.019google scholar: lookup
  65. Joy M. Why we Love Dogs, Eat Pigs, and Wear Cows: An Introduction to Carnism. .
  66. Kelly DR. 24 Moral disgust and the tribal instincts hypothesis. Cooperation and its evolution pp 503.
  67. Kouchaki M, Dobson KSH, Waytz A, Kteily NS. The link between self-dehumanization and immoral behavior. Psychological Science 29(8): 1234–1246.
    doi: 10.1177/0956797618760784pubmed: 29787345google scholar: lookup
  68. Krzyżanowski M, Tucker JA. Re/constructing politics through social and online media: Discourses, ideologies, and mediated political practices. Journal of Language and Politics 17(2): 141–154.
  69. Lakoff G. Moral Politics: How Liberals and Conservatives Think. .
  70. Loughnan S, Davies T. The meat paradox. pp 171–187.
  71. Luke KL, Rawluk A, McAdie T, Smith BP, Warren-Smith AK. Investigating the motivational priorities underlying equestrians’ horse-keeping and training practices. Anthrozoös 37(3): 479–499.
    doi: 10.1080/08927936.2024.2303228google scholar: lookup
  72. Lusk JL, Norwood FB. A survey to determine public opinion about the ethics and governance of farm animal welfare. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association 233(7): 1121–1126.
    doi: 10.2460/javma.233.7.1121pubmed: 18828724google scholar: lookup
  73. Lusk JL, Norwood FB. Animal welfare economics. Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy 33(4): 463–483.
  74. Macagno F. Strategies of character attack. Argumentation 27(4): 369–401.
    doi: 10.1007/s10503-013-9291-1google scholar: lookup
  75. Machery E. The evolution of tribalism. pp 104–117.
  76. Maffesoli M, Maffesoli M. The time of the tribes: The decline of individualism in mass society (Online-Ausg). .
  77. Maréchal G. Encyclopedia of Case Study Research. .
  78. Maurício LS, Leme DP, Hötzel MJ. The easiest becomes the rule: Beliefs, knowledge and attitudes of equine practitioners and enthusiasts regarding horse welfare. Animals 14(9): 1282.
    doi: 10.3390/ani14091282pmc: PMC11083815pubmed: 38731286google scholar: lookup
  79. Mead M. Papers in honor of Melville J. Herskovits: Socialization and enculturation. Current Anthropology 4(2): 184–188.
  80. Mellor DJ, Beausoleil NJ, Littlewood KE, McLean AN, McGreevy PD, Jones B, Wilkins C. The 2020 five domains model: Including human–animal interactions in assessments of animal welfare. Animals 10(10): 1870.
    doi: 10.3390/ani10101870pmc: PMC7602120pubmed: 33066335google scholar: lookup
  81. Merhout F, Volfovsky A. Exposure to opposing views on social media can increase political polarization. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 115(37): 9216–9221.
    doi: 10.1073/pnas.1804840115pmc: PMC6140520pubmed: 30154168google scholar: lookup
  82. McLean AN, McGreevy PD. Ethical equitation: Capping the price horses pay for human glory. Journal of Veterinary Behavior 5(4): 203–209.
    doi: 10.1016/j.jveb.2010.04.003google scholar: lookup
  83. Merkies K, Copelin C, Small N, Young J. Noseband fit: Measurements and perceptions of Canadian equestrians. Animals 12(19): 2685.
    doi: 10.3390/ani12192685pmc: PMC9559623pubmed: 36230425google scholar: lookup
  84. Mills DS. A psychobiological framework for defining discrete emotions in animals. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 286: 106595.
    doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2025.106595google scholar: lookup
  85. Minson JA, Monin B. Do-gooder derogation: Disparaging morally motivated minorities to defuse anticipated reproach. Social Psychological and Personality Science 3(2): 200–207.
    doi: 10.1177/1948550611415695google scholar: lookup
  86. Moore C. Moral disengagement. Current Opinion in Psychology 6: 199–204.
    doi: 10.1016/j.copsyc.2015.07.018google scholar: lookup
  87. Morstatter F, Liu H. Discovering, assessing, and mitigating data bias in social media. Online Social Networks and Media 1: 1–13.
    doi: 10.1016/j.osnem.2017.01.001google scholar: lookup
  88. Muhammad M, Stokes JE, Morgans L, Manning L. The social construction of narratives and arguments in animal welfare discourse and debate. Animals 12(19): 2582.
    doi: 10.3390/ani12192582pmc: PMC9559530pubmed: 36230322google scholar: lookup
  89. Nussbaum MC. Upheavals of Thought: The intelligence of Emotions, Eighth Printing. .
  90. Nussbaum MC. Political Emotions: Why Love Matters for Justice, First Paperback Edition. .
  91. Nyhan B, Reifler J. When corrections fail: The persistence of political misperceptions.. Political Behavior 32(2): 303–330.
    doi: 10.1007/s11109-010-9112-2google scholar: lookup
  92. Phillips L, Jorgensen M. Critical discourse analysis.. .
  93. Piazza J, Ruby MB, Loughnan S, Luong M, Kulik J, Watkins HM, Seigerman M. Rationalizing meat consumption. The 4Ns.. Appetite 91:114–128.
    doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2015.04.011pubmed: 25865663google scholar: lookup
  94. Potter J, Wetherell M. Analyzing discourse.. In Analysing Qualitative Data. Routledge, London, UK, pp. 61–80.
  95. Riggio G, Angori E, Menchetti L, Diverio S. The link between the perception of animal welfare and the emotional response to pictures of farm animals kept in intensive and extensive husbandry systems: An Italian survey.. Veterinary Sciences 10(11): 652.
    doi: 10.3390/vetsci10110652pmc: PMC10675316pubmed: 37999475google scholar: lookup
  96. Ross M, Proudfoot K, Merkies K, Lundgren C, Ritter C. A wicked problem: Systemic issues surrounding Canadian equestrian dressage and dressage horse welfare.. Animal Welfare 34: e11.
    doi: 10.1017/awf.2025.2pmc: PMC11810510pubmed: 39935780google scholar: lookup
  97. Roth W. ‘Enculturation’: Acquisition of conceptual blind spots and epistemological prejudices.. British Educational Research Journal 27(1): 5–27.
    doi: 10.1080/01411920123822google scholar: lookup
  98. Rothgerber H. Meat-related cognitive dissonance: A conceptual framework for understanding how meat eaters reduce negative arousal from eating animals.. Appetite 146 104511.
    doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2019.104511pubmed: 31707073google scholar: lookup
  99. Rozin P, Lowery L, Imada S, Haidt J. The CAD triad hypothesis: A mapping between three moral emotions (Contempt, anger, disgust) and three moral codes (Community, autonomy, divinity).. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 76(4): 574–586.
    doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.76.4.574pubmed: 10234846google scholar: lookup
  100. Schüßler C, Nicolai S, Stoll-Kleemann S, Bartkowski B. Moral disengagement in the media discourses on meat and dairy production systems.. Appetite 196: 107269.
    doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2024.107269pubmed: 38360400google scholar: lookup
  101. Searle JR. The Construction of Social Reality.. Simon and Schuster: NewYork, USA.
  102. Shimahara N. Enculturation-A reconsideration.. Current Anthropology 11(2): 143–154.
  103. Simis MJ, Madden H, Cacciatore MA, Yeo SK. The lure of rationality: Why does the deficit model persist in science communication?. Public Understanding of Science 25(4): 400–414.
    doi: 10.1177/0963662516629749pubmed: 27117768google scholar: lookup
  104. Singer P. Animal Liberation.. Ecco: London, UK.
  105. Stake RE. The Art of Case Study Research.. Sage Publications: London, UK.
  106. Stake RE. Qualitative Case Studies. .
  107. Stangor C. Exploring attitudes. .
  108. Stanton JA. Terrorism in the context of civil war. The Journal of Politics 75(4): 1009–1022.
    doi: 10.1017/S0022381613000984google scholar: lookup
  109. Stibbe A. Language, power and the social construction of animals. Society & Animals 9(2): 145–161.
    doi: 10.1163/156853001753639251google scholar: lookup
  110. Tajfel H. Social Identity and Intergroup Relations. .
  111. Tajfel H, Turner JC. The social identity theory of intergroup behaviour. Psychology of Intergroup Relations 2: 7–24.
  112. Tetlock PE, Kristel OV, Elson SB, Green MC, Lerner JS. The psychology of the unthinkable: Taboo trade-offs, forbidden base rates, and heretical counterfactuals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 78(5): 853–870.
    doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.78.5.853pubmed: 10821194google scholar: lookup
  113. Travaglino GA, Abrams D, Randsley De Moura G, Yetkili O. Fewer but better: Proportionate size of the group affects evaluation of transgressive leaders. British Journal of Social Psychology 55(2): 318–336.
    doi: 10.1111/bjso.12125pubmed: 26334165google scholar: lookup
  114. Tucker JA, Theocharis Y, Roberts ME, Barberá P. From liberation to turmoil: Social media and democracy. Journal of Democracy 28(4): 46–59.
  115. Turner JC, Wetherell MS, Hogg MA. Referent informational influence and group polarization. British Journal of Social Psychology 28: 135–147.
    doi: 10.1111/j.2044-8309.1989.tb00855.xgoogle scholar: lookup
  116. Uldahl M, Mellor DJ. Regulatory Integrity and Welfare in Horse Sport: A Constructively Critical Perspective. Animals 15(13): 1934.
    doi: 10.3390/ani15131934pmc: PMC12248743pubmed: 40646833google scholar: lookup
  117. Van Dijk TA. The study of discourse. Discourse as Structure and Process 1(34): 703–752.
  118. Van Eemeren FH, Garssen B, Meuffels B. The disguised abusive ad hominem empirically investigated: Strategic manoeuvring with direct personal attacks. Thinking & Reasoning 18(3): 344–364.
    doi: 10.1080/13546783.2012.678666google scholar: lookup
  119. Visser EK, Kuypers MM, Stam JS, Riedstra B. Practice of noseband use and intentions towards behavioural change in Dutch equestrians. Animals 9(12): 1131.
    doi: 10.3390/ani9121131pmc: PMC6940946pubmed: 31842468google scholar: lookup
  120. Walton DN. Ad hominem arguments. .
  121. Wahl-Jorgensen K. The emotional architecture of social media. (pp 77–93).
  122. Weary D, Robbins J. Understanding the multiple conceptions of animal welfare. Animal Welfare 28(1): 33–40.
    doi: 10.7120/09627286.28.1.033google scholar: lookup
  123. Weiper ML, Vonk R. A communicational approach to enhance open-mindedness towards meat-refusers. Appetite 167: 105602.
    doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2021.105602pubmed: 34284066google scholar: lookup
  124. Wilson EO. The social conquest of earth. .
  125. nnn2024. nnhttps://www.worldhorsewelfare.org/what-we-do/sport-and-leisure-horses/our-work-with-regulators/review-of-the-use-of-the-whip-in-racing (accessed on 12 October 2025).
  126. Yin RK. Designing case studies. Qualitative Research Methods 5(14): 359–386.
  127. Youniss J. Moral development through a theory of social construction: An analysis. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly 27(4): 385–403.

Citations

This article has been cited 0 times.
Subscribe to our newsletter
Join 106,497 horse owners like you who receive our email updates on horse health and nutrition.