FREE SHIPPING over $40
OVER 9000 FIVE-STAR REVIEWS
5% OFF ALL SUBSCRIPTIONS
100% HAPPINESS GUARANTEE
Analyze Diet
0
Home / Equine Research Bank / Anim Welf / “But my horse is well cared for”: A qualitative ...
Animal welfare (South Mimms, England)2025; 34; e50; doi: 10.1017/awf.2025.10028

“But my horse is well cared for”: A qualitative exploration of cognitive dissonance and enculturation in equestrian attitudes toward performance horses and their welfare.

Abstract: There is concern amongst the public, equestrians, animal welfare organisations, and horse-sport governing bodies regarding the welfare of performance horses, but equestrian culture appears slow to change. The present study seeks to increase our understanding of human factors underlying the persistence of welfare-compromising management and training practices within the performance horse world. Individual, semi-structured interviews focused on equestrians' attitudes were conducted with 22 equestrians from classical equestrian disciplines in the US, Canada, and the UK. Interview transcripts were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis. Five main themes were identified: perception of welfare issues; conflicting conceptions of a good life; objectification of the horse; instrumentalisation of horse care; and enculturation. Participants perceived and were concerned about horse welfare, but expressed dissonance-reducing strategies, including trivialisation, reframing and justification. Participants shared conflicting conceptions of a good life and described how equestrian activities may infringe upon horse welfare. Objectification of horses was among the attitudinal factors identified that may permit persistence of harmful practices, while the instrumentalisation of care theme showed how management practices often focused on performance and the horse's job more than care the horse. Finally, enculturation (the process of adopting attitudes and behaviours of a culture) in equestrianism may be fundamental to maintaining practices and attitudes that compromise horse welfare. These findings provide an enhanced understanding of why horse welfare issues persist in classical equestrian disciplines and may inform future human behaviour change strategies to promote improved horse welfare.
© The Author(s) 2025.
Get Full Text
Publication Date: 2025-07-24 PubMed ID: 40735428PubMed Central: PMC12304784DOI: 10.1017/awf.2025.10028Google 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.

This study investigates the attitudes of equestrians towards the welfare of performance horses. While many acknowledge and show concern for horse welfare, harmful practices persist due to conflicting views on what constitutes a good life for a horse, objectification, prioritisation of performance over care, and intensive enculturation in equestrian culture.

Research Purpose and Methodology

  • The purpose of this research is to understand human factors influencing the ongoing use of welfare-compromising management and training methods in the world of performance horses. This is in response to concerns raised by the public, equestrian community, animal welfare organizations, and governing bodies of horse-sport about horse welfare.
  • To achieve this, the researchers conducted semi-structured interviews with 22 equestrians from the United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom who participate in classical equestrian disciplines.
  • The responses obtained during the interviews were organized and analyzed using a technique known as reflexive thematic analysis to identify recurring themes.

Key Themes from the Research

  • The analysis revealed five major themes: perception of welfare issues, conflicting conceptions of a good life, objectification of the horse, instrumentalization of horse care, and enculturation within the equestrian world.
  • Equestrians were found to be aware of and concerned about horse welfare. However, they resort to cognitive dissonance-reducing strategies such as trivialization, reframing, and justification, to reconcile their concern for horse welfare with their actions that may compromise it.
  • Conflicting views on what makes a good life for a horse co-existed among participants, some of which may affect horse welfare negatively. Some respondents viewed horses as objects, a mindset that may allow detrimental practices to continue.
  • Instrumentalization of horse care revealed that horse management practices are often focused on enhancing performance and fulfilling the horse’s role rather than ensuring the horse’s well-being.
  • Lastly, the theme of enculturation emerged. The authors suggest that adopting the attitudes and behaviors typical of equestrian culture may be key to maintaining practices and attitudes that compromise horse welfare.

Implications of the Study

  • This study provides insights into why issues related to horse welfare persist despite awareness and concern among equestrians. It connects detrimental practices to various psychological and cultural factors embedded in the equestrian community.
  • The findings may help inform strategies aiming to change human behavior in this context to favor improved welfare for horses.

Cite This Article

APA
Cheung E, Mills D, Ventura BA. (2025). “But my horse is well cared for”: A qualitative exploration of cognitive dissonance and enculturation in equestrian attitudes toward performance horses and their welfare. Anim Welf, 34, e50. https://doi.org/10.1017/awf.2025.10028

Publication

Animal welfare (South Mimms, England)
ISSN: 2054-1538
NlmUniqueID: 9214272
Country: England
Language: English
Volume: 34
Pages: e50
PII: e50

Researcher Affiliations

Cheung, Erica
  • Animal Behaviour, Cognition, and Welfare Group, Department of Life Sciences, Joseph Banks Building, Green Lane, Lincoln LN6 7TS, UK.
Mills, Daniel
  • Animal Behaviour, Cognition, and Welfare Group, Department of Life Sciences, Joseph Banks Building, Green Lane, Lincoln LN6 7TS, UK.
Ventura, Beth Ann
  • Animal Behaviour, Cognition, and Welfare Group, Department of Life Sciences, Joseph Banks Building, Green Lane, Lincoln LN6 7TS, UK.

Conflict of Interest Statement

None.

References

This article includes 97 references
  1. Alharahsheh HH, Pius A. A review of key paradigms: Positivism VS interpretivism. Global Academic Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences 2020 2(3): 39–43.
    doi: 10.36348/gajhss.2020.v02i03.001google scholar: lookup
  2. Barkan R, Ayal S, Gino F, Ariely D. The pot calling the kettle black: distancing response to ethical dissonance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 2012 141(4): 757.
    doi: 10.1037/a0027588pubmed: 22409664google scholar: lookup
  3. Benz-Schwarzburg J, Wrage B. Caring animals and the ways we wrong them. Biology & Philosophy 2023 38(4): 25.
    doi: 10.1007/s10539-023-09913-1pmc: PMC10300179pubmed: 37388763google scholar: lookup
  4. Bos JM, Bovenkerk B, Feindt PH, Van Dam YK. The quantified animal: precision livestock farming and the ethical implications of objectification. Food Ethics 2018 2: 77–92.
    doi: 10.1007/s41055-018-00029-xgoogle scholar: lookup
  5. Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology 2006 3(2): 77–101.
    doi: 10.1191/1478088706qp063oagoogle scholar: lookup
  6. Braun V, Clarke V. To saturate or not to saturate? Questioning data saturation as a useful concept for thematic analysis and sample-size rationales. Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health 2021 13(2): 201–216.
    doi: 10.1080/2159676X.2019.1704846google scholar: lookup
  7. Braun V, Clarke V. Conceptual and design thinking for thematic analysis. Qualitative Psychology 2022 9(1): 3.
    doi: 10.1037/qup0000196google scholar: lookup
  8. Cole M. From “animal machines” to “happy meat”? Foucault’s ideas of disciplinary and pastoral power applied to ‘animal-centred’ welfare discourse. Animals 2011 1(1): 83–101.
    doi: 10.3390/ani1010083pmc: PMC4552206pubmed: 26486216google scholar: lookup
  9. Cooke S. The ethics of touch and the importance of nonhuman relationships in animal agriculture. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 2021 34(2): 12.
    doi: 10.1007/s10806-021-09852-5google scholar: lookup
  10. Cooper JM 2007. Cognitive dissonance: 50 years of a classic theory. Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA.
  11. Cotton JL 1985. Cognitive dissonance in selective exposure. In: Zillmann D and Bryant J (eds) Selective Exposure to Communication pp 11–33. Erlbaum: Hillsdale, NJ, USA.
  12. Cotton JL, Hieser RA. Selective exposure to information and cognitive dissonance. Journal of Research in Personality 1980 14(4): 518–527.
    doi: 10.1016/0092-6566(80)90009-4google scholar: lookup
  13. Crary A, Gruen L. Animal Crisis: A New Critical Theory. 2022.
  14. Creswell JW, Poth CN. Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing Among Five Approaches. 2016.
  15. Cudworth E 2008. Most farmers prefer blondes: the dynamics of anthroparchy in animals’ becoming meat. Journal of Critical Animal Studies 6(1): 32–45.
  16. Davidson AR, Jaccard JJ. Variables that moderate the attitude–behavior relation: Results of a longitudinal survey. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 1979 37(8): 1364.
    doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.37.8.1364google scholar: lookup
  17. Dersley I, Wootton A. Complaint sequences within antagonistic argument. Research on Language and Social Interaction 2000 33(4): 375–406.
    doi: 10.1207/S15327973RLSI3304_02google scholar: lookup
  18. Dhont K, Hodson G, Loughnan S, Amiot CE. Rethinking human-animal relations: The critical role of social psychology. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations 2019 22(6): 769–784.
    doi: 10.1177/1368430219864455google scholar: lookup
  19. DuBois C, Hambly Odame H, Haley DB, Merkies K. An exploration of industry expert perception of Canadian equine welfare using a modified Delphi technique. PLoS One 2018 13(7): e0201363.
    doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0201363pmc: PMC6066239pubmed: 30059509google scholar: lookup
  20. DuBois C, Nakonechny L, Derisoud E, Merkies K. Examining Canadian equine industry participants’ perceptions of horses and their welfare. Animals 2018 8(11): 201.
    doi: 10.3390/ani8110201pmc: PMC6262281pubmed: 30405030google scholar: lookup
  21. Engster D. Care ethics and animal welfare. Journal of Social Philosophy 2006 37(4).
  22. . Be a guardian: a fundamental reframing of equestrian care. 2024.
  23. Fenoglio R, Taylor W. From winning-at-all-costs to Give Us Back Our Game: perspective transformation in youth sport coaches. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy 2014 19(2): 191–204.
    doi: 10.1080/17408989.2012.748737google scholar: lookup
  24. Festinger L. A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. 1957 pp 58–63.
  25. Fiedler JM, Ayre ML, Rosanowski S, Slater JD. Horses are worthy of care: Horse sector participants’ attitudes towards animal sentience, welfare, and well-being. Animal Welfare 2025 34: e6.
    doi: 10.1017/awf.2024.69pmc: PMC11811708pubmed: 39935777google scholar: lookup
  26. Fowers BJ. Instrumentalism and psychology: Beyond using and being used. Theory & Psychology 2010 20(1): 102–124.
    doi: 10.1177/0959354309346080google scholar: lookup
  27. Furtado T, Preshaw L, Hockenhull J, Wathan J, Douglas J, Horseman S, Smith R, Pollard D, Pinchbeck G, Rogers J. How happy are equine athletes? Stakeholder perceptions of equine welfare issues associated with equestrian sport. Animals 2021 11(11): 3228.
    doi: 10.3390/ani11113228pmc: PMC8614509pubmed: 34827960google scholar: lookup
  28. Furtado T, Rendle D. To improve welfare in the equine species should we place greater emphasis on understanding our own?. Equine Veterinary Journal 2022 54(6): 1001–1004.
    doi: 10.1111/evj.13869pubmed: 36196749google scholar: lookup
  29. Fusch PI, Ness LR. Are we there yet? Data saturation in qualitative research. The Qualitative Report 2015 20(9):1408–1416.
  30. Galvin SL, Herzog HA Jr. Ethical ideology, animal rights activism, and attitudes toward the treatment of animals. Ethics & Behavior 1992 2(3): 141–149.
    doi: 10.1207/s15327019eb0203_1pubmed: 11651362google scholar: lookup
  31. Gausel N, Leach CW. Concern for self‐image and social image in the management of moral failure: Rethinking shame. European Journal of Social Psychology 2011 41(4): 468–478.
    doi: 10.1002/ejsp.803google scholar: lookup
  32. Glasman LR, Albarracín D. Forming attitudes that predict future behavior: a meta-analysis of the attitude-behavior relation. Psychological Bulletin 2006 132(5): 778.
    doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.132.5.778pmc: PMC4815429pubmed: 16910754google scholar: lookup
  33. Greenspan SB, Gordon KL, Whitcomb SA, Lauterbach AA. Use of video conferencing to facilitate focus groups for qualitative data collection. American Journal of Qualitative Research 2021 5(1): 85–93.
    doi: 10.29333/ajqr/10813google scholar: lookup
  34. Held V. Justice and Care: Essential Readings in Feminist Ethics. 1995.
  35. Heleski CR. Social license to operate–why public perception matters for horse sport–some personal reflections. Journal of Equine Veterinary Science 2023 124: 104266.
    doi: 10.1016/j.jevs.2023.104266pubmed: 36898616google scholar: lookup
  36. Heleski CR, Mertig AG, Zanella AJ. Stakeholder attitudes toward farm animal welfare. Anthrozoös 2006 19(4): 290–307.
    doi: 10.2752/089279306785415439google scholar: lookup
  37. Herskovits MJ. Man and his Works; The Science of Cultural Anthropology. 1949.
  38. Horseman SV, Buller H, Mullan S, Knowles TG, Barr AR, Whay HR. Equine welfare in England and Wales: Exploration of stakeholders’ understanding. Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science 2017 20(1): 9–23.
    doi: 10.1080/10888705.2016.1197776pubmed: 27414640google scholar: lookup
  39. Hubbard C, Bourlakis M, Garrod G. Pig in the middle: farmers and the delivery of farm animal welfare standards. British Food Journal 2007 109(11): 919–930.
    doi: 10.1108/00070700710835723google scholar: lookup
  40. Jean Tsang S. Cognitive discrepancy, dissonance, and selective exposure. Media Psychology 2019 22(3): 394–417.
    doi: 10.1080/15213269.2017.1282873google scholar: lookup
  41. Jhangiani R, Tarry H. Exploring attitudes. 2022.
  42. Joy M. Why We Love Dogs, Eat Pigs, and Wear Cows: An Introduction to Carnism. 2009.
  43. König von Borstel U, Kienapfel K, McLean A, Wilkins C, McGreevy P. Hyperflexing the horse’s neck: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Scientific Reports 2024 14(1): 22886.
    doi: 10.1038/s41598-024-72766-5pmc: PMC11446961pubmed: 39358404google scholar: lookup
  44. Kraus SJ. Attitudes and the prediction of behavior: A meta-analysis of the empirical literature. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 1995 21(1): 58–75.
  45. LaCroix JM, Pratto F. Instrumentality and the denial of personhood: The social psychology of objectifying others. Revue Internationale De Psychologie Sociale 2015 28(1): 183–211.
  46. Lehrer J, Van Laere K, Hadley F, Rouse E. Introduction: Why we need to move beyond instrumentalization when discussing families and early childhood education and care. 2022 pp 1–13.
  47. Leitsberger M, Benz-Schwarzburg J, Grimm H. A speaking piglet advertises beef: An ethical analysis on objectification and anthropomorphism. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 2016 29: 1003–1019.
    doi: 10.1007/s10806-016-9644-5google scholar: lookup
  48. Luke KL, Rawluk A, McAdie T, Smith BP, Warren-Smith AK. How equestrians conceptualise horse welfare: Does it facilitate or hinder change?. Animal Welfare 2023 32: e59.
    doi: 10.1017/awf.2023.79pmc: PMC10937214pubmed: 38487466google scholar: lookup
  49. Luke KL, Rawluk A, McAdie T, Smith BP, Warren-Smith AK. Investigating the motivational priorities underlying equestrians’ horse-keeping and training practices. Anthrozoös 2024 37(3): 479–499.
    doi: 10.1080/08927936.2024.2303228google scholar: lookup
  50. Marques JM, Abrams D, Paez D, Hogg MA. Social categorization, social identification, and rejection of deviant group members. 2001 pp 400–424.
  51. Maurício LS, Leme DP, Hötzel MJ. The easiest becomes the rule: Beliefs, knowledge and attitudes of equine practitioners and enthusiasts regarding horse welfare. Animals 2024 14(9): 1282.
    doi: 10.3390/ani14091282pmc: PMC11083815pubmed: 38731286google scholar: lookup
  52. May C, Finch T. Implementing, embedding, and integrating practices: an outline of normalization process theory. Sociology 2009 43(3): 535–554.
    doi: 10.1177/0038038509103208google scholar: lookup
  53. McConnell AR, Rydell RJ, Strain LM, Mackie DM. Forming implicit and explicit attitudes toward individuals: Social group association cues. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 2008 94(5): 792.
    doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.94.5.792pubmed: 18444739google scholar: lookup
  54. McGrath A. Dealing with dissonance: A review of cognitive dissonance reduction. Social and Personality Psychology Compass 2017 11(12): e12362.
    doi: 10.1111/spc3.12362google scholar: lookup
  55. McGreevy P, Berger J, De Brauwere N, Doherty O, Harrison A, Fiedler J, Jones C, McDonnell S, McLean A, Nakonechny L. Using the five domains model to assess the adverse impacts of husbandry, veterinary, and equitation interventions on horse welfare. Animals 2018 8(3): 41.
    doi: 10.3390/ani8030041pmc: PMC5867529pubmed: 29562654google scholar: lookup
  56. Mead M. Papers in honor of Melville J. Herskovits: Socialization and enculturation. Current Anthropology 1963 4(2): 184–188.
  57. Mellor DJ, Beausoleil NJ. Moving beyond a problem-based focus on poor animal welfare toward creating opportunities to have positive welfare experiences. 2020 pp 50–66.
  58. 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 2020 10(10): 1870.
    doi: 10.3390/ani10101870pmc: PMC7602120pubmed: 33066335google scholar: lookup
  59. Menary R, Gillett A. The tools of enculturation. Topics in Cognitive Science 2022 14(2): 363–387.
    doi: 10.1111/tops.12604pmc: PMC9305127pubmed: 35220690google scholar: lookup
  60. Menary R, Gillett AJ. Embodying culture: integrated cognitive systems and cultural evolution. 2016 pp 88–103.
  61. Mezirow J. Learning as Transformation: Critical Perspectives on a Theory in Progress. 2000.
  62. Mills DS, Nankervis KJ. Equine Behaviour: Principles and Practice. 2013.
  63. Morgan K, Cole M. The discursive representation of nonhuman animals in a culture of denial. 2011 pp 112–132.
  64. Mountjoy M, Brackenridge C, Arrington M, Blauwet C, Carska-Sheppard A, Fasting K, Kirby S, Leahy T, Marks S, Martin K. International Olympic Committee consensus statement: harassment and abuse (non-accidental violence) in sport. British Journal of Sports Medicine 2016 50(17): 1019–1029.
    doi: 10.1136/bjsports-2016-096121pubmed: 27118273google scholar: lookup
  65. Noddings N. An ethic of caring. Ethical Theory: An Anthology 2013 pp 699–712.
  66. Nussbaum MC. Objectification. Philosophy & Public Affairs 1995 24(4): 249–291.
    doi: 10.1111/j.1088-4963.1995.tb00032.xgoogle scholar: lookup
  67. Pickering P, Hockenhull J. Optimising the efficacy of equine welfare communications: do equine stakeholders differ in their information-seeking behaviour and communication preferences?. Animals 2019 10(1): 21.
    doi: 10.3390/ani10010021pmc: PMC7022754pubmed: 31861909google scholar: lookup
  68. Poole FJP. Socialization, enculturation and the development of personal identity. Companion Encyclopedia of Anthropology 1994 pp 831–890.
  69. Pulla V, Carter E. Employing interpretivism in social work research. International Journal of Social Work and Human Services Practice 2018 6(1): 9–14.
  70. Reidpath DD, Allotey P, Barker SF, Clasen T, French M, Leder K, Ramirez-Lovering D, Rhule EL, Siri J. Implementing “from here to there”: A case study of conceptual and practical challenges in implementation science. Social Science & Medicine 2022 301: 114959.
    doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2022.114959pubmed: 35398672google scholar: lookup
  71. Ricoeur P. Fallible Man. 1986.
  72. Robinson IH. The human‐horse relationship: how much do we know?. Equine Veterinary Journal 1999 31(S28): 42–45.
    doi: 10.1111/j.2042-3306.1999.tb05155.xpubmed: 11314234google scholar: lookup
  73. Robson JP Jr, Troutman-Jordan M. A concept analysis of cognitive reframing. Journal of Theory Construction & Testing 2014 18(2).
  74. 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 2025 34: e11.
    doi: 10.1017/awf.2025.2pmc: PMC11810510pubmed: 39935780google scholar: lookup
  75. Rydell RJ, McConnell AR, Mackie DM. Consequences of discrepant explicit and implicit attitudes: Cognitive dissonance and increased information processing. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 2008 44(6): 1526–1532.
    doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2008.07.006google scholar: lookup
  76. Saguy T, Chernyak‐Hai L, Andrighetto L, Bryson J. When the powerful feels wronged: The legitimization effects of advantaged group members’ sense of being accused for harboring racial or ethnic biases. European Journal of Social Psychology 2013 43(4): 292–298.
    doi: 10.1002/ejsp.1948google scholar: lookup
  77. Schaafsma P. Philosophical anthropology against objectification. Reconsidering Ricoeur’s Fallible Man. International Journal of Philosophy and Theology 2014 75(2): 152–168.
    doi: 10.1080/21692327.2014.958184google scholar: lookup
  78. Sedgwick PR. Instrumentalism, civil association and the ethics of health care: Understanding the ‘politics of faith’. Health Care Analysis 2013 21: 208–223.
    doi: 10.1007/s10728-013-0250-7pubmed: 23612784google scholar: lookup
  79. Shavitt S. The role of attitude objects in attitude functions. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 1990 26(2): 124–148.
    doi: 10.1016/0022-1031(90)90072-Tgoogle scholar: lookup
  80. Shimahara N. Enculturation-A reconsideration. Current Anthropology 1970 11(2): 143–154.
  81. Simon L, Greenberg J, Brehm J. Trivialization: the forgotten mode of dissonance reduction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 1995 68(2): 247.
    doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.68.2.247google scholar: lookup
  82. Spannring R. Human-horse becomings: shared learning processes. 2016 27–29 October 2016, Stockholm, Sweden.
  83. Spannring R, De Giorgio-Schoorl J. The horse in the room. 2020 pp 187.
    doi: 10.5771/9781793610478google scholar: lookup
  84. Spiro ME. Collective representations and mental representations in religious symbol systems. 1987 pp 161–184.
  85. Stangor C. Exploring attitudes. 2020.
  86. Taylor EW. Analyzing research on transformative learning theory. 2000 pp 285–328.
  87. Thompson K, Clarkson L. How owners determine if the social and behavioral needs of their horses are being met: Findings from an Australian online survey. Journal of Veterinary Behavior 2019 29: 128–133.
    doi: 10.1016/j.jveb.2018.12.001google scholar: lookup
  88. Throop RK, Castellucci MB. Reaching your potential: Personal and professional development. 2008.
  89. Tronto J. Moral Boundaries: A Political Argument for an Ethic of Care. 1993.
  90. Tylor EB. Primitive Culture: Researches into the Development of Mythology, Philosophy, Religion, Art, and Custom. 1871 2.
  91. van Weeren PR. How long will equestrian traditionalism resist science?. Veterinary Journal 2008 175(3): 289–290.
    pubmed: 17851100
  92. Vaught J, Argent G. Moving human-equine studies forward, with horses. 2022 pp 213–220.
    doi: 10.1163/9789004514935_016google scholar: lookup
  93. Ventura B, Weary DM, von Keyserlingk MA. How might the public contribute to the discussion on cattle welfare? Perspectives of veterinarians and animal scientists. Animal Welfare 2023 32: e69.
    doi: 10.1017/awf.2023.88pmc: PMC10936297pubmed: 38487462google scholar: lookup
  94. Voigt MA, Hiney K, Richardson JC, Waite K, Borron A, Brady CM. Show horse welfare: Horse show competitors’ understanding, awareness, and perceptions of equine welfare. Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science 2016 19(4): 335–352.
    doi: 10.1080/10888705.2016.1152190pubmed: 27029609google scholar: lookup
  95. Waran N, McGreevy P, Casey RA. Training methods and horse welfare. 2007 pp 151–180.
  96. Waran N, Visser K. Equine Ethics & Wellbeing Commission. Report to the FEI General Assembly. 2022.
  97. Wolframm IA, Douglas J, Pearson G. Changing hearts and minds in the equestrian world one behaviour at a time. Animals 2023 13(4): 748.
    doi: 10.3390/ani13040748pmc: PMC9952075pubmed: 36830535google scholar: lookup

Citations

This article has been cited 0 times.
Subscribe to our newsletter
Join 99,344 horse owners like you who receive our email updates on horse health and nutrition.