FREE SHIPPING over $40
OVER 10000 FIVE-STAR REVIEWS
5% OFF ALL SUBSCRIPTIONS
100% HAPPINESS GUARANTEE
Analyze Diet
0
Equine veterinary journal2025; doi: 10.1002/evj.70141

Development of the Human-Equine Attachment Scale.

Abstract: Human-horse relationships encompass diverse roles, from companion to competition partner. The impact of such bonds informs owner decision-making regarding horse management and veterinary care, yet standardised instruments to measure these unique bonds are limited. Objective: To develop the Human-Equine Attachment Scale (HEAS), a novel instrument to measure the multi-faceted dimensions of human-horse attachment. Methods: Cross-sectional design using a self-administered psychometric instrument. Methods: Initial items were developed through a systematic review of human and animal attachment research, with adaptations made to reflect human-equine relationships. The preliminary scale contained 25 items across five hypothesised factors: Companionship, Wellbeing, Dependence, Status and Growth. Data were collected via an online survey (March-April 2022), recruiting participants through equestrian social media and professional networks using non-random convenience and snowball sampling. Results: The final sample comprised 3611 predominantly female (92.9%) respondents. Principal components analysis (PCA) investigated the underlying structure of the scale. The final PCA revealed a six-factor solution explaining 60% of total variance: Companionship (19%), Personal Wellbeing (9.8%), Dependence (8.9%), Status (8.5%), Growth (7.5%) and Sacrifice (6.3%). The final 22-item scale demonstrated good internal reliability (Cronbach's α = 0.77). Conclusions: The self-report instrument represents UK-only participants. Conclusions: The emergence of Sacrifice as a distinct factor highlights unique aspects of horse ownership, particularly regarding financial and personal investment. The HEAS shows promise as a reliable tool for measuring human-horse attachment, with numerous potential applications. It could help bridge the gap in knowledge regarding owner motivation and human-horse relationships, supporting research into how attachment influences welfare, management, and veterinary care decisions. While the scale demonstrates good psychometric properties, further validation across cultural contexts and equestrian populations is recommended. The development of the HEAS represents an important step towards understanding the complex nature of human-horse bonds and their implications for owner decision-making and practice.
© 2025 The Author(s). Equine Veterinary Journal published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of EVJ Ltd.
Get Full Text
Publication Date: 2025-12-16 PubMed ID: 41403032DOI: 10.1002/evj.70141Google 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 developed the Human-Equine Attachment Scale (HEAS), a new questionnaire designed to measure the complex emotional attachments people have with horses.
  • The scale aims to capture multiple dimensions of attachment, providing a standardized tool to better understand how these bonds affect horse management and veterinary care decisions.

Background and Objective

  • Human-horse relationships can vary widely, from companionship to competitive partnerships, influencing how owners care for their horses.
  • Despite the importance of these relationships, there has been a lack of standardized, psychometrically-sound instruments specifically to measure the unique attachment people feel toward horses.
  • The objective was to develop a novel scale (HEAS) that captures multiple facets of human-horse attachment using a psychometric approach.

Methodology

  • Item Development:
    • Started with a systematic review of existing human and animal attachment research.
    • Adapted relevant findings to the context of human-horse relationships.
    • Generated a preliminary 25-item scale across five hypothesized factors: Companionship, Wellbeing, Dependence, Status, and Growth.
  • Data Collection:
    • Conducted an online survey between March and April 2022.
    • Recruited 3611 UK-based participants, mainly female (92.9%), via equestrian social media and professional networks.
    • Used non-random convenience and snowball sampling methods.
  • Analysis:
    • Performed Principal Components Analysis (PCA) to explore the scale’s factor structure.
    • Identified six factors in the final solution explaining 60% of the total variance.
    • Measured internal reliability using Cronbach’s alpha, achieving a good score of 0.77.

Results

  • The PCA revealed six distinct factors:
    • Companionship (19% of variance): Reflecting the social and emotional bonds with the horse.
    • Personal Wellbeing (9.8%): How the horse-owner relationship impacts the owner’s mental and physical wellbeing.
    • Dependence (8.9%): Degree to which owners rely on their horses emotionally or functionally.
    • Status (8.5%): Social or identity-related aspects of horse ownership.
    • Growth (7.5%): Personal development or learning through the relationship.
    • Sacrifice (6.3%): Financial and personal costs invested in horse ownership; this emerged as a new, distinct factor.
  • The final HEAS comprised 22 items, indicating some items were removed from the initial 25 during refinement.
  • The scale demonstrated good internal consistency, implying it reliably measures the constructs.

Conclusions and Implications

  • HEAS provides a psychometrically validated tool for measuring human-horse attachment in the UK equestrian community.
  • The identification of Sacrifice as a separate factor highlights the unique emotional and financial commitments involved in horse ownership, which had not been emphasized in previous attachment research.
  • The scale can inform:
    • Research on how attachment influences decisions related to welfare, management, and veterinary care of horses.
    • Understanding owner motivation and practices, potentially leading to better support for horse owners and improved equine welfare outcomes.
  • Limitations:
    • The sample was heavily female and UK-based, limiting generalizability to different cultures and male owners.
    • Further validation is needed across diverse populations and cultural contexts for broader applicability.

Future Directions

  • Cross-cultural validation of HEAS to ensure it captures attachment dimensions globally.
  • Exploration of how the scale relates to horse wellbeing and health outcomes.
  • Potential use in veterinary practice and equine management strategies to tailor advice based on owner attachment profiles.

Cite This Article

APA
Corrigan RH, Pierard M, Davies E, Marlin D, Evans S, Williams JM. (2025). Development of the Human-Equine Attachment Scale. Equine Vet J. https://doi.org/10.1002/evj.70141

Publication

Equine veterinary journal
ISSN: 2042-3306
NlmUniqueID: 0173320
Country: United States
Language: English

Researcher Affiliations

Corrigan, Richard H
  • Equine Department, Hartpury University, Gloucester, UK.
  • Institute of Health, University of Cumbria, Carlisle, UK.
Pierard, Marc
  • Equine Department, Hartpury University, Gloucester, UK.
  • School of Veterinary Medicine, University of Lancashire, Preston, UK.
Davies, Emma
  • Equine Department, Hartpury University, Gloucester, UK.
Marlin, David
  • AnimalWeb Ltd, Cambridge, UK.
Evans, Stephanie
  • Equine Department, Hartpury University, Gloucester, UK.
Williams, Jane M
  • Equine Department, Hartpury University, Gloucester, UK.

References

This article includes 118 references
  1. Dashper K, Abbott J, Wallace C. ‘Do horses cause divorces?’ Autoethnographic insights on family, relationships and resource‐intensive leisure. Ann Leis Res 2020;23(3):304–321.
    doi: 10.1080/11745398.2019.1616573google scholar: lookup
  2. Maurstad A. The meaning of horses: biosocial encounters. New York, NY: Routledge; 2016.
    doi: 10.4324/9781315690728google scholar: lookup
  3. Cain AO. Pets as family members. New York, NY: Routledge; 2016. p. 5–10.
    doi: 10.4324/9781315784656google scholar: lookup
  4. McConnell AR, Brown CM, Shoda TM, Stayton LE, Martin CE. Friends with benefits: on the positive consequences of pet ownership. J Pers Soc Psychol 2011;101(6):1239.
    doi: 10.1037/a0024506google scholar: lookup
  5. Turner WG. The role of companion animals throughout the family life cycle. J Fam Soc Work 2006;9(4):11–21.
    doi: 10.1300/j039v09n04_02google scholar: lookup
  6. Veevers JE. The social meaning of pets: alternative roles for companion animals. Marriage Fam Rev 1985;8(3–4):11–30.
    doi: 10.1300/j002v08n03_03google scholar: lookup
  7. Ciacchella C, Veneziani G, Garenna SA, Lai C. Interpersonal and pet bonding: a meta‐analytic review of attachment dimensions. J Soc Pers Relat 2025;42(1):337–364.
    doi: 10.1177/02654075241285440google scholar: lookup
  8. Rockett B, Carr S. Animals and attachment theory. Soc Anim 2014;22(4):415–433.
    doi: 10.1163/15685306-12341322google scholar: lookup
  9. Melson GF. Child development and the human‐companion animal bond. Am Behav Sci 2003;47(1):31–39.
    doi: 10.1177/0002764203255210google scholar: lookup
  10. Robin M, ten Bensel R. Pets and the socialization of children. Marriage Fam Rev 1985;8(3–4):63–78.
    doi: 10.1300/j002v08n03_06google scholar: lookup
  11. Applebaum JW, MacLean EL, McDonald SE. Love, fear, and the human–animal bond: on adversity and multispecies relationships. Compreh Psychoneuroendocrinol 2021;7:100071.
    doi: 10.1016/j.cpnec.2021.100071google scholar: lookup
  12. Beck L, Madresh EA. Romantic partners and four‐legged friends: an extension of attachment theory to relationships with pets. Anthrozoos 2008;21(1):43–56.
    doi: 10.2752/089279308x274056google scholar: lookup
  13. Crawford EK, Worsham NL, Swinehart ER. Benefits derived from companion animals, and the use of the term ‘attachment’. Anthrozoos 2006;19(2):98–112.
    doi: 10.2752/089279306785593757google scholar: lookup
  14. Meehan M, Massavelli B, Pachana N. Using attachment theory and social support theory to examine and measure pets as sources of social support and attachment figures. Anthrozoos 2017;30(2):273–289.
    doi: 10.1080/08927936.2017.1311050google scholar: lookup
  15. Bowlby J. Attachment and loss. New York, NY: Random House; 1969.
    doi: 10.1037/e528332004-001google scholar: lookup
  16. Ainsworth MDS. The development of infant–mother attachment. New York, NY: Columbia University Press; 1982. p. 133–143.
  17. Lass‐Hennemann J, Schäfer SK, Sopp MR, Michael T. The relationship between attachment to pets and mental health: the shared link via attachment to humans. BMC Psychiatry 2022;22(1):586.
    doi: 10.1186/s12888-022-04199-1google scholar: lookup
  18. Prato‐Previde E, Basso Ricci E, Colombo ES. The complexity of the human–animal bond: empathy, attachment and anthropomorphism in human–animal relationships and animal hoarding. Animals (Basel) 2022;12(20):2835.
    doi: 10.3390/ani12202835google scholar: lookup
  19. Ståhl A, Salonen M, Hakanen E, Mikkola S, Sulkama S, Lahti J. Pet and owner personality and mental wellbeing associate with attachment to cats and dogs. iScience 2023;26(12):108423.
    doi: 10.1016/j.isci.2023.108423google scholar: lookup
  20. Wells DL, Treacy KR. Pet attachment and owner personality. Front Psychiatry 2024;15:1406590.
    doi: 10.3389/fpsyt.2024.1406590google scholar: lookup
  21. Cassidy J. The nature of the child's ties. New York, NY: The Guilford Press; 1999. p. 3–20.
    doi: 10.1017/s0021963001226754google scholar: lookup
  22. Törmälehto E, Korkiamäki R. The potential of human–horse attachment in creating favorable settings for professional care: a study of adolescents' visit to a farm. Animals (Basel) 2020;10(9):1707.
    doi: 10.3390/ani10091707google scholar: lookup
  23. Julius H, Beetz A, Kotrschal K, Turner D, Uvnäs‐Moberg K. Attachment to pets: an integrative view of human–animal relationships with implications for therapeutic practice. Cambridge, MA: Hogrefe Publishing GmbH; 2013.
  24. Kurdek LA. Pet dogs as attachment figures for adult owners. J Fam Psychol 2009;23(4):439–446.
    doi: 10.1037/a0014979google scholar: lookup
  25. Mikulincer M, Shaver PR. Attachment orientations and emotion regulation. Curr Opin Psychol 2019;25:6–10.
    doi: 10.1016/j.copsyc.2018.02.006google scholar: lookup
  26. Zilcha‐Mano S, Mikulincer M, Shaver PR. Pets as safe havens and secure bases: the moderating role of pet attachment orientations. J Res Pers 2012;46(5):571–580.
    doi: 10.1016/j.jrp.2012.06.005google scholar: lookup
  27. Tague IH. Animal companions: pets and social change in eighteenth‐century Britain. Pennsylvania, PA: Penn State Press; 2015.
    doi: 10.1515/9780271067445google scholar: lookup
  28. Headey B. Health benefits and health cost savings due to pets: preliminary estimates from an Australian National Survey. Soc Indic Res 1999;47(2):233–243.
    doi: 10.1023/a:1006892908532google scholar: lookup
  29. McCardle P, McCune S, Griffin JA, Esposito L, Freund L. Animals in our lives: human–animal interaction in family, community, and therapeutic settings. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Company; 2011.
  30. McNicholas J, Gilbey A, Rennie A, Ahmedzai S, Dono JA, Ormerod E. Pet ownership and human health: a brief review of evidence and issues. BMJ 2005;331(7527):1252–1254.
    doi: 10.1136/bmj.331.7527.1252google scholar: lookup
  31. O'Haire M. Companion animals and human health: benefits, challenges, and the road ahead. J Vet Behav 2010;5(5):226–234.
    doi: 10.1016/j.jveb.2010.02.002google scholar: lookup
  32. Levinson BM. Pet‐oriented child psychotherapy. 2nd ed. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas; 1997.
  33. McNicholas J, Collis GM. Dogs as catalysts for social interactions: robustness of the effect. Br J Psychol 2000;91(1):61–70.
    doi: 10.1348/000712600161673google scholar: lookup
  34. Wood L, Giles‐Corti B, Bulsara M. The pet connection: pets as a conduit for social capital?. Soc Sci Med 2005;61(6):1159–1173.
    doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2005.01.017google scholar: lookup
  35. Acoba EF, Resurreccion RR. Pet support and mental health: the mediating role of emotional approach coping. N Am J Psychol 2024;26(2):345–362.
  36. Li F, Luo S, Mu W, Li Y, Ye L, Zheng X. Effects of sources of social support and resilience on the mental health of different age groups during the COVID‐19 pandemic. BMC Psychiatry 2021;21(1):16.
    doi: 10.1186/s12888-020-03012-1google scholar: lookup
  37. Feng K. The pet attachment affects the person's mental condition. Trans Mater Biotechnol Life Sci 2024;3:73–77.
    doi: 10.62051/w3md1n94google scholar: lookup
  38. Herzog H. The impact of pets on human health and psychological well‐being: fact, fiction, or hypothesis?. Curr Dir Psychol Sci 2011;20(4):236–239.
    doi: 10.1177/0963721411415220google scholar: lookup
  39. Quain A, Ward MP, Mullan S. Ethical challenges posed by advanced veterinary Care in Companion Animal Veterinary Practice. Animals (Basel) 2021;11(11):3010.
    doi: 10.3390/ani11113010google scholar: lookup
  40. Hussein SM, Solima W, Khalifa A. Benefits of pets' ownership, a review based on health perspectives. J Intern Med Emerg Res 2021;2:1–9.
    doi: 10.37191/mapsci-2582-7367-2(1)-020google scholar: lookup
  41. Park RM, Gruen ME, Royal K. Association between dog owner demographics and decision to seek veterinary care. Vet Sci 2021;8(1):7.
    doi: 10.3390/vetsci8010007google scholar: lookup
  42. Morris A, Wu H, Morales C. Barriers to care in veterinary services: lessons learned from low‐income pet guardians' experiences at private clinics and hospitals during COVID‐19. Front Vet Sci 2021;8:764753.
    doi: 10.3389/fvets.2021.764753google scholar: lookup
  43. Cameron A, Geldard M, Mair T, England G, Burford J, Freeman S. Experiences of end‐of‐life decision‐making in equine veterinary and charity teams. Animals (Basel) 2025;15(5):678.
    doi: 10.3390/ani15050678google scholar: lookup
  44. Kollias NS, Strand EB, Kogan LR, Houlihan KE, Thompson‐Iritani S, Hoenig DE. Psychological implications of humane endings on the veterinary profession. J Am Vet Med Assoc 2023;261(2):185–192.
    doi: 10.2460/javma.22.06.0234google scholar: lookup
  45. Groves CNH, Phillips EM, Coe JB. The value matrix: a communication tool to support shared decision‐making and the practice of spectrum of care. J Am Vet Med Assoc 2025;263(1):1–11.
    doi: 10.2460/javma.24.07.0493google scholar: lookup
  46. Clough HGR, Burford J, Roshier A, England G, Freeman SL. A scoping review of the current literature exploring the nature of the horse–human relationship. Vet Evid 2019;4(4):1–27.
    doi: 10.18849/ve.v4i4.240google scholar: lookup
  47. British Equestrian Trade Association. State of the nation report 2023. Wetherby: British Equestrian; 2023 [cited 2024 Jan 25].
  48. Clough H, Roshier M, England G, Burford J, Freeman S. Cross‐sectional study of UK horse owner's purchase and euthanasia decision‐making for their horse. Vet Rec 2021;188(6):e56.
    doi: 10.1002/vetr.56google scholar: lookup
  49. Merkies K, Franzin O. Enhanced understanding of horse–human interactions to optimize welfare. Animals 2021;11(5):1347.
    doi: 10.3390/ani11051347google scholar: lookup
  50. Hausberger M, Roche H, Henry S, Visser EK. A review of the human–horse relationship. Appl Anim Behav Sci 2008;109(1):1–24.
    doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2007.04.015google scholar: lookup
  51. Keaveney SM. Equines and their human companions. J Bus Res 2008;61(5):444–454.
    doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2007.07.017google scholar: lookup
  52. Williams J, Tabor G. Rider impacts on equitation. Appl Anim Behav Sci 2017;190:28–42.
    doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2017.02.019google scholar: lookup
  53. Hogg RC, Hodgins GA. Symbiosis or sporting tool? Competition and the horse–rider relationship in elite equestrian sports. Animals 2021;11(5):1352.
    doi: 10.3390/ani11051352google scholar: lookup
  54. Hockenhull J, Birke L. Journeys together: horses and humans in partnership. Soc Anim 2015;23(1):81–100.
    doi: 10.1163/15685306-12341361google scholar: lookup
  55. Merkies K, Hayman B, Ijichi CL. Examining the human–horse bond from the human perspective. Anthrozoos 2024;37(2):231–244.
    doi: 10.1080/08927936.2024.2308403google scholar: lookup
  56. Rankins EM, Wickens CL. A systematic review of equine personality. Appl Anim Behav Sci 2020;231:105078.
    doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2020.105076google scholar: lookup
  57. Dashper K. Tools of the trade or part of the family? Horses in competitive equestrian sport. Soc Anim 2014;22(4):352–371.
    doi: 10.1163/15685306-12341343google scholar: lookup
  58. DeAraugo J, McLean A, McLaren S, Caspar G, McLean M, McGreevy P. Training methodologies differ with the attachment of humans to horses. J Vet Behav 2014;9(5):235–241.
    doi: 10.1016/j.jveb.2014.05.001google scholar: lookup
  59. Robinson IH. The human–horse relationship: how much do we know?. Equine Vet J 1999;31(S28):42–45.
    doi: 10.1111/j.2042-3306.1999.tb05155.xgoogle scholar: lookup
  60. Bornemann D. An explanatory model, using self‐determination theory, of the motivations for horse ownership. Qual Res Psychol 2025;22(1):168–191.
    doi: 10.1080/14780887.2024.2329732google scholar: lookup
  61. Brown SE. Companion animals as selfobjects. Anthrozoos 2007;20(4):329–343.
    doi: 10.2752/089279307x245654google scholar: lookup
  62. Bures RM, Mueller MK, Gee NR. Measuring human–animal attachment in a large U.S. survey: two brief measures for children and their primary caregivers. Front Public Health 2019;7:107.
    doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2019.00107google scholar: lookup
  63. Zasloff RL. Measuring attachment to companion animals: a dog is not a cat is not a bird. Appl Anim Behav Sci 1996;47(1–2):43–48.
    doi: 10.1016/0168-1591(95)01009-2google scholar: lookup
  64. Endenburg N. Perceptions and attitudes towards horses in European societies. Equine Vet J 1999;31(S28):38–41.
    doi: 10.1111/j.2042-3306.1999.tb05154.xgoogle scholar: lookup
  65. Holcomb KE, Stull CL, Kass PH. Unwanted horses: the role of nonprofit equine rescue and sanctuary organizations. J Anim Sci 2010;88(12):4142–4150.
    doi: 10.2527/jas.2010-3250google scholar: lookup
  66. Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. 2021.
  67. Holcomb R, Williams RC, Richards PS. The elements of attachment: relationship maintenance and intimacy. J Delta Soc 1985;2(1):28–34.
  68. Johnson TP, Garrity TF, Stallones L. Psychometric evaluation of the Lexington attachment to pets scale (LAPS). Anthrozoos 1992;5(3):160–175.
    doi: 10.2752/089279392787011395google scholar: lookup
  69. Dwyer F, Bennett PC, Coleman GJ. Development of the Monash dog owner relationship scale (MDORS). Anthrozoos 2006;19(3):243–256.
    doi: 10.2752/089279306785415592google scholar: lookup
  70. Zilcha‐Mano S, Mikulincer M, Shaver PR. An attachment perspective on human–pet relationships: conceptualization and assessment of pet attachment orientations. J Res Pers 2011;45(4):345–357.
    doi: 10.1016/j.jrp.2011.04.001google scholar: lookup
  71. Faner JMV, Dalangin EAR, De Leon LATC, Francisco LD, Sahagun YO, Acoba EF. Pet attachment and prosocial attitude toward humans: the mediating role of empathy to Animals (Basel). Front Psychol 2024;15:1391606.
    doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1391606google scholar: lookup
  72. Raber K, Tucker T. The culture of the horse: status, discipline, and identity in the early modern world. New York, NY: Springer; 2016.
  73. Garcia D. Of equines and humans: toward a new ecology. Ecopsychology 2010;2(2):85–89.
    doi: 10.1089/eco.2009.0042google scholar: lookup
  74. Church A, Taylor B, Maxwell NS, Gibson OR, Twomey R. The health benefits of horse riding in the UK. Kenilworth: The British Horse Society; 2010.
  75. Lynn MR. Determination and quantification of content validity. Nurs Res 1986;35(6):382–386.
  76. Haynes SN, Richard D, Kubany ES. Content validity in Psychol Assess: a functional approach to concepts and methods. Psychol Assess 1995;7(3):238.
  77. Polit DF, Beck CT. The content validity index: are you sure you know what's being reported? Critique and recommendations. Res Nurs Health 2006;29(5):489–497.
  78. DeVellis RF, Thorpe CT. Scale development: theory and applications. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications; 2021.
  79. Boateng GO, Neilands TB, Frongillo EA, Melgar‐Quiñonez HR, Young SL. Best practices for developing and validating scales for health, social, and behavioral research: a primer. Front Public Health 2018;6:149.
  80. Archer J, Ireland JL. The development and factor structure of a questionnaire measure of the strength of attachment to pet dogs. Anthrozoos 2011;24(3):249–261.
    doi: 10.2752/175303711x13045914865060google scholar: lookup
  81. Dashper K. Listening to horses developing attentive interspecies relationships through sport and leisure. Soc Anim 2017;25(3):207–224.
    doi: 10.1163/15685306-12341426google scholar: lookup
  82. Michalopoulou C. Likert scales require validation before application—another cautionary tale. Bull Soc Methodol 2017;134(1):5–23.
    doi: 10.1177/0759106317693786google scholar: lookup
  83. Chang L. A psychometric evaluation of 4‐point and 6‐point Likert‐type scales in relation to reliability and validity. Appl Psychol Measur 1994;18(3):205–215.
    doi: 10.1177/0146621694018003google scholar: lookup
  84. Kusmaryono I, Wijayanti D, Maharani HR. Number of response options, reliability, validity, and potential bias in the use of the Likert scale education and social science research: a literature review. Int J Educ Methodol 2022;8(4):625–637.
    doi: 10.12973/ijem.8.4.625google scholar: lookup
  85. Krosnick JA, Narayan S, Smith WR. Satisficing in surveys: initial evidence. New Dir Eval 1996;70:29–44.
  86. Elfil M, Negida A. Sampling methods in Clinical Research; an educational review. Emerg (Tehran) 2017;5(1):e52.
  87. Appelbaum M, Cooper H, Kline RB, Mayo‐Wilson E, Nezu AM, Rao SM. Journal article reporting standards for quantitative research in psychology: The APA Publications and Communications Board task force report. Am Psychol 2018;73(1):3–25.
    doi: 10.1037/amp0000191google scholar: lookup
  88. Newton E, Shaw SD, Cambridge Assessment. Questioning the loss of reliability in assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge Assessment; 2010.
  89. Emerson RW. Convenience sampling, random sampling, and snowball sampling: how does sampling affect the validity of research?. J Vis Impair Blind 2015;109(2):164–168.
    doi: 10.1177/0145482x1510900215google scholar: lookup
  90. Pallant J. SPSS Survival Manual: a step by step guide to data analysis using IBM SPSS. 7th ed. London: Routledge; 2020. p. 378.
  91. Kaiser HF. The Varimax criterion for analytic rotation in factor analysis. Psychometrika 1958;23(3):187–200.
    doi: 10.1007/bf02289233google scholar: lookup
  92. Wood JM, Tataryn DJ, Gorsuch RL. Effects of under‐ and overextraction on principal axis factor analysis with Varimax rotation. Psychol Methods 1996;1(4):354–365.
    doi: 10.1037//1082-989x.1.4.354google scholar: lookup
  93. Field A. Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Limited; 2024.
  94. Cortina JM. What is coefficient alpha? An examination of theory and applications. J Appl Psychol 1993;78(1):98–104.
    doi: 10.1037//0021-9010.78.1.98google scholar: lookup
  95. Taber KS. The use of Cronbach's alpha when developing and reporting research instruments in science education. Res Sci Educ 2018;48(6):1273–1296.
    doi: 10.1007/s11165-016-9602-2google scholar: lookup
  96. Campbell MLH. An ethical framework for the use of horses in competitive sport: theory and function. Animals 2021;11(6):1725.
    doi: 10.3390/ani11061725google scholar: lookup
  97. Douglas J, Owers R, Campbell MLH. Social licence to operate: what can equestrian sports learn from other industries?. Animals (Basel) 2022;12(15):1987.
    doi: 10.3390/ani12151987google scholar: lookup
  98. Williams JM. Equestrianism's social license to operate: assumptions, reality and the future. UK Vet Equine 2023;7(5):196–202.
    doi: 10.12968/ukve.2023.7.5.196google scholar: lookup
  99. 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/ani13040748google scholar: lookup
  100. Xu K, Ou Q, Luo D, Shi X, Li K, Xue H. Moral decision‐making in pettism: the influence of animal type, pet ownership status, and social distance. PsyCh J 2023;12(1):54–72.
    doi: 10.1002/pchj.594google scholar: lookup
  101. Trigg J, Thompson K, Smith B, Bennett P. An animal just like me: the importance of preserving the identities of companion‐animal owners in disaster contexts. Soc Personal Psychol Compass 2016;10(1):26–40.
    doi: 10.1111/spc3.12233google scholar: lookup
  102. Brockman BK, Taylor VA, Brockman CM. The price of unconditional love: consumer decision making for high‐dollar veterinary care. J Bus Res 2008;61(5):397–405.
    doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2006.09.033google scholar: lookup
  103. Smith R, Pinchbeck G, McGowan C, Ireland J, Perkins E. Becoming a matter of veterinary concern. Front Vet Sci 2024;11:1355996.
    doi: 10.3389/fvets.2024.1355996google scholar: lookup
  104. Cromer L, Barlow MR. Factors and convergent validity of the pet attachment and life impact scale (PALS). Hum Anim Interact Bull 2013;1:34–56.
    doi: 10.1079/hai.2013.0012google scholar: lookup
  105. Mueller MK. Human–animal interaction as a context for positive youth development: a relational developmental systems approach to constructing human–animal interaction theory and research. Hum Dev 2014;57(1):5–25.
    doi: 10.1159/000356914google scholar: lookup
  106. McLean AK, Navas González FJ, Canisso IF. Donkey and mule behavior. Vet Clin North Am Equine Pract 2019;35(3):575–588.
    doi: 10.1016/j.cveq.2019.08.010google scholar: lookup
  107. Muldoon JC, Williams JM, Lawrence A. Exploring children's perspectives on the welfare needs of pet animals. Anthrozoos 2016;29(3):357–375.
    doi: 10.1080/08927936.2016.1181359google scholar: lookup
  108. Hoffman CL, Chen P, Serpell JA, Jacobson KC. Do dog behavioral characteristics predict the quality of the relationship between dogs and their owners?. Hum Anim Interact Bull 2013;1(1):20–37.
  109. Evans S, Williams J. Exploring the key attributes of former racehorses considered to have the potential for a successful second career in horseball. Comp Exerc Physiol 2022;18(2):93–100.
    doi: 10.3920/cep210020google scholar: lookup
  110. Stowe CJ, Kibler ML. Characteristics of adopted thoroughbred racehorses in second careers. J Appl Anim Welf Sci 2016;19(1):81–89.
    doi: 10.1080/10888705.2015.1094392google scholar: lookup
  111. Beaton DE, Bombardier C, Guillemin F, Ferraz MB. Guidelines for the process of cross‐cultural adaptation of self‐report measures. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2000;25(24):3186–3191.
    doi: 10.1097/00007632-200012150-00014google scholar: lookup
  112. Hernández A, Hidalgo M, Hambleton R, Gómez‐Benito J. International Test Commission guidelines for test adaptation: A criterion checklist. Psicothema 2020;3(32):390–398.
    doi: 10.7334/psicothema2019.306google scholar: lookup
  113. Haddy E, Burden F, Raw Z, Rodrigues JB, Zappi Bello JH, Brown J. Belief in animal sentience and affective owner attitudes are linked to positive working equid welfare across six countries. J Appl Anim Welf Sci 2025;28(1):116–134.
    doi: 10.1080/10888705.2023.2228029google scholar: lookup
  114. Arrazola A, Merkies K. Effect of human attachment style on horse behaviour and physiology during equine‐assisted activities—a pilot study. Animals 2020;10(7):1156.
    doi: 10.3390/ani10071156google scholar: lookup
  115. Gobbo E, Zupan M. Dogs' sociability, owners' neuroticism and attachment style to pets as predictors of dog aggression. Animals 2020;10(2):315.
    doi: 10.3390/ani10020315google scholar: lookup
  116. Lefebvre D, Diederich C, Delcourt M, Giffroy JM. The quality of the relation between handler and military dogs influences efficiency and welfare of dogs. Appl Anim Behav Sci 2007;104(1):49–60.
    doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2006.05.004google scholar: lookup
  117. Parkin TDH, Brown J, Macdonald EB. Occupational risks of working with horses: a questionnaire survey of equine veterinary surgeons. Equine Vet Educ 2018;30(4):200–205.
    doi: 10.1111/eve.12891google scholar: lookup
  118. Pearson G, Reardon R, Keen J, Waran N. Difficult horses—prevalence, approaches to management of and understanding of how they develop by equine veterinarians. Equine Vet Educ 2021;33(10):522–530.
    doi: 10.1111/eve.13354google scholar: lookup

Citations

This article has been cited 0 times.
Subscribe to our newsletter
Join 99,911 horse owners like you who receive our email updates on horse health and nutrition.