FREE SHIPPING over $40
OVER 10000 FIVE-STAR REVIEWS
5% OFF ALL SUBSCRIPTIONS
100% HAPPINESS GUARANTEE
Analyze Diet
0
Animal welfare (South Mimms, England)2024; 33; e50; doi: 10.1017/awf.2024.55

How well can you tell? Success of human categorisation of horse behavioural responses depicted in media.

Abstract: Horses employ a range of subtle to overt behaviours to communicate their current affective state. Humans who are more cognisant of their own bodily sensations may be more attuned to recognising affective states in horses () thereby promoting positive human-horse interactions. This study investigated human ability to categorise human-horse interactions depicted in media relative to equine behaviour experts and compared participant scores to their level of interoception. Using an online survey, participants (n = 534) categorised 31 photographs and videos as (overt) positive, likely (subtle) positive, neutral, likely (subtle) negative or (overt) negative human-horse interactions from the horse's point of view and completed the Multidimensional Assessment of Interoceptive Awareness questionnaire (MAIA-2) to assess their level of interoception. Demographic information was also collected (age, gender, education, level of experience with horses, location). Participants differed from expert categorisations of horse affective states across all categories, exactly matching experts only 52.5% of the time and approximately matching experts for positive and negative valence 78.5% of the time. The MAIA-2 did not predict participant ability to accurately categorise human-horse interactions. Women outperformed men in categorising overt positive, overt negative and subtle negative human-horse interactions. Increased levels of education and greater experience with horses were associated with improved categorisation of certain human-horse interactions. More training or awareness is needed to recognise behavioural indicators of horse affect to guide appropriate human-horse activities that impact horse welfare.
© The Author(s) 2024.
Get Full Text
Publication Date: 2024-11-11 PubMed ID: 39600357PubMed Central: PMC11589072DOI: 10.1017/awf.2024.55Google 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 examined how well humans can identify the emotional states of horses based on their behaviors shown in photos and videos.
  • It compared general participants’ categorizations to those of horse behavior experts and explored whether a person’s sensitivity to their own bodily sensations (interoception) influenced their accuracy.

Background

  • Horses use a variety of subtle to overt behaviors to express their feelings and emotional states.
  • Recognizing these behaviors accurately is important for promoting positive interactions between humans and horses, which can affect horse welfare.
  • A theory exists that people who are more aware of their own internal bodily sensations (interoception) may be better at interpreting others’ emotional states, including horses.

Study Design and Methods

  • An online survey was created and completed by 534 participants.
  • Participants were asked to categorize 31 photographs and videos depicting human-horse interactions from the horse’s perspective into one of five categories reflecting affective states:
    • Overt positive
    • Likely (subtle) positive
    • Neutral
    • Likely (subtle) negative
    • Overt negative
  • Participants also completed the Multidimensional Assessment of Interoceptive Awareness questionnaire (MAIA-2) to evaluate their level of interoception.
  • Demographic data collected included age, gender, education level, horse experience, and geographic location.
  • Expert categorizations of the same media served as a benchmark for accuracy.

Key Findings

  • Participants matched expert categorizations exactly about 52.5% of the time overall.
  • When considering just the positive and negative emotional valence (side of the spectrum), participants matched experts approximately 78.5% of the time.
  • Interoception scores measured by MAIA-2 did not significantly predict how accurately participants identified horse affective states.
  • Women performed better than men in recognizing overt positive, overt negative, and subtle negative horse emotions.
  • Higher education levels and greater experience with horses were linked to improved accuracy in categorizing some types of human-horse interactions.

Interpretation and Implications

  • Overall, people are moderately successful at interpreting horse emotional states from media, but many inaccuracies remain, especially with subtle cues.
  • The lack of influence from interoception suggests that bodily self-awareness alone does not enhance the ability to read horse emotions.
  • Gender, education, and hands-on experience with horses are important factors influencing accuracy, indicating the potential value of training and education.
  • Poor recognition of horse affective states can lead to inappropriate or harmful interactions, potentially impacting horse welfare negatively.
  • The findings support the need for increased education and awareness programs focused on horse behavior recognition to foster better human-horse relationships and welfare outcomes.

Conclusion

  • Humans show variable success in understanding horse emotions from media, with moderate overall agreement with experts.
  • Interoceptive awareness did not improve performance, but demographics and experience did.
  • More targeted training is recommended to improve the recognition of horse behavioral cues, which can enhance welfare and safety in human-horse interactions.

Cite This Article

APA
Merkies K, Trudel K. (2024). How well can you tell? Success of human categorisation of horse behavioural responses depicted in media. Anim Welf, 33, e50. https://doi.org/10.1017/awf.2024.55

Publication

Animal welfare (South Mimms, England)
ISSN: 2054-1538
NlmUniqueID: 9214272
Country: England
Language: English
Volume: 33
Pages: e50
PII: e50

Researcher Affiliations

Merkies, Katrina
  • Department of Animal Biosciences and Campbell Centre for the Study of Animal Welfare, University of Guelph Guelph, ON N1G 2W1, Canada.
Trudel, Katelyn
  • Department of Animal Biosciences and Campbell Centre for the Study of Animal Welfare, University of Guelph Guelph, ON N1G 2W1, Canada.

Conflict of Interest Statement

None.

References

This article includes 65 references
  1. Arrazola A, Merkies K. Effect of human attachment style on horse behaviour and physiology during equine-assisted activities–a pilot study. Animals 10(7): 1–13.
    doi: 10.3390/ani10071156pmc: PMC7401529pubmed: 32650381google scholar: lookup
  2. Azzopardi L. Cognitive biases in search: A review and reflection of cognitive biases in information retrieval. Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Human Information Interaction and Retrieval (CHIIR ’21) pp 27–37.
    doi: 10.1145/3406522.3446023google scholar: lookup
  3. Bell C, Rogers S, Taylor J, Busby D. Improving the recognition of equine affective states. Animals 9(12): 1124.
    doi: 10.3390/ani9121124pmc: PMC6941154pubmed: 31835886google scholar: lookup
  4. Boissy A, Manteuffel G, Jensen MB, Moe RO, Spruijt B, Keeling LJ, Winckler C, Forkman B, Dimitrov I, Langbein J, Bakken M, Veissier I, Aubert A. Assessment of positive emotions in animals to improve their welfare. Physiology and Behavior 92(3): 375–397.
    doi: 10.1016/j.physbeh.2007.02.003pubmed: 17428510google scholar: lookup
  5. Bornmann T, Randle H, Williams J. Investigating equestrians’ perceptions of horse happiness: An exploratory study. Journal of Equine Veterinary Science 104: 103697.
    doi: 10.1016/j.jevs.2021.103697pubmed: 34416986google scholar: lookup
  6. Bradshaw J, Casey R. Anthropomorphism and anthropocentrism as influences in the quality of life of companion animals. Animal Welfare 16(S1): 149–154.
    doi: 10.1017/S0962728600031869google scholar: lookup
  7. Braun MN, Müller-Klein A, Sopp MA, Michael T, Link-Dorner U, Lass-Hennemann J. The human ability to interpret affective states in horses’ body language: The role of emotion recognition ability and previous experience with horses. 2024.
    doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2024.106171google scholar: lookup
  8. Briefer Freymond S, Briefer EF, von Niederhäusern R, Bachmann I. Pattern of social interactions after group integration: A possibility to keep stallions in group. PLoS One 8(1): e54688.
    doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0054688pmc: PMC3559779pubmed: 23382940google scholar: lookup
  9. Budzyńska M. Stress reactivity and coping in horse adaptation to environment. Journal of Equine Veterinary Science 34: 935–941.
    doi: 10.1016/j.jevs.2014.05.010google scholar: lookup
  10. Burla JB, Ostertag A, Patt A, Bachmann I, Hillmann E. Effects of feeding management and group composition on agonistic behaviour of group-housed horses. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 176: 32–42.
    doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2016.01.011google scholar: lookup
  11. Christov-Moore L, Simpson EA, Coudé G, Grigaityte K, Iacoboni M, Ferrari PF. Empathy: gender effects in brain and behavior. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews 46(4): 604–627.
    doi: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2014.09.001pmc: PMC5110041pubmed: 25236781google scholar: lookup
  12. Craig AD. Interoception and emotion: A neuroanatomical perspective. .
  13. Dashper Kn2016. n pp 194. Routledge: London, UK. 10.4324/9781315678139
    doi: 10.4324/9781315678139google scholar: lookup
  14. Dawson LC, Cheal J, Niel L, Mason G. Humans can identify cats’ affective states from subtle facial expressions. Animal Welfare 28(4): 519–531.
    doi: 10.7120/09627286.28.4.519google scholar: lookup
  15. de Oliveira AR, Gozalo-Marcilla M, Ringer SK, Schauvliege S, Fonseca MW, Trindade PHE, Filho JNPP, Luna SPL. Development and validation of the facial scale (FaceSed) to evaluate sedation in horses. PLoS One 16(6): e0251909.
    doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0251909pmc: PMC8168851pubmed: 34061878google scholar: lookup
  16. de Santis M, Contalbrigo L, Borgi M, Cirulli F, Luzi F, Redaelli V, Stefani A, Toson M, Odore R, Vercelli C, Valle E, Farina L. Equine assisted interventions (EAIs): Methodological considerations for stress assessment in horses. Veterinary Sciences 2017 4(3): 44.
    doi: 10.3390/vetsci4030044pmc: PMC5644660pubmed: 29056702google scholar: lookup
  17. Desmedt O, Heeren A, Corneille O, Luminet O. What do measures of self-report interoception measure? Insights from a systematic review, latent factor analysis, and network approach. Biological Psychology 2022 169: 108289.
    doi: 10.1016/j.biopsycho.2022.108289pubmed: 35150768google scholar: lookup
  18. Ekholm Fry N. Welfare considerations for horses in therapy and education services. The Welfare of Animals in Animal-Assisted Interventions 2021 pp 219–242.
    doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-69587-3_9google scholar: lookup
  19. Ernst J, Northoff G, Böker H, Seifritz E, Grimm S. Interoceptive awareness enhances neural activity during empathy. Human Brain Mapping 2013 34(7): 1615–1624.
    doi: 10.1002/hbm.22014pmc: PMC6869919pubmed: 22359353google scholar: lookup
  20. Fenner K, Caspar G, Hyde M, Henshall C, Dhand N, Probyn-Rapsey F, Dashper K, McLean A, McGreevy P. It’s all about the sex, or is it? Humans, horses and temperament. PLoS One 2019 14(5): e0216699.
    doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0216699pmc: PMC6516668pubmed: 31086385google scholar: lookup
  21. Fox S. Accuracy of horse affect assessments: a comparison of equine assisted mental health professionals, non-equine assisted mental health professionals, and laypeople. .
  22. Goodwin D. The importance of ethology in understanding the behaviour of the horse. Equine Veterinary Journal 1999 31(28): 15–19.
    doi: 10.1111/j.2042-3306.1999.tb05150.xpubmed: 11314229google scholar: lookup
  23. Green TC, Mellor DJ. Extending ideas about animal welfare assessment to include “quality of life” and related concepts. New Zealand Veterinary Journal 2011 59(6): 263–271.
    doi: 10.1080/00480169.2011.610283pubmed: 22040330google scholar: lookup
  24. Guinnefollau L, Gee EK, Bolwell CF, Norman EJ, Rogers CW. Benefits of animal exposure on veterinary students’ understanding of equine behaviour and self-assessed equine handling skills. Animals 2019 9: 620.
    doi: 10.3390/ani9090620pmc: PMC6769774pubmed: 31466298google scholar: lookup
  25. Hausberger M, Lesimple C, Henry S. Detecting welfare in a non-verbal species: Social/cultural biases and difficulties in horse welfare assessment. Animals 2021 11(8): 2249.
    doi: 10.3390/ani11082249pmc: PMC8388525pubmed: 34438708google scholar: lookup
  26. Hausberger M, Muller C. A brief note on some possible factors involved in the reactions of horses to humans. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 2002 76: 339–344.
    doi: 10.1016/S0168-1591(02)00016-3google scholar: lookup
  27. Hausberger M, Roche H, Henry S, Visser EK. A review of the human-horse relationship. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 2008 109(1): 1–24.
    doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2007.04.015google scholar: lookup
  28. Hötzel MJ, Vieira MC, Leme DP. Exploring horse owners’ and caretakers’ perceptions of emotions and associated behaviors in horses. Journal of Veterinary Behavior 2019 29: 18–24.
    doi: 10.1016/j.jveb.2018.10.002google scholar: lookup
  29. Hübner AM, Trempler I, Gietmann C, Schubotz RI. Interoceptive sensibility predicts the ability to infer others’ emotional states. PLoS One 2021 16(10): e0258089.
    doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0258089pmc: PMC8494315pubmed: 34613976google scholar: lookup
  30. Kleanthous N, Hussain AJ, Khan W, Sneddon J, Al-Shamma’a A, Liatsis P. A survey of machine learning approaches in animal behaviour. Neurocomputing 2022 491: 442–463.
    doi: 10.1016/j.neucom.2021.10.126google scholar: lookup
  31. Ladewig J. Body language: Its importance for communication with horses. Journal of Veterinary Behavior 2019 29: 108–110.
    doi: 10.1016/j.jveb.2018.06.042google scholar: lookup
  32. Lencioni GC, de Sousa RV, de Souza Sardinha EJ, Corrêa RR, Zanella AJ. Pain assessment in horses using automatic facial expression recognition through deep learning-based modeling. PLoS One 2021 16(10): e0258672.
    doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0258672pmc: PMC8525760pubmed: 34665834google scholar: lookup
  33. Lesimple C, Hausberger M. How accurate are we at assessing others’ well-being? The example of welfare assessment in horses. Frontiers in Psychology 2014 5.
    doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00021pmc: PMC3900850pubmed: 24478748google scholar: lookup
  34. Li X, Peng C, Qin F, Luo Q, Ren Z, Wang X, Feng Q, Liu C, Li Y, Wei D, Qiu J. Basolateral amygdala functional connectivity in alexithymia: Linking interoceptive sensibility and cognitive empathy. Neuroscience 2024 539: 12–20.
    doi: 10.1016/j.neuroscience.2023.12.014pubmed: 38176608google scholar: lookup
  35. Lima FP, Bastos RP. Perceiving the invisible: Formal education affects the perception of ecosystem services provided by native areas. Ecosystem Services 2019 40: 101029.
    doi: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2019.101029google scholar: lookup
  36. Luke KL, McAdie T, Smith BP, Warren-Smith AK. New insights into ridden horse behaviour, horse welfare and horse-related safety. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 2022 246: 105539.
    doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2021.105539google scholar: lookup
  37. 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
  38. Malykhin N, Pietrasik W, Aghamohammadi-Sereshki A, Ngan Hoang K, Fujiwara E, Olsen F. Emotional recognition across the adult lifespan: Effects of age, sex, cognitive empathy, alexithymia traits, and amygdala subnuclei volumes. Journal of Neuroscience Research 2023 101(3): 367–383.
    doi: 10.1002/jnr.25152pubmed: 36478439google scholar: lookup
  39. Marquié L, Raufaste E, Lauque D, Mariné C, Ecoiffier M, Sorum P. Pain rating by patients and physicians: evidence of systematic pain miscalibration. Pain 2003 102(3): 289–296.
    doi: 10.1016/S0304-3959(02)00402-5pubmed: 12670671google scholar: lookup
  40. Marson F, Revital N-Z, Paoletti P, Glicksohn J, Harris T, Elliott MA, Carducci F, Ben-Soussan TD. When the body fosters empathy: The interconnectivity between bodily reactivity, meditation, and embodied abstract concepts. .
    doi: 10.1016/bs.pbr.2024.05.004pubmed: 39097354google scholar: lookup
  41. Martin-Cirera A, Nowak M, Norton T, Auer U, Oczak M. Comparison of Transformers with LSTM for classification of the behavioural time budget in horses based on video data. Biosystems Engineering 2024 242: 154–168.
    doi: 10.1016/j.biosystemseng.2024.04.014google scholar: lookup
  42. McDonnell SM, Haviland JCS. Agonistic ethogram of the equid bachelor band. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 1995 43(3): 147–188.
    doi: 10.1016/0168-1591(94)00550-Xgoogle scholar: lookup
  43. McGreevy P. Equine Behavior: A Guide for Veterinarians and Equine Scientists. 2012. pp 378.
  44. McGreevy PD, Oddie C, Burton FL, McLean AN. The horse-human dyad: Can we align horse training and handling activities with the equid social ethogram?. Veterinary Journal 2009 181(1): 12–18.
    doi: 10.1016/j.tvjl.2009.03.005pubmed: 19375965google scholar: lookup
  45. Mehling WE, Acree M, Stewart A, Silas J, Jones A. The multidimensional assessment of interoceptive awareness, version 2 (MAIA-2). PLoS One 2018 13(12): e0208034.
    doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0208034pmc: PMC6279042pubmed: 30513087google scholar: lookup
  46. Merkies K, Crouchman E, Belliveau H. Human ability to determine affective states in domestic horse whinnies. Anthrozoös 2021 35(3): 483–494.
    doi: 10.1080/08927936.2021.1999605google scholar: lookup
  47. Merkies K, Franzin O. Enhanced understanding of horse–human interactions to optimize welfare. Animals 2021 11: 1–14.
    doi: 10.3390/ani11051347pmc: PMC8151687pubmed: 34065156google scholar: lookup
  48. Merkies K, Hayman B, Ijichi CL. Examining the human-horse bond from the human perspective. Anthrozoös 2024 37(2): 231–244.
    doi: 10.1080/08927936.2024.2308403google scholar: lookup
  49. Pannewitz L, Loftus L. Frustration in horses: Investigating expert opinion on behavioural indicators and causes using a Delphi consultation. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 2023 258: 105818.
    doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2022.105818google scholar: lookup
  50. Pearson G, Waran N, Reardon RJM, Keen J, Dwyer C. A Delphi study to determine expert consensus on the behavioural indicators of stress in horses undergoing veterinary care. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 2021 237: 105291.
    doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2021.105291google scholar: lookup
  51. Pierard M, McGreevy P, Geers R. Effect of density and relative aggressiveness on agonistic and affiliative interactions in a newly formed group of horses. Journal of Veterinary Behavior 2019 29: 61–69.
    doi: 10.1016/j.jveb.2018.03.008google scholar: lookup
  52. Rogers S, Bell C. Perceptions of fear and anxiety in horses as reported in interviews with equine behaviourists. Animals 2022 12: 2904.
    doi: 10.3390/ani12212904pmc: PMC9658478pubmed: 36359029google scholar: lookup
  53. Rohan A, Saad Rafaq M, Md Junayed Hasan, Asghar F, Kashif Bashir A, Dottorini T. Application of deep learning for livestock behaviour recognition: A systematic literature review. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 2024 224: 109115.
    doi: 10.1016/j.compag.2024.109115google scholar: lookup
  54. Rørvang MV, Nielsen BL, McLean AN. Sensory abilities of horses and their importance for equitation science. Frontiers in Veterinary Science 2020 7: 633.
    doi: 10.3389/fvets.2020.00633pmc: PMC7509108pubmed: 33033724google scholar: lookup
  55. Russell JA. Core affect and the psychological construction of emotion. Psychological Review 2003 110(1): 145–172.
    doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.110.1.145pubmed: 12529060google scholar: lookup
  56. Seaman SC, Davidson HPB, Waran NK. How reliable is temperament assessment in the domestic horse ()?. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 2002 78(2): 175–191.
    doi: 10.1016/S0168-1591(02)00095-3google scholar: lookup
  57. Squibb K, Griffin K, Favier R, Ijichi C. Poker face: Discrepancies in behaviour and affective states in horses during stressful handling procedures. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 2018 202: 34–38.
    doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2018.02.003google scholar: lookup
  58. 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
  59. Vanutelli ME, Balconi M. Empathy and prosocial behaviours. Insights from intra- and inter-species interactions. Rivista Internazionale di Filosofia e Psicologia 2015 6(1): 88–109.
    doi: 10.4453/rifp.2015.0007google scholar: lookup
  60. Vig L, Köteles F, Ferentzi E. Questionnaires of interoception do not assess the same construct. PLoS One 2022 17(8): e0273299.
    doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0273299pmc: PMC9397851pubmed: 35998182google scholar: lookup
  61. Waiblinger S, Boivin X, Pedersen V, Tosi MV, Janczak AM, Visser EK, Jones RB. Assessing the human-animal relationship in farmed species: A critical review. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 2006 101: 185–242.
    doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2006.02.001google scholar: lookup
  62. Wechsler B. Coping and coping strategies: a behavioural view. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 1995 43(2): 123–134.
    doi: 10.1016/0168-1591(95)00557-9google scholar: lookup
  63. Yeates JW. Is “a life worth living” a concept worth having?. Animal Welfare 2011 20(3): 397–406.
    doi: 10.1017/S0962728600002955google scholar: lookup
  64. Young T, Creighton E, Smith T, Hosie C. A novel scale of behavioural indicators of stress for use with domestic horses. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 2012 140: 33–43.
    doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2012.05.008google scholar: lookup
  65. Zeitler-Feicht MH, Hartmann E, Erhard MH, Baumgartner M. Which affiliative behaviour can be used as a valid, reliable and feasible indicator of positive welfare in horse husbandry?. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 2024 273: 106236.
    doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2024.106236google scholar: lookup

Citations

This article has been cited 0 times.
Subscribe to our newsletter
Join 100,127 horse owners like you who receive our email updates on horse health and nutrition.