FREE SHIPPING over $40
OVER 9000 FIVE-STAR REVIEWS
5% OFF ALL SUBSCRIPTIONS
100% HAPPINESS GUARANTEE
Analyze Diet
0
Home / Equine Research Bank / Anim Cogn / Learning from eavesdropping on human-human encounters change...
Animal cognition2025; 28(1); 23; doi: 10.1007/s10071-025-01946-1

Learning from eavesdropping on human-human encounters changes feeding location choice in horses (Equus Caballus).

Abstract: When animals observe human signals, they may learn from them. Such learning from humans has been reported for intentional communication between humans with animals, but animals might also learn socially by observing unintentional information transfer when eavesdropping on humans-human encounters. In this study, 12 of 17 horses significantly changed their preference for a feeding location after observing approval in a human-human interaction there, and horses kept in social housing adapted in a higher percentage of trials to human-human demonstrations than those in individual housing. This indicates, for the first time, that some animals change their feeding strategies after eavesdropping on human-human demonstrations and that this adaptation may be dependent on social experience. As horses maintained the observed preference for a feeding location when the demonstrators were absent, we suggest that they learned by applying individual and social learning mechanisms. The horses social rank, age and sex did not affect their learning performance. However, particular demonstrators tended to have a stronger impact on the horses' performance. Future research should further investigate the durability of this preference change in the absence of repeated demonstrations, and establish whether long-term social learning sets in. This would have important implications for unintentional long-term impacts of human interactions on interspecies communication.
© 2025. The Author(s).
Get Full Text
Publication Date: 2025-03-17 PubMed ID: 40095148PubMed Central: PMC11913996DOI: 10.1007/s10071-025-01946-1Google 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.

The research uncovers that horses can alter their feeding locations after observing interactions between humans at these locations. Social circumstances and the horse’s housing type played a key role in how effectively the horses learnt from observing these human interactions.

The Experiment

  • The researchers designed an experimental setup to examine if and how horses, a species with significant social learning capabilities, might adapt their behavior based on eavesdropping on human-human interactions.
  • In the experiment, a total of 17 horses watched a demonstrator human showing approval at a particular feeding location.
  • The choice of feeding location by these horses post-demonstration was then observed and recorded.

Findings

  • The researchers found that 12 out of the 17 horses significantly changed their preferred feeding location based on observing the human interaction at the spot.
  • It was also noticed that horses that were kept in social housing showed a higher percentage of adaption to the human-human demonstration compared to those in individual housing.
  • Despite factors like social rank, age, and sex, the learning performance of the horses remained unaffected.
  • However, it was observed that particular demonstrators had a stronger impact in shifting the horses’ feeding location preference over others.
  • Horses maintained their newly observed preference for a feeding location even when the human demonstrators were absent, suggesting not just imitation but actual learning.

Implications and Future Research

  • These findings mark a crucial breakthrough, suggesting that some animals, in this case, horses, can change their behavior or routines based on observing human interactions.
  • It is also an indicative measure of the effect of social experience or social housing on an animal’s ability to learn from human demonstrations.
  • The study calls for further research to understand the permanence of this behavioral change in the absence of repeated demonstrations to ascertain if this is an instance of long-term social learning.
  • This understanding can have significant implications for unintentional long-term effects of human interactions on interspecies communication.

Cite This Article

APA
Krueger K, Roll A, Beyer AJ, Föll A, Bernau M, Farmer K. (2025). Learning from eavesdropping on human-human encounters changes feeding location choice in horses (Equus Caballus). Anim Cogn, 28(1), 23. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10071-025-01946-1

Publication

Animal cognition
ISSN: 1435-9456
NlmUniqueID: 9814573
Country: Germany
Language: English
Volume: 28
Issue: 1
Pages: 23

Researcher Affiliations

Krueger, Konstanze
  • Department of Equine Economics, Faculty of Agriculture, Economics and Management, Nuertingen-Geislingen University, Neckarsteige 6-10, 72622, Nürtingen, Germany. Konstanze.krueger@hfwu.de.
  • Zoology/Evolutionary Biology, University of Regensburg, Universitätsstraße 31, 93053, Regensburg, Germany. Konstanze.krueger@hfwu.de.
Roll, Anika
  • Department of Equine Economics, Faculty of Agriculture, Economics and Management, Nuertingen-Geislingen University, Neckarsteige 6-10, 72622, Nürtingen, Germany.
Beyer, Anna J
  • Department of Equine Economics, Faculty of Agriculture, Economics and Management, Nuertingen-Geislingen University, Neckarsteige 6-10, 72622, Nürtingen, Germany.
Föll, Angela
  • Department of Equine Economics, Faculty of Agriculture, Economics and Management, Nuertingen-Geislingen University, Neckarsteige 6-10, 72622, Nürtingen, Germany.
Bernau, Maren
  • Department of Equine Economics, Faculty of Agriculture, Economics and Management, Nuertingen-Geislingen University, Neckarsteige 6-10, 72622, Nürtingen, Germany.
Farmer, Kate
  • Centre for Social Learning & Cognitive Evolution, School of Psychology, University of St Andrews, St Andrews, Scotland, KY16 9JPh, UK.

MeSH Terms

  • Animals
  • Horses / psychology
  • Male
  • Female
  • Humans
  • Feeding Behavior / psychology
  • Learning
  • Choice Behavior
  • Human-Animal Interaction
  • Social Learning

Conflict of Interest Statement

Declarations. Ethical approval: This study is registered under the numbers: 2021_08_25.07.2021; 2022_19_24.03.22; 2021_27_04.05.2022 at Nuertingen-Geislingen University. Permission was given from the Ethics Board of Nürtingen-Geislingen University, as the claims of the Data Protection Directive of the European Union were fulfilled. The video material, showing the experimental procedure with and without human participation, was transferred into anonymous, written form directly after conducting the material. From the anonymous raw data, no individual data could be assigned to particular persons. Only the written, anonymous raw data was used for further analysis for the study. The methods of the study were visualized in graphs without showing persons. The study published no pictures, videos or any data from which personal data could be drawn, either in the manuscript or in any supplementary material. The participating persons declared written consent (a) for participating in the data curation, (b) for documenting their personal data on video, (c) for transferring the data into written form, and (d) for using the anonymous, written raw data for the present publication. The informed consent and can be viewed at justified requests. Declaration of AI use: We have not used AI-assisted technologies in creating this article. Competing interests: The authors declare no competing interests.

References

This article includes 59 references
  1. Asher L, Friel M, Griffin K, Collins LM. Mood and personality interact to determine cognitive biases in pigs. Biol Let 12:20160402.
    pmc: PMC5134031pubmed: 27852940doi: 10.1098/rsbl.2016.0402google scholar: lookup
  2. Barrera G, Jakovcevic A, Mustaca A, Bentosela M. Learnig interspeficic communicative responses in Pampas foxes (Lycalopex gymnocercus). Behav Process 89:44–51.
    pubmed: 22075371doi: 10.1016/j.beproc.2011.10.013google scholar: lookup
  3. Bernauer K, Kollross H, Schuetz A, Farmer K, Krueger K. How do horses (Equus caballus) learn from observing human action?. Anim Cogn 23:1–9.
    pubmed: 31531748doi: 10.1007/s10071-019-01310-0google scholar: lookup
  4. Byrne RW. The evolution of intelligence. In: Slater PJB, Halliday TR (eds) Behaviour and evolution. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 223–265.
  5. Byrne RW. Animal imitation. Curr Biol 19:111–114.
    pubmed: 19211046doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2008.11.027google scholar: lookup
  6. Byrne R, Whiten A. Machiavellian intelligence. Oxford Univ, Oxford.
  7. Carballo F, Freidin E, Putrino N, Shimabukuro C, Casanave E, Bentosela M. Dog’s discrimination of human selfish and generous attitudes: the role of individual recognition, experience, and experimenters’ gender. PLoS ONE 10:e0116314.
    pmc: PMC4340621pubmed: 25714915doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0116314google scholar: lookup
  8. Carroll J, Murphy CJ, Neitz M, Hoeve JN, Neitz J. Photopigment basis for dichromatic color vision in the horse. J Vis 1:80–87.
    pubmed: 12678603doi: 10.1167/1.2.2google scholar: lookup
  9. Devenport JA, Patterson MR, Devenport LD. Dynamic averaging and foraging decisions in horses (Equus callabus). J Comp Psychol 119:352–358.
    pubmed: 16131264doi: 10.1037/0735-7036.119.3.352google scholar: lookup
  10. Dorey NR, Conover AM, Udell MAR. Interspecific communication from people to horses (Equus ferus caballus) is influenced by different horsemanship training styles. J Comp Psychol 128(4):337–342.
    pubmed: 25111631doi: 10.1037/a0037255google scholar: lookup
  11. Fiore AM, Cronin KA, Ross SR, Hopper LM. Food cleaning by Japanese macaques: innate, innovative or cultural?. Folia Primatol 91(4):433–444.
    pubmed: 32101867doi: 10.1159/000506127google scholar: lookup
  12. Freidin E, Putrino N, D’Orazio M, Bentosela M. Dogs’ eavesdropping from People’s reactions in third party interactions. PLoS ONE 8:e79198.
    pmc: PMC3827296pubmed: 24236108doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0079198google scholar: lookup
  13. Galef BG. Enduring social enhancement of rats’ preferences for the palatable and the piquant. Appetite 13:81–92.
    pubmed: 2802595doi: 10.1016/0195-6663(89)90106-2google scholar: lookup
  14. Gerencsér L, Pérez Fraga P, Lovas M, Újváry D, Andics A. Comparing interspecific socio-communicative skills of socialized juvenile dogs and miniature pigs. Anim Cogn 22:917–929.
    pmc: PMC6834752pubmed: 31256339doi: 10.1007/s10071-019-01284-zgoogle scholar: lookup
  15. Healy SD, Jones CM. Animal learning and memory: an integration of cognition and ecology. Zoology 105:321–327.
    pubmed: 16351881doi: 10.1078/0944-2006-00071google scholar: lookup
  16. Hemelrijk CK, Wantia J, Gygax L. The construction of dominance order: comparing performance of five methods using an individual-based model. Behaviour 142:1043–1064.
    doi: 10.1163/156853905774405290google scholar: lookup
  17. Heyes CM. Social learning in animals: categories and mechanisms. Biol Rev 69:207–231.
    pubmed: 8054445doi: 10.1111/j.1469-185x.1994.tb01506.xgoogle scholar: lookup
  18. Holm S. A simple sequentially rejective multiple test procedure. Scand Stat Theory Appl 6:65–70.
  19. Hothersall B, Gale E, Harris P, Nicol C. Cue use by foals (Equus caballus) in a discrimination learning task. Anim Cogn 13:63–74.
    pubmed: 19521725doi: 10.1007/s10071-009-0245-9google scholar: lookup
  20. Jim H-L, Marshall-Pescini S, Range F. Do dogs eavesdrop on human interactions in a helping situation?. PLoS ONE 15:e0237373.
    pmc: PMC7449479pubmed: 32845903doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0237373google scholar: lookup
  21. Krueger K, Flauger B. Social feeding decisions in horses (Equus caballus). Behav Process 78:76–83.
    pubmed: 18313236doi: 10.1016/j.beproc.2008.01.009google scholar: lookup
  22. Krueger K, Heinze J. Horse sense: social status of horses (Equus caballus) affects their likelihood of copying other horses` behavior. Anim Cogn 11:431–439.
    pubmed: 18183432doi: 10.1007/s10071-007-0133-0google scholar: lookup
  23. Krueger K, Flauger B, Farmer K, Maros K. Horses (Equus caballus) use human local enhancement cues and adjust to human attention. Anim Cogn 14:187–201.
    pubmed: 20845052doi: 10.1007/s10071-010-0352-7google scholar: lookup
  24. Krueger K, Flauger B, Farmer K, Hemelrijk C. Movement initiation in groups of feral horses. Behav Process 103:91–101.
    pubmed: 24220794doi: 10.1016/j.beproc.2013.10.007google scholar: lookup
  25. Krueger K, Farmer K, Heinze J. The effects of age, rank and neophobia on social learning in horses. Anim Cogn 17:645–655.
    pubmed: 24170136doi: 10.1007/s10071-013-0696-xgoogle scholar: lookup
  26. Krueger K, Esch L, Farmer K, Marr I. Basic needs in horses – a literature review. Animals 11:1798.
    pmc: PMC8235049pubmed: 34208615doi: 10.3390/ani11061798google scholar: lookup
  27. Kundey SMA, De los Reyes A, Royer E, Molina S, Monnier B, German R, Coshun A. Reputation-like inference in domestic dogs (Canis familiaris). Anim Cogn 14:291e302.
    pubmed: 21140184doi: 10.1007/s10071-010-0362-5google scholar: lookup
  28. Laland KN. Social learning strategies. Learn Behav 32:4–14.
    pubmed: 15161136doi: 10.3758/bf03196002google scholar: lookup
  29. Laland KN, O’Brien MJ. Cultural niche construction: an introduction. Biol Theory 6:191–202.
    doi: 10.1007/s13752-012-0026-6google scholar: lookup
  30. Lee VE, Thornton A. Animal cognition in an urbanised world. Front Ecol Evol 9:633947.
    pmc: PMC7611524pubmed: 34409044doi: 10.3389/fevo.2021.633947google scholar: lookup
  31. Liehrmann O, Cosnard C, Riihonen V, Viitanen A, Alander E, Jardat P, Koski SE, Lummaa V, Lansade L. What drives horse success at following human-given cues? An investigation of handler familiarity and living conditions. Anim Cogn 26:1283–1294.
    pmc: PMC10113126pubmed: 37072511doi: 10.1007/s10071-023-01775-0google scholar: lookup
  32. Löckener S, Reese S, Erhard M, Wöhr A-C. Pasturing in herds after housing in horseboxes induces a positive cognitive bias in horses. J Vet Behav 11:50–55.
    doi: 10.1016/j.jveb.2015.11.005google scholar: lookup
  33. Maros K, Gácsi M, Miklósi Á. Comprehension of human pointing gestures in horses (Equus caballus). Anim Cogn 11:457–466.
    pubmed: 18247069doi: 10.1007/s10071-008-0136-5google scholar: lookup
  34. Marr I, Farmer K, Krueger K. Evidence for Right-Sided horses being more optimistic than Left-Sided horses. Animals 8:219.
    pmc: PMC6315450pubmed: 30469484doi: 10.3390/ani8120219google scholar: lookup
  35. Marr I, Preisler V, Farmer K, Stefanski V, Krueger K. Non-invasive stress evaluation in domestic horses (Equus caballus): impact of housing conditions on sensory laterality and immunoglobulin A. R Soc Open Sci 7:191994.
    pmc: PMC7062079pubmed: 32257351doi: 10.1098/rsos.191994google scholar: lookup
  36. Marshall-Pescini S, Passalacqua C, Ferrario A, Valsecchi P, Prato-Previde E. Social eavesdropping in the domestic dog. Anim Behav 81:1177–1183.
    doi: 10.1016/j.anbehav.2011.02.029google scholar: lookup
  37. Martin P, Bateson P. Measuring Behaviour – An introductory guide. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
  38. McDonnell SM. The equid ethogram: A practical field guide to horse behavior. Eclipse, Lexington, Kentucky.
  39. McDonnell SM, Haviland JCS. Agonistic ethogram of the equid bachelor band. Appl Anim Behav Sci 43:147–188.
    doi: 10.1016/0168-1591(94)00550-xgoogle scholar: lookup
  40. Mejdell CM, Buvik T, Jørgensen GH, Bøe KE. Horses can learn to use symbols to communicate their preferences. Appl Anim Behav Sci 184:66–73.
    doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2016.07.014google scholar: lookup
  41. Mersmann D, Tomasello M, Call J, Kaminski J, Taborsky M. Simple mechanisms can explain social learning in domestic dogs (Canis familiaris). Ethology 117:675–690.
    doi: 10.1111/j.1439-0310.2011.01919.xgoogle scholar: lookup
  42. Miklósi Á, Soproni K. A comparative analysis of animals’ Understanding of the human pointing gesture. Anim Cogn 9:81–93.
    pubmed: 16235075doi: 10.1007/s10071-005-0008-1google scholar: lookup
  43. Nakamichi M, Kato E, Kojima Y, Itoigawa N. Carrying and washing of grass roots by free-ranging Japanese macaques at Katsuyama. Folia Primatol 69(1):35–40.
    pubmed: 9429314
  44. Pfungst O. Der Kluge hand. Ein beitrag Zur nichtverbalen kommunikation. Frankfurter Fachbuchhandlung für Psychologie, Frankfurt am Main.
  45. Proops L, McComb K. Attributing attention: the use of human-given cues by domestic horses (Equus caballus). Anim Cogn 13:197–205.
    pubmed: 19588176doi: 10.1007/s10071-009-0257-5google scholar: lookup
  46. Proops L, Rayner J, Taylor AM, McComb K. The responses of young domestic horses to Human-Given cues. PLoS ONE 8.
    pmc: PMC3686775pubmed: 23840572doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0067000google scholar: lookup
  47. Rendell L, Fogarty L, Hoppitt W, Morgan TJH, Webster MM, Laland KN. Cognitive culture: theoretical and empirical insights into social learning strategies. Trend Cogn Sci 15:68–76.
    pubmed: 21215677doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2010.12.002google scholar: lookup
  48. Ridley AR, Wiley EM, Thompson AM. The ecological benefits of interceptive eavesdropping. Funct Ecol 28:197–205.
    doi: 10.1111/1365-2435.12153google scholar: lookup
  49. Schmucker S, Preisler V, Marr I, Krüger K, Stefanski V. Single housing but not changes in group composition causes stress-related immunomodulations in horses. PLoS ONE 17:pe0272445.
    pmc: PMC9385002pubmed: 35976860doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0272445google scholar: lookup
  50. Schneider G, Krueger K. Third-party interventions keep social partners from exchanging affiliative interactions with others. Anim Behav 83:377–387.
    doi: 10.1016/j.anbehav.2011.11.007google scholar: lookup
  51. Schuetz A, Farmer K, Krueger K. Social learning across species: horses (Equus caballus) learn from humans by observation. Anim Cogn 20:567–573.
    pubmed: 27866286doi: 10.1007/s10071-016-1060-8google scholar: lookup
  52. Speechley EM, Ashton BJ, Foo YZ, Simmons LW, Ridley AR. Meta-analyses reveal support for the social intelligence hypothesis. Biol Rev 99(5):1889–1908.
    pubmed: 38855980doi: 10.1111/brv.13103google scholar: lookup
  53. Spottiswoode CN, Wood BM. Culturally determined interspecies communication between humans and honeyguides. Science 382:1155–1158.
    pubmed: 38060656doi: 10.1126/science.adh4129google scholar: lookup
  54. Sueur C, Huffman MA, Cownden D, Laland K. Co-cultures: exploring interspecies culture among humans and other animals. Trend Ecol Evol 39(9):821–829.
    doi: 10.1007/s10071-015-0877-xpubmed: 26006723google scholar: lookup
  55. Veit A, Weißhaupt S, Bruat A, Wondrak M, Huber L. Emulative learning of a two–step task in free–ranging domestic pigs. Anim Cogn 26:929–942.
    pmc: PMC10066142pubmed: 36652043doi: 10.1007/s10071-022-01740-3google scholar: lookup
  56. Whiten A, Ham R. On the nature and evolution of imitation in the animal Kingdom: reappraisal of a century of research. Adv Study Behav 21:239–283.
  57. Whiten A, Horner V, Litchfield CA, Marshall-Pescini S. How do apes ape?. Learn Behav 32:36–52.
    pubmed: 15161139doi: 10.3758/bf03196005google scholar: lookup
  58. Zajonc RB. Social facilitation. Science 149:269–274.
    pubmed: 14300526doi: 10.1126/science.149.3681.269google scholar: lookup
  59. Zentall TR. Imitation: definitions, evidence, and mechanisms. Anim Cogn 9:335–353.
    pubmed: 17024510doi: 10.1007/s10071-006-0039-2google scholar: lookup
Subscribe to our newsletter
Join 99,344 horse owners like you who receive our email updates on horse health and nutrition.