FREE SHIPPING over $40
OVER 10000 FIVE-STAR REVIEWS
5% OFF ALL SUBSCRIPTIONS
100% HAPPINESS GUARANTEE
Analyze Diet
0
Frontiers in veterinary science2018; 5; 212; doi: 10.3389/fvets.2018.00212

Social Learning in Horses-Fact or Fiction?

Abstract: Prima facie, the acquisition of novel behaviors in animals through observation of conspecifics seems straightforward. There are, however, various mechanisms through which the behavior of animals can be altered from observing others. These mechanisms range from simple hard-wired contagious processes to genuine learning by observation, which differ fundamentally in cognitive complexity. They range from social facilitation and local enhancement to true social learning. The different learning mechanisms are the subject of this review, largely because research on learning by observation can be confounded by difficulties in interpretation owing to the looming possibility of associative learning infecting experimental results. While it is often assumed that horses are capable of acquiring new behavior through intra-species observation, research on social learning in horses includes a variety of studies some of which may overestimate the possession of higher mental abilities. Assuming such abilities in their absence can have welfare implications, e.g., isolating stereotypical horses on the assumption that these behaviors can be learned though observation by neighboring horses. This review summarizes the definitions and criteria for the various types of social transmission and social learning and reviews the current documentation for each type in horses with the aim of clarifying whether horses possess the ability to learn through true social learning. As social ungulates, horses evolved in open landscapes, exposed to predators and grazing most of the day. Being in close proximity to conspecifics may theoretically offer an opportunity to learn socially, however anti-predator vigilance and locating forage may not require the neural complexity of social learning. Given the significant energetic expense of brain tissue, it is likely that social facilitation and local enhancement may have been sufficient in the adaptation of equids to their niche. As a consequence, social learning abilities may be maladaptive in horses. Collectively, the review proposes a novel differentiation between social transmission (social facilitation, local, and stimulus enhancement) and social learning (goal emulation, imitation). Horses are undoubtedly sensitive to intra-species transfer of information but this transfer does not appear to satisfy the criteria for social learning, and thus there is no solid evidence for true social learning in horses.
Get Full Text
Publication Date: 2018-09-06 PubMed ID: 30238009PubMed Central: PMC6135911DOI: 10.3389/fvets.2018.00212Google 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
  • Review

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 article explores the concept of social learning in horses, questioning whether horses can truly learn new behaviors via observation of fellow horses or whether simpler mechanisms are at play. Further, this study reviews former research in this field and reveals that the line between simple behavioral transmission and true social learning is often blurred.

Exploring Different Mechanisms of Learning

  • The research starts by detailing the varying mechanisms through which animals might alter their behavior by observing others, ranging from simple contagious behaviors to genuine observed learning.
  • Horses have often been assumed capable of acquiring new behaviors through observation of their peers. However, the study critiques this assumption and posits that simple social facilitation and local enhancements might be responsible for behavior changes, not genuine social learning.

Interpreting Prior Research

  • The authors review past studies on social learning in horses, particularly highlighting the challenges in interpretation. Defined criteria for genuine social learning may not have been met, leading to overestimations of horses’ mental abilities.
  • This discrepancy may have direct welfare implications for horses. For example, the misconception might lead to isolated housing of horses showing stereotypical behaviors based on the false idea that such behaviors might spread among horse communities via observation.

The Evolutionary Perspective

  • The article also delves into the evolutionary aspect of horses’ learning mechanisms. Given their origin in open landscapes with exposure to predators, horses might not require complex social learning for survival.
  • In fact, the heavy energy cost of brain tissue might have favored simple learning mechanisms for adaptation, making such complex abilities as genuine social learning potentially maladaptive in horses.

A Novel Differentiation

  • The researchers propose a differentiation between social transmission (behavioral contagion and enhancement) and authentic social learning (goal emulation, imitation). The idea is to facilitate an understanding of whether horses can truly learn by observation, or if the observed alterations in behavior merely represent sensitivity to intra-species transfer of information.
  • This nuanced understanding is crucial as the current evidence does not support the assertion that horses possess the ability for genuine social learning via observation.

Cite This Article

APA
Rørvang MV, Christensen JW, Ladewig J, McLean A. (2018). Social Learning in Horses-Fact or Fiction? Front Vet Sci, 5, 212. https://doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2018.00212

Publication

Frontiers in veterinary science
ISSN: 2297-1769
NlmUniqueID: 101666658
Country: Switzerland
Language: English
Volume: 5
Pages: 212

Researcher Affiliations

Rørvang, Maria V
  • Department of Biosystems and Technology, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Alnarp, Sweden.
Christensen, Janne W
  • Department of Animal Science, Aarhus University, Tjele, Denmark.
Ladewig, Jan
  • Department of Veterinary and Animal Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.
McLean, Andrew
  • Equitation Science International, Tuerong, VIC, Australia.

References

This article includes 73 references
  1. Heyes CM. Social learning in animals: categories and mechanisms.. Biol Rev (1994) 69:207–31.
    doi: 10.1111/j.1469-185X.1994.tb01506.xpubmed: 8054445google scholar: lookup
  2. Nicol CJ. Farm animal cognition.. Anim Sci (1996) 62:375–91.
    doi: 10.1017/S1357729800014934google scholar: lookup
  3. Klopfer PH. Social interactions in discrimination learning with special reference to feeding behavior in birds.. Behaviour (1959) 14:282–99.
    doi: 10.1163/156853959X00117pubmed: 0google scholar: lookup
  4. Klopfer PH. Observational learning in birds: the establishment of behavioral modes.. Behaviour (1961) 17:71–80.
    doi: 10.1163/156853961X00376pubmed: 0google scholar: lookup
  5. Krebs JR, MacRoberts MH, Cullen JM. Flocking and feeding in the great tit, Parus major- an experimental study.. Ibis (1972) 114:507–30.
    doi: 10.1111/j.1474-919X.1972.tb00852.xpubmed: 0google scholar: lookup
  6. Altmann SA. The monkey and the Fig.. Am Sci (1989) 77:256–63.
  7. Lefebvre L, Palameta B, Hatch KK. Is group-living associated with social learning? A comparative test of a gregarious and a territorial columbid.. Behaviour (1996) 133:241–61.
    doi: 10.1163/156853996X00134google scholar: lookup
  8. Lindberg AC, Kelland A, Nicol CJ. Effects of observational learning on acquisition of an operant response in horses.. Appl Animal Behav Sci (1999) 61:187–99.
    doi: 10.,1016/S0168-1591(98)00184-1google scholar: lookup
  9. Krueger K, Flauger B. Social learning in horses from a novel perspective.. Behav Process (2007) 76:37–9.
    doi: 10.1016/j.beproc.2006.08.010pubmed: 17428621google scholar: lookup
  10. Ninomiya S. Social leaning and stereotypy in horses.. Behav Process (2007) 76:22–3.
    doi: 10.1016/j.beproc.2006.09.018pubmed: 17403585google scholar: lookup
  11. McBride S, Long L. Management of horses showing stereotypic behaviour, owner perception and the implications for welfare.. Vet Rec (2001) 148:799–802.
    doi: 10.1136/vr.148.26.799pubmed: 11467606google scholar: lookup
  12. Henderson AJ. Don't fence me in: managing psychological well being for elite performance horses.. J Appl Anim Welf Sci (2007) 10:309–29.
    doi: 10.1080/10888700701555576pubmed: 17970632google scholar: lookup
  13. Cooper JJ, Albentosa MJ. Behavioral adaptation in the domestic horse: potential role of apparently abnormal responses including stereotypic behavior.. Livestock Prod Sci (2005) 92:177–82.
    doi: 10.1016/j.livprodsci.2004.11.017google scholar: lookup
  14. Nagy K, Schrott A, Kabai P. Possible influence of neighbours on stereotypic behaviour in horses.. Appl Anim Behav Sci (2008) 111:321–8.
    doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2007.06.006google scholar: lookup
  15. Albright JD, Mohammed HO, Heleski CR, Wickens CR, Houpt KA. Crib-biting in US horses: breed predispositions and owner perceptions of aetiology.. Equine Vet J (2009) 41:455–8.
    doi: 10.2746/042516409X372584pubmed: 19642405google scholar: lookup
  16. Murphy J, Arkins S. Equine learning behavior.. Behav Process (2007) 76:1–13.
    doi: 10.1016/j.beproc.2006.06.009pubmed: 17400403google scholar: lookup
  17. Hall C, Randle H, Pearson G, Preshaw L, Waran N. Assessing equine emotional state.. Appl Anim Behav Sci (2018) 205:183-93.
    doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2018.03.006google scholar: lookup
  18. Brubaker L, Udell M. Cognition and learning in horses (Equus caballus): what we know and why we should ask more.. Behav Process (2016) 126:121–31.
    doi: 10.1016/j.beproc.2016.03.017pubmed: 27018202google scholar: lookup
  19. Dennett DC. Kinds of Minds.. London: Orion Books Ltd; (1996).
  20. Morgan CL. Other minds than ours.. In: An Introduction to Comparative Psychology, 2nd Edn London: Walter Scott; (1903). p. 59.
  21. Galef BG. The question of animal culture.. Human Nat (1992) 3:157–78.
    doi: 10.1007/BF02692251pubmed: 24222403google scholar: lookup
  22. Sherry DF, Galef BG. Cultural transmission without imitation: milk bottle opening by birds.. Anim Behav (1984) 32:937–8.
    doi: 10.1016/S0003-3472(84)80185-2google scholar: lookup
  23. Thorndike EL. Animal Intelligence.. New York, NY: Macmillan; (1911) (Reprinted in Darien, Connecticut: Hafner, 1970, 248:74–76).
  24. Galef BG. Imitation and local enhancement: detrimental effects of consensus definitions on analyses of social learning in animals.. Behav Process (2013) 100:123–30.
    doi: 10.1016/j.beproc.2013.07.026pubmed: 23954830google scholar: lookup
  25. Galef BG. Laboratory studies of imitation/field studies of tradition: towards a synthesis in animal social learning.. Behav Process (2015) 112:114–9.
    doi: 10.1016/j.beproc.2014.07.008pubmed: 25058622google scholar: lookup
  26. Clayton DA. Social facilitated behavior.. Quart Rev Biol (1978) 53:373–91.
    doi: 10.1086/410789google scholar: lookup
  27. Galef BG. Imitation in animals: history, definition, and interpretation of data from the Psychological Laboratory.. In: Zentall TR, Galef BG, Editors. Social Learning: Psychological and Biological Perspectives. Hillsdale,NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; (1988) p. 3–28.
  28. Ligout S. Chapter 8: Grazing behaviour.. In: Mills DS, editor. The Encyclopedia of Animal Behaviour and Welfare. Wallingford: CABI International; (2010). p. 562.
  29. Spence KW. Experimental studies of learning and higher mental processes in infra-human primates.. Psycol Bull (1937) 34:806–50.
    doi: 10.1037/h0061498google scholar: lookup
  30. Thorpe WH. Learning and Instinct in Animals.. London: Methuen; (1963).
  31. Nicol CJ. The social transmission of information and behaviour.. Appl Anim Behav Sci (1995) 44:79–98.
    doi: 10.1016/0168-1591(95)00607-Tgoogle scholar: lookup
  32. Boesch C, Tomasello M. Chimpanzee and human cultures.. Curr Anthropol (1998) 39:591–614.
    doi: 10.1086/204785google scholar: lookup
  33. Byrne RW. Imitation: the contributions of priming and program-level copying.. In: Bråten S, editor. Intersubjective Communication and Emotion in Early Ontogeny. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; (1999). p. 228–45.
  34. Dawson BV, Foss BM. Observational learning in budgerigars.. Anim Behav (1965) 13:470–4.
    doi: 10.1016/0003-3472(65)90108-9pubmed: 5882805google scholar: lookup
  35. Heyes CM, Dawson GR. A demonstration of observational learning in rats using a bidirectional control.. Quart J Exp Psychol (1990) 42:59–71.
    pubmed: 2326494
  36. Whiten A, Custance DM, Gomez J-C, Teixidor P, Bard KA. Imitative learning of artificial fruit processing in children (Homo sapiens) and chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes).. J Compar Psychol (1996) 110:3–14.
    doi: 10.1037/0735-7036.110.1.3pubmed: 8851548google scholar: lookup
  37. Rendell L, Fogarty L, Hoppitt WJE, Morgan TJH, Webster MM, Laland KN. Cognitive culture: theoretical and empirical insights into social learning strategies.. Trends Cogn Sci (2011) 15:68–76.
    doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2010.12.002pubmed: 21215677google scholar: lookup
  38. Thornton A, Malapert A. Experimental evidence for social transmission of food acquisition techniques in wild meerkats.. Anim Behav (2009) 78:255–64.
    doi: 10.1016/j.anbehav.2009.04.021google scholar: lookup
  39. McLean AN. Cognitive abilities – the result of selective pressures on food acquisition?. Appl Anim Behav Sci (2001) 71:241–58.
    doi: 10.1016/S0168-1591(00)00181-7pubmed: 11230904google scholar: lookup
  40. Kendal RL, Coolen I, Laland KN. Adaptive trade-offs in the use of social and personal information.. In: Dukas R, Ratcliffe JM, editors. Cognitive Ecology II. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press; (2009). p. 249–71.
    doi: 10.7208/chicago/9780226169378.003.0013google scholar: lookup
  41. Provenza FD, Pfister JA, Cheney CD. Mechanisms of learning in diet selection with reference to phytotoxicosis in Herbivores.. J Range Manage (1992) 45:36–45.
    doi: 10.2307/4002523google scholar: lookup
  42. Glasser TA, Ungar ED, Landau SY, Perevolotsky A, Muklada H, Walker JW. Breed and maternal effects on the intake of tannin-rich browse by juvenile domestic goats (Capra hircus).. Appl Animal Behav Sci (2009) 119:71–7.
    doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2009.02.028google scholar: lookup
  43. Schrader AM, Brown JS, Kerley GIH, Kotler BP. Do free-ranging domestic goats show 'landscapes of fear'? Patch use in response to habitat features and predator cues.. J Arid Environ (2008) 72:1811–9.
    doi: 10.1016/j.jaridenv.2008.05.004google scholar: lookup
  44. Marinier SL, Alexander AJ. Coprophagy as an avenue for foals of the domestic horse to learn food preferences from their dams.. J Theor Biol (1995) 173:121–4.
    doi: 10.1006/jtbi.1995.0049google scholar: lookup
  45. Provenza FD, Lynch JJ, Nolan JV. Food aversion conditioned in anaesthetized sheep.. Physiol Behav (1994) 55:429–32.
    doi: 10.1016/0031-9384(94)90096-5pubmed: 8190757google scholar: lookup
  46. Deacon TW. Fallacies of progression in theories of brain-size evolution.. Intl J Primatol (1990) 11:193–236.
    doi: 10.1007/BF02192869google scholar: lookup
  47. Giraldeau L-A, Caraco T. Social Foraging Theory.. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press; (2000).
  48. Rands SA, Cowlishaw G, Pettifor RA, Rowcliffe JM, Johnstone RA. The emergence of leaders and followers in foraging pairs when the qualities of individuals differ.. BMC Evol Biol (2008) 8:51.
    doi: 10.1186/1471-2148-8-51pmc: PMC2276478pubmed: 18282297google scholar: lookup
  49. Boyd R, Richerson PJ. An evolutionary model of social learning.. In: Zentall TR, Galef BG, editors. Social Learning: Psychological and Biological Perspectives. Hillsdale, MI: Erlbaum; (1988). p. 29–48.
  50. Isler K, van Schaik C. Metabolic costs of brain size evolution.. Biol Lett (2006) 2:557–60.
    doi: 10.1098/rsbl.2006.0538pmc: PMC1834002pubmed: 17148287google scholar: lookup
  51. Sol D. Revisiting the cognitive buffer hypothesis for the evolution of large brains.. Biol Lett (2009) 5:130–3.
    doi: 10.1098/rsbl.2008.0621pmc: PMC2657766pubmed: 19049952google scholar: lookup
  52. Lefebvre L, Sol D. Brains, lifestyles and cognition: are there general trends?. Brain Behav Evol (2008) 72:135–44.
    doi: 10.1159/000151473pubmed: 18836259google scholar: lookup
  53. Martin RD. Comparative aspects of human brain evolution: scaling, energy costs and confounding variables.. In: Jablonski NG, Aiello LC, editors. The Origin and Diversification of Language. San Francisco, CA: University of California Press; (1998). p. 35–68.
  54. Voelkl B, Huber L. True imitation in marmosets.. Animal Behav (2000) 60:195–202.
    doi: 10.1006/anbe.2000.1457pubmed: 10973721google scholar: lookup
  55. Range F, Viranyi Z, Huber L. Selective imitation in domestic dogs.. Curr Biol (2007) 17:868–72.
    doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2007.04.026pubmed: 17462893google scholar: lookup
  56. Russon AE. Exploiting the expertise of others.. In: Whiten, A, Byrne RW, editors. Machiavellian Intelligence II: Evaluations and Extensions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; (1997). p. 174–206.
  57. Krueger K, Farmer K, Heinze J. The effects of age, rank and neophobia on social learning in horses.. Anim Cogn (2014) 17:645–55.
    doi: 10.1007/s10071-013-0696-xpubmed: 24170136google scholar: lookup
  58. Krueger K, Heinze J. Horse sense: social status of horses (Equus caballus) affects their likelihood of copying other horses' behavior.. Anim Cogn (2008) 11:431–9.
    doi: 10.1007/s10071-007-0133-0pubmed: 18183432google scholar: lookup
  59. Baer KL, Potter GD, Friend TH, Beaver BV. Observation effects on learning in horses.. Appl Anim Ethol (1983) 11:123–9.
    doi: 10.1016/0304-3762(83)90121-9google scholar: lookup
  60. Baker AEM, Crawford BH. Observational learning in horses.. Appl Animal Behav Sci (1986) 15:7–13.
    doi: 10.1016/0168-1591(86)90017-1google scholar: lookup
  61. Clarke JV, Nicol CJ, Jones R, McGreevy PD. Effects of observational learning on food selection in horses.. Appl Anim Behav Sci (1996) 50:177–84.
    doi: 10.1016/0168-1591(96)01071-4google scholar: lookup
  62. Ahrendt LP, Christensen JW, Ladewig J. The ability of horses to learn an instrumental task through social observation.. Appl Anim Behav Sci (2012) 139:105–13.
    doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2012.03.004google scholar: lookup
  63. Rørvang MV, Ahrendt LP, Christensen JW. Horses fail to use social learning when solving spatial detour tasks.. Anim Cogn (2015) 18:847–54.
    doi: 10.1007/s10071-015-0852-6pubmed: 25716720google scholar: lookup
  64. Christensen JW, Malmkvist J, Nielsen BL, Keeling LJ. Effects of a calm companion on fear reactions in naive test horses.. Equine Vet J (2008) 40:46–50.
    doi: 10.2746/042516408X245171pubmed: 18083659google scholar: lookup
  65. Rørvang MV, Ahrendt L, Christensen JW. A trained demonstrator has a calming effect on naïve horses when crossing a novel surface.. Appl Anim Behav Sci (2015) 171:117–20.
    doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2015.08.008google scholar: lookup
  66. Ralphs MH, Graham D, James LF. Social facilitation influences cattle to Graze Locoweed.. J Range Manage (1994) 47:123–6.
    doi: 10.2307/4002819google scholar: lookup
  67. Veissier I. Observational learning in cattle.. Appl Anim Behav Sci (1993) 35:235–43.
    doi: 10.1016/0168-1591(93)90139-Ggoogle scholar: lookup
  68. Held S, Mendl M, Devereux C, Byrne RW. Social tactics of pigs in a competitive foraging task: the ‘informed forager' paradigm.. Anim Behav (2000) 59:569–76.
    doi: 10.1006/anbe.1999.1322pubmed: 10715179google scholar: lookup
  69. Nicol CJ, Pope SJ. Social learning in sibling pigs.. Appl Animal Behav Sci (1994) 40:31–43.
    doi: 10.1016/0168-1591(94)90085-Xgoogle scholar: lookup
  70. Figueroa J, Solá-Oriol D, Manteca X, Pérez JF. Social learning of feeding behaviour in pigs: effects of neophobia and familiarity with the demonstrator conspecific.. Appl Animal Behav Sci (2013) 148:120–7.
    doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2013.06.002google scholar: lookup
  71. Oostindjer M, Bolhuis JE, Mendl M, Held S, van den Brand H, Kemp B. Learning how to eat like a pig: effectiveness of mechanisms for vertical social learning in piglets.. Anim Behav (2011) 82:503–11.
    doi: 10.1016/j.anbehav.2011.05.031google scholar: lookup
  72. Henry S, Hemery D, Richard M-A, Hausberger M. Human–mare relationships and behaviour of foals toward humans.. Appl Anim Behav Sci (2005) 93:341–62.
    doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2005.01.008google scholar: lookup
  73. Christensen JW. Early-life object exposure with a habituated mother reduces fear reactions in foals.. Anim Cogn (2016) 19:171–9.
    doi: 10.1007/s10071-015-0924-7pubmed: 26395986google scholar: lookup

Citations

This article has been cited 8 times.
  1. Fiedler JM, Ayre ML, Rosanowski S, Slater JD. Horses are worthy of care: Horse sector participants' attitudes towards animal sentience, welfare, and well-being. Anim Welf 2025;34:e6.
    doi: 10.1017/awf.2024.69pubmed: 39935777google scholar: lookup
  2. Stenfelt J, Yngvesson J, Blokhuis HJ, Rørvang MV. Dairy cows did not rely on social learning mechanisms when solving a spatial detour task. Front Vet Sci 2022;9:956559.
    doi: 10.3389/fvets.2022.956559pubmed: 36157180google scholar: lookup
  3. Wenting E, Rinzema SCY, van Langevelde F. Functional differences in scavenger communities and the speed of carcass decomposition. Ecol Evol 2022 Feb;12(2):e8576.
    doi: 10.1002/ece3.8576pubmed: 35228859google scholar: lookup
  4. Jardat P, Lansade L. Cognition and the human-animal relationship: a review of the sociocognitive skills of domestic mammals toward humans. Anim Cogn 2022 Apr;25(2):369-384.
    doi: 10.1007/s10071-021-01557-6pubmed: 34476652google scholar: lookup
  5. Lange A, Waiblinger S, Heinke A, Barth K, Futschik A, Lürzel S. Gentle interactions with restrained and free-moving cows: Effects on the improvement of the animal-human relationship. PLoS One 2020;15(11):e0242873.
    doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0242873pubmed: 33227027google scholar: lookup
  6. Rørvang MV, Nielsen TB, Christensen JW. Horses Failed to Learn from Humans by Observation. Animals (Basel) 2020 Jan 29;10(2).
    doi: 10.3390/ani10020221pubmed: 32013218google scholar: lookup
  7. Krueger K, Esch L, Byrne R. Animal behaviour in a human world: A crowdsourcing study on horses that open door and gate mechanisms. PLoS One 2019;14(6):e0218954.
    doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0218954pubmed: 31242266google scholar: lookup
  8. Nawroth C, Langbein J, Coulon M, Gabor V, Oesterwind S, Benz-Schwarzburg J, von Borell E. Farm Animal Cognition-Linking Behavior, Welfare and Ethics. Front Vet Sci 2019;6:24.
    doi: 10.3389/fvets.2019.00024pubmed: 30838218google scholar: lookup
Subscribe to our newsletter
Join 99,970 horse owners like you who receive our email updates on horse health and nutrition.