FREE SHIPPING over $40
OVER 10000 FIVE-STAR REVIEWS
5% OFF ALL SUBSCRIPTIONS
100% HAPPINESS GUARANTEE
Analyze Diet
0
Animals : an open access journal from MDPI2021; 11(1); 130; doi: 10.3390/ani11010130

The Impact of the Sex of Handlers and Riders on the Reported Social Confidence, Compliance and Touch Sensitivity of Horses in Their Care.

Abstract: Current evidence of how human sex-related differences in riders and handlers may influence horse behaviour is limited. The Equine Behaviour Assessment and Research Questionnaire (E-BARQ) was used to collect demographic data on riders and handlers ( = 1420) and behavioural data on their horses. It includes demographic items about the sex of the respondent and how frequently the horse has been ridden or handled by male and female humans. The questionnaire then gathers observations on the horse's behaviour on the ground and under saddle or when driven Using E-BARQ's battery of 97 questions, the current study showed differences in ridden and non-ridden horse behaviour that were related to the sex of the rider or handler. Data were evaluated using multivariate analysis and revealed that horses handled by male humans were significantly more difficult to catch (-value = -3.11; = 0.002) and significantly more defensive when approached (-value = -2.104; = 0.035), but significantly less likely to pull on the reins/brace the neck or toss their head (-value 1.980; = 0.048) than horses handled more frequently by female humans. The differences found between male and female horse handlers suggest that sex is an important factor to consider when understanding equine behaviour. Our study explored reported differences in confidence, handling and working compliance and touch sensitivity among horses ridden and handled by male and female humans and suggested further research into how these differences are gendered.
Get Full Text
Publication Date: 2021-01-08 PubMed ID: 33430130PubMed Central: PMC7827593DOI: 10.3390/ani11010130Google 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 study explores how the gender of horse handlers and riders might affect the behavior of the horses. Male and female handlers seem to elicit different behavior responses in horses, suggesting gender may be a consideration in understanding horse behavior.

Research Methodology

  • The research utilized the Equine Behaviour Assessment and Research Questionnaire (E-BARQ) to gather data from horse riders and handlers, making a total of 1420 participants.
  • The E-BARQ consists of demographic questions concerning the respondent’s gender and the frequency of horse handling or riding by men and women.
  • Following this, the questionnaire collects perceptions regarding the horse’s behavior both when ridden and when on the ground.
  • A total of 97 questions were used in E-BARQ to gather the necessary data for this study.

Data Analysis

  • Data was evaluated using a statistical method called multivariate analysis. This technique allows researchers to observe the connections between more than two variables at the same time.
  • The researchers found differences in horse behavior that seemed linked to the gender of the individual handling or riding the horse.

Findings

  • Horses that were handled by men showed more difficulty in being caught and displayed more defensive behavior when approached.
  • However, these horses showed less likelihood of being disrespectful by pulling on the reigns, bracing the neck, or tossing the head compared to horses more frequently handled by women.
  • The discrepancies revealed in the behaviors of horses depending on the gender of the handler suggest the importance of gender as a factor in understanding equine behavior.

Implications and Recommendations

  • The study sheds light on the possible impact of handler’s gender on horses’ behavior which can be valuable in various fields such as horse riding, handling, and training.
  • The researchers point out the need for further studies to understand the gender-based differences in equine behavior. The findings may have implications for how horse handlers and riders are trained and how they interact with the horses in their care.

Cite This Article

APA
Anzulewicz A, Fenner K, Hyde M, Heald S, Burattini B, Romness N, McKenzie J, Wilson B, McGreevy P. (2021). The Impact of the Sex of Handlers and Riders on the Reported Social Confidence, Compliance and Touch Sensitivity of Horses in Their Care. Animals (Basel), 11(1), 130. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani11010130

Publication

Animals : an open access journal from MDPI
ISSN: 2076-2615
NlmUniqueID: 101635614
Country: Switzerland
Language: English
Volume: 11
Issue: 1
PII: 130

Researcher Affiliations

Anzulewicz, Ashley
  • Sydney School of Veterinary Science, University of Sydney, Camperdown, NSW 2006, Australia.
Fenner, Kate
  • Sydney School of Veterinary Science, University of Sydney, Camperdown, NSW 2006, Australia.
Hyde, Michelle
  • Sydney School of Veterinary Science, University of Sydney, Camperdown, NSW 2006, Australia.
Heald, Susan
  • Community Health Sciences, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB R3T 2N2, Canada.
Burattini, Bibiana
  • Sydney School of Veterinary Science, University of Sydney, Camperdown, NSW 2006, Australia.
Romness, Nicole
  • Sydney School of Veterinary Science, University of Sydney, Camperdown, NSW 2006, Australia.
McKenzie, Jessica
  • Sydney School of Veterinary Science, University of Sydney, Camperdown, NSW 2006, Australia.
Wilson, Bethany
  • Sydney School of Veterinary Science, University of Sydney, Camperdown, NSW 2006, Australia.
McGreevy, Paul
  • Sydney School of Veterinary Science, University of Sydney, Camperdown, NSW 2006, Australia.

Conflict of Interest Statement

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

This article includes 63 references
  1. McGreevy P. Equine Behavior: A Guide for Veterinarians and Equine Scientists. 2nd ed. W.B. Saunders; London, UK: 2012.
  2. Endenburg N. Perceptions and attitudes towards horses in European societies.. Equine Vet J Suppl 1999 Apr;(28):38-41.
    doi: 10.1111/j.2042-3306.1999.tb05154.xpubmed: 11314233google scholar: lookup
  3. Robinson IH. The human-horse relationship: how much do we know?. Equine Vet J Suppl 1999 Apr;(28):42-5.
    doi: 10.1111/j.2042-3306.1999.tb05155.xpubmed: 11314234google scholar: lookup
  4. McGreevy P, Berger J, de Brauwere N, Doherty O, Harrison A, Fiedler J, Jones C, McDonnell S, McLean A, Nakonechny L, Nicol C, Preshaw L, Thomson P, Tzioumis V, Webster J, Wolfensohn S, Yeates J, Jones B. Using the Five Domains Model to Assess the Adverse Impacts of Husbandry, Veterinary, and Equitation Interventions on Horse Welfare.. Animals (Basel) 2018 Mar 18;8(3).
    doi: 10.3390/ani8030041pmc: PMC5867529pubmed: 29562654google scholar: lookup
  5. Popescu S. The Relationship Between Behavioral and Other Welfare Indicators of Working Horses. J. Equine Vet. Sci. 2013;33:1–12.
    doi: 10.1016/j.jevs.2012.04.001google scholar: lookup
  6. Burattini B, Fenner K, Anzulewicz A, Romness N, McKenzie J, Wilson B, McGreevy P. Age-Related Changes in the Behaviour of Domestic Horses as Reported by Owners.. Animals (Basel) 2020 Dec 7;10(12).
    doi: 10.3390/ani10122321pmc: PMC7762420pubmed: 33297447google scholar: lookup
  7. Strunk R, Vernon K, Blob R, Bridges W, Skewes P. Effects of Rider Experience Level on Horse Kinematics and Behavior.. J Equine Vet Sci 2018 Sep;68:68-72.
    doi: 10.1016/j.jevs.2018.05.209pubmed: 31256892google scholar: lookup
  8. Amanatullah ET, Morris MW. Negotiating gender roles: gender differences in assertive negotiating are mediated by women's fear of backlash and attenuated when negotiating on behalf of others.. J Pers Soc Psychol 2010 Feb;98(2):256-67.
    doi: 10.1037/a0017094pubmed: 20085399google scholar: lookup
  9. Risman B., Froyum C., Scarborough W. Handbook of the Sociology of Gender. 2nd ed. Springer; New York, NY, USA: 2018.
  10. Fausto-Sterling A. Sex/Gender: Biology in a Social World. Routledge; New York, NY, USA: 2012.
  11. Evans M., Williams C. Gender: The Key Concepts. Routledge; London, UK: 2013.
  12. Ngun TC, Ghahramani N, Sánchez FJ, Bocklandt S, Vilain E. The genetics of sex differences in brain and behavior.. Front Neuroendocrinol 2011 Apr;32(2):227-46.
    doi: 10.1016/j.yfrne.2010.10.001pmc: PMC3030621pubmed: 20951723google scholar: lookup
  13. Blair ML. Sex-based differences in physiology: what should we teach in the medical curriculum?. Adv Physiol Educ 2007 Mar;31(1):23-5.
    doi: 10.1152/advan.00118.2006pubmed: 17327578google scholar: lookup
  14. Aune A, Fenner K, Wilson B, Cameron E, McLean A, McGreevy P. Reported Behavioural Differences between Geldings and Mares Challenge Sex-Driven Stereotypes in Ridden Equine Behaviour.. Animals (Basel) 2020 Mar 2;10(3).
    doi: 10.3390/ani10030414pmc: PMC7142782pubmed: 32131444google scholar: lookup
  15. Cho SH, Park JM, Kwon OY. Gender differences in three dimensional gait analysis data from 98 healthy Korean adults.. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon) 2004 Feb;19(2):145-52.
    doi: 10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2003.10.003pubmed: 14967577google scholar: lookup
  16. Frimenko R., Witehead C. Do Men and Women Walk Differently? A Review and Meta-Analysis of Sex Difference in Non-Pathological Gait Kinematics. Air Force Research Laboratory; Wright-Patterson, OH, USA: 2014. pp. 20–22.
  17. Ko SU, Tolea MI, Hausdorff JM, Ferrucci L. Sex-specific differences in gait patterns of healthy older adults: results from the Baltimore Longitudinal Study of Aging.. J Biomech 2011 Jul 7;44(10):1974-9.
    doi: 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2011.05.005pmc: PMC3124580pubmed: 21601861google scholar: lookup
  18. Waiblinger S, Menke C, Coleman G. The relationship between attitudes, personal characteristics and behaviour of stockpeople and subsequent behaviour and production of dairy cows. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2002;79:195–219.
    doi: 10.1016/S0168-1591(02)00155-7google scholar: lookup
  19. Kydd E, McGreevy P. Sex differences in the herding styles of working sheepdogs and their handlers.. PLoS One 2017;12(9):e0184072.
    doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0184072pmc: PMC5598941pubmed: 28910326google scholar: lookup
  20. McGreevy P, McLean A. Roles of learning theory and ethology in equitation. J. Vet. Behav. Clin. Appl. Res. 2007;2:108–118.
    doi: 10.1016/j.jveb.2007.05.003google scholar: lookup
  21. McBride SD, Mills DS. Psychological factors affecting equine performance.. BMC Vet Res 2012 Sep 27;8:180.
    doi: 10.1186/1746-6148-8-180pmc: PMC3514365pubmed: 23016987google scholar: lookup
  22. Starling M, McLean A, McGreevy P. The Contribution of Equitation Science to Minimising Horse-Related Risks to Humans.. Animals (Basel) 2016 Feb 23;6(3).
    doi: 10.3390/ani6030015pmc: PMC4810043pubmed: 26907354google scholar: lookup
  23. McGreevy PD, Griffiths MD, Ascione FR, Wilson B. Flogging tired horses: Who wants whipping and who would walk away if whipping horses were withheld?. PLoS One 2018;13(2):e0192843.
    pmc: PMC5821321pubmed: 29466458doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0192843google scholar: lookup
  24. Munsters CC, Visser KE, van den Broek J, Sloet van Oldruitenborgh-Oosterbaan MM. The influence of challenging objects and horse-rider matching on heart rate, heart rate variability and behavioural score in riding horses.. Vet J 2012 Apr;192(1):75-80.
    doi: 10.1016/j.tvjl.2011.04.011pubmed: 21612959google scholar: lookup
  25. Hausberger M, Roche H, Henry S, Visser E.K. A review of the human–horse relationship. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2008;109:1–24.
    doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2007.04.015google scholar: lookup
  26. McCann J, Heird J, Bell R, Lutherer L. Normal and more highly reactive horses. II. The effect of handling and reserpine on the cardiac response to stimuli. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 1988;19:215–226.
    doi: 10.1016/0168-1591(88)90002-0google scholar: lookup
  27. Birke L, Brandt K. Mutual corporeality: Gender and human/horse relationships. Women’s Stud. Int. Forum. 2009;32:189–197.
    doi: 10.1016/j.wsif.2009.05.015google scholar: lookup
  28. Schrimpf A, Single MS, Nawroth C. Social Referencing in the Domestic Horse.. Animals (Basel) 2020 Jan 18;10(1).
    doi: 10.3390/ani10010164pmc: PMC7022515pubmed: 31963699google scholar: lookup
  29. Evans KE, McGreevy PD. The distribution of ganglion cells in the equine retina and its relationship to skull morphology.. Anat Histol Embryol 2007 Apr;36(2):151-6.
    doi: 10.1111/j.1439-0264.2006.00749.xpubmed: 17371390google scholar: lookup
  30. Veen I, Killian D, Vlaminck L, Vernooij JCM, Back W. The use of a rein tension device to compare different training methods for neck flexion in base-level trained Warmblood horses at the walk.. Equine Vet J 2018 Nov;50(6):825-830.
    doi: 10.1111/evj.12831pmc: PMC6174990pubmed: 29517811google scholar: lookup
  31. Lemon C, Lewis V, Dumbell L, Brown H. An investigation into equestrian spur use in the United Kingdom. J. Vet. Behav. 2020;36:40–47.
    doi: 10.1016/j.jveb.2019.10.009google scholar: lookup
  32. Fenner K, Dashper K, Wilkins C, Serpell J, McLean A, Wilson B, McGreevy P. Building Bridges between Theory and Practice: How Citizen Science Can Bring Equine Researchers and Practitioners Together.. Animals (Basel) 2020 Sep 13;10(9).
    doi: 10.3390/ani10091644pmc: PMC7552242pubmed: 32933118google scholar: lookup
  33. Fenner K, Dashper K, Serpell J, McLean A, Wilkins C, Klinck M, Wilson B, McGreevy P. The Development of a Novel Questionnaire Approach to the Investigation of Horse Training, Management, and Behaviour.. Animals (Basel) 2020 Oct 24;10(11).
    doi: 10.3390/ani10111960pmc: PMC7693391pubmed: 33114408google scholar: lookup
  34. Fenner K, Matlock S, Williams J, Wilson B, McLean A, Serpell J, McGreevy P. Validation of the Equine Behaviour Assessment and Research Questionnaire (E-BARQ): A New Survey Instrument for Exploring and Monitoring the Domestic Equine Triad.. Animals (Basel) 2020 Oct 28;10(11).
    doi: 10.3390/ani10111982pmc: PMC7692587pubmed: 33126670google scholar: lookup
  35. Qualtrics . Qualtrics, XM, June 2020. Qualtrics; Provo, UT, USA: 2005.
  36. R Core Team . A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing R Foundation for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing; Vienna, Austria: 2020.
  37. Christensen R. Regression Models for Ordinal Data. 2015 28:20152019.
  38. Greenwell B. Surrogate Residuals for Ordinal and General Regression Models. 2017.
  39. Weisberg YJ, Deyoung CG, Hirsh JB. Gender Differences in Personality across the Ten Aspects of the Big Five.. Front Psychol 2011;2:178.
    doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00178pmc: PMC3149680pubmed: 21866227google scholar: lookup
  40. 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?. Vet J 2009 Jul;181(1):12-8.
    doi: 10.1016/j.tvjl.2009.03.005pubmed: 19375965google scholar: lookup
  41. Fenner K, McLean A, McGreevy P. Cutting to the chase: How round-pen, lunging and high-speed liberty work may compromise horse welfare. J. Vet. Behav. Clin. Appl. Res. 2019;29:88–94.
    doi: 10.1016/j.jveb.2018.05.003google scholar: lookup
  42. Jones B, McGreevy P. Ethical equitation: Applying a cost-benefit approach. J. Vet. Behav. Clin. Appl. Res. 2010;5:196–202.
    doi: 10.1016/j.jveb.2010.04.001google scholar: lookup
  43. 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
  44. Scandurra C, Mezza F, Maldonato NM, Bottone M, Bochicchio V, Valerio P, Vitelli R. Health of Non-binary and Genderqueer People: A Systematic Review.. Front Psychol 2019;10:1453.
    doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01453pmc: PMC6603217pubmed: 31293486google scholar: lookup
  45. Eagly A., Wood W., Diekman A. Social role theory of sex differences and similarities: A current appraisal. In: Eckes T.A.T.H., editor. The Developmental Social Psychology of Gender. Psychology Press; New York, NY, USA: 2000. pp. 123–174.
  46. Yafeh O. The Time in the Body: Cultural Construction of Femininity in Ultraorthodox Kindergartens for Girls. J. Soc. Psychol. Anthropol. 2008;35:516–553.
    doi: 10.1525/eth.2007.35.4.516google scholar: lookup
  47. Anderson C. Lessons Well Learned. Exisle Publishing Ltd.; Rochester, VT, USA: 2010.
  48. Parelli P. Natural Horse-Man-Ship. Western Horseman; St Fort Worth, TX, USA: 1993.
  49. Dodd E, Giuliano T, Boutell J. Respected or Rejected: Perceptions of Women Who Confront Sexist Remarks. Sex Roles 2001;45:567–577.
    doi: 10.1023/A:1014866915741google scholar: lookup
  50. Kachel S, Steffens MC, Niedlich C. Traditional Masculinity and Femininity: Validation of a New Scale Assessing Gender Roles.. Front Psychol 2016;7:956.
    doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00956pmc: PMC4932111pubmed: 27458394google scholar: lookup
  51. Hall C, Goodwin D, Heleski C, Randle H, Waran N. Is there evidence of learned helplessness in horses?. J Appl Anim Welf Sci 2008;11(3):249-66.
    doi: 10.1080/10888700802101130pubmed: 18569222google scholar: lookup
  52. Shih HY, Paterson MBA, Georgiou F, Pachana NA, Phillips CJC. Who Is Pulling the Leash? Effects of Human Gender and Dog Sex on Human-Dog Dyads When Walking On-Leash.. Animals (Basel) 2020 Oct 16;10(10).
    doi: 10.3390/ani10101894pmc: PMC7602729pubmed: 33081144google scholar: lookup
  53. Bem SL. The measurement of psychological androgyny.. J Consult Clin Psychol 1974 Apr;42(2):155-62.
    doi: 10.1037/h0036215pubmed: 4823550google scholar: lookup
  54. Rubin JZ, Provenzano F, Luria Z. The eye of the beholder: parents' view on sex of newborns.. Am J Orthopsychiatry 1974 Jul;44(4):512-9.
    doi: 10.1111/j.1939-0025.1974.tb00905.xpubmed: 4844024google scholar: lookup
  55. Donovan J., Adams C. The Feminist Care Tradition in Animal Ethics: A Reader. Columbia UP; New York, NY, USA: 2007.
  56. Gilligan C. A Different Voice: Psychological Theory and Women’s Development. Harvard UP; Cambridge, MA, USA: 1982.
  57. Haraway D. A Manifesto for Cyborgs: Science, technology, and socialist feminism in the 1980s. Soc. Rev. 1985;15:65–108.
  58. Haraway D. Situated Knowledges: The science question in feminism as a site of discourse on the privilege of partial perspective. Fem. Stud. 1988;14:575–600.
    doi: 10.2307/3178066google scholar: lookup
  59. Adams C., Gruen L. Ecofeminism: Feminist Intersections with Other Animals and the Earth. Bloomsbury; New York, NY, USA: London, UK: 2014.
  60. Gruen L, Weil K. Animal Others—Editors’ Introduction. Hypatia 2012;27:477–478.
    doi: 10.1111/j.1527-2001.2012.01296.xgoogle scholar: lookup
  61. Donovan J. Feminism and the Treatment of Animals: From Care to Dialogue. Signs J. Women Cult. Soc. 2006;31:305–329.
    doi: 10.1086/491750google scholar: lookup
  62. Birke L., Hockenhull J. Crossing Boundaries: Investigating Human-Animal Relationships. Volume 14 Brill; Bosten, MA, USA: 2012.
  63. Birke L., Thompson K. (Un)Stable Relations: Horses, Humans and Social Agency. Routledge; London, UK: New York, NY, USA: 2018.

Citations

This article has been cited 1 times.
  1. Knox AL, Fenner K, Zsoldos RR, Wilson B, McGreevy P. Owner-Observed Behavioral Characteristics in Off-the-Track Thoroughbreds (OTTTBs) in Equestrian Second Careers. Animals (Basel) 2025 Jul 11;15(14).
    doi: 10.3390/ani15142046pubmed: 40723508google scholar: lookup
Subscribe to our newsletter
Join 99,727 horse owners like you who receive our email updates on horse health and nutrition.