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 MDPI2019; 9(2); 42; doi: 10.3390/ani9020042

Why Should Human-Animal Interactions Be Included in Research of Working Equids’ Welfare?

Abstract: The livelihood of working horses' owners and their families is intimately linked to the welfare of their equids. A proper understanding of human-animal interactions, as well as the main factors that modulate them, is essential for establishing strategies oriented to improve the welfare of animals and their caretakers. To date, there is still a paucity of research dedicated to the identification and assessment of the human psychological attributes that affect the owner⁻equine interaction, and how these could affect the welfare of working equids. However, some studies have shown that empathy, attitudes towards animals, human perception of animal pain and the owner´s locus of control are some of the psychological attributes that participate in human-equine interactions and that these can result in poor welfare of working equids. A better understanding of the relationship between human attributes and equids' welfare can provide an opportunity to improve the quality of interactions between owners and their working equids and thus improve their welfare. This review aims to explain why the inclusion of human psychological attributes that modulate the human-animal interactions can benefit welfare research in working equids. The role that empathy, perception of animal pain and locus of control play in the promotion of good welfare in working equids is emphasized.
Get Full Text
Publication Date: 2019-01-30 PubMed ID: 30704022PubMed Central: PMC6406816DOI: 10.3390/ani9020042Google 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 examines the importance of human-animal interactions in understanding and improving the welfare of working horses. It highlights the need for further study on the psychological factors affecting these interactions and emphasizes that greater knowledge in this area can enhance the quality of interactions and overall welfare.

Understanding Human-Animal Interactions

  • The researchers emphasise the importance of understanding human-animal interactions for improving the welfare of working horses. These interactions can affect both the animals’ quality of life and the livelihood of their owners.
  • They argue that identifying and assessing psychological attributes that affect the owner-horse relationship is a crucial yet under-explored area of research. This understanding could enable the development of strategies designed to improve the welfare of both animals and their caretakers.

Insights from Previous Studies

  • The authors note that although there is limited research in this area, existing studies have identified some key psychological attributes that affect human-equine interactions. These attributes include empathy, attitudes towards animals, human perception of animal pain, and the owner’s locus of control (the extent to which they believe they have control over their own life).
  • When these attributes are poorly understood or applied, they can result in poor welfare for working equids. For example, a lack of empathy or misperception of horse pain can lead to inappropriate care or treatment, negatively impacting the animal’s well-being.

Potential Benefits of Including Human Psychological Attributes in Research

  • The review advocates for the inclusion of human psychological attributes in welfare research for working horses. Understanding elements such as empathy, perception of animal pain, and locus of control can provide valuable insights for improving animal welfare.
  • The researchers propose that by understanding the relationship between these human attributes and horse welfare, we can improve the quality of interactions between owners and their working horses. This could potentially lead to better treatment and care for the animals, in turn improving their overall welfare.

Emphasizing Key Psychological Attributes

  • The study emphasizes the role of empathy, perception of animal pain, and locus of control in promoting good welfare in working equids. By better understanding these psychological elements in humans, we could potentially improve the quality of life for working animals.

Cite This Article

APA
Luna D, Tadich TA. (2019). Why Should Human-Animal Interactions Be Included in Research of Working Equids’ Welfare? Animals (Basel), 9(2), 42. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani9020042

Publication

Animals : an open access journal from MDPI
ISSN: 2076-2615
NlmUniqueID: 101635614
Country: Switzerland
Language: English
Volume: 9
Issue: 2
PII: 42

Researcher Affiliations

Luna, Daniela
  • Departamento de Fomento de la Producción Animal, Facultad de Ciencias Veterinarias y Pecuarias, Universidad de Chile, Santa Rosa 11735, La Pintana, Santiago 8820000, Chile. danluna@veterinaria.uchile.cl.
Tadich, Tamara A
  • Departamento de Fomento de la Producción Animal, Facultad de Ciencias Veterinarias y Pecuarias, Universidad de Chile, Santa Rosa 11735, La Pintana, Santiago 8820000, Chile. tamaratadich@u.uchile.cl.

Grant Funding

  • 1161136 / Fondo Nacional de Desarrollo Cientu00edfico y Tecnolu00f3gico

Conflict of Interest Statement

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

This article includes 134 references
  1. Johns C. Horses: History, Myth, Art. .
  2. Wilson R.T. Specific welfare problems associated with working horses. The Welfare of Horses Volume 1. Springer; Dordrecht, The Netherlands: 2007. pp. 203–218.
  3. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). FAOSTAT 2014. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) Database; accessed on 15 December 2015.
  4. The Brooke. The Brooke Report: Bearing a Heavy Burden. The Brooke, London; 2007; accessed on 10 July 2017.
  5. Pritchard J. What role do working equids play in human livelihoods, and how well is this currently recognised? How Do We Demonstrate the Importance of Working Equid Welfare to Human Livelihood?. Proceedings of the 7th International Colloquium on Working Equids; London, UK. 1–3 July 2014; pp. 2–6.
  6. Blakeway S. The multi-dimensional donkey in landscapes of donkey-human interaction. Relat. Beyond Anthr. 2014;2:59–77.
    doi: 10.7358/rela-2014-001-blakgoogle scholar: lookup
  7. Tadich TA, Stuardo Escobar LH. Strategies for improving the welfare of working equids in the Americas: a Chilean example.. Rev Sci Tech 2014 Apr;33(1):203-11.
    doi: 10.20506/rst.33.1.2271pubmed: 25000793google scholar: lookup
  8. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). The Role, Impact and Welfare of Working (Traction and Transport) Animals. Final Report of the FAO/The Brooke Electronic Consultation, 1–28 February. FAO; Rome, Italy: 2011; accessed on 6 November 2018.
  9. Zaman S, Kumar A, Compston P. Contribution of working equids to the livelihoods of their owners in Uttar Pradesh, India. Proceedings of the 7th International Colloquium on Working Equids; London, UK. 1–3 July 2014.
  10. Tesfaye A, Martin Curran M. A longitudinal survey of market donkeys in Ethiopia.. Trop Anim Health Prod 2005 Nov;37 Suppl 1:87-100.
    doi: 10.1007/s11250-005-9010-5pubmed: 16335073google scholar: lookup
  11. Pinillos RG, Appleby MC, Scott-Park F, Smith CW. One Welfare.. Vet Rec 2015 Dec 19;177(24):629-30.
    doi: 10.1136/vr.h6830pubmed: 26679918google scholar: lookup
  12. Pinillos RG, Appleby MC, Manteca X, Scott-Park F, Smith C, Velarde A. One Welfare - a platform for improving human and animal welfare.. Vet Rec 2016 Oct 22;179(16):412-413.
    doi: 10.1136/vr.i5470pubmed: 27770094google scholar: lookup
  13. Lanas R, Luna D, Tadich T. The relationship between working horse welfare and their owners’ socio-economic status. Anim. Welf. 2018;27:47–54.
    doi: 10.7120/09627286.27.1.047google scholar: lookup
  14. Luna D, Vásquez R.A, Tadich T. Exploring the Relationship Between Socio-Demographic Background and Empathy Toward Nonhuman Animals in Working Horse Caretakers. Soc. Anim. 2019; in press.
    doi: 10.1163/15685306-12341607google scholar: lookup
  15. Pritchard JC, Lindberg AC, Main DC, Whay HR. Assessment of the welfare of working horses, mules and donkeys, using health and behaviour parameters.. Prev Vet Med 2005 Jul 12;69(3-4):265-83.
    doi: 10.1016/j.prevetmed.2005.02.002pubmed: 15907574google scholar: lookup
  16. Burn CC, Dennison TL, Whay HR. Environmental and demographic risk factors for poor welfare in working horses, donkeys and mules in developing countries.. Vet J 2010 Dec;186(3):385-92.
    doi: 10.1016/j.tvjl.2009.09.016pubmed: 19926316google scholar: lookup
  17. Luna D, Vásquez RA, Rojas M, Tadich TA. Welfare Status of Working Horses and Owners' Perceptions of Their Animals.. Animals (Basel) 2017 Aug 1;7(8).
    doi: 10.3390/ani7080056pmc: PMC5575568pubmed: 28788109google scholar: lookup
  18. World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE). Welfare of working equids. Chapter 7.12. World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) Terrestrial Animal Health Code. OIE, World Organisation for Animal Health; Paris, France: 2018.
  19. Waiblinger S, Boivin X, Pedersen V, Tosi M.V, Janczak A.M, Visser E.K, Jones R.B. Assessing the human-animal relationship in farmed species: A critical review. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2006;101:185–242.
    doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2006.02.001google scholar: lookup
  20. Breuer K, Hemsworth PH, Barnett JL, Matthews LR, Coleman GJ. Behavioural response to humans and the productivity of commercial dairy cows.. Appl Anim Behav Sci 2000 Mar 1;66(4):273-288.
    doi: 10.1016/S0168-1591(99)00097-0pubmed: 10700627google scholar: lookup
  21. Hemsworth P.H. Human–animal interactions in livestock production. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2003;81:185–198.
    doi: 10.1016/S0168-1591(02)00280-0google scholar: lookup
  22. Breuer K, Hemsworth P.H, Coleman G.J. The effect of positive or negative handling on the behavioural and physiological responses of nonlactating heifers. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2003;84:3–22.
    doi: 10.1016/S0168-1591(03)00146-1google scholar: lookup
  23. Hemsworth PH, Barnett JL, Hansen C. The influence of handling by humans on the behavior, growth, and corticosteroids in the juvenile female pig.. Horm Behav 1981 Dec;15(4):396-403.
    doi: 10.1016/0018-506X(81)90004-0pubmed: 7327535google scholar: lookup
  24. Hanna D, Sneddon IA, Beattie VE. The relationship between the stockperson's personality and attitudes and the productivity of dairy cows.. Animal 2009 May;3(5):737-43.
    doi: 10.1017/S1751731109003991pubmed: 22444453google scholar: lookup
  25. Kielland C, Skjerve E, Osterås O, Zanella AJ. Dairy farmer attitudes and empathy toward animals are associated with animal welfare indicators.. J Dairy Sci 2010 Jul;93(7):2998-3006.
    doi: 10.3168/jds.2009-2899pubmed: 20630216google scholar: lookup
  26. Kauppinen T, Valros A, Vesala K.M. Attitudes of dairy farmers toward cow welfare in relation to housing, management and productivity. Anthrozoös 2013;26:405–420.
    doi: 10.2752/175303713X13697429463718google scholar: lookup
  27. Muri K, Tufte P.A, Skjerve E, Valle P.S. Human-animal relationships in the Norwegian dairy goat industry: Attitudes and empathy towards goats (Part I). Anim. Welf. 2012;21:535–545.
    doi: 10.7120/09627286.21.4.535google scholar: lookup
  28. Muri K, Valle P.S. Human-animal relationships in the Norwegian dairy goat industry: Assessment of pain and provision of veterinary treatment (Part II). Anim. Welf. 2012;21:547–558.
    doi: 10.7120/09627286.21.4.547google scholar: lookup
  29. Norring M, Wikman I, Hokkanen AH, Kujala MV, Hänninen L. Empathic veterinarians score cattle pain higher.. Vet J 2014 Apr;200(1):186-90.
    doi: 10.1016/j.tvjl.2014.02.005pubmed: 24685101google scholar: lookup
  30. Lensink J, Boissy A, Veissier I. The relationship between farmers’ attitude and behaviour towards calves, and productivity of veal units. Ann. Zootech. 2000;49:313–327.
    doi: 10.1051/animres:2000122google scholar: lookup
  31. Kauppinen T, Vesala K.M, Valros A. Farmer attitude toward improvement of animal welfare is correlated with piglet production parameters. Livest. Sci. 2012;143:142–150.
    doi: 10.1016/j.livsci.2011.09.011google scholar: lookup
  32. Ellingsen K, Zanella A.J, Bjerkås E, Indrebø A. The relationship between empathy, perception of pain and attitudes toward pets among Norwegian dog owners. Anthrozoös 2010;23:231–243.
    doi: 10.2752/175303710X12750451258931google scholar: lookup
  33. Connor M, Lawrence AB, Brown SM. Associations between Oxytocin Receptor Gene Polymorphisms, Empathy towards Animals and Implicit Associations towards Animals.. Animals (Basel) 2018 Aug 14;8(8).
    doi: 10.3390/ani8080140pmc: PMC6116162pubmed: 30110949google scholar: lookup
  34. Hemsworth L.M, Jongman E, Coleman G.J. Recreational horse welfare: The relationships between recreational horse owner attributes and recreational horse welfare. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2015;165:1–16.
    doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2014.11.019google scholar: lookup
  35. Luna D, Vásquez R.A, Yañez J.M, Tadich T.A. The relationship between working horse welfare state and their owners’ empathy level and perception of equine pain. Anim. Welf. 2018;27:115–123.
    doi: 10.7120/09627286.27.2.115google scholar: lookup
  36. Brizgys L.A. Working Equids: A Case Study Investigating if Locus of Control Affects Welfare in Central America. Master’s Thesis. Purdue University; West Lafayette, IN, USA: 2018.
  37. Rodriguez K.E, Guérin N.A, Gabriels R.L, Serpell J.A, Schreiner P.J, O´Haire M.E. The state of assessment in human-animal interaction research. Hum. Anim. Interact. Bull. 2018;6:63–81.
  38. Hosey G, Melfi V. Human-animal interactions, relationships and bonds: A review and analysis of the literature. Int. J. Comp. Psychol. 2014;27:117–142.
  39. Barker SB, Wolen AR. The benefits of human-companion animal interaction: a review.. J Vet Med Educ 2008 Winter;35(4):487-95.
    doi: 10.3138/jvme.35.4.487pubmed: 19228898google scholar: lookup
  40. Beetz A, Uvnäs-Moberg K, Julius H, Kotrschal K. Psychosocial and psychophysiological effects of human-animal interactions: the possible role of oxytocin.. Front Psychol 2012;3:234.
    doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00234pmc: PMC3408111pubmed: 22866043google scholar: lookup
  41. Fournier A.K, Berry T.D, Letson E, Chanen R. The human-animal interaction scale: Development and evaluation. Anthrozoös 2016;29:455–467.
    doi: 10.1080/08927936.2016.1181372google scholar: lookup
  42. Estep D.Q, Hetts S. Interactions, relationships, and bonds: The conceptual basis for scientist-animal relations. In: Davis H., Balfour A.D., editors. The Inevitable Bond: Examining Scientist-Animal Interactions. Cambridge University Press; Cambridge, NY, USA: 1992. pp. 6–26.
  43. 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
  44. Hemsworth P.H, Rice M, Karlen M.G, Calleja L, Barnett J.L, Nash J, Coleman G.J. Human-animal interactions at abattoirs: Relationships between handling and animal stress in sheep and cattle. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2011;135:24–33.
    doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2011.09.007google scholar: lookup
  45. Hemsworth P.H, Coleman G.J. Human-Animal Interactions and animal productivity and welfare. Human-Livestock Interactions: The Stockperson and the Productivity and Welfare of Intensively-Farmed Animals. 2nd ed. CAB International; Oxfordshire, UK: 2011. pp. 47–83.
  46. Barnett J.L, Hemsworth P.H, Hennesy D.P, McCallum T.H, Newman E.A. The effects of modifying the amount of human contact on behavioural, physiological and production responses of laying hens. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 1994;41:87–100.
    doi: 10.1016/0168-1591(94)90054-Xgoogle scholar: lookup
  47. Gross WB, Siegel PB. Socialization as a factor in resistance to infection, feed efficiency, and response to antigen in chickens.. Am J Vet Res 1982 Nov;43(11):2010-2.
    pubmed: 6758638
  48. Coleman G.J, Hemsworth P.H, Hay M. Predicting stockperson behaviour towards pigs from attitudinal and job-related variables and empathy. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 1998;58:63–75.
    doi: 10.1016/S0168-1591(96)01168-9google scholar: lookup
  49. Boivin X, Lensink J, Tallet C, Veissier I. Stockmanship and farm animal welfare. Anim. Welf. 2003;12:479–492.
  50. des Roches AB, Veissier I, Boivin X, Gilot-Fromont E, Mounier L. A prospective exploration of farm, farmer, and animal characteristics in human-animal relationships: An epidemiological survey.. J Dairy Sci 2016 Jul;99(7):5573-5585.
    doi: 10.3168/jds.2015-10633pubmed: 27085406google scholar: lookup
  51. Pearson RA, Krecek RC. Delivery of health and husbandry improvements to working animals in Africa.. Trop Anim Health Prod 2006 Feb;38(2):93-101.
    doi: 10.1007/s11250-006-4363-ypubmed: 17682593google scholar: lookup
  52. Burn C.C, Dennison T.L, Whay H.R. Relationship between behaviour and health in working horses, donkeys and mules in developing countries. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2010;126:109–118.
    doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2010.06.007google scholar: lookup
  53. Popescu S, Diugan E.A. 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
  54. Kumar N, Fisseha K.K, Shishay N, Hagos Y. Welfare assessment of working donkeys in Mekelle city, Ethiopia. Glob. Vet. 2014;12:314–319.
    doi: 10.5829/idosi.gv.2014.12.03.82120google scholar: lookup
  55. Ali A.B, El Sayed M.A, Matoock M.Y, Fouad M.A, Heleski C.R. A welfare assessment scoring system for working equids—A method for identifying at risk populations and for monitoring progress of welfare enhancement strategies (trialed in Egypt). Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2016;176:52–62.
    doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2015.12.001google scholar: lookup
  56. De Aluja A.S. The welfare of working equids in Mexico. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 1998;59:19–29.
    doi: 10.1016/S0168-1591(98)00117-8google scholar: lookup
  57. Tadich T, Escobar A, Pearson R.A. Husbandry and welfare aspects of urban draught horses in the south of Chile. Arch. Med. Vet. 2008;40:267–273.
    doi: 10.4067/S0301-732X2008000300007google scholar: lookup
  58. Galindo F, de Aluja A, Cagigas R, Huerta LA, Tadich TA. Application of the Hands-On Donkey Tool for Assessing the Welfare of Working Equids at Tuliman, Mexico.. J Appl Anim Welf Sci 2018 Jan-Mar;21(1):93-100.
    doi: 10.1080/10888705.2017.1351365pubmed: 28762781google scholar: lookup
  59. 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
  60. 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
  61. Payne E, DeAraugo J, Bennett P, McGreevy P. Exploring the existence and potential underpinnings of dog-human and horse-human attachment bonds.. Behav Processes 2016 Apr;125:114-21.
    doi: 10.1016/j.beproc.2015.10.004pubmed: 26470887google scholar: lookup
  62. Henry S, Hemery D, Richard M.A, Hausberger M. Human-mare relationships and behaviour of foals toward humans. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2005;93:341–362.
    doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2005.01.008google scholar: lookup
  63. Maros K, Boross B, Kubinyi E. Approach and follow behaviour-possible indicators of the human–horse relationship. Interact. Stud. 2010;11:410–427.
    doi: 10.1075/is.11.3.05margoogle scholar: lookup
  64. Keeling LJ, Jonare L, Lanneborn L. Investigating horse-human interactions: the effect of a nervous human.. Vet J 2009 Jul;181(1):70-1.
    doi: 10.1016/j.tvjl.2009.03.013pubmed: 19394879google scholar: lookup
  65. Fureix C, Pagès M, Bon R, Lassalle JM, Kuntz P, Gonzalez G. A preliminary study of the effects of handling type on horses' emotional reactivity and the human-horse relationship.. Behav Processes 2009 Oct;82(2):202-10.
    doi: 10.1016/j.beproc.2009.06.012pubmed: 19591910google scholar: lookup
  66. Birke L, Hockenhull J, Creighton E, Pinno L, Mee J, Mills D. Horses’ responses to variation in human approach. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2011;134:56–63.
    doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2011.06.002google scholar: lookup
  67. Visser E.K, Van Reenen C.G, Hopster H, Schilder M.B.H, Knaap J.H, Barneveld A, Blokhuis H.J. Quantifying aspects of young horses’ temperament: Consistency of behavioural variables. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2001;74:241–258.
    doi: 10.1016/S0168-1591(01)00177-0google scholar: lookup
  68. Hama H, Yogo M, Matsuyama Y. Effects of stroking horses on both humans’ and horses’ heart rate responses. Jpn. Psychol. Res. 1996;38:66–73.
    doi: 10.1111/j.1468-5884.1996.tb00009.xgoogle scholar: lookup
  69. Rivera E, Benjamin S, Nielsen B, Shelle J, Zanella A.J. Behavioral and physiological responses of horses to initial training: The comparison between pastured versus stalled horses. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2002;78:235–252.
    doi: 10.1016/S0168-1591(02)00091-6google scholar: lookup
  70. Merkies K, McKechnie M.J, Zakrajsek E. Behavioural and physiological responses of therapy horses to mentally traumatized humans. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2018;205:61–67.
    doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2018.05.019google scholar: lookup
  71. Boivin X, Garel J.P, Mante A, Le Neindre P. Beef calves react differently to different handlers according to the test situation and their previous interactions with their caretaker. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 1998;55:245–257.
    doi: 10.1016/S0168-1591(97)00050-6google scholar: lookup
  72. Hemsworth P.H, Coleman G.J, Cox M, Barnett J.L. Stimulus generalization: The inability of pigs to discriminate between humans on the basis of their previous handling experience. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 1994;40:129–142.
    doi: 10.1016/0168-1591(94)90077-9google scholar: lookup
  73. Lansade L, Bertrand M, Boivin X, Bouissou M.F. Effects of handling at weaning on manageability and reactivity of foals. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2004;87:131–149.
    doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2003.12.011google scholar: lookup
  74. Waiblinger S, Menke C, Fölsch D.W. Influences on the avoidance and approach behaviour of dairy cows towards humans on 35 farms. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2003;84:23–39.
    doi: 10.1016/S0168-1591(03)00148-5google scholar: lookup
  75. Murphey RM, Duarte FA, Torres Penedo MC. Approachability of bovine cattle in pastures; breed comparisons and a breed x treatment analysis.. Behav Genet 1980 Mar;10(2):171-81.
    doi: 10.1007/BF01066267pubmed: 7213302google scholar: lookup
  76. Hausberger M, Muller C. A brief note on some possible factors involved in the reactions of horses to humans. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2002;76:339–344.
    doi: 10.1016/S0168-1591(02)00016-3google scholar: lookup
  77. Furnham A, McManus C, Scott D. Personality, empathy and attitudes to animal welfare. Anthrozoös 2003;16:135–146.
    doi: 10.2752/089279303786992260google scholar: lookup
  78. Hills A.M. Empathy and belief in the mental experience of animals. Anthrozoös 1995;8:132–142.
    doi: 10.2752/089279395787156347google scholar: lookup
  79. Paul E.S. Empathy with animals and with humans: Are they linked?. Anthrozoös 2000;13:194–202.
    doi: 10.2752/089279300786999699google scholar: lookup
  80. Signal T.D, Taylor N. Attitudes to animals and empathy: Comparing animal protection and general community samples. Anthrozoös 2007;20:125–135.
    doi: 10.2752/175303707X207918google scholar: lookup
  81. Kielland C, Skjerve E, Zanella AJ. Attitudes of veterinary students to pain in cattle.. Vet Rec 2009 Aug 29;165(9):254-8.
    doi: 10.1136/vr.165.9.254pubmed: 19717829google scholar: lookup
  82. Valros A, Hänninen L. Animal Ethical Views and Perception of Animal Pain in Veterinary Students.. Animals (Basel) 2018 Nov 23;8(12).
    doi: 10.3390/ani8120220pmc: PMC6315997pubmed: 30477084google scholar: lookup
  83. Decety J, Jackson PL. The functional architecture of human empathy.. Behav Cogn Neurosci Rev 2004 Jun;3(2):71-100.
    doi: 10.1177/1534582304267187pubmed: 15537986google scholar: lookup
  84. Ascione F.R. Children, animals, and empathy: Sharing emotions-antidote for aggression and violence?. Children and Animals: Exploring the Roots of Kindness and Cruelty. Purdue University Press; West Lafayette, IN, USA: 2005. pp. 63–88.
  85. Davis M.H. A multidimensional approach to individual differences in empathy. Catalog. Sel. Doc. Psychol. 1980;10:85–104.
  86. Shamay-Tsoory SG. The neural bases for empathy.. Neuroscientist 2011 Feb;17(1):18-24.
    doi: 10.1177/1073858410379268pubmed: 21071616google scholar: lookup
  87. Zahn-Waxler C, Radke-Yarrow M. The origins of empathic concern. Motiv. Emot. 1990;14:107–130.
    doi: 10.1007/BF00991639google scholar: lookup
  88. Eisenberg N. Emotion, regulation, and moral development.. Annu Rev Psychol 2000;51:665-97.
    doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.51.1.665pubmed: 10751984google scholar: lookup
  89. Thompson K.L, Gullone E. Prosocial and antisocial behaviors in adolescents: An investigation into associations with attachment and empathy. Anthrozoös 2008;21:123–137.
    doi: 10.2752/175303708X305774google scholar: lookup
  90. McPhedran S. A review of the evidence for associations between empathy, violence, and animal cruelty. Aggress. Violent. Behav. 2009;14:1–4.
    doi: 10.1016/j.avb.2008.07.005google scholar: lookup
  91. Taylor N, Signal T.D. Empathy and attitudes to animals. Anthrozoös 2005;18:18–27.
    doi: 10.2752/089279305785594342google scholar: lookup
  92. Paul ES, Podberscek AL. Veterinary education and students' attitudes towards animal welfare.. Vet Rec 2000 Mar 4;146(10):269-72.
    doi: 10.1136/vr.146.10.269pubmed: 10749039google scholar: lookup
  93. Hills A.M. The motivational bases of attitudes toward animals. Soc. Anim. 1993;1:111–128.
    doi: 10.1163/156853093X00028google scholar: lookup
  94. Calderón-Amor J, Luna-Fernández D, Tadich T. Study of the Levels of Human-Human and Human-Animal Empathy in Veterinary Medical Students from Chile.. J Vet Med Educ 2017 Spring;44(1):179-186.
    doi: 10.3138/jvme.0216-038Rpubmed: 28206834google scholar: lookup
  95. Apostol L, Rebega O.L, Miclea M. Psychological and socio-demographic predictors of attitudes toward animals. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 2013;78:521–525.
    doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.04.343google scholar: lookup
  96. Angantyr M, Eklund J, Hansen E.M. A comparison of empathy for humans and empathy for animals. Anthrozoös 2011;24:369–377.
    doi: 10.2752/175303711X13159027359764google scholar: lookup
  97. Rae Westbury H, Neumann DL. Empathy-related responses to moving film stimuli depicting human and non-human animal targets in negative circumstances.. Biol Psychol 2008 Apr;78(1):66-74.
    doi: 10.1016/j.biopsycho.2007.12.009pubmed: 18282653google scholar: lookup
  98. Franklin RG Jr, Nelson AJ, Baker M, Beeney JE, Vescio TK, Lenz-Watson A, Adams RB Jr. Neural responses to perceiving suffering in humans and animals.. Soc Neurosci 2013;8(3):217-27.
    doi: 10.1080/17470919.2013.763852pubmed: 23405957google scholar: lookup
  99. Vanutelli ME, Balconi M. Perceiving emotions in human-human and human-animal interactions: Hemodynamic prefrontal activity (fNIRS) and empathic concern.. Neurosci Lett 2015 Sep 25;605:1-6.
    doi: 10.1016/j.neulet.2015.07.020pubmed: 26272301google scholar: lookup
  100. Tadich T, de Aluja A, Cagigas R, Huerta L.A, Galindo F. Children’s recognition of working donkeys’ needs in Tuliman, Mexico: Preliminary observations. Vet. Mexico. 2016;3:1–6.
    doi: 10.21753/vmoa.3.4.404google scholar: lookup
  101. Bojia E, Nigus A, Bekele H, Lemessa G, Alemayehu F, Asmamaw K, Tesfaye M, Hagos H, Ayele G, Teshome W. Promoting animal welfare through nurturing empathy in schoolchildren: The case of rural community schools, Ethiopia. Proceedings of the 6th International Colloquium on Working Equids: Learning from Others; New Delhi, India. 29 November–2 December 2010; pp. 331–335.
  102. Lemessa G, Alemayehu F, Bojia E, Amare B, Tesfaye M, Price S.J, Blakeway S. Empathy education about working animals in primary schools of central Ethiopia. Proceedings of the 6th International Colloquium on Working Equids: Learning from Others; New Delhi, India. 29 November–2 December 2010; pp. 344–349.
  103. Knafo A, Zahn-Waxler C, Van Hulle C, Robinson JL, Rhee SH. The developmental origins of a disposition toward empathy: Genetic and environmental contributions.. Emotion 2008 Dec;8(6):737-52.
    doi: 10.1037/a0014179pubmed: 19102585google scholar: lookup
  104. Jackson PL, Meltzoff AN, Decety J. How do we perceive the pain of others? A window into the neural processes involved in empathy.. Neuroimage 2005 Feb 1;24(3):771-9.
    doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2004.09.006pubmed: 15652312google scholar: lookup
  105. Farm Animal Welfare Council (FAWC). Second Report on Priorities for Research and Development in Farm Animal Welfare: Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. Farm Animal Welfare Council (FAWC); Hawke’s Bay, New Zealand: 1993; accessed on 28 August 2018.
  106. Price J, Marques JM, Welsh EM, Waran NK. Pilot epidemiological study of attitudes towards pain in horses.. Vet Rec 2002 Nov 9;151(19):570-5.
    doi: 10.1136/vr.151.19.570pubmed: 12452357google scholar: lookup
  107. Raekallio M, Heinonen KM, Kuussaari J, Vainio O. Pain alleviation in animals: attitudes and practices of Finnish veterinarians.. Vet J 2003 Mar;165(2):131-5.
    doi: 10.1016/S1090-0233(02)00186-7pubmed: 12573601google scholar: lookup
  108. Coleman DL, Slingsby LS. Attitudes of veterinary nurses to the assessment of pain and the use of pain scales.. Vet Rec 2007 Apr 21;160(16):541-4.
    doi: 10.1136/vr.160.16.541pubmed: 17449708google scholar: lookup
  109. Luna-Fernández D, Yañez-López J.M, Tadich-Gallo T.A. Level of agreement in the recognition of pain among equine practitioners in Chile. Vet. Mexico. 2016;3:1–8.
    doi: 10.21753/vmoa.3.1.356google scholar: lookup
  110. Huxley JN, Whay HR. Current attitudes of cattle practitioners to pain and the use of analgesics in cattle.. Vet Rec 2006 Nov 11;159(20):662-8.
    doi: 10.1136/vr.159.20.662pubmed: 17099174google scholar: lookup
  111. Thomsen PT, Anneberg I, Herskin MS. Differences in attitudes of farmers and veterinarians towards pain in dairy cows.. Vet J 2012 Oct;194(1):94-7.
    doi: 10.1016/j.tvjl.2012.02.025pubmed: 22516921google scholar: lookup
  112. Ison SH, Rutherford KM. Attitudes of farmers and veterinarians towards pain and the use of pain relief in pigs.. Vet J 2014 Dec;202(3):622-7.
    doi: 10.1016/j.tvjl.2014.10.003pubmed: 25455386google scholar: lookup
  113. Wikman I, Hokkanen AH, Pastell M, Kauppinen T, Valros A, Hänninen L. Dairy producer attitudes to pain in cattle in relation to disbudding calves.. J Dairy Sci 2013;96(11):6894-6903.
    doi: 10.3168/jds.2012-6128pubmed: 24054284google scholar: lookup
  114. Larrondo C, Bustamante H, Gallo C. Sheep Farmers' Perception of Welfare and Pain Associated with Routine Husbandry Practices in Chile.. Animals (Basel) 2018 Nov 28;8(12).
    doi: 10.3390/ani8120225pmc: PMC6315487pubmed: 30487400google scholar: lookup
  115. Eagly A.H, Chaiken S. The Psychology of Attitudes. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College; Orlando, FL, USA: 1993. p. 794.
  116. Hemsworth P.H, Coleman G.J. Attitudes of stockpeople. In: Hemsworth P.H., Coleman G.J., editors. Human Livestock Interactions: The Stockperson and the Productivity and Welfare of Intensively-Farmed Animals. 2nd ed. CAB International; Oxfordshire, UK: 2011. pp. 84–102.
  117. Heleski CR, Mertig AG, Zanella AJ. Results of a national survey of US veterinary college faculty regarding attitudes toward farm animal welfare.. J Am Vet Med Assoc 2005 May 1;226(9):1538-46.
    doi: 10.2460/javma.2005.226.1538pubmed: 15882007google scholar: lookup
  118. Ostović M, Mesić Ž, Mikuš T, Matković K, Pavičić Ž. Attitudes of veterinary students in Croatia toward farm animal welfare. Anim. Welf. 2016;25:21–28.
    doi: 10.7120/09627286.25.1.021google scholar: lookup
  119. Ajzen I, Fishbein M. Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social Behavior. Prentice-Hall, Inc.; Englewood Cliffs, NJ, USA: 1980.
  120. Ikinger C, Spiller A, Kayser M. Factors influencing the attitude of equestrians towards sport horse welfare. Anim. Welf. 2016;25:411–422.
    doi: 10.7120/09627286.25.4.411google scholar: lookup
  121. Coleman G.J, McGregor M, Hemsworth P.H, Boyce J, Dowling S. The relationship between beliefs, attitudes and observed behaviours of abattoir personnel in the pig industry. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2003;82:189–200.
    doi: 10.1016/S0168-1591(03)00057-1google scholar: lookup
  122. Hemsworth PH, Coleman GJ, Barnett JL, Borg S. Relationships between human-animal interactions and productivity of commercial dairy cows.. J Anim Sci 2000 Nov;78(11):2821-31.
    doi: 10.2527/2000.78112821xpubmed: 11063304google scholar: lookup
  123. Rushen J, Taylor A.A, de Passillé A.M. Domestic animals’ fear of humans and its effect on their welfare. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 1999;65:285–303.
    doi: 10.1016/S0168-1591(99)00089-1google scholar: lookup
  124. Hemsworth P.H, Coleman G.J, Barnett J.L. Improving the attitude and behaviour of stockpeople towards pigs and the consequences on the behaviour and reproductive performance of commercial pigs. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 1994;39:349–362.
    doi: 10.1016/0168-1591(94)90168-6google scholar: lookup
  125. 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
  126. Visser E.K, Van Wijk-Jansen E.E. Diversity in horse enthusiasts with respect to horse welfare: An explorative study. J. Vet. Behav. 2012;7:295–304.
    doi: 10.1016/j.jveb.2011.10.007google scholar: lookup
  127. Chamove A.S, Crawley-Hartrick O.J, Stafford K.J. Horse reactions to human attitudes and behavior. Anthrozoös 2002;15:323–331.
    doi: 10.2752/089279302786992423google scholar: lookup
  128. Gray K, Schein C. Two minds vs two philosophies: Mind perception defines morality and dissolves the debate between deontology and utilitarianism. Rev. Philos. Psychol. 2012;3:405–423.
    doi: 10.1007/s13164-012-0112-5google scholar: lookup
  129. Hötzel M.J, Vieira M.C, Leme D.P. Exploring horse owners’ and caretakers’ perceptions of emotions and associated behaviors in horses. J. Vet. Behav. 2019;29:18–24.
    doi: 10.1016/j.jveb.2018.10.002google scholar: lookup
  130. Mueller MK, Sween C, Frank N, Paradis MR. Survey of human-horse relationships and veterinary care for geriatric horses.. J Am Vet Med Assoc 2018 Aug 1;253(3):337-345.
    doi: 10.2460/javma.253.3.337pubmed: 30019999google scholar: lookup
  131. Schuurman N. Conceptions of equine welfare in Finnish horse magazines. Soc. Anim. 2015;23:250–268.
    doi: 10.1163/15685306-12341268google scholar: lookup
  132. Rotter JB. Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement.. Psychol Monogr 1966;80(1):1-28.
    doi: 10.1037/h0092976pubmed: 5340840google scholar: lookup
  133. Lefcourt H.M. Locus of Control: Current Trends in Theory and Research. 2nd ed. Psychology Press; Hillsdale, NJ, USA: 1982.
  134. Lund V, Coleman G, Gunnarsson S, Appleby M.C, Karkinen K. Animal welfare science—Working at the interface between the natural and social sciences. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2006;97:37–49.
    doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2005.11.017google scholar: lookup

Citations

This article has been cited 25 times.
Subscribe to our newsletter
Join 99,780 horse owners like you who receive our email updates on horse health and nutrition.