Download pdf - Does Horse Temperament Influence Horse–Rider Cooperation?

JOURNAL OF APPLIED ANIMAL WELFARE SCIENCE, 11:267–284, 2008Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLCISSN: 1088-8705 print/1532-7604 onlineDOI: 10.1080/10888700802101254

Does Horse Temperament InfluenceHorse–Rider Cooperation?

E. Kathalijne Visser,1 Cornelis G. Van Reenen,1

Mari Zetterqvist Blokhuis,2 E. Karin M. Morgan,2

Peter Hassmén,3 T. Margareta M. Rundgren,4

and Harry J. Blokhuis5

1Animal Sciences Group, Wageningen University and Research Centres,

Lelystad, The Netherlands2Ridskolan Strömsholm, Stockholm, Sweden

3Department of Psychology, Stockholm University, Sweden4Department of Animal Nutrition and Management, Swedish University

of Agricultural Sciences, Uppsala, Sweden5Department of Animal Environment and Health, Swedish University of

Agricultural Sciences, Uppsala, Sweden

Cooperation between rider and horse is of major importance in equitation. A bal-anced team of horse and rider improves (sport) performances and welfare aspectsby decreasing stress, frustration, risks of injuries, and accidents. Important featuresaffecting the cooperation are the physical skills, knowledge, and personality ofthe rider on one hand and the temperament, experience, and physical abilities ofthe horse on the other. A study with 16 riders and 16 warm-blood riding horsestested the effect of personality of riders and temperament of horses on cooperationbetween riders and horses. More emotionally reactive horses showed more evasivebehavior during riding. Riders preferred to ride those horses who were assessed bythe riders as being attentive to the rider’s aid. The frequency of evasive behaviorsduring riding—as assessed by riders, in contrast to the assessments made by anexternal judge—influenced the cooperation between rider and horse. On average, arider’s personality did not affect the cooperation between rider and horse; however,it is suggested that a rider’s personality does affect the cooperation with moreemotionally reactive horses.

Correspondence should be sent to Kathalijne Visser, Animal Sciences Group of WageningenUniversity and Research Centre, P.O. Box 65, NL 8200 AB Lelystad, The Netherlands. Email:[email protected]

267

268 VISSER ET AL.

The relationship between horse and rider is interactive and complex (Visser et al.,2003). Whereas success in most competitive sports depends solely upon humandecisions and responses, the successful completion of a task in equestrian sportsdepends on the human-horse interaction and their cooperation.

The value of a horse largely depends on how the horse-rider team performs,either in sports or in leisure. Only limited data are available on longevity ofhorses. In Sweden, the life expectancy of warm-blood horses was 15 years forgeldings and stallions and 18 years for mares (Wallin, Strandberg, Philipsson, &Dahlin, 2000). The average age of horses being culled in the slaughterhouse inMunich between 1974 and 1982 was only 8.5 years (Von Butler & Armbruster,1984). It has been suggested that behavioral problems might be responsible for alarge part of these cullings (Ödberg & Bouissou, 2000). Behavioral problems canmanifest themselves during housing, handling, and/or riding. Horses exposed toinadequate housing have a high risk for developing stereotypies.

Major causes of the development of stereotypies are the restricted space,lack of roughage, and the isolated way of housing horses in modern systems(Broom & Kennedy, 1993; McGreevy, Cripps, French, Green, & Nicol, 1995;Mills, Alston, Rogers, & Longford, 2002; Redbo, Redbo-Torstensson, Ödberg,Hedendahl, & Holm, 1998). The problems encountered during handling andriding stem, for the most part, from a misunderstanding or miscommunicationbetween rider and horse. Inappropriate handling techniques, especially those thatcause flight responses or evasive behavior, account for much of the wastage ratesamong horses as well as the majority of the deaths and injuries among handlers(Warren-Smith & McGreevy, 2005).

This interaction and communication depends partly on how experienced andskillful the rider or handler is to respond and interplay with the horse’s behaviorand partly on the horse’s behavioral reactions toward challenging situations. Intraining young horses it is, for example, very important to use learning theorycorrectly, in other words, correct timing and consistent responses and signals(McLean & McGreevy, 2006). The interaction is obviously also affected byinternal factors like temperament of the horse and personality of the rider; it iswell known that some riders just fit some horses better than other horses, evenat top competition level.

Horse temperament has been an increasing topic of interest in researchover the last decade. Horse temperament has been assessed qualitatively andquantitatively both by using rating scores from assessors and by performingbehavioral tests, although it has been questioned whether some aspects of thesemethods provide a true picture of the horse’s temperament (McCall, Hall, McEl-henney, & Cummins, 2006; Seaman, Davidson, & Waran, 2002). In general,these methods have proved to be feasible and useful in practice. To evaluatethe horse’s temperament qualitatively, familiar and unfamiliar persons (riders,trainers, handlers, and judges) have been used as assessors. The situation and

HORSE–RIDER COOPERATION 269

condition in which a horse is being assessed is of major importance to theoutcome. In order to get a full picture of the horse’s temperament, the horseneeds to be challenged in many different ways. Another way of measuring horsetemperament is by the use of behavioral tests, in which horses are challenged toshow their responsiveness and motivations. These tests are being used in manyanimals on the farm and in the laboratory and have been adapted to accommodatethe horse’s specific behavioral repertoire and responses. The advantage of usingbehavioral tests is that these can be carried out in a more standardized waycompared with assessment made subjectively. However, it is more work toperform these tests and to analyze the raw data. Although individual scientistshave used slightly different methods, the major aspects of temperament that havebeen measured using these tests are emotional reactivity, reactions to humanhandling, and learning abilities.

The performance in riding is influenced by a large number of variablessuch as the rider’s balance, body awareness, and personality (Meyners, 2004).Personality can be conceptualized in many ways, although the trait psychologyperspective stemming from the work of Allport and Odbert (1936) has success-fully been applied in sport settings. Trait characteristics such as self-esteem,perfectionism, locus of control, and sense of coherence have been shown toaffect sport performance to varying degrees (Fallby, Hassmén, Kenttä, & Durand-Bush, 2006; Koivula, Hassmén, & Fallby, 2002). It has also been shown thatelite competitors in dressage and show jumping exhibited significantly higheranxiety management and concentration skills than subelite athletes. These find-ings are consistent with results from personality research on competitors in othersports (Meyers, Bourgeois, LeUnes, & Murray, 1999). Evaluating the interactionbetween horse and rider remains a very subjective task. In competition, it isexpected that a good horse-rider combination will perform better in terms offinal ranking. However, judges often show a high level of disagreement onthe performance of horse-rider combinations (Starchurska, Pieta, Niewczas, &Markowski, 2006).

To our knowledge, there has only been one study in which subjective assess-ment of horse performance during a standardized dressage tests has been studied(De Cartier d’Yves & Ödberg, 2005). During this study, four dressage judgesassessed the horse performance for using eight dressage criteria. However, thesecriteria mainly focused on horse movements rather than on cooperation betweenrider and horse. So our questions were as follows: Do external judges agree oncooperation matters? Is the judge’s score of cooperation between horse and riderin concordance with the riders’ assessment of this cooperation? What influencesthese scores?

In equitation, trainers and riders generally use nonscientific terms. However,data suggest that qualified equestrian instructors frequently use terms that orig-inated in behavioral science but confuse their exact meaning (Warren-Smith

270 VISSER ET AL.

& McGreevy, 2008). Several descriptors may be used for the same behavior,depending on the observer (Mills, 1998).

Although various aspects of horse behavior and temperament have beenstudied (Visser, 2002; Waring, 1983), horse behavior while being ridden has onlyrarely been investigated (Rivera, Benjamin, Nielsen, Shelle, & Zanella, 2002;Weeks & Beck, 1996; Zetterqvist Blokhuis, Hartmann, Aronsson, Van Reenen, &Keeling, 2007). Although not systematically investigated and validated, scientistsuse a range of evasive behaviors to show stress in horses while being ridden(Goodwin, 1999). Evasive behavior results from a conflict situation in the horseand is a set of responses of varying duration that is usually characterizedby hyperreactivity and arise largely through confusion (McGreevy, McLean,Warren-Smith, Waran, & Goodwin, 2005). These behaviors include head tossing,head shaking, tail wringing, tail swishing, and defecating (Kaiser, Heleski,Siegford, & Smith, 2006; McGreevy et al., 2005). Other evasive behaviors thathave been used are rearing, bucking, and backing (De Cartier d’Yves & Ödberg,2005).

This study aims to investigate the relation between aspects of the horse’stemperament and estimates of the horse-rider cooperation by riders and anexternal judge. We also looked at how the assessment of riders and the externaljudge related. Moreover, the relation between some aspects of rider’s personalityon this cooperation was studied.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Horses and Riders

This study was performed at the National Equestrian Centre Strömsholm inSweden. The experiment was approved by the Animal Care and Use committeeof the Animal Sciences Group of Wageningen University and Research Centersin The Netherlands.

Sixteen horses (ages 5–15 years; 4 mares and 12 geldings) were selectedfor this study. Horses were housed in individual stables or stands at the ridingschool. They were ridden daily and were turned out on a daily basis. Horseswere fed concentrates and roughage according to age and exercise level; waterwas available ad libitum.

Sixteen equestrian students (between 21 and 27 years of age, 2 men and14 women) of the National Equestrian Centre volunteered to participate inthe study. The students were in their 2nd year of study and had reached anelementary level in dressage and 1.10 m level in show jumping. Student riderswere not familiar with the horses at the start of the experiment.


Testing for Temperament Using Behavioral Tests

Horses were tested for temperament using a novel object test and a handlingtest. For the novel object test, horses were equipped with a heart rate measuringdevice (Polar Vantage) in their stables. After a resting heart rate of 2 min wastaken, a familiar handler led the horse into a familiar indoor arena and left thehorse in a so-called starting box in a corner of the arena. After being left tosettle down for approximately 2 min, the horse was released out of the startingbox through an automatic sliding door and was free to move in the indoor arena.After 2 min, an open blue and white umbrella was lowered from the ceiling.The horse’s behavior was videotaped during the 2 min before, and 5 min after,exposure to the umbrella. Thereafter, the horse was caught, brought back to thestable, and the heart rate device was disconnected.

For the handling test, the horse was also equipped with the heart rate mea-suring device (Polar Vantage). After recording a baseline heart rate in the stable,the horse was led by one familiar handler into the indoor arena where the horsewas encouraged to follow the handler walking over some plywood plates (2 �

4 m) lying on the floor. Horses were not forced to follow, but the handler kept aslight tension on the lead rope in order to guide the horse to go forward. Whenhorses reared, shied, or went backward, another attempt was made. Each horsewas allowed to make a maximum of three attempts.

Both tests were videotaped, and tapes were analyzed using the Observersoftware system (Version 4.1). Behavioral measures scored in the novel-objecttest and handling tests are shown in Tables 1 and 2. For more details on executionof the tests and the measures that were recorded, see Visser et al. (2001) andVisser et al. (2002).

Testing for Riders’ Personality

Each rider filled in a questionnaire in order to establish a personality profile.The personality profile included the following conventional psychological tests:LOC (Locus of Control); SOC (Sense of Coherence); SCAT (Sport CompetitionAnxiety Test); SE (Self-Esteem); and SC (Self-Consciousness).

The tests were selected from a number of tests that have been used forstudying athletes in other studies (Fallby et al., 2006; Koivula et al., 2002).Twoof the tests, LOC and SOC, were selected for further analysis based on theirability to measure the control concept.

The I-E Locus of Control Scale (LOC) was developed by Rotter (1966)and consists of 23 test items and 6 filler items (total 29 items). A high LOCscore means that the person believes external “forces” control the situation (anexternal locus of control) whereas a low score means that the person believes

272 VISSER ET AL.

TABLE 1

List of Variables in Horses Recorded in the Novel Object Test

With Adult Horses (N D 16)

Variable Definition

SNa Snorting (forceful expulsion of air through the nostrils incidentally preceded by araspy inhalation sound)

FNOb Focused on the novel object (ears, eyes, and head pointed in direction of novel object)HLb Head low (horse held its nose below its belly line)LTNOb Latency time to touch the novel object for the first timeTCb Percentage of time trotting and canteringTUb Percentage of time tail up (tail root above horizontal line)HRNO Mean heart rate during NO exposureHRVNO Heart rate variability (rMSSD) during NO exposure

aFrequency. bPercentage of total time.

TABLE 2

List of Variables in Horses Recorded in the Handling Test

With Adult Horses (N D 16)

Variable Definition

NTa Total number of attempts needed to cross the bridgeRBa Reluctance behavior (pawing, rearing, striking, head shaking, walking sideways,

pulling backwards) while approaching the bridgeSSBb Percentage of time standing still in front of the bridgeHRHAN Mean heart rate during approach and bridge crossingHRVHAN Heart rate variability (rMSSD) during approach and bridge crossing

aFrequency. bPercentage of total time.

the outcome of the result depends on how one interacts and affects the situation(internal locus of control).

The Sense of Coherence Scale (SOC), consisting of 29 questions, measures,according to Antonovsky (1987, 1993), to what degree the respondents perceivethe world to be comprehensible, manageable, and meaningful.

Riding Test

Four weeks after the horses were tested for temperament, each of 16 ridersrode all 16 horses in a standard course (256 rides in total). This standard courseincluded different challenges for the horse-rider team to negotiate in order to testand evaluate their cooperation. The course consisted of jumping a small fence,trotting a serpentine along roadwork traffic cones, walking across wooden panels,


TABLE 3

List of Variables Used to Assess the Level of

Evasive Behavior During Riding

Variable Definition

Head shaking Frequency of head shakingDefecating Frequency of defecatingStandstill Frequency of unintended stopsTail switching Frequency of tail switchingBackwards Frequency of walking backwardsShying Frequency of shying

and walking along a side where a recording of a chain saw was being played.Riders rode each horse in a random order in a 4-day period. During the ride,behavior of horses was videotaped, and tapes were scored for evasive behaviors(Table 3).

Immediately after the ride, the riders were asked to fill in two questionnairesabout the temperament of the horse and the cooperation between rider andhorse (Tables 4 and 5). The temperamental aspects of the horse as well as thecooperation aspects between rider and horse were scored qualitatively using aline-rating method in which riders had to put a mark on a 10 cm scale between0 (the least) and 10 (the most). At the same time, an external judge—with manyyears of experience as show jumper, trainer, and judge—evaluated the horse-rider team by completing the same questionnaire on cooperation as the riders

TABLE 4

List of Variables Scored by Riders in Assessing Horses’ Temperament

Immediately After Riding a Standard Course (N D 16)

Variable Definition

Rreins Receptive to the reins: rapidity and intensity of the horse’s reaction to the bit and reinsRlegs Receptive to the legs: rapidity and intensity of the horse’s reaction to the rider’s legsSdist Sensitive to disturbances: rapidity and intensity of the horse’s reaction to disturbances

in the environmentSpook Spooky: how often and intensive the horse is shying for somethingLive Lively: how active and alert and/or playful the horse isConf Confident: how safe and secure the horse seems to beArider Attentive to the rider: how observant the horse is to the riderAsurr Attentive to surroundings: how observant the horse is to the environmentCurio Curious: the tendency of the horse to explore different things in the environmentBrave Brave: the tendency of the horse to pass frightening objects and events

274 VISSER ET AL.

TABLE 5

List of Items Included in the Questionnaires Filled in by

Both the Riders and the External Judge

Variable Definition

Rider’s control Rider’s control of the horseObedience Obedience of the horseObey task Horse will obey the taskRiding ability Response to the rider’s aidsInterplay Interplay between rider and the horse

(Questionnaire 2, Table 5). During the rides, all riders wore heart rate measuringdevices (Polar Vantage) that measured mean heart rate every 5 s.

Data Analysis

In Figure 1, the 256 rides are schematically depicted by a 16 riders � 16 horsesmatrix with the 16 horses (denoted H1 to H16) listed in a vertical direction andthe 16 riders (denoted R1 to R16) listed in a horizontal direction. Each pointH:R: in the matrix represents a single ride and refers to the combination of theith horse and the jth rider. For those measures that were recorded during eachride (temperament of the horse assessed by the riders, scores for cooperationassigned by riders and the external judge, and evasive behavior of the horseduring riding), the number of data points was equal to the total number ofrides. Measures recorded during each ride were averaged either across riders, toproduce averages per horse (H1-avg to H16-avg, Figure 1), or across horses, toproduce averages per rider (R1-avg to R16-avg, Figure 1).

Averages calculated per horse were used to examine the relationships betweenhorse temperament as assessed in the behavioral tests, horse temperament asassessed by the riders, evasive behavior of the horse during riding, and the

R1 R2 R3 : : : : : : : : R15 R16 H averageH1 H1R1 H1R2 H1R3 : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : H1-avgH2 H2R1 : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : H2-avgH3 H3R1 : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : H3-avg

: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :

: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :

H15 : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : H15R15 H15R16 : : : :

H16 : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : H16R15 H16R16 H16-avgR average R1-avg R2-avg R3-avg : : : : : : : : : : : : R16-avg

FIGURE 1 Schematic representation of the rides observed in this study. R D rider, H D

horse.


cooperation between rider and horse as assessed by the rider and by the externaljudge. Averages calculated per rider were used to examine the relationshipbetween the personality of the rider, the average heart rate of the rider, and thecooperation between rider and horse as assessed by the rider and the externaljudge.

Principal component analysis (PCA) was employed to summarize correlatedmeasures into so-called principal components (Jolliffe, 1986). Principal com-ponents produced by PCA are linear combinations of the original variablesand represent condensed new variables reflecting independent characteristicsunderlying the correlation matrix. The loading of each measure on a principalcomponent represents the correlation between the new variable and the originalmeasure and thus indicates the importance of a measure for a principal com-ponent. The first component explains most of the variance (expressed in termsof the first eigenvalue); the second component explains most of the remainingvariation. For the scores of cooperation assigned by the riders and the externaljudge, a separate PCA was carried out on both averages per horse and averagesper rider. For scores of horse temperament as assessed by the rider and forconflict behavior of the horse during riding, averages per horse were subjectedto PCA. Measures were scaled prior to PCA; the analysis was performed on thePearson correlation matrix. Only principal components with eigenvalues equalto or larger than 1 were retained for further analysis.

Listed in Table 6 are the ultimate measures included in the analysis ofrelationships between horse-temperament as assessed in the behavioral tests,horse-temperament as assessed by the riders, evasive behavior of the horse during

TABLE 6

Measuresa of Horse Temperament, Horse Behavior During Riding, and

Cooperation Between Rider and Horse

Test/Original

Measures

Composite

Measure

(Principal

Component)

%Variance

Explained

High Value

or Score

Low Value

or Score

Horse temperament—behavior tests

Flightiness(novelty)

43 Very flighty(novelty)

Not flighty (novelty)

Horse temperament—riders assessment

Sensitive toenvironment

49 Very sensitive toenvironment

Not sensitive toenvironment

Horse temperament—riders assessment

Attentive to rider 42 Very attentive rider Not attentive rider

Behavior during riding Conflict duringriding

59 Many conflictbehavior

Least conflictbehavior

Cooperation assessed byriders

Cooperation byriders

92 Cooperative Not cooperative

Cooperation assessed byexternal judge

Cooperation byjudge


aBased on original measures observed in horses or on averages calculated per horse.

276 VISSER ET AL.

riding, and the cooperation between rider and horse as assessed by the rider andby the external judge. The first principal component of a PCA of heart rateand behavioral measures recorded during the novel-object and handling testsserved as a composite index of horse temperament as assessed in the behavioraltests. The following measures were subjected to PCA (see Tables 1 and 2 forabbreviations and definitions of variables): head low (HL); focused on novelobject (FNO); tail up (TU); trotting and cantering (TC); snorting (SN); meanheart rate novel during object test (HRNO); mean heart rate during handling test(HRHAN); and heart rate variability during handling test (HRVHAN).

The percentage of total variation explained by this component was 43%.This component had high negative loadings for HL and HRVHAN and highpositive loadings for TC, HRNO, and HRHAN. Horses with high scores onthis principal component exhibited high average heart rates during the novel-object and handling tests, a low heart rate variability during the handling test,and spent a high proportion of time during the novel-object test trotting andcantering. Therefore, this component was labeled “Flightiness” (Table 6).

A total of six items related to the qualitative assessment of horse temperamentwere included in a PCA (see Table 4 for abbreviations and definitions): Receptiveto the reins (Rreins); Receptive to the legs (Rlegs); Sensitive to disturbances(Sdist); Spooky (Spook); Attentive to the rider (Arider); and Attentive to sur-roundings (Asurr).

Here, PCA produced two major principal components explaining 49% and42% of the total variance, respectively. The first component had high and positiveloadings for Sdist, Spook, and Asurr and was therefore labeled “Sensitive toenvironment” (Table 6). The second principal component had high and positiveloadings for Rreins, Rlegs, and Arider and was labeled “Attentive to rider”(Table 6). All evasive behaviors recorded during riding except defecating—which did not vary sufficiently between horses—were subjected to PCA (seeTable 3 for definitions). The first principal component explained 59% of thetotal variation and had high positive loadings for all evasive behaviors. It waslabeled “Conflict during riding” (Table 6). Notably, PCA of the five items withregard to cooperation between rider and horse (see Table 5 for definitions), usingscores assigned either by riders or by the external judge, consistently produced asingle principal component explaining more than 90% of the total variation, withhigh and similar loadings—0.90) for each individual item (see Table 6). Thismeans that scores of this component effectively resemble the average ratings ofthe five items.

Table 7 mentions the ultimate measures used to examine the relationshipsbetween the heart rate of the rider during riding, personality characteristics ofthe rider, and cooperation between rider and horse—as assessed by the ridersand the external judge. The heart rate of each rider was expressed as the averageacross the 16 horses. Personality scores were derived from the questionnaires that


TABLE 7

Measuresa of Personality of the Rider, Heart Rate of the Rider During Riding, and

Cooperation Between Rider and Horse

Original Measures

Composite

Measure

(Principal

Component,

Average Value,

or Score)

% Variance

Explained by

Principal

Component

Analysis

High Value

or Score

Low Value

or Score

Cooperation assessedby riders

Cooperation byriders


Cooperation assessedby external judge

Cooperation byjudge


Personality rider Sense of coherence(SOC)

— Comprehensible,manageable, andmeaningful

Not comprehensible,manageable, andmeaningful

Personality rider Locus of control(LOC)

— External locus ofcontrol

Internal locus ofcontrol

Heart rate rider Average heart rate — High heart rate Low heart rate

aBased on original measures observed in riders or on averages calculated per rider.

the rider filled in and expressed as raw scores for the LOC scale (score range1–23) and mean score for the SOC scale (1–5). Similar to average scores ofcooperation per horse (Table 6), average scores of cooperation per rider couldbe adequately summarized into a single principal component, resembling theaverage of the five original items for cooperation (Table 7).

Spearman-rank correlations (Conover, 1980) were calculated for pairs of mea-sures, including scores of principal components (Tables 6 and 7), to determinerelationships between (composite) measures of horse temperament, cooperationbetween rider and horse, and characteristics of the rider. The relationship be-tween personality characteristics of the rider and scores of cooperation assignedby the external judge was also analyzed within each individual horse. In thislatter case, in line with the outcome of the PCA, the average rating of the fiveitems was used as a measure of cooperation for each ride. All statistical analysiswas performed with Genstat 7.0 (Genstat Committee, 2000).

RESULTS

Horse’s Temperament and Evasive Behavior During Riding

In this study, horse temperament has been assessed using behavioral tests (novel-object test and handling test) and assessment by unfamiliar riders using atemperament questionnaire with line-rating scoring method. The results showedthat horses being labeled as flighty in behavioral tests were assessed as verysensitive to environmental challenges during riding by unfamiliar riders (Table 8;

278 VISSER ET AL.

TABLE 8

Spearman Rank Correlations Between the Temperament of the Horse, the Cooperation

Between Horse and Rider, and the Conflict Behavior During Riding

Flightiness

(Novelty Test)

Sensitive to

Environment

(by Riders)

Attentive to

Rider

(by Riders)

Cooperation

by Judge

Cooperation

by Rider

Flightiness(novelty test)

Sensitive toenvironment(by riders)

0.56

Attentive to rider(by riders)

0.01 �0.08

Cooperation byjudge

0.19 �0.20 �0.21

Cooperation byrider

0.14 �0.24 0.68 0.71

Conflict duringriding

0.49 0.69 0.20 �0.26 �0.44

Bold D p < :05I bold italic D .05 < p < .1.

rs D :56; p D :023/: Correspondingly, horses being labeled as flighty had thetendency to show many evasive behaviors during the riding sessions (Table 8;rs D :49; p D :057: Sensitiveness to the environment as assessed by riderswas positively correlated with the frequency of evasive behavior during riding(Table 8; rs D :69; p D :003/: The attentiveness to the rider, as assessed by theriders, was not associated to any of the measures of temperament obtained inthe behavioral tests.

Evaluation of the Cooperation Between Rider and Horse

Cooperation of the horse-rider team during riding a standardized course withchallenging situations was assessed qualitatively by both the riders and anexternal, experienced judge unfamiliar with both horses and riders. Consideringaverage scores per horse, riders and judge agreed on the cooperation betweenriders and horses (Table 8; rs D :71; p D :002/: Thus, when different ridersassessed their cooperation with one particular horse as excellent, the externaljudge did so as well. The assessment of the cooperation between rider and horsedone by riders tended to be influenced by the level of evasive behaviors showedby the horse (Table 8; rs D �:44; p D :092/: No such correlation was foundwhen the cooperation between rider and horse was assessed by the externaljudge (Table 8; rs D �:26; p D :333/: Furthermore, the cooperation as assessedby riders was strongly correlated with the temperamental aspect “attentive torider” (Table 8; rs D :68; p D :004/:


Rider’s Personality and Its Relation to the Cooperation

Between Horse and Rider

Personality of riders was analyzed using the LOC (locus of control) and SOCscores (sense of coherence). The analysis was performed on averages calculatedper rider across 16 horses. The mean heart rate of the riders was significantlynegatively correlated with the scores of the cooperation between rider and horseas assigned by the riders .rs D �:58; p D :023/: In other words, riders whoassessed this cooperation as poor also displayed a higher mean heart rate duringriding.

It appeared that for 2 individual horses there was a correlation between somecharacteristics of rider personality and the assessment of the cooperation bythe external judge. For Horse 6 and Horse 9, there was a significant negativecorrelation between the cooperation as assessed by the judge and the SOC scoreof the rider (respectively, rs D �:59; p D :017 and rs D �:57; p D :022/;

meaning that riders with a high sense of coherence did, according to the judge,not cooperate well with these horses. In addition, in these two horses therewas a positive relationship between the cooperation as assessed by the externaljudge and the LOC score of the rider (respectively, rs D :39; p D :135 andrs D :45; p D :079/; meaning that riders with a high external locus of controldisplayed a better cooperation with the horse. Interestingly, precisely thesetwo horses showed relatively high levels of evasive behaviors during riding(they possessed the two highest scores on the principal component for evasivebehavior), exhibited a response pattern to the behavioral tests indicative of arelatively high level of emotionality (their scores on the flightiness index wereamong the three highest), and were generally considered by the riders extremelysensitive to the environment (they possessed the two highest scores on theprincipal component reflecting sensitivity to the environment).

DISCUSSION

In this study, the relationship between horses’ temperament, riders’ personality,and horse-rider cooperation was investigated using both qualitative and quanti-tative methods.

Starting with the horses’ temperament, it appeared that flighty horses inbehavioral tests were assessed by riders as horses who were sensitive to en-vironmental challenges. Horses ranked as very sensitive to the aids of the riderwere assessed as cooperative by the riders but not by an external judge. Ridersdid prefer to ride horses who were attentive to the riding aids. However, theriders did not dislike riding the more emotional, reactive horses—those whowere more sensitive to the environment. This was surprising, because this latter

280 VISSER ET AL.

type of horse showed more evasive behavior during riding. In practice, thiswould imply not only that riders like horses to be attentive to the aids but alsothat some riders like the challenge of riding, and cooperating with, more flightyhorses.

Mean heart rate of riders on less cooperative horses was higher compared withtheir heart rate on horses where riders considered the cooperation better. The useof heart rate parameters in assessing mental stress in horses has considerablyincreased over the last decade (Rietman et al., 2004; Visser et al., 2002),but literature on using heart rate parameters of riders for assessing aspectsof cooperation between the rider and the horse is limited. To the best of ourknowledge, the one study that suggests the use of heart rate of riders to expressthe level of cooperation was performed by Bridgeman and Pretty (2005). Theyperformed a study in which they explored the interactive relationship of thehorse-rider team by measuring heart rate of both horses and riders. In 16 of the17 horse-rider teams, Pearson correlations of the 5-s mean heart rate intervalsbetween rider and horse showed a significant synchronization of the heart rateof the rider with that of the horse during the dressage test. Unfortunately, ourstudy has not been able to record the heart rate of both horses and riders. Moreresearch is warranted to validate this type of measurement as a parameter forthe level of horse-rider cooperation.

When data in the present experiment were averaged across riders—resultingin an average value per horse—the ratings for cooperation assigned by the exter-nal judge significantly correlated with those assigned by the riders (Table 8). Thisindicates that a group of riders and an external judge agree on the cooperationof each horse with different riders. However, when data were averaged acrosshorses, producing average scores per rider, the correlation between cooperationassessed by the judge and cooperation assessed by the riders was absent (resultnot shown). Apparently, the average perception by riders of their collaborationwith different horses differs from observations by the judge. This differencemight perhaps be influenced by personal characteristics, experiences, and feel-ings of the rider. Especially, these aspects will not influence the assessment ofthe judge. The fact that the mean heart rate of the rider is correlated with theassessment of the cooperation agrees with this idea and may suggest that rideranxiety affects how riders perceive and rate their collaboration with the horse.As this is an internal, emotional reaction, it is to a great extent hidden fromexternal observers such as the judge in this study.

This raises several questions: Why do riders see themselves so differentlycompared with an external observer? And what has a rider’s personality todo with this? Overall, the personality of the rider was not associated withthe cooperation between rider and horse as assessed by an external judge.However, when data were analyzed within each individual horse, it appearedthat there were statistically significant relationships in 2 of 16 horses between


characteristics of rider personality and scores of cooperation assigned by theexternal judge. In these particular horses, riders with a high SOC score—riders with higher skills dealing with different things in life—were rated lowerfor cooperation between rider and horse. Similarly, a positive relationship wasdetected between LOC scores of the riders and cooperation with the horse, whichmeans that the external locus of control of the rider, the better the cooperation.This is an intriguing finding because both theories as applied by Rotter (1966)and Antonovsky (1987, 1993), respectively, and empirical findings (Fallby et al.,2006) suggest that internal control should be beneficial for performance, notthe other way around. Because a core feature of both the SOC and LOCconcepts is control, these tentative results then suggest that riders who perceivethe world to be structured, predictable, and understandable (SOC) as well asunder their own control (LOC) are less well off than those with a lower degreeof personal control. However, the 2 horses responsible for these somewhatconfusing results had high temperament scores and relatively high levels offlightiness and evasive behaviors during behavioral tests and riding. Therefore,we tentatively hypothesize that rider personality affects the cooperation betweenrider and horse—particularly on emotionally reactive and agitated horses. Futurestudies might answer the question whether riders with a higher degree of internalcontrol do in fact cooperate less well with horses who behave erratically andwho are more difficult to control than other horses. Should this be the case, thiswill have practical implications when training horses and riders for competition.

To evaluate the cooperation between rider and horse, riders and judge wereasked to give a qualitative score; the frequency of evasive behaviors was usedto assess this cooperation more quantitatively. The questionnaires used in theassessment of cooperation by riders and judge intended to include differentaspects of this cooperation. It appeared, however, that all the input variablesloaded the same on the first component in the Principal Component Analysis.This means that both judges and riders answered all questions in an identicalmanner. Further research is warranted to find out whether this was caused by aninadequate formulation of these questions or whether the cooperation betweenrider and horse really consists of only one aspect.

CONCLUSION

In summary, this study demonstrated that more emotionally reactive horsesshowed more evasive behavior during riding and that these riders preferredto ride those horses who were assessed by the riders as being attentive tothe rider’s aid. The cooperation between rider and horse as assessed by riderswas influenced by the frequency of evasive behaviors during riding. No suchrelationship was detected between evasive behavior of the horse and assessments

282 VISSER ET AL.

made by an external judge, although on average riders’ personality did not affectthe cooperation between rider and horse. It is suggested that a rider’s personalitydoes affect the cooperation with more emotionally reactive horses.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

We are grateful to the teachers and students of the Ridskolan Strömsholm forhelping, participating, and allowing us to test their horses. We also are gratefulto one experienced judge for his participation in this study. We acknowledge ananonymous reviewer for helpful suggestions.

REFERENCES

Allport, G. W., & Odbert, H. S. (1936). Trait names: A psycholexical study. Psychological Mono-

graphs, 47(1), 211.Antonovsky, A. (1987). Unraveling the mystery of health. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Antonovsky, A. (1993). The structure and properties of the sense of coherence scale. Social Science

and Medicine, 36, 725–733.Bridgeman, D. J., & Pretty, G. M. (2005). Exploring heart rate as an indicator of synchronisation

between dressage horse and rider at training and competition. Paper presented at the ISSP 11thWorld Congress of Sport Psychology, Sydney, Australia.

Broom, D. M., & Kennedy, M. J. (1993). Stereotypies in horses: Their relevance to welfare andcausation. Equine Veterinary Education, 5, 151–154.

Conover, W. J. (1980). Practical nonparametric statistics. New York: Wiley.De Cartier d’Yves, A., & Ödberg, F. O. (2005, August). A preliminary study on the relation between

subjectively assessing dressage performance and objective welfare parameters. Paper presentedat the 1st International Equitation Science Symposium, Melbourne, Australia.

Fallby, J., Hassmén, P., Kenttä, G., & Durand-Bush, N. (2006). Relationship between locus ofcontrol, sense of coherence, and mental skills in Swedish elite athletes. International Journal of

Sports and Exercise Psychology, 4, 111–120.Genstat Committee. (2000). Reference manual. Procedural library PL12. Oxford, UK: VSN Inter-

national.Goodwin, D. (1999). The importance of ethology in understanding the behaviour of the horse: The

role of the horse in Europe. Equine Veterinary Journal, 28(Suppl.), 15–19.Jolliffe, I. T. (1986). Principal Component Analysis. New York: Springer-Verlag.Kaiser, L., Heleski, C. R., Siegford, J., & Smith, K. A. (2006). Stress-related behaviors among

horses used in a therapeutic riding program. Javma-Journal of the American Veterinary Medical

Association, 228(1), 39–45.Koivula, N., Hassmén, P., & Fallby, J. (2002). Self-esteem and perfectionism in elite athletes: Effects

on competitive anxiety and self-confidence. Personality and Individual Differences, 32, 865–875.McCall, C. A., Hall, S., McElhenney, W. H., & Cummins, K. A. (2006). Evaluation and comparison

of four methods of ranking horses based on reactivity. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 96,

115–127.


McGreevy, P. D., Cripps, P. J., French, N. P., Green, L. E., & Nicol, C. J. (1995). Managementfactors associated with stereotypic and redirected behavior in the thoroughbred horse. Equine

Veterinary Journal, 27(2), 86–91.McGreevy, P. D., McLean, A., Warren-Smith, A. K., Waran, N., & Goodwin, D. (2005, August).

Defining the terms and processes associated with equitation. Paper presented at the 1st Interna-tional Equitation Science Symposium, Melbourne, Australia.

McLean, A., & McGreevy, P. (2006, September). Reducing wastage in the trained horse: Training

principles that arise from learning theory. Paper presented at the 2nd International EquitationScience Symposium, Milano, Italy.

Meyers, M. C., Bourgeois, A. E., LeUnes, A., & Murray, N. G. (1999). Mood and psychologicalskills of elite and sub-elite equestrian athletes. Journal of Sport Behavior, 22(3), 399–409.

Meyners, E. (2004). Effective teaching and riding. Hudson, MT: Goals Unlimited Press.Mills, D. S. (1998). Personality and individual differences in the horse, their significance, use and

measurement. Equine Veterinary Journal, 27(Suppl.), 10–13.Mills, D. S., Alston, R. D., Rogers, V., & Longford, N. T. (2002). Factors associated with the

prevalence of stereotypic behaviour amongst thoroughbred horses passing through auctioneersales. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 78, 115–124.

Ödberg, F. O., & Bouissou, M.-F. (2000). The development of equestrianism from the baroqueperiod to the present day and its consequences for the welfare of horses. Equine Veterinary

Journal Supplement, 28, 26–30.Redbo, I., Redbo-Torstensson, P., Ödberg, F. O., Hedendahl, A., & Holm, J. (1998). Factors affecting

behavioural disturbances in race-horses. Animal Science, 66, 475–481.Rietman, T. R., Stuart, A. E. A., Bernasconi, P., Stauffacher, M., Auer, J. A., & Weishaupt, M. A.

(2004). Assessment of mental stress in warmblood horses: Heart rate variability in comparisonto heart rate and selected behavioural parameters. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 88, 121–136.

Rivera, E., Benjamin, S., Nielsen, B., Shelle, J., & Zanella, A. J. (2002). Behavioral and physiologicalresponses of horses to initial training: The comparison between pastured versus stalled horses.Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 78, 235–252.

Rotter, J. B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement.Psychological Monographs: General and Applied, 80(609), 1–28.

Seaman, S. C., Davidson, H. P. B., & Waran, N. K. (2002). How reliable is temperament assessmentin the domestic horse (Equus caballus)? Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 78, 175–191.

Starchurska, A., Pieta, M., Niewczas, J., & Markowski, W. (2006). The freestyle dressage com-petition as a test of the horse’s performance. Equine and Comparative Exercise Physiology, 3,93–100.

Visser, E. K. (2002). Horsonality. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Utrecht University, Utrecht,The Netherlands.

Visser, E. K., Van Reenen, C. G., Engel, B., Schilder, M. B. H., Barnveld, A., & Blokhuis, H. J.(2003). The association between performance in show-jumping and personality traits earlier inlife. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 82, 279–295.

Visser, E. K., van Reenen, C. G., Hopster, H., Schilder, M. B. H., Knaap, J. H., Barneveld, A., et al.(2001). Quantifying aspects of young horses’ temperament: Consistency of behavioural variables.Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 74, 241–258.

Visser, E. K., van Reenen, C. G., van der Werf, J. T. N., Schilder, M. B. H., Knaap, J. H., Barneveld,A., et al. (2002). Heart rate and heart rate variability during a novel object test and a handlingtest in young horses. Physiology & Behavior, 76(2), 289–296.

Von Butler, I., & Armbruster, B. (1984). Struktur und abgangsursachen bei schlachtpferden [Structureand causes for slaughtering horses]. Deutsche Tierarztlichen Wochenschrifte, 91, 330–331.

284 VISSER ET AL.

Wallin, L., Strandberg, E., Philipsson, J., & Dahlin, G. (2000). Estimates of longevity and causesof culling and death in Swedish warmblood and coldblood horses. Livestock Production Science,

63, 275–289.Waring, G. H. (1983). Horse behavior. The behavioral traits and adaptations of domestic and wild

horses, including ponies. Park Ridge, NJ: Noyes.Warren-Smith, A. K., & McGreevy, P. D. (2005, August). The use of head lowering in horses

as a method of inducing calmness. Paper presented at the 1st International Equitation ScienceSymposium, Melbourne, Australia.

Warren-Smith, A. K., & McGreevy, P. D. (2008). Equestrian coaches’ understanding and applicationof learning theory in horse training. Anthrozoös, 21, 153–162.

Weeks, J., & Beck, A. M. (1996). Equine agitation behaviors. Equine Practice, 18(6), 23–24.Zetterqvist Blokhuis, M., Hartmann, E., Aronsson, A., Van Reenen, C. G., & Keeling, L. J. (2007,

August). Assessing the rider’s seat and horse’s behavior: Difficulties and perspectives. Paperpresented at the Third International Equitation Science Conference, East Lansing, MI.