Introduction

Part 1 and Part 2 of this series discussed views around dominance-based training from three main stakeholders in the industry: dominance trainers, horse owners and evidence-based trainers. In part one, I offered a review of the literature, which suggests that dominance-based training techniques are highly popular amongst horse owners due to their impressive results and relationship-based approach. However, such techniques are opposed by evidence-based trainers due to equine welfare concerns (Campbell, 2023). In part two, I further explored limitations of terminology used by dominance trainers, with explanations of complex equine systems often being over-simplified, contradictory, and not accurately reflecting reality, leading to unsafe training and poor human-horse relations (Campbell, 2024). In this third article, I will look deeper into the link between equine ethology and training by comparing common dominance-based claims and training methods with recent scientific findings and ethical implications. I use this to discuss accuracy and ethical concerns in this area.

Equine Ethology Inaccuracies Within Dominance Training

This section evaluates how dominance trainers mimic and interpret equine behaviour, then examines scientific research regarding equine social structures.

Social Relations and Natural Herd Structures

As discussed in part one of this series, dominance-based trainers claim horses naturally form linear hierarchies and have an innate desire to gain rank over others (Hartman et al., 2017; Equine Affaire, Inc., 2021; Rose, 2021). Older studies support these theories through observing aggressive interactions (Houpt et al., 1978; Sambraus 1979; Keiper and Sambraus, 1986) and calculating linear hierarchies via wins and losses (Baker and Fox, 1978; Clutton-Brock et al., 1979; Gammell et al., 2003; Bang et al., 2010). While dominance is an accepted concept in animal science (Drews, 1993), studies supporting dominance rankings use artificial situations to provoke aggression, and contain methodology and interpretation flaws (Henderson, 2019). Consequently, there are validity and ethical concerns with such research (van Dierendonck et al., 1995; Bayly et al., 2006; Bang et al., 2010; Eponatv, 2020). For instance, in a study researching equine dominance by Houpt et al. (1978), two horses were starved for nine hours and then confined together with one feed bucket. There are several research flaws with such practices. Firstly, extreme motivation for food, known as an unconditioned establishing operation (Tapper, 2005), would have greatly increased conflicts in this situation. Secondly, as horses were only introduced to each other shortly before the trial, underdeveloped communication and unstable relations would likely cause more aggressive behaviour (Van Dierendonck et al.,1995). Thirdly, as equine social dynamics are extremely complex, many factors must be considered when studying groups. For instance, van Dierendonck et al. (2004) found trends where middle-aged mares held top positions over younger mares. However, in the study by Houpt et al. (1978), researchers only observed pairs and failed to consider other factors influencing rank such as: weight, seasonal variations, hormonal changes, personality, time in the herd, environmental conditions, physical health, individual motivations, previous experience, and learning ability (Duberstein and Gilkeson, 2010; Eponatv, 2020; Heitor et al., 2006; Henshall and McGreevy, 2014; Janczarek et al., 2013; Waran et al., 2007; Stanley et al., 2018; van Dierendonck and Goodwin, 2006). As dominance-based trainers base their methods and training explanations on linear hierarchies, they also take little consideration of additional factors that influence behaviour.
Recent research shows that natural herds consist of family members known as bands or harems. These groups are complex, long-lasting, and matriarchal (Christensen et al., 2002; Feh, 2005; Linklater et al., 2000; van Dierendonck et al., 2004), but also include juveniles along with one or more stallions (Cameron et al., 2009; King, 2002; Salter and Hudson, 1982). While mares share key roles in herd maintenance (Heitor et al., 2006; McDonnell, 2003; Stanley et al., 2018), each member contributes to social, leadership, reproduction, or defensive roles (Cameron et al., 2009; Feh, 2005). The importance of positive relationships is also displayed through frequent play and allogrooming behaviours (Sigurjonsdottir et al. 2003; van Dierendonck et al., 2004), and despite territories overlapping between feral bands, aggressive behaviour is rare. For example, Sigurjonsdottir et al. (2003) only counted an average of 0.17 aggressive interactions per hour in a feral horse herd. This is because of their strong social bonds and sophisticated communication systems based on precise yet subtle body language, changes in facial expression, and vocalisations (Christensen et al., 2002; King, 2002; Maeda et al., 2021; McDonnell, 2003; Lemasson et al., 2009; Wathan et al., 2015). Excess stallions also live harmoniously within bachelor bands and use ritualised behaviours to avoid significant conflicts when assessing each other’s strength (van Dierendonck & Goodwin, 2006). For example, Heitor et al. (2006) found that 32.7% of agonistic interactions were displacements and 60.6% were threats, meaning aggression rarely escalated. Additionally, as horses are prey animals with strong survival instincts, they minimise energy expenditure and avoid interactions risking injuries (Henderson, 2019). Consequently, aggression typically only occurs between younger horses, those unknown to each other, or mares protecting their young (Goodwin, 2007; Eponatv, 2020).
Avoidance shows acknowledgment of the other’s behaviour, resulting in one or more horses giving way to another. Because of this, some scientists suggest avoidance behaviours provide better understanding of social dynamics than aggressive behaviours (Fraser, 1992; Goodwin, 2007; van Dierendonck et al., 1995). For instance, Heitor et al. (2006) observed 84.8% of agonistic interactions caused avoidance or withdrawal responses in feral bands. Therefore, aggression may be more related to controlling space than specific resources. Consequently, natural horse-horse relations are not driven by individual desires to dominate and achieve personal gains but are essential for horses to develop their communication and live harmoniously together (Christensen et al., 2002; Goodwin, 2007). Nevertheless, there are heavy biases toward studying and classifying agonistic interactions, with little interest in affiliative behaviours (Henshall & McGreevy, 2014). Dominance-based trainers are one of the growing groups to continue utilising and promoting techniques based on outdated information and aggressive interactions. The evidence suggests dominance trainers overemphasise and overly rely on agonistic interactions, resulting in higher stress levels, reduced learning performance, and dangerous or unwanted behaviours. And yet, subtle behaviours such as olfactory often go unnoticed or ignored, even though these cues are vital to equine communication and exploration. As affiliative behaviours occur much more frequently and are essential to maintaining strong groups, these should be the focus for understanding herd dynamics (Eponatv, 2020) and the basis for improving human-horse communication and training methods in the future.
More recently, social network analyses were developed to consider many behaviour-influencing factors, such as distance between individuals and varying seasons, providing deeper understanding of group dynamics (Stanley et al., 2018). Instead of forming linear hierarchies, these create web-like structures that can be monitored over time (Bartlett et al., 2022; Foris et al., 2019). Stanley et al. (2018) observed relations from three free-roaming bands developing into strong bonds over a three-year period. The researchers also noticed herds had some flexibility (Figure 1). Furthermore, research has shown horses to make decisions cooperatively (Bourjade et al., 2009), with many factors influencing individual and group behaviour (van Dierendonck et al., 1995; van Kerkhove, 2004; Waran et al., 2007). Despite network analysis improving on earlier methods, there are still limitations from human errors and difficulty accounting for all influencing factors (Bayly et al., 2006; Davis et al., 2018; Wey et al., 2008). While accurately evaluating equine social dynamics remains challenging, these recent findings emphasise the complexity of equine behaviour and group dynamics (Bayly et al., 2006; Chase et al., 2002; Galimberti et al., 2003; Henshall & McGreevy, 2014).
This research provides evidence that dominance theories do not align with feral herd dynamics (Henderson, 2019; McDonnell, 2003) and contradicts dominance-based trainers’ claims that the strongest and fittest horses claim top positions (Equine Affaire Inc., 2021). Furthermore, there is nothing to indicate equines aspire to gain dominance as defined by humans (Chase et al., 2002; Heitor et al., 2006). Trainers who base their principles on such ideas are acting on incorrect, outdated information that results in unfair treatment of horses (Henderson, 2019). To achieve high-quality training, practices must be continuously scrutinised to ensure modern theories are not informed by out-of-date or biased information (Schilder et al., 2014). This suggests that aggression-based dominance hierarchies are over-simplified representations of equine relations, causing misinterpretation of equine social behaviours and inaccurate conclusions to be made.

Trainer Body Language During Round-Pen Training

Dominance trainers claim horses interpret specific human actions as they would for another conspecific. Due to this, they emphasise certain body postures to replicate equine behaviour during training (Kędzierski et al., 2012; Pignon, 2020; Roberts, 2021). This technique typically involves round-penning, which is based on the idea that dominant horses chase others to gain leadership (Roberts, 2017; Equine Affaire Inc., 2021). To recreate this, trainers stand centrally in the round pen while using specific body postures such as raising an outstretched arm to drive the horse forward (DUHorseman, 2016). Parelli of Equine Affaire Inc. (2021) describes this as “long body logic,” where the trainer makes their body match the horse’s long body. Once the horse moves forward, pressure is removed by using softer body language and stepping toward the centre of the pen (Fenner et al., 2019). Parelli (Equine Affaire Inc., 2021) calls this “mastering neutral.” Round pens also provide safe training spaces, enable continuous movement, and allow trainers to easily control the horse from the ground (Fenner et al., 2019; Goodwin et al., 2009; Kędzierski et al., 2012). This is beneficial to dominance trainers as they can use very subtle cues, making their connection look effortless (McGreevy & Boakes, 2011).
Additionally, Monty Roberts claims he discovered the non-vocal language of “Equus.” When describing this, Roberts (2021) states, “It’s a body language, it is not vocal cords, it is not a language. It is body gestures that create a communication system.” To him, this consists of the horse displaying the following four behaviours: ear positioning on the handler, licking and chewing, lowered head and neck position, and smaller circling. These behaviours become highly predictable when using his round-penning technique known as “Join-Up.” He says they indicate that a connection is about to be formed (Roberts, 2002b). Once these behaviours are displayed, Roberts allows the horse to approach him by using passive movements while turning his shoulder on a 45-degree angle. After he strokes the horse on the forehead, the horse then follows him around the pen at liberty (Roberts, 2017). Roberts states this is fundamental to his training and creates “true partnership” (Roberts, 2002a). Consequently, round-penning is extremely popular, and a single “Join-Up” demonstration was viewed over 1.2 million times (Roberts, 2017). From the study by Birke (2007), one horse owner who was in favour of round-penning practices also stated, “To know that your horse is free to move away from you at any time, but doesn’t, is one of the nicest feelings in the world.” Such strongly held beliefs can be difficult to engage with from a scientific perspective. However, growing evidence disproving dominance theories, along with specifically designed human behaviour change (HBC) programs, can help improve education amongst horse owners. Proposals for HBC are presented later in this series.
Some studies have found benefits from round-penning including reduced fearfulness, fewer dangerous behaviours, and improved human-horse relations. For instance, Baragli et al. (2011) found round-penned horses spent on average 11.7 seconds longer investigating an unknown person compared to the traditionally trained group. Traditionally trained horses, where the horse was kept in close contact with the trainer with minimal choice to give a behavioural response other than the one the trainer sought, also had significantly higher hearts rates and reduced willingness to complete simple handling exercises (Figure 1). These findings are consistent with Polito et al. (2007) and Fureix et al. (2009), who found that natural horsemanship or alternative training methods improved human-horse relations and equine welfare over traditional training techniques. Nevertheless, some remain sceptical of such studies, because they only compare dominance-based training with traditional methods, which can be highly aversive. Therefore, these studies may contain cognitive bias (Ventura & Fjæran, 2021). For example, Baragli et al. (2011) concluded round-penning improved welfare and learning by providing horses more choice and control during training. Yet as horses are unable to effectively use their instinctual flight response, this technique can be very confining for horses and provides little choice or control. This may increase aggressive behaviours toward the trainer if horses feel trapped, or result in learned helplessness as the horse learns there is nothing they can do to reduce the stress they are experiencing.
Dominance-based trainers state that the round-penning technique takes just minutes and horses should not be chased or exhausted (Roberts, 2017; Equine Affaire Inc., 2021). Despite this, they often snap whips or throw longlines toward horses (DUHorseman, 2015; Roberts, n.d.) which can increase stress and negative associations with the handler (Goodwin et al., 2009; Waran et al., 2007).

Figure 1: Heart rates of using a round-pen (group A) compared with traditional methods of halter and lead rope (group B) during foundation training procedures. The stages of training were as follows: 1, trainer enters; 2 horses haltered; 3-4, groomed; 5, saddled; 6, introduced to bit. Significant differences were found at point a, b, and c (p<0.05) (Baragli et al., 2011).

Experienced trainers can easily apply too much social and behavioural pressure via their body language and postural movements over long periods, resulting in chasing with little learning taking place (Krueger, 2007), it is particularly concerning when novice equestrians attempt to recreate these methods after viewing them (Kydd et al., 2017). In a study by Krueger (2007), it was found that round-penning took over 30 minutes, and three horses had to be removed from their first trial due to excessive sweating and lack of response to the trainer. Additionally, instinctive avoidance behaviours may be inhibited during this process, leading to increased aggression, unstable human-horse relations, and learned helplessness if pressure is not removed (Goodwin, 2007).
Dominance-based trainers claim round-penning recreates herding or chasing behaviours used by dominant horses to gain control (Equine Affaire Inc., 2021; Roberts 2007). While horses naturally perform these behaviours, they are much more complex than acknowledged by dominance trainers and often linked to sexual behaviour rather than desire to gain rank (Keiper & Sambras, 1986; McDonnell, 2003). For example, Ringhofer et al. (2020) observed that stallions in feral bands did not always initiate first movements and mares often continued movements without additional encouragement from the stallion. They also recorded six incidents where females closest to the herding stallion did not move, and only did so once moving females came closer. This study provides evidence that movement is not always directed by one dominant individual, but rather is a group-initiated activity. Furthermore, images produced by Ringhofer et al. (2020) show no signs of continuous circular chasing behaviour as described by dominance trainers during round-penning (Figure 2).

Figure 2: (a) aerial view of a herding behavioural event from a drone camera showing movement direction of individuals involved (b) graphs showing trajectories of males and females in multiple herding events. Colour changes indicate time, with movements beginning at red and ending at blue. Thicker lines represent males and thin lines represent females (Ringhofer et al., 2020).

Scientists have questioned round-pen theories by replicating them with horse-horse dyads. For example, during mare-juvenile round-penning dyads, mares did not chase juveniles, and juveniles did not seek closer proximity to the mare (Warren-Smith & McGreevy, 2008). Similarly, researchers observed no chasing behaviours between a 2-year-old Arabian colt and an experienced 9-year-old Hucul gelding in a round-pen. Instead, the Hucul squealed and then bucked when the Arab attempted to bite it. This warning reduced further aggression and, when hay was provided, both horses ate together without any additional threatening behaviour (Muller et al., 2016).
Equine communication systems used by dominance trainers do not acknowledge behaviours such as nose-to-nose greetings, subtle facial expressions, tail movements, olfactory cues, and vocalisations in horse-horse interactions (Lemasson et al., 2009; Muller et al., 2016). As discussed previously, many of these prevent conflicts from escalating and are essential to maintain harmony within herds (Yeon, 2012; Eponatv, 2020). As the equid ethogram includes vast numbers of behaviours (McDonnell, 2003), it is illogical that trainers have chosen as little as four behaviours to describe their communication. Furthermore, dominance trainers claim behaviours such as low head positions and mouth movements represent submissive responses toward the handler (Goodwin, 2007; Roberts, 2017). However, Warren-Smith and McGreevy (2008) observed that licking and chewing behaviours were performed when mares and juveniles faced away from each other and were infrequent. As horses do not direct such behaviour toward other individuals, it is unlikely licking and chewing represent submission or respect. Rather, it is more plausible that these behaviours are due to conflicting emotional states, frustration, or from a dry mouth caused by adrenaline produced after a period of anxiety (Goodwin, 2007; Visser et al., 2009; Henshall and McGreevy, 2014).
Given the major differences in the biology of humans and horses, there is no evidence that horses view humans as conspecifics, and it is impossible for humans to accurately mimic equine behaviour to fit into their social structure (Goodwin et al., 2009; Kydd et al., 2017; McDonnell, 2003; McGreevy & McLean, 2007; McGreevy et al., 2009; Henshall & McGreevy, 2014; Muller et al., 2016). Therefore, dominance trainers describe human-horse interactions inaccurately and their methods are contradicted by evidence-based ethology (Eponatv, 2020; Muller et al., 2016). Even though experienced dominance trainers have mastered their observational skills of equine behaviour, both in the wild and domestic situations, science clearly shows horses learn via negative reinforcement (the removal of an aversive stimulus to increase the likeness of a behaviour reoccurring) during round-penning situations, rather than possessing an innate ability to understand human body postures (Kruger, 2007; Hartmann et al., 2017). While round pens can be advantageous during training, pressure needs to be applied appropriately and horses must have the opportunity to leave when feeling anxious or overwhelmed (Fenner et al., 2019; Kydd et al., 2017). As this can only occur with the handler’s consent, it is vital that round pen users are observant for subtle signs of unease and understand correct application of learning theory (Hall & Helseki, 2017; McGreevy & McLean, 2007; Schurrman, 2014). Herd movements and breeding behaviours should not be reduced to simple explanations for training purposes. Doing so is misleading, escalates dangerous or unwanted behaviours, and results in false impressions of human-horse relations. This in turn raises ethical concerns.

Conclusion

Equine herds are extremely complex and influenced by many factors. Reducing these to fit in with human views and desires is inaccurate and increases aggression or other unwanted behaviours, resulting in welfare concerns. Therefore, trainers should not rely on a few behaviours of their choosing to explain these, as doing so is misleading and causes human-horse relationships to break down. Humans should not think of themselves as having full control or “dominance” over the horse, but rather should seek to understand, listen, work with, and show ethical leadership when working with horses. Only when we seek to know and value the horse as an individual, sentient being can we create lasting human-horse relationships that benefit all involved. In the next article, I will explore the use of learning theory, specifically operant conditioning, and the effects it has in training and on the horse-human relationship.

References

Baker, M.C. & Fox, S.F. (1978). Dominance, survival, and enzyme polymorphism in dark-eyed juncos, Junco hyemalis. Evolution. 32(4), 697-711. https://doi.org/10.2307/2407486.

Bang, A., Deshpande, S., Sumana, A. & Gadagkar, R. (2010). Choosing an appropriate index to construct dominance hierarchies in animal societies: a comparison of three indices. Animal Behaviour. 79(3), 631-636. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2009.12.009.

Baragli, P., Mariti, C., Petri, L., De Giorgio, F. & Sighieri, C. (2011). Does attention make the difference? Horses’ response to human stimulus after 2 different training strategies. Journal of Veterinary Behavior. 6(1), 31-38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jveb.2010.08.020.

Bartlett, E., Cameron, L.J. & Freeman, M.S. (2022). A preliminary comparison between proximity and interaction-based methods to construct equine (Equus caballus) social networks. Journal of Veterinary Behavior. 50, 36-45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jveb.2022.01.005.

Bayly, K.L., Evans, C.S. and Taylor, A. (2006) Measuring social structure: a comparison of eight dominance indices. Behavioural Processes. 73(1), 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beproc.2006.01.011.

Birke, L. (2007). “Learning to speak horse”: The culture of “Natural Horsemanship”. Society & Animals. 15(3), 217-239. https://doi.org/10.1163/156853007X217177

Bourjade, M., Thierry, B., Maumy, M. & Petit, O. (2009). Decision‐making in Przewalski horses (Equus ferus przewalskii) is driven by the ecological contexts of collective movements. Ethology. 115(4), 321-330. https://doi.org/10.1111/J.1439-0310.2009.01614.X.

Cameron, E.Z., Setsaas, T.H. & Linklater, W.L. (2009). Social bonds between unrelated females increase reproductive success in feral horses. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 106(33), 13850-13853. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0900639106.

Campbell, A. (2023). The Ethics of Using Dominance-Based Training Within the Equine Leisure Industry: Part 1. The IAABC Foundation Journal 28, doi: 10.55736/iaabcfj28.4.

Campbell, A. (2024). The ethics of using dominance-based training within the equine leisure industry: part 2. The IAABC Foundation Journal 29, doi: 10.55736/iaabcfj29.9.
Chase, I.D., Tovey, C., Spangler-Martin, D. & Manfredonia, M. (2002). Individual differences versus social dynamics in the formation of animal dominance hierarchies. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 99(8), 5744-5749. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.082104199

Christensen, J.W., Zharkikh, T., Ladewig, J. & Yasinetskaya, N. (2002). Social behaviour in stallion groups (Equus przewalskii and Equus caballus) kept under natural and domestic conditions. Applied Animal Behaviour Science. 76(1), 11-20. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0168-1591(01)00208-8.

Clutton-Brock, T.H., Albon, S.D., Gibson, R.M. and Guinness, F.E. (1979.) The logical stag: adaptive aspects of fighting in red deer (Cervus elaphus L.). Animal Behaviour. 27, 211-225. https://doi.org/10.1016/0003-3472(79)90141-6.

Davis, G.H., Crofoot, M.C. and Farine, D.R. (2018). Estimating the robustness and uncertainty of animal social networks using different observational methods. Animal Behaviour. 141, 29-44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2018.04.012

Drews, C. (1993). The Concept and Definition of Dominance in Animal Behaviour. Behaviour, 125(3/4), 283–313. http://www.jstor.org/stable/4535117.

DUHorseman (2015, January 31). Once Bitten Twice Shy: How to Train a Dangerous, Dominant Horse.

. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CjjRuBNiJ1k&t=785s.

DUHorseman, C. (2016, August 9). Clinton Anderson: Training a Rescue Horse, Part 1 – Downunder Horsemanship.

. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B4o_eXHsUbc&t=1626s.

Duberstein, K.J. & Gilkeson, J.A. (2010). Determination of sex differences in personality and trainability of yearling horses utilizing a handler questionnaire. Applied Animal Behaviour Science. 128(1-4), 57-63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2010.09.012.

Eponatv. (2020, September 29). Real ethology with Lucy Eponatv, part 5: Why people think horses are mean.

. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mt5BG0V5jnA&t=499s.

Equine Affaire Inc. (2021, April 8). Equine Affaire Educational Program – Pat Parelli on Horse Psychology 101. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aAFKxsjpyoY&t=1871s.

Feh, C. (2005). Relationships and communication in socially natural horse herds. In: Mills, D.S. & McDonnell, S.M. (eds.) The Domestic horse: The origins, development and management of its behaviour. Cambridge University Press, 83-93.

Fenner, K., Mclean, A.N. & McGreevy, P.D. (2019). Cutting to the chase: how round-pen, lunging, and high-speed liberty work may compromise horse welfare. Journal of Veterinary Behavior. 29, 88-94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jveb.2018.05.003.

Foris, B., Zebunke, M., Langbein, J. & Melzer, N. (2019). Comprehensive analysis of affiliative and agonistic social networks in lactating dairy cattle groups. Applied Animal Behaviour Science. 210, 60-67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2018.10.016.

Fraser, A.F. (1992). The Behaviour of the Horse. C.A.B. International.

Fureix, C., Pagès, M., Bon, R., Lassalle, J.M., Kuntz, P. & Gonzalez, G. (2009). A preliminary study of the effects of handling type on horses’ emotional reactivity and the human–horse relationship. Behavioural Processes. 82(2), 202-210. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beproc.2009.06.012.

Galimberti, F., Fabiani, A. & Boitani, L. (2003). Socio-spatial levels in linearity analysis of dominance hierarchies: a case study on elephant seals. Journal of Ethology. 21(2), pp.131-136. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10164-002-0084-5.

Gammell, M.P., Vries, H.D., Jennings, D.J., Carlin, C.M. & Hayden, T.J. (2003). David’s score: a more appropriate dominance ranking method than Clutton-Brock et al.’s index. Animal Behaviour. 66(3), 601-605. http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/anbe.2003.2226.

Goodwin, D. (2007). Horse behaviour: evolution, domestication and feralization. In: Waran, N. (ed.) The Welfare of Horses. 1st ed. Springer, 1-18.

Goodwin, D., McGreevy, P., Waran, N. & McLean, A. (2009). How equitation science can elucidate and refine horsemanship techniques. The Veterinary Journal. 181(1), 5-11.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tvjl.2009.03.023.

Hall, C. & Heleski, C. (2017). The role of the ethogram in equitation science. Applied Animal Behaviour Science. 190, 102-110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2017.02.013.

Hartmann, E., Christensen, J.W. & McGreevy, P.D. (2017). Dominance and leadership: useful concepts in human–horse interactions? Journal of Equine Veterinary Science. 52, 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jevs.2017.01.015.

Heitor, F., do Mar Oom, M. & Vicente, L. (2006). Social relationships in a herd of Sorraia horses: Part I. Correlates of social dominance and contexts of aggression. Behavioural Processes. 73(2), 170-177. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beproc.2006.05.004.

Henderson, A. (2019). Exploring the Dominance Theory in Horse Training. Horse Canada. https://horse-canada.com/magazine/behaviour/exploring-dominance-theory-horse-training/.

Henshall, C. & McGreevy, P.D. (2014). The role of ethology in round pen horse training—A review. Applied Animal Behaviour Science. 155, 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2014.03.004.

Houpt, K.A., Law, K. & Martinisi, V. (1978). Dominance hierarchies in domestic horses. Applied Animal Ethology. 4(3), 273-283. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-3762(78)90117-7.

Janczarek, I., Stachurska, A., Kędzierski, W. & Wilk, I. (2013). Responses of horses of various breeds to a sympathetic training method. Journal of Equine Veterinary Science. 33(10), 794-801. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jevs.2012.12.014.

Kędzierski, W., Janczarek, I. & Stachurska, A. (2012). Emotional response of naive Purebred Arabian colts and fillies to sympathetic and traditional training methods. Journal of Equine Veterinary Science. 32(11), 752-756. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jevs.2012.03.002.

Keiper, R.R. & Sambraus, H.H. (1986). The stability of equine dominance hierarchies and the effects of kinship, proximity and foaling status on hierarchy rank. Applied Animal Behaviour Science. 16(2), 121-130. https://doi.org/10.1016/0168-1591(86)90104-8.

King, S.R.B. (2002). Home range and habitat use of free-ranging Przewalski horses at Hustai National Park, Mongolia. Applied Animal Behaviour Science. 78(2-4), 103-113. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0168-1591(02)00087-4.

Krueger, K. (2007). Behaviour of horses in the “round pen technique”. Applied Animal Behaviour Science. 104(1-2), 162-170. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2006.04.021.

Kydd, E., Padalino, B., Henshall, C. & McGreevy, P. (2017). An analysis of equine round pen training videos posted online: Differences between amateur and professional trainers. PloS one. 12(9), e0184851. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0184851.

Lemasson, A., Boutin, A., Boivin, S., Blois-Heulin, C. & Hausberger, M. (2009). Horse (Equus caballus) whinnies: a source of social information. Animal Cognition. 12(5), 693-704. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10071-009-0229-9.

Linklater, W.L., Cameron, E.Z., Stafford, K.J. & Veltman, C.J. (2000). Social and spatial structure and range use by Kaimanawa wild horses (Equus caballus: Equidae). New Zealand Journal of Ecology. 24(2) 139-152.

Maeda, T., Ochi, S., Ringhofer, M., Sosa, S., Sueur, C., Hirata, S. & Yamamoto, S. (2021.) Aerial drone observations identified a multilevel society in feral horses. Scientific Reports. 11(1), 71. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-79790-1.

McDonnell, S. M. (2003). The equid ethogram: a practical field guide to horse behavior. Eclipse Press.

McGreevy, P. & Boakes, R. (2011). Carrots and sticks: principles of animal training. Sydney University Press.

McGreevy, P., Oddie, C., Burton, F.L. & McLean, A.N. (2009). The horse–human dyad: Can we align horse training and handling activities with the equid social ethogram? The Veterinary Journal. 181(1), 12-18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tvjl.2009.03.005.

McGreevy, P.D. & McLean, A.N. (2007). Roles of learning theory and ethology in equitation. Journal of Veterinary Behavior. 2(4), 108-118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jveb.2007.05.003.

Muller, P., Chrzanowska, A. & Pisula, W. (2016). A critical comment on the Monty Roberts interpretation of equine behavior. Psychology. 7(4), 480-487. http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/psych.2016.74049.

Pignon, J. (2020). Meeting Horse-Whisperer Jean-Francois Pignon. FEI. https://www.fei.org/stories/lifestyle/my-equestrian-life/meeting-horse-whisperer-jean-francois-pignon.

Polito, R., Minero, M., Canali, E. & Verga, M. (2007). A pilot study on yearlings’ reactions to handling in relation to the training method. Anthrozoös. 20(3), 295-303. https://doi.org/10.2752/089279307X224827

Ringhofer, M., Go, C.K., Inoue, S., S Mendonça, R., Hirata, S., Kubo, T., Ikeda, K. & Yamamoto, S. (2020) Herding mechanisms to maintain the cohesion of a harem group: two interaction phases during herding. Journal of Ethology. 38(1), 71-77. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10164-019-00622-5.

Roberts, M. (2002a). Creating trust-based partnerships Monty Roberts: The Monty Roberts Story. https://montyroberts.com/about-monty-roberts/.

Roberts, M. (2002b). Monty Roberts Introductory Course of Horsemanship – Modular Format. https://montyroberts.com/mrilc-courses/join-up/.

Roberts, M. (2007). Monty answers your questions: Young stallion tried to attack me during free work. Monty Roberts Equus Online University. https://www.montyrobertsuniversity.com/q_and_a.

Roberts, M. (2017, March 7). Monty Roberts explains Join-Up® with Equus, the horse

. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vYtTz9GtAT4.

Roberts, M. (2021, April 8). Equine Affaire Educational Program – Monty Roberts performs Join-Up with a Wild Horse.

. Available from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=smN9yebcibc.

Roberts, M. (n.d.) JOIN-UP: Flight Distance and Turns. EQUUS Online University

. Available from: https://www.montyrobertsuniversity.com/library.

Rose, R. (2021, November 18). Horse Charges Owner.

. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LlJBDNWN5zQ.

Salter, R.E. & Hudson, R.J. (1982). Social organization of feral horses in western Canada. Applied Animal Ethology. 8(3), 207-223. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-3762(82)90205-X.

Sambraus, H.H. (1979). A review of historically significant publications from German speaking countries concerning the behaviour of domestic farm animals. Applied Animal Ethology. 5(1), 5-13. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-3762(79)90003-8.

Schilder, M.B., Vinke, C.M. & Van Der Borg, J.A. (2014). Dominance in domestic dogs revisited: Useful habit and useful construct? Journal of Veterinary Behavior. 9(4), 184-191. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jveb.2014.04.005.

Sigurjonsdottir, H., van Dierendonck, M.C., Snorrason, S. & Thorhallsdottir, A.G. (2003). Social relationships in a group of horses without a mature stallion. Behaviour. 140(6), 783-804. http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/156853903322370670.

Stanley, C.R., Mettke-Hofmann, C., Hager, R. & Shultz, S. (2018). Social stability in semiferal ponies: networks show interannual stability alongside seasonal flexibility. Animal Behaviour. 136, 175-184. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2017.04.013.

Tapper, K. (2005). Motivating Operations in appetite research. Appetite. 45(2), 95-107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2005.05.002.

Van Dierendonck, M.C. & Goodwin, D. (2006). Social contact in horses: implications for human-horse interactions. In: Van Dierendonck, M.C. (ed.) The importance of social relationships in horses. Utrecht University, 27-48.

Van Dierendonck, M.C., de Vries, H., & Schilder, M.B.H. (1995). An analysis of dominance, its behavioural parameters and possible determinants in a herd of Icelandic Horses in captivity. Netherlands Journal of Zoology. 45(3-4), 362-385. https://doi.org/10.1163/156854295X00366.

Van Dierendonck, M.C., Sigurjonsdottir, H., Colenbrander, B., & Thorallsdottir, A.G. (2004). Differences in social behaviour between late pregnant, post-partum and barren mares in a heard of Icelandic Horses. Applied Animal Behaviour Science. 89(3-4), 283-297. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2004.06.010.

Van Kerkhove, W. (2004.) A fresh look at the wolf-pack theory of companion-animal dog social behavior. Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science. 7(4), 279-285. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327604jaws0704_7.

Ventura, B. & Fjæran, E.H. (2021) From Stakeholder Education to Engagement, Using Strategies from Social Science. In: Sommerville, R. (ed.) Changing Human Behaviour to Enhance Animal Welfare. CAB International, 35-47.

Visser, E.K., VanDierendonck, M., Ellis, A.D., Rijksen, C. & Van Reenen, C.G. (2009). A comparison of sympathetic and conventional training methods on responses to initial horse training. The Veterinary Journal. 181(1), 48-52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tvjl.2009.03.009.

Waran, N., McGreevy, P. & Casey, R.A. (2007). Training methods and horse welfare. In: The welfare of horses. Springer, 151-180.

Warren-Smith, A.K. & McGreevy, P.D. (2008). Preliminary investigations into the ethological relevance of round-pen (round-yard) training of horses. Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science. 11(3), 285-298. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888700802101304.

Wathan, J., Burrows, A.M., Waller, B.M. & McComb, K. (2015) EquiFACS: the equine facial action coding system. PLoS one. 10(8), e0131738. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0131738.

Wey, T., Blumstein, D.T., Shen, W. & Jordán, F. (2008). Social network analysis of animal behaviour: a promising tool for the study of sociality. Animal behaviour. 75(2), 333-344. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2007.06.020.

Yeon, S.C. (2012). Acoustic communication in the domestic horse (Equus caballus). Journal of Veterinary Behavior. 7(3), 179-185. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jveb.2011.08.004.

After graduating with a degree in equine behavioural science from Writtle ARU, Alice Campbell worked within the equine charity sector rehabilitating and rehoming horses. She also has a keen interest in supporting young people with special needs or mental health difficulties to develop their life skills through equine-based activities. Alice returned to Writtle to complete an MSc in animal welfare and conservation. Currently she is based in Winchester (U.K.) and is hoping to start a small business as an equine behaviour consultant.