15/07/2026
GROW Horsemanship Thanks
This is Peekaboo.
Depending on who you ask, his expression might be described as grumpy, stubborn, dominant, or jealous.
But those aren’t observations.
They’re interpretations.
That distinction might seem small, but it matters.
A recently published study explored how the language we use to describe unwanted horse behaviour influences the responses people recommend.
Participants were presented with hypothetical scenarios describing the same unwanted behaviours, but some were written using neutral language while others used negative emotive language.
The behaviour didn’t change.
The words did.
And so did the recommendations people made.
Participants exposed to negative emotive language were more likely to recommend sedation and, in some scenarios, Positive Punishment. They were also less likely to consider physical discomfort as a possible contributor to the behaviour.
The researchers also found that participants who reported using negative emotive language more frequently were themselves more likely to recommend Positive Punishment and less likely to suggest giving the horse time, considering emotional state or physical discomfort, or using desensitization.
This highlights something very important:
Language doesn’t just communicate our thoughts.
It helps shape them.
Let’s come back to Peekaboo.
If I posted this photo and said:
“Peekaboo is dominant.”
You’d probably start looking for evidence that supports that conclusion. You might start wondering about hierarchy or social status within the herd.
If I posted this photo and said:
“Peekaboo is disrespectful.”
You’d likely interpret the same photo differently. You might even assume this expression was directed toward a person.
If I posted this photo and said:
“Peekaboo is jealous.”
You’d probably start building a story about his friendship with the horse standing beside him, even though that isn’t the horse this expression was directed toward.
But none of those statements describe what we can actually observe.
What we can observe is a single moment.
A horse with whale eye, ears pinned back, a raised head, and flared nostrils, standing at a fence. A horse to his left. Two horses on the other side of the fence. A person behind the camera.
Everything beyond that requires interpretation.
Observations create opportunities to ask better questions.
What was happening before this photo was taken?
What happened afterwards?
Was this expression there for a split second, or was it sustained?
What else was happening that this single image doesn’t show us?
What information are we missing?
This study doesn’t prove that using a particular word causes someone to make a particular decision with a real horse. The authors acknowledge important limitations, including that participants responded to hypothetical scenarios rather than interacting with real horses.
But that’s not what I find most interesting.
What I find most interesting is that simply changing the language people read influenced the solutions they considered.
The horse didn’t change.
The behaviour didn’t change.
Only the words changed.
That’s worth thinking about.
Because if the words we choose influence the questions we ask.
They may also influence the answers we settle on.
And our horses deserve that extra moment of curiosity before we decide we already know why they’re behaving the way they are.