08/04/2026
Only 16% got learning theory correct. Does it affect how we treat horses?
Previous studies have demonstrated poor understanding of learning theory amongst equine professionals, but further work is required to gauge the level of understanding within the general equestrian population.
How equestrians’ understanding of learning theory affects their perception of problematic horse behaviour, and strategies used to deal with it, are also unknown.
The aim of this study was to investigate the level of understanding of learning theory amongst the general equestrian population, and to explore how this relates to the way equestrians perceive and respond to a problem behaviour.
An online questionnaire was completed by 672 UK equestrians, aged > 18 years old, who had owned/loaned a horse for over 1 year.
The results indicate that UK equestrians have a poor understanding of learning theory; only 16 % of respondents correctly identified all four quadrants of operant conditioning from example scenarios.
Equestrians with a poorer understanding of learning theory were significantly more likely to consider two scientifically implausible motivators (i.e. horse testing rider and horse dominating rider) as possible explanations as to why the horse in an example scenario was performing a problem behaviour (napping i.e. reluctance/refusal to move forwards as directed by the rider where the horse may plant its feet and/or only moves backwards or sideways in response to the cue to move forwards).
Furthermore, equestrians with a poorer understanding of learning theory were more likely to use derogatory descriptors to describe the horse. Respondents who correctly identified only 1/4 quadrants of operant conditioning were significantly more likely to use the descriptors “naughty”, “cheeky” and “disrespectful” to describe the horse performing the problem behaviour in the example scenario.
The use of derogatory descriptors to describe the napping horse was also significantly associated with an increased likelihood of using a punishment-based intervention to manage this behaviour (“naughty”, “cheeky”, “disrespectful”).
The results of this study provide evidence for an association between a poor understanding of learning theory, blaming the horse for performing problematic behaviour, use of derogatory terms to describe problematic equine behaviour, and use of punishment in response to these behaviours.
Further work is now required to establish if interventions to improve UK equestrians’ understanding of equine behavioural science would lead to improved horse welfare.
Limitations of this study were that the questionnaire used limited answer options, which may not have fully reflected respondents’ views.
You can read this paper here: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0168159125001376
