Abstract: Darwin’s claim of differences in mental abilities between man and other animals is a matter of degree rather than of kind and appears to apply nicely to a comparison of choice behaviour in humans and equine. Humans and horses make two kinds of decisions, fast reflexive decisions based on heuristics, and slower more considered decisions that require more complex cognitive processing. Heuristic use is adaptive in that decisions based on them are most often useful in helping an organism to survive while requiring little time and cognitive effort. There is considerable evidence that there is an innate basis to many heuristics in humans as well as horses. A case will be made that the investigation of heuristics specific to horses will lead to an understanding of equine behaviour that has not been possible using traditional learning theories alone. Traditional learning theories are restricted in explaining behaviour to appeals to reinforcement regimes or to the formation of associations between novel stimuli and stimuli that cause innate reflexes, but they are of no use when behaviour is controlled by stimuli that have never been reinforced or been systematically paired with other stimuli that cause reflexive responses. For example, a horse in a two-choice discrimination task may choose a familiar stimulus which has never been reinforced over a new stimulus added to the discrimination task, simply due to the use of an heuristic that usually works -- when in doubt, choose a more familiar object over an unfamiliar one. Conflict resolution strategies provide another good example of heuristic vs. slow decision making. In both humans and horses, conflict resolution strategies are used within, but not typically between social groups. Such groups can be defined as community of interest. Depending on the resource that has to be defended, groups may well be small identities, such as human families or horse harems, or large aggregations such as herds in horses, or religious groups or nations in humans. Fast and simple resolution is possible with stable social identities in simple environments, but more complicated and time consuming deliberative processes are required to resolve conflict over long-term resource acquisition, for decisions in complex conflicts situations and complex social settings.

Abstract: Like many other herbivores equids feed on rather evenly distributed resources. Especially in ruminants several studies have proved the influence of social organisations, rank, sex and the depletion of feeding sites on the feeding behaviour of individuals. However, it is not yet understood whether social aspects affect horses´ feeding decisions. Horses roam on vast habitats with constantly changing vegetation. In non-competitive situations domestic horses tend to return to the same feeding site until it is overgrazed. Whereas, for competition over limited food the social status of the individuals appears to be important. Curiosity about the influence of social rank and different social feeding conditions on the horses´ feeding decisions between two buckets, equally filled with high-quality surplus food, led us to create the test situation described here. The observer horses were alternately tested with a dominant and a subordinate demonstrator placed in one of three different positions. We conclude that domestic horses use cognitive strategic decision making in order to decide where to feed in a social feeding situation. When possible they tend to return to the same, continuously supplied feeding site and switch to an “avoidance tendency” when another horse is already feeding from it or in the presence of a dominant horse. Thus the position and the social rank of conspecifics affect the feeding strategy of horses.

Abstract: Contrary to the widely-spread assumption that horses just have restricted cognitive capacities and are not very flexible in their behaviors, we showed that horses display innovative behavior and even make use of tools (Krueger 2015, Krueger et al. 2015). These findings derive from a database (http://innovative-behaviour.org/) the Equine behavior team managed in the past two years. Some horses did not only show single innovations, but several different innovations. The number of innovations per individual varied from 1 to 10. 20 % of all innovative horses in the database showed more than one innovation. These individuals can be called the ‘true innovators’. Moreover innovations were dependent on age. Young horses were more innovative than older ones, whereby horses at the age of five to nine years were the most innovative. When considering the housing system innovative horses in a single housing (inside box, outside box, paddock box) had a slight majority towards horses in group housing (open stable, active stable, pasture day and night). But given the fact that ratings on housing system frequencies state 95% of the horses to be kept in individual housing, innovations in individual housing are rare. Nevertheless, horses kept in inside boxes without a window, opened doors more often than all other horses. Aside from this effect, housing systems did not trigger the frequency of innovative behavior. Innovations for gaining freedom and innovations in general were widespread among horses with daily access to pasture and daily contact with conspecifics. Innovations for gaining food were not more likely to occur in horses that were fed little amounts of roughage. In conclusion, the housing of horses does not seem to be the primary catalyst for developing innovative behavior in horses. What makes a “true innovator” in horses, in addition to age, remains to be seen.