Abstract: Living in complex social systems requires perceptual and cognitive capacities for the recognition of group membership and individual competitors. Olfaction is one means by which this can be achieved. Many animals can identify individual proteins in urine, skin secretions, or saliva by scent. Additionally, marking behaviour in several mammals and especially in horses indicates the importance of sniffing conspecifics’ faeces for olfactory recognition. To test this hypothesis, we conducted two separate experiments: Experiment 1 addressed the question of whether horses can recognise the group membership of other horses by sniffing their faeces. The horses were presented with four faecal samples: (1) their own, (2) those of other members of their own group, (3) those of unfamiliar mares, and (4) those of unfamiliar geldings. Experiment two was designed to assess whether horses can identify the group member from whom a faecal sample came. Here, we presented two groups of horses with faecal samples from their group mates in random distribution. As controls, soil heaps and sheep faecal samples were used. In experiment one, horses distinguished their own from their conspecifics’ faeces, but did not differentiate between familiarity and sex. In experiment two, the horses from both groups paid most attention to the faeces of the horses from which they received the highest amount of aggressive behaviours. We therefore suggest that horses of both sexes can distinguish individual competitors among their group mates by the smell of their faeces.

Abstract: Horses (Equidae ) are believed to clearly demonstrate the links between ecology and social organization. Their social cognitive abilities enable them to succeed in many different environments, including those provided for them by humans, or the ones domestic horses encounter when escaping from their human care takers. Living in groups takes different shapes in equids. Their aggregation and group cohesion can be explained by Hamilton“s selfish herd theory. However, when an individual joins and to which group it joins appears to be an active individual decision depending on predation pressure, intra group harassment and resource availability. The latest research concerning the social knowledge horses display in eavesdropping experiments affirms the need for an extension of simple herd concepts in horses for a cognitive component. Horses obviously realize the social composition of their group and determine their own position in it. The horses exceedingly flexible social behavior demands for explanations about the cognitive mechanisms, which allow them to make individual decisions. ”Ecology conditions like those that favour the evolution of open behavioural programs sometimes also favour the evolution of the beginnings of consciousness, by favouring conscious choice. Or in other words, consciousness originates with the choice that are left open by open behavioural programs." Popper (1977)

Abstract: The evaluation of important parameters for measuring the horses’ cognitive capacities is one of the central topics of the equine behaviour team at Nürtingen-Geislingen University. Social complexity has been said to be one of the settings in which needs for cognitive capacities arise in animals. A variety of studies throughout the last two decades proved the horses’ social complexity to be far more elaborate than previously assumed. Horses form social bonds for the protection of offspring, intervene in encounters of others, identify group mates individually and easily orientate in a fission fusion society.
In such socially complex societies, animals will benefit from learning socially. In many bird and primate species the degree of social complexity correlates nicely with the species abilities for social learning. Social learning was, therefore, argued to be an indicator for elaborate mental capacities in animals. We were delighted to prove that horses actually copy social behaviour and techniques for operating a feeding apparatus from older and higher ranking group members. In a recent study we found young horses, at the age of 3 to 12, to copy the operation of a feeding apparatus from a human demonstrator. Social learning seems to work nicely in horses when the social background of the animals is considered.
The degree to which individual animals adapt to changes in their social or physical environment by finding innovative solution appears to be the other side of the coin, of whether animals adjust to challenges by social learning. It is not very astonishing, that along with the animals’ social complexity and their ability to learn socially also the degree to which they show innovative behaviour was claimed to be one of the most important demonstrations of advanced cognitive capacities. In a recent approach, we started to ask horse owners and horse keepers in many countries to tell us about unusual behaviour of their horses via a web site (http://innovative-behaviour.org). To date, we received 204 cases of innovative behaviour descriptions from which six cases were clear examples of tool use or borderline tool use. We categorized the innovative behaviours into the classes, a) innovations to gain food, b) innovations to gain freedom, c) social innovations, d) innovations to increase maintenance, and e) innovations that could not be clearly assigned to a category. About 20% of the innovative horses showed more than one innovation. These animals could be termed “true innovators”. Again, young horses were more innovative than older ones with the age group 5 – 9 showing the highest number of innovative behaviour descriptions.
In a nutshell, the horses’ cognitive capacities appear to be underestimated throughout the last decades. The horses’ social complexity is far more elaborate than previously assumed, horses learn socially from conspecific and humans, some of them demonstrate innovative behaviour adaptations to their environment and even simple forms of tool use.

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.