Abstract: Understanding the factors that influence horse learning is critical to ensure horse welfare and rider safety. In this study, data were obtained from horses (n=96) training to step backwards through a corridor in response to bit pressure. Following training, learning ability was determined by the latency to step backwards through the corridor when handled on the left and right reins. Additionally, horse owners were questioned about each horse's management, training, behavior and signalment (such as horse breed, age and sex). Factors from these four broad domains were examined using a multiple logistic regression (MLR) model, following an Information Theoretic approach, for associations between horses' behavioral attributes and their ability to learn the task. The MLR also included estimates of the rider's ability and experience as well as owner's perceptions of their horse's trainability and temperament. Results revealed several variables including explanatory variables that correlated significantly with rate of learning. Horses were faster at backing, a behavioral trait, when handled on the right (t = 3.65, df = 94, P < 0.001) than the left side. Thoroughbred horses were slower at completing the tests than other breeds of horses when handled on the left side (LM, F1,48=4.5, P=0.04) and right side (LM, F1,45=6.0, P=0.02). Those in regular work, a training factor, did not learn faster than their unworked counterparts on the right rein but completed the task faster on the left rein (F1,44=5.47, P=0.02). This may reflect differences in laterality and habituation effects. In contrast, more anxious horses were faster at completing the test when handled from the right (Spearman, r=-0.22, P=0.04). It is possible that these horses have an increased arousal level when interacting with handlers, resulting in more engagement with the lesson, accounting for the improved performance results. The findings of this study will help clarify how horse behavior, training and management may influence learning and how their application may optimize learning outcomes. Future equine behavior assessment and research questionnaires should include items that assess these qualities.

Abstract: The ideals of equestrian technique combine art and science. Therefore students of equitation
encounter measurable variables such as rhythm, tempo and impulsion alongside more ethereal ones
such as outline and harmony. This mixture accounts for many of the idiosyncrasies of equestrianism
including the subjective scoring of performance in dressage tests, the elusiveness of perfection even at
an elite level of competition and the difficulty of expressing equestrian technique in empirical terms
(Roberts, 1992).
This chapter will describe and offer examples of the unwelcome behavioural responses horses
produce under saddle. Two broad sections are then proposed to allow the reader to consider
unwelcome behavioural responses caused directly by humans as distinct from those attributable more
to the horse than the rider. Ultimately the responsibility for problems in the ridden horse lies with
humans since we have undertaken the domestication and exploitation of equids. Therefore it is
accepted that the dichotomy is not absolute. The chapter closes with a

Abstract: Dominance hierarchies in horses primarily influence priority access to limited resources of any kind, resulting in predictable contest outcomes that potentially minimize aggressive encounters and associated risk of injury. Levels of aggression in group-kept horses under domestic conditions have been reported to be higher than in their feral counterparts but can often be attributed to sub-optimal management. Horse owners often express concerns about the risk of injuries occurring in group-kept horses but these concerns have not been substantiated by empirical investigations. What has not yet been sufficiently addressed are human safety aspects related to approaching and handling group-kept horses. Given horses? natural tendency to synchronize activity to promote group cohesion, questions remain about how group dynamics influence human-horse interactions. Group dynamics influence a variety of management scenarios, ranging from taking a horse out of its social group to the prospect of humans mimicking the horse?s social system by taking a putative leadership role and seeking after an alpha position in the dominance hierarchy to achieve compliance. Yet, there is considerable debate about whether the roles horses attain in their social group are of any relevance in their reactions to humans. This article reviews the empirical data on social dynamics in horses, focusing on dominance and leadership theories and the merits of incorporating those concepts into the human-horse context. This will provide a constructive framework for informed debate and valuable guidance for owners managing group-kept horses and for optimizing human-horse interactions.

Abstract: Fourteen riding horses of mixed age and breed were randomly allocated to observer and control treatments. An additional horse was pre-trained as a demonstrator to walk the 13.8 m length of the test arena and select one of two food buckets using colour and pattern cues. Observer horses were exposed to correct performances of the task by the trained demonstrator, for 20 trials held over 2 days. Control horses were subjected to the same handling and placement procedures as the observer horses but without exposure to the behaviour of the demonstrator. The third day for all subjects was designated as a test day. Each subject was released individually in a predetermined place in the arena, and the latency to walk the length of the test arena to the food buckets, the latency to feed, the identity of the bucket approached and the identity of the bucket selected were recorded on ten consecutive trials. During tests both food buckets contained food to minimize the possibility of individual trial and error learning. On the first trial the mean latency to approach the goal area was 18 s for observer horses, compared with 119 s for control horses (t = 2.8, d.f. = 12, P < 0.01) and the mean latency to eat was 35 s for observer horses, compared with 181 s for control horses (t = 4.86, d.f. = 11, P < 0.001). However, observer horses were no more likely to choose the demonstrated bucket than control horses on the first trial. Twelve of the 14 horses decreased their latency to approach the goal area during the series of ten trials, but there were no significant changes in the buckets selected.