Knowledge and Practical Application of Learning Theory in Equine Training.

(1)

PhD thesis of Angelo Telatin

Knowledge and Practical Application of

Learning Theory in Equine Training.

Tutors

Prof. Claudio Sighieri Dott. Paolo Baragli

Coordinator Prof. Alessandro Poli

(2)

1

Summary

Equitation Science (ES) is a field of horse behavior and welfare science that is relatively young, having been established as a research discipline only within approximately the past ten years. In 2004, ES gathered a formal following after the first ES workshop was held at the Royal School of Veterinary Studies, in Edinburgh. Participants included esteemed animal scientists and experts of equitation. The professionals discussed the need for science and evidence in the way equitation was taught. This was to make the welfare of both the horse and rider measurable, in order to then objectively improve it (Randle, & Waran, 2017).

Learning theories applied to training are a major aspect of Equitation Science. Learning Theory (LT) explains why and how animals learn - in every species from humans to horses. However, most horse training practices have been in existence longer than LT, or the understanding of an animal’s learning and cognitive processes. Because of this, there is very little use or even acknowledgement of LT in most training techniques. The need to investigate into LT applied to equitation is necessary to improving the practice of riding. This new knowledge, combining equitation and LT, could be used to make training more ethical, sustainable, and safer for both horse and the rider or handler (McGreevy, McLean, 2009).

The topic of LT has become more relevant also in the veterinary field. In recent years there has been a call to improve understanding of LT and ES in equine veterinarian programs. Equine Veterinarian Practitioner programs go more into these topics because knowledge of these subjects has been shown to both reduce numbers of injuries and increase clinical efficacy (Mcdonnell, 2005 ; Doherty at all 2017).

Over the past three years of PhD work, studies were focused on identifying if the lack of including learning theories in equine training was related to a deficit in knowledge or to physical inability to apply them. A questionnaire was developed to test the theoretical and practical knowledge of equine practitioners. Simultaneously, a rein tension device was used to measure riders’ ability to properly apply negative reinforcements on cue.

(6)

5

Results from the questionnaire revealed that the more immediate problem was the lack of knowledge among practitioners regarding their understanding and application of learning theory, and therefore the studies with rein tension were suspended. Two of the handling aspects with the lowest scores were ability to recognize avoidance behavior in regards to the application of a negative stimulus and proper use of the whip. These findings guided follow-up research consisting of a few things. First, the creation of a simple protocol that was effective in reducing avoidance behaviors during handling procedures. Second, a scientific demonstration of the correct use of the whip. Since most of the techniques at the disposal of practitioners to address avoidance behaviors (AB) are based on restraint, non-associative learning or classical conditioning, it was theorized that the root of problems could be that AB starts as a Fight or Flight response but quickly becomes an organized operant conditioned response (Christensen, 2006). It was hypothesized that a behavior modification technique should be rooted in operant conditioning. Several solutions were considered until it was decided to implement and test a behavior modification based on Differential Negative Reinforcement of an Incompatible Behavior (DNRI). The research has shown that DNRI is an effective behavior modification technique to be used during routine husbandry and veterinary procedures. It’s common for horses to show avoidance behaviors during such procedures and practitioners need to constantly train to extinguish those unwanted behaviors. DNRI is efficient as it does not require multiple skilled people, just one person can implement the sequence and modify the behavior.

The tests on the different modalities of the use of the whip showed that the most

effective and humane way to use the whip to communicate with the horse is a constant tapping, with intervals under a second. It is suggested that with this finding a meeting with the Fédération Equestre Internationale should be organized to create a task force that will shift the use of the whip from positive punishment, focusing on limiting the number of strokes, to its more ethical role of communication through negative reinforcement.

(7)

6

Preface

The following PhD was conducted under the supervision of Professor Claudio Sighieri and Dr. Paolo Baragli, in conjunction with the Department of Veterinary Science, University of Pisa and the Department of Equine Science and Management, Delaware Valley University.

The PhD thesis is articulated in a litterateur review and an experimental part.

The first part includes a review of learning theories and their implementations in horse training. The second part is composed by the experiment carried out during the three years of PhD work.

During these years, the studies aimed to investigate the knowledge of horse

practitioners in relation to learning theories. The studies focused on designing a new training technique to facilitate better horse handling procedures, improving horse welfare and decreasing human injuries. This included procedures for extinguishing unwanted horse behaviors, as well as creating a protocol for more humane and efficient use of the whip in equine practice.

The Research conducted resulted in the following abstracts publication

1. Testing theoretical and empirical knowledge of learning theory by surveying equestrian riders Angelo Telatin, P. Baragli, B. Greene, O. Gardner and A. Bienas - Delaware Valley University, USA. Journal of Veterinary Behavior: Clinical Applications and Research. 15. 79. 10.1016/j.jveb.2016.08.013

2. Differential reinforcement: An effective technique in horse training to decrease unwanted behaviors and improve horse welfare. A. Telatin*1 , E. Green2 , and C. Kieschnick1 , 1 Delaware Valley University, Doylestown, PA, USA, 2 University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, USA .Journal of Equine Veterinary Science Volume 52, May 2017, Pages 96-97

3. A Pilot Study: Can Whip Use Changes to Improve Equine Welfare Have

(8)

7

University, Doylestown PA USA Paolo Baragli Pisa University , Pisa Italy and Elizabeth Greene, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, USA, ISES 2017

proceeding

Conference Presentations

2017 Wangen Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Svezia 2017 American Univerity in Dubai, Emirati Arabi

2017 Rutgers University Horse Management Seminar “The Best of the Best”, New Jersey, USA

2017 Equine Science Society Symposium, Minnesota, USA

2016 Universita’ di Pisa “Learning Theories Applied to Horse Handling”, Italia 2016 12th_{International Society of Equitation Science conference Saumur, France}

2016 Centenary University National Association of Equine Affiliated Academics ,New Jersey, USA

2016 Rutgers University Horse Management Seminar “Learning Theories Applied to Equitation”, New Jersey, USA

2015 Equine Science Society Symposium, Florida. USA

2015 11th_{International Society of Equitation Science conference University of British}

Columbia, Canada

2014 Florida Equine Institute and Allied Trade Show, University of Florida, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, Florida, USA

(9)

8

General Part

1. Introduction

1.1 Current state of horse welfare

The horse, in recent decades, has been used in a variety of roles in a way that is not seen in any other species. In Eastern countries horses are used as both working and/or meat animals - in the Western Hemisphere horses are used more for companionship, pleasure and sport, organized into an industry that is estimated to be worth multiple billions of euros in Europe alone (Liljenstolpe, 2009). Many people think that horses should be docile and submissive to humans. (McLean and McGreevy 2010). They think that during the introductory training process, the person needs to dominate the horse in order to have a good relationship (Goodwin et al., 2009). Horses have been considered domestic animals for over 6000 years, and even though people have developed many different methods of training horses, horseback riding still has the highest rate of human injuries of any sport or leisure activity (Hausberger et al 2008, Hawson et al 2010, Lyn et al 2011). Even with many different training methods available, many horses are unusable due to the appearance of behavioral problems that make them unfit to perform the task they are bred for (Ödberg and Bouissou, 1999, Hayek et al, 2005). A high percentage of horses are slaughtered at a young age or before reaching normal retirement age, when they become unusable to the owner (Wallin et al., 2000). In the USA, the percentage of horses slaughtered for behavioral problems is 8% (Grandin et al., 1999). Due to this, there is significant loss of economic resources in the equestrian industry. It also indicates compromised physical and mental well-being in horses.

Recently, it has been demonstrated that horses with compromised physical and mental conditions can show depressive-like behaviors (Fureix et al., 2012) and learned

helplessness could be a consequence of prolonged inadequate management [(Baragli et a.,l 2014).

Within equine activities, two biologically and evolutionarily different creatures, horses and people, need to collaborate and communicate effectively in order to achieve positive results (Keaveney 2008). The psychology of the horse and its emotional

(10)

9

environment must be considered in order to obtain positive and reliable results within the horse-human relationship. Both riders and trainers need to take all factors affecting the welfare of their horses into account (McBride and Mills 2012), especially in the early stages of training, when it is critical to develop a proper relationship between people and horses for both riding and handling purposes.

One of the most common causes of human accidents with horses is the fear reaction, (Keeling et al., 1999). Horse riding and handling accidents are fairly common; rate of serious injury is one injury for every 350 hours of contact, an injury rate 20 times greater than the injuries reported from riding a motorcycle (Ceroni,2007).

1.2 Horse training techniques

We know from practical experience that horses often exhibit surprising and defensive behaviors with no clear explanation. It’s possible that these confusing behaviors are due to signals or cues unknowingly and accidentally given by the human to the horse.

The actions humans perform when they are sitting in a saddle, where they put the reins and where and how they hold and use their legs on the horse’s sides, all affect how the horse behaves when ridden (Mills 1998). Human actions affect the horse’s ground manners as well. It matters when they are leading from the ground with a halter, and during handling for medication or visits from the farrier or veterinarian. During these activities, most of the handler’s gestures are pressure physically transmitted to the horse, representing a form of physical communication. Every time a whip is used, a rein is pulled, or the horse feels the rider’s leg, the mechanical action performed with human hands or legs is physically felt by the horse's body (Clayton et al 2003, Newton and Nielsen 2005, Hall et al 2013). Basically, physical forces; pressures, are applied to produce specific behavioral responses in horses (McGreevy 2007).

In some cases, these pressures can be measured (Clayton et al 2003, Egenvall et al 2012) and are often increased by the use of training aids such as martingales, draw

(11)

10

reins or lead rope with chain (Heleski et al 2009). The pressure felt by the horse creates discomfort, and is therefore an aversive stimulus (McCall 1990). The discomfort of an aversive stimulus can vary in intensity, from almost imperceptibly light and barely felt by the horse, to very forceful and even painful to the horse if legs, hands or lead rope are not used correctly (Newton and Nielsen 2005, Lesimple et al 2010). Horses learn during their training that pressure applied through the reins disappears when they stop or slow down. They learn the pressure of the halter disappears when they move forward, and so on. The pressure is removed when the horse performs the desired behavior, and does what the handler wants. Horses halt when the rider pulls the reins because stopping helps reduce the pressure of the bridle on the nose and mouth (McGreevy, 2007). In every situation that requires handling a horse, the use of pressure through negative reinforcement carries the possibility of pain and, in some cases, even physical damage to the horse (McGreevy et al., 2012). The horse’s welfare may be threatened by this, but it all depends on how the interaction is perceived by the animal (Mills, 1998). The use of high levels of pressure to control the horse may be justifiable when an

uncontrolled flight response would threaten the safety of both horse and rider, as long as the horse has a clear idea of the behavior associated to the release of that pressure. (Hawson et al., 2010).

Several problem behaviours are likely to appear when training methods rely on the use of pain instead of light pressures and methods that are similar with the horse’s natural learning abilities and limitations (McLean, 2005).The use of certain methods of training and restraint, accepted both by the equestrian community and general regulations, are being analyzed for deleterious effects. Negative effects come from things like excessive tightening of nosebands, which may cause reduced blood flow to skin under it and may increase the horse’s levels of stress (McGreevy et al., 2012). Use of the whip in equine racing may cause pain and tissue damage. This caused public concern in Norway, so the use of the whip was prohibited (Joneset al., 2015). Draw reins are a specific reins used by riders to keep the horse’s head close to their chest. As of January 1st, 2016, they have been banned at competitions in Switzerland. These aids have been deemed inhumane, or unhelpful to the training process in the long run.

(12)

11

Some behavioural problems historically considered to be connected to clinical problems may actually be linked to poor riding and training (Waran, 2005). Most behavioural issues can be successfully treated and modified through assessing the problem and applying behavior modifications that follow the principles of learning theory (Cooper, 1998;McGreevy and McLean, 2010; McLean and McLean, 2008). The low levels of learning theory knowledge found in coaches and trainers in Australia and Canada (Warren-Smith and McGreevy,2008; Wentworth-Stanley, 2008) and the widespread unfamiliarity of learning theory in veterinary school programs implies that the majority of training and restraint methods don’t align with known learning abilities of the equuid. If trainers, riders, and handlers have a poor understanding of learning theory, most likely cruel practice and horse misuse can occurs. Often the use of punishment can result in decreased horse welfare and even possible abuse (Mills, 1998). Application of learning theory correctly highly contributes to reduced waste in the horse industry (Minero and Canali, 2009) and increase safety of the rider and handler (Hawson et al., 2010). In recent years we have seen a significant increase in the number of people who are very interested in more ethical approaches to training horses. This coincides with the general rise of animal rights and animal welfare groups. It may be due, in part, to the rise of social media. With people being able to share shocking images and opinions with others more easily, horses in use for sports and training have been brought sharply into the public eye (Voigt, M. 2015).

(13)

12

2. Learning Theory in Horses

Learning is defined by Thorpe as a process of adaptive changes in personal behavior as a result of experience (Thorp, 1963). Learning theory explains why these changes occur and are divided into non-associative learning such as habituation and

sensitization, associative learning such as classical and operant conditioning, and cognitive learning (problem solving?). Applying learning theory to training methods began to revolutionize the animal husbandry world, especially with creatures like sea mammals or dogs. In the early twenty-first century, horse training literature began to use the principles of learning theory as well (McGreevy, 2007; McGreevy andMcLean, 2007, 2010; McLean, 2005a, 2008). Understanding and properly applying learning theory helped horse practitioners work with their horses in a way that improve training while maintaining the horse’s welfare.

2.1 Non Associative Learning: Habituation and Sensitization

Non-associative learning like habituation describes why frequency or power of a

response decrease due to repeated sensory stimulation. It is important to note that it is not caused by sensory receptor adaptation or motor fatigue (Rankinet al., 2009; Schmid et al., 2015). Animals have lots of different stimuli coming at them from their

environments all the time, and habituation mostly likely evolved as a survival skill to help them quicly figure out which stimuli are important and which can be ignored. Because of this, habituation is the most fundamental learning processes, as it allows animals to better adapt to changing environments. Habituation is thought to be a prerequisite for every other kind of learning, because allows animals to filter out unimportant and unuseful stimuli and focus only on important ones (Rankin et al.,2009; Schmid et al., 2015). This decrease in response to overly - repeated stimuli tends to be fairly long-lasting and very stimulus specific. Animals showing habituation to a particular stimulus still remain reactive to other stimuli. Horses habituate to diverse aspects of their

physical and social environments. They also habituate to training equipment, such as saddlery, and to carrying a rider (McGreevy and McLean, 2010). Dishabituation, (not the opposite, even though it sounds like it should be) is the recovery of a habituated

(14)

13

response. It describes a situation where the presentation of a stimulus, which is different to the one the animal has habituated to, results in an increase in the previously

decreased response to the original stimulus (Rankin et al., 2009).

Sensitization is the opposite of habituation; the frequency or intensity of the response is increased. If a horse experiences a series of aversive stimuli, sensitization can increase the likelihood that it will respond more quickly or with more intensity the next time the stimulus is presented. Sensitization is often characterized by an enhanced response to an entire class of stimuli in addition to the one that is actually used and repeated. Siqueira did an experiment using pigeons and exposed them to small electric shocks. The pigeons became more responsive even to loud noises (Siqueira et al., 2005). This may be relatable to many situations in horse training, where horses exposed to painful or scary stimuli show increased responsiveness to both the original and other similar stimuli. A horse that has spooked to avoid an animal that jumped unexpectedly out of a bush may learn to spook repeatedly at the smaller stimuli in similar circumstances.

2.2 Associative learning: classical and operant conditioning

Classical conditioning was one of the first learning theories described (Pavlov, 1927), and it can be found in the majority of the animal kingdom. In this type of learning, the animal forms an association between two stimuli. If the animal is presented with a neutral stimulus, like a visual cue, and this is followed by an unconditioned stimulus that elicits a physiological response, like food, the initial neutral stimulus after time will

produce the same response due to association with the unconditioned stimulus.

When used in horse training, classical conditioning plays an important role. Intentionally, through the pairing of physical, visual, or auditory cues with learned responses, and unintentionally, through associations of non-controlled external stimuli. The human may be completely unaware these external environmental stimuli even exist. The ‘Clever Hans’ historical event, where a horse learned to count following the involuntary facial expression of the handler, proved the horse’s remarkable ability to use classical

(15)

14

conditioning and serves to remind us that horses may learn things other than what we intended.

In operant conditioning learning, for example, the horse can and will use other stimuli to predict the arrival of either the reinforcer or the punisher. Horse riders use classical conditioning to replace pressure used in the initial stages of training, with new neutral stimuli, the aids (McGreevy and McLean 2007). This is called a secondary

reinforcement stimulus. Due to the fact that classical conditioning permits the rider to substitute the adverse stimuli of the negative reinforcement with the use of light pressure or other, non painful stimuli, horse welfare can be highly improved (Cooper 1998).

Because of classical conditioning associations, a horse can show defensive or escape behaviors in an unexpected way (Cooper 1998). These defensive behaviors will appear without notice, and without apparent reason. They are also called "anticipatory

behavior" (Peters et al 2012). When defensive behaviors have been linked, through classical conditioning, to a series of stimuli, such as a certain person entering the stall to perform an injection, the animal can predict the unwanted event causing it to show defensive behaviors in advance. The same can happen when the horse is being ridden. If a horse has learned to rear because the rider is not using pressure properly during the application of negative reinforcement, it will associate other stimuli and use them to predict the pressure’s appearance through classical conditioning (McBride SD, Mills 2012). The horse will then display, for example, rearing behavior before the onset of the pressure that originally caused it. Not knowing the best ways to use these training practices could be a source of behavior problems, because the stimulus that the horse chooses to use in order to anticipate the arrival of a pressure that has been already associated with defensive behaviors may be a stimulus that’s unrecognizable to the owner or rider, and therefore beyond their control.

(16)

15

2.3 Positive and negative reinforcement and punishment

Operant Conditioning, which is also known as Instrumental learning, is the most-used learning process involved in horse training. It involves adding or subtracting stimuli to increase or decrease the likelihood of a behavioral response. Behavioral scientists usually refer to it as the quadrant of operant conditioning (Table 1).

Table 1 Operant Conditioning Quadrant Reinforcement

Increasing the likelihood of a behavior

Punishment

Decreasing the likelihood of a behavior

Negative (Subtraction)

Negative Reinforcement The removal of an aversive stimulus to reward a desired response

Negative Punishment

The removal of a desired stimulus to decrease an undesired

response

Positive (Addition)

Positive Reinforcement The addition of a pleasant stimulus to reward a desired response

Positive Punishment The Addition of an aversive stimulus to decrease an undesired response

Negative reinforcement strengthens a desired behavioral response by removing an aversive stimulus when the wanted behavior is performed (Dworetzky, 1994). This type of learning can be a powerful method of training, but only if the trainer removes the aversive stimulus immediately after the horse performs the desired response (Cooper, 1998; Perone, 2003). The horse may, unfortunately, perform an escape behavior rather than the desired response. If this unwanted behavior results in the horse escaping the rider’s aversive stimuli, the behavior may be performed more often and behavior problems may arise.

Positive reinforcement strengthens a behavioral response when a positive or rewarding outcome follow the emission of a specific behavior by the horse (Dworetzky, 1994).

(17)

16

Although positive reinforcement is common in equine learning experiments (McCall, 1990; Nicol, 2002), it is difficult to be used correctly during training. However when paired up with secondary reinforcers, such as verbal praise or physical touch, positive reinforcement can be useful to use along with negative reinforcement, by strengthening the behavioral response the rider is asking for (McGreevy, 2004).

Positive punishment is the application of an aversive or unwanted stimulus after the performance of an undesired behavior. This should suppress the behavioral response, because the animal does not want to continue doing something it causing discomfort (Domjan, 2003).

Negative punishment is punishment by exclusion. This means removing something attractive such as food (McGreevy and McLean, 2010). Negative punishment tends to be used mostly unintentionally in horse training (McGreevy and McLean, 2010). Due to its nature, of the two, it is the more efficient form of punishment in horse training.

2.4 Continuum of reinforcement and punishment

Many tend to view the four quadrants of operant conditioning as distinct, separate boxes when

in reality they may overlap quite a bit. As Perone showed, negative reinforcement and positive reinforcement can be seen as equivalent in terms of the ethological theory of desire and motivations (Peron 2003). He performed an experiment, and was

questioning if the rat presses the lever to obtain food (positive reinforcement) or to remove hunger (negative reinforcement). In this sense, positive and negative reinforcement can be seen as overlapping. Same for negative reinforcement and positive punishment. For example, if a horse stops when it is being asked to walk forward, the rider immediately applies leg pressure. This could be seeing as punisher of the stopping behavior and, at the same time reinforcer of the behavior moving forward when the pressure is released. Negative punishment can also be seen to overlap positive reinforcement. Often with positive reinforcement, trainers do not deliver food until the appropriate behavior is reached. From the horse’s point of view, it is negatively

(18)

17

punished because while performing the behavior the food is not released (Looney and Cohen, 1982).

Horse training should include the application of pressure and its immediate removal when the horse behaves as requested in order to be both effective and ethologically correct (McBride and Mills, 2012). When this does not occur as it should, and the release of pressure or removal of discomfort is performed incorrectly, horses may develop defensive behaviors, making them difficult to manage. This can happen when pressure becomes pain (Lesimple et al 2012).

Trainings’ main goal is for the horse to learn specific associations between provided signals that the trainer gives and a specific behavior. When the horse performs

unexpected or unwanted behaviors, it means that the training is not adequate and has not yet established the association between the desired signal and the desired

behavioral response. The reinforcement used to create this association is therefore insufficient, as it is not undermining the horse’s motivation to perform other, unwanted behaviors (McBride and Mills 2012). Unexpected and defensive behaviors may then be the result of communication signals that are simply unclear to the horse (Goodwin et al 2009).

The communication follows a simple language of "Yes, this is what I want," by releasing pressure on the horse, or "No, this is not what I want, "by applying pressure to the horse (Baragli et al., 2007). Although it seems difficult to communicate using a binary code, if we use as an example the game of finding a hidden object following the "hot” (Yes) or "cold" (No) clues, the task of finding a hidden object is not impossible. The secret to finding the object lies in the skill of the person who is giving cues saying "hot" (Yes) as soon as the subject makes the slightest movement in the correct direction. If the person giving cues is not accurate to say "hot" (Yes) at the slightest hint of movement in the correct direction, the subject, or player, will move mostly based on chance (Baragli et all 2007). This lack of clarity with orders will lead to confusion and frustration. The same is most likely true for horses as well (Richard-Yris et al 2004). Therefore, the key to

(19)

18

horse welfare is to understand how reinforcement works. This is especially important in timing when the pressure applied by the rider or caretaker is released, or the food provided, during training and management.

Following this train of thought, when a horse performs an undesired behavior, it is important to recognize the reinforcements, often not obvious ones, that made the horse behave in that way. Instead of referring to the animal as evil, vindictive,

submissive or dominant, all anthropomorphic adjectives that justify the behavior for the handler, simply find what is confusing the horse (McGreevy, 2007).

3. Desensitization techniques

Horses are innately not only fearful of novel and unfamiliar stimuli, but also to their various characteristics such as magnitude; proximity; sudden appearance (e.g. Christensen et al., 2005, 2008, 2011;Lansade et al., 2007, 2008;Christensen, 2013). The usual behavioral response in horses is the emission of and avoidance behavior. This may vary from a slight increase in distance to the scaring object to a quick and strong flight response. Avoidance is usually followed by alertness towards the stimulus and finally by investigative behavior. The duration of the different phases, vary from seconds to minutes and depend partly on the characteristics of the stimulus and partly on individual differences in fearfulness and curiosity (e.g. Lansade et al., 2008;

Christensen et al., 2011; Marsbølland Christensen, 2015). The horse’s natural

investigative behavior can be exploited during desensitization training, where it may be beneficial to allow the horse to keep its distance to the object it’s fearing until it shows natural motivation to approach. Another important point to remember during training is that avoidance or escape behavior is self reinforced with a negative reinforcement sequence that increases distance to the aversive stimulus. This can lead to the shaping of an increased undesired behavior, which is important to avoid.

Desensitization techniques are training methods used to lower avoidance behaviors in horses. Four main desensitization techniques can be described using the applied animal behavior literature: systematic desensitization, counter-conditioning,

overshadowing, and response prevention (McLean, 2008: Mills et all., 2010). Given the fear of novelty in horses and how flight or fight reaction can compromise human safety,

(20)

19

it is strange that few studies have explored habituation to unfamiliar stimuli and the subsequent developing of desensitization techniques for horses (Christensen,2006, 2013; Hartmann et al., 2011). Based on the implementation of these methodologies, there are some additional techniques, such as approach conditioning and stimulus blending, which can be defined as desensitization techniques (Mclean and Christensen 2017). These techniques may overlap and sometimes are used concurrently; depending on the horse’s temperament, one can be more effective than the other. (Mclean and Christensen, 2017).

3.1 Systematic Desensitization

Systematic desensitization is a gradual habituation to an exciting stimulus. This method of training is a commonly used as a behavior modification technique to resolve

behavioral problems caused by inappropriate hyper reaction to a stimulus. An adaptation of a psychotherapy technique for humans is what it is used for animals (Wolpe and Lazarus,1968). The animal is exposed to low levels of the frightening stimulus in a controlled situation. The intensity is slowly increased, and the animal is rewarded when it shows a calm emotional state. Only when the animal stop reacting to the low intensity stimulus, an increase in magnitude is made. This is commonly used in animal training. In horses, it is commonly used to desensitize police horses to noise, smoke, flags, and charging people and objects (Mclean and Christensen, 2017).

3.2 Counter-Conditioning

Counter-conditioning means to substitute a disruptive emotional state with a behavior that is opposite to the one the trainer aims to eliminate. When the behavior modification is successful, only the desired reaction can occur. The technique is often used in

combination with systematic desensitization. By successfully reward the

desired counter - behavior, the horse learns to perform the new behavior instead of the old, undesired one when exposed to the disruptive stimulus. It works on the classical conditioning principle that animals learn that the problematic stimulus is now a predictor of a positive emotion, rather than of the disruptive one (Taylor, 2010).

(21)

20

3.3 Overshadowing

Overshadowing describes the phenomenon whereby two or more stimuli that are competing for the same response are presented at the same time, and habituation to the lower intensity stimulus takes place (McLean, 2008; Mills et al., 2010).

Overshadowing provides an effective technique of desensitizing horses to aversive stimuli such as clippers, or needles when used in practical setting of horse training, . The aversive stimuli often elicit an avoidance response in horses. Similarly, a horse learns to respond to move forwards and backwards to rein signals following and avoidance response learning sequence. As the horse learn to respond to step both forward and back from light lead rein cues, it will stop using avoidance behaviors to escape the aversive stimulus as those behaviors are now under the control of the lead rein cues. Overshadowing differs from systematic desensitization and

counter-conditioning mostly because it controls motion behaviors (Mclean and Christensen 2017).

3.4 Response Prevention

Response prevention, also known as flooding, consists in restraining the animal from performing avoidance behaviors while forcing it to endure the fearful situation until it stops resisting. In contrast to systematic desensitization, counter-conditioning and overshadowing, in flooding there is no gradual habituation to the aversive stimulus. Instead, the horse is forced to endure the aversive stimulus at full intensity, usually for a long period of time. This method of training was empirically used during the breaking process of working horses by butteri Maremmani, Argentinian gauchos and American cow-boys . It was also scientifically developed to treat human phobias. It is considered to be less time-consuming and more effective than systematic desensitization (Hussain, 1971). To be successful, it is important that flooding is not terminated before the

complete extinction of the response. If the horse is still in a state of panic behavior, and the sequence is terminated, the unwanted response may be negatively reinforced and automatically strengthened. A serious concern in applying this method is that a

(22)

21

hyper reaction and injure itself or fall into learned helplessness. In this case, the animal seems to not be responding to the stimulus physically, but its welfare is seriously compromised, as emotionally its feelings are not changed (Mclean and Christensen 2017).

3.5 Approach conditioning

Approach conditioning uses the natural tendency of horses to explore and approach novel objects in conjunction with systematic desensitization. The horse is asked by the trainer to approach the novel fearful object. The object is retreated as the horse

approaches, in this way the approach behavior is negatively reinforced. The horse learn that its movement is displacing the fearful object. This characteristic gives him

confidence and the fear of the stimulus subside (Mclean and Christensen 2017).

Stimulus blending is a method that pairs two similar stimulus, one to which the horse is already habituated and the new aversive stimulus. The new stimulus is gradually introduced at the lowest intensity at the same time as the habituated one, and

progressively increased in intensity. For example, a horse may be afraid of fly spray but not afraid of being hosed. The physical characteristics of the aversive stimulus, fly spray in this case, are gradually blended with the habituated one, the hose, making difficult for the horse to identify the novel stimulus. The use of the habituated stimulus is slowly diminished and terminated when the horse shows habituation to the new stimulus (Mclean and Christensen 2017).

(23)

22

4. Differential Reinforcement

4.1 Differential Reinforcement Definition

Differential reinforcement aims to eliminate unwanted behaviors by using

reinforcements in an organized way that increases alternative positive behaviors and decreases the unwanted ones without the use of punishment. Instead of punishments, differential reinforcement uses extinction: the removal of the reinforcer that maintains the undesired behavior.

When negative reinforcement is used instead of positive, differential reinforcement is called Differential Negative Reinforcement. If the alternative behavior selected is also physically or functionally incompatible with the problem behavior, the sequence is called Differential Negative Reinforcement of Incompatible Behavior (DNRI). In order to use differential reinforcement, the incompatible behavior to be reinforced must be offered occasionally (Deitz, and Repp, 1973).

4.2 Extinction

Extinction is observed in all types of associative learning, both classical and operant training. In operant conditioning, when the reinforcer stops providing consequences the behavior gradually disappears. With classical conditioning, once a conditioned stimulus is no longer paired with the unconditioned stimulus, the conditioned response

progressively stops. Anxiety disorders such as posttraumatic stress disorder may be linked to difficulties in extinguishing conditioned fear. With operant conditioning,

extinction occurs when the reinforcement necessary to maintain a behavior is no longer provided. Extinction is effective only if performed consistently. It is considered

successful when no response is offered in the presence of an aversive stimulus.

Spontaneous recovery is the reappearance of a behavior after it is thought to have gone

extinct. (Miltenberger, 2012)

4.3 Extinction Burst

During the initial retraining phase in the process of extinction to decrease unwanted behavior, the subject may sometimes perform what is known as an extinction burst. This

(24)

23

usually consists of a short and unexpected intensification and increase in frequency of the unwanted behavior. This usually happens before the eventual decline and extinction of the targeted behavior. New behaviors, emotional responses, or aggressive behavior, can be triggered during this phase. Some explosive reactions have the potential to not

progress into extinction and instead remain indefinitely (Miltenberger, 2012).

4.4 Extinction-induced Variability

When the process of extinction begins, before reducing the number of unwanted behavior, animals can exhibit different variations of unwanted behaviors. These variations of the targeted behavior can be used to shape a better-organized incompatible behavior that increases the chances of achieving extinction of the incompatible behavior (Miltenberger, 2012).

4.5 Differential Reinforcement Handling Applications

Many veterinary procedures apply high levels of pressure to the horse. An injection, for example, is a sudden and intense pressure. It can even exceed a horse’s pain

threshold. Insertion of the needle, the stimulus, can initially cause the horse to perform avoidance behaviors. These can be anything from moving the muscles of the neck or shaking the head to rearing. If one of these behaviors, during the procedure, increases the distance between the horse and the needle, the horse learns that this behavior is efficient in removing the discomfort created by the aversive stimulus. This is a negative reinforcement sequence, so it increases the possibility that this behavior will be

repeated during future injections. Knowing and implementing associative learning can help train horses to perform more functional behaviors, rather than defensive ones (McBride and Mills, 2012). In this case, for example, standing still could be the functional behavior. With a horse that reacts using AB to prevent the injection, the handler should tap the horse’s neck intermittently instead of inserting the needle directly. This action simulates the insertion of the syringe and at the same time allow the possibility to longer the action of injecting after the first avoidance reaction of the horse. This will prevent the association that the AB is effective in stopping the action of injecting. After that, immediately after the horse stands still, the action of tapping should

(25)

24

be stopped. With repetitions, the horse will realize that standing still is the only behavior that stops the simulation of the injection.

A similar example shows that horses AB, including the rear, to avoid being clipped. In this case, the learning sequence that controls the behavioral response is either non-associative learning with habituation or operant conditioning with negative reinforcement (Telatin, 1995). To habituate a horse to the clipper the handler should start the clipper, maintain it on while the horse performs AB and continue clipping without allowing it to stop the procedure. In this scenario, the horse usually habituates to the clipper,

because clipping is not a painful procedure and none of the AB can be connected to the action of clipping. This sequence is typical of the non-associative learning. Sometimes, during the clipping (stimulus), the horse is able to realize that an AB (response) is effective in terminating the clipping action (reinforcement). This, however, is a typical sequence of associative learning. When this occurs, the horse is learning that a

negatively reinforced behavior is capable of stopping the clippers. In this contest, it will be difficult to solve the problem using habituation, because the horse has just learned through associative learning that it can use an unwanted behavior to stop the action of clipping. When this happens, only an operant conditioning behavior modification sequence is capable of reducing the AB and training efficient behavior when

clipping. The handler should start the clipping action and, as soon as the horse begins to show AB they should continue and maintain the same distance between the clippers and the horse. As soon as the horse stands still, the handler should immediately turn the clippers off. This sequence teaches the horse that standing still is the new operant response capable of stopping the clipper. With repetition, the standstill behavior is going to extinguish the AB and clipping can ensue. It is important to underline that, while training, the effective application of the learning theories requires awareness on what the horse and the handler are doing. To be effective and allow the horse to understand the required behavior, the handler must reinforce the right behavior immediately

(26)

25

4.6 Differential Reinforcement: Practical Husbandry Applications

The principles of learning theories are also useful when dealing with horses that kick, bite or become aggressive when feeding time arrives. Normally, these horses learn the unwanted behavior because it is being positively reinforced by the unaware caretaker who feeds the animals while they are performing these negative behaviors. Usually, punishment is not effective in reducing these behaviors. The intermittent positive reinforcement of an alternative behavior through operant conditioning techniques, for example targeting a ball with the nose, fosters the teaching of a new, positive behavior. This can replace the unwanted behaviors (Fox et al., 2012).

(27)

26

5. Problems with learning theories

5.1 Improper application

It is critically important to have an understanding of the interaction between negative reinforcement and positive punishment. If the pressure of the reinforcer is not removed immediately after the horse performs the correct behavior, the reinforcer becomes the punisher. If this happens, the horse may think that is performing the wrong behavior (McGreevy and McLean, 2009). For learning to occur, the application of the reinforcer is effective only within few seconds of the onset of the behavior. If it is outside of this period, it is likely that the pressure will become positive punishment, causing the horse to be confused (Mills, 1998).

5.2 Punishment

Another potential problem in using punishment is that the punishment is often

disproportionate to the behavior it is meant to reduce (McGreevy and McLean, 2010), and when misapplied it can be borderline abusive to the animal involved (Mills, 1998). The punishment must fit the crime. Using strong punishment to correct horses’

behaviors can start a vicious circle. The punishment can become unethical and even abusive, but still remain ineffective. The use of punishment raises questions about the welfare of animals as it has been linked to increased fearfulness, aggression, and behavioral problems in dogs (McGreevy, McLean 2009). It is important to underline that even in horses the most dangerous effect generated by punishment is aggression toward humans (Mills 1998). Positive punishment should therefore be avoided as much as possible.

5.3 Learned helplessness

Repeated use of negative reinforcement with the wrong timing application induces reduction of spontaneous activity, and habituation to the aids. These two circumstances have the potential to create learned helplessness. Calm and non-reactive school horses

(28)

27

used in riding schools for beginners or assisted activities and therapy are an example of it. Although they show little behavioral reactions, they may experience negative emotional states. Today we know that pathological form of apathy, consequence of the above-mentioned conditions, can lead to pathological forms of apathy and impossibility to adapt to the environment, including its relationship with people (McGreevy, McLean 1967). Punishment also when not applied immediately after every instance of an unwanted behavior create confusion and the horse is not able to make the connection between the behavior and the outcome. applying frequently and randomly with no way to escape the repetition of the punishment in the attempt to solve the problem may habituate the horse to the punishment making them entered in a state of learned helplessness when it is (Baragli et all 2007 ).

6. Research using nonexperimental design

6.1 Introduction

Experimental research is suitable when is possible, feasible, and ethical to manipulate the independent variable and randomly assign participants to conditions. If these parameters are not met it is reasonable, even necessary, to use nonexperimental studies that aim to demonstrate the effects between the intervention and an outcome without the use of randomization or control group.

Nonexperimental research includes three broad categories: single-variable research, quasi-experimental research, and qualitative research.

Single-variable research focuses on the result of one manipulation rather than a

statistical correlation between two variables. The famous obedience test conducted by Milgram was nonexperimental. He was interested in one variable; the level of

participants’ compliance to the order given by the researcher. The order was to

administer an electroshock to other people. He observed all participants doing the same task under the same conditions. (Milgram, 1974)

(29)

28

6.2 Limitations

Every experimental design has some limitations that needs to be addressed during the experimental phase. The single group design usually has greater reliability on external

limitations than experimental design, but has some potential internal limitations (Slack

and Draugalis 2001). They are as follows:

-History threat: an event, which happened before the testing to most subjects, is responsible for the improvement and not the behavioral treatment.

-Maturation Threat: the normal growth of the subjects is responsible for the improvement and not the behavioral treatment

-Testing Threat: the effect of the measurements during the baseline are responsible for the improvement and not the behavioral treatment

-Instrumentation threat: different but equivalent type of evaluations are used to

assemble the data. In this case, the diversity of the data collection is responsible for the improvement and not the behavioral treatment

-Mortality threat: Some participants to the study drop the experiment. Usually they are the lowest performing. In this case, the elimination of low performing subjects is responsible for the improvement and not the behavioral treatment

-Regression threats: the population selected is the lowest performing possible. In this case, the improvements at posttest could be related to impossibility to score lower and not to the behavioral treatment

However, this type of experimental design often has the advantage of greater flexibility in recruitment of participants and testing location (Watson & Workman, 1981).

6.3 The One Group Pretest-Posttest Design O1 X O2

The one group pretest-posttest design is a commonly used study design. A single pretest measurement is taken (O1), an intervention (X) is implemented, and a posttest measurement is taken (O2). In this instance, period O1 frequently serves as the

“control” period. For example, with aggressive behaviors in autistic children , O1 could be the number of undesired behaviors prior to the intervention, X corresponds to the

(30)

29 introduction of the behavioral intervention, and O2 corresponds to the number of

unwanted behaviors after the intervention. Social scientists are confident in using pretest-posttest experimental design without a control group in field settings especially when outcomes are particularly well organized and the time between pretest and posttest is short (Fitzpatric at all 2009)

6.4 The One-Group Pretest-Posttest Design Using a Double Pretest

O1 O2 X O3

It is similar to the O1 X O2 design, but it adds a second pretest measurement prior providing the treatment. The second pretest helps to provide evidence that the

treatment and not the pretest is responsible for the improvements at posttest (Fitzpatric at all 2009).

6.5 Nonconcurrent designs

Nonconcurrent multiple baseline studies are a type of experimental design without a control group. A variable is measured pre and post a specific treatment in multiple subjects. It is important to underline that the start of the treatment is delayed

sequentially across individuals. Because treatment is started at different times, we can conclude that changes are due to the treatment rather than to a chance factor (Christ, T. 2007). Using data from multiple subjects, assumptions can be made about the likelihood that the measured trait can be generalized to a larger population especially if a

significant change occurs across all participants. Multiple base-line experiments are most commonly used when ethical reasons prohibit the use of a control group.

Participants are often recruited following specific criteria. Multiple base-line designs can be associated with potential internal limitation generated by an experimenter bias, which needs to be addressed in order to maintain objectivity. However, this type of

experimental design often has the advantage of greater flexibility in recruitment of participants and testing location (Watson & Workman, 1981).

(31)

30

6.6 ABAB design

When designing an experiment there are four types of hypothesis one can investigate. They are demonstration, comparison, parametric, and component. The A-B-A-B design is useful for demonstration questions. It will answer the question “Does treatment cause or influence the changes in baseline" (Kennedy, 2005).

The A-B-A-B design first measures parameters at baseline, the first A. Then applies treatment and measures the new parameter, the first B. At this point treatment is withdrawn and the parameter of the new baseline is measured, the second A. Finally, treatment is re-introduced and parameters measured, the second B.

The alternation of baseline (A) and treatment (B) phases show the effect of treatment on behavior. Researchers can have great confidence and conclude that treatment causes behavior change when behavior changes systematically with the introduction and withdrawal of treatment. (Kennedy, 2005)

(32)

31

Experimental Part

1. Survey

1.1 Introduction

The objective of this PhD research project, over the course of three years, was comprised of two primary aims; investigate the knowledge of equine practitioners, regarding learning theories applied to horse training; based on the findings, further research was conducted to investigate the cause of problems in the horse-human relationship and to develop training techniques that can help improve horse-human interactions.

Learning theories applied to training is a major aspect of the equine industry. Learning Theory is the understanding of an animal’s learning and cognitive processes, and explains why and how animals learn, in every species from humans to horses.

However, most horse training practices have been around longer than Learning Theory. Furthermore, their practical implementation in equine sports is difficult, due to the

intense physical interaction between animal and human (McLean, Christensen 2017). Because of this, the common perception is that there is very little use or even

acknowledgement of Learning Theory in most training techniques. To better understand the equestrians’ current knowledge of equine learning theories, two questions needed to be answered: How much does the horse practitioner know about Learning Theories? Can they physically apply them while riding? Until 2016, the only relevant publication applied to training was conducted in Australia by McGreevy. (Warren-Smith, McGreevy, 2008)

This PhD research focused on identifying if the lack of inclusion of Learning Theories in equine training is related to a deficit in knowledge or physical limitation. A questionnaire was developed to test the theoretical and practical knowledge of equine practitioners, while simultaneously a rein tension device was used to measure riders’ ability to properly apply negative reinforcements on cue.

A 23-question survey entitled ‘Testing theoretical and empirical knowledge of learning theory by surveying equestrian riders’ was designed to assess theoretical and empirical

(33)

32

knowledge of learning theory by definition questions, followed by application to specific scenarios.

1.2 Material and Methods

1.2.1 Respondents

The target population for this survey was people who have riding experience for

professional or recreational purposes. Sample Size Calculator from Creative Research Systems (https://www.surveysystem.com/sscalc.htm#one) determined that greater than 375 survey responses would provide a representative sample of the estimated 18000 active rider population in the state of New Jersey and eastern Pennsylvania, with a confidence interval of 5.

1.2.2 Survey

The survey (Appendix 1) asked respondents for demographic details (gender, age) and information on their involvement within the equine sports sector (equine industry sector, years of experience, riding ability). The survey was developed by a process of iterative review by the researcher with 60 horse practitioners and published using Survey

Monkey (SurveyMonkey Inc., California, USA, www.surveymonkey.com), and promoted on social media and direct interview to a diverse selection of people from New Jersey and eastern Pennsylvania

The ethical IRB committee approved the survey with Notification Number: 1027b

1.2.3 Statistical Analysis

Descriptive statistics of the survey data were obtained using statulorbeta

(http://statulator.com/descriptive.html). Data were reported as number of responses and as percentages.

(34)

33

1.3 Results

The survey generated 385 responses, of which 9 were discarded for errors in the compilation, giving 376 valid responses.

1.3.1 Respondents Detail

Respondents’ details are summarized in Table 2. Most respondents were female, over 80% self-identified as having intermediate or above riding experiences, with 79% of respondents participating in the English discipline.

Table 2 Respondent Demographics

Gender Female 352 94.12 Male 22 5.88 Total 374 100.00 Missing Values 3 0.80 Age 20 to 29 170 45.70 30 to 39 51 13.71 40 to 49 33 8.87 50 53 14.25 Less than 20 65 17.47 Total 372 100.00 Missing Values 5 1.33 Discipline English 295 79.30 Pleasure 27 7.26 Racing 6 1.61 Western 44 11.83 Total 372 100.00 Missing Values 5 1.33 Level of proficiency Advanced 145 38.67

Beginner 10 2.67 Intermediate 127 33.87 Novice 46 12.27

(35)

34 Professional 47 12.53 Total 375 100.00 Missing Values 2 0.53 Years of experience 11 to 15 92 27.96 5 to 10 54 16.41 Less than 5 13 3.95 More than 15 170 51.67 Total 329 100.00 Missing Values 48 12.73

1.3.2 Knowledge of negative reinforcement and the use of the aids

The respondents’ knowledge of negative reinforcement and use of the aids details are summarized in Table 3.

The percentage of participants with correct theoretical knowledge is similar to those with correct practical knowledge. More than 60% of the respondents generally do not seem to have an understanding of the negative reinforcement theories and the use of

aids. 78% seem to know how to use the bit; a potential contributor to the skewed bit response could be the 293,000+ views of the top seven YouTube video search results for “on the bit.” In fact when asked a more generic question regarding the application of the bit during collection, only 43% of responses were correct and only 50% of

respondents describe the correct use of the bit to stop a horse.

Table 2 Respondents were asked specific questions to test knowledge of concepts regarding negative reinforcement and the use of the aids.

Table 3

The theory of negative reinforcement

Correct 128 34.13 Incorrect 247 65.87

Total 375 100.00

Missing Values 2 0.53 Correct use of the whip Correct 153 40.58

(36)

35

Incorrect 224 59.42

Total 377 100.00

Correct use of the leg Correct 147 39.10 Incorrect 229 60.90

Total 376 100.00

Missing Values 1 0.27

Correct use of the bit

Total 374 100.00

Missing Values 3 0.80 Correct use of the forward aids Correct 202 54.01

Incorrect 172 45.99

Total 374 100.00

Missing Values 3 0.80 Correct use of collection aids Correct 159 42.40

Incorrect 216 57.60

Total 375 100.00

Missing Values 2 0.53

Riding skills proper contact of the bit

Total 368 100.00

Missing Values 9 2.39 Artificial aids Correct 247 68.42

Incorrect 114 31.58

Total 361 100.00

(37)

36 1.3.3 Knowledge of Negative reinforcement versus positive punishment

Respondent details are summarized in Table 4

This part of the survey could identify a major impact on the horse welfare. Studies (?) have shown that while the use of negative reinforcement and positive punishment can be very effective methods in horse training, if these theories and processes are not applied properly, horse welfare can be highly compromised. Unfortunately, only an average of 40% of the respondents seem to have the correct knowledge when applying these techniques.

Table 4 Respondents were given practical scenarios involving avoidance behaviors under saddle to test knowledge of concepts regarding positive punishment and its confusion with negative reinforcement

Negative reinforcement/positive punishment Correct 139 37.57 Incorrect 231 62.43 Total 370 100.00 Missing Values 7 1.86 Negative reinforcement/positive punishment Correct 176 47.96

Incorrect 191 52.04 Total 367 100.00 Missing Values 10 2.65 Improper use of the bit

Correct 185 50.55 Incorrect 181 49.45 Total 366 100.00 Missing Values 11 2.92 Positive punishment Correct 142 38.69 Incorrect 225 61.31 Total 367 100.00 Missing Values 10 2.65 Negative reinforcement/positive punishment Correct 95 25.89

Incorrect 272 74.11 Total 367 100.00 Missing Values 10 2.65

(38)

37 1.3.4 The use of negative reinforcement when handling horses

This question is very important for the safety of the rider and welfare of the horse. Only 25 percent of the respondents have an understanding of the origin of avoidance

behaviors. Avoidance behaviors in horses can be a major cause for human injuries, compromised horse welfare and horse wastage for behavioral problems.

Table 5 Respondents were given a scenario involving avoidance behavior from the ground to test knowledge about their origin.

Origin of avoidance behavior

Correct 94 25.41 Incorrect 276 74.59 Total 370 100.00 Missing Values 7 1.86

1.3.5 The knowledge of social behavior

This question is important, as the leadership theory tends to justify violence against the horse reducing its welfare in the name of a non-scientific theory that the horse needs a leader to feel whole.

Table 6. Respondents were asked a specific question to test knowledge of how leadership concept influences training.

The leadership theory Correct 20 6.06 Incorrect 310 93.94 Total 330 100.00 Missing Values 47 12.47

1.3.6 Generic knowledge of learning theories

Respondents performed poorly on questions, which challenged them to apply a broad knowledge of learning theories.

Table 7. Respondents were asked theoretical questions to test knowledge of concepts regarding learning theories.

(39)

38 Positive reinforcement 0 134 40.48 1 197 59.52 Total 331 100.00 Missing Values 46 12.20 Operant conditioning 0 94 28.83 1 232 71.17 Total 326 100.00 Missing Values 51 13.53 Habituation 0 86 26.63 1 237 73.37 Total 323 100.00 Missing Values 54 14.32

1.4 Discussion

This survey data from 376 respondents in New Jersey and eastern Pennsylvania

represents a broad variety of horseback riders from multiple disciplines. While this does not necessarily represent the entire horse industry, the number of respondents from the population carry sufficient statistical power to be generalized to a wider population. The highly significant consistencies of respondents demonstrated some knowledge of learning theories, but not having a full understanding of concepts to apply them to different scenarios is alarming. The concerns relate to negative impacts on horse welfare and human safety since equine riders and handlers may put themselves and their horses in danger by using training techniques without a clear understanding of them, thus their application may be incorrect. One potential insight on how the equine public may have knowledge, but not appropriate understanding is due to the immense amounts of content available on the Internet, specifically YouTube. Equine owners and enthusiasts can often gain the most basic levels of learning (Remembering) described by Bloom’s Taxonomy (Krathwohl, David R. 2002) from reading or watching YouTube videos, yet the survey results indicate that they have not moved up the learning scale to master applying or analyzing, since they were not able to translate the knowledge to a

(40)

39

new, but parallel situation. A larger concern is that they may think that this is an established “tool” in their training program, not realizing that they are not properly applying the theories.

If we compare this survey with the one previously done by Warren-Smith McGreevy (2008) we can notice that there is little improvement in the riders knowledge of learning theories. This survey however, having more practical examples and being directed to a more generic population than equestrian coaches, seems to indicate that the majority of the riders have less practical knowledge regarding the release of the aids pressures at the onset of correct behaviors.

All the practical examples involving the interaction of negative reinforcement and positive punishment indicate that the majority of respondents have the potential to confuse the horse increase the use of the aids to a point that they will excite the pain threshold and seriously compromise the welfare of horses (McLean, Christensen 2017).

Survey results also indicate the lack of knowledge of practitioners in the effective

application of learning theory during handling procedures is critical to improve the safety of both handlers and horses. Handlers who don’t understand learning theories often revert to punishment or restraint techniques that decrease horse welfare and increase potentially dangerous avoidance behaviors ( McGreevy, McLean, 2009)

1.5 Conclusion

The survey findings demonstrate that there is much work yet to be done to educate equestrians on learning theory and there is a need for an urgent intervention to improve the knowledge of equine riders about learning theories.

The public opinion has already mainstreamed these theories in dogs and marine

mammals training. If the horse community resists this integration, we will soon arrive to a point of non-sustainable equitation (McGreevy, McLean, 2010)

Knowledge and Practical Application of Learning Theory in Equine Training.