The often controversial system of assigning ‘personalities’ to horses is, to a moderate extent, consistent with the understanding of equine learning theory, however it has a limited scope when discussed in conjunction with typical equine behaviour. Typical equine behaviour has been observed and studied for centuries, making it a well researched but often not clearly understood area. The Horsenality Profile Chart developed by Pat Parelli attempts to dissect horse behaviour into four main ‘personality’ types in horses, which often leads to confusion as to whether his approach is in fact consistent with horse behaviour or with human behaviour. An understanding of equine learning theory relates to an understanding of equine behaviour, though it
…show more content…
Assigning horses with something as complicated and distinctly human as a personality borders on anthropomorphic and has the potential to lead to horses being trained as though they are humans. A personality suggests a deep, ingrained way of behaving which is unique to each horse and present before the horse has had any life experience. Horses ‘modify their behaviour as a result of experience’ (Mills, 1998, p. 44) and thus a distinguished personality is not plausible. “If people gift horses with the inherent power to understand language, communication and progress in training are likely to be poor.’ (Mills, 1998, p. 46) Pat Parelli himself appears to have a deep understanding of horse behaviour, noting that he wants people “to think like horses in order to understand and communicate with them.”(Parelli, 1993). However, if handlers use only the aspect of horsenality in their attempt to understand their horse, the scope of their knowledge on horse behaviour may be limited and perhaps incorrect. Owners are often unintentionally anthropomorphizing a horse by describing it with human behaviours such as ‘naughty’ or ‘mischievous’ (both of which appear on the Horsenality Chart). If a horse learns to unlatch a gate, an owner may refer to the horse as ‘naughty’, however, this is a …show more content…
Learning, whether active or passive, represents a modification in an animal’s behaviour as a result of experience of a particular set of circumstances. For horses, “its main learning processes are habituation, sensitization, shaping, operant conditioning, and classical conditional” (Beckstett, 2015). Horses are notable in their capacity to retain specific memories, making training the horse correctly a crucially important foundation in the human-horse relationship. McGreevy (2012) observes that “the optimal method for keeping the horse’s brain actively involved in any learning or memorisation task is to provide variation in the animal’s environment and activities”. The irony in training horses lies in the fact that, with their extensive memory and situational learning, a horse is equally likely to be trained extremely well or extensively damaged depending on the way training is executed. Horses need clear, concise cues and quick positive reinforcement. “Experienced handlers have been astutely aware of the necessity to apply reinforcement schedules immediately or as close as possible to the demonstration of the desired behaviour in the horse for optimal effect.” (Murphy, 2007, p. 3) Overcoming negative training experiences, which the horse can remember for years, is harder than teaching the horse correctly in
Assigning horses with something as complicated and distinctly human as a personality borders on anthropomorphic and has the potential to lead to horses being trained as though they are humans. A personality suggests a deep, ingrained way of behaving which is unique to each horse and present before the horse has had any life experience. Horses ‘modify their behaviour as a result of experience’ (Mills, 1998, p. 44) and thus a distinguished personality is not plausible. “If people gift horses with the inherent power to understand language, communication and progress in training are likely to be poor.’ (Mills, 1998, p. 46) Pat Parelli himself appears to have a deep understanding of horse behaviour, noting that he wants people “to think like horses in order to understand and communicate with them.”(Parelli, 1993). However, if handlers use only the aspect of horsenality in their attempt to understand their horse, the scope of their knowledge on horse behaviour may be limited and perhaps incorrect. Owners are often unintentionally anthropomorphizing a horse by describing it with human behaviours such as ‘naughty’ or ‘mischievous’ (both of which appear on the Horsenality Chart). If a horse learns to unlatch a gate, an owner may refer to the horse as ‘naughty’, however, this is a …show more content…
Learning, whether active or passive, represents a modification in an animal’s behaviour as a result of experience of a particular set of circumstances. For horses, “its main learning processes are habituation, sensitization, shaping, operant conditioning, and classical conditional” (Beckstett, 2015). Horses are notable in their capacity to retain specific memories, making training the horse correctly a crucially important foundation in the human-horse relationship. McGreevy (2012) observes that “the optimal method for keeping the horse’s brain actively involved in any learning or memorisation task is to provide variation in the animal’s environment and activities”. The irony in training horses lies in the fact that, with their extensive memory and situational learning, a horse is equally likely to be trained extremely well or extensively damaged depending on the way training is executed. Horses need clear, concise cues and quick positive reinforcement. “Experienced handlers have been astutely aware of the necessity to apply reinforcement schedules immediately or as close as possible to the demonstration of the desired behaviour in the horse for optimal effect.” (Murphy, 2007, p. 3) Overcoming negative training experiences, which the horse can remember for years, is harder than teaching the horse correctly in