Animal Cognition

, Volume 12, Issue 4, pp 643–654 | Cite as

How horses (Equus caballus) see the world: humans as significant “objects”

  • Carole FureixEmail author
  • Patrick Jego
  • Carol Sankey
  • Martine Hausberger
Original Paper


This study aimed to determine whether horses have a kind of memory of humans (based on previous interactions), leading to a general significance of humans revealed by their reactions to humans in subsequent interactions. Subjects were 59 adult horses used to interact daily with humans. Three types of behavioural tests involving an unknown experimenter evaluated three possibly different memorized types of human–animal interactions (not work-related, using work-related objects, unfamiliar working task). We also performed standardized observations of routine interactions between each horse and its familiar handler (caretaker). To get a broad overview of the horses’ reactions to humans, we recorded both investigative and aggressive behaviours during the tests, representing respectively a “positive” and a “negative” memory of the relationship. Whereas correlations between tests revealed a general perception of humans as either positive or negative, unusual tests, i.e. that are not usually performed, elicited more positive reactions. Moreover, some horses reacted positively to a motionless person in their box, but negatively when this same person approached them, for example for halter fitting. Overall, aggressive reactions were more reliable indicators of the relationship than positive reactions, both between tests and between familiar and unfamiliar humans. Our results also show generalization of the perception of humans. These results support our hypothesis that perception of humans by horses may be based on experience, i.e. repeated interactions. Altogether, our results support the hypothesis that horses can form a memory of humans that impacts their reactions in subsequent interactions.


Human–horse interactions Significance of humans Aggressiveness Work-related context 



The authors are grateful to M. S. Gicqueau and the “Lycée agricole La Touche”, Mrs C. Dufeu and the “Lycée agricole de Laval” and M. F. Reyé and the “CFA de Pommerit Jaudy” for allowing us to work with their horses and all the staff for their help and understanding. We also thank Aurore Chartier for her help with data collection. The authors are grateful to Ann Cloarec for correcting the English of this manuscript. This work was supported by a grant from the Caisse Centrale de la Mutualité Sociale Agricole. Experiments comply with the current French laws related to animal experimentation.


  1. Caanitz H, O’Leary L, Houpt K, Petersson K, Hintz H (1991) Effect of exercise on equine behavior. Appl Anim Behav Sci 31:1–12. doi: 10.1016/0168-1591(91)90148-Q CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Call J (2001) Chimpanzee social cognition. Trends Cogn Sci 5(9):388–393. doi: 10.1016/S1364-6613(00)01728-9 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cheney DL, Seyfarth RM (1990) How Monkeys See the World. University of Chicago press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  4. De Boyer Des Roches A, Richard-Yris M-A, Henry S, Ezzaouïa M, Hausberger M (2008) Laterality and emotions: Visual laterality in the domestic horse (Equus caballus) differs with objects’ emotional value. Physiol Behav 94(3):487–490. doi: 10.1016/j.physbeh.2008.03.002 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. De Passillé AM, Rushen J, Ladewig J, Petherick JC (1996) Dairy calves’ discrimination of people based on previous handling. J Anim Sci 74:969–974PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Gácsi M, Miklósi A, Varga O, Topál J, Csányi V (2004) Are readers of our face readers of our minds? Dogs (Canis familiaris) show situation-dependent recognition of human’s attention. Anim Cogn 7(3):144–153. doi: 10.1007/s10071-003-0205-8 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Hausberger M, Muller C (2002) A brief note on some possible factors involved in the reactions of horses to humans. Appl Anim Behav Sci 76:339–344. doi: 10.1016/S0168-1591(02)00016-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Hausberger M, Bruderer C, Le Scolan N, Pierre J-S (2004) Interplay between environmental and genetic factors in temperament/personality traits in horses (Equus caballus). J Comp Psychol 118:434–446. doi: 10.1037/0735-7036.118.4.434 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hausberger M, Roche H, Henry S, Visser K (2008) A review of the human–horse relationship. Appl Anim Behav Sci 109(1):1–24. doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2007.04.015 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hemsworth PH, Barnett JL, Hansen C (1987) The influence of inconsistent handling by humans on the behaviour, growth and corticosteroids of young pigs. Appl Anim Behav Sci 17(3–4):245–252. doi: 10.1016/0168-1591(87)90149-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Henry S, Hemery D, Richard M-A, Hausberger M (2005) Human–mare relationships and behaviour of foals towards humans. Appl Anim Behav Sci 93:341–362. doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2005.01.008 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Henry S, Richard-Yris MA, Hausberger M (2006) Influence of various early human-foal interferences on subsequent human-foal relationship. Dev Psychobiol 48(8):712–718. doi: 10.1002/dev.20189 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hinde R (1979) Towards understanding relationships. Academic Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  14. Hostetter AB, Russell JL, Freeman H, Hopkins WD (2007) Now you see me, now you don’t: evidence that chimpanzees understand the role of the eyes in attention. Anim Cogn 10(1):55–62. doi: 10.1007/s10071-006-0031-x PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kaminski J, Call J, Tomasello M (2004) Body orientation and face orientation: two factors controlling apes’ begging behavior from humans. Anim cogn 7(4):216–223. doi: 10.1007/s10071-004-0214-2 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Krueger K (2007) Behaviour of horses in the “round pen technique”. Appl Anim Behav Sci 104(1–2):162–170. doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2006.04.021 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lansade L, Bouissou M-F (2008) Reactivity to humans: a temperament trait of horses which is stable across time and situations. Appl Anim Behav Sci 114(3–4):492–508. doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2008.04.012 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Larose C, Rogers LJ, Richard MA, Hausberger M (2006) Laterality of horses associated with emotionality in novel situations. Laterality 11:355–367. doi: 10.1080/13576500600624221 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Maros K, Gácsi M, Miklósi A (2008) Comprehension of human pointing gestures in horses. Anim Cogn 11(3):457–466. doi: 10.1007/s10071-008-0136-5 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. McGreevy P, McLean A (2005) Behavioural problems with the ridden horse. In: Mills DS, McDonnell SM (eds) The domestic horse, the origins, development and management of its behaviour. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 196–211Google Scholar
  21. Miklósi Á, Polgárdi R, Topál J, Csányi V (1998) Use of experimenter-given cues in dogs. Anim Cogn 1:113–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Miklósi Á, Topál J, Csányi V (2004) Comparative social cognition: what dogs can teach us? Anim Behav 67:995–1004. doi: 10.1016/j.anbehav.2003.10.008 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Miklósi Á, Pongrácz P, Lakatos G, Topál J, Csányi V (2005) A comparative study of the use of visual communicative signals in interactions between dogs (Canis familiaris) and humans and cats (Felis catus) and humans. J Comp Psychol 119(2):179–186. doi: 10.1037/0735-7036.119.2.179 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Pritchard JC, Lindberg AC, Main DCJ, Whay HR (2005) Assessment of the welfare of working horses, mules and donkeys, using health and behaviour parameters. Prev Vet Med 69:265–283. doi: 10.1016/j.prevetmed.2005.02.002 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Seaman S, Davidson H, Waran N (2002) How reliable is temperament assessment in the domestic horse (Equus caballus)? Appl Anim Behav Sci 78:175–191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Siegel S, Castellan Jr NJ (1988) Nonparametric statistics for the behavioral sciences, 2nd edn. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  27. Søndergaard E, Halekon U (2003) Young horses’ reactions to humans in relation to handling and social environment. Appl Anim Behav Sci 84:265–280. doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2003.08.011 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Tallet C, Veissier I, Boivin X (2006) A note on the consistency and specificity of lambs’ responses to a stockperson and to their photograph in an arena test. Appl Anim Behav Sci 98(3–4):308–314. doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2005.09.005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Udell MA, Giglio RF, Wynne CD (2008) Domestic dogs (Canis familiaris) use human gestures but not nonhuman tokens to find hidden food. J Comp Psychol 122(1):84–93PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Visser EK, van Reenen CG, Hopster H, Schilder MBH, Knaap JH, Barneveld A, Blokhuis HJ (2001) Quantifying aspects of young horses’ temperament: consistency of behavioural variables. Appl Anim Behav Sci 74:241–258. doi: 10.1016/S0168-1591(01)00177-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. von Uexküll J (1965) Monde Animaux et Monde Humain, suivi de la Théorie de la Signification. Gonthier, ParisGoogle Scholar
  32. Waiblinger S, Menke C, Korffa J, Bucher A (2004) Previous handling and gentle interactions affect behaviour and heart rate of dairy cows during a veterinary procedure. Appl Anim Behav Sci 85:31–42. doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2003.07.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Waiblinger S, Boivin X, Pedersen V, Tosi M-V, Janczak A, Visser K, Jones RB (2006) Assessing the human–animal relationship in farm species: a critical review. Appl Anim Behav Sci 101:185–242. doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2006.02.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Wolff A, Hausberger M, Le Scolan N (1997) Experimental tests to assess emotionality in horses. Behav Processes 40:209–221. doi: 10.1016/S0376-6357(97)00784-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Carole Fureix
    • 1
    Email author
  • Patrick Jego
    • 1
  • Carol Sankey
    • 1
  • Martine Hausberger
    • 1
  1. 1.Laboratoire Ethologie Animale et HumaineUMR CNRS 6552Rennes CedexFrance

Personalised recommendations