Access to this full-text is provided by PLOS.
Content available from PLOS ONE
This content is subject to copyright.
RESEARCH ARTICLE
It’s all about the sex, or is it? Humans, horses
and temperament
Kate FennerID
1
*, Georgina Caspar
1
, Michelle Hyde
1
, Cathrynne Henshall
2
,
Navneet Dhand
1
, Fiona Probyn-Rapsey
3
, Katherine DashperID
4
, Andrew McLean
5
,
Paul McGreevy
1
1Sydney School of Veterinary Science, Faculty of Science, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia,
2Charles Sturt University, Wagga Wagga, NSW, Australia, 3School of Humanities and Social Inquiry,
Faculty of Law, Humanities and the Arts, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, NSW, Australia, 4School of
Events, Tourism and Hospitality Management, Leeds Beckett University, Leeds, United Kingdom,
5Equitation Science International, Tuerong, Victoria, Australia
*kate@kandooequine.com.au
Abstract
We propose that the anthropomorphic application of gender stereotypes to animals influ-
ences human-animal interactions and human expectations, often with negative conse-
quences for female animals. An online survey was conducted to explore riders’ perceptions
of horse temperament and suitability for ridden work, based on horse sex. The questionnaire
asked respondents to allocate three hypothetical horses (a mare, gelding and stallion) to
four riders compromising a woman, man, girl and boy. Riders were described as equally
capable of riding each horse and each horse was described as suitable for all riders. Partici-
pants were also asked which horses (mares, geldings or stallions) were most suitable for
the three equestrian disciplines of show-jumping, dressage and trail-riding. Logistic regres-
sion analyses were conducted to investigate people’s perceptions about suitability of horse
types for particular riders, to evaluate if age, strength or gender were important in rider
choice and to investigate riders’ allocation of various descriptors to a gelding, stallion or
mare. There were 1,233 survey respondents, 94% of whom were female and 75% of whom
were riders with at least eight years of experience. Binomial logistic regression revealed the
girl had 2.5 times the odds of being allocated the gelding compared to the boy (p<0.001).
Respondents were significantly more likely to allocate the stallion to the man and nearly
50% of respondents did not allocate a horse to the boy, even though they ranked rider gen-
der as least important to their choice (p<0.001). In a forced choice selection of a positive or
negative descriptor from a series of nine paired terms to describe horse temperament, a
greater proportion of respondents assigned geldings positive ratings on terms such as calm,
trainable, reliable and predictable. In terms of suitability for the three equestrian disciplines
of show-jumping, dressage and trail-riding, participants overwhelmingly chose geldings for
trail-riding, with mares being least preferred for both dressage and show-jumping disci-
plines. The results suggest that female riders are entering the horse-human dyad with gen-
dered ideas about horse temperament and view horse-riding as an activity primarily for
women and girls. This could have far-reaching implications for equine training and welfare.
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0216699 May 14, 2019 1 / 18
a1111111111
a1111111111
a1111111111
a1111111111
a1111111111
OPEN ACCESS
Citation: Fenner K, Caspar G, Hyde M, Henshall C,
Dhand N, Probyn-Rapsey F, et al. (2019) It’s all
about the sex, or is it? Humans, horses and
temperament. PLoS ONE 14(5): e0216699. https://
doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0216699
Editor: Ludek Bartos, Institute of Animal Science,
CZECH REPUBLIC
Received: October 2, 2018
Accepted: April 26, 2019
Published: May 14, 2019
Copyright: ©2019 Fenner et al. This is an open
access article distributed under the terms of the
Creative Commons Attribution License, which
permits unrestricted use, distribution, and
reproduction in any medium, provided the original
author and source are credited.
Data Availability Statement: All Figshare files are
available from the database (DOI: https://doi.org/
10.6084/m9.figshare.7158743.v1).
Funding: The authors received no specific funding
for this work.
Competing interests: The authors have declared
that no competing interests exist.
Introduction
Historically, horses have been used in war, agriculture, and transport [1] but more recently
horse-riding has transitioned to a sporting and leisure activity with an associated shift in atti-
tudes toward horses as companion animals [2,3]. Today, opportunities to ride, own, handle
and breed horses are readily available in many countries [4,5]. With the horse’s transition
from worker to companion, the proportion of women who spend time with horses has
increased and human attitudes towards, and expectations of, the species have changed. Equine
attributes that are now valued extend beyond the functionality of the horse and include specific
temperament and personality traits [6,7]. From the dressage arena to the Pony Club grounds,
equids are purchased for their specific characteristics and temperament attributes [8].
Unlike companion dogs or cats that either remain as part of the same household their entire
lives or are relinquished to shelters [9], horses are often seen as a commodity [10,11]. The
present day horse market is a liquid one that allows horses to be traded, sold, given away and
even euthanized/killed with relative ease [12]. Excessive and unregulated breeding in many
countries [13] has resulted in supply far exceeding demand [14], the consequences of which
are often reflected in poor welfare outcomes for animals [15].
Today a horse buyer is faced with a number of choices pertaining to horses’ breed, age, sex,
height, color and training experience. Seemingly the most straightforward of these choices is
sex which is (anecdotally) often the first to be settled. Buyers can choose from a mare (intact
female), a gelding (castrated male) or a stallion (entire male). Most leisure riders choose not to
own stallions because of complicated housing and management issues, not least among which
is the recurrent need to separate stallions from oestrous mares.
Scant published research exists on the effect of sex on equine trainability and personality
attributes. Most studies report no differences in learning abilities or training outcomes
between mares, geldings or stallions [16–22]. Temperament factors such as emotionality and
fearfulness have been correlated with impaired learning in some studies [23,24], but there are
few reported data on how horse sex may affect the prevalence of such traits in domestic horses
[25,26]. Wolff et al. [27] found no effect of sex on emotionality in young horses in three han-
dling tests and Kezierski et al. [28] reported that Arabian colts had higher heart rates than Ara-
bian fillies during foundation training using a “conventional” method compared to a Natural
Horsemanship method, where fillies’ heart rates were not significantly different from the colts.
Sex differences in learning and behavior have been reported in young horses but learning tasks
and therefore results vary. Yearling fillies appeared to learn at an accelerated rate during early
training compared to male horses during two learning tests [29]. That said, a later study
revealed that yearling fillies were reported by their student handlers as being more anxious,
aggressive and reactive than geldings during a basic handling program but achieved similar
training outcomes at the conclusion of the program [30]. When learning and training out-
comes are assessed on the basis of the achievement of training milestones, sex differences are
not reported (for example [26,31–33]).
While convention dictates that younger riders should be mounted on more experienced
horses, due to the presupposition that such horses are safer, due to having been exposed to
more potentially aversive stimuli, and having more established responses to correct rider cues,
there is an absence of scientific evidence to confirm if mares, gelding or stallions are better
suited to riders of a given age or gender. In a preliminary study, Ille et al [34] found no differ-
ences in stress responses between horses ridden by male or female riders, suggesting perhaps
that the gender of the rider may not matter to the horse. Previous studies that have explored a
range of equestrian topics by surveying amateur riders have predominantly included women
as respondents chiefly because there are more female riders at amateur level [35,36]. However,
Bias and stereotyping in horse selection
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0216699 May 14, 2019 2 / 18
in equestrian events at the professional level, there are more male riders [37] and in amateur
and professional rodeo, more men than women participate in competitive rodeo activities
[38]. The aim of the current study was to determine whether gender of a rider plays a role in
ideas and beliefs about the temperaments and ridden behavior of mares, geldings and stallions.
Materials and methods
Questionnaire: An online questionnaire was designed using the program SurveyMonkey (Sur-
veyMonkey Inc., California, USA, www.surveymonkey.com) to gather information from horse
owners and non-horse owners on four topics:
1. Preference for horse phenotypes. The results of this topic have been previously been pub-
lished [39].
2. The suitability of horses for particular riders based on the sex of the horse and the gender
and age of the rider.
3. Beliefs about perceived temperament characteristics of horses based on whether they are
mares, geldings or stallions
4. Beliefs about the perceived suitability of mares, geldings and stallions for different eques-
trian pursuits. The results of this topic have previously been published [40]
The questionnaire presented participants with the following scenario:
“You are left in charge of a well-known [Australian] Stock Horse stud which also runs a trail-
riding centre.The stud is known for its reliable horses.The following four riders arrive for a
trail ride without a booking.You assess them as all having the experience to ride any of the
centre’s trail horses.There are only three horses available,so one person will miss out.”
The horses that the participants could choose between were described as follows:
MARE, a 10-year-old Stock Horse mare
STALLION, a 10-year-old Stock Horse stallion
GELDING, a 10-year-old Stock Horse gelding
The riders that the participants could choose between were described as follows:
Man, Woman, Boy, Girl
Participants were asked to choose the most appropriate horse for each rider from the above
list, using a forced ranking so one horse could be chosen for each rider and one person would
fall under the ‘no horse’ category. Respondents were asked the following question:
Q: “Please choose the most appropriate horse for each rider (please note: This panel will allow
you to select only three riders. Once the horse has been chosen, it cannot be allocated to
another rider)”
Following this, they were asked to rate their decision in order of importance based on age,
strength and gender of the rider (1 = Most important to 3 = Least important). Respondents
were asked the following question:
Q: “When making your decision in Part A (matching riders with horses) please RANK the fol-
lowing in order of importance (1 is most important and 3 is least important- you can use
each option ONCE)”
Bias and stereotyping in horse selection
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0216699 May 14, 2019 3 / 18
We were also interested in the terms that the participants associated with mares, geldings
and stallions. Therefore, in a forced choice paradigm, participants were asked “In your opin-
ion, which of these terms best describes most geldings?” This question was repeated for mares
and stallions. These three questions were randomized, and terms presented as pairs in the fol-
lowing order: Flighty or Calm,Unreliable or Reliable,Predictable or Unpredictable,Difficult or
Easy,Trainable or Untrainable,Unwilling or Willing,Good attitude or Bad attitude,Bossy or
Easy-going and Safe or Dangerous.
To investigate whether there was a link between the sex of horses and the respondent’s asso-
ciation with different disciplines or recreational riding, participants were asked which horse,
when given the choice of a gelding, stallion or mare, they would expect to be used for dressage
and show-jumping and which horse would they choose for trail-riding.
Participants were asked to choose from one of the following statements to describe their
involvement with horses: no experience with horse-riding, casual rider as a child only, casual rider
as an adult, rider with at least 2 years’ experience, and rider with at least 8 years’ experience. Lastly,
demographic information invited respondents to indicate their gender and age in years.
Participant enrolment: Advertisements were placed on website forums calling for partici-
pants in a “Horse Selection” survey. Forums included Cyberhorse (www.cyberhorse.com.au),
Horseyard (www.horseyard.com.au) and Bush Telegraph (www.bushtelegraph.com). A web
link was placed on the homepage of the [former] Faculty of Veterinary Science and the
Human Animal Research Network at The University of Sydney. Two emails (an initial and a
follow-up) with links to the survey were sent directly to Veterinary Science and Animal and
Veterinary Bioscience undergraduate students at The University of Sydney’s Faculty of Veteri-
nary Science requesting participation, regardless of whether students considered themselves
experienced with horses. Approaches were also made to secretaries of the Australian Camp-
draft Association, Pony Club Association, Endurance Association, South Australian Dressage
Association, Dressage NSW, National Pleasure Horse Association, Victorian Eventers Associa-
tion and Horse Riding Clubs Association. In addition, twenty-seven national breed associa-
tions were also emailed to request the participation of members. The survey was also spread
through social media channels (e.g. Facebook) and participants were asked to encourage oth-
ers to take part and recruit a large variety of people, both with and without horse-riding and
handling experience. While most websites were Australian based, the survey was not restricted
to an Australian audience and respondents’ country of residence was not investigated. The sur-
vey opened on the 1st March 2012 and closed on the 1st June 2013.
This study was conducted under the approval of the University of Sydney Human Research
Ethics Committee (approval number: 01-2010/12396).
Statistical data analysis
Data were managed using Excel 2010 and then imported into SAS Statistical Program (Version
9.4 2002–2012 by SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA) for statistical analyses. Data were stacked
to create one variable for ‘rider’ with four categories (boy, girl, man, woman) and one binary
variable for each of the horse types (mare–yes/no; stallion–yes/no; and gelding–yes/no).
Descriptive analyses were conducted by creating frequency tables and contingency tables of
the variable ‘rider’ with each of the horse type variables. Binomial generalised linear mixed
models were fitted using SAS Glimmix procedure to evaluate the association between ‘rider’
(fixed effect) and each horse type (outcome variables) to investigate people’s perceptions about
suitability of horse types for particular riders. A de-identified participant code was included as
a random effect to account for multiple observations per participant.
To investigate if age, strength or gender were important in choosing riders for horses, these
variables were stacked to create two variables: ‘characteristic’ (with categories of strength, age and
Bias and stereotyping in horse selection
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0216699 May 14, 2019 4 / 18
gender) and ‘importance’ (with categories of most, some and least). Multinomial generalised lin-
ear mixed models were fitted using SAS Glimmix procedure to investigate how the variable ‘char-
acteristic’ (fixed effect) is associated with the variable ‘importance’ (outcome). Similar to above,
the de-identified participant codes were included (as a random effect) to account for clustering.
The survey then investigated riders’ allocation of various descriptors to a gelding, stallion or
mare. Descriptive analyses were conducted by creating frequency tables and contingency
tables of the variable ‘horse sex’ with each of the descriptive variable pairs. Binomial general-
ised linear mixed model analyses were conducted to evaluate the association between the sex
of the horse (fixed effect) and each descriptor (outcome variables) to investigate people’s per-
ceptions about the personality traits of the different sexes of horse. A de-identified participant
code was included as a random effect to account for multiple observations per participant.
The final section of the survey asked respondents to choose a gelding, stallion or mare for a
variety of riding disciplines. Multinomial logistic regression analyses using the Logistic proce-
dure were conducted to evaluate the effect of experience (explanatory variable) for nominating
stallions, geldings and mares for trail ride, show-jumping and dressage (outcome variables).
Results
Participants
One thousand two hundred and thirty-three (1233) people were surveyed. Of the respondents,
94% (n = 1159) were female. Descriptive data revealed the majority identified as ‘experienced’
horse riders (77% n = 949; see Fig 1 and Table 1).
Horse allocation
Respondents were asked to assign a gelding, stallion or mare to the man, woman, boy or girl,
leaving one rider with no horse assigned.
More than half of the respondents allocated the gelding to the girl. The girl had 2.5 times
the odds of being allocated the gelding than the boy (Table 2).
The decision was the clearest when it came to deployment (or otherwise) of the stallion,
with the adults being allocated that horse by almost all respondents and the man being given
the stallion more often than the woman (see Fig 2). Neither of the children was allocated the
stallion to ride, other than by a handful of respondents (see Fig 2).
For selection of a rider for the stallion, the man had 104 times the odds of being selected
over the boy and the woman 72 times the odds of being selected over the boy (Table 2).
Human gender had a significant influence on responses when participants allocated the
mare. Both the girl and the woman had twice the odds of being allocated the mare over the boy
or the man (Table 2).
Approximately 40% of the respondents nominated age as their most important consider-
ation when allocating riders to horses, whereas about 30% each nominated strength and gen-
der as the most important decision-making characteristics for allocating horses for riders (see
Fig 3). Logistic regression analyses indicated that respondents were about twice as likely to
give importance to age over strength, with age having 2.24 times the odds ratio of gender, and
1.37 times the odds ratio of strength, when respondents considered horse allocation.
Horse temperament descriptors
Respondents were required to assign one adjective of a dichotomour pair as an indicative attri-
bute of gelding, stallion and mare. The results are presented in Fig 4. More than 90% of
respondents classified geldings as Calm,Reliable,Easy,Trainable,Willing, having a Good
Bias and stereotyping in horse selection
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0216699 May 14, 2019 5 / 18
attitude,Easy-going and Safe, with over 86% also saying they were Predictable (Table 3). The
respondents considered stallions to be Trainable with Good attitudes but, at the same time,
Bossy and Difficult. Mares scored highly as Safe and Trainable, but respondents were less sure
about assigning them attributes such as Easy-going,Predictable or Reliable. Also, mares were
considered to be Bossy with 80% of respondents assigning this attribute to them.
Horse choice by discipline
Respondents were then asked which horses would be most likely to be seen competing in Dres-
sage and show-jumping and, when given the choice of a gelding, stallion or mare, which horse
the respondent would chose for trail-riding (see Fig 5).
Table 1. Respondents’ age in years and gender. Values in parentheses are row percentages.
Age (years) Female Male Total
18–30 380 (96%) 15 (4%) 395
31–45 301 (94%) 20 (6%) 321
46–60 216 (91%) 22 (9%) 238
61–80 39 (89%) 5 (11%) 44
Females represented 94% of respondents and 96% of all respondents were aged between 18 and 60 years.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0216699.t001
Fig 1. Respondent rider experience. Respondents’ (n = 1233) horse-riding experience. Riders with at least 8 years 77.46%, riders with at least 2 years’ experience 7.24%,
casual rider as adult 7.88%, casual rider as child 4.45% and respondents with no experience with riding 2.97% (n = 1078).
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0216699.g001
Bias and stereotyping in horse selection
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0216699 May 14, 2019 6 / 18
Stallions and geldings were nominated as equally suitable for dressage by 42.1–42.6% of
respondents respectively, with 15.3% selecting mares. Most of the respondents, 71.8%, nomi-
nated a gelding for trail-riding, whereas 23% chose mares and just 5% chose stallions. For
show-jumping, 50% of respondents nominated a gelding, with the remainder being roughly
divided between stallion (27.2%) and mares (22.2%). Compared to stallions, geldings were
about eight times (odds ratio: 7.75; 95% CI: 5.68, 10.77) and mares were about six times (odds
ratio: 5.6; 95% CI: 3.96, 7.96) more likely to be nominated for trail ride than for show-jumping.
On the other hand, both geldings and mares were less likely than stallions to be nominated for
dressage than for show jumping (odds ratio gelding vs. stallion: 0.55, 95% CI: 0.45, 0.66; mare
vs. stallion: 0.44, 95% CI: 0.34, 0.56).
Respondents with more riding experience were more likely to expect to see a stallion in the
dressage arena and riders of all experience levels chose a gelding for trail-riding purposes (see
Fig 6).
Experienced riders were significantly more likely to expect to see a stallion competing in
the dressage arena compared to a gelding (odds ratio: 1.77, 95% CI: 1.45, 2.16) or a mare (odds
ratio: 3.14, 95% CI: 2.46, 4.00). For trail-ride, experienced riders were more likely to expect to
see a stallion (odds ratio: 1.68, 95% CI: 1.09, 2.68) or a gelding (odds ratio: 1.39, 95% CI: 1.14,
1.69) compared to a mare. However, experience did not seem to influence preferences for
show jumping (p = 0.30).
Discussion
Our results suggest that participants in this study, who were mainly female (see Table 1), hold
preconceived ideas about horse temperament and suitability based on the sex of the horse and
Table 2. Horse allocation odds ratio estimates for geldings, stallions and mares.
Variable Gender Odds ratio 95% Cl p-value
Gelding <0.001
Boy�1.00
Girl 2.53 2.14, 2.98
Man 0.21 0.17, 0.27
Woman 0.30 0.24, 0.37
Stallion <0.001
Boy�1.00
Girl 2.50 1.3, 4.8
Man 104.00 59.5, 181.6
Woman 72.40 41.4, 126.5
Mare <0.001
Boy�1.00
Girl 1.99 1.66, 2.39
Man 0.59 0.47, 0.73
Woman 1.99 1.66, 2.39
�Reference category
Respondents (n = 1233) assigned the gelding to the boy 29% of the time and the girl was 2.5 times more likely to be
allocated the gelding rather than the boy. Almost all respondents assigned the stallion to one of the adults, with the
man having 104 times the odds of being allocated the stallion over the boy and the woman 72 times the odds of being
allocated the stallion over the boy. When asked to allocate the mare to rider, both the girl and the woman had twice
the odds of being allocated the mare over the boy or the man.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0216699.t002
Bias and stereotyping in horse selection
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0216699 May 14, 2019 7 / 18
the age and gender of the rider. The large proportion of female respondents in this study accu-
rately reflects the gender distribution of riders in Australia, as found in many other studies
[41–44].
Horse-rider allocation decisions must have been made based on rider gender, age and
horse sex because the questionnaire described each horse as being suitable for any of the riders.
It is worth noting that several respondents objected to being forced to decide based on the lim-
ited information provided. Under these circumstances, one might expect that the age and gen-
der of the person who misses out on riding should be randomly distributed, in that there
should be an equal probability of boy/girl or man/woman not being allocated a horse and
equal probability of each horse being assigned to each rider. Clearly, our results were signifi-
cantly skewed as a function of respondents’ bias. Predictably, the stallion was almost always
allocated to an adult, and preferentially, the man. The gelding was most often allocated to a
child, with the girl being assigned the gelding more often than the boy and the mare more
likely to be assigned to the woman or the girl. The most unexpected finding in this section of
the survey was that the boy was not allocated a horse to ride by almost half of the respondents.
When asked to explain their choices, these same respondents ranked the hypothetical riders’
gender as the least important factor in their decision-making process, with age being ranked as
most important, followed by strength.
There is a clear disconnect between respondents’ actual choices and the factors they cite as
important when matching horses and riders. Preference for female riders appears to extend to
Fig 2. Horse allocation. Respondents (n = 1233) assigned either a gelding, stallion or mare to the man, woman, boy and girl, leaving one rider without a horse. The man
was not allocated a horse twice as often as the woman and the girl and the boy was not allocated a horse most frequently.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0216699.g002
Bias and stereotyping in horse selection
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0216699 May 14, 2019 8 / 18
the adults, with the man failing to be allocated a ride twice as often as either the girl or the
woman. These data appear to reflect the predominance of women in recreational horse activi-
ties [42] and, given that 94% were female and 77% had eight or more years of riding experi-
ence, may reflect personal preferences based on the respondents’ own experiences of horse-
riding. Horse-riding activities were reported to increase self-esteem and general self-efficacy (a
putative measure of one’s beliefs about one’s performance capabilities in particular situations)
in women and girls in a survey of Norwegian riders [45]. We might speculate that the choice
of the boy or man to miss out on the hypothetical ride could reflect the respondents’ assump-
tions about the likely level of interest or motivation to ride held by the males, based on the
respondents’ own experiences. Among Australian children, girls participate in equestrian
sports at substantially higher rates than boys [43]. The selection of the female rider instead of
the man may reflect the dominance of women in horse-riding, its identification with women
and the ways in which women privilege the transfer of horse-riding skills from one generation
of women to the next. In short, it is likely that the (mainly female) respondents see the girl as
the ‘rider’ and as the more enthusiastic apprentice to equestrian sports, thereby perpetuating
Fig 3. Allocation considerations. Fig 3: When allocating horses to riders, respondents were asked how important the riders’ age, strength and gender were in their
decision-making process. 40% of respondents nominated age as the most important consideration.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0216699.g003
Bias and stereotyping in horse selection
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0216699 May 14, 2019 9 / 18
the predominance of women in the sport overall. Women’s predominance in equestrian sports
may well also relate to broader sociological observations about women’s attitudes to horses
and animals more generally [44]. It may also result from anecdotal beliefs that females are bet-
ter equipped to handle horses and particularly female horses, on account of gender attributes
such as empathy, risk-aversion, altruism and patience which have been identified in female
gender stereotypes in multiple countries across varying economic situations and activities [46–
48]. Conversely, this result may reflect beliefs that young males have less impulse control and
are more inclined to engage in sensation-seeking behavior [49] which could place both the boy
and the horse at risk of harm. While the data do not tell us which of these factors (if any) play a
role in the decision, it is clear that there is a consistency of belief among the current respon-
dents about the girl having the opportunity to ride the horse before the boy.
Further stereotypes and bias were encountered in the current study when respondents were
invited to choose between dichotomous adjectives to characterize mares, geldings and stal-
lions. The results for geldings were clear and they were positively classified in each of the nine
categories by almost all respondents. Positive and negative attributes were mostly evenly
spread for mares, with Bossy and Bad being the only negative factors significantly attributed to
them. Stallions scored very highly on Trainability, but at the same time were considered Diffi-
cult,Bossy and Dangerous. These results suggest that female participants enter the horse-
human dyad with specific ideas based on the sex of the horse. Similar findings were reported
when these same participants provided short text answers concerning their horse choice for
particular disciplines [40]. We could also speculate that this set of ideas is also being transmit-
ted from woman to girl riders and is part and parcel of the culture of horse-riding that sees
horse-riding as a sport for girls and women, rather than for men and boys.
Fig 4. Positive and negative descriptors assigned to geldings, stallions and mares. More than 90% of respondents (n = 1090) allocated geldings positive descriptors.
Stallions received the least positive attributes.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0216699.g004
Bias and stereotyping in horse selection
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0216699 May 14, 2019 10 / 18
But just how accurate is this set of ideas that is being transmitted? Given that most studies
of equine learning and temperament do not report sex influences on horse temperament,
trainability or learning ability, including between geldings and stallions or mares and stallions,
the reason respondents assigned the term Bossy to mares and stallions but not geldings appears
Table 3. Odds ratio estimates for horse descriptor allocation.
Description Sex odds ratio 95% CL Probability P-value
Flighty/calm Flighty Calm�Total <0.001
Gelding 67 1023 1090 26 19.9, 34.0 0.94
Mare 464 626 1090 2.3 1.9, 2.7 0.57
Stallion 691 406 1097 1 0.37
Unreliable/ Unreliable Reliable�Total
reliable Gelding 54 1036 1090 23 17.2, 30.6 0.95
Mare 310 780 1090 3 2.6, 3.6 0.72
Stallion 598 499 1097 1 0.46
Difficult/easy Difficult Easy�Total <0.001
Gelding 85 1005 1090 54 41.5, 70.4 0.92
Mare 517 573 1090 5.1 4.2, 6.1 0.53
Stallion 900 197 1097 1 0.18
Unwilling/ Unwilling Willing�Total <0.001
willing Gelding 87 1003 1090 2.3 1.8, 2.9 0.92
Mare 192 898 1090 0.9 0.8, 1.1 0.82
Stallion 181 916 1097 1 0.84
Bossy/Easy-going Bossy Easy-going�Total <0.001
Gelding 112 978 1090 38.5 30.1, 49.2 0.89
Mare 802 288 1090 1.6 1.3, 1.9 0.26
Stallion 894 203 1097 1 0.19
Predictable/ Predictable�Unpredictable Total <0.001
unpredictable Gelding 147 942 1089 11.6 9.5, 2.0 0.87
Mare 474 616 1090 2.4 2.0, 2.8 0.57
Stallion 390 707 1097 1 0.36
Trainable/ Trainable�Untrainable Total 0.604
untrainable Gelding 1042 48 1090 1.1 0.7, 1.5 0.96
Mare 1033 57 1090 0.9 0.6, 1.3 0.95
Stallion 1046 51 1097 1 0.95
Good/bad attitude Good�Bad Total <0.001
Gelding 1046 44 1090 6.6 4.8, 9.0 0.96
Mare 851 239 1090 0.9 0.8, 1.2 0.78
Stallion 859 238 1097 1 0.78
Safe/dangerous Safe�Dangerous Total <0.001
Gelding 1058 32 1090 44.2 31.2, 62.7 0.97
Mare 1012 78 1090 17.4 13.7, 22.0 0.93
Stallion 469 628 1097 1 0.43
Respondents (n = 1090) were asked to assign either a positive or negative temperament descriptor to a gelding, stallion and mare. The geldings received the most
positive descriptors.
Missing data: This survey item was not completed for geldings and mares by some respondents, as indicated in the total number of responses column.
CL: Confidence limits; SE: Standard error.
�All probabilities are calculated for the positive temperament trait for all variables
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0216699.t003
Bias and stereotyping in horse selection
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0216699 May 14, 2019 11 / 18
to reside in beliefs and is yet to be explored experimentally. This bias may reflect the respon-
dents’ gendered interpretations of past encounters with male and female horses, in which
horse behavior was identified as resulting from the influence (or lack of influence, in the case
of geldings) of sex hormones, rather than other causes such as pain [50], training confusion
[51] or rider failures [52]. While little research has yet been undertaken investigating the role
that sex hormones play in riding and competing with stallions and mares, there is anecdotal
evidence that stallions can become difficult to control, notably in the presence of mares in oes-
trus. Owner gender and animal sex are reported to influence the interpretations of companion
cat and dog behavior, including the behavior of de-sexed animals [53,54]. Indeed, in male
dogs this is an area of scientific enquiry that continues to yield surprising results with desexing
appearing to exacerbate many behaviors that were thought to be ameliorated by it [55].
Assuming the horse is behaving in a particular way based on its sex alone may lead riders,
trainers and handlers to erroneous conclusions about horse behavior and a consequent failure
to address the etiology of unwanted behavior. Riders are in a position to exert a significant
influence over factors that affect horse behavior such as their individual riding skills, equip-
ment use and the physical health of the horse [50,52,56]. Sex-based assumptions exclude
other possible causes of any unwanted behaviors, thereby limiting the riders’ ability to be pro-
active in their interactions with their mounts. If the behavior of mares and stallions is inter-
preted as arising from gendered beliefs, rather than other causes, they may be at risk of having
stress or pain-related behaviors ignored because of this bias.
Fig 5. Horse choice by discipline. Respondents (n = 1230) were asked whether they were more likely to see a gelding, stallion or mare competing in Dressage and show-
jumping and which sex of horse they would choose for trail-riding. Geldings were preferred over mares across all disciplines.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0216699.g005
Bias and stereotyping in horse selection
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0216699 May 14, 2019 12 / 18
The attribute Bossy, which the current participants used to characterize both mares and stal-
lions, is of concern. The concepts of leadership and dominance are still commonly applied in
horse training contexts and may encourage or justify the application of punishment [57–59].
Especially prevalent in Natural Horsemanship (NH) training philosophies, the dominance
hierarchy view of human-horse interactions places the trainer as a herd leader with the horse
required to be a submissive participant [60]. In addition, many NH practitioners state that
feral horse herds are organized around a dominant “alpha” mare who directs and controls the
activities of the herd, including the stallion [59–61]. Under such conditions the Bossy horse is
at risk of having any undesirable behavior interpreted as a lack of respect or as a hierarchical
challenge rather than fear, pain or confusion. Such an interpretation can lead directly to posi-
tive punishment of the unwanted behavior rather than diagnosis of its cause. It is possible that
sex hormones may influence a horse’s tendency to trial or not trial a correct response during
training and this could be interpreted as Bossy behavior. The combination of bias and stereo-
typing will shape relationships with horses and likely have a detrimental effect on welfare if
underlying pathologies or training failures are not addressed [50,62].
A limitation of the current study is that respondents were required to choose between attri-
butes which were selected by the authors. As such, respondents could not indicate if they did
not believe that either attribute in each pair accurately reflected an equine sex-based attribute.
Additionally, respondents could not choose more than one category of horse for use in each
discipline, so the results may not accurately reflect their views about the relative, rather than
absolute, suitability of mares, geldings and stallions for each equestrian activity. The question-
naire gave no details on whether the hypothetical mare was in oestrus, a reproductive state that
may sequentially increase and then decrease a mare’s inclination to approach other horses and
influence the hypothetical stallion’s interest in the mare [63]. The frequent nomination of the
Fig 6. Respondents (n = 1230) were asked which horse they would expect to see in Dressage and show-jumping and which horse they would choose to ride on a
trail ride. The figure shows discipline choice by rider experience level.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0216699.g006
Bias and stereotyping in horse selection
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0216699 May 14, 2019 13 / 18
gelding for trail-riding may reflect an expectation of reliable and predictable horse behavior
arising from the relative absence of sex hormones. Additionally, if undertaken in the company
of other horses, the perceived reduction of sex-hormone influences over intraspecific behavior
during trail-riding could contribute to perceptions of safety for riders.
These same respondents were asked to give short answers to questions surrounding their
choice of a mare, gelding or stallion for the disciplines of dressage, show-jumping and trail-rid-
ing. The results of these qualitative data were the subject of further study [40]. Dashper et al
(2018) also reported an overall preference for male horses, with mares selected less than
twenty-five percent of the time when asked to choose a horse for a sport or leisure activity. The
reasons given by riders for not selecting mares centered around the belief that mares were not
consistent in their behavior and the choice of a mare was often tempered with the statement
that one needed a ‘good mare’ or ‘needed to happen across her on a good day’[40].
The attribution of gendered characteristics onto horse behavior by female respondents sug-
gests that they may default to attributing undesirable horse behavior to gender, rather than fac-
tors such as pain or training confusion. This attribution may hinder riders’ seeking
appropriate remedies for unwanted behavior in their mares or stallions. Further research into
the attitudes of male riders towards mares, geldings and stallions could confirm if such views
are shared by male riders too. Work in other species has identified gender and sex-based inter-
pretations of behavior by both male and female owners of companion animals such as dogs
and cats [54] and further observational research also could explore whether the gendered
understandings are replicated when owners handle and ride horses. Furthermore, there
appears to be a disconnect between owners’ attitudes to their horses based on the sex of the
horse and the findings of learning, training and temperament studies which, to date, have not
identified significant sex-based differences in learning abilities, temperament traits or training
outcomes in mature horses and find contradictory effects of sex on training outcomes in
young horses reviewed [64]. Additionally, research to investigate differences in equine learn-
ing, behavior or performance outcomes when ridden by males and females merit empirical
study. In preferring male horses, and particularly geldings for most equestrian activities, riders
may be unnecessarily limiting their options by avoiding mares which current evidences sug-
gests are no less likely to achieve training outcomes and no more likely to possess emotional or
fearful temperaments than geldings.
Conclusions
Gender, behavior and sex stereotyping are prevalent in the equestrian industries. Female riders
appear to be entering the horse-human dyad with preconceived gendered ideas about horse
temperament and view horse riding as a sport for females. The current survey of human pref-
erences for certain horses prompted more responses from women than from men. This reflects
the predominance of women in most equestrian activities. Women riders express a preference
for combining female riders with castrated male horses. Castrated male horses were also pre-
ferred for each equestrian discipline of show-jumping, dressage and trail-riding. Mares are
perceived, largely without scientific foundation, as being less reliable, less predictable and less
desirable than their castrated male counterparts. In some cases, this is likely to compromise
mare welfare.
Acknowledgments
The authors wish to thank the participants, members of the International Society for Equita-
tion Science and the moderators of Cyberhorse,Horseyard and Bush Telegraph.
Bias and stereotyping in horse selection
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0216699 May 14, 2019 14 / 18
Author Contributions
Conceptualization: Kate Fenner, Georgina Caspar, Michelle Hyde, Cathrynne Henshall,
Fiona Probyn-Rapsey, Paul McGreevy.
Data curation: Kate Fenner, Georgina Caspar, Navneet Dhand.
Formal analysis: Kate Fenner, Navneet Dhand, Katherine Dashper, Paul McGreevy.
Investigation: Georgina Caspar, Cathrynne Henshall, Paul McGreevy.
Methodology: Georgina Caspar, Michelle Hyde, Cathrynne Henshall, Navneet Dhand, Fiona
Probyn-Rapsey, Katherine Dashper, Andrew McLean, Paul McGreevy.
Project administration: Kate Fenner, Paul McGreevy.
Supervision: Kate Fenner, Georgina Caspar, Michelle Hyde, Navneet Dhand, Andrew
McLean, Paul McGreevy.
Validation: Navneet Dhand.
Visualization: Kate Fenner, Michelle Hyde, Cathrynne Henshall, Fiona Probyn-Rapsey,
Katherine Dashper, Andrew McLean, Paul McGreevy.
Writing – original draft: Kate Fenner, Georgina Caspar, Michelle Hyde, Cathrynne Henshall,
Navneet Dhand, Fiona Probyn-Rapsey, Katherine Dashper, Andrew McLean, Paul
McGreevy.
Writing – review & editing: Kate Fenner, Michelle Hyde, Cathrynne Henshall, Navneet
Dhand, Fiona Probyn-Rapsey, Katherine Dashper, Andrew McLean, Paul McGreevy.
References
1. Endenburg N. Perceptions and attitudes towards horses in European societies. Equine Veterinary Jour-
nal 1999; 28:38–41.
2. McGreevy P. Equine behaviour a guide for veterinarians and equine scientists. Introduction, pp. 1–36,
2004 / Paul, McGreevy. 2004.
3. Robinson I. The horse-human relationship: How much do we know? Equine Veterinary Journal. 1999;
31:42–5.
4. Boden LA, Parkin TDH, Yates J, Mellor D, Kao RR. Summary of current knowledge of the size and spa-
tial distribution of the horse population within Great Britain. BMC Veterinary Research. 2012; 8(1):43.
5. Smyth G, Dagley K. Demographics of Australian horse owners: results from an internet-based survey.
Australian Veterinary Journal. 2015; 93(12):433–8. https://doi.org/10.1111/avj.12390 PMID: 26769068
6. Suwala M, Gorecka-Bruzda A, Walczak M, Ensminger J, Jezierski T. A desired profile of horse person-
ality–A survey study of Polish equestrians based on a new approach to equine temperament and char-
acter. Applied Animal Behaviour Science. 2016; 180:65–77.
7. Birke L. Talking about horses: Control and freedom in the world of "natural horsemanship". Society &
Animals. 2008; 16(2):107–26.
8. Koenen E, Aldridge L, Philipsson J. An overview of breeding objectives for warmblood sport horses.
Livestock Production Science. 2004; 88:74–84.
9. Mornement K, Coleman G, Toukhsati S, Bennett P. Development of the behavioural assessment for re-
homing K9’s (B.A.R.K.) protocol. Applied Animal Behaviour Science. 2014; 151:75–83.
10. Dashper K. Tools of the Trade or Part of the Family? Horses in Competitive Equestrian Sport. Society &
Animals. 2014; 22(4):352–71.
11. Hausberger M, Roche H, Henry S, Visser EK. A review of the human–horse relationship. Applied Ani-
mal Behaviour Science. 2008; 109(1):1–24.
12. O’Brien E, Stevens K, Pfeiffer D, Hall J, Marr C. Factors associated with the wastage and achievements
in competition of event horses registered in the United Kingdom. The Veterinary Record. 2005; 157
(1):9–13. PMID: 15995236
Bias and stereotyping in horse selection
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0216699 May 14, 2019 15 / 18
13. Bihuncova I, Jiskrova I, Kost’ukova M, ernohorska H, Oravcova I, Sobotkova E. The effect of increasing
numbers of horses of undefined breed on horse breeding in the Czech Republic. Acta Universitatis Agri-
culturae et Silviculturae Mendelianae Brunensis. 2015; 63(1):23–8.
14. Janczarek I, Wilk I. Leisure riding horses: research topics versus the needs of stakeholder. Animal Sci-
ence Journal. 2017; 88(7):953–8. https://doi.org/10.1111/asj.12800 PMID: 28422370
15. Hemsworth L, Jongman E, Coleman G. Recreational horse welfare: The relationships between recrea-
tional horse owner attributes and recreational horse welfare. Applied Animal Behaviour Science. 2015;
165:1–16.
16. Fenner K, Webb H, Starling M, Freire R, Buckley P, McGreevy P. Effects of pre-conditioning on behav-
ior and physiology of horses during a standardised learning task. Plos One. 2017; 12(3).
17. Bonnell MK, McDonnell SM. Evidence for sire, dam, and family influence on operant learning in horses.
Journal of Equine Veterinary Science. 2016; 36(Supplement C):69–76.
18. Catalano A, Martuzzi F, Fiippini S, Simonini F. Performance test of Bardigiano breed stallions and
mares for sadle and harness service. Annali della Facoltàdi Medicina Veterinaria, Universitàdi Parma.
2006; 26:119–26.
19. Schmidt A, Aurich J, Mo
¨stl E, Mu¨ller J, Aurich C. Changes in cortisol release and heart rate and heart
rate variability during the initial training of 3-year-old sport horses. Hormones and Behavior. 2010; 58
(4):628–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yhbeh.2010.06.011 PMID: 20600048
20. Sappington B, McCall C, Coleman D, Kuhlers D, Lishak R. A preliminary study of the relationship
between discrimination reversal learning and performance tasks in yearling and 2-year-old horses.
Applied Animal Behaviour Science. 1997; 53(3):157–66.
21. Fenner K, Freire R, McLean A, McGreevy P. Behavioral, demographic and management influences on
equine responses to negative reinforcement. Journal of Veterinary Behavior: Clinical Applications and
Research. 2018;Submitted.
22. Murphy J, Waldmann T, Arkins S. Sex differences in equine learning skills and visuo-spatial ability.
Applied Animal Behaviour Science. 2004; 87(1):119–30.
23. Valenchon M. Temperament and learning performance: which horses learn best? Equ’Idee. 2011
(75):38–40.
24. Christensen JW, Ahrendt LP, Lintrup R, Gaillard C, Palme R, Malmkvist J. Does learning performance
in horses relate to fearfulness, baseline stress hormone, and social rank? Applied Animal Behaviour
Science. 2012; 140(1–2):44–52.
25. Lansade L, Simon F. Horses’ learning performances are under the influence of several temperamental
dimensions. Applied Animal Behaviour Science. 2010; 125(1–2):30–7.
26. Visser, van Reenen CG, Schilder MBH, Barneveld A, Blokhuis HJ. Learning performances in young
horses using two different learning tests. Applied Animal Behaviour Science. 2003; 80(4):311–26.
27. Wolff A, Hausberger M, LeScolan N. Experimental tests to assess emotionality in horses. Behavioural
Processes. 1997; 40(3):209–21. PMID: 24895882
28. Kędzierski W, Janczarek I, Stachurska A. Emotional Response of Naive Purebred ArabianColts and
Fillies to Sympathetic and Traditional Training Methods. Journal of Equine Veterinary Science. 2012(0).
29. Wolff A, Hausberger M. Learning and memorisation of two different tasks in horses: the effects of age,
sex and sire. Applied Animal Behaviour Science. 1995; 46(3/4):137–43.
30. Duberstein K, Gilkeson J. Determination of sex differences in personality and trainability of yearling
horses utilizing a handler questionnaire. Applied Animal Behaviour Science. 2010; 128(1–4):57–63.
31. Fureix C, Pages M, Bon R, Lassalle JM, Kuntz P, Gonzalez G. A preliminary study of the effects of han-
dling type on horses’ emotional reactivity and the human-horse relationship (vol 82, pg 202, 2009).
Behavioural Processes. 2009; 82(3):359–.
32. Fowler V, Kennedy M, Marlin D. A comparison of the Monty Roberts Technique with a Conventional UK
Technique for the Initial Training of Riding Horses. Anthrozoos. 2012; 25(3):301–21.
33. Rivera E, Benjamin S, Nielsen B, Shelle J, Zanella AJ. Behavioural and physiological responses of
horses to initial training: the comparison between pastured versus stalled horses. Applied Animal
Behaviour Science. 2002; 78(2/4):235–52.
34. Ille N, Aurich C, Erber R, Wulf M, Palme R, Aurich J, et al. Physiological stress responses and horse
rider interactions in horses ridden by male and female riders. Comparative Exercise Physiology. 2014;
10(2):131–8.
35. Visser E, Van Wijk-Jansen E. Diversity in horse enthusiasts with respect to horse welfare: An
explorative study. Journal of Veterinary Behavior: Clinical Applications and Research. 2012; 7(5):295–
304.
Bias and stereotyping in horse selection
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0216699 May 14, 2019 16 / 18
36. Hill E, McGreevy P, Caspar G, White P, McLean A. Apparatus use in popular equestrian disciplines in
Australia. Journal of Veterinary Behavior: Clinical Applications and Research. 2015; 10(2):147–52.
37. Birke L, Brandt K. Mutual corporeality: Gender and human/horse relationships. Women’s Studies Inter-
national Forum. 2009; 32(3):189–97.
38. Forsyth CJ, Thompson CY. Helpmates of the Rodeo: Fans, Wives, and Groupies. Journal of Sport and
Social Issues. 2007; 31(4):394–416.
39. Caspar G, Dhand N, McGreevy P. Human preferences for conformation attributes and head-and-neck
positions in horses. PloS One. 2015; 10(6).
40. Dashper K, Fenner K, Hyde M, Probyn-Rapsey M, Casper G, Henshall C, et al. ’A good mare is hard to
beat’: The anthropomorphic application of human-based gender stereotypes to animals. Anthrozoos
2018; Submitted.
41. Wiethoelter A, Schembri N, Dhand N, Sawford K, Taylor M, Moloney B, et al. Australian horse owners
and their biosecurity practices in the context of Hendra virus. Preventive Veterinary Medicine. 2017;
148:28–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prevetmed.2017.09.013 PMID: 29157371
42. Hedenborg S, White MH. Changes and variations in patterns of gender relations in equestrian sports
during the second half of the twentieth century. Sport in Society. 2012; 15(3):302–19.
43. Commission AS. Participation In Horse Activities By Australian Children 2003–2012. 2013.
44. Gaarder E. Where the Boys Aren’t: The Predominance of Women in Animal Rights Activism. Feminist
Formations. 2011; 23(2):54–76.
45. Traeen B, Wang C. Perceived gender attribution, self-esteem, and general self-efficacy in female horse-
back riders. Journal of Equine Veterinary Science. 2006; 26(10):439–44.
46. Harrant V, Vaillant N. Are women less risk averse than men? The effect of impending death on risk-tak-
ing behavior. Evolution and Human Behavior. 2008; 29(6):396–401.
47. Charness G, Gneezy U. Strong Evidence for Gender Differences in Risk Taking. Journal of Economic
Behaviour & Organization. 2012; 83(1):50–8.
48. Bauer M, Chytilova J. Women, Children and Patience: Experimental Evidence from Indian Villages.
Review of Development Economics. 2013; 17(4):662–75.
49. Shulman EP, Harden KP, Chein JM, Steinberg L. Sex Differences in the Developmental Trajectories of
Impulse Control and Sensation-Seeking from Early Adolescence to Early Adulthood. Journal of Youth
and Adolescence. 2015; 44(1):1–17. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-014-0116-9 PMID: 24682958
50. Dyson S, Berger J, Ellis AD, Mullard J. Development of an ethogram for a pain scoring system in ridden
horses and its application to determine the presence of musculoskeletal pain. Journal of Veterinary
Behavior: Clinical Applications and Research. 2018; 23(Supplement C):47–57.
51. McLean AN, Christensen JW. The application of learning theory in horse training. Applied Animal
Behaviour Science. 2017; 190:18–27.
52. Williams J, Tabor G. Rider impacts on equitation. Applied Animal Behaviour Science. 2017; 190:28–42.
53. Ramirez M. "My dog’s just like me": Dog ownership as a gender display. Symbolic Interaction. 2006;29
(3):373–91.
54. Martens P, Enders-Slegers M-J, Walker JK. The Emotional Lives of Companion Animals: Attachment
and Subjective Claims by Owners of Cats and Dogs. Anthrozoo
¨s. 2016; 29(1):73–88.
55. McGreevy PD, Wilson B, Starling MJ, Serpell JA. Behavioural risks in male dogs with minimal lifetime
exposure to gonadal hormones may complicate population-control benefits of desexing. PloS One.
2018; 13(5).
56. Fenner K, Yoon S, White P, Starling M, McGreevy P. The Effect of Noseband Tightening on Horses’
Behavior, Eye Temperature, and Cardiac Responses. Plos One. 2016; 11(5).
57. Position statement on the use/misuse of leadership and dominance concepts in horse training [press
release]. 2017. Retrieved from: https://equitationscience.com/equitation/position-statement-on-the-
use-misuse-of-leadership-and-dominance-concepts-in-horse-training, 6/2/19.
58. Hartmann E, Christensen J, McGreevy P. Dominance and Leadership: Useful Concepts in Human–
Horse Interactions? Journal of Equine Veterinary Science. 2017; 52:1–9.
59. Henshall C, McGreevy PD. The role of ethology in round pen horse training-A review. Applied Animal
Behaviour Science. 2014; 155:1–11.
60. Parelli P. Natural Horse.Man.Ship. Fort Worth, TX: Western Horseman; 1993.
61. Roberts M. The Man who Listens to Horses. London, UK: Arrow Books; 82–102, 1997.
62. Bradshaw J, Casey R. Anthropomorphism and anthropocentrism as influences in the quality of life of
companion animals. Animal Welfare. 2007; 16:149–54.
Bias and stereotyping in horse selection
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0216699 May 14, 2019 17 / 18
63. McGreevy. Equine Behavior: A guide for veterinarians and equine scientists. Second ed. London: W. B.
Saunders; 2012.
64. Brubaker L, Udell MAR. Cognition and learning in horses (Equus caballus): What we know and why we
should ask more. Behavioural Processes. 2016; 126(Supplement C):121–31.
Bias and stereotyping in horse selection
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0216699 May 14, 2019 18 / 18
Content uploaded by Paul McGreevy
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Paul McGreevy on May 14, 2019
Content may be subject to copyright.
