Bernster
Well-Known Member
I don’t see this so much on hho but it’s def something I’ve heard over the years - being the boss, showing your horse who the leader is. Interesting post below about this. I’d never really thought about how theories like this get popular or accepted. This post makes a lot of sense to me. What do people think?
The quoted article is here https://www.sciencedirect.com/scien...ROpONbLnkpl4oe5ZRs7I5ExZbn0UyiYPD2np0GEivzSKE
For those not on FB - Danny Anholt (I don’t know this person).
Horse peoples commitment to believing dominance theory / “Alpha” theory despite the lack of evidence showing it to be a real thing is an incredible thing to watch.
There is currently very little, if any, evidence suggesting that horses have a static herd hierarchy in natural environments and that even IF they did, that said hierarchy would apply to how they view humans.
The man who initially perpetuated alpha theory with research on wolves later rescinded his enter belief system due to said study being impacted by the stressors of the domestic lifestyle in addition to the fact that wolf packs are generally family groups, meaning that the older more experienced wolves did take on leadership roles to educate their younger pups… but not for the purpose of exerting dominance.
Now, horses are not wolves but similar findings have been reported.
Much of what is viewed to be attempts of asserting dominance in domestic horse herds is actually resource guarding.
A horse guarding a PERCEIVED lack of resources, this does not mean that the resource actually has to be lacking
Reduced space, infrequent hay feedings, environmental frustration and general stress can increase the aggression we see in domesticated horses.
In feral herds, horses don’t spend much time engaging in aggressive behaviours because such behaviours are expensive physically and risk injury.
Sure, we see lots of photography and video of this happening but those tend to be the more “exciting” shots and thereby more popular, not necessarily more common.
Even in instances where feral stallions are actually fighting, it isn’t an attempt to be the “alpha.” It is attempt to protect and/or secure resources such as breeding rights to mares, space etc.
In addition to this, young horses, especially male horses, will practice fighting behaviours in play and this can be mistaken for real aggression.
Dominance theory is used by humans to label horse behaviour as “naughty” or “disrespectful” which is then often used to justify use of physical punishment.
The issue with this is that much of the behaviour we label as dominant behaviour from horses towards humans stems from fear, frustration, confusion, pain and general stress.
Escape behaviours are merely a horse trying to evade an undesirable situation, not an attempt to exert dominance.
Horses are natural peace makers and would generally prefer to not put up a fight.
But, so much of horse training in the human lens involves disciplining fear based behaviours, creating more fear and then blaming the horse for responding with stress.
We create the very types of environments that make it more likely to see what we perceive as “dominant” behaviours and then blame the horse for it.
The vast majority of undesirable domestic horse behaviours are directly caused by, or at least contributed to by, human influence.
So, it’s about time we reflect inwardly, get with the times and accept the fact that research doesn’t support the idea of dominance theory.
The level of attachment people experience with this theory despite the lack of evidence I think speaks for how desperate many of us are to justify our use of force in horse training.
It is such an odd hill to die on and the level of ferocity that people who speak out on the myth of dominance theory are met with I think exemplifies the crux of the problem: a desire for complete control at any cost rather than a desire to understand and communicate.
Communication and partnership will get you a lot further with horses than dominance, despite what much of traditional horse training may have taught you.
Here is a good fairly recent study on dominance pertaining to horse training: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0737080617300059
“Highlights
•
It is unlikely that horse–horse social status translates to analogues of human–horse interactions.
•
The concept of leadership as advocated in many training manuals proves to be unreliable in the horse.
•
Horses' responses to training are more likely a result of reinforcement rather than a result of humans attaining high social status and a leadership role.
•
Knowledge of horses' natural behavior and learning capacities are more reliable in explaining training outcomes than the application of dominance and leadership concepts.”
The quoted article is here https://www.sciencedirect.com/scien...ROpONbLnkpl4oe5ZRs7I5ExZbn0UyiYPD2np0GEivzSKE
For those not on FB - Danny Anholt (I don’t know this person).
Horse peoples commitment to believing dominance theory / “Alpha” theory despite the lack of evidence showing it to be a real thing is an incredible thing to watch.
There is currently very little, if any, evidence suggesting that horses have a static herd hierarchy in natural environments and that even IF they did, that said hierarchy would apply to how they view humans.
The man who initially perpetuated alpha theory with research on wolves later rescinded his enter belief system due to said study being impacted by the stressors of the domestic lifestyle in addition to the fact that wolf packs are generally family groups, meaning that the older more experienced wolves did take on leadership roles to educate their younger pups… but not for the purpose of exerting dominance.
Now, horses are not wolves but similar findings have been reported.
Much of what is viewed to be attempts of asserting dominance in domestic horse herds is actually resource guarding.
A horse guarding a PERCEIVED lack of resources, this does not mean that the resource actually has to be lacking
Reduced space, infrequent hay feedings, environmental frustration and general stress can increase the aggression we see in domesticated horses.
In feral herds, horses don’t spend much time engaging in aggressive behaviours because such behaviours are expensive physically and risk injury.
Sure, we see lots of photography and video of this happening but those tend to be the more “exciting” shots and thereby more popular, not necessarily more common.
Even in instances where feral stallions are actually fighting, it isn’t an attempt to be the “alpha.” It is attempt to protect and/or secure resources such as breeding rights to mares, space etc.
In addition to this, young horses, especially male horses, will practice fighting behaviours in play and this can be mistaken for real aggression.
Dominance theory is used by humans to label horse behaviour as “naughty” or “disrespectful” which is then often used to justify use of physical punishment.
The issue with this is that much of the behaviour we label as dominant behaviour from horses towards humans stems from fear, frustration, confusion, pain and general stress.
Escape behaviours are merely a horse trying to evade an undesirable situation, not an attempt to exert dominance.
Horses are natural peace makers and would generally prefer to not put up a fight.
But, so much of horse training in the human lens involves disciplining fear based behaviours, creating more fear and then blaming the horse for responding with stress.
We create the very types of environments that make it more likely to see what we perceive as “dominant” behaviours and then blame the horse for it.
The vast majority of undesirable domestic horse behaviours are directly caused by, or at least contributed to by, human influence.
So, it’s about time we reflect inwardly, get with the times and accept the fact that research doesn’t support the idea of dominance theory.
The level of attachment people experience with this theory despite the lack of evidence I think speaks for how desperate many of us are to justify our use of force in horse training.
It is such an odd hill to die on and the level of ferocity that people who speak out on the myth of dominance theory are met with I think exemplifies the crux of the problem: a desire for complete control at any cost rather than a desire to understand and communicate.
Communication and partnership will get you a lot further with horses than dominance, despite what much of traditional horse training may have taught you.
Here is a good fairly recent study on dominance pertaining to horse training: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0737080617300059
“Highlights
•
It is unlikely that horse–horse social status translates to analogues of human–horse interactions.
•
The concept of leadership as advocated in many training manuals proves to be unreliable in the horse.
•
Horses' responses to training are more likely a result of reinforcement rather than a result of humans attaining high social status and a leadership role.
•
Knowledge of horses' natural behavior and learning capacities are more reliable in explaining training outcomes than the application of dominance and leadership concepts.”
