Theme 1: “But my horse is well cared for”: Welfare issues perceived but sometimes justified

To care about horse welfare, equestrians must first demonstrate awareness of welfare issues. In responses to prompts to share their observations and thoughts on performance horse welfare, many participants perceived welfare issues in the equine industry and also often spontaneously raised concerns without prompting when discussing common training and management practices. Participants commonly reported welfare issues within all aspects of equine care and training, including whip use, harsh training equipment, physical punishment, drugging horses, lack of turnout and lack of social contact. For example, with respect to training and showing practices: “I’ve seen illegal bit use”, said P3, “I know personally of multitude of trainers who drug the horses. They drug horses for lessons, they drug them for horse shows”. P22 commented, “I see horses getting lunged into the ground”, while P6 stated, “And I’ve watched coaches get on the horse and then get it to stand still and then beat the crap out of it”. Similarly, P8 shared,

While they perceived welfare issues and expressed concern for the well-being of horses, participants also justified practices they acknowledged as harmful by employing several strategies, including reframing and trivialisation. Reframing issues allows individuals to change their conceptual viewpoint and see a negative scenario in a different, and often more positive, light (Throop & Castellucci Reference Throop and Castellucci2008; Robson & Troutman-Jordan Reference Robson and Troutman-Jordan2014). An example of a welfare concern that was often positively reframed by participants is the permanent keeping of show horses in stalls, except for hand walks or ridden activity, e.g. “I’ve seen a lot of show horses that are very busy at shows that go for lots of walks. And, you know, maybe they do spend 22 hours a day in a stall when they’re at horse shows, but they seem fairly content” (P22). Similarly, P3 discussed the benefits of turnout and then justified not providing it in some cases: “It’s good for their mental health as well as getting their zoomies out. Except the two naughty mares who refuse to be caught so they lost their privileges of going out at all. But they’re happy”.

Another form of justification is trivialisation (Festinger Reference Festinger1957; Simon et al. Reference Simon, Greenberg and Brehm1995), wherein people reduce the cognitive importance of an issue by minimising it. This appeared to be employed by some participants in their minimisation of situations that may lead to compromised welfare. For example, when asked if they observed any concerns within their own or other equine sports, P10 responded, “For the most part, not really…I see some stressed horses. So I don’t see horrifying things happen to horses”. Another spoke of harsh bits and horses ridden behind the vertical, a practice believed to cause discomfort as the horse’s head is pulled in close to their chest (see König von Borstel et al. Reference König von Borstel, Kienapfel, McLean, Wilkins and McGreevy2024): “Which maybe isn’t particularly concerning”, they quickly added, “but, in my opinion, isn’t conducive to the horse… even I’ve seen bloody mouths in person and I have seen spur marks that were bloody and big in person” (P1). In both examples, participant responses suggested that certain issues were trivial in comparison to others.

Trivialisation was also observed in participants’ discussions regarding lack of turnout, which many expressed concern about while simultaneously diminishing these as welfare concerns. P10 reflected on the day-to-day management of their horse and others, “We [equestrians] put them [horses] in this box however many hours a day, like, you know they’re out for four hours a day. That’s still 20 hours a day in a box, right? And that kills me sometimes. But my horse is well cared for”. This exemplified how some expressed concern for horse welfare but then trivialised their issues of concern as their horse was generally well cared for.

It is not suggested that participants believed that welfare-compromising practices are acceptable. However, participants appeared to not only perceive and demonstrate genuine concern about welfare issues but also, in some cases, justified, reframed and trivialised these very same concerns. This suggests that there is a source of dissonance and participants must resolve the conflict between their beliefs and acceptable practice (Festinger Reference Festinger1957). Justification methods, such as reframing and trivialisation, serve the function of dissonance reduction (Dhont Reference Dhont, Hodson, Loughnan and Amiot2019). The attitudes that further contribute to potential dissonance amongst equestrians are next to be investigated.

Theme 2: “Just let them be a horse”: Equestrians in conflict about ‘the good life’ for horses

How equestrians conceive of a good life for horses is important in understanding how they may address horse welfare issues. Theme 2 highlights the potential internal conflict that equestrians may confront when conceptualising a good life for performance horses. This form of conflicted perspective has been discussed within the context of dressage (Ross et al. Reference Ross, Proudfoot, Merkies, Lundgren and Ritter2025) but is found across disciplines in the present study.

Theme 3: “They need to do their job”: Objectification of the horse

Theme 3 explores an aspect of participants’ attitudes towards performance horses and how they are valued, offering an insight into the horse-human relationship in this context. In this theme, objectification of horses was interpreted based on Nussbaum’s (Reference Nussbaum1995) definition, which involves perceiving an individual as instrumental, fungible, violable, and owned while denying autonomy, agency, and subjectivity. Participants admired traits in horses that contribute to their instrumentality (usefulness) and violability (vulnerability to violation), such as perceived willingness and compliance. For example, P14 responded, “I think just a horse that’s willing to work with you and has a good demeanour is very important”. Equally clear on the topic was P2, “I like nice horses. You know, they just do as they’re asked”, and P6 who simply stated, “I like horses that are respectful”. While not all presented the horse’s work as a choice (“Where there is a job to do and I expect them, you know, to do it to the best of their ability…But in the end, they do have a job to do. So they need to do their job” [P11]), others implied that horses want to participate in performance activities, “I think if you look at the horses that are successful at their jobs, regardless of their jobs, it’s that they kind of, they wanna be a part of the team. They wanna do the job, they wanna do the right things, they wanna put the effort in” (P9). P16 similarly proposed that horses consent to their use:

Participants also mentioned fungibility, or the replaceability, of horses in sport. Some spoke of their own experience, such as P9, who explained choices in selling a horse that was “least productive”. They went on to say how the sale of the horse would help support other, more useful, horses. Others discussed their observations of equestrian culture, “I’ve seen some people get another horse, get a new horse, sell the horse. I’ve seen quite a bit of that” (P2). One participant explained how infrequently they observed owners at a large livery keeping horses over the long term:

Other studies have documented attitudes towards horses as being based on ‘love’ (Mauricio et al. Reference Maurício, Leme and Hötzel2024; Ross et al. Reference Ross, Proudfoot, Merkies, Lundgren and Ritter2025). However, the interpretation of participants’ attitudes in their relationship with horses in the present study seems to be focused on an instrumentalisation of the horse in the relationship. What may be most valued about the horse is traits related to the perceived willingness of the horse to be used in equestrian activities. Interestingly, a spectrum of objectification was interpreted, where in some cases horses are considered consenting to their instrumentalisation and, in other cases, horses are expected to serve the purpose set out for them, regardless of their willingness. Objectification may influence other aspects of how equestrians view horses and care about them beyond their immediate relationships. Where this objectification may stem from is expanded on in Theme 5 and requires further exploration in future research.

Theme 4: “A happy athlete is going to produce results”: Instrumentalisation of care

Participants emphasised the high level of care that performance horses receive throughout the interviews, especially when asked what they would like the public to know about performance horse welfare. For example, P6 said, “Like in the upper levels, they’re treated better than humans”. P3 also related performance horse care to a human care standard, “Oh, sport horses are cared for better than most people’s children… Like if I die and get to come back as something I want to be a middle-aged woman’s sport horse because I will have the [best] care”. In addition, P13 explained the extent that they believe most equestrians go to ensure the care of their horses:

Based on how participants highlighted the extent to which they care for their horses as something they wanted the public to know, participants were aware that the care they provide is judged by the public. However, some justified their focus on horse care to indicate that the measures taken to provide good welfare created positive outcomes in terms of usage of the horse, suggesting that such care had become instrumentalised such that it confers tangible outcomes that serve the interests of the caregiver rather than the care recipient (Fowers Reference Fowers2010; Sedgewick Reference Sedgwick2013; Lehrer et al. Reference Lehrer, Van Laere, Hadley, Rouse, Lehrer, Hadley, Van Laere and Rouse2022. P4 and P11 are exemplars of this theme: “I always strive for happy horses. A happy horse is a happy athlete, and a happy athlete is going to produce results” (P4) and “But really thinking about the horse first. And once you do that, the horse will give you everything, right. They will try their hardest for you” (P11).

The ability to produce results in terms of performance was not the only motivator discussed in relation to providing good welfare. A few participants also broadly framed caring for horses according to the highest welfare standards so as to protect social licence (the degree to which an industry is accepted and trusted by society and its interested groups [Heleski Reference Heleski2023]) to continue using horses in sport. P9 explained the critical nature of horse care in this respect:

They went on to caution, “You have to really carefully navigate the presentation” (P9), suggesting that care practices are important in addressing concerns around public perception of the industry.

This theme provided evidence of how prioritisation of a horse’s job plays a role in participants’ choices concerning their horse’s care, such that the horse’s care was framed within their function as a sport horse. Others have interpreted this to mean that competition goals are a determinant in horse management and training (Luke et al. Reference Luke, Rawluk, McAdie, Smith and Warren-Smith2024). While this may be a reasonable conclusion, it is proposed here that this is an outcome of the objectification of the horse, which has led to instrumentalisation of care. It is possible that instrumentalisation of care may be facilitated by equestrians failing to perceive their horse’s needs from an empathic standpoint, meaning they may not consider the horse’s perspective. This is related to the occasional anthropomorphic framing of horse’s needs in Theme 2, where participants described having a job as part of the conception of a good life for horses.

Theme 5: “…People get enculturated into a sport”: Enculturation in equestrianism

Theme 5 demonstrates how enculturation may occur as individuals enter equestrian culture and adopt the attitudes and practices of the culture. Enculturation is “the process of learning a culture in all its uniqueness and particularity” (Mead Reference Mead1963). For an individual to participate in the culture, they must develop an understanding for, and competency in, the practices and knowledge of the cultural scheme, which is socially distributed (Menary & Gillet Reference Menary, Gillett and Kiverstein2016. Cultural schemes become appropriated by individuals and internalised (Menary & Gillet Reference Menary and Gillett2022), thereby serving as a powerful motivator for beliefs, behaviours, and perceptions, all of which influence how cultural knowledge is evaluated (Spiro Reference Spiro, Kilbourne and Langness1987 Poole Reference Poole1994). Enculturation is most powerful during childhood, and occurs almost unconsciously during this period (Herskovits Reference Herskovits1949; Shimahara Reference Shimahara1970).

When participants were asked how they became involved in equestrian sport(s), all responded that they entered the equestrian world as children, between the ages of 4 to 13 years old. Nearly all expressed an inexplicable and undeniable early attraction as their reason for getting involved with horses. Participants frequently described themselves as “crazy”, “obsessed” or “addicted”. For example, one participant commented, “I just was a horse-crazy kid” (P4), while P12 shared, “I’m one of those people that got into it [horse riding] as a kid and I was always into it. I was just one of those that was born wanting to ride”.

Regardless of childhood motivations for engaging with horses, participants became equestrians as they participated in equine sports and were exposed to equestrian culture. Here, participants described their progression into equestrian culture from childhood to adulthood by learning from horse trainers and equestrian coaches. This form of intergenerational teaching and learning is a key feature of enculturation (Herskovits Reference Herskovits1949; Shimahara Reference Shimahara1970). Most participants indicated that trainers and coaches strongly influenced their attitudes towards horses. This may set the tone for how individuals relate to horses in the horse-human relationship. One example is what is proposed here as the first manifestation of objectification of the horse, as youth ‘outgrow’ their first pony or horse and replace them based on changing performance goals typically guided by their coaches. Acceptance of common care and training practices also occurs as a result of early experience under the mentorship of coaches and trainers. For example, one participant reflected on the significance of their trainer’s instruction: “Whenever you’re young, you don’t really know if anything’s wrong. … If you’re six years old and your trainer’s been teaching for 50 years, you’re going to listen to what she says” (P14). Another recalled their early experiences:

Exposure to these management, training, and attitudinal factors in equestrian culture in childhood appeared to normalise harmful practices for some participants. For example, one individual shared:

Normalisation occurs as a result of long-term exposure to practices and attitudes portrayed by a collective, resulting in coherence of these practices and attitudes, cognitive participation by social members, and adaptation to the norms (May & Finch Reference May and Finch2009). This contributes to the enculturation process and maintenance of enculturated practices and attitudes.

General discussion

The present study provided rich data highlighting several human factors that may influence performance horse welfare. Study participants openly shared and reflected on horses and horse sports, a good life for horses, welfare issues, social norms in classical equestrian disciplines, and the public’s views of horse welfare in sports. From these discussions, five overarching themes were constructed, including perception of welfare issues, conflicting attitudes about the good life of a horse, objectification of the horse, instrumentalisation of care, and enculturation. A few recent studies have similarly investigated equestrian attitudes and perceptions using qualitative methods (Luke et al. Reference Luke, Rawluk, McAdie, Smith and Warren-Smith2023, Reference Luke, Rawluk, McAdie, Smith and Warren-Smith2024; Mauricio et al. Reference Maurício, Leme and Hötzel2024; Fiedler et al. Reference Fiedler, Ayre, Rosanowski and Slater2025; Ross et al. Reference Ross, Proudfoot, Merkies, Lundgren and Ritter2025). The data presented here compliment previous works with a deeper contextualisation of findings in relation to theories of cognitive dissonance, enculturation, and care ethics.

Theme 1 explored attitudes of participants and how they perceive and think about performance horse welfare. The results of the current research support other findings that equestrians in several disciplines are aware of welfare issues (Voigt et al. Reference Voigt, Hiney, Richardson, Waite, Borron and Brady2016; Horseman et al. Reference Horseman, Buller, Mullan, Knowles, Barr and Whay2017; Dubois et al. Reference DuBois, Hambly Odame, Haley and Merkies2018a,Reference DuBois, Nakonechny, Derisoud and Merkiesb; Luke et al. Reference Luke, Rawluk, McAdie, Smith and Warren-Smith2023; Mauricio et al. Reference Maurício, Leme and Hötzel2024; Ross et al. Reference Ross, Proudfoot, Merkies, Lundgren and Ritter2025). Our participants discussed several concerning topics including social isolation, lack of access to turnout, and physical ‘beatings’. These admissions were revealing in that participants noted that they seem to go unreported or unresponded to at the time and so become normalised. This could be another aspect of the social group of enculturated participants, which reduces the likelihood of reporting abuses as seen in non-equestrian sports as well (Mountjoy et al. Reference Mountjoy, Brackenridge, Arrington, Blauwet, Carska-Sheppard, Fasting, Kirby, Leahy, Marks and Martin2016). Nonetheless, discussing welfare issues of concern to participants led to the key revelation of potential underlying cognitive dissonance reduction strategies, such as justification, trivialisation, and reframing of welfare-compromising practices. In their study of equestrian knowledge, attitudes and beliefs about horse welfare, Mauricio et al. (Reference Maurício, Leme and Hötzel2024) proposed that the dissonance between a love for horses and harmful management practices was due to lack of knowledge of what horses truly need for good welfare. However, in Theme 2 of the present study, respondents largely conceptualised a good life for horses as being one where they were able “to be a horse”. Indeed, most descriptions of what this meant aligned with the Five Domains of welfare as defined by Mellor and colleagues (Reference Mellor, Beausoleil and McMillan2020). This suggests that other barriers exist to the implementation of change beyond knowledge. One such barrier might be the conflict that participants seemed to be caught in when considering how the horse’s job contributes to living a good life whilst restricting the ability to be a horse.

Objectification of the horse was the focus of Theme 3, which gave insight into the relationship between humans and horses in the context of equestrian sports. While Nussbaum’s (Reference Nussbaum1995) discussion of objectification was centred around feminist contexts, others have conceptualised objectification within other human relationships (Lacroix & Pratto Reference LaCroix and Pratto2015), including human relationships with animals. Indeed, several authors have proposed that animals raised for human food are objectified, leading to potential disregard for animal welfare (Cudworth Reference Cudworth2008; Cole Reference Cole2011; Morgan & Cole Reference Morgan, Cole, Carter and Charles2011; Leitsberger et al. Reference Leitsberger, Benz-Schwarzburg and Grimm2016; Bos et al. Reference Bos, Bovenkerk, Feindt and Van Dam2018). Although to our knowledge the objectification of horses and effects on welfare have been under-described in the scientific literature, objectification is acknowledged in contemporary anthropology literature on horse-human relationships (Spannring Reference Spannring2016; Spannring & De Giorgio-Schoorl Reference Spannring, De Giorgio-Schoorl, Spannring and Syse2020; Vaught & Argent Reference Vaught, Argent, Argent and Vaught2022). The objectification of performance horses may help to explain how harmful practices and attitudes have formed if they serve to maintain the usefulness of the horse. Taking a perspective from care ethics, we can comprehend how objectification is fundamentally detrimental to care since it distances the caregiver from realising the subjective needs of the one in care (Ricoeur Reference Ricoeur1986; Schaafsma Reference Schaafsma2014). Objectification of performance horses is perhaps not surprising given that their primary purpose is use in equestrian sport rather than as companions. Nonetheless, this is a potential barrier to improving equine welfare if the fundamental attitude towards horses is their objectification rather than one of value as a subjective being.

Such objectification of an individual may lead to the subsequent instrumentalisation of care (Engster Reference Engster2006) as discussed in Theme 4. This has been reported in many contexts, including parental motivations for children’s education, healthcare campaigns, and religion (Fowers Reference Fowers2010; Sedgewick Reference Sedgwick2013; Lehrer et al. Reference Lehrer, Van Laere, Hadley, Rouse, Lehrer, Hadley, Van Laere and Rouse2022. This may be occurring within equestrianism as well where horses may receive certain aspects of care for the primary purpose of achieving a performance outcome. An investigation by Pickering and Hockenhull (Reference Pickering and Hockenhull2019) found 85.7% of their survey participants wanted to know the instrumental benefits of following certain horse care advice in order to consider it valid. Combined with the findings in the present study, it appears that ensuring instrumental outcomes may be critical to equestrian decision-making when it comes to management practices.

Instrumentalisation of care in the context of non-human animals is seen as a moral violation by some welfarists and proponents of care ethics as applied to relationships between humans and non-human animals (Cooke Reference Cooke2021; Benz-Schwarzburg & Wrage Reference Benz-Schwarzburg and Wrage2023). Although instrumentalised care practices may often provide benefit to horses, it is argued that intent focused on instrumental outcomes reduces care about the individual (Tronto Reference Tronto1993) and morally harms the relationship between human and animal even in cases where welfare of the animal is considered to be good (Crary & Gruen Reference Crary and Gruen2022; Benz-Schwarzburg & Wrage Reference Benz-Schwarzburg and Wrage2023). Similarly, social licence may also be an example of instrumentalisation of care on a broader scale as it is used as one of the primary motivators in the equestrian industry to promote horse welfare interventions (Waran & Visser Reference Waran and Visser2022). Thus, caring for horses in order to maintain social licence may instrumentalise this care when used for the purpose of furthering human goals.

In Theme 5, we examined enculturation in equestrianism. To the authors’ knowledge, this is the first study to explicitly address the issue of enculturation in equestrian sport and the potential role it plays regarding the persistence of practices and attitudes that compromise performance horse welfare. This theme not only demonstrates that enculturation in equestrian sports occurs, but how it can be problematic to horse welfare due to certain traditional attitudes common in equestrianism (Robinson Reference Robinson1999; Waran et al. Reference Waran, McGreevy, Casey and Waran2007; van Weeren Reference van Weeren2008; Thompson & Clarkson Reference Thompson and Clarkson2019). Pickering and Hockenhull (Reference Pickering and Hockenhull2019) investigated the preferred information sources for equestrians and found that they tended to be from other equestrians. This was also seen in the present study where participants expressed the need for other equestrians to be the sources of change within the culture. Enculturation may explain this biased sourcing of information and resistance to ‘outsider’ influence that seems present.

Particularly important within this theme is the reflection of a few respondents on their process of changing their practices and attitudes. In particular, these individuals recognised horses as sentient beings that experienced pain and suffering. According to Fiedler et al. (Reference Fiedler, Ayre, Rosanowski and Slater2025), this recognition of sentience may be critical to promoting updated horse welfare standards. Furthermore, the participants who shared their process of attitude and behaviour change expressed empathy for the horse when faced with welfare-compromising practices. Empathy for others is an important feature of caring about others as described by the care ethics framework (Held Reference Held1995; Noddings Reference Noddings2013).

More broadly, the conflicting attitudes towards horses and perceptions of welfare issues in terms of what participants believe a good life for horses consists of is a likely source of dissonance for equestrians. This is particularly in evidence with the contrast between Themes 1 and 2. Contradictions in attitudes that are demonstrated openly with those held internally have been shown to cause cognitive dissonance and thereby motivate dissonance-reduction strategies (Rydell et al. Reference Rydell, McConnell and Mackie2008). Motivation to reduce this dissonance may be related to the objectification of horses and instrumentalisation of care in that these could be used as dissonance-reduction strategies. Interestingly, objectification leads to resolution of cognitive dissonance by reducing the moral status of the animal, thereby making instrumentalisation and compromises in welfare morally acceptable to individuals (Joy Reference Joy2009). It is possible that our participants used objectification of horses as a dissonance-reducing strategy to ease their cognitive discomfort. This could stem from an underlying personal ethical position (Galvin & Herzog Reference Galvin and Herzog1992). Similarly, blocking outside influences and information sources is another dissonance-reduction strategy that may present a barrier to engaging equestrians to promote change as seen in Theme 5. Ultimately, we suggest that insight into the extent of cognitive dissonance experienced by equestrians may allow for identification of individuals who might be open to behaviour change intervention and help guide the development of effective strategies.

Study considerations and future directions

This was an exploratory qualitative study meant to provide a foundation for future studies and not intended to be generalised across broader equestrian populations. However, the rich data provided allow the potential for transferability of the findings and analysis to other contexts (Braun & Clark Reference Braun and Clarke2022). Additionally, there were some important points that warrant further investigation. For example, digging deeper into the process of enculturation in equestrianism would be useful to understand equestrian culture. Exploring the relationship between humans and performance horses from a care ethics lens has similarly, to our knowledge, not yet been undertaken; such an approach may reveal more information regarding how equestrians care about horses. Further research focused on cognitive dissonance in equestrianism as it relates to horse welfare is also needed to develop effective dissonance-reduction strategies that also benefit horse welfare.