Interest in Humans: Comparisons between Riding School Lesson Equids and Assisted-Intervention Equids

SIMPLE SUMMARY: Very little is known about the impact of equine-assisted interventions on equids’ perception of humans. Different factors can influence human–horse relationships: animal characteristics, daily interactions with the caretakers, and working and living conditions. In this study, 172 equids working in equine-assisted interventions, ‘classical’ riding school lessons, or both were submitted to a standardised human–horse relationship test in order to test if EAI had an impact on the equid reactions to humans. The possible influence of intrinsic (age, sex, type) or other extrinsic factors (housing and feeding conditions) was also considered. The results showed that the number (more than the type) of experimenter-directed behaviours varied significantly between individuals and that the activity was the most important factor of influence: Equids working in riding school lessons performed more interactive behaviours than those working in equine-assisted interventions or having mixed activity. Other factors such as daily hay quantity, the horses’ age, and sex also influenced secondarily the horse’s motivation to interact, although no interaction was found between factors. These results suggest that equine-assisted interventions do influence horses’ perception of humans outside work. Further studies are needed in order to understand the processes involved. ABSTRACT: Little is known about the impact of equine-assisted interventions (EAI) on equids’ perception of humans. In this study 172 equids, living in 12 riding centres, were submitted to a standardised human–horse relationship test: the motionless person test. Age, sex, type (horse/pony), housing, and feeding conditions of subjects were recorded. Overall, 17 equids worked in EAI, 95 in riding school lessons (RS), and 60 in both (EAI-RS). There were high inter-individual variations in the number of interactive behaviours directed towards the experimenter: negative binomial general linear models showed that activity was the most important factor: RS equids performed more interactive behaviours than EAI (p = 0.039) and EAI-RS (p < 0.001) equids. Daily quantity of hay appeared as the second most important factor (equids with more than 3 kg interacted more than equids with less than 3 kg, p = 0.013). Individual characteristics were also important as horses interacted more than ponies (p = 0.009), geldings more than mares (p = 0.032), and 3–15-year-old equids more than equids over 15 years (p = 0.032). However, there was no interaction between factors. The lower number of interactive behaviours of EAI equids leads to different hypotheses—namely, selection on temperament, specific training, or compromised welfare (apathy). In any case, our results raised new lines of questions on EAI.