Equestrians are highly invested in their performance horses, both financially and emotionally. As elite competitors in disciplines such as showjumping and dressage, these animals are provided meticulous physical care: specialized diets, high-end stabling, and frequent veterinary attention that surpasses what most companion animals receive. But this level of care usually stops at the horse’s body. Many spend most of the day confined to stalls, isolated from other horses, and are trained with methods that can cause chronic stress, fear, or pain.

Animal welfare frameworks, such as the Five Domains, emphasize the importance of allowing animals to express natural behaviors and experience positive mental states just as much as they do health and nutrition. Yet these needs are routinely overlooked in competitive settings. Decades of research have documented the harm that neglecting these dimensions can cause, but the equine industry has been slow to change common husbandry and management practices. Efforts to improve horse welfare, like campaigns to educate equestrians and encourage them to view themselves as caretakers, have so far failed to ignite widespread reform.

Here, the authors assert that if we don’t account for the human thoughts and processes keeping aversive practices alive, then welfare science will continue to be ignored. Their exploratory study therefore seeks to understand the attitudes, which are forged by culture, habit, and identity, that can allow equestrians to dismiss, downplay, or justify practices detrimental to horse welfare.

Gathering And Interpreting Perspectives

Using social media, the researchers recruited 22 equestrians for interviews held between April and June 2024. Participants included riders, trainers, coaches, and other professionals across classical disciplines such as dressage, hunters, eventing, breed showing, and showjumping. All but three participants were women, and the majority were between the ages of 25 and 44 (68%). Most lived in the U.S. (45%), followed by Canada (32%) and the U.K. (23%).

Interviews took place via Zoom and followed a semi-structured guide with eight open-ended questions exploring equestrian attitudes toward horses, what makes a “good life” for a horse, perceived welfare problems, and public criticism of equestrian sport. Conversations flowed organically, with follow-ups added as needed, and interviewing ended once no new ideas emerged. With consent, the interviews were recorded, transcribed, anonymized, and deleted to protect privacy.

Analysis of these conversations revealed five themes describing equestrians’ attitudes and cultural beliefs about horse welfare:

1. Perceptions of welfare;
2. Conflicting attitudes about a good life for horses;
3. Objectification of horses;
4. Instrumentalization of care; and
5. Enculturation.

To interpret these, the researchers used three theoretical frameworks: cognitive dissonance (how people reduce discomfort when their actions clash with their beliefs), the Five Domains model of animal welfare, and care ethics.

How Equestrians Think About Their Horses

The study found that equestrians live with contradictory beliefs about horse welfare and what it means to give an animal a good life. They present themselves as devoted caretakers and often speak about their horses with deep affection, and admit that common practices such as lack of turnout and restrictive equipment don’t serve their horses well. However, these opposing beliefs create a discomfort, which equestrians manage by quickly trivializing concerns or reframing practices they’d already identified as problematic. Horses kept indoors were portrayed as “happy” or “content,” while harsh bits and overbent riding postures were defended as necessary for control or part of tradition.

Participants highlighted how well performance horses are cared for, sometimes suggesting these animals live better than people, and pointed to the personal sacrifices they’d made to provide for them. The researchers note, however, that this care wasn’t necessarily for the horse’s sake as a sentient being. Rather, it was tied to the objectified horse’s role as an athlete or investment.

Across interviews, equestrians also repeated the belief that horses required a job to thrive (even at the cost of freedom and companionship), and that their happiness could be measured by how well they performed. The researchers suggest that reducing horses to their function lowered their moral standing, which made compromises to welfare feel acceptable. Care also became instrumentalized, valued because it supported sport, performance, or the industry’s public image instead of the horse’s needs.

Enculturation, where individuals adopt the practices and beliefs reinforced within a community, begins at an early age for equestrians. All participants recalled being “horse crazy” as children and entering the equestrian world at as young as four years of age. From their first lessons, trainers, coaches, and peers taught them what counted as acceptable welfare. Over time, they believed restrictive housing, isolation, and harsh training methods were just the way things are done, and outside voices, ignorant of the industry, were dismissed.

Once these norms were internalized, equestrians were reluctant to challenge tradition. Participants reported that they feared rejection by peers, exclusion from competition, or dismissal as naïve if they spoke out. A small number eventually broke away, either by changing their methods or leaving the sport altogether.

Limitations

These findings are contextual and aren’t meant to represent the entire equestrian industry. The small sample was limited to self-selecting participants in classical disciplines, excluding views from other communities like racing, rodeo, or pulling. People who volunteer for studies may already be thinking critically or hold strong opinions, so the findings may reflect more thoughtful attitudes than are typical of the average equestrian.

Qualitative designs also rely heavily on interpretation, making a researcher’s background influential in how they identify and make sense of data patterns. The authors were transparent about their positions and made efforts to control for bias, but this transparency doesn’t erase subjectivity. It does, however,  give readers a way to weigh their interpretations.

Most importantly, this research was meant to dig deeper into how equestrians talk, justify, and explain their decisions, and the themes identified came directly from what participants said.

Takeaways

The authors conclude that welfare problems in equestrian sport don’t just stem from stalls, tack, or training methods, but from the humans whose choices decide a horse’s quality of life. These choices are influenced by the culture around horses, which has normalized management practices that compromise welfare. To change the equine industry, attitudes and habits that keep harmful practices alive must change.

For advocates, the value here is knowing why reforms have been slow and welfare campaigns often ignored. Equestrians resolve their inner conflicts by justifying what they do, which makes it easier to dismiss outside criticism or advice. Instead of repeating welfare science, advocates can focus on equestrians already feeling conflicted and work with trusted insiders to model better practices, ultimately inspiring others to not just care for but about horses.