» Articles » PMID: 38396504

The Behavioral Cost of Care: Changes in Maintenance Behavior During Equine-Assisted Interventions

Overview
Journal Animals (Basel)
Date 2024 Feb 24
PMID 38396504
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

This study examined human-animal symbiosis in an animal-assisted intervention through observations of animal maintenance behaviors. The rise of psychotherapy, learning, and recreation incorporating animals warrants exploration of the welfare of the animals involved in these interventions. The analysis of welfare in multispecies engagements can be discussed in terms of symbiosis. Regarding an intervention's animal provider (e.g., therapy horse) and human recipient (psychotherapy client), the balance of cost and benefit is important. Research describing human and animal during interventions is limited, whether focusing on client outcomes or animal welfare. The present study adapted ethological methods to study humans and animals in an equine-assisted intervention, observing equine maintenance behaviors and equid-human interactive behavior. Maintenance behaviors were recorded before, during, and after equine-assisted (psychosocial) learning sessions with youth, providing 1600 observations. Equine alertness, eating behavior, and ambulation varied significantly before, during, and after the equine-assisted sessions. Such interruptions of typical behavior are an important aspect of welfare and unit of analysis when examining symbiotic relationships. A total of 267 sequences of equid-human approach-response behavior were also recorded, indicating that human-animal interaction was predominantly from humans toward equids. Equids' dominant response to human approach was no response, followed by avoidance, while humans' dominant response to equid approach was reciprocation. The findings are discussed in terms of symbiosis and animal welfare.

References
1.
Visser E, van Reenen C, Rundgren M, Zetterqvist M, Morgan K, Blokhuis H . Responses of horses in behavioural tests correlate with temperament assessed by riders. Equine Vet J. 2003; 35(2):176-83. DOI: 10.2746/042516403776114108. View

2.
Vitztum C . Human-animal interaction: a concept analysis. Int J Nurs Knowl. 2013; 24(1):30-6. DOI: 10.1111/j.2047-3095.2012.01219.x. View

3.
Wood W, Alm K, Benjamin J, Thomas L, Anderson D, Pohl L . Optimal Terminology for Services in the United States That Incorporate Horses to Benefit People: A Consensus Document. J Altern Complement Med. 2020; 27(1):88-95. DOI: 10.1089/acm.2020.0415. View

4.
Gorman R . What's in it for the animals? Symbiotically considering 'therapeutic' human-animal relations within spaces and practices of care farming. Med Humanit. 2019; 45(3):313-325. PMC: 6818525. DOI: 10.1136/medhum-2018-011627. View

5.
Mellor D, Beausoleil N, Littlewood K, McLean A, McGreevy P, Jones B . The 2020 Five Domains Model: Including Human-Animal Interactions in Assessments of Animal Welfare. Animals (Basel). 2020; 10(10). PMC: 7602120. DOI: 10.3390/ani10101870. View