Applied Animal Behaviour Science 125 (2010) 30–37
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Applied Animal Behaviour Science
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/applanim
Horses’ learning performances are under the influence of several
temperamental dimensions
Léa Lansade a,b,c,d,∗ , Faustine Simon a
a
b
c
d
INRA (National Institute for Agronomical Research), UMR85 Physiologie de la Reproduction et des Comportements, F-37380 Nouzilly, France
CNRS, UMR6175 Physiologie de la Reproduction et des Comportements, F-37380 Nouzilly, France
Université François Rabelais de Tours, F-37041Tours, France
Haras Nationaux, F-37380 Nouzilly, France
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history:
Accepted 18 February 2010
Available online 30 March 2010
Keywords:
Avoidance task
Equus caballus
Fearfulness
Learning
Personality
Temperament
a b s t r a c t
Learning performances are influenced by many factors, not only breed, age and sex, but also
temperament. The purpose of this study was to understand how different temperamental
dimensions affect the learning performance of horses, Equus caballus. First, we carried out
a series of behavioural tests on 36 Welsh ponies aged 5–7 years to measure five temperamental dimensions: fearfulness (novel area test and surprise test), gregariousness (social
isolation test), reactivity to humans (passive human test), tactile sensitivity (von Frey filament test) and activity level (evaluation of locomotor activity during all the tests). We
then presented them with two learning tasks (avoidance and backwards–forwards tasks).
In the avoidance task they had to learn to jump over a fence when they heard a sound
associated with an aversive stimulus (puff of air). In the backwards–forwards task they
had to walk forwards or move backwards in response to a tactile or vocal command to
obtain a food reward. There was no correlation between performances on the two learning tasks, indicating that learning ability is task-dependent. However, correlations were
found between temperamental data and learning performance (Spearman correlations).
The ponies that performed the avoidance task best were the most fearful and the most
active ones. For instance, the number of trials required to perform 5 consecutive correct
responses (learning criterion) was correlated with the variables aimed at measuring fearfulness (way of crossing a novel area: rs = −0.41, P = 0.01 and time to start eating again after
a surprise effect: rs = −0.33, P = 0.05) and activity level (frequency of trotting during all the
tests: rs = −0.40, P = 0.02). The animals that performed the backwards–forwards task best
were the ones that were the least fearful and the most sensitive. For instance, the learning
criterion (corresponding to the number of trials taken to achieve five consecutive correct
responses) was correlated with the variables aimed at measuring fearfulness (latency to put
one foot on the area: rs = 0.43, P = 0.01; way of crossing a novel area: rs = 0.31, P = 0.06; and
time to start eating again after a surprise effect: rs = 0.43, P = 0.009) and tactile sensitivity
(response to von Frey filaments: rs = −0.44, P = 0.008). This study revealed significant links
between temperament and learning abilities that are highly task-dependent.
© 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
∗ Corresponding author at: INRA (National Institute for Agronomical
Research), Physiologie de la reproduction et des comportements UMR85,
37380 France. Tel.: +33 2 4742 7279; fax: +33 2 4742 7743.
E-mail address: Lansade@tours.inra.fr (L. Lansade).
0168-1591/$ – see front matter © 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.applanim.2010.02.010
Learning performance varies widely between individuals. This variability is the result of many factors, such
as genetics, age, sex, or the environment (for reviews in
horses: Nicol, 2002; Murphy and Arkins, 2007), but can
L. Lansade, F. Simon / Applied Animal Behaviour Science 125 (2010) 30–37
also be affected by certain temperamental dimensions. A
temperamental dimension can be defined as a characteristic of the individual that appears early in life and that
is relatively stable across situations and over the course
of time (Goldsmith et al., 1987; Bates, 1989). A large
number of studies have focused on the influence of the
fearfulness dimension. Most have shown that fearfulness
impaired performance (e.g. passive avoidance in Japanese
quail chicks, Coturnix japonica: Richard et al., 2000; active
avoidance or spatial learning in rats, Rattus norvegicus:
Brush et al., 1985; Herrero et al., 2006 and in working
dogs, Canis familiaris: Svartberg, 2002). Several studies on
horses have also suggested that the most fearful or reactive
animals take longer to learn various tasks, including instrumental conditioning tasks (Lindberg et al., 1999; Visser et
al., 2003), spatial learning tasks (Heird et al., 1986) or discriminative tasks (Fiske and Potter, 1979).
However, not all studies support this conclusion. For
instance, in guppies, Poecilia reticulata, Budaev and Zhuikov
(1998) have shown that it was the most fearful individuals
that performed avoidance tasks best. In rodents, Brinks et
al. (2007) have reported that high stress-reactive individuals had an advantage over low stress-reactive individuals
when learning certain relational tasks. Finally, Lansade
(2005) has shown that fearfulness enhances the performance of horses in an associative task. Findings about
the influence of the fearfulness dimension (or a similar
dimension such as emotionality) are complex: sometimes
it seems to improve learning performance, while at other
times it has a deleterious effect on cognitive functions. In
fact, the findings depend on the species, learning task, kind
of reinforcement and level of fearfulness. This area therefore requires further investigation. From a practical point
of view, a better understanding of this mechanism would
make it possible to determine the ease with which a horse
learns according to the task and its level of fearfulness. In
view of the complexity of the relationship between fearfulness and learning performance, we would expect that a
fearful horse would perform well on one task but not necessarily on another. In this case, we could personalize the
training of each horse according to its level of fearfulness.
In addition to fearfulness, studies have identified other
temperamental dimensions that affect learning performance. For instance, Svartberg (2002) has shown that
a shyness/boldness dimension, related to traits such as
playfulness, curiosity, chase proneness and sociability, correlates with high success in working dog trials, with bolder
dogs being more successful. In the meadow vole, Microtus
pennsylvanicus, behavioural strategies displayed in a radial
maze were linked to differences in locomotor activity level
(Teskey et al., 1998). However, there are very few papers
of this type examining the influence of different temperamental dimensions on learning performance.
In this study, we investigated the influence of five
temperamental dimensions on learning performance in
two different instrumental conditioning situations. These
dimensions were fearfulness, activity level, gregariousness,
sensory sensitivity and reactivity to humans. These dimensions have been described in many species including horses
(for a review, see Gosling and John, 1999). We measured
them using previously validated tests that have shown
31
good stability over time and across situations (fearfulness:
Lansade et al., 2008a; gregariousness: Lansade et al., 2008b;
activity: Lansade et al., 2006; reactivity to humans: Lansade
and Bouissou, 2008; sensory sensitivity: Lansade et al.,
2008c) and also correlate well with a questionnaire assessing the everyday behaviour of a horse (Lansade et al., 2006).
Thus, these tests seem to give a reliable and relatively complete estimation of horse temperament.
2. Animals, materials and methods
Experiments reported in this paper were conducted
under license from the French Ministry of Agriculture (no.
37-125).
2.1. Animals
The study involved 36 female Welsh ponies aged 5–7
years, bred at INRA Nouzilly (France) and accustomed to
being handled (regularly haltered and tethered). Before
the experiment, the animals lived outside in summer and
inside in winter. During the experiment, they were housed
in seven adjacent loose boxes (6 m × 4 m) in random groups
of three or four and spent 4 h per day together in a large
outdoor paddock. They had straw bedding and received
concentrated feed (pellets) and hay three times a day.
Water was available ad libitum. The ponies were assigned
to all the tests in random order.
2.2. Temperament tests
Five temperamental dimensions (fearfulness, gregariousness, activity level, reactivity to humans and sensory
sensitivity) were assessed using the tests developed by
Lansade et al. (2008a,b,c, 2006) and Lansade and Bouissou
(2008), respectively. We used the behavioural parameters
selected during these studies, as they appear to be reliable
indicators of temperament due to their stability over time
and across situations.
2.2.1. Experimental system
All the tests were carried out in a loose box
(2.70 m × 8.10 m—Fig. 1). Two observers were hidden
behind a one-way mirror. An audience horse was tied up
outside the box, visible to the tested pony, to avoid social
isolation interfering with the other measured characteristics. This audience horse was chosen for its quietness. The
animals had been habituated to the experimental structure by being placed in this situation for 5 min a day for 5
consecutive days.
2.2.2. Experimental procedure
Behavioural tests were carried out in strict order for a
total period of approximately 30 min per pony. Each pony
followed the same test sequence:
Habituation to the test pen: The experimenter took the
pony into the loose box and left it alone for 5 min.
Passive human test: To characterise reactivity to humans,
an experimenter (always the same one) entered the loose
box and stayed motionless beside a wall for 3 min (Fig. 1).
32
L. Lansade, F. Simon / Applied Animal Behaviour Science 125 (2010) 30–37
Fig. 1. Arrangement for the temperamental tests.
The frequency of sniffing or nibbling the human was
recorded.
Tactile sensitivity test: The aim of this test was to measure tactile sensitivity. An experimenter held the pony on
a lunge line throughout the test. A second experimenter
applied a von Frey filament to the base of the pony’s withers (von Frey filaments, Stoelting, IL, USA). These filaments
consist of a hard plastic body connected to a nylon thread.
The principle of the test is to evaluate the response of the
individual to mechanical stimuli using different strengths
of filaments. Thus, they are calibrated to exert a specific
force on the skin, ranging from 0.008 to 300 g. They were
applied perpendicularly on the animal’s skin until the nylon
filament started to bend. Trembling of the platisma muscle was recorded. The response was coded in a binary form
(trembling/not trembling). There were two phases to the
test. In the first, which was carried out after the passive
human test, a 0.008-g filament was applied to the right
side of the pony, followed by a 300-g filament to the left. In
the second, after the novel area test, a 0.02-g filament was
applied to the pony’s right side and a 1-g filament to its left.
We recorded the number of times the ponies responded to
the filaments. The most sensitive horses responded whatever the force, whereas the less sensitive ones only reacted
to some.
Social isolation test: To characterise gregariousness, we
removed the audience horse from sight and sound of the
tested pony for 1.5 min. The frequency of neighing was
recorded.
Novel area test: For this test, which characterises reactivity to novelty, a trait underlying the dimension of
fearfulness, we divided the floor of the loose box into three
zones of 2.7 m × 2.7 m (Fig. 1). The first zone corresponded
to a starting zone (on the right in Fig. 1) and the third zone
was an arrival zone (on the left in Fig. 1). The arrival zone
contained a bucket of pellets with which ponies were familiar. Just before the test, the ponies underwent a habituation
phase during which they learnt to go from the starting zone
to the arrival zone containing the bucket. To achieve this,
an experimenter led the pony by the halter to the starting
zone and released it so that it was free to go to the arrival
zone to eat. This was repeated three times. During the test,
a pink carpet (2 m × 2.7 m) was placed in the second zone.
As in the habituation stage, the experimenter released the
pony in the starting zone and recorded the time it took
to put one foot on the carpet and the manner in which it
crossed (walk, trot, jump, did not cross). If the pony did not
cross the area within 180 s, the test was terminated and a
time of 181 s was assigned.
Surprise test: In this test, which characterises reactivity
to suddenness, a trait underlying the dimension of fearfulness, the experimenter opened a black umbrella in front
of the animal while it was eating. A bucket of pellets was
placed near the entrance (Fig. 1). When the animal had been
eating with its head in the bucket for 3 s, the experimenter
opened the umbrella and started the stopwatch. The test
ended when the pony started eating again. The time taken
to start eating again was recorded. If the pony did not start
eating within 180 s, the experimenter stopped the test and
assigned a time of 181 s.
Locomotor activity: In order to measure locomotor activity, we divided the test pen into six areas of equal size
(Fig. 1). We recorded the number of areas crossed by the
pony and the frequency of trotting during the habituation
phase, the passive human test and social isolation test.
2.3. Avoidance task
Various studies have investigated active avoidance tasks
in many species including horses (Haag et al., 1980; Rubin
et al., 1980; McCall et al., 1993). In the present study we
used a procedure similar to that used by Visser et al. (2003).
The avoidance task involves instrumental learning, using
negative reinforcement.
2.3.1. Experimental system
The testing area consisted of a loose box
(5.40 m × 2.70 m) divided into two equal parts by a
40-cm high wooden crossbar (Fig. 2). The same audience
horse as the one used in the temperament tests was tied
up outside the box, visible to the tested pony. Observers
Fig. 2. Arrangement for the avoidance task.
L. Lansade, F. Simon / Applied Animal Behaviour Science 125 (2010) 30–37
Table 1
Levels of stimulation used for the avoidance task.
33
corridor 5 min per day, during the 5 days preceding the
learning procedure.
Level
Kind of stimulation
Level 0
Level 1
Levels 2, 3, 4, 5
Ringing of bell (duration 1 s)
Ringing of bell and puff of air (duration 1 s)
Repetition of level 1
remained unseen behind a one-way mirror. Ponies were
equipped with an air-pressure system attached to a soft
elastic belt (Master Plus Pro® , Dynavet, Switzerland) that
could be operated by remote control to emit a bell ring
or a puff of compressed air behind the pony’s shoulder.
Ponies equipped with this system entered the testing
area 5 min per day, for the 5 days preceding the learning
procedure.
2.3.2. Learning procedure
Ponies had to cross the bar when they heard the bell to
avoid the puff of air. The puff of air is negative reinforcement used to encourage the bar-crossing behaviour. There
were six sessions, one every 2 days. The pony was led into
the area and stayed free for 1 min before carrying out 10
consecutive trials. For each trial, the observer applied the
levels of stimulation described in Table 1 until the pony
crossed the bar. There was a 3-s break between each level.
Whether the pony crossed the bar (success) or not (failure),
another trial began after 1.5 min. We recorded two parameters (Table 3). One pony never jumped the bar at any level
of stimulation.
2.4. Backwards–forwards task
The second learning task was similar to one used for
schooling horses, when the handler teaches the horse to be
led with a lunge and to walk forwards or move backwards.
2.4.1. Experimental system
Ponies, equipped with a halter and a lunge, were tested
in the corridor of the barn where they lived (7 m × 3 m).
The same audience horse as before was tethered at one
extremity of the corridor. To habituate the ponies to the test
situation, the experimenter led them individually along the
2.4.2. Learning procedure
Ponies were given a food reward when they walked forwards or moved backwards when the experimenter gave
them a tactile (step 1) or vocal command (step 2). Ponies
were tested six times, once every 2 days. There were 16
consecutive trials in each session (eight walking forwards
and eight moving backwards, randomly organised during
the session).
First step: The experimenter stood at the left side of the
pony, holding it with a lunge. Each trial began with a level1 stimulation (Table 2). If the pony did not respond, the
stimulation increased as indicated in Table 2 until it did.
The correct response (success) was for the pony to take
two steps forwards (walk) or backwards (move back). They
were rewarded with a handful of pellets. Whether the pony
responded or not another trial began after 20 s. Two parameters were recorded (Table 3). If the pony achieved an 80%
success rate (respond at level 1), it completed the second
step.
Second step: The procedure was exactly the same as during the first step, but we added a “level 0”, consisting of a
vocal command only (Table 2).
Learning under stress (session 6): The procedure of the
‘learning under stress’ (corresponding to session 6) was
similar to the one described above, but with a potentially
stressful condition. The testing area was unfamiliar and
surrounded by 33 plastic bags full of straw (Fig. 3). A white
noise was produced and the animal was socially isolated.
The number of successes at level 0 or 1 was recorded during
this session (Table 3).
2.5. Statistical analyses
We used XLSTAT software (Addinsoft Software, Paris,
France) to analyse the data. Kolmogorov–Smirnov tests
for normality revealed deviation from normality, and so
we used nonparametric statistics. We calculated Spearman
correlations between the parameters recorded during the
two learning tasks, then between the data recorded during
the temperament tests and the learning tasks. The Spear-
Table 2
Levels of stimulation used for the backwards–forwards task.
Level
Kind of stimulation
Level 0 (step 2 only)
To move back: handler said “back”
To walk: handler said “walk”
Level 1
To move back: handler turned round and placed his hand on the pony’s breast
To walk: handler took two steps and exerted a slight pressure on the lunge
Level 2
To move back: handler stretched his arm to push on the breast
To walk: handler stretched his arm to pull the lunge
Level 3
To move back: handler pushed on the breast using his body weight
To walk: handler pulled the lunge using his body weight
Level 4
To move back: handler pushed on the breast as hard as possible
To walk: handler pulled the lunge as hard as possible
Level 5
A second handler entered the area and helped push the breast (to move back) or croup (to walk)
34
L. Lansade, F. Simon / Applied Animal Behaviour Science 125 (2010) 30–37
Table 3
Parameters recorded during the two learning tasks.
Success in session 1
Learning criteria (number of trials needed to
achieve 5 consecutive correct responses)
Number of trials to achieve 5 successesa at level 0
Backwards–forwards Step 1
Number of successesa whatever the level during
session 1
Number of successesb at level 1 during session 1, step 1
Backwards–forwards Step 2
Number of successesb at level 0 during session 1, step 2
×
Parameter not analysed since this criteria was
achieved by less than 15% of animals
Backwards–forwards Under
Stress
Number of successesb at level 0 or 1 during stressful
session
×
Redundant parameter with ‘success session 1’, since
there was only one session under the stress condition
Active avoidance
a
b
Number of trials to achieve 5 successesb at level 1
Crossing the bar.
Taking two steps forwards or backwards.
3. Results
3.1. Correlations between the performances on the two
learning tasks
No significant correlation appeared between the learning criteria measured in the backwards–forwards task and
the avoidance task (P > 0.10).
3.2. Correlations between temperamental data and
performances on the avoidance task
Fig. 3. Arrangement for the backwards–forwards task performed under
stress (session 6).
man correlation coefficient (rs value) and the P value are
shown. We considered correlations as statistically significant when P < 0.05 and tending to be significant when
P < 0.1.
‘Success in session 1’ was significantly correlated with
the two locomotor activity parameters: the more active the
ponies were, the more frequently they jumped the fence
during session 1 (P < 0.01, Table 4), and the more sensitive they were, the more they tended to jump the fence
(P = 0.09).
The ‘learning criterion’ was significantly correlated with
fearfulness and locomotor activity: the more fearful and
active the ponies were, the faster they learned (correlations
Table 4
Spearman correlations between temperamental data and learning performance in the avoidance task (N = 36).
Success in session 1 (number of times
ponies crossed the bar at any level)
Learning criterion (number of trials to achieve
5 consecutive correct responses)
Reactivity to humans
Frequency of sniffing and licking
NS
NS
Tactile sensitivity
Response to von Frey filaments
rs = 0.28
P = 0.09
NS
Gregariousness
Frequency of neighing
NS
NS
Fearfulness—novel area test
Latency to put one foot on the carpet
NS
NS
Fearfulness—novel area test
Way of crossing
NS
rs = −0.41
P = 0.01
Fearfulness—surprise test
Time to start eating again
NS
rs = −0.33
P = 0.05
Locomotor activity
Number of areas crossed
rs = 0.44
P = 0.008
rs = −0.30
P = 0.08
Locomotor activity
Frequency of trotting
rs = 0.42
P = 0.01
rs = −0.40
P = 0.02
Significant correlations are presented in bold, tendency are presented in italics.
L. Lansade, F. Simon / Applied Animal Behaviour Science 125 (2010) 30–37
35
Table 5
Spearman correlations between temperamental data and learning performance in the backwards–forwards task (N = 36).
Success in session 1, step 1
Learning criterion step 1
Success in session 1, step 2
Success under stress
Reactivity to human
Frequency of sniffing and licking
NS
NS
NS
NS
Tactile sensitivity
Responses to von Frey filaments
rs = 0.42
P = 0.01
rs = −0.44
P = 0.008
NS
NS
Gregariousness
Frequency of neighing
NS
NS
NS
NS
Fearfulness—novel area test
Latency to put one foot on the carpet
rs = −0.42
P = 0.01
rs = 0.43
P = 0.01
NS
NS
Fearfulness—novel area test
Way of crossing
rs = −0.29
P = 0.09
rs = 0.31
P = 0.06
NS
rs = −0.34
P = 0.04
Fearfulness—surprise test
Time to start eating again
rs = −0.48
P = 0.004
rs = 0.43
P = 0.009
rs = −0.34
P = 0.04
rs = −0.47
P = 0.004
Locomotor activity
Number of areas crossed
NS
NS
NS
NS
Locomotor activity
Frequency of trotting
NS
NS
NS
NS
Significant correlations are presented in bold, tendency are presented in italics.
with: way of crossing: P < 0.01; time to start eating again:
P = 0.05; frequency of trotting: P = 0.02, Table 4).
3.3. Correlations between temperamental data and
performance on the backwards–forwards task
During step 1, the ‘success in session 1’ and the ‘learning
criterion’ were significantly correlated with tactile sensitivity (P = 0.01 and P = 0.008, respectively) and fearfulness
(correlations with: latency to put one foot on the carpet:
P = 0.01 and P = 0.01; time to start eating again: P = 0.004
and P = 0.009, Table 5). The most successful ponies were
the most sensitive and the least fearful.
During step 2, ‘success in session 1’ was significantly
correlated with the time to start eating again during the
surprise test: the most successful animals were the least
fearful (P = 0.04).
Under stressful conditions, success was significantly
correlated with the way of crossing (P = 0.04) and the time
to start eating again (P = 0.004): the most successful ponies
under the stressful condition were the least fearful.
4. Discussion
The aim of this study was to investigate the influence
of various temperamental dimensions on the learning performance of horses.
First, we showed that performance depended on the
tasks, with no significant correlation between the performance criteria in the two learning tasks. This result is in line
with most previous studies (horses: Wolff and Hausberger,
1996; Visser et al., 2003; for a review: Nicol, 2002).
Secondly, we found correlations between some temperamental dimensions and performance. In sum, the animals
that performed the avoidance task best were the most fearful and active, whereas in the backwards–forwards task
they were the least fearful and the most sensitive. It is
particularly noteworthy that the same dimensions were
not necessarily involved in each task, and when they were
the same (as for fearfulness), they had opposite effects on
learning performance. Thus, certain temperamental profiles can enhance the horse’s performance in one task and
not in another. Several hypotheses can be put forward to
explain this phenomenon and are described below.
First, the positive influence of activity on the avoidance task performance could be due to the fact that the
most active animals were more inclined to jump the fence
spontaneously, and thus to associate the sound with this
response. This is in line with other studies such as the
one by Teskey et al. (1998) which found that locomotor activity was an important behavioural component of
radial maze acquisition by the meadow vole. In a previous
study, Lansade (2005) also found that active horses learn to
change pace more rapidly when they hear a vocal command
predicting an aversive stimulus. By contrast, this dimension
was not involved in the backwards–forwards task, probably because the ponies were tethered on a lunge and not
free to express movements spontaneously.
The involvement of tactile sensitivity in the performance on the ‘backwards–forwards task—step 1’ was also
quite logical. The most sensitive ponies are probably more
inclined to respond to slight contact, such as the pressure
exerted on their breast. In fact, a previous study carried out
on 200 horses has shown that this type of horse is sought
after by experienced riders because they responded better to aids such as leg contact (Lansade et al., 2007). By
contrast, it is interesting to observe that this dimension
did not influence performance on the ‘backwards–forwards
test—step 2’, which no longer involved a tactile but a vocal
command. In the active avoidance task, this dimension only
tended to be correlated with success in the first session.
In addition to its tactile feature, the main characteristic of
the puff of air was undoubtedly its potentially frightening
suddenness. The interaction between these two characteristics may explain the weak influence of tactile sensitivity
on performance.
36
L. Lansade, F. Simon / Applied Animal Behaviour Science 125 (2010) 30–37
The fearfulness dimension was involved in both tasks,
but with opposite effects. In the backwards–forwards task,
the least fearful animals performed best, whatever the step
or the environment (familiar or stressful). This result is in
line with many studies on various species which reported
a negative influence of fearfulness on performance (e.g.
Japanese quail: Richard et al., 2000; rats: Herrero et al.,
2006; dog: Svartberg, 2002). Other studies also confirm this
result with horses. For instance, Fiske and Potter (1979) and
Heird et al. (1986) found that the least fearful horses, identified using a subjective score or an umbrella test, were the
most successful in a discriminative task. Similarly, Mader
and Price (1980) and Lindberg et al. (1999) have shown
that horses belonging to breeds believed to be particularly reactive learned more slowly in an operant task or
in a visual discriminative task than horses belonging to
less reactive breeds. To explain this result, Lindberg argues
that horses that are nervous and reactive may be more easily distracted and therefore slower to learn. This is in line
with a common hypothesis that the most fearful animals
shift attention away from the task, resulting in poor performance (for a review, see Mendl, 1999). This hypothesis
could also explain our results.
In contrast, in the avoidance task, the most fearful animals performed best. As mentioned above, the stimulus
used in this test (the puff of air) was potentially frightening because of its suddenness. We can suppose that the
most fearful ponies were more inclined to avoid the negative reinforcement and consequently learned faster. This
result is not in line with Visser et al.’s study (2003), which
also investigated links between emotionality and performance on an avoidance test. Although they did not find
any simple relationship, it seems that unsuccessful horses
(horses that do not move when an aversive stimulus is
used) had a high level of emotionality. In our study, only
one pony was unsuccessful. Thus, it is difficult to compare
the results. However, it is interesting to note that our ponies
were older than the horses in Visser’s study (aged 5–7 years
vs. 1–2 years) and belong to different breeds (Welsh ponies
vs. Dutch Warmblood horses). For these reasons, it may be
possible that our ponies were less fearful than their horses.
Consequently, we can postulate that performance in the
avoidance test may improve up to a certain level of fearfulness (conclusion of our experiment with older ponies) and
may then decrease (as proposed by Visser with younger
and probably more fearful horses). This would fit in with
the well-known U-shaped curve first described by Yerkes
and Dodson (1908). In the future, it would be interesting to
validate this hypothesis and describe this curve precisely,
assessing at what level fearfulness becomes deleterious to
performance. Thus, while fearfulness appears as a major
factor influencing performance, its involvement seems to
depend on its intensity and the kind of reinforcement. This
study provides some indications about this involvement,
but further investigation is required for a more thorough
understanding of its influence.
Finally, the dimensions of gregariousness and reactivity to humans had no impact on performance in any of
the tasks. The fact that the animals were tested in the
presence of an audience horse may explain the lack of
correlation with gregariousness. By contrast, we could
have expected reactivity to humans to be involved in the
‘backwards–forwards task’ due to the human presence.
However, the fact that the ponies had been largely habituated to humans before the experiment could have masked
a possible effect.
5. Conclusion
To conclude, the results clearly indicate that the
influence of temperament on learning performance is
highly task-dependent. We do not think that temperament directly influences acquisition processes, but rather
a predisposition to react to stimuli involved in learning
situations. For instance, this predisposition could lead the
animals to be more motivated to avoid the reinforcement
(such as the puff of air or the pressure exerted on their
breast), or to be more inclined to move and jump the
bar. This could explain why the temperamental profile
involved in performance changed according to the characteristics of the tasks. In the future, it would be of interest
to identify categories of task that are influenced by the
same temperamental profile, describing precisely the kind
of reinforcement, the action to be learned, the environment, etc. From a practical point of view, this would enable
horse temperament to be matched with suitable training.
By evaluating a horse’s temperament it would be possible
to determine the most appropriate types and conditions
of learning. For instance, some horses would learn better
with negative reinforcement, others with positive reinforcement. In this way, an individual training programme
could be established for each animal.
Acknowledgments
The National French Stud (les Haras nationaux) funded
this experiment. The authors are grateful to Guy Duchamp
(INRA Nouzilly, France) and his staff for allowing the use
of the animals and facilities. We would also like to thank
Chantal Moussu and Fabien Cornilleau for their participation in collecting the data.
References
Bates, J.E., 1989. Concepts and measures of temperament. In: Kohnstamm,
G.A., Bates, J.E., Rothbart, M.K. (Eds.), Temperament in Childhood.
Wiley, New York, pp. 3–26.
Brinks, V., van der Mark, M., de Kloet, R., Oitzl, M., 2007. Emotions and
cognition in high and low stress sensitive mouse strains: a combined
neuroendocrine and behavioral study in BALB/c ans C57BL/6J mice.
Front. Behav. Neurosci. 1, 1–12.
Brush, F.R., Baron, S., Froehlich, J.C., Ison, J.R., Pellegrino, L.J., Phillips, D.S.,
Sakellaris, P.C., Williams, V.N., 1985. Genetic differences in avoidance
learning by Rattus norvegicus: escape/avoidance responding, sensitivity to electric shock, discrimination learning, and open-field behavior.
J. Comp. Psychol. 99, 60–73.
Budaev, S.V., Zhuikov, A.Y., 1998. Avoidance learning and “personality” in
the guppy (Poecilia reticulata). J. Comp. Psychol. 112, 92–94.
Fiske, J.C., Potter, G.D., 1979. Discrimination reversal learning in yearling
horses. J. Anim. Sci. 49, 583–588.
Goldsmith, H.H., Buss, H.H., Plomin, R., Rothbart, M.K., Thomas, A.,
Chess, S., Hinde, R.A., McCall, R.B., 1987. What is temperament? Four
approaches. Child Dev. 58, 505–529.
Gosling, S.D., John, O.P., 1999. Personality dimension in non-human animals: a cross species review. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 8, 69–75.
Haag, E.L., Rudman, R., Houpt, K.A., 1980. Avoidance, maze learning and
social dominance in ponies. J. Anim. Sci. 50, 329–335.
L. Lansade, F. Simon / Applied Animal Behaviour Science 125 (2010) 30–37
Heird, J.C., Lokey, C.E., Cogan, D.C., 1986. Repeatability and comparison
of two maze tests to measure learning ability in horses. Appl. Anim.
Behav. Sci. 16, 103–119.
Herrero, A.I., Sandi, C., Venero, C., 2006. Individual differences in anxiety trait are related to spatial learning abilities and hippocampal
expression of mineralocorticoid receptors. Neurobiol. Learn. Mem. 86,
150–159.
Lansade, L., 2005. Le tempérament du cheval: étude théorique et
application à la sélection des chevaux destinés à l’équitation
(abstract in English). Ph.D. Thesis. University of Tours, France.
http://wcentre.tours.inra.fr/prc/internet/resultats/theses/lansade/
these lea lansade.pdf.
Lansade, L., Bouissou, M.-F., 2008. Reactivity to humans: a temperament
trait of horses which is stable across time and situations. Appl. Anim.
Behav. Sci. 114, 492–508.
Lansade, L., Bouissou, M.-F., Erhard, H.W., 2008a. Fearfulness in horses:
a temperament trait stable across time and situations. Appl. Anim.
Behav. Sci. 115, 182–200.
Lansade, L., Bouissou, M.-F., Erhard, H.W., 2008b. Reactivity to isolation
and association with conspecifics: a temperament trait stable across
time and situations. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 109, 355–373.
Lansade, L., Leconte, M., Pichard, G., 2007. Sensory sensitivity: a horse’s
temperamental dimension? In: 58th Annual Meeting of the European
Association for Animal Production. Wageningen Academic Publishers,
Dublin, Ireland, pp. 32.
Lansade, L., Lévy, F., Bouissou, M.F., 2006. Horse’s temperament and suitability for riding activity can be predicted from 8 months of age. In:
Mendl, M. (Ed.), 40th International Congress of the International Society for Applied Ethology. August 8–12, Bristol (UK), pp. 234.
Lansade, L., Pichard, G., Leconte, M., 2008c. Sensory sensitivities: components of a horse’s temperament dimension. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci.
114, 534–553.
Lindberg, A.C., Kelland, A., Nicol, C.J., 1999. Effects of observational learning
on acquisition of an operant response in horses. Appl. Anim. Behav.
Sci. 61, 187–199.
37
Mader, D.R., Price, E.O., 1980. Discrimination learning in horses: effects of
breed, age and social dominance. J. Anim. Sci. 50, 962–965.
McCall, C.A., Salters, M.A., Simpson, S.M., 1993. Relationship between
number of conditioning trials per training session and avoidance
learning in horses. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 36, 291–299.
Mendl, M., 1999. Performing under pressure: stress and cognitive function. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 65, 221–244.
Murphy, J., Arkins, S., 2007. Equine learning behaviour. Behav. Process. 76,
1–13.
Nicol, C.J., 2002. Equine learning: progress and suggestions for future
research. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 78, 193–208.
Richard, S., Davies, D.C., Faure, J.M., 2000. The role of fear in one-trial passive avoidance learning in Japanese quail chicks genetically selected
for long or short duration of the tonic immobility reaction. Behav.
Process. 48, 165–170.
Rubin, L., Oppegard, C., Hintz, H.F., 1980. The effect of varying the temporal
distribution of conditioning trials on equine learning behavior. J. Anim.
Sci. 50, 1184–1187.
Svartberg, K., 2002. Shyness–boldness predicts performance in working
dogs. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 79, 157–174.
Teskey, G.C., Ossenkopp, K.-P., Kavaliers, M., Innis, N.K., Boon, F.H., 1998.
Individual differences in radial maze performance and locomotor
activity in the meadow vole, Microtus pennsylvanicus. Physiol. Behav.
65, 555–561.
Visser, E.K., van Reenen, C.G., Schilder, M.B.H., Barneveld, A., Blokhuis,
H.J., 2003. Learning performances in young horses using two different
learning tests. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 80, 311–326.
Wolff, A., Hausberger, M., 1996. Learning and memorisation of two different tasks in horses: the effects of age, sex and sire. Appl. Anim. Behav.
Sci. 46, 137–143.
Yerkes, R.M., Dodson, J.D., 1908. The relation of strength of stimulus
to rapidity of habit-formation. J. Comp. Neurol. Psychol. 18, 459–
482.