'We know better - so - why don't we do better'?

Horse Welfare and Human Behaviour Change

Professor Nat Waran OBE

We've all been there. You attend an inspiring and engaging lecture on equine welfare, perhaps read an article about new research describing new stress indicators, and you nod along enthusiastically, and think "yes, absolutely, that makes perfect sense". Then you go home and carry on doing exactly what you've always done.

Do you ever wonder why that is?

We're fortunate to have an ever-growing body of scientific knowledge about what horses actually need to thrive. Yet translating that knowledge into widespread practice remains stubbornly difficult. The gap between what we know and what we do can, at times, be wider than we'd like to admit.

It’s certainly true that science often moves faster than societies’ understanding or acceptance of it. I was reminded of this during a recent conversation with a highly experienced horse owner who was explaining her worming protocol – a meticulous rotation system she'd been using for two decades. When I gently mentioned the current research on targeted worming based on faecal egg counts, she looked genuinely puzzled. "But this approach has always worked", she said.

And there, in that single sentence, lies one of the greatest challenges facing equine welfare today.

We live in an extraordinary time for equine behaviour and welfare science. We know more about horse cognition, physiology, and behavioural needs than ever before. We understand from robust research that many traditional practices - from indiscriminate worming to tight nosebands to certain training methods - may not serve our horses' best interests. Yet walk into yards in different parts of the world and you'll find these practices continuing, often amongst people who genuinely love their horses and want the best for them.

So, I have to ask - why is change so remarkably difficult?

When Science Challenges Tradition

Change is challenging. Consider the ongoing debate over whip use in racing. Despite public concern and research informed evidence about equine pain and/or stress responses and questions about the efficacy of repeated striking, the mere suggestion of restrictions provokes passionate resistance amongst those who are inside the sport. Or take the double bridle debate - research increasingly questions whether horses can truly accept two bits comfortably, and has identified stress and pain-related behaviours associated with the use of this device, yet it remains standard (and even, in some cases, mandatory) in upper-level dressage. Many equestrians become quite defensive when these cherished traditions face scientific scrutiny.

We’ve watched this play out repeatedly. Provide research findings that challenge established practice, and you'll often encounter not curiosity and openness but resistance and even obstruction. I don’t think that people are anti-science; rather, they're being asked to question practices bound up with traditions, their identity, their training, their community's values and that can feel extremely threatening.

Treating Symptoms, Not Causes - The Equine Ulcer Epidemic 

A good example of treating symptoms and reluctance to embrace fundamental change is evident in how gastric ulcers are managed in sport horses. Omeprazole has become something of a miracle drug - pop a syringe in daily and carry on as usual. Its shocking how many horses are on long-term ulcer medication whilst being stabled for 22-23 hours a day, fed large concentrate meals, restricted fibre and subjected to intense training schedules.

The uncomfortable truth is that we're treating the symptom whilst perpetuating the cause. Research tells us clearly that horses evolved to graze continuously, move freely, and live in stable social groups. Our intensive management systems, however convenient for our needs, create the very conditions that promote ulcer development. Yet, rather than questioning whether we might manage horses differently, we reach for the medication and carry on.

These sorts of pharmaceutical solutions allow us to maintain practices that suit human schedules and ambitions whilst appearing to address the welfare concern. We can tell ourselves we're being responsible horse owners, 'we're treating the ulcers’, without confronting the deeper issues our management systems are associated with.

This pattern repeats across equestrianism. Horses weaving? Install anti-weaving grilles rather than question the isolation and confinement that lead to development of the behaviour. Horses tense and 'resistant'? -  reach for stronger bits and tighter nosebands rather than examine our training approaches. In each case, we're addressing the manifestation rather than the root cause, and in doing so, we maintain systems and practices that fundamentally don't meet horses' needs.

The Discomfort of Cognitive Dissonance

This brings us to something psychologists call cognitive dissonance - the mental discomfort we experience when holding contradictory beliefs or when our actions conflict with our values. It's a powerful force in resisting change, and it's everywhere in equestrianism.

Imagine you believe deeply that you care about your horse's welfare. You've invested enormous time, money, and emotion in their care. But then research suggests that something you do regularly, perhaps using certain equipment, or your management routine, or training methods - may actually compromise your horses' wellbeing. It’s not what anyone wants to hear, and it creates a profoundly uncomfortable internal conflict.

Our brains are remarkably creative at resolving this discomfort, usually by adjusting our beliefs rather than our behaviour. We might for example dismiss the research: "That study was too small" or "Those weren't proper horsemen/women doing it." We might create exceptions: "Yes, but… my horse is different." We might deflect: "Well, what about all those other people in other disciplines doing far worse things?" Or we might simply avoid the information altogether, if we don't read the research, we needn't confront the contradiction.

The omeprazole issue is a great example of cognitive dissonance. In reality most people know that keeping horses intensively in stables/stalls isn't ideal. But completely restructuring our management systems (to provide turnout time, different feeding regimes, adjusted training schedules), would require inconvenient (or very difficult) changes to the way we work and train, our facilities, and our competitive schedules. So instead, we reconcile the conflict by medicating, drawing comfort in the notion that "I'm treating the ulcers, so I am being a responsible and caring owner." The dissonance dissolves, and we can continue as before.

Similarly, when faced with research questioning use of double bridles in dressage or use of whips in racing, the cognitive dissonance can be overwhelming. "I love my horse" conflicts with "I'm using equipment that may cause discomfort" or "I'm hitting my horse repeatedly." Rather than changing the behaviour, we adjust our beliefs: "My horse goes beautifully in it," "He doesn't mind at all," "A good rider can use these things properly," “It doesn’t hurt the horse”, and "It's tradition and tradition matters." In so doing, we convince ourselves that all is fine and our discomfort disappears, but the practice and welfare concern for the horse continues.

Understanding Human Behaviour Change

This is where understanding Human Behaviour and how to Change it (HBC) becomes useful. HBC is a scientific approach to understanding what makes people alter their actions—and more crucially, what prevents them from doing so. It draws on psychology, sociology, and behavioural economics to identify the specific barriers people face and design interventions that actually work.

The beauty of HBC is that it moves beyond simply telling people what to do (we've tried that approach for years with limited success), and instead, HBC asks: what capability do people need? What opportunities must exist? And what will motivate them to change?

Think of it as three interlocking pieces. Capability encompasses both knowledge and practical skills - do people understand the science and know how to implement it? Opportunity includes physical resources, social norms, and institutional support - can people actually make changes given their circumstances? And Motivation involves both reflective processes (beliefs, intentions) and automatic ones (habits, emotions) - do people genuinely want to change and can they overcome ingrained patterns?

All three must align for behaviour change to occur and be sustained.

Sacred Cows - Why We Stay Stuck in our Ways

Let's return to our examples through this lens. When research challenges double bridle use, we're not just dealing with a capability problem - though understanding the interaction between the biomechanics and horse responses is challenging. We're confronting enormous opportunity barriers: dressage rules often require double bridles to be used at certain levels, riders fear their horses won’t perform well without them and judges expect to see them being used at certain levels.

But perhaps most powerful are the motivational barriers. Horses have been bred to be more powerful, more reactive and with bigger movement. Riders have spent years honing their skills with training horses in these bridles. Their coaches used them, their heroes use them, gold medal winners use them. Riding with a double bridle whilst wearing tails is a uniform afforded to those at the top of the sport, and wearing it has been described as ‘a right of passage’. Questioning the mandatory use of the double bridle feels like questioning an entire training philosophy. That cognitive dissonance, "I care deeply about my horse's welfare, yet I'm using equipment that may cause discomfort" - is profoundly uncomfortable. So, we defend, we rationalise, we insist our horse "is light and goes beautifully" in it, and that ‘this is not a welfare issue’. We resolve the dissonance by adjusting our perception rather than our practice.

With worming, the capability barriers include understanding parasite ecology and interpreting faecal egg counts—not trivial for time-pressed horse owners. Opportunity barriers involve finding laboratories, managing logistics of collection, and often facing additional upfront costs. But again, motivation may be the trickiest issue. The old worming routine is a habit, triggered automatically by the calendar. Breaking habits requires conscious effort, something our busy brains resist. The old way felt safe.

Racing whips present perhaps the most complex case. Capability? Jockeys might need to develop alternative riding techniques. Opportunity? The entire racing infrastructure, rules, steward expectations, betting odds currently accommodates and even expects whip use. Motivation? Here we find competing priorities: winning (and earning) versus welfare concerns, fierce professional pride, and deeply embedded cultural norms about what constitutes proper race-riding. The cognitive dissonance is managed through narratives about horses needing 'encouragement' or whips being used "only for safety."

Designing Change That Works

So -  what does HBC tell us about creating meaningful change?

First, there is the need to address capability systematically. We can’t just present research findings and expect take-up; we need to help people develop genuine connection and competence. For targeted worming, this may mean ‘hands-on’ workshops on sample collection, on-line interpretation sessions with parasitologists, and ongoing support as people navigate their first year. For reconsidering use of training devices, it means teaching the biomechanics, demonstrating alternatives, and building skills progressively. For the management of ulcers, it means helping people understand equine digestive physiology and behavioural needs in ways that connect the dots between cause and effect. Providing opportunity to learn about yards that have successfully implemented alternative management systems. Providing practical guidance on transitioning horses gradually and making the capability gap feel less overwhelming.

Second, we need to tackle opportunity barriers head-on. This often requires collective action. If mandatory use of double bridles is to be addressed, we need to work with governing bodies to revise rules and engage the community with the changes required and ways to get there. If use of whips in racing is to be changed, regulatory changes that create a level playing field may be needed, so individual jockeys aren't disadvantaged by making welfare-conscious choices. For management-based ulcer prevention, we need creative solutions to physical constraints. Can infrastructure be designed to allow more turnout? Can feeding regimes be adjusted without sacrificing performance? Are there facility designs that better accommodate horses' behavioural needs whilst still remaining practical? These questions require collaboration between researchers, designers, and equine practitioners.

and Finally, we need to engage with motivation thoughtfully. This means acknowledging people's genuine love for their horses rather than implying that they don't care enough. It means addressing cognitive dissonance not by forcing uncomfortable contradictions, but by offering a bridge to resolution through action. "We did the best with what we knew then; we know more now" is far more effective than "You’re not doing what you can to improve the welfare of your horse."

We need to help people to reframe change as professional growth rather than loss or admission of failure, celebrate those who've successfully transitioned and create narratives where questioning established practice is a sign of expertise and dedication, not disloyalty to tradition.

Crucially, HBC teaches us to work with, not against, social dynamics, because change becomes far easier when it's supported by one's community. This can be achieved through use of respected figures (positive influencers) who have adopted new practices and celebrating early adopters. The gradual normalisation of what initially felt radical has worked effectively for successfully embedding several welfare initiatives. Once a few influential horse professionals shift their approach, others follow, and within a few years the new practice simply becomes the new normal - just "what we do."

Breaking Habits

Habits deserve special attention because they're so powerful yet so invisible. That automatic reach for the wormer every eight weeks isn't a conscious decision; it's a learned response to a trigger (the date). Similarly, the daily omeprazole administration becomes routine - we stop questioning whether it's the best solution and simply execute the habit.

HBC strategies help people recognise these automatic patterns, identify the cues that trigger them, and consciously design new routines. This might mean linking faecal sampling to a different calendar trigger, creating visual reminders, or pairing the new behaviour with something rewarding. For management changes, it might involve gradually building new routines around increased turnout or modified feeding through enrichment devices, that eventually become as automatic as the old patterns.

It requires patience, old habits have taken years to become ingrained and new habits take time to establish.

Moving from Symptom Management to Real Solutions

Perhaps most importantly, HBC can help us shift from symptom management to addressing root causes. This requires acknowledging a difficult truth: sometimes the welfare compromise can't be solved through medication or training - it's our system's problem to solve through change.

This isn't about guilt or blame. Our current practices evolved for understandable reasons including; practical constraints, inherited knowledge, competitive pressures. But maintaining them simply because they're familiar, or because changing would be difficult, isn't a welfare-centred approach.

HBC interventions might help us see that what feels like an impossible change—"I can't possibly provide 12 hours of turnout daily" - might have creative solutions we haven't explored. Perhaps shared facilities, cooperative arrangements, or modified schedules could work. Perhaps performance wouldn't suffer as we fear; it might even improve.

By addressing all three components—building capability to envision and implement alternatives, creating opportunities through collective problem-solving, and fostering motivation through community support and reframed narratives, we can move beyond simply managing symptoms, to actually solving problems.

Navigating the Way Forward

Change programmes work best when they're structured, participatory, and context-sensitive. Structured, because lasting change needs ongoing support, not just a one-off lecture or workshop. Participatory, because people are far more committed to solutions they've helped design. Context-sensitive, because what works in a professional racing yard won't necessarily suit a small livery/grazing operation.

We need rigorous studies testing these approaches and ensuring that we modify to achieve the desired outcomes. What's the optimal way to help people navigate competing priorities and resolve cognitive dissonance constructively? How do we sustain motivation when initial enthusiasm inevitably wanes? How do we shift from symptom-focused interventions to cause-focused solutions?

But we already know enough to start. We know that simply presenting research findings and expecting change is naïve. We know that shaming people for current practices is counterproductive and only strengthens cognitive dissonance. We know that lasting welfare improvements require addressing the full complexity of human behaviour - capability, opportunity, and motivation together.

I remain optimistic. I've seen genuine commitment to change happen when approached thoughtfully. We've seen horse trainers reconsider their equipment choices and adopt new approaches to training, and entire disciplines begin questioning long-held practices. There are examples of competition yards who have restructured their management systems—and who have discovered their horses seem happier, problem behaviours are reduced and even if the horses didn’t actually perform better as a result, they certainly didn’t perform any worse!

Change is rarely quick and never simple, but it is possible.

The key is recognising that advancing equine welfare relies on us. Our horses can't change the practices that affect them. They can't write research papers or revise rulebooks or challenge social norms. They are at our whim, they have little agency and can only respond to what we create for them, sometimes with symptoms that we then treat whilst maintaining the underlying causes.

We are all responsible for understanding why it's difficult to change our practices, and we must take individual accountability for addressing our capability gaps, any opportunity constraints, and understanding our complex motivations including any cognitive dissonance.

If we can know better – surely, we owe it to our horses to do better!