Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2022 Jul 22:13:954472.
doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.954472. eCollection 2022.

Horses wait for more and better rewards in a delay of gratification paradigm

Affiliations

Horses wait for more and better rewards in a delay of gratification paradigm

Désirée Brucks et al. Front Psychol. .

Abstract

Self-control, defined as the ability to forgo immediate satisfaction in favor of better pay-offs in the future, has been extensively studied, revealing enormous variation between and within species. Horses are interesting in this regard because as a grazing species they are expected to show low self-control whereas its social complexity might be linked to high self-control abilities. Additionally, self-control may be a key factor in training and/or coping with potentially stressful husbandry conditions. We assessed horses' self-control abilities in a simplified delay of gratification test that can be easily implemented in a farm setting. In Experiment 1, we gave horses (N = 52) the choice between an immediately available low-quality reward and a delayed high-quality reward that could only be obtained if the horse refrained from consuming the immediate reward. Different experimenters (N = 30) that underwent prior training in the procedures, tested horses in two test phases either with their eyes visible or invisible (sunglasses). Twenty horses waited up to the maximum delay stage of 60 s while all horses performed worse in the second test phase. In Experiment 2, we improved the test procedure (i.e., one experimenter, refined criterion for success), and tested 30 additional horses in a quality and quantity condition (one reward vs. delayed bigger reward). Two horses successfully waited for 60 s (quality: N = 1, quantity: N = 1). Horses tolerated higher delays, if they were first tested in the quantity condition. Furthermore, horses that were fed hay ad libitum, instead of in a restricted manner, reached higher delays. Coping behaviors (e.g., looking away, head movements, pawing, and increasing distance to reward) facilitated waiting success and horses were able to anticipate the upcoming delay duration as indicated by non-random distributions of giving-up times. We found no correlations between owner-assessed traits (e.g., trainability and patience) and individual performance in the test. These results suggest that horses are able to exert self-control in a delay of gratification paradigm similar to other domesticated species. Our simplified paradigm could be used to gather large scale data, e.g., to investigate the role of self-control in trainability or success in equestrian sports.

Keywords: coping behavior; delay of gratification; error times; horses; inhibitory control; self-control.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Figures

FIGURE 1
FIGURE 1
Proportion of successful horses per delay stage plotted separately for first (red; N = 52) and second (blue; N = 48) test.
FIGURE 2
FIGURE 2
Maximum delay stages reached by horses fed hay ad libitum and restricted. Bubbles depict the frequency of maximally tolerated delay stages while the size of the bubbles corresponds to the number of horses [range: 1 (smallest bubble) – 23(largest bubble)]. The red horizontal bar depicts the fitted model and the error bars show the confidence limits for all other variables in the model centered to a mean of zero.
FIGURE 3
FIGURE 3
Proportion of successful horses per delay stage plotted separately for quality (red; N = 28) and quantity condition (blue; N = 29).
FIGURE 4
FIGURE 4
Maximum delay stages reached by horses in the quality (QUAL) and quantity (QUAN) test condition as a function of test order. Bubbles depict the frequency of maximally tolerated delay stages while the area of the bubbles corresponds to the number of horses (range: 1–7). The red horizontal bar depicts the fitted model and the error bars show the confidence limits for feeding management centered to a mean of zero.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Abeyesinghe S. M., Nicol C. J., Hartnell S. J., Wathes C. M. (2005). Can domestic fowl, Gallus gallus domesticus, show self-control? Anim. Behav. 70 1–11. 10.1016/j.anbehav.2004.10.011 - DOI
    1. Aellen M., Dufour V., Bshary R. (2021). Cleaner fish and other wrasse match primates in their ability to delay gratification. Anim. Behav. 176 125–143. 10.1016/j.anbehav.2021.04.002 - DOI
    1. Agresti A. (2002). Categorical Data Analysis., 2nd edn. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
    1. Amici F., Aureli F., Call J. (2008). Fission-Fusion Dynamics, Behavioral Flexibility, and Inhibitory Control in Primates. Curr. Biol. 18 1415–1419. 10.1016/j.cub.2008.08.020 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Animal Behaviour (2020). Guidelines for the treatment of animals in behavioural research and teaching. Anim. Behav. 159 I–XI. 10.1016/j.anbehav.2019.11.002 - DOI - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources