05/03/2026
Hi everyone,
I am back! Sorry for the delay in the middle of my dominance theory posts. I'm going to continue this series, but if you need to go back and re-read, then please do.
At this point, many savvy trainers understand that dominance theory has been largely disproven and have moved away from the worst offenders of dominance theory, but little things will still eek their way in. Let’s talk about my yellow flag phrases. When I hear these, I know that a trainer does not have a great understanding of behavioral science. They may be talented, and I may still work with them, but I will take any behavioral explanations with a grain of salt and look for my own explanations for many behaviors that I see while working.
The first one I have heard a lot is: “Horses use positive punishment and negative reinforcement on each other, I’m just speaking their language.” A lot of trainers I have heard say this are quite talented with negative reinforcement and create really nice horses. This is not to say that there are no trainers I would not work with who also say this, but I wanted to address why it is inaccurate while also pointing out that it doesn’t mean that a trainer who says it is not worth following.
Horses do use negative reinforcement and positive punishment on each other, but they also use a lot of positive reinforcement with each other. As a social species, horses positively reinforce each other through companionship, grazing together, watching over each other while sleeping, mutual grooming, and play. (Later I will do a whole post on play, but for now I want to be clear I am using the behavioral definition of play, which is not what most people think of when they think of playing with their horses.)
As humans, we are most likely not capable of providing these forms of positive reinforcement, or at least not in a way that achieves our goals with our horses, for a few reasons.
First, we are not horses, so the value of our social engagement is not as reinforcing as it would be coming from a member of their own species. Second, the timing of this type of reinforcement would be difficult to achieve when we are looking for very specific behaviors.
The other difficulty I have with this particular idea is that, yes, horses do use negative reinforcement and positive punishment on each other, but they also kick, bite, strike, and charge each other. If we choose to use this half of their language, then we need to be ready to deal with being kicked, bitten, struck, and charged, because that is their instinctual response to this type of behavior. Will they eventually learn not to do that if we do our job well? Yes, but if we choose a different method, we may be able to avoid that entirely.
The overall point is you are not a horse. You will always lack the necessary equipment to be a horse, but that does not mean you cannot learn how to communicate with them. Just use your human attributes to work with their horse attributes and don’t try to be a horse.
The next phrase is: “Horses are looking for a leader,” or “You need to be a leader for your horse.” They really aren’t looking for a leader. When I hear trainers say this, I start to look at their work and how they define leadership.
Horses want to know what is expected of them. They want you to be predictable so that they know what to expect from you. They want to be listened to. They want clarity in what you are asking. These are all attributes that place the responsibility on the human to be clear and fair. Some trainers use the word leadership in a more authoritarian way, where you need to punish them for unwanted behaviors. The onus then falls on the horse to behave instead of on the human to help the horse understand. In this context, the use of the word leadership is not useful.
The last yellow flag I have is when people call horses things like spoiled. I always wonder what they mean by this. Spoiled can mean so many things, but any time I see a “spoiled” horse, I see a horse who either has not been taught how to exist safely in a human world or a horse who has a strong reinforcement history with unsafe behaviors. While I understand the necessity to train away these behaviors, I believe there are ways to do that that at least attempt to limit the amount of stress the horse feels through the process.
When spoiled is used as a way to have compassion for a horse who is struggling in a world that really isn’t meant for them, and every attempt is made to help them in the least stressful way the trainer knows how, then it doesn’t really bother me. But when I see trainers use “spoiled” as an excuse to use excessive force to cause compliance, I consider that a problem and would choose to avoid those trainers.
The common theme with my yellow flags is that, although they are rooted in dominance theory in some way, they can be interpreted in a way that places responsibility on the human to be clearer and more fair to their horses. They can also be interpreted in a way that causes us to feel it is necessary to use more force to get our way. That is why, before I choose to work with a trainer who says things like this, I need to also see a lot of green flags, which I will talk about next week.
I hope you all found this helpful! As always, feel free to reach out if you have questions or comments. I would love to hear from all of you about what your thoughts are.
Photo credit Bert Palmer
, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
