Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-89wxm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-07T23:31:55.820Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Testing a method of equine personality assessment

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 February 2018

A. S. Lloyd
Affiliation:
Moulton College, Moulton, Northampton, NN3 7RR, UK E-mail: [email protected]
J. E. Martin
Affiliation:
Moulton College, Moulton, Northampton, NN3 7RR, UK E-mail: [email protected]
Get access

Extract

To date there have been few studies on equine personality, with many equine studies on individual differences focussing on the measurement of temperament. Personality is defined by Pervin and John (1997, ) as “Those characteristics of the person that account for consistent patterns of feeling, thinking and behaving” and is different to temperament in that it has a greater emphasis on social aspects of behaviour. Interest in this area of research has recently increased, which could be attributed to the potential implementation of personality assessment in management practices, welfare issues and potential applications in equine veterinary medicine (Mills, 1998).

Assessment of animal personality often involves using human raters to assess the personality of animals familiar to them. In order to demonstrate reliable personality data three criteria should be met, these are as follows; 1) assessments made by independent observers must agree with one another, 2) these assessments must predict behaviours and real-world outcomes and 3) observer ratings must be shown to reflect genuine attributes of the individual rated and not just the observers’ implicit theories about personality (Kenrick and Funder, 1988; Gosling and Vazire, 2002).

Type
Posters
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Production 2006

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Costa, P.T. Jr and McCrae, R.R. 1992. Four ways five factors are basic. Personality and Individual Differences 13, 653665 Google Scholar
Gosling, S.D., Vazire, S. 2002. Are we barking up the right tree? Evaluating a comparative approach to personality. Journal of Research in personality 36, 607614 Google Scholar
Kenrick, D.T. and Funder, D.C. 1988. Profiting from controversy: lessons from the person-situation debate. American Psychologist 43, 2334 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mills, D.S. 1998. Personality and individual differences in the horse, their significance, use and measurement. Equine Veterinary Journal, Supplement 27, 1013 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morris, P.H., Gale, A., Duffy, K. 2002. Can judges agree on the personality of horses? Personality and Individual Differences 33, 6781 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pervin, L.A. and John, O.P. 1997. Personality theory and research 7th Edition. New York, John Wiley and Sons, inc.Google Scholar
Stevenson-Hinde, J., Zunz, M. 1978. Subjective assessment of individual rhesus monkeys. Primates 19, 473482 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stevenson-Hinde, J., Stillwell-Barnes, R., Zunz, M. 1980. Subjective assessment of rhesus monkeys over four successive years. Primates 21, 6682 CrossRefGoogle Scholar