Investigating human experiences and perceptions of unmounted activities commonly practiced in equine-assisted services
Abstract
Equine-assisted services (EAS) are known to be beneficial for participants, though factors that influence their in-session experiences of horse-human interactions (HHI) remain underexplored. A mixed-methods, repeated measures design was used to investigate relationships between unmounted activities and human mood state, their activity enjoyment, and their perceptions of the horse they interacted with. We aimed to determine if participants’ (n = 56) reported mood states reflected their behavior toward the EAS horses (n = 14) across activity conditions. Horses and humans completed three activity conditions: grooming, leading the horse, and leading the horse around a maze. To assess participants’ mood states throughout the interaction, we measured participants’ mood states before the interaction began and after each activity. A post-interaction survey was used to assess participants’ enjoyment of each activity and the influence of certain horse characteristics on their experience. All interaction activities were filmed for analysis of human behavior. Results from two logistic regression models suggest that activity type was not significantly associated with the arousal (p = 0.09) or valence (p = 0.70) of participants’ reported mood states; however, a trend in the post hoc comparisons indicated participants were more likely to report an activated mood state before the interaction began compared to after the first activity (i.e., post-groom) (OR: 3.15, CI: 7.79−1.28, p = 0.013). Most participants (n = 46/54) reported pleasant moods throughout the interactions, although qualitative results suggest participants experienced a wider range of affective states. Participant behavior supported their reported pleasant mood as most behaviors across conditions were affiliative toward the horse. These results identify factors that influence human experiences when interacting with horses that are incorporated into EAS.
Introduction
Equine-assisted services (EAS) encompass a variety of horse-human interactions (HHI), including adaptive riding, educational services, and speech, physical, and occupational therapy. EAS also includes mental health treatment inclusive of mounted and unmounted equine activities (Wood, 2021). These activities can vary from exercises such as herd observation, to more physical interactions, such as grooming and riding. The mental health and equine professionals facilitating these services intentionally select activities to assist clients in achieving their treatment or educational objectives. The horses incorporated into mental health and educational services are considered members of the facilitation team and hold valuable roles, such as the role of a teacher, metaphor or symbol, and a relational partner (Lee and Makela, 2015; Eagala, 2019; Ekholm-Fry, 2021).
Previous research has established that horse riding (i.e., mounted activities) provides several well-documented benefits to EAS participants, and literature suggests unmounted activities have benefits for specific client populations as well (Usadi and Levine, 2017; Eagala, 2018; Waun, 2020). Several studies have investigated the impacts of mental health treatments that incorporate horses using unmounted activities (e.g., grooming, leading, herd observation). The intended outcomes of such activities include but are not limited to, improving the client’s knowledge of horse behavior and communication as well as developing relational skills through interactions with horses (Burgon, 2003; Cerino et al., 2011). Research exploring the incorporation of horses in groundwork activities found a range of beneficial human outcomes including decreased tension (Hama et al., 1996), increased sense of belonging (Frame, 2006), empathy (Burgon, 2011), confidence (Burgon, 2011; Gilbert, 2013), awareness of internal states (Vincent et al., 2021), and connection with the horse (Frame, 2006). A recent study exploring the effects of groundwork EAS activities on individuals with chronic mental illness found the longest-lasting effect for participants was the ability to be calm (Hemingway et al., 2019).
There is research that explores human mood states and behavior when interacting with other species (Turner et al., 2003; Dell et al., 2019). HAI researchers often measure the frequency and duration of affiliative behaviors, like initiating physical contact, laughing, and smiling, to assess the quality of human-animal relationships and bonds (Fournier et al., 2016; Arrazola and Merkies, 2020; Pelyva et al., 2020; Hartmann et al., 2021). For example, colleagues Turner and Reiger (2001) investigated if human-reported mood correlated with subsequent interactions between singly living people and their cats; their findings indicated that participants who reported feeling negative mood states, like numbness or anger, initiated interactions with their cats significantly less compared to participants who reported feeling a positive mood. Findings from Riddoch et al. (2022) identified behaviors like physical affection, proximity, and attunement when exploring dog owner perceptions of behaviors that facilitate human-dog bonding. These results suggest that positive internal states during HAI may be more likely accompanied with affiliative behavior, and this has been echoed in HAI research that includes horses (Fournier et al., 2021). Exploration of the relationship between human mood state and behavior during HAI is imperative, especially when interacting with horses, who are large prey species that are hypersensitive to communication. However, little research exists that explores the intersection between human mood and behaviors that occur when people interact with horses.
A single unmounted HHI can take place in a variety of environments (e.g., paddock, indoor arena, outdoor arena) and include multiple activity types (e.g., herd observation, grooming, leading). These multifaceted interactions make it difficult for researchers to measure and identify the influence of each factor. For example, one recent study that explored the impact of horse grooming on women veterans’ mindfulness skills (Vincent et al., 2021) indicated a significant pre-post intervention increase in women’s self-identified mindfulness. The researchers reported significant findings; however, they did not investigate what experiential factors during the grooming activity contributed to participants’ mindfulness changes and how participants perception of the horse they interacted with influenced their outcomes. Similarly, Atherton et al. (2020) investigated the impact of a 6-week intervention incorporating horses on the psychosocial and behavioral outcomes of adolescents experiencing addiction. Although findings indicated significant increases in adolescents’ self-reported prosocial behaviors, such as increased ‘supporting’ behaviors, the pre-post design could not determine which session(s) and activity(ies) influenced participants’ positive behavioral outcomes.
To begin filling these knowledge gaps, it is necessary to identify the mechanisms of change and the role species-specific variables may have in mental health and educational services incorporating horses (Scopa et al., 2019). In a recent study, Fournier et al. (2021) set out to test the anodyne-agent model. This model proposes that animals incorporated into therapeutic environments are effective as they serve as an anodyne (i.e., the animal enhances positive emotions and decreases negative emotions), and/or serve as a stand-in or agent (e.g., attachment figure, metaphor, symbol, social mediator; Fournier et al., 2021). Findings supported the anodyne hypothesis as participants in both animal conditions (i.e., horse and dog) had significantly higher reports of positive mood compared to those in the no-animal control condition (Fournier et al., 2021). Qualitative findings indicated a species-specific difference evidenced by a trend in participants’ reporting that dogs may serve more as an anodyne (e.g., reduction in distress) while horses more often serve as an agent (e.g., social supporter) during the group learning session (Fournier et al., 2021). Findings from Fournier et al. (2021) provide preliminary evidence suggesting participant perception and experience during animal interactions may be impacted by species-specific variables.
The current literature in mental health and educational services incorporating horses has not yet established clear relationships between horse characteristics (e.g., sounds, movements, coat color) and different activity types (e.g., grooming vs. leading), which limits our understanding of how these variables might influence humans’ experience during HHI. In addition, although research has largely demonstrated positive experiences during HHI, it has yet to be explored whether specific groundwork activities change participant mood state. The current study aims to explore how HHI-related factors influence a human’s experience during activities commonly employed in mental health and educational services by assessing participants’ mood, behavior, and activity enjoyment during unmounted, structured HHIs. Our research objectives were to (1) identify if horse characteristics influenced human’s experience during structured grooming, leading, and a maze activity, (2) describe participant experience and determine their level of enjoyment of structured HHI activities, (3) determine if participant-reported mood state varies across activity and time during structured HHI activities, 4) identify human behavior and physiological responses during structured HHI activities, (5) explore the relationship between participant-reported mood states and the behaviors displayed during the structured HHI activities. We hypothesized that there would be significant differences in participants’ ratings of the influence each horse characteristic had on their overall experience during HHI activities, and that participant-reported mood states would differ across activities.
Methods
This report comes from a larger study that utilized mixed methods, repeated measures designed to investigate horse and human experiences during structured HHI activities commonly practiced in EAS. This investigation was approved by the Institutional Review Board (IRB2021-101) and by the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (#21039-04).
PARTICIPANTS
Human
Adult participants (n = 60) were recruited from a university community via hard copy recruitment flyers posted in various buildings on campus and the university’s weekly email announcement system. Individuals were excluded from participation if they were pregnant, non-ambulatory, or experienced severe allergic reactions to the equine environment.
Horse
Horses (n = 16, 5 Mares, 11 Geldings) from a PATH Intl. Premier Accredited Center were selected to complete this study. Horses were included if they were in good physical health (e.g., no lameness) and if participating in the current study did not exceed their maximum workload for the day (i.e., 6 working hours). Two-Quarter horses were removed from the study, resulting in a final sample of 14 horses. Removal was due to behavioral concerns for one horse and scheduling conflicts for the other horse. Horses ranged from 6 to 27 years of age (M = 14.3 ± 6.1 years) and varied in the length of time they worked in the facility’s EAS program (M = 2.44 ± 1.87 years). The height of the therapy horses ranged from 13.3 to 15.3 hands (M = 14.46 ± 0.67 hands; 1 hand = 4 inches). Six different breeds were represented, including, 8 Quarter horses, 2 Haflingers, 1 Fjord, 1 draft cross, 1 Arabian cross, and 1 Pony of the Americas (POA).
PROCEDURES
Human
Data were collected from April 2021–August 2021. Prior to the HHI activities, participants were brought to a private office to complete informed consent paperwork and release documents for the facility. Each participant went through three phases of testing which were pre-interaction and baseline measures, the HHI activities, and post-interaction measures. During the pre-interaction phase participants were fitted with a wrist sensor and were asked to sit quietly in the room by themselves for 5 min to collect baseline heart rate (HR). Participants were then asked to complete a pre-interaction survey that collected demographic information (e.g., sex, education level, age) and then received a safety demonstration covering equine body language (i.e., ear position, tail movement, posture, and blind spots), how to safely approach the horse, and methods for safely moving from one side of the horse to the other. Participants were then led to a 100×200 ft indoor arena to begin the three, 7-min HHI activity conditions (i.e., grooming, leading, and maze activity). The arena was equipped with four cameras to record human behavior during all conditions. Participants’ mood states were recorded via an iPad (Apple, Cupertino, CA) questionnaire before the interaction and after each activity condition for a total of four mood state measures per participant. Both the horse and participant received a 7-min rest period between each HHI activity. After the final activity, participants were given the option to say goodbye to the horse (e.g., extra petting, talking, hugging) before reporting their final mood state. A researcher then led the participants back to the private office where they completed the post-interaction survey. The HR wrist sensor was then taken off and participants were thanked for their time and the experiment was concluded.
Horse
The horses completed 6, 7-min phases which began with a baseline rest phase. Horses were then led into the research arena and completed three activity phases with a 7-min resting phase following the completion of each activity. Physiological measurements (i.e., eye temperature and heart rate variability) were recorded during the baseline rest phase in a familiar tie area; subsequently followed by a grooming, leading, and maze activity inside the research arena. The familiar tie area (i.e., area of rest phases) and the arena were equipped with four cameras to record the horse’s behavior during all phases.
HHI ACTIVITIES
Grooming activity
Before the activity began, a researcher recited a script that described basic grooming methods and tools. During the 7-min grooming activity, the participants had a choice of using three different brushes: a curry comb, a soft brush, and a mane and tail brush. If they decided to use the mane and tail brush, they were asked to not brush the horse’s tail to maintain participant safety and horse comfort levels.
Leading activity
Prior to the leading task, a researcher recited a script that introduced basic horse leading which covered methods of stopping, turning, walking on, lead rope tension, and the appropriate way to hold the lead rope. All participants were then prompted by the researcher to practice stops and direction changes at predetermined times throughout the 7-min activity.
Maze activity
The activity began with participants practicing their leading skills with a lap around the maze in which they were to practice two stops before beginning the pattern. The activity involved leading the horse over and around poles and cones in a predetermined pattern (Fig. 1). Participants were directed during their first round through the maze, and if they had time left over, they were asked to complete the maze again. If participants finished a second lap through the maze before the 7 min were completed, they were asked to complete one more lap along the maze’s perimeter.
MEASURES
Pre-interaction survey
Participants completed a 10-item questionnaire to collect demographic information, prior horse experience, and comfort level around horses. Surveys and questionnaires were administered in Qualtrics® (Qualtrics, Provo, UT) via Apple iPad (Apple, Cupertino, CA, OS version 14.4.2), with paper copies available in the event of an interruption in internet service.
Pick-A-Mood
The Pick-A-Mood (PAM, Fig. 2) is a one-item, pictorial self-report measure created to assess mood state (Desmet et al., 2016a). The PAM contains three sets of cartoon characters, a male, a female, and a robot, each character set displays eight mood expressions (i.e., tense, irritated, sad, bored, calm, relaxed, cheerful, excited), and an additional mood “neutral”, for participants to choose from. The PAM demonstrates appropriate construct validity (75–96% correct identification of mood states) for reporting mood states and has been employed in various studies assessing human mood states (Bjorn et al., 2013; Desmet et al., 2016b; Zhuang and Gadiraju, 2019). The robot cartoon set was used for this study, as its character does not indicate sex, age, or race. The Pick-A-Mood was administered before the first activity as well as following each of the three HHI activities.
Post-interaction survey
After the final activity, participants were led back to the private office to complete a 13-item post-interaction survey. Six Likert-type questions assessed how much (i.e., not at all – the entire time) certain horse characteristics (i.e., size, coat color, sounds, movements, and behaviors) influenced their interactions with the horse. Three Likert-type questions assessed if participants enjoyed (i.e., strongly disagree – strongly agree) each HHI activity. The survey concluded with three open-ended questions to qualitatively assess participant experience (i.e., what horse characteristics and behaviors influenced their enjoyment/lack of enjoyment of the activities, the most memorable part(s) of their experience, and anything else they would like to share about their horse interaction).
Human behavior
All HHI activities were video recorded using GoPro Hero9 Black action cameras (GoPro, San Mateo, California) and AKASO EK7000 action cameras (AKASO, Frederick, Maryland), mounted in each quadrant of the arena capturing four different angles. To examine whether participants’ reported mood states align with participant behaviors during the activity conditions, participant behaviors were assessed using an ethogram (Table 1) by two independent observers using Noldus Observer XT 16 (Noldus, Wageningen, the Netherlands). The ethogram was modified from previous HAI research that developed and evaluated a behavior scale to explore social behaviors and affiliation (Horvath et al., 2008; Feldman, 2011; Feldman, 2012; Fournier et al., 2016), such as smiling, laughing, initiating physical contact, accepting physical contact, hugging, and petting/stroking/touching the animal. Each behavior was therefore categorized as an affiliative or non-affiliative behavior. The area of the horse’s body the participants groomed was also recorded. Continuous sampling was used to score the frequency of all behaviors performed during HHI activities. For the behaviors “petting/patting/stroking the horse’s body,” “front half of the horse,” and “back half of the horse,” the participant had to be displaying the behavior for more than 4 s. This was to differentiate from the “initiate contact” behavior which included any initiated contact under 4 s. Additionally, in the behavioral definition of “avoiding contact,” we defined contact initiated by the horse as the horse turning their head towards the participant. Finally, for the behavior “push away,” it was not scored when the participants were intentionally asking the horses to turn away from them in the context of directing the horse during handling, as this was a different behavior than trying to avoid contact during the leading and maze activities.
| Behavior | Definition |
|---|---|
| Affiliative behaviors | |
| Initiating physical contact | Any steps toward and/or attempts to extend their arm/hand toward the horse to initiate contact, where physical contact may or may not be achieved. Includes any attempts/contact that is under 4 s. |
| Accepts physical contact initiated by horse | The horse initiates contact by extending and orienting their head in the participant’s direction, and the human accepts initiated contact by reaching toward or touching the horse.A |
| Hugging | Wraps one or both arms around the horse’s body in an affectionate manner.A |
| Petting/Patting/Stroking the horse’s body | Places hand on the horse’s body, moving from one point to another.A , B |
| Touching or reaching for the horse’s face | Extend their hand or tool to the horse’s face to groom, greet, or pet. Physical contact may or may not be achieved.A |
| Smiling | Lips are pulled up in the corners, eyes may be squinting, and teeth may be showing. Only coding when you have a clear visual of the participant smiling. |
| Laughing | The human is eliciting a spontaneous sound and movement of the face that is the instinctive expression of lively amusement or being content. |
| Non-affiliative behaviors | |
| Avoiding contact | The human steps away or retracts their arm/hand from the horse to avoid contact initiated by the horse. Contact initiated by the horse is defined as the horse turning its head toward the participant.A |
| Startle | Flinching, quickly turning or pulling away, or abrupt stiffness in their body posture/language. |
| Push away | A limb, body, or lead rope is used to block physical contact or increase the distance between participant and horse. |
| Areas of grooming | |
| Front half of the horse | Grooming tool used to brush the horse’s body from their withers and elbow forward for more than 4 s. All grooming that occurs in front of the horse’s heart rate monitor. |
| Back half of the horse | Grooming tool used to groom the horse’s body from their withers and elbow backwards for more than 4 s. All grooming that occurs behind the horse’s heart rate monitor. |
| No grooming | Participant has stopped grooming. |
To establish interrater reliability (IRR), 10% of the data set (six participant sessions) was randomly selected. Of the six sessions, two sessions were used for ethogram training and were rated by both observers to establish IRR with a moderate Kappa of k = 0.75. The remaining four sessions were then scored by both observers and IRR was assessed once more, resulting in a Kappa of k = 0.83. With IRR established the remaining data was split in half for each observer to rate.
Human heart rate
Human heart rate was collected using the Empatica E4 (Empatica Srl, Milan, Italy) a wearable wireless wristband. After completing the consent form and the pre-interaction survey, the E4 was fitted to each participant’s non-dominant wrist to wear during the duration of the equine activities.
DATA ANALYSIS
Quantitative data
All statistical analyses were computed in Jamovi (Version 2.3, Syndey, Australia). Two mixed logistic regression models were developed to examine the associations between interaction conditions (pre-interaction, post-grooming, post-leading, post-maze) and the following participant-reported mood states: valence (pleasant vs. unpleasant), and arousal (activated vs. deactivated), with participant included as a repeated measure. Friedman’s test was used to assess differences in participant enjoyment across activities and to assess differences between how participants reported being influenced by horse characteristics, a repeated measures ANOVA was used. Descriptive analyses were run to assess the frequency and percentage of total behaviors (affiliative vs. non-affiliative) observed during each activity condition. The Empatica E4 HR wrist sensor data could not be analyzed due to the number of movement artifacts. It is possible the electrodes did not maintain consistent contact with the participants’ skin; therefore, the data was unusable.
Qualitative data
Two open-ended post-interaction survey responses were analyzed using inductive qualitative content analysis (Mayring, 2014), and pattern analysis was used for the third question in the survey. Inductive qualitative analysis employs in vivo coding to identify sub-categories and categories from the data (Hsieh and Shannon, 2005). For all questions, the data was prepared in a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet (Version 16.0, Redman, Washington) for coding by organizing responses into meaning units, each representing a principal idea. For example, a participant’s response could contain several ideas, each coded as a distinct meaning unit. This process was followed by a round of initial coding for each open-ended question. Peer debriefing with a second member of the research team was employed during the recursive rounds of coding to discuss code labels and definitions. A coding scheme was then developed for each question to assign code labels to meaning units. A third member of the research team was trained in the coding scheme for each question and served as a second coder to independently review and assign codes to the meaning units in each question. To establish intercoder agreement, both coders independently coded 10% of each question’s meaning units and assessed the percentage of agreement which produced 90, 67, and 72% agreement (McAlister, 2017). Coder differences were discussed, and data was re-coded to resolve discrepancies. This occurred in several rounds until agreement was achieved. Following this process, meaning units were sorted into sub-categories and categories to describe the data as-a-whole.
Results
Sixty adult participants (50 females, 10 males) agreed to participate in the study (M = 35.2 years of age ± 14.7 years). Data from four participants were removed as they interacted with the two horses that were excused from the study. As such, our analysis only included 56 participants who interacted with the 14 horses remaining in the study. Participant demographics and horse experiences are described in Table 2.
| Variables | Values | N = 56 | Percentage (%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ethnicity | |||
| Asian American | 5 | 9.0 | |
| African American | 5 | 9.0 | |
| Hispanic/Latino | 9 | 16.0 | |
| White | 34 | 61.0 | |
| Multiple Ethnicities | 3 | 5.0 | |
| University affiliation | |||
| Undergraduate Student | 13 | 23.0 | |
| Graduate Student | 11 | 20.0 | |
| Faculty | 6 | 11.0 | |
| Staff | 20 | 36.0 | |
| Combination of Affiliations | 1 | 2.0 | |
| No Affiliation Reported | 1 | 2.0 | |
| Other | 4 | 7.0 | |
| Previous horse experience | |||
| Less than 6 months | 33 | 59.0 | |
| 6 months–1 year | 2 | 4.0 | |
| 2–5 years | 2 | 4.0 | |
| 6–10 years | 7 | 13.0 | |
| 11+ years | 12 | 21.0 | |
| Comfort level around horses | |||
| Extremely Uncomfortable | 1 | 2.0 | |
| Uncomfortable | 2 | 4.0 | |
| Neutral | 14 | 25.0 | |
| Comfortable | 18 | 32.0 | |
| Extremely Comfortable | 21 | 38.0 | |
QUANTITATIVE DATA
Human mood state
Our hypothesis that participant-reported mood states would be different across activity conditions was not supported. Descriptive statistics indicate most participants reported pleasant mood states across all activities (pre-interaction: n = 45, 83%; after grooming: n = 50, 91%; after leading: n = 47, 87%; after maze: n = 54, 94%, Fig. 3). The number of participants who reported a deactivated mood state increased two-fold from pre-interaction (n = 12, 22%) to post-grooming (n = 25, 45%). Results from the regression models suggest that activity type was not significantly associated with reports of arousal (p = 0.09) and valence (p = 0.70). When exploring post hoc comparisons of human-reported mood within each individual activity condition, participants were more likely to report an activated mood state before the interaction activities began compared to after grooming (OR: 3.15, CI: 7.79–1.28, p = 0.013, Fig. 4).
Activity enjoyment
Friedman’s test showed a significant difference between participants’ enjoyment and the activity conditions (X2 (2, n = 56) = 8.33, p = 0.02). Durbin-Conover pairwise comparisons indicated that participants reported enjoying the maze activity more than the leading (p = 0.02) and the grooming activity (p < 0.01).
Horse characteristics
Our hypothesis that horse characteristics would influence participants’ experience during the structured HHI activities was supported. A repeated measures ANOVA indicated a significant difference in the way participants reported being influenced by horse characteristics (F(4) = 31.6, p < 0.001). Paired sample t-tests revealed that the horse’s coat color had significantly less influence than other horse characteristics like size (t(55) = −3.56, p < 0.001), behaviors (t(55) = −8.46, p < 0.001), or movements (t(55) = −7.95, p < 0.001). Also, the horse’s size had significantly less influence than the horse’s behaviors (t(55) = –5.43, p = < 0.001) and movements (t(55) = −4.86, p = < 0.001). No other significant differences were detected between horse characteristics (e.g., behavior and movement (t(55) = 0.00, p = 1.00); size and sounds (t(55) = 1.40, p = 0.15); coat color and sounds (t(55) = −1.53, p = 0.13; Fig. 5).
Human behavior
Participants groomed the front half of the horse (34%, 327/967) more frequently than the back half of the horse (27%, 264/967). Affiliative behaviors represented 97% (570/588) of behaviors observed in the grooming, 85% (215/254) of behaviors in the leading and 90% (146/162) of behaviors in the maze activity. Initiating contact (21%, 125/588), touching/reaching toward the horse’s face without a grooming tool (121/588, 21%), and accepting contact from the horse (18%, 104/588) were the most frequent affiliative behaviors in the grooming condition. Initiating contact (leading: 27%, 69/254, maze: 25%, 40/162) and smiling (leading: 28%, 71/254, maze: 25%, 41/162) were the most common affiliative behaviors in the leading and maze activities. A small proportion (3%, 18/588) of behaviors during grooming were non-affiliative. A larger portion of the observed behaviors in the leading (15%, 39/254) and maze activities (10%, 16/162) were non-affiliative. The most frequently performed non-affiliative behavior in the grooming condition was avoiding contact (2%, 14/588). The most frequently performed non-affiliative behaviors in the leading and maze activities were pushing away (leading: 10%, 25,254, maze: 4%, 6/162) and avoiding contact (leading: 4%, 11/254, maze: 4%, 7/162).
QUALITATIVE DATA
Question 1
All participants (n = 56) answered the first open-ended question in the post-interaction survey which asked, “What characteristics and behaviors of the horse do you think might have influenced your enjoyment, or lack of enjoyment, of the activities?”. The qualitative content analysis produced a total of 101 meaning units and three major categories which were: Affiliative Experiences, Disengaged Experiences, and Unexpected Experiences.
Affiliative Experiences: This category was comprised of 64 meaning units and describes the factors that participants believed contributed to their positive experiences during the HHI such as strengthening their bond and relationship with the horse. Within this category emerged three subcategories: Horse Traits, Horse Behaviors, and Human Perceptions.
The first subcategory, Horse Traits, was comprised of 21 meaning units and described the calm demeanor and other personality traits of the horse that impacted participants’ enjoyment of the interaction. An example of a response in this subcategory was “Enjoyed the activities because the horse was calm, if he was nervous/scared I wouldn’t have acted the same.” Another subcategory, Horse Behaviors, described the types of horse behaviors including sounds and movements that contributed to participants enjoying the interaction and consisted of 33 meaning units. An example of a response in this subcategory was “Enjoyed horse turning toward to rub against me even if it was to scratch.” The last subcategory, Human Perceptions described responses in which participants’ report perceiving the horse as having a positive experience or enjoying the interaction. This subcategory consisted of 10 meaning units, and an example of a response was “[The horse], he seemed to enjoy the maze which increased my enjoyment.”
Disengaged Experiences: The second major category represented 15 meaning units that describe factors that participants indicated as anxiety-provoking or led to negative experiences during the HHI such as hypervigilance, distraction, and tension. Within this category, two subcategories emerged which were Horse Behaviors and Human Perceptions of Horse’s Negative Experience.
The first subcategory, Horse Behaviors, described the horse’s non-compliance and disengaged behaviors as well as sounds and movements the horse made that contributed to participants’ lack of enjoyment. This subcategory consisted of 9 meaning units; an example of a response was “Horse disinterested in being touched and grooming, didn’t sniff, look, or move toward me and had slow pace.” The second subcategory, Human Perceptions of Horse’s Negative Experience, was comprised of 6 meaning units and described responses in which participants commented on feeling like they were doing something wrong and perceived the horse as not enjoying the interaction. An example of a response was “Difficult to read [Horse] behaviors because no prior grooming or leading experience. When leading he pulled away and I worried I did something to aggravate him.”
Unexpected Experiences: The last major category had 16 meaning units and described factors that participants viewed as unexpected and led to mixed or conflicted feelings during the interaction such as enjoying the activities while being sad that the horse did not. An example of a response was “Initial movement during grooming intimidating, as time passes understanding their behaviors becomes intriguing and almost entertaining.”
Question 2
All participants (n = 56) answered the second open-ended question in the post-interaction survey which asked, “What was the most memorable part(s) of your experience with the horse today?.” The qualitative content analysis produced a total of 79 meaning units and two major categories Memorable Features of the Activities and Memorable Horse Interactions.
Memorable Features of the Activities: The first category had 14 meaning units. Participants commonly noted the novelty of the activities with the horses as memorable, some reported this experience being their first time interacting with a horse. One participant wrote, “The entire experience was something I’ve never had before and pretty much all parts of the experience were a surprise and that includes the behavior of the horse and stuff like that.” Other participants reported the activities, such as grooming, brought a sense of calmness to their interactions with one participant explaining “Grooming: the horse stayed calm and I was surprised how calming it was for me.” Finally, some participants noted only the activities as the most memorable factor of their experience. An example of a response in this category was “Leading the horse through obstacle.”
Memorable Horse Interactions: This category had 66 meaning units and describes horse-focused memorable events, rather than an activity focus. This includes responses about building a connection with the horse, or the behavior of the horse that participants reported made their experience memorable. Some responses in this category focused on the participants and horse sharing or increasing their bond and connection with one another or noting that they both enjoyed the activity. This could be responses that mention communication, trust, or an increase in confidence and comfort. An example of a response in this code was:
I really liked to walk [the horse], especially through the maze and over the obstacles. I imagine there is some component of trust that needs to be established for the horse to feel comfortable walking over the obstacles and following the walker. It made me happy and feel relaxed to think that maybe [the horse] felt a connection with me, and it caused me to feel a fondness and connection with him.
Other participants described the horse’s physical or personality traits as being most memorable. Attributes include participants mentioning the horse being responsive or accepting. An example of a response in this code was: “…[The horse] made the maze activity memorable because I was unsure of my next phase of the course and stopped quickly and she did not respond in kind. She was patient while I figured out my next step…” The category also described responses that focus on the horse’s behavior as being the most memorable. This could be meaning units that describe being unsure of a particular behavior, enjoying a behavior, noticing a behavior that stuck with them, or describing the absence of a specific behavior. This also includes compliance, non-compliance, or mixed compliance in which the participant writes about the horse doing a particular behavior such as pawing or perking ears. An example of a response in this category was, “…[The horse] seems more willing to go with me. Again, the perked ears were surprisingly delightful and felt like a reward. I was also happy that he seemed to pick up his pace doing the course…”
Question 3
Eighty-nine percent (89%) of participants (n = 50) answered the last open-ended question in the post-interaction survey which asked, “Is there anything else you would like to share about your experience with the horse today?” The qualitative content analysis produced a total of 71 meaning units which were coded based on patterns in the data. Patterns were defined as multiple meaning units that repeated the same central idea and incorporated similar keywords (e.g., 7 meaning units described that this was participants’ first time or first experience with a horse). Six patterns were identified: Novel Experience, Experiment & Procedural Feedback, Encouraged Future Horse Interactions, Appreciated & Enjoyed Opportunity, Increased Positive feelings/Decreased Negative Feelings, and Horse Attributes. Responses included comments regarding the research design as one participant reported, “Having handled horses before this activity was really slow in pace. Maybe try something a little faster pace. Sometimes 7 min is a little to short to do an activity.” Other respondents discussed that their experience during the study encouraged them to pursue future horse interactions, one respondent said, “I think I will be actively seeking an opportunity to ride and get good at it.” Participants also reported that their interaction with the horse increased positive feelings or decreased negative feelings, one participant disclosed, “…the stress of chronic pain and all the stress from COVID, went away for a little bit.” Other common responses to this question repeated similar sentiments to the first open-ended question discussing attributes of the horse they interacted with, one participant recalled, “The first thing I noticed about [Horse] when I walked into the arena was his size. He is quite short, so I assumed he would be a docile horse.” The remaining responses touched upon the enjoyment and novelty of interacting with horses and the participants’ appreciation.
Discussion
Results of our study suggest that participants experienced pleasant mood states during HHI activities, demonstrated affiliative behaviors, and that their experience was influenced by a horse’s physical and behavioral characteristics. Though activity type was not significantly associated with the arousal or valence of participants’ mood states, qualitative content analysis reveals a breadth of affective states experienced during activities. It is possible that the relationship between mood states and activity type was not captured due to the lack of variation in reported mood states, with most participants reporting pleasant mood states throughout the interaction. Our findings of positive mood states during HAI are supported by previous literature, as dog and cat interactions have been found to heighten positive moods (Turner et al., 2003; Dell et al., 2019). Post hoc comparisons of each activity type indicated that participants’ arousal changed from activated (i.e., cheerful or excited) before the interaction began (i.e., pre-interaction) to deactivated (i.e., relaxed or calm) after the first activity (i.e., post-grooming). It is possible that the increased arousal reported before the interaction began was due to anticipation or other feelings (e.g., excitement, fear), which diminished once the interaction activities began. On the other hand, the change in arousal echos previous research that measured the effect of stroking a horse on humans’ heart rate and self-reported levels of arousal (Hama et al., 1996; Hemingway et al., 2019). For example, Hama et al. (1996) found that participants’ heart rate eventually decreased to baseline levels when they engaged in stroking horses for 90 s. Further, results indicated that participants’ reports of tension decreased following the act of stroking a horse.
Hemingway et al. (2019) conducted a similar study exploring the impacts of embodied nature-based equine-assisted interventions on young people with chronic mental illness. Participants in this intervention took part in similar unmounted activity conditions employed in the current study (i.e., grooming and leading the horse over objects), and the results indicated calmness was the most consistent outcome among participants. Thus, our findings may suggest that grooming activities yield calming effects for humans. Participant reports from the post-interaction survey support this trend as many participants who reported the grooming activity as their favorite activity described the experience as “calming” or “relaxing.” Further, during code labeling, participants specified the grooming activity in half of the meaning units that comprised the code “Calmness During Activities” as memorable factors of the interaction. Participants’ behavioral data reflect their reports of positive grooming experiences, as almost all the observed behaviors in this activity were affiliative. This information is beneficial for practitioners as certain activities may support specific client populations and their therapeutic goals more than others. As the most performed behaviors were initiating contact, touching the horse’s face, and accepting contact from the horse, grooming could be an activity employed to cultivate deeper emotional connection through physical touch. This idea is supported by previous research that suggests a grooming activity can create and enhance the connection between horses and humans (Meola, 2017; Atherton et al., 2020; Acri et al., 2021; Lassell et al., 2021).
In the current study, almost all the participants agreed they enjoyed all the groundwork activity conditions. This aligns with previous research reporting the physical and mental benefits associated with mounted activities, like therapeutic riding, that often incorporate certain groundwork activities like grooming (Kaiser et al., 2004; Cerino et al., 2011). Participants who reported the grooming as their favorite activity explained that “…you can learn so much about them during that time” and “starting with grooming was a way to build trust with the horse.” Participants who reported leading as their favorite activity condition explained that they “gained confidence” as they learned to lead the horse and enjoyed how “responsive” the horse was to follow their direction. Further, participants reported enjoying the maze activity significantly more than the leading and grooming activity. It is possible participants felt they had built confidence and skill through the first two activities of grooming and leading, resulting in the maze activity being the most enjoyable. This is echoed in the qualitative data as participants who reported the maze as their favorite activity expressed how they “…appreciated his trust in me to get us through…” and that some participants “…felt more confident and comfortable” by the end of the maze activity. It may also be that the level of challenge and mastering of skills needed to complete the maze activity led participants to enjoy the maze interaction activity the most. Research suggests that HHI may provide a rich environment for participants to master various skills, which is one mechanism that can cultivate self-efficacy and self-confidence (Bandura, 1977; Hauge et al., 2015; Battisti et al., 2017). Our results highlight the human experience during groundwork activities and suggest future research in the field of EAS may benefit from further exploring the effects of activity type on different client populations’ experiences of HHIs.
Results from the current study indicate that certain horse characteristics influence participants’ experience during an HHI; however, there was a lack of agreement as to how influential characteristics were across participants. Although most participants agreed that the horse’s coat color did not influence their experience at all, there was greater variation in the reported influence of other horse characteristics (i.e., size, sounds, behaviors, and movements) suggesting the impact of certain horse characteristics may vary depending on the individual and context. Further, participants’ open-ended responses suggest certain characteristics can enhance their interaction with a horse. One participant described how the horse’s size influenced their experience reporting, “…I have almost no experience with horses and I couldn’t believe that all of a sudden I could lead this giant animal and he seemed so comfortable…” Another participant shared, “[The horse’s] small size made me feel comfortable.” It is possible that the size of the animal they are interacting with emphasizes the processes present in sessions more than previously realized, such as skill building and cultivating a comfortable environment for interactions. Previous literature suggests horses’ large size could assist veterans with post-traumatic stress disorder in regulating their emotions as those who may be quick to anger or experience outbursts often modify their behavior around an animal of such size (MacLean, 2011; Wuan, 2020). Results from the current study can guide EAS facilitation teams by enhancing their understanding of clients’ individual preferences by exploring which horse characteristics feel most salient to them. Thus, incorporating horses whose characteristics may emphasize the successes of the clients may aid in reaching their educational or treatment goals. Future research may consider selecting specific horse characteristics identified in the literature (i.e., size, movements, vocalizations) to determine the influence such characteristics may have on human behavior, mood, and activity enjoyment during HHIs.
There were several limitations in the current study that may have influenced the study findings. First, the activity conditions were not randomized, therefore we cannot ascertain which activity was driving the trend in reported mood state arousal. However, the protocol for this study was designed to ensure the safety of both the horses and humans involved, with little to no previous horse experience required for humans to participate. As seen in Althobaiti et al. (2019), structured, non-randomized procedures are often used in HHI research to allow the horse and human to become comfortable and familiar and more likely to experience a safe interaction. As such, the HHI activities were standardized and developed to gradually get the participant familiar with the horse and the activities involved (e.g., participants began with a grooming activity to become familiar with the horse, then learned the skills to lead before practicing leading the horse through a maze activity). To better establish causal links between specific HHI activities and human experiences, future research could include randomization designs. Further, prior to reporting their last mood state, participants were allowed to thank their horses at the end of the last activity. This time included extra time for petting or hugging; therefore, it is possible that participants’ final reported mood state was influenced by this final interaction. In addition, as behavior coding and qualitative data analysis happened in the same timeframe, it is possible that analysis of the qualitative data influenced the behavioral coding and vice versa. To mitigate this bias, second coders were employed for behavioral and qualitative content analysis.
CONCLUSION
In this study, we investigated how certain horse characteristics and groundwork activities commonly practiced in EAS influence participants’ self-reported mood state, enjoyment, and behavior during an HHI. Mood states and behavioral data indicate participants had pleasant interactions with the EAS horses. Additionally, results showed participants enjoyed the maze activity significantly more than the grooming and leading activity. Qualitative data analysis provided context and detail regarding which HHI components contributed to participants’ overall experiences. Future research would benefit from employing mixed methods and randomized designs to explore how various unmounted equine activities influence human experiences during HHI.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
ETHICS STATEMENT
The authors confirm that the research meets any required ethical guidelines, including adherence to the legal requirements of the study country.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We thank those who participated in the study and the equine-assisted service centers for access to the facility and their horses to complete this research.
AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS
ELP, CR, NA, and KS conceptualized the data; ELP, CR, NA, KS, and NH carried out methodology; formal analysis was carried out by ELP, CR, EW, NH, KS, and ACS; CR, ACS, and KS performed the writing – reviewing and editing; ELP carried out writing – original draft, reviewing, and editing; ACS and KS supervised the study.
FUNDING STATEMENT
The authors have no funders to declare.
DATA AVAILABILITY
The data are not publicly available due to ethical restrictions.
References
Acri, M., Morrissey, M., Peth-Pierce, R., Seibel, L., Seag, D.et al. (2021) An equine-assisted therapy for youth with mild to moderate anxiety: Manual development and fidelity. Journal of Child and Family Studies 30(10), 2461–2467.
Althobaiti, T., Katsigiannis, S., West, D. and Ramzan, N. (2019) Examining horse-human interaction by means of affect recognition via physiological signals. IEEE Access, 7.
Arrazola, A. and Merkies, K. (2020) Effect of human attachment style on horse behaviors and physiology during equine-assisted activities – A pilot study. Animals 10(1156), 1–13.
Atherton, L., Meola, C. and Pritchard, K. (2020) Innovative equine facilitated psychotherapy intervention for adolescents addiction treatment: A pilot study. International Journal of High Risk Behaviors and Addiction 9(3), 1–7.
Bandura, A. (1977) Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review 84(2), 191.
Battisti, H.E., Battisti, F.L. and McAbee, R. (2017) Does long-term equine assisted learning have an effect on childhood weight management? Journal of Obesity Weight LossTherapy 7(288). 10.4172/2165-7904.1000338.
Bjorn, V., De Moor, K., Heegaard, P. and Instefjord, A. (2013) Investigating Quality of Experience in the Context of Adaptive Video Streaming: Findings from an Experimental User Study [Paper Presentation]. Norwegian Informatics Conference, Uppsala, Sweden.
Burgon, H.L. (2011) ‘Queen of the world’: Experiences of ‘at-risk’ young people participating in equine-assisted learning/therapy. Journal of Social Work Practice 25(02), 165–183.
Cerino, S., Cirulli, F., Chiarotti, F. and Seripa, S. (2011) Non conventional psychiatric rehabilitation in schizophrenia using therapeutic riding: The FISE multicentre Pindar project. Annali Dell’Istituto Superiore di Sanita 47(4), 409–414.
Dell, C., Chalmers, D., Stobbe, M., Rohr, B. and Husband, A. (2019) Animal-assisted therapy in a Canadian psychiatric prison. International Journal of Prisoner Health 15(3), 209–231. 10.1108/IJPH-04-2018-0020.
Desmet, P.M.A., Vastenburg, M.H. and Romero, N.H. (2016a) Pick-A-Mood Manual. Available at: www.diopd.org (accessed 8 July 2021).
Desmet, P.M.A., Vastenburg, M.H., Romero, N. and Pieter, D.M.A. (2016b) Mood measurement with Pick-A-Mood: Review of current methods and design of a pictorial self-report scale. Journal of Design Research 14(3), 241–279.
EAGALA (2018) Equine Assisted Growth and Learning Association: Eagala Military Services. Available at: https://www.eagala.org/military (accessed 24 April 2023).
EAGALA (2019) Equine Assisted Growth and Learning Association. Available at: https://www.eagala.org/org (accessed 9 March 2022).
Ekholm-Fry, N. (2021) Conceptualization of psychotherapy incorporating equine interactions in the United States. Human-Animal Interaction Bulletin 9(3), 94–114.
Esposito, N.W. and Fournier, A. (2023) How Change Happens in Equine-Assisted Interventions: A Theory of Horses, Humans, and Psychotherapy, 1st edn. Routledge.
Feldman, R. (2011) Maternal touch and the developing infant. In: Hertenstein, M. and Weiss, S. (eds) Handbook of Touch. Springer, New York, pp. 373–407.
Feldman, R. (2012) Oxytocin and social affiliation in humans. Hormones and Behavior 61(3), 380–391.
Fournier, A.K., Berry, T.D., Letson, E. and Chanen, R. (2016) The human-animal interaction scale: Development and evaluation. Anthrozoos 29(3), 455–467.
Fournier, A.K., Letson, E.A., Berry, T.D., Laitala, J., Proels, L. and Kavanaugh, K. (2021) The anodyne-agent model: A framework for conceptualizing the animal’s role in animal-assisted intervention. Human-Animal Interaction Bulletin 9(1), 55–75.
Frame, D. (2006) Practices of Therapists Using Equine Facilitated/Assisted Psychotherapy in the Treatment of Adolescents Diagnosed with Depression: A Qualitative Study. ProQuest Dissertation PublishingAnn Arbor, MI.
Gilbert, R. (2013) Equine Assisted Psychotherapy: Prover Perspectives and Beliefs. ProQuest Dissertation PublishingAnn Arbor, MI.
Hama, H., Yogo, M. and Matsuyama, Y. (1996) Effects of stroking horses on both humans’ and horses’ heart rate responses. Japanese Psychological Research 38(2), 66–73.
Hartmann, E., Rehn, T., Christensen, J., Nielsen, P. and McGreevy, P. (2021) From the horse’s perspective: Investigating attachment behavior and the effect of training method of fear reactions and ease of handling—A pilot study. Animals 11(2), 1–17.
Hauge, H., Kvalem, I.L., Enders-Slegers, M.J., Berget, B. and Braastad, B.O. (2015) Persistence during tasks with horses in relation to social support, general selfefficacy and self-esteem in adolescents. Anthrozoos 28(2), 333–347. 10.1080/08927936.2015.11435406.
Hemingway, A., Carter, S., Callaway, A., Kavanagh, E. and Ellis, S. (2019) An exploration of the mechanisms of action of an equine-assisted intervention. Animals 9(6), 1–22.
Horvath, Z., Doka, A. and Miklosi, A. (2008) Affiliative and disciplinary behavior of human handlers during play with their dog affects cortisol concentrations in opposite directions. Hormones and Behavior 54(1), 107–114. DOI.
Hsieh, H. and Shannon, S. (2005) Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health Research 15(9), 1277–1288. 10.1177/1049732305276687.
Kaiser, L., Spence, L., Lavergne, A. and Bosch, K. (2004) Can a week of therapeutic riding make a difference? – A pilot study. Anthrozoos 17(1), 63–72.
Lassell, R., Fields, B., Busselman, S., Hempel, T. and Wood, W. (2021) A logic model of a dementia-specific program of equine-assisted activities. Human Animal Interaction Bulletin 9(2), 1–33.
Lee, P. and Makela, C. (2015) Horses’ roles in equine-assisted psychotherapy: Perspectives of mental health practitioners. Journal of Psychology and BehavioralScience 3(1). 10.15640/jpbs.v3n1a9.
MacLean, B. (2011) Equine-assisted therapy. Journal of Rehabilitation Research and Development 48(7), ix–xii.
Mayring, P. (2014) Qualitative Content Analysis: Theoretical Foundation, Basic Procedures, and Software Solution. Klagenfurt. Available at: https://nbn-resolving.org/urn:nbn:de:0168-ssoar-395173.
McAlister, A.M. (2017) Qualitative Coding: An Approach to Assess Inter-Rater Reliability. American Society for Engineering Education.
Meola, C. (2017) The Effects of an Equine-Assisted Learning Supervision Intervention on Counselors’-in-Training Performance Anxiety, Counseling Self-Efficacy, and Supervisory Working Alliance (Publication No. 10760206) [Doctoral Dissertation, East Carolina University]. ProQuest.
Pelyva, I., Kresak, R., Szovak, E. and Toth, A. (2020) How equine-assisted activities affect the prosocial behavior of adolescents. International Journal of Envrironmental Research and PublicHealth 17(8) 1–13.
Riddoch, K.A., Hawkins, R.D. and Cross, E.S. (2022) Exploring behaviors perceived as important for human-Dog bonding and their translation to a robotic platform. PLOS One 17(9) 1–22.
Scopa, C., Contalbrigo, L., Greco, A., Lanata, A., Pasquale Scilingo, E. and Baragli, P. (2019) Emotional transfer in human-horse interaction: New perspectives on equine-assisted interventions. Animals 9(1030), 1–21.
Turner, D.C. and Rieger, G. (2001) Singly living people and their cats: A study of human mood and subsequent behavior. Anthrozoös 14, 38–46.
Turner, D.C., Rieger, G. and Gygax, L. (2003) Spouses and cats and their effects on human mood. Athrozoos 16(3), 213–228. 10.2752/089279303786992143.
Usadi, E.J. and Levine, S.A. (2017) Why we don’t ride: Equine assisted psychotherapy, military veterans and moral injury. Journal of Trauma & Treatment 6(2) 1–5.
Vincent, A., Ballard, I. and Farkas, K.J. (2021) Mind full or mindful? A cohort study of equine-facilitated therapy for women veterans. Journal of Creativity in Mental Health.
Waun, D. (2020) Exploring the effectiveness of equine assisted learning on service members diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder and/or traumatic brain injury (Publication No. 27830015) [Doctoral Dissertation, Trevecca Nazarene University]. ProQuest.
Wood, W. (2021) Building the science of diverse equine-assisted services from the ground up. Human-Animal Interaction Bulletin 9(3), 1–4.
Zhuang, M. and Gadiraju, U. (2019) In what mood are you today? An analysis of crowd workers’mood, performance and engagement [Conference Presentation]. In: 11th ACM Conference on Web Sciences. Boston, MA.
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Copyright
© The Authors 2023. This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
History
Issue publication date: 1 January 2023
Received: 25 July 2023
Accepted: 17 November 2023
Published online: 11 December 2023
Keywords:
Language
English
Authors
Metrics & Citations
Metrics
SCITE_
Citations
Export citation
Select the format you want to export the citations of this publication.
EXPORT CITATIONSExport Citation
Citing Literature
- Nichole Anderson, ANIMAL WELFARE AND THE HUMAN-ANIMAL BOND IN STUDENT EDUCATION – HOW CAN WE UNDERSTAND ANIMAL FEELINGS? HOW DO WE ASK FOR CONSENT FROM A HORSE?, Slovenian Veterinary Research, 10.26873/SVR-2194-2025, (View), (2025).
- Specific Welfare Considerations for Animals Involved in Animal-Assisted Interventions, Handbook on Animal-Assisted Therapy, 10.1016/B978-0-443-22346-4.00025-1, (273-285), (2025).
- Christine Rudd, Emma Pasiuk, Nichole Anderson, Nathan Hall, Robin Foster, Katy Schroeder, A Preliminary Assessment of Equine Affect in Equine-Assisted Services, Anthrozoös, 10.1080/08927936.2024.2333163, 37, 3, (501-518), (2024).
View Options
View options
Login Options
Check if you access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.