Assessment of equine temperament questionnaire

by comparing factor structure between

two separate surveys

Yukihide Momozawaa, Ryo Kusunoseb, Takefumi Kikusuia,Yukari Takeuchib,*, Yuji Moria

aLaboratory of Veterinary Ethology, The University of Tokyo, 1-1-1 Yayoi, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo 113-8657, JapanbEquine Research Institute, Japan Racing Association, 321-4 Tokami-cho,

Utsunomiya-shi, Tochigi 320-0856, Japan

Accepted 5 November 2004

Available online 28 December 2004

Abstract

To establish a method for assessing equine temperament by use of a questionnaire, we carried out

two surveys. The subject animals were all thoroughbreds maintained at the same farm. Respondents

were the primary caretaker and two colleagues working with each horse. Factor analysis was

performed on the responses to each survey. In both surveys, five factors were extracted and four of

them were common between the two surveys. The common factors were ‘Anxiety’, ‘Trainability’,

‘Affability’, and ‘Gate entrance’. There were sufficient internal consistencies in responses about

‘Anxiety’, ‘Trainability’, and ‘Affability’ in the two surveys to indicate the validity of this

questionnaire in evaluating these factors in equine temperament.

# 2004 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Anxiety; Factor analysis; Horses; Questionnaires; Temperament

1. Introduction

A human–horse bond is especially important for sports such as horse racing and horse

riding, and a positive bond can lead to better performance. In order to form a good

www.elsevier.com/locate/applanim

Applied Animal Behaviour Science 92 (2005) 77–84

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +81 3 5841 3099; fax: +81 3 5841 8190.

E-mail address: aytake@mail.ecc.u-tokyo.ac.jp (Y. Takeuchi).

0168-1591/$ – see front matter # 2004 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

doi:10.1016/j.applanim.2004.11.006

relationship between human and horse, it is essential to understand the equine

temperament, so studies on its assessment by a behavior test and/or a questionnaire

survey have been increasing over the last decade. In a behavior test, temperament is

assessed by equine behavior (McCann et al., 1988; LeScolan et al., 1997; Mackenzie

and Thiboutot, 1997; Visser et al., 2001, 2003b; Hausberger and Muller, 2002; Seaman

et al., 2002), changes in autonomic functions (McCann et al., 1988; Jezierski et al.,

1999; Hada et al., 2001; Visser et al., 2002, 2003a; Momozawa et al., 2003), and

changes in endocrine functions (Anderson et al., 1999; Hada et al., 2001) in response to

certain stimuli. In a questionnaire survey, respondents such as caretakers and riding

teachers, who are familiar with target horses, assess temperament based on casual

observation (LeScolan et al., 1997; Anderson et al., 1999; Morris et al., 2002a, 2002b;

Momozawa et al., 2003).

A questionnaire survey has some merits as compared to a behavior test. As it is based

on the long-term observations by respondents, survey responses would not be disrupted

by a temporary change of equine physical condition as might occur in a behavioral

test. A questionnaire could assess various traits of equine temperament simultaneously,

which might be difficult to assess with a single behavior test. However, as the survey

method depends on respondents’ impressions, the results tend to be more subjective than

those of a behavior test. In order to emphasize the validity of a questionnaire survey,

researchers have attempted to evaluate their reliability. Some researchers have carried out

both a questionnaire survey and a behavior test on the same horses and compared the

assessments (LeScolan et al., 1997; Momozawa et al., 2003; Visser et al., 2003a). Others

analyzed the inter-respondent variation in assessment (Morris et al., 2002a; Visser et al.,

2003a). In other studies, the factor structures of original and translated psychological tests

were compared to verify the language-translated test (Kijima et al., 1996; Yoshimura et al.,

2001).

Previously, we reported the reliability and defects of a 5-point scale questionnaire

that consisted of eight items (Momozawa et al., 2003). In order to improve the previous

assessment, we changed the questionnaire at three points as follows: we increased the

number of question items, expanded the scoring scale, and added a description to each

question item. In this study, we conducted questionnaire surveys with two separate groups

of young thoroughbred horses of the same age and similar backgrounds in an attempt to

assess the reliability and reproducibility of the questionnaire that had been revised based on

the outcome of our initial trial (Momozawa et al., 2003).

2. Materials and methods

2.1. Animals

The horses used in the study were 69 thoroughbreds (38 males and 31 females) in

2002 and 70 thoroughbreds (36 males and 34 females) in 2003 at the Hidaka

Yearling Training Farm (Japan Racing Association). They had been purchased at

commercial livestock auctions at 1 year of age and trained as racehorses until the following

April.

Y. Momozawa et al. / Applied Animal Behaviour Science 92 (2005) 77–8478

2.2. Questionnaire survey

This assessment was carried out in March 2002 and 2003, when horses of each group

were about 2 years old. At that time, they had been through about six months of training.

Table 1 shows the questionnaire with 20 question items. The responses are on a scale of 1 to

9, with 9 being the highest rank for a given item. For each horse, three caretakers completed

the questionnaire. Since these three were the horse’s primary caretaker and two colleagues

who had worked in the same stable, they were well acquainted with the respective horses.

Thirty-four caretakers responded in 2002 and 31 in 2003. Twenty-four caretakers

responded to both surveys. Averaged scores of three responses for each item were subjected

to factor analysis.

2.3. Statistical analysis

Factor analysis was performed on the 20 question items for each group using the

principle factor method for factor extraction and Varimax rotation for orthogonal

transformation with StatView 5.0 J (Abacus Concepts, Berkeley, CA), respectively.

Extracted factors were determined by the eigenvalue criterion (the eigenvalue for the last

extracted factor was more than one).

Y. Momozawa et al. / Applied Animal Behaviour Science 92 (2005) 77–84 79

Table 1

Questionnaire items

Items Description (This horse tends to . . .) 1 $ 9

Nervousness become nervous about insects, noises, etc. Calm Nervous

Concentration be trainable and undisturbed by the environment Poor Excellent

Self-reliance be at ease if left alone away from the herd Restless At ease

Trainability be trained easily and promptly Poor Excellent

Excitability get excited easily Not excitable Excitable

Friendliness

toward people

be never aggressive or fearful Unfriendly Friendly

Curiosity be interested in novel objects and approach them Rarely Frequently

Memory memorize what it learned or was trained Poor Excellent

Panic get excited to an abnormal extent Never Frequently

Cooperation be cooperative with a caretaker when handled Never Always

Inconsistent

emotionality

be unpredictable from day to day Consistent Inconsistent

Stubbornness be obstinate once it resists a command Obedient Stubborn

Docility be docile in general Active Docile

Vigilance be vigilant about surroundings Never Always

Perseverance be patient with various stimuli Impatient Patient

Friendliness

toward horses

interact with other horses in a friendly manner Unfriendly Friendly

Competitiveness be dominant in antagonistic encounters

with other horses

Subordinate Dominant

Skittishness get surprised easily Not skittish Skittish

Timidity be timid in a novel environment Audacious Timid

Gate entrance go easily through the starting gate Rarely Always

Question items are listed according to the order in the actual questionnaire sheet.

Y.

Mo

mo

zaw

aet

al./A

pp

liedA

nim

al

Beh

avio

ur

Scien

ce9

2(2

00

5)

77

–8

48

0

Table 2

Factor loadings of each questionnaire item

Question items 2002 2003

Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4 Factor 5 Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4 Factor 5

Nervousness 0.899 �0.063 �0.029 �0.052 �0.105 0.857 �0.257 �0.032 0.151 0.245

Concentration 0.036 0.823 0.114 �0.018 0.037 �0.384 0.773 �0.024 �0.130 �0.028

Self-reliance �0.294 0.501 0.250 0.017 0.300 �0.467 0.253 0.012 0.253 �0.510Trainability �0.170 0.805 �0.068 0.313 0.107 �0.059 0.821 0.177 �0.109 0.091

Excitability 0.848 �0.087 0.278 �0.023 0.001 0.780 �0.292 �0.085 0.242 0.179

Friendliness toward people 0.036 0.245 0.106 0.818 �0.091 0.049 0.199 0.858 �0.130 0.040

Curiosity �0.012 0.113 0.812 �0.053 0.019 �0.700 �0.366 0.096 0.092 0.094

Memory �0.163 0.745 0.009 0.403 0.103 �0.097 0.751 0.317 0.086 0.138

Panic 0.869 �0.224 0.182 0.025 �0.036 0.857 �0.240 �0.115 0.201 0.147

Cooperation �0.086 0.239 0.105 0.706 0.331 �0.040 0.320 0.793 �0.025 �0.280

Inconsistent emotionality 0.745 �0.155 0.165 �0.166 0.007 0.663 �0.111 �0.216 0.470 �0.143

Stubbornness 0.501 �0.201 0.386 �0.450 �0.073 0.389 �0.375 �0.324 0.506 0.212

Docility �0.531 0.369 �0.266 0.407 0.035 �0.216 0.674 0.426 �0.249 �0.060

Vigilance 0.874 0.091 �0.159 �0.047 0.098 0.857 �0.071 �0.128 0.017 0.051

Perseverance �0.415 0.648 �0.458 0.074 �0.149 �0.264 0.630 0.350 �0.336 �0.112

Friendliness toward horses �0.062 0.183 0.536 0.476 0.009 �0.296 0.184 0.597 �0.092 0.467Competitiveness 0.159 0.016 0.393 �0.624 �0.077 �0.069 �0.154 �0.072 0.834 0.014

Skittishness 0.820 �0.035 �0.049 �0.089 �0.044 0.890 �0.284 0.097 �0.079 0.052

Timidity 0.627 0.158 �0.119 �0.041 0.001 0.801 �0.106 �0.037 �0.153 0.205

Gate entrance �0.142 0.078 �0.015 0.164 0.938 �0.339 �0.196 0.105 �0.193 �0.766

Bold italic font indicates that the item’s absolute value is more than 0.4, which indicates that the item belongs to the given factor. The items that belong to a certain factor in

both groups are underlined.

The factors extracted from both surveys were compared to find what factors were

conserved. To assess the internal consistency of the conserved factor, we also calculated

Cronbach’s a reliability coefficients on common items that belonged to each conserved

factor.

3. Results

In both surveys, five factors were extracted by factor analysis, because the eigenvalues

for factor 5 were 1.065 and 1.111 and those for factor 6 were 0.860 and 0.782 in the 2002

and 2003 surveys, respectively. The five factors together accounted for 71.4% and 75.5% of

the common variance, respectively, and each item belonged to one or more of the five

factors (the absolute value of factor loading was more than 0.4). Factor loadings of each

analysis are shown in Table 2.

By comparison of the factor structure of both the surveys, we found that seven items

(‘Nervousness’, ‘Excitability’, ‘Panic’, ‘Inconsistent emotionality’, ‘Vigilance’, ‘Skit-

tishness’, and ‘Timidity’) belonged to factor 1 of both surveys. Four items

(‘Concentration’, ‘Trainability’, ‘Memory’, and ‘Perseverance’) belonged to factor 2 of

both surveys, and another four items (‘Friendliness toward people’, ‘Cooperation’,

‘Docility’, and ‘Friendliness toward horses’) belonged to factor 4 of the 2002 survey and

factor 3 of the 2003 survey. ‘Gate entrance’ was the only item that belonged to factor 5 of

both surveys. Factor 3 in 2002 and factor 4 in 2003 were not extracted in the other study.

Cronbach’s a reliability coefficients on the mutual items of each conserved factor are

shown in Table 3. Although Cronbach’s a reliability coefficients of factor 5 in both surveys

could not be calculated because only one question item belonged to this factor, the other

three factors had sufficient internal consistency in both surveys.

4. Discussion

In this study, the questionnaire surveys for equine temperament were carried out in two

separate horse groups. In both surveys, five factors were extracted and four factors were

Y. Momozawa et al. / Applied Animal Behaviour Science 92 (2005) 77–84 81

Table 3

Cronbach’s a reliability coefficients for conserved factors

Factor Expected factor name Cronbach’s a

2002 2003 2002 2003

Factor 1 Factor 1 Anxiety 0.917 0.942

Factor 2 Factor 2 Trainability 0.834 0.835

Factor 4 Factor 3 Affability 0.673 0.792

Factor 5 Factor 5 Gate entrance – –

Cronbach’s a reliability coefficients were calculated on common items of ‘Nervousness’, ‘Excitability’, ‘Panic’,

‘Inconsistent emotionality’, ‘Vigilance’, ‘Skittishness’, and ‘Timidity’ for factor 1; ‘Concentration’, ‘Train-

ability’, ‘Memory’, and ‘Perseverance’ for factor 2, and ‘Friendliness toward people’, ‘Cooperation’, ‘Docility’,

and ‘Friendliness toward horses’ for the third factor. Cronbach’s a reliability coefficients for the last factor could

not be calculated because only one item ‘Gate entrance’ belonged to it.

approximately conserved. Among them, three factors had sufficient internal consistency to

be considered representative.

On questionnaire items belonging to the conserved four factors, each factor was

considered to indicate as follows. The seven items belonging to factor 1, ‘Nervousness’,

‘Excitability’, ‘Panic’, ‘Inconsistent emotionality’, ‘Vigilance’, ‘Skittishness’, and

‘Timidity’, were summarized with the term ‘Anxiety’. Factor 2 was termed ‘Trainability’

based on ‘Concentration’, ‘Trainability’, ‘Memory’, and ‘Perseverance’. Factor 4 in the

2002 survey and factor 3 in the 2003 survey were named ‘Affability’, based on

‘Friendliness toward people’, ‘Cooperation’, ‘Docility’, and ‘Friendliness toward horses’.

As only ‘Gate entrance’ belonged to factor 5, it retained the name ‘Gate entrance’. Since

these four factors were conserved in both surveys, professional caretakers might consider

that they represent true temperamental traits of this class of horses.

In the two surveys we conducted, the ‘Anxiety’ trait was consistently extracted by factor

analysis, and the data demonstrated sufficient internal consistency. It might be irrelevant to

compare the factors extracted in this study with those from our previous study (Momozawa

et al., 2003) because the two studies used different question items and subjects with various

breeds and backgrounds. However, it appears noteworthy that the ‘Anxiety’ trait was

extracted in two different questionnaire studies, since the ‘Anxiety’ trait is particularly

important for establishing a desirable human–horse relationship in various situations such

as riding, training and daily cares. In this context, Morris et al. (2002a) observed high inter-

correlations in the ranking of horses for two dimensions: neuroticism and extraversion,

using the revised NEO Personality Inventory for human beings (Costa and McCrae, 1992).

In another study by Morris et al. (2002b), it was also reported that neuroticism and

extraversion were rated with highest confidence by the respondents. It seems likely that

neuroticism in their reports corresponds to ‘Anxiety’ in our study, and the results obtained

from these independent studies appear consistent. On the other hand, we reported that the

horses evaluated as highly anxious by the caretakers tended to show greater heart rate

increases and defecate more often during exposure to novelty stimuli than did the other

horses (Momozawa et al., 2003). Similarly, Visser et al. (2003a) found a significant

relationship between the riders’ rating scores and the extent of heart rate increase. Taken

together, it seems likely that ‘Anxiety’ is a trait that can be assessed more reliably and

correctly in comparison to other temperamental traits of the horse by either questionnaire

surveys or behavior tests. Therefore, the first candidate trait of equine temperament to be

investigated for its genetic background appears to be the ‘Anxiety’ trait. This is also in

agreement with the concept that has been drawn from earlier studies in various species (See

review; Boissy, 1995).

Factor analyses of the two surveys revealed that ‘Anxiety’ and ‘Trainability’ were

independent of each other, although there were contradicting data in previous studies about

the relationship between these two traits. Using behavior tests, some studies suggested a

close relationship (Heird et al., 1986a, 1986b), but other finding did not support this (Visser

et al., 2003b). One reason for this discrepancy is the difference in assessments traits, i.e. the

use of questionnaire surveys and behavioral tests. In the case of behavioral tests, learning

ability would be assessed under only an experimental condition. This might introduce a

confounding factor, since other temperamental traits such as nervousness and/or

excitability would disturb learning ability. In other words, it would be difficult to assess

Y. Momozawa et al. / Applied Animal Behaviour Science 92 (2005) 77–8482

learning ability without other temperamental factors using a behavior test. On the other

hand, the questionnaire survey to professional caretakers could assess learning ability more

comprehensively and precisely, because respondents could observe equine learning ability

under various circumstances.

In our previous study (Momozawa et al., 2003), we used horses of various breeds and

backgrounds, inevitably making the interpretation of results ambiguous. In the present

study we, therefore, tried to simplify the experimental condition by using only

thoroughbreds of the same age being kept under virtually identical environments. This is an

advantage in the present study. However, we need to be careful in extrapolating the present

finding to horses of other backgrounds, as it was suggested that differences in either the

breed (Mader and Price, 1980; Hausberger and Muller, 2002), age (Mader and Price, 1980;

Visser et al., 2002), social environment (Sondergaard and Ladewig, 2004) or the stage of

training (Visser et al., 2002) could influence equine temperament. For example, behavioral

traits associated with entering the starting gate would only be important for racehorses,

whereas those related to trailer entrance might be more important for non-racing riding

horses, in general.

In conclusion, the newly developed questionnaire in this study could assess four traits of

equine temperament, namely ‘Anxiety’, ‘Trainability’, ‘Affability’, and ‘‘Gate entrance’,

whose factor structure was conserved in the two separate horse groups. Among them,

precise assessment about ‘Anxiety’, ‘Trainability’, and ‘Affability’ would be possible,

since they had sufficient internal consistency. These results suggest that the improved

questionnaire survey in this study is good for practical use. This survey will be a good tool

for future studies of equine temperament such as attempts to gain an understanding of

genetic background like those studies recently conducted in humans and dogs (Reif and

Lesch, 2003; Takeuchi and Houpt, 2003).

Acknowledgements

The authors thank the staff of Hidaka Yearling Training Farm (Japan Racing

Association) for their kind help in this study. This work was supported by a grant-in-aid for

scientific research from the Ministry of Education, Science, Sports, Culture and

Technology of Japan.

References

Anderson, M.K., Friend, T.H., Evans, J.W., Bushong, D.M., 1999. Behavioral assessment of horses in therapeutic

riding programs. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 63, 11–24.

Boissy, A., 1995. Fear and fearfulness in animals. Q. Rev. Biol. 70, 165–191.

Costa Jr., P.T., McCrae, R.R., 1992. Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R) and NEO Five Factor

Inventory (NEO-FFI) Professional Manual. Psychological Assessment Resources, Odessa FL/Lutz, FL.

Hada, T., Onaka, T., Kusunose, R., Yagi, K., 2001. Effects of novel environmental stimuli on neuroendocrine

activity in thoroughbred horses. J. Equine Sci. 12, 33–38.

Hausberger, A., Muller, C., 2002. A brief note on some possible factors involved in the reactions of horses to

humans. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 76, 339–344.

Y. Momozawa et al. / Applied Animal Behaviour Science 92 (2005) 77–84 83

Heird, J.C., Lokey, C.E., Cogan, D.C., 1986a. Repeatability and comparison of 2 maze tests to measure learning-

ability in horses. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 16, 103–119.

Heird, J.C., Whitaker, D.D., Bell, R.W., Ramsey, C.B., Lokey, C.E., 1986b. The Effects of handling at different

ages on the subsequent learning-ability of 2-year-old horses. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 15, 15–25.

Jezierski, T., Jaworski, Z., Gorecka, A., 1999. Effects of handling on behaviour and heart rate in Konik horses:

comparison of stable and forest reared youngstock. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 62, 1–11.

Kijima, N., Saito, R., Takeuchi, M., Yoshino, A., Ohno, Y., Kato, M., Kitamura, T., 1996. Cloninger’s seven-factor

model of temperament and character and Japanese version of Temperament and Character Inventory (TCI).

Seishinka Shindangaku 7, 379–399 (in Japanese).

LeScolan, N., Hausberger, M., Wolff, A., 1997. Stability over situations in temperamental traits of horses as

revealed by experimental and scoring approaches. Behav. Processes 41, 257–266.

Mackenzie, S.A., Thiboutot, E., 1997. Stimulus reactivity tests for the domestic horse (Equus caballus). Equine

Pract. 19, 21–22.

Mader, D.R., Price, E.O., 1980. Discrimination-learning in horses—effects of breed age and social-dominance. J.

Anim. Sci. 50, 962–965.

McCann, J.S., Heird, J.C., Bell, R.W., Lutherer, L.O., 1988. Normal and more highly reactive horses.1 Heart-rate

respiration rate and behavioral observations. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 19, 201–214.

Momozawa, Y., Ono, T., Sato, F., Kikusui, T., Takeuchi, Y., Mori, Y., Kusunose, R., 2003. Assessment of equine

temperament by a questionnaire survey to caretakers and evaluation of its reliability by simultaneous behavior

test. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 84, 127–138.

Morris, P.H., Gale, A., Duffy, K., 2002a. Can judges agree on the personality of horses? Pers. Individ. Differ. 33,

67–81.

Morris, P.H., Gale, A., Howe, S., 2002b. The factor structure of horse personality. Anthrozoos. 15, 300–322.

Reif, A., Lesch, K.P., 2003. Toward a molecular architecture of personality. Behav. Brain Res. 139, 1–20.

Seaman, S.C., Davidson, H.P.B., Waran, N.K., 2002. How reliable is temperament assessment in the domestic

horse (Equus caballus)? Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 78, 175–191.

Sondergaard, E., Ladewig, J., 2004. Group housing exerts a positive effect on the behaviour of young horses during

training. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 87, 105–118.

Takeuchi, Y., Houpt, K.A., 2003. Behavior genetics. Vet. Clin. N. Am.-Small Anim. Pract. 33, 345–363.

Visser, E.K., van Reenen, C.G., Hopster, H., Schilder, M.B.H., Knaap, J.H., Barneveld, A., Blokhuis, H.J., 2001.

Quantifying aspects of young horses’ temperament: consistency of behavioural variables. Appl. Anim. Behav.

Sci. 74, 241–258.

Visser, E.K., van Reenen, C.G., van der Werf, J.T.N., Schilder, M.B.H., Knaap, J.H., Barneveld, A., Blokhuis, H.J.,

2002. Heart rate and heart rate variability during a novel object test and a handling test in young horses.

Physiol. Behav. 76, 289–296.

Visser, E.K., van Reenen, C.G., Rundgren, M., Zetterovist, M., Morgan, K., Blokhuis, H.J., 2003a. Responses of

horses in behavioural tests correlate with temperament assessed by riders. Equine Vet. J. 35, 176–183.

Visser, E.K., van Reenen, C.G., Schilder, M.B.H., Barneveld, A., Blokhuis, H., 2003b. Learning performances in

young horses using two different learning tests. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 80, 311–326.

Yoshimura, K., Ono, Y., Nakamura, K., Nathan, J.H., Suzuki, K., 2001. Validation of the Japanese version of the

NEO five-factor inventory in a large community sample. Psychol. Rep. 88, 443–449.

Y. Momozawa et al. / Applied Animal Behaviour Science 92 (2005) 77–8484