ArticleAnimal welfare (South Mimms, England)2026
"
Article in Animal welfare (South Mimms, England), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
High profile equestrians set an example for equestrian culture as well as public perception of horse sports. The present instrumental case study considers two incidents shared across social media. One is a dressage session featuring an elite equestrian striking at a horse 24 times with a long whip during a two-minute video. The second scenario shows a high-profile rider whipping and spurring a horse for a jump refusal during an international showjumping competition. We collected (and anonymised) 416 social media responses from a performance horse welfare equestrian group, general horse welfare advocacy groups, and public comments on the case videos. Using discourse analysis, we aimed to examine: (1) how individuals respond to the potentially welfare-compromising actions of high-profile equestrians; (2) what the responses tell us about people's attitudes towards performance horses and their welfare; and (3) what we can learn about the social construction of animal welfare. Two polarised discourses encompassing the topics of the equestrians, the horse, the practice, and the industry are described. Findings demonstrate how enculturated practices and attitudes may prompt moral disengagement from potential horse welfare issues. We suggest that tribalism between those who support the horse training practices observed and other members of society may underpin the observed polarisation of views on horse welfare. Furthermore, this case study provides insight into the social construction of animal welfare in a social media setting. Consideration of these findings brings important insight into the sociocultural barriers and opportunities for the promotion of improved animal welfare.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.