This paper argues that many of the terms commonly used to describe horses’ “problem” behaviours—words like evasion, resistance, or disobedience—are outdated and misleading. These labels tend to put the blame on the horse, implying that the horse is refusing to do what the human wants, instead of recognizing that the behaviour may be caused by physical discomfort, confusion, stress, fear, or conflicting motivations that aren’t under the horse’s control.

The authors point out that traditional equestrian language often reflects human-centered thinking (anthropocentrism), projecting human motives onto horses rather than considering the horse’s lived experience. When we call a horse stubborn or disobedient, we risk ignoring the real reasons the horse is reacting the way it is—including pain, misunderstanding of the cue, or fear.

To address this, the paper proposes re-defining the term “conflict behaviour.” Instead of assuming fault lies with the horse, conflict behaviour should be understood as any response that reflects competing motivations—for example, when a horse wants to avoid discomfort yet is being asked to perform a task that causes stress or pain. These responses can range from very subtle signs to repeated overt reactions.

By updating how we talk about and interpret unwanted behaviour, the authors argue that trainers, riders, and caregivers can better recognize underlying issues, improve welfare, and move toward more humane and scientifically grounded interaction with horses.