Signed in as:
filler@godaddy.com
The 3Cs of Equine Well-being
by Emily Kieson PhD, MS, PgDip and Jessie Sams CAAB
Equine well-being isn’t only about what horses have (food, turnout, shelter, veterinary care), it’s also about what horses can do: influence their experiences, express preferences, and be heard. The “3 Cs”: Choice, Consent, and Communication offer a practical framework for improving welfare by strengthening a horse’s agency within daily handling, training, and equine-assisted services (EAS). When we build practices around the 3 Cs, we reduce stress, increase predictability and safety, and support healthier, more trusting relationships between horses and humans.
1) Choice: Agency as a foundation of safety
Choice is “an act of selecting or making a decision when faced with two or more possibilities.” In practice, choice means a horse has real options, not just “do it now” or “be forced.” Even small degrees of control over interactions and environments can reduce stress and increase feelings of safety.
Choice matters because it supports agency which is the ability to influence what happens next. When horses can choose how to engage (or whether to engage at all), they aren’t simply coping with events; they’re actively participating in them. Over time, this can improve self-regulation: the horse learns that calm signaling, curiosity, stepping forward, or stepping away are meaningful actions that change outcomes. And once a horse experiences that their behavior “works” to communicate needs, the relationship often becomes clearer and less conflict-based.
What does choice look like day-to-day?
• Allowing the horse to approach the halter rather than being cornered.
• Offering two acceptable options (e.g., “walk with me” or “pause here,” then try again).
• Building in “break stations” where the horse can rest, breathe, and reset.
• Creating stable routines and predictable signals so the horse can make informed decisions.
Choice is not the absence of structure. It’s structured freedom: clear boundaries with meaningful options inside them and the ability for horses to engage freely in a way that makes sense to them.
2) Consent: Moving from compliance to assent
Consent is commonly defined as giving approval after consideration or, alternatively, submission/compliance to what another proposes. In equine contexts, that distinction matters. Many horse–human interactions “work” because horses comply, not necessarily because they agree.
Because horses cannot provide informed consent in the way humans do, the goal is often implied consent through assent and dissent:
• Assent: willingness to participate (the “yes”).
• Dissent: objection and the ability to say “no” or opt out (the “no”).
In welfare-centered practice, we treat assent and dissent as meaningful. A horse’s participation becomes information: Is the horse choosing this interaction? Are they showing comfort, curiosity, and willingness? Or are they showing avoidance, tension, shutdown, or escalation? Consent and trust are deeply intertwined; when dissent is punished or ignored, trust erodes. When dissent is respected, predictability increases and predictability is one of the fastest ways to build safety.
In EAS and traditional riding, consent becomes especially important because the work can include constraints (time schedules, lesson plans, mounted sessions, therapy goals). Some elements may need to remain (for example, mounted work for hippotherapy). The 3 Cs framework doesn’t deny those realities. Instead it asks: How do we design the experience so the horse has as much agency as possible within necessary constraints?
Practical ways to honor consent:
• Notice early “no thank you” signals (orientation away, tension, freezing, tail swishing, head elevation) before they become “loud.”
• Provide off-ramps: pause, step back, change the demand, or end the session when the horse is telling you they’re done.
• Use informed humans as ethical proxies. These dedicated individuals (known as Equine Advocates) make decisions that prioritize the horse’s welfare and are trained in interpreting communication signals as part of consent.
Choice is often the pathway to consent: when a horse can choose, assent becomes possible.
3) Communication: Making it mutual, not one-way
Communication is the transmission of information: horse to horse, human to horse, and horse to human. Horses communicate heavily through behavior and olfaction, and their bodies are constantly “speaking.” Yet in many traditional settings (including some EAS and traditional riding contexts), communication is treated as largely one-directional: humans cue, horses comply.
The 3 Cs framework reframes communication as mutual. Mutual communication requires a shared “language”, a set of signals both parties can understand, and a relationship context that supports honest expression. That means the human must be willing to listen, respond consistently, and maintain a sense of safety so the horse can communicate without fear of punishment for what they say.
When horses are allowed free expression (without immediate correction or escalation) humans gain richer information about the horse’s emotional and psychological state. Communication then becomes the mechanism by which choice and consent are expressed and negotiated.
Examples of communication-centered practice:
• Treating movement, posture, and attention as valid “answers,” not resistance.
• Training predictable signals (“start,” “pause,” “end”) so the horse can anticipate and respond.
• Rewarding attempts at communication (especially subtle ones) so the horse doesn’t have to escalate to be understood.
Where the 3 Cs fit in real practice
The most important question isn’t whether your work involves riding, therapy, performance, or companion care. It’s this:
Where can we increase choice, clarify consent, and improve communication in every aspect of horse-human interaction?
Sometimes that means changing how we begin an interaction (inviting approach instead of capturing). Sometimes it means changing how we respond to “no” (pausing instead of pushing through). Often, it means building shared signals that make the horse’s experience more predictable and therefore safer. A key element is understanding that control does not equal safety. Instead, recognizing, listening, and responding to equine behavior through a better understanding of equine choice and communication can lead to a more through recognition of what the equine feels. This understanding results in more appropriate responses, a horse that feels safer (because their human is listening), and humans and horses that are more aware of one another and able to respond in ways that create safer spaces.
The 3 Cs are not a soft ideal. They are a welfare strategy: a way to reduce stress, improve learning, support self-regulation, and build relationships grounded in trust. And when horses experience agency in their lives, their well-being becomes something we do with them, not something we manage for them.
References available for download
A Summary of Inter-Species Relational Theory
by Emily Kieson PhD, MS, PgDip
Inter-species relational theory posits that meaningful connections between species emerge from a dynamic interplay of trust, communication, and shared understanding over time, influenced by the subjective perception of resources and the context of working and emotional relationships. The fundamental building blocks of these concepts are defined by time and proximity, consistency of interactions from which predictability arises that further helps the development of trust and communication, the adaptability of each player to understand and adapt to the needs and desires of the other, and a willingness to accept alternative forms of communication and social bonding strategies.
The following theoretical principles apply to all species, but the social bonding underpinnings relate to species and individuals who are, by evolution or individually inclined towards social behaviors.
The main pillars of this theory can be broken into three categories: Trust, Communication, and Emotional Bonding.
Trust
Trust serves as the foundation for all relational interactions since no interactions can occur to develop a relationship unless trust is built. The factors contributing to trust can be further broken down into the elements of time, spatial proximity (or perceived spatial proximity), and predictability through consistent interactions. All of these are foundations of concepts of safety which begins with physical safety prior to experiencing emotional and social safety. Time and spatial proximity first must be initiated at a level that is just outside the zone with which the individual would otherwise feel threatened (e.g. the “flight zone”). This differs for every individual and, if the proximity is not maintained to the degree of the individual’s comfort, the individual will likely flee or, if feeling cornered, could exhibit behaviors indicating a need to fight off a potential threat. If the individual has been in the domestic world and experienced circumstances where exhibiting specific behaviors is likely to decrease future aversive interactions, the individual may also display these behaviors (known as “please” or “appease”). The new individual must stay outside of that specific space in order to build on trust. The physical presence of the new individual in this space (Proximity) for extended periods of time (Time) and repeated over a series of new interactions (each time they see one another this same process is repeated) (Consistency), provides Predictability for physical safety.
Once initial physical safety is established, the spatial proximity can grow smaller, with both individuals determining their own level of safety within the spatial proximity. This may mean that the two become physically closer and physical trust needs to once again be established each time the physical proximity becomes closer.
These same stages are also at play within families and between mother/father and offspring. In these settings, however, the young is often unaware or unable to facilitate their own choices and the interactions that take place during this time can shape how the individual builds trust when they grow older.
Communication
The development of relationships between individuals must also include the creating of a common language with which to understand the needs and desires of the other and to express one’s own desires and needs. This can only be achieved once trust has been achieved. Communication can be vocal (or verbal), behavioral (including touch, proximity, and physical interactions), or olfactory, and may also include senses that are unique to the individual species. Basic communication tools are first defined by the species and later shaped by the unique experiences of the individual animal based on communication strategies within and without their own species. Previous success or failures with communication strategies will shape how they approach new interactions. In the case of domestic species, it can be helpful to understand their previous experiences with communicating prior to attempting to understand or interpret new attempts at communication.
The development of communication between two individuals is built over time and begins with a series of consistent interactions that give meaning to a single behavior, behavioral interaction, or others cue. Once a series of interactions has been built up, the series of interactions becomes a language around which each individual can communicate their own needs and desires in a way that the other comprehends. With the exception of dogs and humans where dogs were bred to both understand and provide communication behaviors that align with those of humans, all other inter-species relationships require the building of a language.
This building of communication further builds on trust and continues the process of give and take and predictability within the trust foundation. This specific way of building a predictable pattern of communication and response facilitates the development of an economic system that creates a working relationship between the two individuals. Trust may need to be broken and rebuilt over the course of this process which can be described in the “Rupture and Repair” process of relationship building.
It is in this pillar that we also take into consideration the role of resources and what resources are considered scarce versus plentiful for the individual and how trust and social and emotional bonding play out with regards to communication. For some species food is a restricted resource whereas, like in herbivores, food is not a restricted resource, but time, space, and companions may be. The types of communication that occur within these spaces is context-specific and plays a role in how the relationship develops based on contextual elements.
Emotional Bonding
Emotional Bonding is the third stage and final part of the theory. This is where all of the elements of trust and communication are at play and continue to be broken and reestablished throughout the duration of the relationship. In the emotional bonding pillar, we start to look at how emotional bonding develops over the developmental stages (at the species level) as well as for the individual and how communication tools of social and emotional bonding help shape the communication used to initiate, respond, and foster these relationships.
Within the emotional and social bonding, it’s important to consider the motivation of each individual to engage at this level and when and how they initiate the behaviors that align with this pillar. These may include fear and stress (Tend and Befriend), chronic coping or loneliness (as a need for social connection rather than a desire for specific companions), or specific desire for companionship with a chosen individual. The context for the development of social and emotional bonding needs to be considered to determine the motivation and desire for social connection which can help with understanding the behaviors expressed in this stage.
Play also plays a huge role in emotional bonding and inter-species play takes into consideration all of the above elements.
Additional considerations
The underlying behaviors for each of these categories is primarily driven by genetic predisposition at the species level and further changed by choices and experiences of the individual. The role of stress and physiological arousal at each stage cannot be underestimated as does the individual experiences of each player with regards to their history with each pillar and stage.
This is a summary of Interspecies Relational Theory. Each of the pillars and stages described is complex with additional elements that play key roles in the development of relationships between animal species as well as between humans and nonhuman species.
Kieson, E. (2025). Interspecies Relational Theory: A Framework for Compassionate Interspecies Interactions. Veterinary Sciences, 12(6), 586. https://doi.org/10.3390/vetsci12060586
