DEMOGRAPHICS, IMPACTS, & MOTIVATIONS OF MICHIGAN 4-H HORSE JUDGES By Maria Rose Rising A THESIS Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements Submitted to for the degree of Animal Science – Master of Science 2019 DEMOGRAPHICS, IMPACTS, & MOTIVATIONS OF MICHIGAN 4-H HORSE JUDGES ABSTRACT By Maria Rose Rising The horse industry is a thriving, diverse industry with many breeds, disciplines, and levels of competition. Horse judges are a focal point of horse shows, given that their opinions are central to the competitive activity. There is very little known about horse judges, although, a survey done by Skelly et al. (2005) at an equine extension workshop found only 4% of respondents were comfortable with the current state of horse show ethics and 70% of respondents felt it was the judges’ responsibility to uphold ethics at horses shows, showing dissatisfaction with judges. The Michigan 4-H Horse Judges survey was developed with the aims of identifying demographic information, motivations for becoming a horse judge, and how judges gained their horse judging skills. The results showed that the current average age of surveyed judges was 48.6 years, with a range from 23 to 81. Respondents identified judging an average of 15 shows per year, for a total of 790 shows represented annually (n=53). Respondents identified primary positive themes of being a 4-H horse judge as the educational atmosphere, meeting people, and personal and professional fulfillment. The top negative themes included negative attitudes, long days, poor weather, and time away from family. Respondents also identified their motivations for becoming judges as giving back, helping others, and working with horses and youth; all of which may enhance the quality of life of judges and exhibitors. This information is important as it informs both the literature for future research on the horse judging experience, as well as the impacts of 4-H horse judging activities. for being the best horse any little girl could dream of Dedicated to QD, iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS First, I like to thank my advisor, Dr. Karen Waite, for her never-ending support, patience, willingness to take on an additional task of mentoring a graduate student. Having you as my advisor, mentor, teacher, and friend is one of the best things to happen to me. You have inspired me to achieve at a level higher than I thought possible and your guidance and encouragement during the process are invaluable, because of you I am writing this thesis and pursuing a graduate degree and for that I can never thank you enough. Next, I would also like to thank my committee members for their support throughout my program. Dr. Tasia Taxis, whose passion for agriculture, science, teaching, and life is truly inspiring. Dr. Zach Hambrick, for all the thought-provoking conversations and ideas I will be spending my career trying to figure out, and Dr. David Denniston, for inspiring me to think more broadly on my research. I also would like to thank my parents for everything they have done and continue to do for me. I could not have accomplished anything without the love, support, and life lessons they have taught me, even if they still believe horses are a phase for me. In addition, I would also like to thank my life partner Charlie. I could not have made it through without my biggest cheerleader and supporter. You are, and continue to be, my favorite person. Lastly, to my friends that supported me along the way. Taylor Fabus, whose humor, work ethic, and commitment to the horse industry are truly inspiring and her friendship has made the best experience even better for me. Christopher Davis, for iv listening to my ideas, helping as a writer, and always being up for a chat and dessert. Natasha Digne, for being with me from the beginning of grad school, our friendship is worth more than any degree but I’m really proud we are both graduating. v TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES............................................................................................................vii LIST OF FIGURES.........................................................................................................viii KEY ABBREVIATIONS....................................................................................................ix CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION.........................................................................................1 STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM .......................................................................2 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW...............................................................................4 Organization of the Horse Industry in the United States........................................4 Identifying Horse Judging Experts..............................................................7 The Michigan 4-H Horse Judges Application Process…............................8 Decision Making...................................................................................................12 Information Sources in Judgement Decisions...........................................15 Gaps in Literature ...............................................................................................16 CHAPTER 3 RESULTS..................................................................................................17 Methods...............................................................................................................17 Survey Population.....................................................................................17 Results & Discussion...........................................................................................18 Demographics...........................................................................................18 Judging Experience...................................................................................20 Benefits & Drawbacks...............................................................................23 Judging Income.........................................................................................25 Gaining Skill in Judging.............................................................................27 Other Organizations..................................................................................28 Involvement in Industry.............................................................................29 Show Demographics.................................................................................32 Breed Preferences....................................................................................33 Conclusions.........................................................................................................35 APPENDICES................................................................................................................38 APPENDIX A: MSU IRB Approval.......................................................................39 APPENDIX B: Survey Contact Letter...................................................................43 APPENDIX C: Survey..........................................................................................45 APPENDIX D: MI 4-H Judges Evaluation Form...................................................57 APPENDIX E: MI 4-H Judges Recommendation Form.......................................59 REFERENCES …...........................................................................................................61 vi LIST OF TABLES Table 1 Years of Experience in the Horse Industry and on the Michigan 4-H Horse Judges List......................................................................................................................20 Table 2 Ages for Taking and Giving First and Last Lessons..........................................30 Table 3 Breed of Horse with the Most Experience by Response...................................34 Table 4 Breed Type with the Most Experience by Respondent......................................35 vii LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Michigan 4-H Horse Judges Application Process.............................................11 Figure 2 Current Age Distribution of Michigan 4-H Horse Judges..................................18 Figure 3 Average Number of Shows Judged by Michigan 4-H Horse Judges Per Year................................................................................................................................32 Figure 4 Reported Average Ranges of Distances Traveled by Michigan 4-H Horse Judges to Judge Horse Shows.......................................................................................33 viii KEY TO ABBREVIATIONS AQHA American Quarter Horse Association AHA Arabian Horse Association USEF United States Equestrian Federation APHA American Paint Horse Association POA Pony of the Americas ABRA American Buckskin Registry Association IBRA International Barrel Racing Association APtHA American Pinto Horse Association ARHA American Ranch Horse Association AMHA American Miniature Horse Association ASPC American Shetland Pony Club NSBA National Snaffle Bit Association AMHR American Morgan Horse Registry WDAA Western Dressage Association of America FQHR Foundation Quarter Horse Registry NWHA National Walking Horse Association GVHA Gypsy Vanner Horse Association AHA Arabian Horse Association PHBA Palomino Horse Breeders Association ix APHA American Paint Horse Association ADS American Driving Society ApHC Appaloosa Horse Club NRHA National Reining Horse Association NRCHA National Reined Cow Horse Association ASPR American Show Pony Registry ISHA Intercollegiate Horse Shows Association x CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Today, there are 7.2 million horses in the United States with most of them used for recreational purposes. According to the American Horse Council (2017), 2.7 million horses are shown competitively while only 845,000 horses race. Horse shows include many different events including equitation, jumping, reining, conformation, and others (Parker, 2013, p. 45-47). Horse shows need experts in the specifications and rules in order to rank or place competitors. These experts are called horse judges. Although, there are association guidelines in equestrian events (USEF, AQHA, NRHA) for judges to follow and use to make their decisions, there is still subjectivity in decisions made by judges (Waguespack & Salomon, 2015) not unlike other sports. Many contests are decided based on a judge’s decisions, including boxing (Waguespack, & Salomon, 2015), snowboarding, synchronized swimming, and figure skating (Plessner, 1999). Some of the most well-known cases of subjectivity in sport are in Olympic Figure skating or gymnastics, where subjectivity has allowed for skewed scoring and bias during the Olympic games (Guttentag, 1973). Many equestrian events are highly stressful and fast paced, and this along with the subjectivity of the sport make judging very difficult. (Hawson, McLean, & McGreevy, 2010). Due to the subjectivity and judging difficulty, anecdotal evidence showing controversy and ethical issues within horse shows can be seen on social media and at horse shows themselves. These issues may include wide variety of things such as exhibitor or horse safety, professional integrity, or fairness of judging decisions. Many organizations, including AQHA (2017), USEF (2017), and the Michigan 4-H Horse 1 Judges List (2017), have codes of conduct that include ethical guidelines mentioning integrity, honesty, and welfare. Although, the lines between ethical issues, ignorance, and lack of education can often be hard to distinguish from one another, which can make addressing these issues difficult. As a result of this anecdotal evidence, an equine extension event titled “Horse Show Ethics; How do you place?” was held and a survey conducted at this event found that 93% of 45 participants found horse show ethics to be very important (Skelly, 2005) Then, when asked how comfortable they are with the current state of horse showing ethics only 4% chose very comfortable, while 60% were very uncomfortable. This result shows a large disconnect in the horse show industry with participants highly valuing ethics while very few are currently comfortable with the state of horse show ethics. When participants in this survey were asked who was responsible for upholding ethics, 70% of believed that it was the judge’s responsibility (Skelly et al., 2005). However, there is still a discrepancy between exhibitors’ discomfort with the current state of ethics in horse showing and judges upholding those ethics, possibly, due to a gap in the training or selection of judges, but more information is needed. STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM The horse industry is a massive, diverse industry with many breeds, disciplines, and levels of competition represented in the United States (Parker, 2013). Horse judges are at the center of the competitive atmosphere at horse shows, given that their opinions are the focal point of the comparisons central to the activity. Often, there is controversy surrounding horse judging decisions, not unlike other sports, and this controversy has the potential to negatively impact the horse show industry as a whole if 2 exhibitors choose to not participate in competitive events. The loss of competitive exhibitors could then have an economic impact on the horse industry as a whole. A survey conducted at a Michigan State University Extension workshop on horse show ethics found that the top five ethical concerns pertaining to horse shows were sportsmanship, horse welfare issues, violations of rules and regulations, concerns about fair judging, and parenting issues (Skelly et al., 2005). In this study, Skelly et al. (2005) also found that 76% of horse owners, trainers, judges, 4-H volunteer leaders, and parents that participated in this study felt that ethical issues at horse shows were the responsibility of the judge to uphold. Specifically, violation of rules and regulations and concerns about fair judging were directly related to horse judges. Despite how important horse judges are to the well-being of the horse show industry, very little research has been done to study professional horse judges. Little has been published with regard to the demographics of horse judges, their motivations, nor how they gain the required skills needed to fairly adjudicate, although these factors are important issues in the horse industry. Gaining insight into the development of horse judges can help improve training and assessment of these judges to continue to improve judging skill, credibility, and identify gaps in knowledge during the training and selection process, and throughout their judging careers. The purpose of this study is to identify demographic information of youth horse judges, the motivations for, and impacts of becoming youth horse judges, and how these judges gain their skills, using the Michigan 4-H Horse Judges List as a sample population. 3 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW Organization of the Horse Industry in the United States The horse industry in the United States is diverse, with 7.2 million horses of a variety of breeds represented (American Horse Council, 2017). The majority of these horses are used for recreational purposes, such as trail riding, but a significant number are used competitively. Competitive horse events include racing, rodeo, and horse shows. Horse shows are events in which horses or riders are evaluated on performance or conformation (the balance, structure, muscling, and breed character of the horse) and subsequently ranked. Horse shows may include events such as dressage, reining, jumping, eventing, endurance riding, or driving. These shows are then further divided into different breeds, ages, and skill levels within 308 different registered horse organizations recognized in the United States (American Horse Council, 2017). This allows for competitors to fit into a specific niche, and each of these governing horse organizations has its own set of rules and values. The horse industry is organized in a hierarchal system with the top being regulated by two main organizations. The United States Equestrian Federation (USEF) is considered the “national governing body of equestrian sport” (USEF, 2017). Their mission is “to provide access to and increase participation in equestrian sports at all levels by ensuring fairness, safety, and enjoyment” making them one of the largest governing organization in the United States for primarily English disciplines (i.e. jumping, dressage). The western disciplines (i.e. barrel racing, reining) are largely governed by the American Quarter Horse Association (AQHA). Although AQHA is a 4 breed specific association their rules and guidelines are used by many other equine organizations. The AQHA has helped develop traditionally American, western style riding. AQHA and USEF together host 4,425 horse shows each year in the United States (American Horse Council, 2017). There are many other large breed organizations in the horse industry at a national level, each of which may manage smaller state level affiliates, such as the Michigan Quarter Horse Association. Similarly, other national organizations are broken down into smaller regions rather than states where local shows are held. Other local shows are often open shows or horse shows that are not associated with a breed organization and often do not require a membership for participation and include a variety of breeds, disciplines, and skill levels. These open horse shows are very similar to 4-H horse shows in that they include a variety of breeds, disciplines, and skill levels. Participation in youth organizations, such as 4-H, can not only improve horsemanship but also aids in youth developing life skills such as decision making, responsibility, communication, goal setting, and problem solving (Smith, et al., 2006). 4- H is an example of an organization that uses projects such as horses to teach life skills through competitive events with 6.5 million youth ages 9 to 21 involved in a variety of projects. As part of the Land-grant University Extension System, the 4-H, mission is “to develop citizenship, leadership, responsibility and life skills of youth through experiential learning programs and a positive youth development approach” (4-H, 2017). This mission is partially achieved by youth involvement in the 4-H Horse Project, which been shown to teach youth life skills (Ward ,1996). The 4-H Horse project may also expose youth to horses who may not have had that opportunity anywhere else. This exposure 5 can build lifelong passion for horses and maintain the involvement of youth 4-H participants into adulthood, thus supporting the horse industry as a whole. 4-H youth participants also stimulate the economy in the horse industry thorough buying and selling equipment, feed, and animals. In 2018, Michigan had approximately 200,000 4- H’ers, and a large portion of those youth are involved in the Horse & Pony Project and are adding to the horse industry in Michigan through their participation in 4-H (Michigan 4-H, 2018) The Michigan 4-H Horse and Pony Project rules are developed from the USEF, AQHA and other breed specific rulebooks, as the 4-H Horse project is open to all breeds of horses. The specific rules for the 4-H Horse Project are developed further in each state. Youth competitors compete locally within their counties, which may allow youth to collect points and become eligible for state level events such as the MI State 4- H Horse Show (2016 MI 4-H Horse & Pony Rulebook). In this particular study, we are focusing on the Michigan 4-H Horse & Pony Project, which is a state-wide program. Smith et al. (2006) conducted a survey of youth horse associations, including the AQHA youth association, US Pony Clubs, and the National High School Rodeo Association, looking at life skill development through these organizations. Finding that 56% of participants had held a leadership role at some point and that horsemanship had “often” allowed youth to develop decision making, communication, goal setting, thinking, and problem-solving skills. The benefits of youth horse programs can impact not only the youth that are directly participating, but the adult volunteers and leaders, the community, and the equine industry as a whole. Smith found that 88% of participants owned their own horses, therefore, supporting the equine industry thorough purchasing 6 supplies needed for horse care and competition. The American Horse Council Survey (2017) found per capita expenses for horses in the competitive sector to average $18,186 in 2016. Smith (2006) also found that 67% of participants took care of their horses most of the time, as opposed to having the horse managed by others similar to a boarding facility, and 82% found this to be a “very important” aspect of the project, which again aids in the development of life skills. Identifying Horse Judging Experts The identification of experts is very straightforward in more objective fields, or fields with a “gold standard”, such as mathematics or accounting. Experts are simply identified by choosing the correct answer, which is known as the validity-based approach (Shanteau et al., 2003). Many industries aren’t as straightforward, including the horse industry. Organizations give judges’ cards, or accreditations to individuals that have met their specific requirements in order for others to identify them as professional horse judges. Currently each equine organization has different practices in identifying and selecting horse judges. The AQHA, AHA, USEF, and MI 4-H Judges List selection of judges all start with an application process. Applications include references from other judges, previous experiences in horse judging, and other horse experiences. There also may be a written rulebook exam or an interview following the application, which tests applicants on knowledge of the association rules, class specifications, and ethics, which is administered by a judge’s selection panel. Judges selection panels are determinted a variety of different ways based on the organization, and usually made up of other judges and equine professionals. There are differences across associations in the order of the process and some include requiring specific apprenticeships, apprentice 7 shows to judge, live judging tests, and different levels of new judges. A study by Arehart (2018), found that 20% of AQHA judges had an open horse show judge’s card before pursuing their AQHA card, or accreditation. Most associations select horse judges through peer identification, as it is one of the simplest ways to identify judges. Peer identification is where people within a field identify experts in that field. This is an effective method to use when multiple people within the field agree that an individual is an expert (Shanteau et al., 2002). One problem with this method is the “popularity effect”, where social connections are used to identify experts based on popularity rather than expertise. This approach limits expert identification to one’s peer group (Shanteau et al., 2002). Many equine organizations use this method to select judges due to the simplicity. However, there is no research on the best practices to select horse judges. The Michigan 4-H Horse Judges Application Process The training and selection of horse judges varies by the organization in which the judges are working. Currently the United States has 308 registered equine organizations (American Horse Council, 2017). Even within 4-H, each state has a different process for selecting judges for their Horse & Pony Projects with some states having no process or judging lists at all. Horse judging lists serve as resources for extension staff and show committees providing contact information for previously screened judges. The Michigan 4-H Horse Judges List has a rigorous process for selecting and maintaining horse judges, although the list does require a significant amount of time and effort. This process was developed in the 1970s at Michigan State University so that County MSU Extension (MSUE) staff and volunteers would have 8 access to a list of qualified judges that have been screened by other judges and industry leaders to uphold the 4-H mission (MI 4-H Horse Judges List, 2017). The Michigan Equine Extension Specialist and Michigan 4-H Judges Advisory Committee together devote a good portion of their time in screening and selecting new judges, reviewing current judges, and addressing any issues that arise with MI 4-H Horse Judges. The process of becoming a Michigan 4-H Horse Judge begins with a written application detailing the applicant’s horse knowledge, 4-H and youth experience, horse judging, and teaching experience. The written application also includes at least 6 evaluations from other judges and show committees. These forms evaluate the applicant in various categories including working with youth, knowledge of 4-H philosophy, character, decision making, and willingness to learn; with each category rated from excellent to poor. The evaluation form also asks for the length of time the evaluator has known the applicant and the depth of that relationship. Along with the 3 evaluations from equine professionals the applicant must also provide at least 3 performance evaluations from horse shows the applicant has already judged. These evaluations are filled out by the show committee responsible for the show and are confidential. This performance evaluation asks 15 yes or no questions about the judge’s behavior during that specific show (Appendix D). The evaluation questions ask primarily about professionalism, content knowledge, and behavior. There is also an open-ended comment section and the evaluators are asked to rate the judge’s overall performance on a scale from excellent to unsatisfactory. All of the evaluations are then sent to the Equine Extension Specialist who addresses any immediate issues and tracks 9 evaluations from all judges and applicants in Michigan (MI 4-H Horse Judges List, 2017). The Michigan 4-H Judges Advisory Committee, a volunteer group of active judges, 4-H staff, and volunteer 4-H leaders, review each application file that has been maintained by the Equine Extension Specialist. The committee structure includes the rotation of 3 committee slots each year in an attempt to avoid the perception of cronyism. The entire committee is required to attend 3 specified meetings each year. The committee is responsible for screening applicants, conducting interviews, continuing education events, and disciplinary issues related to MI 4-H Horse Judges (MI 4-H Horse Judges List, 2017). The Michigan 4-H Judges Advisory Committee uses a numerical rubric to evaluate each portion of the application process. Each part (written application, interview, and rules test) must exceed the set minimum score to proceed to the next step in the process. The use of these scoresheets was developed to reduce the subjectivity in evaluating judges and also allows applicants to know specifically where they need to improve or gain skills. All written applications that meet the numerical average requirement then proceed to a panel interview conducted by the MI 4-H Judges Advisory committee. 10 Figure 1 Michigan 4-H Horse Judges Application Process The panel interview lasts approximately 30 minutes and involves all committee members questioning applicant expertise, motivations, ethics, and decision-making skills. Portions of the interview are designed to see how the applicant will perform in stressful situations, due to the fast paced and competitive nature of horse shows. There is also a MI 4-H Horse & Pony Project rulebook present should the applicant need to review any rules to answer questions. Upon completing the interview, the applicant then must take a closed book written rulebook exam. The applicant must receive a minimum of 80% to pass the exam (MI 4-H Horse Judges List, 2017). After the interview is completed, the judge’s committee members will submit scoring rubrics to determine if the applicant met the required score for the interview and what weaknesses the applicant may have. If the applicant failed to meet the minimum score the committee will indicate areas for improvement on and the applicant can apply again in the future, with no limitations on reapplications. If the applicant meets the 11 scoring requirements for both the interview and written exam, they become Conditional Judges for up to 2 years. Conditional judges must apprentice with 3 to 5 judges that are assigned by the Michigan 4-H Judges Advisory Committee to help develop knowledge areas that may be weak. Assigned judges are usually experts in areas where the committee felt the applicant might lack expertise. After apprenticing at horse shows with assigned judges, the assigned judges fill out an evaluation for the Conditional Judge and send it to the Equine Extension Specialist. Upon receiving the required number of forms with good or excellent ratings, the Conditional Judge may advance to the MI 4-H Horse Judges List. All Michigan 4-H Horse Judges must receive at least 3 performance evaluations (Appendix D) with good or excellent ratings every 2 years, attend one conference every 3 years, and complete an annual continuing education seminar, in order to remain on the MI 4-H Judges List (MI 4-H Horse Judges List, 2017). The MI 4- H Horse Judges application process was developed to reduce subjectivity in evaluating applicants and standardize the process for all MI 4-H Horse Judges. The advantages and disadvantages of maintaining judges lists in any organization have not been previously investigated but could be a key factor in ensuring organizations have qualified, professional horse judges for their events. Decision Making The show horse industry is not completely subjective and does have some objectivity. This objectivity comes through rules and regulations and in the horse show class specifications themselves and requires a great deal of decisions to be made. For example, when looking at a conformation class, the Michigan 4-H Show Rules and Regulations (2016) description says, “Entries are to be judged on conformation, breed 12 type, quality, and way of going”. This decision may be complicated in open and 4-H shows where horses of multiple breeds may be exhibited within the same class, as different breeds have different breed type specifications complicating the process of making comparisons between them. A recent study by Arehart (2018) used complex task analysis to investigate how judges evaluate stock-type halter, or conformation, using IF/THEN statements in the judging processes. For example, IF the horse is viewed as sound, THEN direct them to line up for inspection, or IF the horse is obviously lame, THEN excuse horse from class. The 10 APHA or AQHA judges that participated in this study where interviewed on how they evaluate stock-type halter, with first impressions being most influential followed by the defined elements of conformation (balance, structural correctness, and muscling), and finally ranking criteria and severity of conformational faults by personal preference. Examples of using personal preference for evaluating faults could include one judge penalizing leg faults more heavily, or another judge prioritizing topline and balance. Individual judges largely agreed upon the defined elements of conformation, but the ranking of faults within these categories varied greatly. This study was limited to 10 judges who were over 55 years old but is important for showing evaluation variance of faults in a population of professional horse judges (Arehat, 2018). The study by Arehart (2018) also shows the intersection of subjectivity and objectivity in stock-type halter classes. This makes horse judging very difficult, and there is limited research as to how horse judges manage this complex process. There is, however, research in other sports, such as figure skating and gymnastics. Judges of figure skating and gymnastics evaluate athletes on technical (objective) skills and the 13 artistic (subjective) components of their performance; this requires more complex processing than simply identifying the absence or presence of a component. The maneuvers are evaluated not only on quality, but the style or artistic component of the maneuver (Findley & Ste-Marie, 2004). This large quantity of information makes evaluation very complex and judges must be highly skilled. Necessary skills include stored memory of sport specific regulations, short-term memory, being able to divide attention, and ability to identify small and complex differences during performances (Ste-Marie, 1999). The basis of competitive events involves participants being scored or evaluated against each other. Figure skating and gymnastics, like horse judging, involves exhibitors performing various maneuvers in a variety of different events within one competition. For example, gymnastic competitions include multiple events such as floor exercise, vault, and bars. Each of these events has different specifications. Similarly, at competitive horse shows there are a variety of events including trail, equitation, pleasure, reining, and showmanship. The judges in both sports must have a well- developed short-term memory in order to recall the entire performance in order to evaluate exhibitors fairly without the use of video replay in a fast-paced setting. Horse judging may be even more complex, as many classes involve multiple horses and exhibitors performing simultaneously. While research in horse judging is limited, one discipline that has been studied is the sport of dressage. A study by Hawson, McLean, & McGreevy (2010) found that during the 2008 Olympics Dressage, judges demonstrated considerable variability in their scores. In addition, these judges also had difficulty aligning their horse welfare 14 scores with overall performance (Hawson et al., 2010). This misalignment has not been further investigated, but it is worth noting the similarity to the complexity of judging gymnastic or figure skating based on technical and artistic components. Information Sources in Judgement Decisions A study by Phelps & Shanteau (1978) investigated how many sources of information experts use to make a decision. Most experts use multiple sources when making a judgement including doctors, court judges, and stockbrokers, but previous research showed that these experts used much less information than what was available to come to a final conclusion (Hoffman, Slovic, & Rorer, 1968; Ebbesen & Konecni, 1975). Phelps & Shanteau (1978) investigated the limitations and cognitive abilities of expert livestock judges. Livestock judges were chosen for this study for the multiple dimensions used when making decisions. The study included 7 male judges from the Kansas State University senior livestock judging team. Two approaches were used in this study. The first involved giving the judges hypothetical descriptions of 64 gilts (female pigs). The descriptions included 11 relevant characteristics,or sources of information, rated high or low quality, such as body weight, number of nipples, freeness of gait, and body length. This was repeated a week later with the same participants and an individual variance analysis was performed to see which sources were used in a comparative decision. These results showed that that 3 of 7 judges used all 11 sources, 2 used 10 sources, and 2 used 9 sources. The limited number of sources showed that judges can use 9-11 sources of information or criteria simultaneously (Phelps & Shanteau 1978). 15 The second approach, using the same sample, used pictures of gilts varying in quality. The livestock judges rated the gilts on overall quality and then on the 11 described swine characteristics from the first approach. Study participants also described their strategies and rationale for their decisions. The study results showed that 7-11 sources of the 11 total sources may have been used in the participants decisions. The limitation of having only 11 sources in total in this study may mean judges may actually use more than 11 sources of information in decision making, which would align with some classes at horse shows having more than 11 specifications to be evaluated. Gaps in Literature There is limited amount of literature regarding horse judges and their demographics with a complete lack of literature in the selection of judges and their motivation, and how they develop their expertise. There have been a few published studies looking at livestock judges in a controlled setting and the number of sources they use in decision making. There have also been studies in gymnastics and figure skating, which are similar to horse judging through having both subjective and objective components, but not exactly the same. In order to answer bigger questions of training and selection, assessment, and ethical behavior of horse judges, we must have a foundation of basic knowledge of these judges and how it is developed. As a result, the purpose of this study is to identify demographic information of youth horse judges, the motivations for, and impacts of becoming youth horse judges, and how these judges gain their skills, using the Michigan 4-H Horse Judges List as a sample population. 16 CHAPTER 3 RESULTS Methods Survey Population A survey was developed and approved by the Michigan State University Institutional Review Board (Appendix A) to meet the aims of this study. The survey included 38 questions requiring various responses including numerical values, select all that apply, and short answers. (Appendix C) The survey was designed, distributed, and analyzed electronically via QualtricsXM and StatsIQ. This survey was emailed to 91 of the 99 members of the Michigan 4-H Horse Judges List using Constant Contact. Eight members of the Michigan 4-H Horse Judges List did not provide an email address and hence did not receive the survey. The judges on the Michigan 4-H Horse Judges List have all met the requirements assigned by the Michigan 4-H Horse Judges Advisory Committee. These requirements include a multi- step application process, continuing education requirement, and yearly rulebook exam. The initial application includes recommendations from other judges and equine professionals, judging evaluations, a panel interview, 3-5 apprenticeships with existing judges, and a rulebook test. Michigan 4-H Horse Judges are also required to receive at least 3 good or excellent judging evaluations every 2 years. This study only included Michigan 4-H Horses Judges which met these requirements. The 91 of the 99 members of the Michigan 4-H Horse Judges List were contacted via email twice via email two weeks apart and the survey was open for a total of four weeks. A link to the survey was also posted on the Michigan 4-H Horse Show 17 Judges Facebook group. The response rate of the survey was 64%. Fifty-eight of the 91 recipients responded to the survey and of those 58 respondents, 50 responded to the a large portion of the survey (90% or greater of the questions answered) for an 86% complete response rate to the survey, showing that once the participants began the survey 86% completed the survey. Results & Discussion Demographics The current ages of Michigan 4-H Judges are shown below in Figure 2 with an average 48.6 ± 4.3 SD years old with a range of 23 to 81 years. The distribution of ages shown in Figure 2 also allows us to see there are MI 4-H Judges across a large spectrum of ages. The MI 4-H Judges List requires that the applicant be over 4-H age or 21 years old, not unlike AQHA (2016) which requires judges to be a minimum of 25 years old and a maximum of 75 years old or USEF (2018) which only has a minimum age requirement of 25 years old. There are many implications with the current ages of MI 4-H Judges including the large spectrum of ages on the MI 4-H Judges List. This wide range of ages show the multiple generations of people at all stages of life on the MI 4-H Judges List. This information is important to track to ensure the replenishment of the judges list with younger judges and the retention of older judges. Figure 2 Current Age Distribution of Michigan 4-H Horse Judges 18 Survey respondents were raised in a variety of different areas with 65.4% of participants coming from a rural farm, and 16.3% a non-rural farm, 12.7% in a suburban area and 5.5% in an urban area. This demographic is important to document as, college agricultural programs are seeing a rise in students from a non-agricultural backgrounds and an increasing number of students from urban areas. A survey done by Shrestha, Suvedi, & Foster (2011) at Michigan State University (MSU) found only 19% of students from rural farms, 26% from rural areas with no farm experience, 43% from suburban areas, and 10% from urban areas. For MSU this also has led to changes in curriculum and recruitment (Shrestha et al., 2011) Similar to the shift seen at MSU, a shift in the population demographic of horse judges could also mean changes in the training and recruitment processes of Michigan 4-H Horse Judges, as more younger individuals from differing demographics become Michigan 4-H Horse Judges and older judges retire. The amount and type of training required may need change to better fit this constantly evolving demographic. Participation in 4-H and FFA has been shown to play a significant role education in college student success (Park & Dryer, 2005) and life skill development (Ward, 1996). Approximately, three-quarters (74%) of horse judges surveyed were involved with 4-H and 13% were involved in both 4-H and FFA, with 13% not involved in either organization. This important implication shows that there is recruitment of people outside 4-H and FFA into this aspect of the horse industry. The fact that 18.2% of current Michigan 4-H Judges were raised in suburban and urban areas further support this implication as well. This is shows that the youth horse industry has the ability to 19 draw people from outside the traditional demographic norms to ensure the growth and longevity of the equine industry. When asked about their highest level of education, 29% of survey participants responded they had a bachelor’s degree, followed by 20% with Associates,18% with Master’s degrees, 2% with PhDs and 4% with professional degrees. No participants had less than a high school diploma with only 9% having only a high school diploma and 18% with some college completed. This data shows that approximately half of the surveyed Michigan Horse judges have at minimum a bachelor’s degree. Judging Experience Experience with both judging and horses is a key factor in the evaluation processes of not only the Michigan 4-H Judges List but also AQHA and USEF prospective judges. As seen below in Table 1, respondents have been involved in the horse industry for varying amounts of time ranging from twelve to sixty-three years. This range shows us first, the amount of experience on the MI 4-H Judges List and second, that some respondents became involved in the horse show industry and became judges relatively quickly. The age of first becoming a judge also showed similar results with some respondents becoming judges early and others later in life. Table 1 Years of Experience in the Horse Industry and on the Michigan 4-H Horse Judges List Years in Horse Industry Age 1st Becoming a Judge Years on MI 4-H Judges List Average 38.7 34.3 14.6 Standard Deviation 14.0 10.8 11.5 Median Range 40.0 31.5 8 12-63 21-60 1-42 n 54 50 54 20 Respondents were also asked open-ended questions about their motivations for initially becoming a 4-H Horse Judge, and responses were then coded for themes with 58.6% of responses including giving back to the community and youth. A few sample responses included the following “I wanted to give back to the program that helped shape me into the horse-woman I am today”, “I love horse shows and teaching, it seemed like the best way to combine the two”, and “To provide a great experience to exhibitors and use the knowledge I have learned through the years”. These data align directly with the 4-H mission of giving back to the community. The Michigan 4-H Horse Judges List application includes questions about the 4-H mission and why 4-H is important to the applicant, so it is no surprise many of the judges joined the Michigan 4- H Horse List in part because of this. There were a variety of reasons for becoming a Michigan 4-H Judge provided with other meaningful responses including passion for and staying involved in the horse industry. Responses including staying involved with the horse industry were varied, with some indicating staying involved during college, while raising a family, or during retirement were important notations. Judging allowed these individuals to be involved in the horse industry despite financial, life stage, physical limitations or other life changes. Volunteering can reduce stress and depression and increase life satisfaction and physical health at any age (Thoits & Hewitt, 2001). The effects of voluntary involvement or paid work in a meaningful organization are amplified in older adults, such as individuals during retirement (Morrow-Howell, Hinterlong, Rozario, & Tang, 2003). The increased benefit of meaningful work later in life may also be contributing to judges remaining on the MI 4-H Judges List throughout their lives or people becoming judges 21 later in life. Future research could explore the benefits of this type of paid-volunteering and life purpose through participation on the Michigan 4-H Horse Judges. Another common reason for becoming a Michigan 4-H Horse Judge was dissatisfaction with the current horse show industry or wanting to improve the current status of the horse industry (10% of responses). Some respondents suggested they were unhappy with unethical judging which was also supported by Skelly et al (2005). Skelly (2005) found there to be a dissatisfaction with unethical judging, including judges turning their heads while judging to miss faults of horse and riders in their survey of 4-H extension workshop participants. Some MI 4-H Judges survey respondents were also unhappy about the quality of judging they experienced, so they became judges to help improve the industry themselves. Another common theme for motivation to become a horse judge was passion. Many different populations of people have a passion for the work despite the negative components it may contain, such as zookeepers having limited opportunity for growth and very low pay on average but still being highly satisfied with their work. This is an example of calling, which is doing work primarily because of passion and not for economic reasons (Bunderson & Thompson, 2009). We can also see calling demonstrated in Michigan 4-H Horse Judges through their motivations for becoming judges. Extra income and social benefits were also included as motivation for becoming a Michigan 4-H Horse Judge but mentioned minimally in comparison to the belief in 4-H, youth development, and working with horses as motivators. 22 Benefits & Drawbacks Participants of the Michigan 4-H Horse Judges Survey were also asked about the benefits and drawbacks of being a horse judge in an open-ended question with responses categorized into positive and negative themes. It is no surprised that negative attitudes (33.3%) of parents, exhibitors, show committees, and spectators were the most common negative themes due to the competitive nature of showing horses, but this may be an indicator of a need for more emphasis on sportsmanship in the horse industry and specifically in 4-H Horse Programs as well. Waite (2014) developed a definition of sportsmanship through the evaluation of behavior at horse shows that included respect for animals, opponents, the “game”, and others. The information from this study and others is also being used by MSUE to create a Sportsmanship Ambassador program, which includes curriculum, webinars, and awards to promote sportsmanship in Michigan 4-H Horse Programs (MSU Extension, 2013). Other negative themes shared in the survey included long days (27.8%), weather (22.2%), and being physically demanding (16.7%). These themes are to be expected due to the nature of horse shows having many different classes often happening outside during summer weekends. These responses can help give insight to show committees about the difficulties of horse judging and perhaps encourage them to schedule more breaks or to hire multiple judges for a single show to improve the experience for judges and exhibitors alike. This also provide insight to exhibitors about the physical difficulties of being a judge. Another negative theme revealed by the survey included time away from businesses, families, or other events (18.5%). Horse judges are giving up many 23 different things in order to judge at horse shows. Some horse judges may also have horse training or riding lesson businesses that depend on them being present in order to function and, as stated above, horse shows are often on summer weekends when lesson and training programs are at their peak. Horse judges also have time away from their own family and friends. This information elucidates that judges are not only choosing to judge horse shows but also sacrificing other parts of their lives for a period of time as a part of the process. Other negative themes shared include poorly run events (11.1%), lack of understanding from exhibitors or spectators (11.1%), travel (7.4%), and expense (5.4%). Judges are commonly the first blamed for delays, clerical errors, and any other problem that may occur at a horse show, but judges seldomly are solely to blame for these issues. Hopefully, gaining insight into the drawbacks of being a horse judge will allow show committees, exhibitors, and spectators more understanding and insight as to the challenges of horse judging. The most mentioned positive theme was learning (35.2%), which is may be due to the ever-changing horse industry and the continuing education requirement for MI 4- H Horse Judges to attend a yearly seminar and a conference once every 3 years (MI 4- H Judges List, 2017). Learning as a motivation is also further supported though a question about the last time a riding lesson was taken with 81% of respondents (n=56) taking a lesson within the last 2 years. This indicates that the majority of judges are not only improving judging skills but their own riding skills as well. The next most common themes were meeting new people and fulfillment (29.6%). As mentioned before, many judges have other equine businesses and meeting 24 new people while judging not only increases their network as a horse judge, but as a professional horseman. We also saw giving back to the community was a commonly mentioned response for why people became judges in the first place, which is also supported by the benefits of meeting new people and fulfillment. This feeling of fulfillment shared by respondents may also be a result of their calling or passion for working in the horse industry, which often leads to higher job satisfaction and better well-being (Bunderson & Thompson, 2009). Other benefits of horse judging shared included working with youth and teaching (25.9%), which were also top motivators for becoming Michigan 4-H Horse Judges. The population of this survey included only judges from the Michigan 4-H Horse Judges List with the application process designed for selecting for individuals who would enjoy working with youth and teaching following the mission of 4-H. 4-H sponsored events usually allow for more feedback to be given from the judge to the exhibitor, providing judges more opportunity for teaching. The Michigan 4-H Horse Judges interview and code of conduct include a statement that judges must be prepared to give oral reasons, or an explanation of why they placed the class the way they did (MI 4-H Judges List, 2018), which is a unique example of the focus on learning and education 4-H judging may provide. Judging Income Extra income (25.9%) was present as a benefit of horse judging, as it is common practice for judges to be paid for their services at horse shows. This extra income also helps offset travel costs, costs of conferences, and possible loss of income from judging instead of performing other work. Judges were asked how much they were paid for a 25 regular one-day show, the average answer being $354 ± 42 SD with a range of $250 to $500. Fifty-four percent of responses were $350 and 95% of responses were between $300-$400. This shows that most judges make similar amounts despite varying levels of experience or time as a judge. This information is important for new judges to know what is reasonable to charge as a judging fee or for horse show committees when budgeting and planning for shows. This information also could be used to show the further reach of the US Horse Industry’s economic impact. Respondents were also asked how much of their total income came from judging with an average of 12.1% ± 20 SD and a range of 0.5% to 100%, although only four responses were over 20%. This provides evidence as to how important horse judging is for those that use judging as a portion of their total income. The average percentage of judging in total income shows the significance of judging income on a judge’s finances. Finally, respondents were asked to identify a range that fit their average yearly judging income with 44.4% of responses being $1,000-$2,999 yearly and 22.2% $3,000-$4,999 yearly. Only 9.3% of respondents earned more than $10,000 annually and only 3.7% made less than $1,000 yearly. MI 4-H Judges are spending a great deal of time not only judging horse shows, but also traveling to and from the show, participating in continuing education, and maintaining their judging skills all of which carry some additional cost. This additional time and cost is another aspect of being a horse judge that exhibitors and show committees may not consider and could offer more insight into the role of being a horse judge. 26 Gaining Skill in Judging There are many skills horse judges need before becoming a professional and these skills need to be maintained after becoming a judge. In the MI 4-H Horse Judges Survey, respondents were asked to select their top resources for practicing judging prior becoming a judge from a list that included spaces to enter their own responses. The top resources were other judges and showing horses, which were present in 82.1% of responses. The importance of other judges on the selection of high quality judges for the MI 4-H Judges List is key to the training and recruitment of other current and prospective judges, and is also confirmed with this result. The other commonly mentioned educational resource for 81.2% of prospective Michigan 4-H Horse Judges was showing horses either in the past or currently, with 67.9% of respondents actively showing. The benefit of showing to judging skill could be due to a number of factors, including gaining insight on the exhibitor’s perspective, more exposure to the horse show environment, practice watching other classes, and/or more exposure to the rulebook, which 53.6% of respondents used as s resource. The yearly rulebook exam, required in order to remain on the MI 4-H Judges List, hopes to ensure that the Michigan 4-H Horse Judges are using their rulebooks when thinking about horse judging. It is also suggested in the training for new MI 4-H Judges to always have a rulebook with them while judging and refer to it whenever there is uncertainty or doubt. Each organization has similar but slightly different rules depending on their mission or the demographics of that organization. 27 Other Organizations The horse industry’s vast array of organizations allows for a plethora of different judging cards in the horse industry. Of Michigan 4-H Horse Judges, 49.1% have judging cards or approval from equine associations other than the MI 4-H Horse Judges List. Of those with other judging cards, the average was 3.4 ± 2.4 SD cards other than the MI 4- H Horse Judges card, with the most prominent being Pony of the Americas Club (POAC) card with half of the respondents having this accreditadion. Other commonly reported cards included, American Buckskin Registry Association (ABRA) in 34.6% responses and United States Equestrian Federation (USEF) in 26.9% of responses. Thus approximately half MI 4-H Horse Judges are actively judging in multiple organizations and meeting the requirements set out by those organizations, reinforcing their qualifications as professional horse judges. This further highlights the involvement of Michigan 4-H Judges in the horse industry not only within 4-H but the broader horse industry. When examining the total number of other judging cards, 43.0% were for stock-type organizations, 15.2% fine horse, 26.6% pony, 10.1% color type, and 5.1% had 4-H Horse Judge’s Cards from other states As reported in Arehart (2018), 20% of current AQHA judges use open show circuits and youth organizations, such as 4-H, to gain experience in order to receive their AQHA Judge’s card. The low percentage of fine horse type cards could be due to USEF representing many different fine breeds as one organization, while there are many stock-type organizations granting judges’ cards currently in the horse industry. 28 Involvement in Industry The MI 4-H Judges Survey also asked how respondents got involved in the horse industry and 49.1% indicated through family/friends, 28.1% through 4-H, 8.8% via lesson programs, 7% by showing and 7% through buying a horse. This data shows the social aspect of the horse industry on bringing people together in and the impact 4-H has on retaining adults in the horse industry. The average age when MI 4-H Judges first became involved with horses was 5.6 ± 17 SD years old, with a range of 1 to 14 years old. These data indicated that all respondents initially become involved with horses as youth. Riding lesson programs are one avenue people can take to become involved in the horse industry, and 94.2% of MI 4-H Horse Judges indicated having taken a lesson at some point in their lives. Table 2 outlines responses about lessons, and noted are the varying number of respondents for each question, which could be due to an inability to remember or lack of participation in lessons. Respondents were asked their age at the time of their first lesson with an average age of 10.6 ± 6.2 SD years old. The average age of 10.6 years is very similar to the minimum age for 4-H, which is 9 years old. Some respondents became involved with the horse industry through 4-H (28.1%) which may explain the average age at the first lesson being 10.6 ± 6.2 SD years old. There was also a wide range of responses for age at the first riding lesson from 3 to 32 years of age. This wide range also shows us that MI 4-H Judges are entering into lesson programs as youth but also as adults, which is important for the horse industry to continue to grow as well as demonstrating, at least some, Michigan 4-H Judges have a lifelong commitment to learning. 29 Table 2 Ages for Taking and Giving First and Last Lessons Average Age (years) Standard Deviation Median Range Taken First Lesson Taken Last Lesson Given First Lesson Given Last Lesson Age at First Horse Show 10.6 42.3 19.9 47.3 9.4 6.2 16.1 6.5 14.9 4.2 9 43 18 44 9 3-32 17-66 12-40 21-81 2-21 n 51 52 53 52 53 Along with age at first riding lesson, respondents were also asked age at their last riding lesson with an average of 42.3 ± 16.1 SD years old (Table 2). When comparing current ages to age at last riding lesson, 65% of respondents have taken a lesson within the last two years. MI 4-H Judges are actively learning and trying to improve themselves throughout their careers not only as youth exhibitors. As seen in previous responses, many respondents enjoy teaching and helping others. All survey respondents reported giving a riding lesson, with the average age of giving their first lesson 19.9 ± 6.5 SD years old and the average age at the last lesson being 47.3 ± 14.9 SD years old. When comparing current age to age at the last lesson given, we see that 81% of judges have taught riding within the last 2 years. MI 4-H Judges are actively teaching and giving back outside of judging through lesson programs, also supporting the 4-H mission. 30 The continuation of teaching and learning throughout the career of a MI 4-H Horse Judges’ may be explained through Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs (1943) and more specifically a pursuit to self-actualization (Maslow, 1965). Self-actualization is the top of Maslow’s hierarchy and is defined as reaching one’s highest potential or self- fulfillment (Maslow, 1943). A key component of a self-actualizing person is contributing to or being a part of something bigger than themselves, such as continually learning and improving oneself in order to become a better teacher or help others more effectivley. This could be done through taking and giving horse riding lessons, attending and putting on clinics, and giving and receiving feedback during competitive horse shows as a judge or exhibitor. The results of the MI 4-H Horse Judges Survey show many respondents may be achieving self-actualization, thorough teaching, their motivations for becoming a judge, identified benefits of judging, and persistence in the horse industry as a whole. The average age of respondents first horse show was 9.4 ± 4.2 SD years old (Table 2). Which, again, follows the minimum age to participate in 4-H. It is worth noting that not all respondents participated in 4-H as youth, but were involved in the horse industry as youth, and even respondents who did show in 4-H may also have been participating in organizations than other 4-H to show horses as youth. The other interesting piece of these responses is the range from 2-21 years old, which is an indicator that these youth were getting involved not only as youth, but also as adults. This means, in some cases, adults are being recruited and getting involved in horse showing for the first time which could be a positive sign for the horse industry. 31 Show Demographics Many respondents not only participated in showing as youth but 67.9% continue to show horses while being on the MI 4-H Horse Judges List. This data is further supported by 82.1% of respondents identifying showing as a resource for gaining skills as a MI 4-H Horse Judge. Further, being a horse judge would likely help improve the respondent’s skills as an exhibitor and improve their performance in the show ring. More than half of survey respondents are both showing and judging horse shows, with many judges spending a substantial amount of time participating in these endeavors. On average, respondents judged 14.6 ± 12.1 SD shows per year with a range of 2-72 shows annually. This question did not ask if shows were on one day or multiple days, so it is in unknown the exact average days spent judging. It is unknown how many open horse shows occur in the United States or in Michigan each year, but AQHA and USEF hold approximately 4,425 horse shows in the United States annually (American Horse Council, 2017). Comparatively, of the 53 Michigan 4-H Horse Judges that responded to this survey a total of 790 horse shows were reported, this data suggests that number of open horse shows in the United States maybe be comparable or even greater than that of national events. Figure 3 Average Number of Shows Judged by Michigan 4-H Horse Judges Per Year 32 There are many horse shows held annually and the 53 MI 4-H Horse Judges that responded to this survey reported judging 14.6 ± 12.1 SD shows per year. Figure 3 shows the average distances travelled to reach horse shows to judge. This result shows 76.4% of respondents travel over 75 miles on average to judge a horse show, which is over an hour of travel time (Figure 4). This aspect of judging may not be as visible or known to exhibitors, however, it is important to provide transparency into the requirements of judges outside of the show arenas for exhibitors, to provide more insight for show committees when budgeting mileage charges or hotel costs, and for new and current judges to compare their own travelling to others. Figure 4 Reported Average Ranges of Distances Traveled by Michigan 4-H Horse Judges to Judge Horse Shows ) f o e g a t n e c r e P % ( s t n e d n o p s e R 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 21-50 51-75 75-100 101-150 Distance (miles) 151-200 200+ Breed Preferences Another common anecdotal complaint about judges is the issue of breed bias at open shows where multiple breeds are often shown together. Although this has never been formally examined, breed bias has been the topic of blog posts, popular press articles, and comments from the sidelines of the show ring (Rowse, 2019). Exhibitors perceive judges to be either stock-type or fine-horse judges, with demonstrated bias to selecting those breeds. Respondents were asked about the breed of horse that they had the most experience with (Table 3). There were 68 total responses to this question 33 Breed Quarter Horse Arabian Paint Morgan Saddlebred Warmblood Miniature Thoroughbred Draft POA n 29 14 11 5 2 2 2 1 1 1 42.6% 20.6% 16.2% 7.4% 2.9% 2.9% 2.9% 1.5% 1.5% 1.5% as respondents answered multiple breeds. As you can see in Table 3, respondents have the most experience with Quarter Horses but this is to be expected due to the fact that there are substantially more Quarter Horses in the United States than any other breed not only in the competitive sector, but also in the recreational sector (American Horse Council, 2017). This information does not prove or disprove bias in the show arena but demonstrates that the MI 4-H Horse Judges List includes a diverse array of judges with varying breed experiences. Table 3 Breed of Horse with the Most Experience by Response n / total responses (68) The responses from Table 4 were sorted by respondent into breed type categories. A little more than half of respondents reported experiences with only stock- type breeds (Quarter Horses or Paints) and approximately a quarter of respondents reported experiences with only fine breeds (Arabians, Morgans, Saddlebreds, Thoroughbreds). The key data in Table 4, however, is that 15.7% of respondents had experience with both stock and fine horse breeds. This does not mean that only 15.7% have experience in both, as the question was about the breeds with the most generalized experience and not judging specific experience. Due to the diverse exhibitors and horses seen in 4-H, all judges on the MI 4-H Horse Judges List are 34 Stock Only Fine Only Other* Only Both Stock & Fine Both Stock & Other* Both Fine & Other* n 27 13 3 8 1 1 52.9% 25.5% 5.9% 15.7% 2.0% 2.0% evaluated on their ability to recognize and fairly evaluate multiple breeds and disciplines during the MI 4-H Judges Application process. Table 4 Breed Type with the Most Experience by Respondent n / total Respondent (51) * “Other” includes POAs, warmbloods, and draft horses. Conclusions The competitive sector of the horse industry includes 2.7 million horses, with 308 recognized equine organizations in the United States. At the center of theses competitive events are horse judges evaluating and officiating the numerous equine events happening all over the country. There is very little known about horse judges, although, a survey done by Skelly et al. (2005) at an equine extension workshop found only 4% of respondents were comfortable with the current state of horse show ethics and 70% of respondents felt it was the judges responsibility to uphold ethics at horses shows, showing dissatisfaction with horse judges. Anecdotal negative comments are also common about equine judges in the form of blog posts, popular press articles, and comments from the sidelines (Rowse, 2019). The lack of information regarding this population of people that are essential to the horse show industry, as well as negative feedback led to the development of the Michigan 4-H Horse Judges survey. This survey not only answered many questions about Michigan 4-H Horse Judges but also inspired a plethora of new questions in many different directions. For 35 example, expanding this survey across state 4-H horse programs and without state horse judges list, this would investigate the benefits of state 4-H judging list on the overall 4-H Horse Project, as well as broadening the results across different geographic locations with differing equine demographics to better understand the differences and changes in the horse industry throughout the United States. The survey could also be expanded to include organizations with varying missions and types, such as AQHA or USEF, as a comparison between demographics, motivations, impacts, and resources of horse judges within those organizations and others. Along with more questions, data from this survey support the application, selection, and maintenance process of the Michigan 4-H Horse Judges List set by Michigan State University Extension. The motivations for becoming a Michigan 4-H Horse Judge follow the 4-H mission, the primary resource for becoming a judge is other Michigan 4-H Horse Judges, the continuing education requirements are included in the primary benefit of being a judge, and half of these judges have other judging cards, which all speak to the educational mission and quality of the individuals on the Michigan 4-H Judges List. The impacts of Michigan 4-H Horse Judges were also noted, with 53 survey respondents reporting having judged a total of 790 shows in 2017, showing the thriving horse showing industry in the state. This result is worth further investigation, as there is no other known estimate as to number of open shows occurring each year. As stated before, open show demographic could also be compared geographically to further understand the complexity and any changes occurring in the horse industry, such as differences in breed organization registries. 36 Further research may also investigate other impacts of horse judging on the judges themselves. Connections may be made between volunteer activity and improved well-being and mental health as has been seen in other research. Although, these results are amplified in older adults the benefits may be seen at all ages (Morrow- Howell et al., 2003). Alimujiang et al. (2019), found a correlation between having a life purpose and a decrease in mortality. Confirming these connections exist in Michigan 4- H Horse Judges could add even more benefits for participation in Michigan 4-H Horse and Pony Project and specifically for becoming a Michigan 4-H Horse Judge. In summary, this work collected and analyzed information regarding Michigan 4- H Horse Judges, their backgrounds, motivations and the overall impact of the Michigan 4-H Horse Judges List. These data offer transparency and insight to horse show committees and exhibitors as to the education and preparation involved in judging horse shows. Finally, this information has laid a foundation for further research with the potential to address horse show industry concerns such as breed bias, ethical issues in the horse show industry, and processes for selecting horse judges. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, this work provided evidence and laid the framework for future investigation as to the development of life purpose, the benefits of volunteerism, and the potential for enhanced quality of life through participation on Michigan 4-H Horse Judges List. 37 APPENDICES 38 APPENDIX A: MSU IRB Approval 39 EXEMPT DETERMINATION August 7, 2018 To: Re: Karen Lee Waite MSU Study ID: STUDY00001121 Principal Investigator: Karen Lee Waite Category: Exempt 2 Exempt Determination Date: 8/7/2018 Title: Motivations of Michigan 4-H Horse Judges This project has been determined to be exempt under 45 CFR 46.101(b) 2. Principal Investigator Responsibilities: The Principal Investigator assumes the responsibilities for the protection of human subjects in this project as outlined in Human Research Protection Program (HRPP) Manual Section 8-1, Exemptions. Continuing Review: Exempt projects do not need to be renewed. Modifications: In general, investigators are not required to submit changes to the Michigan State University (MSU) Institutional Review Board (IRB) once a research study is designated as exempt as long as those changes do not affect the exempt category or criteria for exempt determination (changing from exempt status to expedited or full review, changing exempt category) or that may substantially change the focus of the research study such as a change in hypothesis or study design. See HRPP Manual Section 8-1, Exemptions, for examples. If the project is modified to add additional sites for the research, please note that you may not begin the research at those sites until you receive the appropriate approvals/permissions from the sites. Change in Funding: If new external funding is obtained for an active human research project that had been determined exempt, a new initial IRB submission will be required, with limited exceptions. Reportable Events: If issues should arise during the conduct of the research, such as unanticipated problems that may involve risks to subjects or others, or any problem that may increase the risk to the human subjects and change the category of review, notify the IRB office promptly. Any complaints from participants that may change the level of review from exempt to expedited or full review must be reported to the IRB. Please report new information through the project’s workspace and contact the IRB office with any urgent events. Please visit the Human Research Protection Program (HRPP) website to obtain more information, including reporting timelines. Office of Regulatory Affairs Human Research Protection Program 4000 Collins Road Suite 136 Lansing, MI 48910 517-355-2180 Fax: 517-432-4503 Email: irb@msu.edu www.hrpp.msu.edu 40 Personnel Changes: After determination of the exempt status, the PI is responsible for maintaining records of personnel changes and appropriate training. The PI is not required to notify the IRB of personnel changes on exempt research. However, he or she may wish to submit personnel changes to the IRB for recordkeeping purposes (e.g. communication with the Graduate School) and may submit such requests by submitting a Modification request. If there is a change in PI, the new PI must confirm acceptance of the PI Assurance form and the previous PI must submit the Supplemental Form to Change the Principal Investigator with the Modification request (http://hrpp.msu.edu/forms). Closure: Investigators are not required to notify the IRB when the research study is complete. However, the PI can choose to notify the IRB when the project is complete and is especially recommended when the PI leaves the university. For More Information: See HRPP Manual, including Section 8-1, Exemptions (available at https://hrpp.msu.edu/msu-hrpp-manual-table-contents-expanded). Contact Information: If we can be of further assistance or if you have questions, please contact us at 517-355-2180 or via email at IRB@ora.msu.edu. Please visit hrpp.msu.edu to access the HRPP Manual, templates, etc. Exemption Category. This project has qualified for Exempt Category (ies) 2. Please see the appropriate research category below from 45 CFR 46.101(b) for the full regulatory text. 123 Exempt 1. Research conducted in established or commonly accepted educational settings, involving normal educational practices, such as (i) research on regular and special education instructional strategies, or (ii) research on the effectiveness of or the comparison among instructional techniques, curricula, or classroom management methods. Exempt 2. Research involving the use of educational tests (cognitive, diagnostic, aptitude, achievement), survey procedures, interview procedures or observation of public behavior, unless: (i) information obtained is recorded in such a manner that human subjects can be identified, directly or through identifiers linked to the subjects; and (ii) any disclosure of the human subjects' responses outside the research could reasonably place the subjects at risk of criminal or civil liability or be damaging to the subjects' financial standing, employability, or reputation. Exempt 3. Research involving the use of educational tests (cognitive, diagnostic, aptitude, achievement), survey procedures, interview procedures, or observation of public behavior that is not exempt under paragraph (b)(2) of this section, if: (i) the human subjects are elected or appointed public officials or candidates for public office; or (ii) federal statute(s) require(s) without exception that the confidentiality of the personally identifiable information will be maintained throughout the research and thereafter. Exempt 4. Research involving the collection or study of existing data, documents, records, pathological specimens, or diagnostic specimens, if these sources are 2 41 publicly available or if the information is recorded by the investigator in such a manner that subjects cannot be identified, directly or through identifiers linked to the subjects. Exempt 5. Research and demonstration projects which are conducted by or subject to the approval of department or agency heads, and which are designed to study, evaluate, or otherwise examine: (i) Public benefit or service programs; (ii) procedures for obtaining benefits or services under those programs; (iii) possible changes in or alternatives to those programs or procedures; or (iv) possible changes in methods or levels of payment for benefits or services under those programs. Exempt 6. Taste and food quality evaluation and consumer acceptance studies, (i) if wholesome foods without additives are consumed or (ii) if a food is consumed that contains a food ingredient at or below the level and for a use found to be safe, or agricultural chemical or environmental contaminant at or below the level found to be safe, by the Food and Drug Administration or approved by the Environmental Protection Agency or the Food Safety and Inspection Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1Exempt categories (1), (2), (3), (4), and (5) cannot be applied to activities that are FDA- regulated. 2 Exemptions do not apply to research involving prisoners. 3 Exempt 2 for research involving survey or interview procedures or observation of public behavior does not apply to research with children, except for research involving observations of public behavior when the investigator(s) do not participate in the activities being observed. 3 42 APPENDIX B: Survey Contact Letter 43 44 APPENDIX C: Survey 45 Motivations of Michigan 4-H Horse Judges Q1 What year did you join the MI 4-H HORSE JUDGES LIST ? ________________________________________________________________ Q2 How many years have you been on MI 4-H HORSE JUDGES LIST ? ________________________________________________________________ Q3 How many years have you been INVOLVED WITH THE HORSE INDUSTRY ? ________________________________________________________________ Q4 How did you become INVOLVED IN THE HORSE INDUSTRY ? ________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________ Q5 Why did you become a judge at first? ________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________ Q6 Why do you continue to be a judge currently? ________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________ 46 Q7 What is your individual net annual income from judging? o Under $1,000 o $1,000 - $3,000 o $3,001 - $5,000 o $5,001 - $7,000 o $7,001 - $10,000 o $10,001 - $15,000 o $15,001 - $20,000 o $20,001 - $25,000 o $25,001 - $30,000 o $30,001 - $35,000 o $35,001 - $40,000 o Over $40,001 Q8Approximately, what percentage (%) of your TOTAL yearly net income comes from judging? ________________________________________________________________ Q9 Approximately, how many shows did you judge LAST YEAR? ________________________________________________________________ Q10 How much are you paid on average for a one-day show? ________________________________________________________________ 47 Q11 What is the AVERAGE distance you travel to judge horse shows? o Under 20 Miles o 21-50 Miles o 51-75 Miles o 75-100 Miles o 101-150 Miles o 151-200 Miles o Over 200 Miles Q12 What is your age? ________________________________________________________________ Q13 What is your highest level of education? o Less than high school o High school graduate o Some college o 2 year degree (Associates) o 4 year degree (Bachelors) o Professional degree o Master's o Doctorate 48 Q14 What type of area did you grow-up in? o Rural - Farm o Rural - Non-Farm o Suburban o Urban o Other - Please Specify ________________________________________________ Q15 What are the benefits of being a judge? ________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________ Q16 What are the drawbacks of being a judge? ________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________ Q17 Do you have any other judging cards? If yes, which ones? o Yes ________________________________________________ o No Q18 Do you judge any species other than horses? If yes please specify. o Yes ________________________________________________ o No 49 Q19 Did you ever compete in a horse judging competition? Q20 Were you active in 4-H or FFA as a child? o Yes o No o 4-H o FFA o Both o Neither Q21 What is your preferred discipline to judge? ▢ English ▢ Western ▢ Halter ▢ Showmanship ▢ Reining ▢ Trail ▢ Driving ▢ Pleasure ▢ Equitation ▢ Gymkhana ▢ Other ________________________________________________ 50 Q22 What is your preferred discipline to participate as an exhibitor? ▢ English ▢ Western ▢ Halter ▢ Showmanship ▢ Reining ▢ Trail ▢ Driving ▢ Pleasure ▢ Equitation ▢ Gymkhana ▢ Other ________________________________________________ Q23 What breed of horse do you have the most experience with ? ________________________________________________________________ Q24 Do you currently show your own horses? o Yes o No Q25 What is your occupation? (if retired or unemployed, use last occupation) ________________________________________________________________ 51 Q26 How old were you when... o you first became involved with horses? o you first participated in a horse show? ________________________________________________ ________________________________________________ Q27 Have you ever TAKEN a horse riding lesson yourself? o Yes o No Q28 If yes, how old were you when... o you took your FIRST lesson? o you took your LAST lesson? ________________________________________________ ________________________________________________ Q29 Have you ever GIVEN a horse-riding lesson to someone else? o Yes o No Q30 If yes, how old were you when... o you gave your FIRST lesson? o you gave your LAST lesson? ________________________________________________ ________________________________________________ 52 Q31 How many years did it take you to become a MI 4-H Horse Judge once you began the process? ________________________________________________________________ Q32 What is the most beneficial way for you to practice judging? ________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________ Q33 Do you feel that excellence in horse judging is a skill you can be born with or is a skill entirely learned? ________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________ Q34 How do you primarily use the MI 4-H Horse & Pony Rulebook? ________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________ 53 Q35 Select your top resources for obtaining skills in horses judging needed for you to become a judge BEFORE becoming a judge ▢ Family/Friend Involvement in Horses ▢ Child Involvement in Horses ▢ Attending Horse Camps ▢ 4-H/FFA ▢ Attending Conferences ▢ Working with Other Judges ▢ Reviewing Online Resources ▢ Reviewing Rulebooks ▢ Attending College ▢ Participating in Showing ▢ Learning from Mentors ▢ Other ________________________________________________ ▢ Other ________________________________________________ ▢ Other ________________________________________________ ▢ Other ________________________________________________ 54 Q36 Select your top resources for obtaining skills in horses judging needed for you to become a judge AFTER becoming a judge? ▢ Family/Friend Involvement in Horses ▢ Child Involvement in Horses ▢ Attending Horse Camps ▢ 4-H/FFA ▢ Attending Conferences ▢ Working with Other Judges ▢ Reviewing Online Resources ▢ Reviewing Rulebooks ▢ Attending College ▢ Participating in Showing ▢ Learning from Mentors ▢ Other ________________________________________________ ▢ Other ________________________________________________ ▢ Other ________________________________________________ ▢ Other ________________________________________________ Q37 How frequently do you currently review the MI 4-H Horse & Pony Rulebook OUTSIDE of a show ? Never Almost Never Sometimes Often Very Often 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Outside of a Show 55 Q38 How frequently do you currently review the MI 4-H Horse & Pony Rulebook DURING a show ? Never Almost Never Sometimes Often Very Often 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 During a Show 56 APPENDIX D: MI 4-H Judges Evaluation Form 57 58 APPENDIX E: MI 4-H Horse Judges Recommendation Form 59 60 REFERENCES 61 REFERENCES American Horse Council. (2017). 2017 Economic Impact Study of the U.S. Horse Industry. Retrieved from https://www.horsecouncil.org/product/2017-economic- impact-study-u-s-horse-industry/ Alimujiang, A., Wiensch, A., Boss, J., Fleischer, N. L., Mondul, A. M., McLean, K., ... & Pearce, C. L. (2019). Association Between Life Purpose and Mortality Among US Adults Older Than 50 Years. JAMA network open, 2(5), e194270-e194270. American Quarter Horse Association (2016). AQHA Official Handbook. Retrieved from https://www.aqha.com/media/9467/aqha-handbook-2016.pdf Arehart, P. M. (2018). Exploring the Cognitive Tasks Surrounding Professional Horse Judging Practices in Stock-TypeHalter Classes (Doctoral dissertation, Purdue University). Bunderson, J. S., & Thompson, J. A. (2009). The call of the wild: Zookeepers, callings, and the double-edged sword of deeply meaningful work. Administrative science quarterly, 54(1), 32-57. Ebbesen, E. B., & Konecni, V. J. (1975). Decision making and information integration in the courts: The setting of bail. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32(5), 805. Findley, L. C., & Ste-Marie, D. M. (2004). A reputation bias in figure skating judging. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 26, 154–166. Guttentag, M. (1973). Subjectivity and its use in evaluation research. Evaluation, 1(2), 60-65. Hawson, L. A., McLean, A. N., & McGreevy, P. D. (2010). Variability of scores in the 2008 Olympic dressage competition and implications for horse training and welfare. Journal of Veterinary Behavior, 5(4), 170-176. Hoffman, P. J., Slovic, P., & Rorer, L. G. (1968). An analysis-of-variance model for the assessment of configural cue utilization in clinical judgment. Psychological Bulletin, 69(5), 338. Morrow-Howell, N., Hinterlong, J., Rozario, P. A., & Tang, F. (2003). Effects of volunteering on the well-being of older adults. The Journals of Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 58(3), S137-S145. 62 Martinson, K., Hathaway, M., Wilson, J.H., Gilkerson, B., Peterson, P.R., & Del Vecchio, R. (2006). University of Minnesota horse owner survey: Building an equine extension program. 44. Maslow, A. H. (1943) ‘A theory of human motivation’, Psychological Review 370–96. Maslow, A. H. (1965). Self-actualization and beyond. McGreevy, P., Christensen, J. W., Von Borstel, U. K., & McLean, A. (2018). Equitation science. John Wiley & Sons. Michigan 4-H Youth Development. (2016). 4-H horse and pony project show rules and regulations. East Lansing: Michigan State University, MSU Extension, 4-H Youth Development. Michigan 4-H. (2018). Retrieved from http://www.canr.msu.edu/4h/about_michigan_4_ Park, T., & Dyer, J. (2005). Contributions of agricultural education, FFA, and 4-H to student leadership in agricultural colleges. Journal of agricultural education, 46(2), 83-95. Parker, R. (2013). Equine science. Clifton Park, NY: Delmar, Cengage Learning. Phelps, R. H., & Shanteau, J. (1978). Livestock judges: How much information can an expert use? Organizational Behavior & Human Performance, 21(2), 209-219. Plessner, H. (1999). Expectation biases in gymnastics judging. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 21(2), 131-144. Rowse, K. (2019). Is There Breed Bias In Dressage Judging? Dressage Today. Retrieved from https://dressagetoday.com/lifestyle/breed-bias-in-dressage- judging Rusk, C. P., Kerr, C. A., Talbert, B. A., & Russell, M. A. (2001). Profiling Indiana's 4-H horse and pony leaders. Journal of Extension, [On-line], 39 (4). Available at: http://joe.org/joe/2001august/rb3.html Skelly, C. D., Heleski, C. R., Tomlinson, T., Zanella, A. J., & Waite, K. L. (2005). Development, delivery and survey results from a horse show ethics adult extension workshop. In Proceedings of the 19th Equine Science Society Symposia, 31st May to 3rd June (pp. 272-277). Shanteau, J., Weiss, D. J., Thomas, R. P., Pounds, J., & Hall, B. (2003). How can you tell if someone is an expert? Empirical assessment of expertise. Emerging perspectives on judgement and decision research, 620-639. 63 Shanteau, J., Weiss, D. J., Thomas, R. P., & Pounds, J. C. (2002). Performance-based assessment of expertise: How to decide if someone is an expert or not. European Journal of Operational Research, 136(2), 253-263. Shrestha, K. M., Suvedi, M., & Foster, E. F. (2011). Who enrolls in agriculture and natural resources majors: A case from Michigan State University. Policy, 1(2), 3. Smith C.E., A.M. Swinker, P.M. Comerford, R.B. Radhakrishna and T.S. Hoover. (2006). Horsemanship and life skills of youth in horse programs. The Professional Animal Scientist 22:89-93. Sportsmanship and Competitive Event Resources. (2013). MSU Extension. Retrieved from https://www.canr.msu.edu/resources/competitive_event_resources Ste‐Marie, D. M. (1999). Expert–novice differences in gymnastic judging: an information‐processing perspective. Applied Cognitive Psychology: The Official Journal of the Society for Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 13(3), 269-281. Ste-Marie, D. M. (2000). Expertise in women's gymnastic judging: An observational approach. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 90(2), 543-546. Thoits, P. A., & Hewitt, L. N. (2001). Volunteer work and well-being. Journal of health and social behavior, 115-131. Waguespack, D. M., & Salomon, R. (2015). Quality, subjectivity, and sustained superior performance at the Olympic Games. Management Science, 62(1), 286-300. Waite, K. L., Ondersma, L. A., Shelle, J., Heleski, C., & Kaiser, L. (2010). Evaluating life skills development of 4-H participants in multi-species state-level animal science projects [Unpublished work]. Waite, K. L. (2014). Measurement of prosocial and antisocial behavior among youth equestrian competitors. Michigan State University. Waite, K. (2018). Michigan 4-H Horse Judges List 2018. Retrieved from https://www.canr.msu.edu/uploads/resources/pdfs/2018_4h_horse_judges_list_ja n_18.pdf Ward, C. K. (1996). Life skill development related to participation in 4-H animal science projects. Journal of Extension, 34(2), 1-3. US Equestrian Federation. (2017). Retrieved from https://www.usef.org/ 64