Heyes and Dickinson's 'intentional stance' critique establishes that anthropomorphic over-attribution, not anthropocentric under-attribution, is the documented default bias in comparative psychology.

?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.

No one has weighed in yet. Be the first to share reasons for or against this statement.

Anthropocentric under-attribution(as a contrasting bias the statement argues against): The opposite mistake: refusing to credit animals with any mental abilities or awareness, simply because they're not human.
Anthropomorphic over-attribution(as the main bias being discussed): The tendency to describe animal behavior using human-like emotions and thoughts too much—for example, saying a dog is 'feeling guilty' when it's really just reacting to your angry tone.
Comparative psychology(as the field being discussed): The scientific study of how the minds and behaviors of different animal species (including humans) are similar to and different from each other.
Default bias(as what the statement claims exists in the field): A pattern or tendency that naturally happens most often—the automatic mistake researchers tend to make without even realizing it.

Based on where you are in your exploration