Hobson studies animals such as monk parakeets in UC’s College of Arts and Sciences. Her studies have found that when a high-ranking parakeet has an extended absence from the colony, it typically gets bullied by the other members upon its return. Bullying is a concept commonly used to describe human behavior, but it also made for relevant shorthand to describe the bird behavior they were documenting, Hobson told the Atlantic.
“We’re just careful to define exactly what we mean,” she said: “an increase in aggression towards a specific individual from all the other birds in the group.” Hobson said scientists should use care in making inferences or drawing conclusions through the prism of anthropomorphism. “We need to be really careful when engaging in any kind of anthropomorphism so that we are not inferring the root cause of a behavior in animals as human-like without evidence and data to back it up,” she said.
“I think it’s fine and sometimes helpful to use anthropomorphism as an analogy or a ‘what if animals behaved in this situation as a human would’ kind of approach. But then as scientists, it’s critical to go out and collect data and evidence if we want to explain a behavior in a way that we usually think of as human.” Likewise, Hobson said, researchers need to be aware of our inclination to anthropomorphize to prevent bias from creeping into data collection or analysis.
Hobson stresses the importance of distinguishing between animal behavior and anthropomorphism in scientific research to prevent misleading conclusions. Researchers should use caution when attributing human-like traits to animal behavior and instead rely on evidence and data to explain behaviors accurately. By being aware of the tendency to anthropomorphize, scientists can ensure that their research remains objective and free from bias.