Does comparative cognition have a WEIRD problem?

We describe an as yet unidentified bias relevant to comparative cognition research: WEIRD-centrism. This bias leads us to take as the gold standard the practices, capacities, or concepts of WEIRD (Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, and Democratic) humans, that is, humans who grew up in WEIRD societies and whose behavior has been shaped by the influence of WEIRD cultural norms and practices. We identify how the bias impacts the study of practices, capacities, and concepts, and offer two suggestions for mitigating the bias. The first is to use what we are calling a multibaseline approach, which involves starting with constructs that come not from our experiences as humans, but from our growing understanding of other species. The second is to make use of philosophical analysis and conceptual engineering, which includes identifying minimal concepts of psychological capacities as well as a dimensional approach that depicts the many ways in which a capacity can be instantiated. We hope that these tools will allow us to better understand the similarities and differences both within and between species.