Why do humans attribute human intentions and emotions to animals despite knowing that animal cognition differs from ours?

The question

What cognitive and perceptual factors influence humans' tendency to attribute human-like emotions and intentions to animals, particularly when interpreting ambiguous animal behavior?

To what extent do perceived similarity between human and animal behavior, emotional cues, and familiarity with an animal influence people's tendency to attribute human-like emotions, intentions, and mental states to animals?

Are humans anthropomorphizing animals because they genuinely believe animals possess human-like mental states, or because humans naturally use their own minds as the framework through which they understand other minds?

Why this question

I’ve always been fascinated by the way humans try to understand minds that they cannot directly access. We readily describe animals as “jealous,” “guilty,” “happy,” or “loving,” even though we know that their cognitive processes may be fundamentally different from ours. This made me wonder whether we are actually interpreting animal behavior—or unconsciously interpreting it through the framework of our own minds. I want to understand what happens cognitively when observation becomes assumption: why does a wagging tail become “happiness,” or avoidance become “guilt”?

My interest lies at the intersection of neuroscience, psychology, and the question of how minds understand other minds. I’m particularly interested in questions where something seemingly ordinary—a person saying that a dog “looks guilty”—reveals a deeper cognitive process underneath. As someone interested in neuroscience and psychology, I want to explore how perception, empathy, and our own mental models shape the way we interpret minds unlike our own.