Have you ever looked at that tiny Chihuahua or adorable Papillon and wondered if there’s actually a big brain packed inside that small furry head? Well I’m here to spill the tea on small dogs and their intelligence. Spoiler alert those little doggos are often way smarter than we give ’em credit for!
As a dog lover who’s spent countless hours researching canine intelligence (and cleaning up after my own smarty-pants small pup), I can tell you that when it comes to brains, small dogs often have the upper paw Let’s dive into why these pint-sized pooches deserve some serious respect for their cognitive abilities
The Science Behind Small Dog Intelligence
Before we jump into specific breeds, let’s talk science for a sec. According to surprising new research from the University of Montpellier in France, small dogs often have larger brains relative to their body size compared to their bigger cousins.
Dr Ana Balcarcel, who led this eye-opening study, found that “complex skills and cooperative behavior” are more likely to be present in dogs with bigger brains and smaller bodies. The research team created a database of almost 1,700 dogs from 172 different breeds and discovered that toy breeds like Chihuahuas, Pugs, and Pomeranians have the biggest brain-to-body ratio!
This flies in the face of what many people assume – that working breeds like Border Collies and Huskies are the Einstein’s of the dog world. While those larger breeds are certainly intelligent, the research suggests our tiny furry friends might actually have the cognitive edge.
How Do We Measure Doggy Intelligence?
Before we rank our smarty-pants small breeds, it’s important to understand that canine intelligence isn’t a one-size-fits-all concept. According to Mary Burch, Director of the American Kennel Club Family Dog Program, there are actually three main types of dog intelligence:
- Instinctive Intelligence: What a dog was bred to do naturally, like herding or hunting
- Adaptive Intelligence: How well a dog can problem-solve and adapt to environments
- Working and Obedience Intelligence: How quickly dogs learn commands and follow rules
Burch told Newsweek that “all breeds were created for a specific function and intelligence relates to that function.” So measuring a dog’s smarts only by how well they perform in obedience competitions might be kinda unfair!
For example, she pointed out that some people have concluded the Afghan Hound is the least intelligent breed based on obedience ratings. But Afghans are sighthounds, and they’re actually super intelligent when the task relates to their strengths.
The 15 Smartest Small Dog Breeds
Now, let’s get to the good stuff! Based on the combined information from our sources, here are the 15 smartest small dog breeds that prove great things come in small packages:
1. Papillon
With their butterfly-like ears and sharp minds, Papillons are often considered the smartest of all small dog breeds. They’re incredibly eager to please and love learning, making them excellent at picking up tricks and commands. These pups have exceptional adaptive intelligence and can remember demands without practice.
2. Miniature and Toy Poodles
Poodles rank as the second most intelligent dog breed out of 138 breeds! These fluffy geniuses excel in all three intelligence categories. Originally bred as water retrievers, they have high instinctive intelligence. Their problem-solving abilities are off the charts, and they can learn new commands with minimal repetition.
3. Shetland Sheepdog
These pint-sized herders (nicknamed “Shelties”) are highly intelligent working dogs. With their strong herding instincts and exceptional obedience, they’re quick learners who excel in agility competitions. They might try to herd your kids, tho – just a heads up!
4. Miniature Schnauzer
Don’t let that adorable mustache fool you – Miniature Schnauzers are super smart cookies! They’re highly trainable and pick up verbal and hand commands quickly. They need mental stimulation to avoid boredom, so puzzle toys are a must for these clever pups.
5. Pembroke Welsh Corgi
Those fluffy butts hide some serious brainpower! Corgis were bred for herding, and they have exceptional instinctive intelligence. They can learn new commands in just 5-15 repetitions. Just be prepared for their independent streak – they won’t always perform on command!
6. Pomeranian
These tiny fluffballs rank very high for working and obedience intelligence. Pomeranians can learn new tricks with only 5-15 command repetitions and obey commands with an 85% success rate. Pretty impressive for a dog that weighs only 3-7 pounds!
7. Bichon Frise
These adorable white puffballs excel in adaptive intelligence and are instinctively good companions. They’re quick to pick up on their owner’s needs and aren’t difficult to train. Just remember that harsh training methods won’t work well with these sensitive smarties.
8. Havanese
With their silky coats and bright minds, Havanese dogs can learn new commands with little repetition. They excel in adaptive intelligence and can learn from previous behaviors and self-correct. These clever cuties make fantastic therapy dogs because of their intelligence and gentle nature.
9. Cocker Spaniel
Both American and English Cocker Spaniels rank high in all three intelligence categories. They learn commands quickly with minimal repetition and make excellent hunting companions. Their eager-to-please attitude makes training a breeze.
10. Schipperke
These small black dogs need constant mental stimulation, or their boredom will turn into destructive behavior. With excellent working and obedience intelligence, Schipperkes often serve as guard dogs or search and rescue assistants despite their small size.
11. Brussels Griffon
With their expressive faces and smart brains, Brussels Griffons bond deeply with their owners and want to please them. This makes them very obedient and easy to train. They can recall commands without much practice and love solving puzzle toys.
12. Boston Terrier
These tuxedo-wearing cuties adapt quickly to new environments and people. Originally bred for jobs requiring decision-making, Boston Terriers have loads of energy and intelligence that needs regular stimulation. They perform well in obedience, agility, and flyball competitions.
13. Miniature American Shepherd
A smaller version of the Australian Shepherd, these dogs are highly trainable and excel once taught basic obedience commands. Early socialization and puppy training classes are recommended to ensure they grow into well-mannered companions.
14. Border Terrier
These hardworking, intelligent terriers were once used to assist in foxhunts. Their determination makes them quick learners, and their affectionate nature combined with their smarts makes them ideal family dogs. They’re also remarkably good at remembering where they buried their treats!
15. Cardigan Welsh Corgi
The longer-tailed cousin of the Pembroke Welsh Corgi, these small herders are very easy to train and eager to please. It only takes about 5-15 repetitions for them to learn a new command. They excel in agility training and sheepdog trials.
The Pros and Cons of Smart Small Dogs
Living with a brainy small dog has its perks and challenges. As Mary Burch from the AKC points out:
Advantages:
- Smart dogs usually enjoy learning and doing activities with you
- They excel at various canine sports like obedience, rally, agility, and scent work
- They’re often more tuned in to your emotions and needs
Disadvantages:
- Intelligent breeds with active minds can “give an owner a run for their money”
- They often demand frequent activities and mental stimulation
- They might outsmart you sometimes (like figuring out how to open the treat cabinet!)
Keeping Your Smart Small Dog Mentally Stimulated
A bored smart dog is a recipe for trouble! Here are some ways to keep those little brain cells firing:
- Regular training sessions: Teach new tricks and commands to challenge their minds
- Interactive puzzle toys: Games that dispense treats when solved are perfect
- Scent games: Hide treats around the house for them to find
- Change up walking routes: New smells and sights provide mental stimulation
- Doggy sports: Agility, rally, and obedience competitions are great for smart dogs
FAQs About Smart Small Dogs
Which small dog has the highest IQ?
While IQ tests for dogs aren’t standardized like human tests, the Papillon is widely considered the smartest small dog breed, with Poodles coming in a close second.
What is the easiest small dog to train?
The miniature or toy Poodle is considered the easiest small dog to train due to their eagerness to please and quick learning abilities.
Are small dogs really smarter than big dogs?
Recent research suggests that small dogs often have larger brains relative to their body size, which can contribute to higher cognitive abilities in certain areas. However, intelligence varies by individual dog and type of intelligence being measured.
Which smart small dogs are good with kids?
Miniature Schnauzers, Poodles (especially Miniature and Toy varieties), and Shetland Sheepdogs tend to be both intelligent and good with children when properly socialized.
Final Thoughts: Big Brains in Small Packages
So, are small dogs smart? Heck yeah, they are! In fact, many small breeds can outsmart their larger cousins in various ways. From the brilliant Papillon to the clever Corgi, these pint-sized pooches prove that you don’t need a big body to have impressive brainpower.
When choosing a small smart dog, remember that intelligence isn’t everything – personality match, energy level, and lifestyle compatibility are equally important. And keep in mind that with great intelligence comes great responsibility… to provide mental stimulation and prevent boredom!
Whether you’re teaching your tiny genius new tricks or watching them problem-solve their way into the treat jar for the thousandth time, one thing’s for sure – life with a smart small dog is never boring!
Do you have a super smart small dog? Share your stories in the comments below! We’d love to hear about your clever canine companions and their brainy antics.
Fig. Brain weight scales with body weight to the 0.26 power in dogs. The black dots and line represent domestic dogs from the current study, dark gray dots and line represent domestic dogs from the Richet dataset, and the light gray dots and line represent canids from the Gittleman dataset.
The relatively small scaling exponent for dogs (0.26) resulted in encephalization quotients ranging from 4 for the smallest dogs, to 0.5 for the largest dogs (Fig. 2). Using this approach, small dogs had higher encephalization quotients than their non-dog canid counterparts of comparable size, but large dogs had lower encephalization quotients than similarly sized non-dog canids.
Mark Rishniw1Department of Clinical Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, 14853, USAFind articles by
Received 2020 Dec 10; Accepted 2021 Jan 8; Issue date 2021 Jan-Mar.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Brain size has been associated with intelligence of various orders and families of animals, leading to the concept of encephalization. Brain size scales with body weight between species within mammals to approximately the 0.67 power. However, within species, this scaling exponent appears to be much smaller (approximately 0.27 power).
We examined whether this relationship has persisted in dogs over the 120 years since this was originally observed.
Comparative cross-sectional study of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) data obtained from 127 dogs, compared to historical data from 157 dogs and 24 non-dog canid species.
Brain size in dogs measured by MRI had a scaling exponent virtually identical to that observed previously (0.24 vs. 0.26). However, the proportionality constant was smaller, suggesting that dogs in the study cohort had relatively smaller brains than the historical cohort. Absolute brain size appeared to have both a lower and upper limit in dogs. When compared to non-dogs canids, the most appropriate “representative” size for a “typical dog” when examining allometric scaling across Canidae appeared to be approximately 10–15 kg.
We interpreted the slight reduction in relative brain size to be a function of increased obesity in the study cohort compared to dogs examined 120 years ago. Further, we suggest that dog brains have a finite lower size limit. Finally, concepts of encephalization should not be applied to dogs.
Keywords: Brain size, Canine, Encephalization
Gittleman (1986) showed that species of the family Canidae adhere to the inter-species relationship of brain size to body size, with a scaling exponent of approximately 0.64. However, Louis Lapicque had first observed that intra-species relationships, at least in dogs, scale with a much smaller exponent of 0.24 (Lapicque, 1898), using a dataset provided by Charles Richet (Richet, 1891). Bronson confirmed this relationship, with a scaling exponent of 0.27, suggesting that breed, rather than bodyweight, might determine intelligence within a particular species (Bronson, 1979). A smaller scaling exponent would produce a much smaller difference in brain size between dogs of different sizes than between species spanning the same bodyweight range. Jerison noted, but did not reference or provide evidence, that the brain-size-to-body-size relationship between species differs from that observed within species, also suggesting a power function approximating 0.25, rather than 0.67 (Jerison, 1973, 1977). His claims appear to be unwarranted extrapolations of the study of Lapicque from dogs to all species.
However, not all inter-species brain-bodyweight relationships adhere to the general scaling law (BW0.67). Sholl examined the relationship in species of Macaques, and found a very flat relationship between species of the genus Macaca, with a scaling exponent of 0.18 (Sholl, 1948).
Dogs provide a unique opportunity to study the intra-species relationship between brain size and body size, because they vary in size more than any other species (approximately 70-fold differences), ranging from an adult weight of <1 kg for some Yorkshire terriers to >70 kg for Irish Wolfhounds and St. Bernards. Deriving intra-species relationships in most species is problematic because the weight range tends to be somewhat restricted, resulting in a lack of sufficient resolution to determine a true relationship. We could find no data examining intra-species relationships in other species of mammals.
We had the opportunity to measure brain volume in live dogs using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Because brain volume closely approximates brain weight, we could calculate the brain-size-to-body-size ratio. We then calculated each dog’s “encephalization quotient” and compared our data to those of Richet, obtained 130 years ago.
We obtained bodyweight, breed, and forebrain volume data for dogs from three sources: dogs being evaluated by MRI for various neurological problems, or that had been d as healthy controls for other studies; dogs originally measured by Richet (1891); and data examining the family Canidae (Gittleman, 1986).
Details of the imaging of our dataset have been previously published (Estey et al., 2017). We measured brain volumes using Materialize Mimics software.
To make direct comparisons with the Richet data, we calculated brain weight from our volumetric data using the following equation:
where 1.04 is the density of brain tissue.
Because Richet measured brain weight using formalin-fixed samples, we adjusted for the effect of formalin using the following equation:
We used the data provided by Gittleman as the relevant inter-species cohort (Gittleman, 1986).
We then plotted brain weights against body weights, and fitted these plots, first as raw data and then after log-log transformation, to a power function for all three datasets.
To examine whether the slopes and intercepts of the brain-weight-to-body-weight relationships have changed over that last 100 years, we compared the slopes and intercepts between the Richet dataset and our dataset using regression analysis and Analysis of Variance. We used commercial statistical software for all analyses [MedCalc Statistical Software version 19.0.7 (MedCalc Software bvba, Ostend, Belgium; https://www.medcalc.org, 2019)].
We included 127 dogs with imaging data, 157 dogs from the Richet dataset and 24 species belonging to the family Canidae from the Gittleman study. Dogs in our cohort ranged in body weight from 1.3 kg (Yorkshire terrier) to 79 kg (St. Bernard). Dogs from the Richet dataset ranged in body weight from 1.25 to 43.5 kg. Canids from the Gittleman dataset ranged in body weight from 1.5 kg (Fennec fox) to 33 kg (wolf).
Dogs from our dataset and those from Richet showed almost identical scaling exponents (0.26 vs. 0.24, p = 0.26), and considerably different from canids in general (0.65) (Fig. 1). Surprisingly, dogs from the Richet dataset had brains approximately 10 g larger per unit body weight than dogs from our dataset (Fig. 1), resulting in different intercepts of the two, but virtually parallel, regression slopes ( p < 0.00001).