Rethinking Breed Intelligence: What Canine Cognition Research Reveals

A dog’s cognitive abilities are used to describe how they process, remember, and use information to make sense of their world. This includes memory, problem-solving, social communication, and impulse control, all skills that allow dogs to follow human cues, discern familiar voices, and learn new behaviors. These abilities shape how dogs respond to training, address challenges, and manage impulsive behavior, which, in turn, often leads humans to categorize certain breeds as naturally “smarter” or “more stubborn.” Yet, the science behind the genetics of canine cognition is far more complex than these simple labels suggest. 

A large dataset from a commercial canine cognitive test battery (smartDOG™) offers a helpful step forward. Between March 2016 and February 2022, more than 2,300 adult dogs participated, and the researchers analyzed 1,002 dogs (ages 1–8) representing 13 breed categories (including mixed breeds), with at least 40 dogs per breed. Dogs completed a structured series of food-motivated tasks designed to measure multiple dimensions of cognition and behavior, both social (e.g., processing human gestures) and non-social (e.g., inhibitory control, spatial problem-solving). 

The finding: Breed differences are real, but they’re not “one-size-fits-all.” 

A distinguishing feature of this study is that it compared individual breeds rather than grouping dogs into broad categories such as “herding” or “sporting”. Grouping breeds can obscure meaningful within-groupdifferences, and individual characteristics with genetic links may be missed. 

Across the battery of tests, the researchers found significant differences between breeds in five of seven cognitive tasks, as well as in related behaviors such as greeting behavior, exploration in a novel environment, and activity level. In other words, breeds vary in how they think and behave, not just in what they look like. 

But the pattern wasn’t a clear distinction that “Breed A is smarter than Breed B.” Instead, results were highly refined and domain specific. A breed could show high inhibitory control in one area but lower performance in another, or strong social involvement but less persistence.  

‘Breed-Shaped’ Traits 

Two cognitive domains showed particularly clear breed-linked variation: 

Inhibitory control (Cylinder Test) 

Dogs had to resist the impulse to go straight toward visible food behind a clear barrier and instead detour to access it. This is a classic measure of motor inhibition and an executive function skill that matters in real life (think: not grabbing food off the counter, stopping at a door, waiting for cues). 

As the authors of the study state: “The Border Collie and Australian Shepherd were among the highest-scoring breeds in the cylinder test, indicating high inhibitory control. In contrast, the Malinois and German Shepherd were some of the lowest-scoring breeds. These breeds are often used in working roles requiring high responsiveness, which is often associated with low inhibitory control and high impulsivity.” 

Interestingly, the study found that older dogs (1 to 8 years) made more errors compared to puppies, whereas females made fewer errors than males. That’s a useful reminder that cognition is influenced by biology, age, andsex-related effects, not just breed labels. 

Social cognition (Human Gestures + Gesture vs Memory) 

Dogs were tested on their ability to follow human pointing, foot cues, gaze cues, and related gestures to find food. Overall performance was strong, but there were meaningful breed differences, particularly in tasks that probe how readily dogs prioritize human information, even when it conflicts with their own memory. 

As the authors of the study state: “The Kelpie, Golden Retriever, Australian Shepherd, and Border Collie spent the largest proportion of their time on human-directed behaviour during the unsolvable task.” 

That “gesture vs memory” test is fascinating because it represents a real-life dilemma: does your dog trust you or trust their own experience? Some dogs are more human-guided; others are more independent decision-makers. Neither is “better,” but it’s highly important for training strategies, job roles, and expectations in pet homes. 

Working Function May Explain Some Patterns—But Not All 

The discussion raises an important point: Some findings seem consistent with functional selection pressures. For example: 

• Inhibitory control may be valuable in herding settings, where dogs must regulate predatory motor patterns. 

• Strong human-directed behavior may be associated with breeds bred to work closely with people, such as therapy dogs like the Labrador and Golden Retrievers. 

• Independence may be advantageous in roles that require self-directed persistence, such as those of livestock guardian dogs like the Great Pyrenees, Anatolian Shepherds and Kangals. 

However, the study repeatedly showed that breeds within the same functional group can still differ dramatically. “Herding dogs” are not cognitively interchangeable. Even closely related or similarly used breeds can diverge in specific traits depending on what was selected (intentionally or unintentionally) across generations. 

That nuance challenges the way we often talk about breed groups in marketing, training, and even client education. Broad categories may be convenient, but they can also be misleading. 

Not Everything Differs by Breed—and That Matters, Too 

Interestingly, the study did not find significant breed differences in: 

• Short-term memory (in the specific spatial memory task used) 

• Logical reasoning by exclusion (the inference task) 

This doesn’t mean breeds never differ in memory or reasoning. This means that, within the breeds tested, differences were not detectable using these specific task designs. That’s still quite informative, as it suggests some cognitive abilities may be more conserved across common breeds, that differences may be smaller than we assume, or that the tasks weren’t sensitive enough to the kinds of variation that exist. 

Nature vs Nurture: The Real Answer is ‘Both’—and We Need Better Data 

The study is careful about limitations, and it should make all of us cautious about over-interpreting breed differences as purely genetic. 

Most dogs in this dataset were privately owned pets, many of which were involved in dog sports. Training history and life experience weren’t fully captured. That matters because learning opportunities, handling styles, enrichment, and histories of reinforcement can substantially influence cognitive test performance. 

At the same time, the authors point to prior work suggesting that genetic relatedness among breeds can account for a meaningful portion of the variation in characteristics such as gesture-following and inhibitory control.  

The most responsible takeaway is: Breed differences likely reflect some heritable contributions,  but experience, training, and environment are powerful co-factors of canine cognition 

What This Means for Vets, Trainers, and Dog People 

If you work with dogs, professionally or personally, this study supports a practical mindset shift. Stop asking: “What is this breed like?” Start asking: “Which cognitive traits are likely strong here, and which may need support?” 

A few applications include: 

• Training plans: Dogs with lower inhibitory control may benefit from more structured impulse-control work and clearer reinforcement timing, not harsher correction. 

• Behavior expectations: A more independent dog isn’t “defiant.” They may simply default to self-guided problem-solving rather than human-directed strategies. 

• Enrichment matching: Dogs that explore less in a novel environment may require slower introductions, confidence-building, and lower-pressure novelty, rather than forced exposure. 
• Client communication: Breed can guide expectations, but it should never become a verdict. Individual variation remains enormous. 

The Bottom Line 

This study strengthens the case that cognition varies by breed in important, trait-specific ways, especially in areas tied to executive function and human social cues. It also highlights why simplistic breed stereotypes fail. Dogs aren’t “smart” or “not smart” in a single dimension. They are profiles of attention, inhibition, persistence, sociability, memory, and learning style, and are determined by both genetics and life experience. 

For me, the most important message is this: When we understand cognition as a set of learnable, supportable traits, we move away from labels and toward empathy. And that’s where better welfare, better training, and better human–dog relationships begin. 

Follow us on LinkedIn for the latest updates on all things happening here at BSM Partners.

About the Author

Dr. Katy Miller works as the Director of Veterinary Services at BSM Partners. She earned her veterinary degree at Ross University and completed her clinical year at Louisiana State University. She previously served for 11 years as the Director of Dog and Cat Health and Nutrition for Mud Bay where she earned multiple certifications and specialized in pet food nutrition, prior to which she practiced general and emergency medicine for seven years. She is also a competitive three-day eventer, licensed falconer, and claims only two (Golden and Mini Doxie) of their nine dogs.