Intergenerational Board Games Among Older Adults and School-Aged Children, Through the Lens of Shared Pro-Social Behaviors and Positive Affect
Funding: The authors received no specific funding for this work.
ABSTRACT
Social interactions are essential for both older adults and children, and engaging in intergenerational leisure activities offers social benefits for both generations. Board games stand out as a relevant medium for bringing together participants of different ages. However, their social features within an intergenerational context remain largely unexplored. This observational study sought to explore prosocial behaviors exhibited by older adults and school-aged children during both cooperative and competitive board games. Specifically, 11 dyads, each consisting of an older adult and a child, were filmed while playing a cooperative and a competitive board game. The results revealed that the older adults demonstrated more prosocial behaviors than the children, and the competitive setting fostered more pro-social behaviors than the cooperative one. Furthermore, intergenerational board games elicited positive affects among players, though the older participants reported facing significant difficulties and exerting considerable effort during the game sessions. These findings can inform the development of intergenerational programs aimed at fostering positive social interactions between older adults and children, serving as valuable guidelines for practitioners when selecting board games for such activities.
Summary
- Intergenerational board games promote pro-social behaviors such as supporting, sharing, comforting, and complimenting, with a higher frequency in older adults than in children.
- The competitive game encourages more pro-social behaviors than cooperative one.
- No antisocial behaviors were observed, highlighting the positive nature of this intergenerational activity.
- Intergenerational board games elicit positive affects in participants.
- Given the small sample size, further studies are needed to deepen the results and confirm the findings.
1 Introduction
Aging is a social phenomenon affecting nearly all high-income countries (He and Kinsella 2020). The global population aged over 60 is expected to double by 2050 and more than triple by 2100, driven by increased average life expectancy (Bongaarts 2009; Raleigh 1999). Factors like lower child mortality, advancements in public health and medical technology, and improved living conditions have resulted in people living longer and often healthier lives, especially at advanced ages (Canning and Schultz 2012; Martins et al. 2019). The growing aging population introduces new social challenges, including increased isolation and loneliness among older adults (Martins et al. 2019). The increased risk of social isolation negatively impacts older adults' health and is linked to higher risks of heart conditions, depression and cognitive decline (Findlay 2003; Fratiglioni et al. 2000; Iliffe et al. 2007). Thus, it is crucial to promote social interactions among older adults as they are vital for their well-being, impacting their mental, physical and emotional health (Bong et al. 2018). Social interactions are also crucial for school-aged children (Ferguson and Bradford 2021). Various social interactions beyond those with family play a significant role in fostering children's emotional and social development and highlight the importance of broad social networks, which encompass non-familial adults, in supporting children's developmental pathways (Hosoda et al. 2024). Social interactions allow both young and old to express and share pro-social behaviors that are crucial for younger adults' emotional and social development and for older adults' social relationships, mental health, and well-being (Hirani et al. 2022; Maalouly et al. 2023; Padilla-Walker and Carlo 2014; Raposa et al. 2016; Song et al. 2020).
Morever, middle childhood is a key developmental stage for the growth of socio-emotional competencies, as children's social environments become increasingly complex and their friendships more stable. During this period, learning to navigate social rules and interactions within larger, organized groups is essential for integrating into these settings (Colle and Del Giudice 2011). In late adulthood, despite challenges associated with cognitive and physical decline, older adults demonstrate a heightened capacity for resolving interpersonal challenges (Blanchard-Fields 2007). This ability is rooted in the wealth of knowledge they have accumulated through a lifetime of social and emotional experiences (Scheibe and Carstensen 2010). These complementary strengths create an opportunity for meaningful exchanges between school-aged children and older adults. Indeed, given the critical developmental phase in school-aged children and the experience of older people, these two populations can benefit from each other; older people can help children learn and practice their social competencies and share positive emotions with them, while maintaining their own physical and mental health (Tsiloni et al. 2024), contributing to successful aging and quality of life (Dartigues et al. 2013). Accordingly, recent systematic reviews highlight the emotional and social advantages of these interactions for both populations (Cès et al. 2024; Giraudeau and Bailly 2019), further emphasizing the potential of this intergenerational approach.
To address the need for social interactions for both generations, intergenerational activities, such as those involving older adults and children (Nauck and Steinbach 2009), offer a promising approach by fostering meaningful social interactions (Giraudeau and Bailly 2019). Among these, leisure activities which are distinct from work or daily routines stand out for their ability to strengthen communication and collaboration between generations, while also contributing to the social well-being of older adults (Verghese et al. 2006; Yates et al. 2016; Doroudian and Kaufman 2018; Torabian and Adib-Hajbaghery 2023). These activities also provide a space for emotional expression, a key factor in maintaining lifelong engagement (Scott and Fletcher 2024), and allow children to navigate their emotions, thus helping them to develop emotional skills (Coyl-Shepherd and Hanlon 2013; Freire and Teixeira 2018), while older adults benefit from the social interaction which enhances overall well-being. When it comes to shared activities between older adults and children, leisure activities, such as sharing games, are among the most popular (Aguilera-Hermida et al. 2020; Iso-Ahola and Baumeister 2023).
1.1 Playing Games Among Older Adults and Children
Research has clearly demonstrated that playing games is vital for children's healthy development, supporting the growth of emotional and social skills such as communication, cooperation, the ability to build social relationships and emotional regulation (Bergen and Fromberg 2009). Moreover, among older adults playing games can provide both cognitive and social benefits (Berman et al. 2020; Lee et al. 2020). Playful activities serve as a powerful bridge between different generations, fostering connections and creating meaningful opportunities for interaction. In addition, through shared play individuals from various age groups can build and strengthen relationships and communication while enjoying each other's company (Griff 1999; Williams et al. 2012; Vieira et al. 2016). This interaction transcends mere entertainment, as it allows both generations to engage in cooperative learning, offering a unique platform for mutual growth, often leading to moments of shared laughter in which mistakes and difficulties become bonding experiences that reinforce the sense of community and mutual respect between generations (Griff 1999; Zhang and Kaufman 2016). Playing games is a popular intergenerational leisure activity that includes sports, playing catch, but also engaging in board games (Aguilera-Hermida et al. 2020; Zhang and Kaufman 2016).
1.2 Board Games
Among various playing opportunities, research indicates that playing board games is a particularly beneficial and enriching experience for both seniors and children (Dartigues et al. 2013; O'Neill and Holmes 2022). These games typically require a physical medium, such as a board, cards or dice, and are played by two or more participants (Gobet et al. 2004). Three recent literature reviews have found that board games can help improve the cognitive abilities of older adults and children (Gauthier et al. 2019; Nakao 2019; Noda et al. 2019) but they also provide opportunities to improve concentration, to see things from the other person's perspective, to learn by doing, and to encourage communication between players (Chiarello and Castellano 2016). In an intergenerational context, board games are particularly noteworthy for involving participants of varying ages, fostering positive and meaningful social experiences, and enhancing mutual understanding. Their social features facilitate interactions between generations, while their recreational aspect promotes exposure to novelty, initiative-taking, planning, and adjusting to winning or losing, all of which bring immediate enjoyment to participants. Furthermore, board games can be played with family members, friends, or even strangers, thus promoting social exchange and interaction across different generations (Dartigues et al. 2013; Gauthier et al. 2019; Peppler et al. 2013; Rogerson and Gibbs 2018).
Board games seem to provide a pleasant experience for participants (Dartigues et al. 2013; O'Neill and Holmes 2022). Indeed, several studies have examined participants' experiences with board games. For example, Estrada-Plana et al. (2021) reported that older adults gave positive ratings in relation to the difficulty and enjoyment of board games. For children, the study by Dell'Angela et al. (2020) offers insights into their experiences, focusing on aspects such as positive and negative affect, flow and immersion, difficulty and effort. On the other hand, Eriksson et al. (2021) indicated that children preferred cooperative to competitive board games. However, to our knowledge, to date, no studies have examined the shared experiences of older adults and children while playing board games.
1.3 Cooperative and Competitive Board Games
Board games are typically grouped into two main types, namely competitive and cooperative. In competitive games, players design strategies specifically to counteract their opponents, with each player's goals being in direct conflict with those of the others (Zagal and Rick 2006), while cooperative games are characterized by the fact that all players either win or lose together (Stone and Schaefer 2019). However, the distinction between collaborative and competitive board games is often overly simplistic, as in reality these two aspects intricately intertwine. Indeed, even within competitive settings, cooperative behaviors can emerge, manifested in negotiations of the rules, the pursuit of common goals or mutual assistance, all of which depend on the context and the players involved (Rogerson et al. 2018). Nevertheless, research has shown that the nature of board games significantly influences children's behavior, with cooperative games leading to more pro-social actions. Bay-Hinitz et al. (1994) observed that cooperative games can positively influence social behaviors and reduce aggression, whereas competitive games tended to have the opposite effect. Zan and Hildebrandt (2003) expanded on this by examining social interactions during board games, finding that cooperative games promoted greater negotiation and sharing among children. Moreover, Peppler et al. (2013) found that children who participated in cooperative board games made more positive comments to one another compared to those in competitive settings. The literature appears to suggest that cooperative games are more effective in promoting pro-social behaviors among participants, although these findings are moderated by some studies that do not consistently identify significant differences (Eriksson et al. 2021). However, to our knowledge, despite the social characteristics of board games (O'Neill and Holmes 2022), no studies have explored their social nature in an intergenerational context, particularly when comparing cooperative and competitive games. Indeed, Berry's (2011) sociological study highlighted that intergenerational interaction played a significant role in the practice of board games.
1.4 Pro-Social Behaviors
Pro-social behaviors, as defined by Eisenberg (2006), refer to voluntary actions intended to benefit others. They serve as an overarching category encompassing various types of behaviors, including helping, sharing, and comforting. Research shows that pro-social behaviors such as helping others are crucial for youth development (Hirani et al. 2022). It is widely agreed that teaching young people to help others early in life leads to positive mental health outcomes as they grow older (Padilla-Walker and Carlo 2014). Studies consistently show that helping others benefits young people by reducing stress (Raposa et al. 2016), increasing happiness (Song et al. 2020) and strengthening social connections (Padilla-Walker and Carlo 2014). Cultivating pro-social behaviors is crucial for children's social development (Eisenberg and Mussen 1989) and is strongly linked to better adjustment during childhood and adolescence (Eisenberg et al. 2013; Kokko et al. 2006), as well as overall successful youth development (Crone and Achterberg 2022). Middle childhood represents a pivotal period during which pro-social behaviors emerge, with socialization playing a key role in nurturing and reinforcing these behaviors (Chen et al. 2020; Hertz-Lazarowitz et al. 1989).
Pro-social behaviors are important during childhood, but the same is also true in later life (Fratiglioni et al. 2000). Indeed, pro-social behaviors play a crucial role in older adults in fostering social integration and maintaining healthy social interactions (Maalouly et al. 2023), and social connections are highly important in later life as they can help to limit dementia and reduce loneliness (Fratiglioni et al. 2000; Perese and Wolf 2005). Pro-social behaviors directed toward younger generations have been associated with better health in older adults. Indeed, in a study involving 86 older adults, those who engaged more frequently in pro-social behaviors generally experienced fewer low-arousal negative emotions and effects, and more high-arousal positive emotions and effects (Chi et al. 2018).
1.5 Rationales
RQ1: Among older adults and school-aged children, who engages in more pro-social behaviors?
RQ2: Which type of board game (competitive vs. cooperative) fosters the greatest amount of pro-social behavior between older adults and school-aged children?
RQ3: How do older adults and school-aged children characterize their experiences with intergenerational board games after participating?
2 Methods
2.1 Design
This exploratory study is based on observational data of dyadic board games played between older adults and school-aged children. In each dyad, the participants engaged in two different types of board games, one competitive and the other cooperative. The participants were randomly paired. Each dyad was video recorded during their playing sessions. The goal was to observe pro-social behaviors shared between the older adults and children in each setting. After the game session, the participants were asked to complete a questionnaire designed to assess their feelings and perceptions of the intergenerational board game experience. The average duration of a cooperative board game session was 9 min and 2 s, while the competitive game typically lasted on average 9 min and 24 s.
2.2 Participants
Eleven school-aged children (eight girls and three boys, M = 7.5 years, SD = 1.69 years) and 11 older adults (10 women and one man, M = 74.9 years, SD = 6.03 years) were paired to participate in this study. Each dyad was composed of an older adult and a child, resulting in a total of 11 dyads. The children were recruited through outreach to schools in the [Centre-Val de Loire Region]. Once the school agreed to participate in the intergenerational project, researchers collaborated with school teachers, administrators, and the headteacher to organize several intergenerational days during which the experiment was conducted. The older adults were recruited via the local networks of the school, word of mouth, and flyers strategically placed in a variety of local shops such as bakeries, laundromats, or grocery stores. This approach ensured that information about the study reached a wide audience, thereby providing potential participants from diverse socio-professional backgrounds. Regarding the parents' situations, five children had parents who were both employees, three had parents who were both in intermediate professions, one had parents who were workers, one had a parent who was a business owner and a stay-at-home parent, and the last had a parent who was a worker and a stay-at-home parent. Regarding the older adults, before retirement their socio-professional situations had been: six employees, three workers, one manager, and two were unemployed. To be included, the children had to be between six and 12 years old and attending elementary school. For the older adults, the participants had to be over 65 years old. We chose to exclude participants with cognitive, language, or psychological impairments because they might have had difficulties in communicating and understanding the study instructions and board game rules. This also avoided any potential stress or discomfort for people with such issues and ensured that only those who could participate informedly and voluntarily did so (see Table 1).
| Children | Older adults | |
|---|---|---|
| N | 11 | 11 |
| Age M (SD) | 7.5 (1.69) | 74.9 (6.03) |
| Range | 6–10 | 65–86 |
| Female (%) | 8 (72.7%) | 10 (90.9%) |
| Male (%) | 3 (27.3%) | 1 (9.1%) |
| Number of children M | 3.2 | |
| Number of grandchildren M | 4.8 | |
| Older adults marital status (%) | ||
| Married | 8 (72.7%) | |
| Divorced | 2 (18.2%) | |
| In a relationship | 1 (9.1%) | |
| Board game habits (%) | ||
| Every day | 4 (36.4%) | 1 (9.1%) |
| Several times/week | 6 (54.5%) | 5 (45.4%) |
| Several times/month | 0 (0%) | 3 (27.3%) |
| Several times/year | 1 (9.1%) | 2 (18.2%) |
2.3 Procedure
The study was approved by the [BLINDED] institutional ethics committee, and information was collected from the older adults and children with their consent and that of their parents. The participants were informed about the voluntary nature of their participation, the audio and video recording of sessions, and the measures taken to ensure confidentiality and anonymity. After the school agreed to organize intergenerational days with the research team, teachers asked which children were interested in participating in the board game sessions with older adults. Demographic data were collected, including age, sex, marital status (or parents' marital status) and board game habits.
The researcher invited the older adults and children into an empty classroom and asked them to sit face to face. The participants were informed that they would play two board games, one cooperative, Bandido (Nedergaard Andersen and Guidetti Perez 2016) and one competitive, Spécific (Pellin and Kruchten 2016) and that they would be filmed. The researcher then explained the rules of the first board game to the dyad and answered any questions. The participants did not try the games before the recordings, thus allowing them to learn the rules on the spot. This approach encouraged them to support each other in understanding the rules and managing playing. After the first game, the researcher explained the rules of the second game. To minimize intervention, each dyad was provided with a guide containing the rules for both games. To minimize biases and ensure that the results accurately reflected the effects of the variables of interest (e.g., the nature of the game), the order in which the games were played was counterbalanced across dyads. Specifically, five dyads started with the cooperative game (Bandido), while six dyads began with the competitive game (Spécific). This counterbalancing aimed to control for potential order effects that could influence participants' behaviors or interactions (Kooken et al. 2017). After playing both board games, the participants were invited to complete the Board Game Experience Questionnaire (Dell'Angela et al. 2020) to gather their impressions of the intergenerational board game experience. The researcher stayed with the children to help them fill out the questionnaire.
2.4 Material
2.4.1 Selection of Board Games
In a recent systematic review (Cès et al. 2024) several recommendations were made in order to improve the scientific quality of board game studies. One key recommendation was that studies involving board games should provide detailed information about the purpose and principles of the games and why they were selected. Additionally, the selection process involved choosing games suitable for older adults, taking into account age-related impairments and also for children with age-related differences in reading skills. Therefore, we consulted board game specialists working in game libraries to find games that featured large pictograms instead of written information. Thus, as our study included six-year-olds, children who were still developing their reading skills were not disadvantaged (Ostrolenk et al. 2017), and it also helped prevent challenges for the older adults who may have aging-related vision impairments (Al-Namaeh 2022). Finally, games that had adjustable levels of difficulty were chosen to take into account the significant difference in cognitive abilities of children between six and 10 years old (Babakr et al. 2019).
In Bandido (Nedergaard Andersen and Guidetti Perez 2016), players work together to prevent a bandit from escaping his underground prison by blocking all exits. Each turn, players draw a card and place it on a grid, creating a network of tunnels. The game emphasizes cognitive skills through strategic planning and collective decision-making. Players must anticipate the bandit's movements and communicate effectively to evaluate the best place to put cards, which thus encourages critical thinking. As unexpected paths may open up, players face challenges that require quick adjustments and creative problem-solving. Success hinges on their ability to collaborate, communicate, and think critically, as a single open exit means the bandit escapes, leading to a collective loss (See supplementary data for more details about the game).
In the competitive board game Spécific (Pellin and Kruchten 2016), players race to identify an animal that matches three criteria, which are type of movement, diet, and habitat. Each round begins with players rolling three dice that indicate these characteristics. The first to find and show the corresponding animal card wins a point, continuing until one player collects four or five cards. The game requires cognitive skills like recognition and categorization, as players must rapidly match the criteria with animal cards. It also requires strategic thinking and attention, and memory, as players need to remember previous cards and ensure they accurately identify the animal (See Supporting Information for more details about the game).
2.4.2 Coding Grid
The observation grid for pro-social behaviors was developed in three phases, following the guidelines of Strayer and Gauthier (1982). (1) In the initial descriptive phase, we identified behaviors relevant to the context under study by reviewing existing literature in order to identify and describe a wide range of behaviors. This was followed by an unstructured observation period during the intergenerational board game sessions, during which we recorded the child and older adult participants' pro-social behaviors in a logbook. By combining theoretical insights from sources such as Eriksson et al. (2021), Jarrott et al. (2008), Maalouly et al. (2023), Malti et al. (2016), and Williams et al. (2012) with empirical observations, we categorized the behaviors and created an initial version of the observation grid. (2) In the exploratory phase, we focused on refining the list of identified behaviors. The researcher conducted flexible observations of two dyads during an intergenerational day to gather detailed information on selected pro-social behaviors. This process helped eliminate irrelevant behaviors and adjust the labels for the various categories, thereby streamlining the observation grid. It is important to recognize that an observer can never be entirely detached from the situation and that both natural and laboratory observations can be intrusive, potentially causing participants to behave in atypical ways due to concerns about social desirability, as noted by Desimone (2009) and Mucchielli (1996). To reduce this reactivity, it is crucial to employ the least intrusive observation method. Video recording, chosen for this research, serves as an effective medium between the observer and the observed and has been proven highly effective in capturing detailed and comprehensive data according to Brunvard (2010) and Guikas et al. (2016). (3) In the final systematic evaluation phase, the observation grid was applied to the 11 dyads, focusing on the situational context and identifying four categories of pro-social behaviors to observe during intergenerational board games. These categories of behaviors included (1) supportive, which involved explaining the rules and guiding toward solutions, (2) sharing, which encompassed sharing knowledge and initiating off-topic conversations, (3) comforting, which involved encouragement and reassurance, and (4) complimenting, which included congratulating partners and highlighting their qualities. The first three categories were derived from a previous study on board games and pro-social and anti-social behaviors among preschoolers (Eriksson et al. 2021) and were adapted to the intergenerational context, while the additional category of complimenting emerged from its frequent occurrence across nearly all dyads. Although we initially included a category for anti-social behaviors based on Eriksson et al.'s (2021) study, it was later excluded from our analysis as no instances were observed during the intergenerational sessions, although the absence of such behaviors is discussed in the analysis section.
Regarding the coding process, since one of our objectives was to determine whether one of the conditions (cooperative or competitive) influences the frequency of pro-social behaviors expressed by the participants, we chose to record the occurrence frequency of these behaviors. To capture these behaviors as accurately as possible, we opted to code the entire video continuously rather than breaking it into time intervals. Continuous coding allows for a more precise recording of behavioral frequencies and avoids the potential loss of context that can occur with interval-based methods (Blatchford 2003). To ensure the reliability of our coding process, we calculated the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) across a subset of videos coded by two raters (Koo and Li 2016). To control for agreement between coders, double coding for two dyads (four participants in all) was conducted. The ICC for this sample was 0.89 for supporting behaviors, 0.54 for sharing behaviors, 0.91 for comforting behaviors, and 0.84 for the complimenting category. The low ICC for sharing behaviors is addressed in the discussion section.
2.4.3 The Board Game Experience Questionnaire
The Board Game Experience Questionnaire is a 21-item self-report tool designed to capture a comprehensive view of participants' experiences with intergenerational board games. It evaluates five dimensions of the game-playing experience, including positive affect, negative affect, flow and immersion, perceptions of difficulty and the effort invested in the game. The participants used five-point scales to rate these aspects, allowing for detailed and nuanced feedback. The questionnaire has been translated into French and is accessible to both children and elderly participants (Dell'Angela et al. 2020).
2.5 Data Analysis
Analyses were conducted using SPSS 25.0. In our observational study, both the Mann–Whitney and Kruskal-Wallis tests were used to analyze the data. For the first research question, the Mann–Whitney test was applied to compare the amount of pro-social behaviors between the older adults and children. For the second research question, the Mann–Whitney test was also used to compare pro-social behaviors between the cooperative and competitive experimental conditions to determine whether one condition significantly influenced the observed behaviors more than the other. To deepen the analysis, a Kruskal-Wallis test was performed to examine the combined effect of the two independent variables. Specifically, we analyzed differences among the four groups (i.e., the older adults in the cooperative condition, the older adults in the competitive condition, the children in the cooperative condition, and the children in the competitive condition) concerning the frequency of each pro-social behavior category. Subsequently, we used the Mann–Whitney test for pairwise comparisons relevant to this study (competitive children vs. cooperative children; competitive older adults vs. cooperative older adults; cooperative children vs. cooperative older adults; competitive children vs. competitive older adults). Given that each comparison increases the risk of Type I error, we applied a Bonferroni correction. Finally, regarding the last research question about the Board Game Experience Questionnaire, we compared the results between the older adults and children across the five dimensions, using a Mann–Whitney test to check for significant differences between the two groups for each dimension.
3 Results
3.1 Observed pro-Social Behaviors
The first research question sought to determine whether older adults or children exhibit more pro-social behaviors. It is also important to note that some dyads exhibited a high number of prosocial behaviors and were very prosocial, while others were less so. The most prosocial dyad expressed 47 prosocial behaviors, whereas the least prosocial dyad expressed 19 prosocial behaviors. The findings revealed that the older adults demonstrated significantly more supporting behaviors than the children (p = 0.002). Additionally, the older adults showed significantly higher levels of comforting behaviors than the children (p < 0.001) and also expressed more compliments compared to the children (p < 0.001). However, the results for sharing behaviors were not significant (see Table 2).
| Pro-social behaviors | Older adults M (SD) (n = 11) | Children M (SD) (n = 11) | u | z | p |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Supporting | 13.45 (6.82) | 6.73 (3.28) | 112,000 | −3.054 | 0.002** |
| Sharing | 11.36 (7.35) | 7.91 (4.38) | 187,000 | −1.296 | 0.195 |
| Comforting | 8.45 (3.17) | 2.77 (2.16) | 51,000 | −4.504 | 0.001*** |
| Complimenting | 3.13 (1.64) | 0.82 (1.01) | 71,500 | −4.103 | 0.001*** |
- ** p < 0.01.
- *** p < 0.001.
The second research question explored whether the cooperative or competitive condition promoted more pro-social behaviors among participants. The findings revealed that the competitive condition was associated with higher levels of supporting behaviors than the cooperative condition (p = 0.002). Similarly, the competitive condition initiated more sharing behaviors than the cooperative condition (p < 0.001). Compliments were also more frequent in the competitive than the cooperative condition (p < 0.001). However, comforting behaviors did not show significant differences (see Table 3).
| Pro-social behaviors | Competitive M (SD) (n = 11) | Cooperative M (SD) (n = 11) | u | z | p |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Supporting | 11.86 (6.53) | 8.32 (5.63) | 156,000 | −2.016 | 0.044* |
| Sharing | 12.72 (6.72) | 6.54 (3.78) | 101,000 | −3.322 | 0.001*** |
| Comforting | 6.45 (4.11) | 5.5 (3.26) | 210,000 | −0.755 | 0.450 |
| Complimenting | 2.54 (2.08) | 1.27 (1.16) | 157,500 | −2.034 | 0.042* |
- * p < 0.05.
- *** p < 0.001.
To provide more precise information, we combined the two independent variables (condition and age) and conducted a Kruskal-Wallis test. This allowed us to compare not only the older adults in the cooperative condition with those in the competitive condition, and the children in the cooperative condition with those in the competitive condition, but also to examine the differences between the older adults and children within both the competitive and cooperative conditions. The results indicated that the behaviors differed significantly among these groups: supporting (p = 0.006), sharing (p = 0.005), comforting (p < 0.001), and compliments (p < 0.001) (see Table 4).
| Pro-social behaviors | Older people M competitive (SD) | Older adults M cooperative (SD) | Children competitive M (SD) | Children cooperative M (SD) | χ 2 | p |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Supporting | 15.63 (6.97) | 11.27 (6.21) | 8.09 (3.11) | 5.36 (2.97) | 12.431 | 0.006** |
| Sharing | 15.90 (7.19) | 6.81 (4.04) | 9.54 (4.59) | 6.27 (3.66) | 13.047 | 0.005** |
| Comforting | 10 (2.40) | 6.91 (3.18) | 2.90 (1.44) | 4.09 (2.80) | 23.949 | 0.001*** |
| Complimenting | 4.18 (1.40) | 1.81 (1.17) | 0.90 (1.13) | 0.72 (0.90) | 23.752 | 0.001*** |
- ** p < 0.01.
- *** p < 0.001.
The Kruskal-Wallis test indicated significant differences. Therefore, we performed Mann–Whitney U tests for pairwise comparisons of the competitive and cooperative children, the competitive and cooperative older adults, the cooperative children and cooperative older adults, and the competitive children and competitive older adults. Each comparison increases the risk of Type I error. To address this, we applied a Bonferroni correction. As a result, the Bonferroni-adjusted significance level was set at 0.013 to account for the multiple Mann–Whitney U tests being conducted. Regarding the first comparison, there were no significant differences between the children in the cooperative and competitive conditions.
Comparing the older adults in the competitive condition to those in the cooperative condition, the results showed that those in the competitive condition exhibited more sharing behaviors than those in the cooperative condition (u = 17.000, p = 0.004). Similarly, they gave more compliments in the competitive condition than in the cooperative condition (u = 11.500, p < 0.001). However, no significant differences were observed in supporting and comforting behaviors.
When comparing the older adults and children within the competitive condition, the results revealed that the older adults displayed significantly more supporting behaviors than the children (u = 26.000, p = 0.013). Similarly, the older adults showed a higher frequency of comforting behaviors than the children (u = 0.000, p < 0.001) in the competitive condition. Additionally, the older adults gave more compliments than the children (u = 5.000, p < 0.001) in the same condition. However, no significant differences were found in sharing behaviors. Finally, the comparison between the older adults and children in the cooperative condition revealed no significant differences, even though, on average, the older adults expressed more pro-social behaviors in each category.
3.2 The Board Game Experience
To explore how the children and older adults characterized their experiences regarding this shared intergenerational activity, we asked them to complete the Board Game Experience Questionnaire (Dell'Angela et al. 2020). This questionnaire measures five dimensions: positive affect, negative affect, flow and immersion, perceived difficulty, and effort exerted during the board games. We conducted Mann–Whitney U tests to compare differences between older adults and children across these five dimensions (see Table 5).
| Dimensions | Older adults M (SD) (n = 11) | Children M (SD) (n = 11) | u | z | p |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Positive affect | 4.77 (0.40) | 4.91 (0.20) | 52,000 | −0.676 | 0.499 |
| Flow and immersion | 3.79 (1.10) | 4.11 (0.80) | 51,000 | −0.632 | 0.527 |
| Negative affect | 1.45 (0.93) | 1.39 (0.67) | 47,500 | −0.963 | 0.336 |
| Difficulty | 2.38 (1.12) | 1.29 (0.33) | 20,500 | −2.678 | 0.007** |
| Effort | 3.04 (1.06) | 1.54 (0.66) | 14,000 | −3.091 | 0.002** |
- ** p < 0.01.
The results showed that both the older adults and children experienced positive affect and minimal negative affect, with high levels of flow and immersion during the board games. However, the older adults reported greater difficulty with the games compared to the children (p = 0.007). Additionally, the older adults reported putting in more effort during the games than the children (p = 0.002).
4 Discussion
This exploratory observational study examined pro-social behaviors among older adults and school-aged children during cooperative and competitive board games. The low inter-coder reliability (McHugh 2012) for the sharing category can be explained by the subjective nature of the observed social interactions. The same act can be interpreted differently depending on each coder's perspective, and this subjectivity leads to variations in behavior assessment, as each coder may rely on their own experiences, values, and social expectations (Sussman 2016) to determine what constitutes an act of sharing. Furthermore, the interaction dynamics between participants add a layer of complexity. The observed behaviors can evolve rapidly, meaning that an act of sharing may be preceded or followed by other types of interactions that influence how it is perceived. As a result, behaviors may become mixed, making it challenging for coders to draw a clear distinction between what truly falls under sharing and what belongs to other forms of social interaction.
Our results indicate that both the older adults and children exhibited pro-social behaviors during the board game sessions. These findings can be interpreted through the lens of the intergenerational solidarity theory, which describes the intentional bonds formed between individuals from different age groups and serves as a crucial element of intergenerational relationships (Cruz-Saco 2010). Intergenerational solidarity is characterized by six dimensions, one of which is the functional dimension (Bengtson and Mangen 1988; Bengtson and Roberts 1991; Bengtson and Schrader 1982; Roberts et al. 1991; Silverstein and Long 1998). This functional solidarity involves reciprocal support between generations, which can be financial or non-financial, as well as instrumental or emotional. It includes actions such as attentive listening, showing empathy, and acknowledging others' perspectives. Such solidarity can be recognized in both the support given and that received (Duflos and Giraudeau 2022). According to Cortellesi and Kernan (2016), intergenerational solidarity behaviors can be fostered in playful environments that create opportunities for young and older individuals to engage in activities together. In our study, board games seem to promote the emergence of functional solidarity, as indicated by the frequent pro-social behaviors exhibited by the older adults. However, the children also demonstrated pro-social behaviors, which highlight a reciprocal nature in these interactions. This finding thus underlines the bidirectional nature of functional solidarity (Authors 2022). Indeed, while older adults offer tangible support, children actively contribute to the dynamic of assistance, thereby enhancing cooperation and interdependence between generations.
Moreover, the older adults exhibited significantly more supportive, comforting, and complimenting behaviors than the children, a pattern explained by the theory of generativity (Erikson 1963; Kotre 1984), which suggests that aging individuals seek to support future generations. These results can also be explained through the lens of the scaffolding theory (Wood et al. 1976), closely aligned with Vygotsky's zone of proximal development (Vygotsky 1978). Traditionally, scaffolding involves adults assisting children in completing tasks that would be too challenging for them to handle alone. Driven by their generativity, older adults demonstrate an intrinsic motivation to guide younger individuals, offering support, sharing knowledge and providing encouragement, whether in competitive or cooperative settings. This helps children navigate challenges and achieve their goals more effectively. However, scaffolding is not a one-way process, being also bidirectional (Fair and Delaplane 2014; Kenner et al. 2007). Indeed, children, in turn, exhibit pro-social behaviors by offering help, encouragement and support to older adults, creating a dynamic of mutual assistance. This reciprocal scaffolding emphasizes the unique dynamic of intergenerational board games, in which both generations support each other's learning and development. The interplay between generativity and scaffolding shapes these interactions, making board games a distinct activity that naturally fosters meaningful exchanges across generations.
However, for sharing behaviors, there were no significant differences between the older adults and children, which is surprising given the general desire of older adults to share their knowledge with younger people (Pillemer et al. 2022). Sharing knowledge demands cognitive resources (Qian et al. 2020), and in our experiment the older participants were subjected to high cognitive demands, as they reported facing considerable difficulties and exerting substantial effort during the board game sessions compared to the children. Given that aging is associated with an increase in the costs of cognitive-related actions (Christensen 2001; Hess 2014), the older adults cognitive resources may have been too limited to engage in sharing behaviors.
Interestingly, our results indicate that the competitive condition fostered more pro-social behavior than the cooperative one, which is contrary to the literature on cooperative and competitive board games that focuses on peer interactions during game playing (Bay-Hinitz et al. 1994; Zan and Hildebrandt 2003). This highlights the complexity of social dynamics in board games and provides new insights into intergenerational interactions. Indeed, the way the game unfolds is influenced by both the context and the players involved, and this interplay shapes the dynamics of the game-playing experience, affecting how participants interact and engage with one another (Rogerson et al. 2018). This distinct environment may help explain the results observed, as interactions between older adults and children can foster behaviors and motivations that diverge from those seen in peer-based gameplay.
Furthermore, we can hypothesize that the unique setting of intergenerational board games might also explain the absence of antisocial behaviors. These results could be understood in relation to the Contact Theory, which posits that for positive outcomes between two groups, four essential conditions must be met: equal status between the groups, shared goals, cooperative interactions, and endorsement by authorities (Allport 1954). This theory has previously been applied to intergenerational contexts (Caspi 1984), showing that it can improve intergenerational interactions and promote positive behaviors between people of different generations (Jarrott and Smith 2011). The fact that the participants from different generations shared equal status (players), were united by a common goal (playing together) around an activity that required cooperation (Rogerson et al. 2018) and that the researchers and the school provided a supportive environment likely contributed to this interesting result, especially on the children's behalf.
Regarding our last research question, our results indicate that both the older adults and children experienced predominantly positive affect during the board game sessions, with minimal negative affect reported. These findings align with existing literature, which suggests that board games tend to elicit more positive than negative emotions (Fang et al. 2016). The players also reported significant feelings of flow and immersion during these sessions, supporting the notion presented in the literature that board games are engaging and immersive activities (Arnaudo 2017; Dell'Angela et al. 2020; Shen et al. 2022). However, while previous research has highlighted the engaging nature of board games, our study specifically examined these emotional experiences within the intergenerational context, thus offering new insight regarding intergenerational board games.
Despite the elements mentioned above, several limitations should be taken into account. Firstly, the participants had varying levels of experience with board games; some played only a few times a year, while others played daily. We can assume that those who played regularly may have had a greater interest in board games than the occasional players, suggesting a potential bias in participant selection. Additionally, there was a significant age disparity among the children, with ages ranging from six to 10 years old. This age range encompasses a wide spectrum of social development (Colle and Del Giudice 2011; Lau and Wu 2012). A study with the same design but with more participants could allow researchers to compare the amount of pro-social behaviors expressed based on the children's age and on the frequency of board game playing reported by the participants. Secondly, while the participants shared their experiences regarding their affect during intergenerational board game sessions through a questionnaire, these results could be influenced by social desirability (Van de Mortel 2020). Therefore, it would be interesting to use facial analysis software like the Affectiva Affdex software (iMotions 2015) to provide objective insights into the emotions experienced during game playing. A study using a game that can be played in both cooperative and competitive conditions could help eliminate this bias by allowing researchers to directly compare the effects of each mode on pro-social behaviors. By designing an experiment in which the same game can switch between cooperative and competitive formats, researchers could control for variables related to game mechanics and assess how the dynamics of each type of game influence player interactions. This approach would provide a clearer understanding of how the nature of the game itself, rather than the inherent characteristics of cooperative or competitive play, impacts the pro-social behaviors exhibited by participants. One other limitation of this study lies in the variability of pro-social behaviors expressed across dyads. While some dyads demonstrated a high frequency of pro-social behaviors, others exhibited fewer. This variability suggests that individual or dyadic characteristics, such as personality traits or prior relationships, may have influenced the outcomes. For instance, older adults who are used to interacting with or to playing with children may be more inclined to support them during gameplay, leading to a higher expression of pro-social behaviors. Future research could investigate the role of such variables to better understand the factors driving differences in pro-social behaviors within intergenerational dyads. This study involved participants who did not have family ties, which may limit the generalizability of the findings to broader intergenerational contexts. Future research investigating intergenerational board games among grandparents and grandchildren could provide valuable insights into the specific types of pro-social behaviors expressed in that unique context. Additionally, exploring these dynamics within family ties may reveal how pre-existing relationships influence interactions and the frequency of pro-social behaviors, thereby enriching our understanding of intergenerational engagement through board games. While this exploratory study provides valuable initial insights, the limited number of participants makes it difficult to draw firm conclusions or to generalize the results to a broader population. A more extensive study with a larger number of participants would offer the opportunity for a deeper understanding of the observed phenomena, particularly regarding the dynamics of pro-social behaviors in intergenerational interactions during board games. While it does not provide definitive answers, it opens up important avenues for investigation and highlights the potential of intergenerational board games. Future studies building on these initial findings could refine the hypotheses and explore the variables that may shape these dynamics, ultimately contributing to a more comprehensive understanding of intergenerational interactions during board games.
The findings of the present study have significant implications. This research highlights the pro-social behaviors that board games can elicit in an intergenerational context. It can serve as a foundation for developing intergenerational programs that intentionally incorporate board games to foster pro-social behaviors between older adults and children. Such behaviors are essential for older individuals in maintaining healthy social relationships and enhancing their emotional well-being (Chi et al. 2018; Maalouly et al. 2023). For younger participants, experiencing and learning these behaviors are crucial for their social development (Padilla-Walker and Carlo 2014). Furthermore, since board games appear to promote positive affect and provide an immersive and engaging experience, integrating these activities into intergenerational programs could further enhance the benefits for both age groups. By implementing such programs, practitioners and authorities could actively promote pro-social behaviors that enhance social health among both age groups. Moreover, the findings suggest that competitive conditions tend to foster more pro-social behaviors, which can provide valuable guidelines for practitioners when selecting board games for intergenerational activities. It is important to note that the older adults reported facing significant difficulties and exerting considerable effort during the board games, indicating that practitioners should consider choosing games with simple rules tailored to this population. This insight can help practitioners create environments that encourage positive interactions between older adults and children, leveraging the engaging nature of board games to enhance the dynamics of their interactions.
5 Conclusion
This exploratory observational study indicates that intergenerational board games can foster various pro-social behaviors, including supporting, sharing, comforting, and paying compliments. Notably, our analysis reveals that the older adults exhibit more pro-social behaviors than the school-aged children, a finding that aligns with the theories of generativity and scaffolding. Moreover, the data suggest that competitive board games foster more pro-social behaviors than the cooperative ones. Additionally, it is noteworthy that our experiment with intergenerational board games did not reveal any antisocial behaviors, further highlighting the positive nature of this intergenerational leisure activity. Furthermore, these games not only foster positive affect but also provide an engaging and immersive experience for players. However, it is important to acknowledge that the older participants reported facing difficulties and exerting significant effort during these activities. These findings indicate that board games could be a valuable choice for intergenerational programs, providing meaningful insights for those looking to implement such activities in diverse contexts. This exploratory study highlights the unique characteristics of intergenerational board games, emphasizing their potential to enrich social interactions among older adults and children. It is important to emphasize that this is an exploratory study, and the results presented here should be considered preliminary. Due to the small sample size, the findings need to be interpreted with caution. A more extensive study with a larger number of participants would allow for a deeper understanding of the phenomena observed and provide more robust insights. Consequently, further investigation is warranted to deepen our understanding of this engaging activity and its broader implications for fostering strong, positive relationships across generations.
Author Contributions
Pierre Cès was involved in literature review, study design, methodology, recruitment, data collection, data analysis, original manuscript writing, and final manuscript writing. Anne-Lise Doyen and Caroline Giraudeau were involved in study design, methodology, data analysis, project coordination, reviewing, and editing. Mathilde Duflos was involved in study design, methodology, literature review, data analysis, methodology, reviewing, and editing.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
Open Research
Data Availability Statement
The data that support the findings of this study are available on request from the corresponding author. The data are not publicly available due to privacy or ethical restrictions.
