pillar
Why play matters — what the research says
Play is not a break from life. It’s how we explore, fail without fear and move closer to one another. That’s our conviction. But a conviction isn’t evidence — so we read what the research says about play and about board games, and gathered the essentials here: what holds up, in which populations, with which limits.
How to read this page. We synthesise other people’s research — we produced none of these findings and we offer no therapy or counselling. Numbered facts [n] point to the source file at the end, which records, for each source: what kind of study it is, who it studied, what it supports and what it does NOT support.
1. Playing together changes how we interact
The most direct question — does something actually happen between people when they play? — has a documented answer. A systematic review of board-game interventions found three recurring effects across the included studies: better understanding of taught material, richer interpersonal interaction, and increased motivation[1]. A more recent systematic review (11 studies) looked at two populations separately, and the findings differ: for older people, most included studies reported that board games can be useful above all for mood (including depressive symptoms), social interaction and communication; for school-age children, games showed up as a useful tool for reducing problem behaviours, supporting pro-social behaviour and opening up talk about emotions[2].
Two populations, different findings
School-age children
- fewer problem behaviours
- more pro-social behaviour
- opening up talk about emotions
Older people
- mood, including depressive symptoms
- social interaction
- communication
Cès et al. (2024) — a systematic review of 11 studies — looked at school-age children and older people separately. The findings are not the same for both. [2]
Our interpretation
The studies we cite suggest that, in certain contexts and populations, games can support interaction and conversation. They don’t say every game night produces measurable outcomes — they say the table can be a setting where interaction happens more easily.
2. Play and learning
A multidisciplinary review of recent board-game research shows tabletop play used and studied as a learning medium in fields from mathematics to literacy and STEM, and that group play involves negotiation, cooperation and decision-making — precisely the raw material of a good workshop[3]. For young children, the American Academy of Pediatrics’ clinical report synthesises a large body of research: developmentally appropriate play with parents and peers supports executive function, language and safe, stable relationships[4].
Our interpretation
Learning through play is neither a metaphor nor an automatism — in the studies, the design of the activity and how it is facilitated matter. Which is why we’re designing our workshops to have a thread and a host, not just boxes on a table.
3. Wellbeing — without promises
A randomised placebo-controlled study in adults tested simple self-administered playfulness exercises at home for a week — not board-game nights: participants reported increases in playfulness and positive but modest, short-lived effects on wellbeing[5]. It’s evidence about playfulness exercises in adults — not a measure of any “dose” of play, and not a transformation promise.
Our interpretation
A pause for play deserves to be taken seriously exactly as that: a good pause, not a treatment. We make no clinical claims — and honestly read, the research wouldn’t let us.
4. Just as important: what the research does NOT say
Here we stand firmly with the sceptics. Meta-analyses of chess and music instruction in children — the “intelligent” activities par excellence — found small-to-moderate effects that shrink substantially against active control groups; the authors conclude that far transfer (train at chess, get better at maths) rarely occurs[6]. What a game teaches you is, first of all, that game — and the skills you genuinely practise in it.
Our interpretation
We don’t promise “games that raise your IQ” — we don’t believe in cognitive shortcuts. The value of a table lies in what happens at it: people, conversation, concrete practice.
5. And institutional recognition?
It exists too: the UN treats play as a child’s right (General Comment No. 17 on Article 31)[7], and several countries have built whole institutions around play. We wrote about that separately: → “When play becomes infrastructure”.
How well the research backs each claim
A plain-language map of how strongly the evidence supports each claim — not exact effect sizes.
What this means at the table
- Play for what happens at the table, not for a cognitive bonus: the conversation, cooperation and negotiation are the content, not the wrapping.
- Pick the game for the people — in the studies, design and facilitation make the difference; at home, that means the right game, taught patiently.
- Take the pause seriously — the documented wellbeing effects are real but modest and short-lived; we take them as they are, without turning them into a “prescription”.
- Come try it → Play Matters events.
What we don’t claim
- That play treats or heals anything — no clinical vocabulary.
- That games “make you smarter” — the far-transfer evidence is weak[6].
- That any of the findings above are outcomes of our own events — we synthesise other people’s research, and we’ll write about our own work only with proven numbers.
- That a finding in one population (children, older adults) automatically applies to everyone.
The source file
- Noda S., Shirotsuki K., Nakao M. (2019) — The effectiveness of intervention with board games: a systematic review, BioPsychoSocial Medicine 13:22, DOI 10.1186/s13030-019-0164-1. Systematic review · mixed populations · supports: understanding of taught material, interpersonal interaction, motivation · does NOT support: guaranteed effects of any given session · confidence: medium (heterogeneous studies). PubMed — opens in a new tab ↩
- Cès P. et al. (2024) — Playing Board Games to Increase Emotional Competencies in School-Age Children and Older People: A Systematic Review, Leisure Sciences. Systematic review · 11 studies · supports: for older people — mood (incl. depression), social interaction, communication; for school-age children — fewer problem behaviours, pro-social behaviour, talk about emotions · does NOT support: merging the two populations; generalisation to younger adults; clinical effects · confidence: medium. DOI — opens in a new tab ↩
- Bayeck R. Y. (2020) — Examining Board Gameplay and Learning: A Multidisciplinary Review of Recent Research, Simulation & Gaming 51(4):411–431. Multidisciplinary review · education, psychology, STEM · supports: tabletop play as a learning medium and site of group interaction · does NOT support: superiority over other methods · confidence: medium-good. DOI — opens in a new tab ↩
- Yogman M. et al. (2018) — The Power of Play, Pediatrics 142(3):e20182058. Clinical report of the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) · young children · supports: developmentally appropriate play supports executive function, language, safe relationships · does NOT support: conclusions about adults · confidence: good (institutional synthesis). PubMed — opens in a new tab ↩
- Proyer R. T. et al. (2021) — Can Playfulness be Stimulated? A Randomised Placebo-Controlled Online Playfulness Intervention Study, Applied Psychology: Health and Well-Being. Placebo-controlled RCT · adults · supports: playfulness exercises increase playfulness, with short-term wellbeing effects · does NOT support: long-term effects; board-game nights; therapeutic use · confidence: good design, modest effects. PubMed — opens in a new tab ↩
- Sala G., Gobet F. (2017) — Does Far Transfer Exist? Negative Evidence From Chess, Music, and Working Memory Training, Current Directions in Psychological Science 26(6):515–520. Synthesis of meta-analyses · children and adolescents · supports: far transfer rarely occurs; effects shrink against active controls · does NOT support: the uselessness of play — only the limits of cognitive promises · confidence: good. PubMed — opens in a new tab ↩
- UN Committee on the Rights of the Child (2013) — General comment No. 17, CRC/C/GC/17. Official UN document · legal framework · supports: play recognised as a right of the child (Art. 31) · does NOT support: empirical claims about effects · confidence: institutional. UN — opens in a new tab ↩
We review the page yearly and show its last-review date at publication.Found an unsourced claim? Write to us — we’ll fix it or retract it.