Globally, aging is one of the most relevant current challenges from both health (e.g., cognitive decline, medical diseases, Dogra et al., 2022) and socioeconomic perspectives (Belachew et al., 2024). Health complications in older people make it imperative to find adequate and sustainable responses to ensure the well-being and quality of life of older people (Marquez et al., 2020). Aging is associated not only with physical decline but also with social and emotional challenges (Gates et al., 2020). For example, as older people experience reduced physical mobility, they may be at increasing risk of having lower autonomy levels and perceived low control over their lives (Nyende et al., 2023; Ylönen et al., 2024). In addition, they may have lost friends and relatives, be isolated, and have a reduction or lack of positive social relationships, leading to negative feelings and loneliness. These situations can negatively impact perceptions of well-being and quality of life (Abu Elheja et al., 2021). Thus, older people can be at risk of a decline in psychological well-being (Buecker et al., 2023), and interventions to support them and their health are strongly recommended (Luke et al., 2024).

In line with these considerations, the active aging perspective recognizes the aging process not only as a physical and cognitive decline but also as an opportunity to optimize individuals’ health and improve quality of life (WHO, 2020) through promoting enjoyment, satisfaction, social fulfillment, and well-being (Goodwin et al., 2023). Indeed, according to the WHO (1948), health is not only the absence of disease but the result of a positive interaction between physical, mental, and social dimensions (Engel, 1977). In other words, health concerns the positive perception of one’s general state of physical, psychological, and relational well-being. Interventions to promote successful aging aim to foster psychophysical well-being by promoting healthy lifestyles, such as good nutrition, physical activity, cognitive stimulation, and social participation (Belachew et al., 2024). Several studies found that living in one’s own home for as long as possible (Ylönen et al., 2024), having autonomy in making life choices, and being able to use urban and extra-urban green spaces contribute to a sense of security, opportunities for social interaction, and well-being in older people (Fowler Davis et al., 2024; Hodgson et al., 2023; Sixsmith et al., 2023). Other research has found that expressive and creative activities such as art, dance, and yoga have positive effects on both cognitive and socio-affective dimensions (Chiang et al., 2024; Crealey et al., 2023; McQuade and O’Sullivan, 2023; Wang et al., 2021; Yang et al., 2021; Azman et al., 2017). The literature highlights that active aging interventions have multiple beneficial outcomes, including improved physical function, cognitive function, mental health, social health, and sleep (Dogra et al., 2022). Active aging interventions are associated with life satisfaction (Marsillas et al., 2017), positive quality of life (Cunningham et al., 2020), good social relationships, and well-being (Bruine de Bruin et al., 2020; Cresswell-Smith et al., 2019). Therefore, research into new strategies to foster well-being for older people is strongly encouraged and recommended, and board games can be used for this purpose.

Play has always been an integral part of human culture, so much so that it can be considered one of the most important human experiences, extending well beyond childhood. Engaging in play is vital for physical, mental, and emotional well-being, serving as a powerful stimulus from cognitive, social, emotional, and ethical perspectives (Bruner et al., 1976; Piaget, 1945; Vygotskij, 1934; Winnicott, 1971). In addition, playing is considered a powerful tool to increase individuals’ intrinsic motivation (Caillois, 1958) and achieve a mental state of flow (Csikszentmihalyi, 1975), especially when games are designed with an appropriate level of difficulty (Hattie et al., 2020; Ryan and Deci, 2020; Ryan et al., 2006; Csikszentmihalyi, 1990).

For example, Gerling et al. (2012) suggested that games for older people should be easy to understand to facilitate interaction without adding to cognitive load. In line with this, Skjæret-Maroni et al. (2016) found a slight decrease in performance when participants transitioned from the first to the second difficulty level of an exergame, indicating a potential decline in motivation and an increase in mind wandering (Thomson et al., 2015), which contrasts with the flow state. Furthermore, Chen and Janicki (2020) found that older participants felt proud and satisfied after engaging in a challenging game, emphasizing that personal experiences with board games significantly influence outcomes: mastering a game is positively associated with achieving a state of flow (Hodent, 2017).

For these reasons, adequate game-based activities may be a useful strategy to promote active aging (Aguirre-Cardona and Mendoza-Espinel, 2022).

Most interventions implemented through games are based on digital games (Afridi et al., 2021; Alhasan et al., 2017; Ayed et al., 2019; Campo-Prieto et al., 2021). Literature has shown that digital games have a positive impact on cognitive functioning (Anguera et al., 2021; Bonnechère et al., 2021; Torres, 2011; Hou and Li, 2022) and contribute to reducing feelings of social isolation and symptoms of depression (Cicek et al., 2020; de Morais et al., 2020; Antunes et al., 2017; Khosravi et al., 2016), as well as increasing individuals’ self-efficacy (Czaja et al., 2018) and well-being (Kaufman et al., 2018; Lee et al., 2021; Mclaughlin et al., 2018; Seah et al., 2018).

However, the majority of older people spend their time with non-digital forms of gaming (Mortenson et al., 2017). Studies have shown that non-digital forms of gaming lead to benefits in terms of socialization, quality of life, depression symptoms, and feelings of loneliness (Hallgren et al., 2020; Mortenson et al., 2017; Yu et al., 2023). Within this group of games are the board games. Although they are used more as an extended strategy to counteract cognitive decline and train cognitive functions (Ching-Teng, 2019; Estrada-Plana et al., 2021; Chen and Tsai, 2022) or to reduce negative psychopathological symptoms (e.g., depression, Lee et al., 2020), some studies have investigated the role of board games in promoting physical and psychological health.

Indeed, board games are considered useful tools to improve people’s health (e.g., Nakao, 2019; Gauthier et al., 2019), and positive results have been obtained in older people. Diniz et al. (2022) obtained positive results using a board game to prevent falls in older people, which are very common and dangerous in this population, while Tsai et al. (2024) designed a board game that was effective in increasing knowledge, attitudes and preventive behaviors regarding osteoporosis. Board games are also seen as a way of socializing; older people consider playing an opportunity to spend time and create new social relations (Cousins and Witcher, 2007) or to strengthen social relations (Outley and McKenzie, 2007). Consistent results have also been found by Chen and Tsai (2022); they conducted research aimed at investigating the effectiveness of board games in improving interpersonal communication, interpersonal relationships, and self-efficacy, as well as reducing loneliness. The board game involved four life themes (thank you, sorry, love, and goodbye) and took place in a center for older people for 4 weeks. The results showed significant improvements in interpersonal communication, self-efficacy, and perceived loneliness at the end of the intervention, suggesting that board games should be used in projects aimed at promoting the well-being of older people.

In contrast, Estrada-Plana et al. (2021) found a different result in their study; they conducted a pilot study that included 35 participants who played modern board and card games (experimental group) or performed paper-pencil cognitive tasks (control group) to investigate the effects of board games on executive functions, depressive symptoms and quality of life in healthy older people aged 65 years and over. The intervention sessions took place twice a week for 5 weeks. They showed that board and card games can effectively stimulate cognitive functions but not satisfaction with the health or quality of family relationships. However, according to the authors, the type of game played and different sample compositions may explain the results. More recently, Bodner et al. (2024) investigated the effect of a make-believe game on the well-being and loneliness of older people; they used this board game for 3 months (once a week) in small groups of 4 or 5 people and found that, unlike participants in the control group, older people who played the Kioku board game showed increased well-being and reduced feelings of loneliness.

To conclude, board games may contribute significantly to promoting health, stimulating cognitive functions, and strengthening social relationships among older people. They appear to serve as a valuable coping strategy that can help older individuals manage the challenges associated with aging, such as physical illnesses, cognitive decline, and social isolation, ultimately fostering their overall well-being.

The older population is constantly increasing, resulting in demographic, epidemiological, and anthropological changes (WHO, 2022). This demographic shift underscores the importance of adopting positive aging experiences. Several programs have been implemented to achieve this goal (Belachew et al., 2024), but few studies have investigated the role of play activities despite their positive effects from a cognitive, social, and emotional point of view (Chen and Tsai, 2022; Mortenson et al., 2017). This study fills this gap in the literature by exploring the role of board games in promoting well-being in older people, a psychological dimension related to positive aging (Bruine de Bruin et al., 2020; Cresswell-Smith et al., 2019).

Evidence from the literature shows that board games promote well-being in children (Dell’Angela et al., 2020; Gashaj et al., 2021; Zaharia et al., 2022) and young adults (Gonzalo-Iglesia et al., 2018; Kloep et al., 2023), and have a positive impact on physical health, cognitive function and socialisation in older people (e.g., Bodner et al., 2024; Chen and Tsai, 2022; Diniz et al., 2022; Lee et al., 2020). Therefore, it was hypothesized that participation in board games would increase well-being in older people, i.e., gaming well-being is significantly higher than general well-being (H1). Furthermore, previous studies have found that a positive game experience is associated with an appropriate level of difficulty (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990; Hattie et al., 2020; Ryan and Deci, 2020; Ryan et al., 2006), especially for games with a low level of difficulty and low cognitive effort (Gerling et al., 2012; Skjæret-Maroni et al., 2016) or with a challenging game (Chen and Janicki, 2020). Thus, it was expected that older people, novice players with low board game skills (Hodent, 2017), would experience high levels of well-being when playing a board game with an easy or medium level of difficulty (H2).

Data were collected as part of a larger investigation into the psychological and cognitive dimensions of play across the lifespan. The study was approved by the Ethical Commitment of the University of Macerata, and participants consented to take part in the study.

Based on a priori sample computation (repeated measure ANOVA: 3 ×2; power test: 0.8; effect size: 0.25; significant level: 0.005; type of effect: interaction effect), a sample of 157 people was planned. Thus, a total of 164 older people and members of Community Centres for the Third Age were invited to participate. Specifically, they were aged 65 years or over, according to the definition of older people by ISS (2014), and they were regular and active participants in the Community Centre’s activities, with no experience with board games (people with a diagnosis of dementia were not included in this study). Two team researchers went to the Community Centre (N = 12) to implement the study. They first introduced the research to inform older adults, obtained their consent to participate, and explained the data handling process. Then, the researchers invited the participants to form small groups of 4–5 people and sit around small tables to start the research session (1.5 h).

At the beginning, the participants filled out a questionnaire about their personal information and general well-being. Then, each group was given a board game to play. Three board games with different levels of complexity were used. Participants in the low-complexity condition played a game of chance, i.e., a game with simple rules and dependent on luck (N = 51). The medium complexity level had skill or learning games with rules that required participants to memorize new words, pay attention to symbols, or guess a name using deductions (N = 57). Participants who played the high-complexity game (N = 52) had a strategy game with rules such as working together to solve logical-mathematical puzzles, choosing the better way to play according to the situation, or acquiring clues to continue the game. At the end, participants answered a questionnaire about their well-being during the game and expressed their satisfaction with the experience. All older adults participated in the entire study session, but some participants did not answer all questions of the well-being questionnaire. Thus, the final sample consisted of 132 older people (M_age = 74.05 years old, SD = 5.62; Min_age = 65; Max_age = 89) who played the board game of low (N = 44), medium (N = 49), and high (N = 36) difficulty.

Statistical analyses were performed using SPSS 25. Descriptive and correlational analyses were performed between the main variables, and an ANOVA was conducted to know about group differences. Repeated-measures ANOVA was used to identify differences between participants’ general well-being and gaming well-being. ANOVA analysis was also used to investigate differences in satisfaction according to the game’s complexity level.

Among the 132 participants (88 women, 44 men), 129 were Italian, while 2.3% had not provided the information. Regarding retirement status, 9.8% had been retired for 1 year, 7.6% for <5 years, 2.3% for 5 years, while 58.3% had been retired for more than 5 years (9.1% were not retired and 12.2% were missing). Responses regarding marital status indicated that 6.1% of participants were single, 53.8% were married, 7.6% were divorced, and 21.2% were widows/widowers. Table 1 summarizes the means and bivariate correlations between the main variables.

Concerning group composition (see Table 2), ANOVA analyses showed no differences among groups, except for participants’ age [F_{(2, 126)} = 3.987, p = 0.021]. Specifically, participants who played with a low level of difficulty were older (M = 75.81; SD = 5.78) than participants who were in the highly difficult board game (M = 72.66; SD = 5.33; p = 0.031).

Repeated-measures ANOVA showed that general well-being (M = 2.82; SD = 1.15) was significantly lower than gaming well-being (M = 3.37; SD = 1.41) [F_{(1, 131)} = 14.604, p = 0.000, η² = 0.100].

An effect of board-game level of complexity was also found [F_{(1, 126)} = 10.982, p = 0.000, η² = 0.148]. Indeed, post-hoc analyses suggest that participants who played board games of easy, F_{(1, 126)} = 13.967, p = 0.000, η² = 0.098, or medium, F_{(1, 126)} = 22.208, p = 0.000, η² = 0.150, level of difficulty presented a gaming well-being significantly higher than general well-being. This difference was not significant in participants with highly difficult board games [F_{(1, 126)} = 3.128, p = 0.079, η² = 0.024]. Table 3 describes these results.

In addition, post-hoc analyses revealed that the general well-being of participants in easy (M = 2.81; SD = 1.27), medium (M = 2.75; SD = 1.16), and high (M = 2.90; SD = 1.06) levels of difficulty was not significantly different [F_{(2, 126)} = 0.148, p = 0.862, η² = 0.002]. Instead, participants’ gaming well-being changes according to the level of game difficulty [F_{(2, 126)} = 13.459, p = 0.000, η² = 0.176]. Results showed that participants who played a game of high level of difficulty had a level of gaming well-being (M = 2.43; SD = 1.48) lower than that of older people who played with medium (M = 3.81; SD = 1.85; p = 0.000) or easy levels of game difficulty (M = 3.69; SD = 1.18; p = 0.000). No differences in gaming well-being were found between participants who played with easy and medium levels of difficulty (p = 0.653).

Repeated analysis of ANOVA, controlling for age and educational level, revealed that well-being level did not significantly change from general to gaming experience: F_well-being (1,119) = 0.012, p = 0.915, η² = 0.000; F_{ageXwell-being} (1,119) = 0.09, p = 0.925, p² = 0.000; F_{educationalLevelXwell-being} (1,119) = 1.22, p = 0.270, η² = 0.010. However, the effect of board game level of difficulty was significant, F_(2,119) = 11.740, p = 0.000, η² = 0.165, and post-hoc analyses showed significant effects (see Table 4).

Gaming well-being was higher than general well-being when the board game had an easy, F_(1,119) = 12.647, p = 0.001, η² = 0.096, or medium level of difficulty, F_(1,119) = 21.375, p = 0.000, η² = 0.152, whereas it was significantly lower with a high level of difficulty [F_{(1, 119)} = 4.669, p = 0.033, η² = 0.038]. Furthermore, gaming well-being significantly changed with board game difficulty level, F_{(2, 119)} = 17.294, p = 0.000, η² = 0.225: gaming well-being reported by participants who played with high difficult games was significantly lower compared to the other two groups (p_{low level} = 0.000; p_{medium level} = 0.000).

ANOVA analyses showed that participants who played high-difficulty games reported the highest satisfaction with the experience [F_{(2, 86)} = 3.178, p = 0.047]. Their satisfaction (M = 4.08; SD = 0.47) was higher than participants in medium (M = 3.84; SD = 0.38) and low (M = 3.78; SD = 0.43) game level conditions. In addition, post-hoc analyses showed no variance between medium and low levels of difficulty (p = 0.600) but significant differences between participants who played with the high levels of difficulty compared to the medium (p = 0.021) or low levels (p = 0.044).