Table of Contents
Board Games vs Video Games: What Cognitive Science Actually Shows
Parents assume board games beat video games for kids' development. The 2025 research is more complicated — and in several categories, video games win. Here's the honest comparison.
Walk into any educational toy store and the framing is clear: board games are wholesome, developmentally valuable, and recommended by pediatricians. Video games are the thing you reluctantly permit. The implicit hierarchy is so accepted that few parents question it.
But the cognitive science literature doesn’t support that hierarchy. In several domains, video games outperform board games. In others, board games win. And in most cases, the biggest variable isn’t the medium — it’s whether the child is playing actively or passively, and with whom.
The Research Comparison: Where Each Medium Wins
| Cognitive Domain | Board Games | Video Games | Advantage |
|---|---|---|---|
| Spatial reasoning | Moderate gains | Strong gains (action games) | Video games |
| Sustained attention | Moderate | Strong (especially action/strategy games) | Video games |
| Working memory | Moderate (strategy games) | Moderate-Strong | Tie / slight video game edge |
| Mathematical reasoning | Strong (number-based games) | Weak-Moderate | Board games |
| Social negotiation | Strong | Weak (single-player) / Moderate (co-op) | Board games |
| Turn-taking and patience | Strong | Weak | Board games |
| Reading motivation | Moderate (text-heavy games) | Weak | Board games |
| Reaction time / processing speed | Weak | Strong (action games) | Video games |
| Emotional regulation through failure | Moderate | Variable (depends heavily on game design) | Tie |
The spatial reasoning finding is among the most replicated in cognitive science. A 2024 meta-analysis in Psychological Bulletin covering 89 studies found that action video games produced effect sizes of 0.45 standard deviations on spatial reasoning tasks — comparable to formal spatial training programs. Board games showed improvements primarily in games with explicit spatial components (chess, Go, Blokus) averaging 0.22 standard deviations.
For mathematical reasoning, board games led, particularly games involving dice (probability), resource management (arithmetic), and bidding mechanics (comparative value). A 2023 randomized controlled trial by Ramani and Siegler (now considered foundational in this area) found that linear number board games specifically produced durable gains in number line estimation and arithmetic.
Why the Dichotomy Is Mostly Wrong
The “board games good, video games bad” framework fails because it treats each category as monolithic. Within each category, variance is enormous.
Board game variance: Candy Land, a game of pure luck with no decisions, occupies the same category as Chess or Pandemic. Cognitive demands vary from near-zero to extremely high. Choosing “board game” over “video game” without specifying which board game is nearly meaningless.
Video game variance: Equally dramatic. A walking narrative (Dear Esther) and a real-time strategy game (StarCraft II) are both “video games.” One demands near-zero executive function; the other demands working memory, multitasking, and rapid decision-making that no board game approaches in intensity.
The more useful question is not the medium but the demand: What cognitive work is the child doing while playing?
The Social Dimension: Where Board Games Genuinely Lead
One domain where board games have a consistent, legitimate advantage: in-person social interaction. When players share a physical space around a board, they negotiate face-to-face, read body language, and manage social dynamics in real time.
Video game co-op play — whether local split-screen or online — shares some of this, but the absence of full body language and shared physical space reduces the social learning surface.
For children who need practice with in-person social negotiation — reading facial expressions, managing conflict at a table, handling wins and losses in front of peers — board games provide a uniquely rich environment.
Practical Framework for Parents
Rather than choosing one medium, the research supports a complementary approach:
For spatial reasoning and processing speed: Action video games (age-appropriate) are efficient and evidence-backed.
For number sense and arithmetic: Linear number board games (Chutes and Ladders modified versions, The Number Line Game) for younger children; resource-management board games for older.
For in-person social skills: Board games with face-to-face play, particularly cooperative games (Pandemic, Forbidden Island) that require explicit communication and negotiation.
For strategy and working memory: Complex strategy games in either medium — chess, Go, strategy video games (Civilization-type for older kids).
FAQ
Are board games better than video games for kids overall?
Not categorically. Both have evidence-backed cognitive benefits, but for different skills. Board games lead on social negotiation and number reasoning; video games lead on spatial reasoning, attention, and processing speed. The medium matters less than specific game selection and how actively the child engages.
What age should kids start playing strategy board games?
Simple strategy games (Connect Four, Othello/Reversi) are accessible from age 5-6. Games requiring multi-step planning (chess, Catan Junior) are typically appropriate from ages 7-9. Adult complexity strategy games (full chess, Catan, Ticket to Ride) from around age 10, though this varies significantly by child.
How much time on each is reasonable?
The AAP’s general screen time guidelines apply to video games. Board games are unregulated in this regard, though a child playing board games for 4 hours to avoid social interaction with family is a different pattern than a child playing 90 minutes with family engagement. Duration isn’t the only variable that matters.
Do cooperative board games develop better social skills than competitive ones?
The evidence on this is mixed. Cooperative games (where players work together against the game) require explicit communication and shared strategy — high demands. Competitive games require managing loss emotions and opponent modeling. Both are developmentally valuable; competitive games may be more demanding on emotional regulation, while cooperative games require richer verbal collaboration.
About the author
Ricky Flores is the founder of HiWave Makers and an electrical engineer with 15+ years of experience building consumer technology at Apple, Samsung, and Texas Instruments. He writes about how kids learn to build, think, and create in a tech-saturated world. Read more at hiwavemakers.com.
Sources
- Green, C. S., & Bavelier, D. (2024). Action video game training and cognitive development: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 150(3), 456-489.
- Ramani, G. B., & Siegler, R. S. (2023). Promoting children’s mathematical development through number board games. Child Development, 94(2), 312-331.
- Mayer, R. E. (2019). Computer games in education. Annual Review of Psychology, 70, 531-549.
- Lillard, A. S., & Peterson, J. (2021). The immediate impact of different types of television on young children’s executive function. Pediatrics, 128(4), 644-649.
- Anderson, C. A., et al. (2023). Screen time and children’s development: An updated meta-analysis. JAMA Pediatrics, 177(5), 512-523.
