Millions of people around the world play one or more of what the gaming industry calls “casual” video games. Unlike their alternative the “hard core” types of video games that involve targeting enemies, the casual video games present you with challenges in which you must make combinations of matching items or create a system to manage everything from farm animals to meals. Some games are virtual card or board games in which you compete against someone else in your friendship circle, or even a random stranger. Compared to what you hear about those hard core games such as Grant Theft Auto or Call of Duty, you feel pretty safe that by playing with these innocuous, if not downright cute, forays into fantasy, you’re probably pretty safe.
You may also have heard about the cognitive benefits of video game playing. Ironically, some researchers believe that it’s actually the first-person shooter games (one type of hard core game) that give your attention the greatest mental challenges and growth. Because they present rapidly moving targets coming from multiple directions, they prime your ability to integrate complex information and then quickly prepare your response. Games using Nintendo Wii also get votes of approval from cognitive researchers because many of them get you physically moving, as well as mentally more active. However, the people most likely to benefit from such game modalities, namely aging adults seeking to keep their minds sharp, don't actually like those games. Researchers in the field report low levels of compliance when they ask older adults to practice the games at home in between test sessions.
There’s far less known about those highly popular casual video games. Although they’ve spread like wildfire throughout social media, particularly Facebook, they’ve been relatively overlooked by cognitive researchers. A few years ago, as I wrote about in an earlier blog, I was introduced by one of my undergraduate research assistants to Bejeweled Blitz, one of the classics and most well-established Facebook game. She showed me how to play it, but alas, my score was pathetically low. I figured I’d see if I could redeem myself in her eyes and get at least a few thousand points (a bare minimum). As I fumbled my way through the one minute of rapid-fire matches flickering across the game board, I realized that I was getting some neurons to fire that normally didn’t have quite that amount of pressure placed upon them.
Before long, I decided that playing Bejeweled Blitz would be “good for me” and, as you might imagine, I rationalized my way into longer and longer sessions. Fortunately, I resisted the urge to spend any more than a few minutes at a time on the game. I also realized that if I felt it was tightening up some loose connections in my brain, maybe the game could actually have beneficial effects on the cognitive skills that psychologists care about including attentional focus and response time. Perhaps casual video games such as Bejeweled Blitz can provide a needed mental workout for people seeking to sharpen their brains. However, would older adults like these games enough to practice them and, in turn, reap those cognitive benefits?
Given my interest in the psychology of aging and, in particular, on how people cope with physical and cognitive changes,there seemed to be plenty of resons for Bejeweled Blitz and similar “tile-matching” games to benefit the aging mind. They present rapidly-changing arrays and require the player to analyze these patterns and prepare responses within milliseconds. Because reaction time and attention are highly subject to aging’s effects, the constant practice provided by the Bejeweled-type of game might prove beneficial in reversing some of those effects.
This was the background to what soon became a series of studies that took me in some very unexpected directions. With the help of Bejeweled Blitz’s developer, Pop Cap, I conducted an online survey in which I asked users to report on their patterns of video game use as well as basic information about themselves (age, gender, education, occupation, and perceptions of the game and their patterns of game play). The results came thundering in, and overnight I had over 10,000 responses.
The results of this survey were just published in the journal Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking with my very valuable undergraduate research assistants, Stacy Ellenberg and Kyoko Akimoto. Here are some of the surprising results we uncovered:
Had we been conducting the study now, two years later, it’s likely we would have included the newest entry into the online video game market, namely “Candy Crush.” Unlike Bejeweled Blitz, Candy Crush is a progressive game leading you to levels of increasing difficulty that can keep players stuck for days or weeks. Also, unlike Bejeweled Blitz, Candy Crush monetizes its games. You can buy boosters, extra moves, and extra lives for what seem like small amounts of money but which, over time, can add up to a tidy sum. Finally, Candy Crush plays music that can invoke a trance-like state; on the one hand relaxing you but on the other, penetrating your consciousness to the point, I imagine, where you can’t get it out of your head like a bad commercial jingle.
Candy Crush employs an interesting approach from a psychological point of view, manipulating players into wanting to buy those boosters by hurling criticisms at them. If you don’t make it past a level, you’re basically told that you're a loser because you failed to achieve your goals. Who wants to be told you're a failure or unable to achieve your goals? Obviously you want to avoid this negative reinforcement so you'll be tempted to buy a booster or, in some cases, beg your Facebook friends to help you out with extra moves.
Bejeweled Blitz gives you hints for making matches if you hesitate for more than a couple of seconds. Candy Crush also gives you hints, but they’re often bad ones. If you follow those hints, you’ll be far more likely to “fail.” Many players seem to catch onto this fact, but it’s still distracting to be trying to make a move while the colorful treats blink on and off at you in the game's effort to get you to fall for the hint. There are also evil forces in Candy Crush not present in Bejeweled Blitz, such as chocolate that devours potentially good moves. Both games, however, involve objects with inherently reinforcing properties, at least for some people, such as pretty jewels and yummy-looking candy (though not chocolate).
The only positive attributes of Candy Crush that I can imagine from a psychological point of view involve its ability to stimulate so-called executive function. Many of the levels involve planning multi-move, "if-then" strategies in which you have to imagine what will happen two or three moves ahead. You actually have time to set up those moves, so success isn't just dependent on rapid-fire responses.
Online forums and resources for Candy Crush (of which there are many, including ones that you pay for) can help players get through the various levels. Many of the commenters on these forums castigate the game’s manufacturer for creating a bad product, but few of those commenters go so far as to say they’re quitting.
It’s hard to know where all this is leading if Candy Crush becomes replaced by an even more addictive option. However, online video games like Bejeweled Blitz don’t seem to be as much of a brain drain as critics like to argue. If you avoid paying to boost your scores but rely on your mental abilities, you may actually develop more focused attention, connect them to others in their social networks, and find a pleasant way to pass time when you’re bored or just looking for a mental break.
Follow me on Twitter @swhitbo for daily updates on psychology, health, and aging. Feel free to join my Facebook group, "Fulfillment at Any Age," to discuss today's blog, or to ask further questions about this posting.
Copyright Susan Krauss Whitbourne, Ph.D. 2014
Whitbourne, S. K., Ellenberg, S. R., & Akimoto, K. (2013). Reasons for playing casual video games and perceived benefits among adults 18 to 80 years old. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 16, 892-897.