A Parent’s Guide to Gaming

Gaming is more popular than ever, so why is there so much nonsensical negativity still surrounding it? It's time to clear up some misconceptions and raise awareness of the good things about playing games.

The classification of “Gaming Disorder” by the World Health Organisation has once again resulted in negative press for gamers and the gaming industry as a whole. Just like the moral panic of the 70s, 80s and 90s, videogames are having to defend their effect on the people who play them and their place as a new media. In this article I will be allaying some of the fears people may have and clearing up a lot of the nonsensical, sensationalised misconceptions surrounding videogames and the people who play them.

First off, a little history. Generally speaking the first videogame is 1958’s Tennis for Two by William Higinbotham at the Brookhaven National Laboratory. Things were good in these earlier years; games were played by handfuls of people using phenomenally expensive machinery that very few people had access to. 1972 saw videogames leave the university and appear in bars and arcades. As arcades became more popular and widespread more people were playing. There were some concerns from moral guardians about corrupting youth, as there always is when a new fad comes out, but things were still going well. Who could object to a friendly game of Pong, Indy 800, or Breakout? The first game to stir up any real controversy was 1976’s Death Race. A modified version of an earlier racing game, Death Race eschewed other drivers in favour of “gremlins” appearing on screen, which the player had to drive over in their car. Negative attention in the press would follow the game, which only resulted in an increase in sales for Exidy, the game’s distributor. While the game was not banned and the attention only assisted the game favourably, the concern was widespread with several US newspapers chastising the game for its inappropriate content.

The first game to be banned was River Raid for the Atari 2600 in 1982. In the game, the player controls an aeroplane as it races above a river. Points are earned by shooting down helicopters and destroying ships. It was this heady violence that led to West Germany’s Federal Department for Writings Harmful to Young Persons to take a stand. It was not the last game to be registered as harmful to Young Persons and to this day Germany has some of the harshest restrictions on videogame content.

The UK has only seen three games banned to date. The British Board of Film Classification (a self-appointed, self-governed organisation with zero oversight from Parliament or the population of Britain) took umbrage with Carmageddon, Manhunt 2 and The Punisher. It’s worth noting that all of these games eventually saw release. Carmageddon, a game about hitting people with your car, changed people to zombies to appease the BBFC. Once the game had released, a patch was made available that returned the game to its original state in an excellent circumvention of censorship. Manhunt 2 was subject to incredible scrutiny at the time it was released. It regularly featured on the news for its shocking violence and themes, and several shops refused to stock the game even after offending content had been cut and the game granted release. The Punisher also was allowed a release with an 18 certificate once certain changes had been made.
So far the BBFC’s power is limited to physical media only. On-demand video streaming, online games and online storefronts are all exempt from classification by the BBFC.

Let’s follow with some myth-busting:

Games make you aggressive. It’s a common belief by opponents to videogames that the act of playing games – even ones that are not necessarily violent- arouse feelings of aggression in players. It’s a common belief based on wobbly empirical evidence. Several tests have been carried out to determine the effect gaming has on the people who play; three fairly common experiments are the ‘Hot Sauce Paradigm,’ the ‘Competitive Reaction Time Test,’ and the ‘Word/Story Completion Task.
The Hot Sauce Paradigm featured a scenario where the subject was asked to put hot sauce into a cup in the knowledge that the recipient of the cup, who hated hot sauce, would be forced to drink it. Two groups played games before being asked to pour the sauce, with one group playing a violent game (Conan, Mortal Kombat vs DC Universe) and another playing a non-violent game (Fuel). The theory being that people who were more aggressive would put more sauce in the cup than those who were not. The results showed there was minimal difference. In fact, where there was a difference between the two groups, the biggest factor in causing aggression appeared to be competition over simulated violence. Players who had engaged in a one-on-one fighting game added more hot sauce than those who simply played a violent game.
The second study, the Competitive Reaction Time Test, saw a player engaging in what they thought was a race with another player to press a button as quickly as they could in response to a stimulus. The “winner” of each race could blast their opponent with white noise for a duration and a volume of their choice. It was decided that the longer the blast of noise, the more aggressive the person was. In truth the experiment featured no opponent, and the participant won 50% of his rounds as per the study guidelines. Again the participants were tasked with playing either a violent or non-violent game before engaging in the experiment and once again the results were weak at best. When comparing the difference in duration between the violent game players and the non-violent videogame players the difference was 0.16 of a second. A blink takes 0.2 of a second.
The third of our featured studies is the Word/Story Completion Task. Participants were put into two groups and once again asked to play either a violent or non-violent game. After playing, the group were given lists of words with only the first and last letters revealed and asked to fill in the blanks. The completed words were an indicator of how aggressive the participant was at the time. For example, the participant could have been presented with M _ _ _ _ R and the could have responded with ‘mother’, ‘murder’, ‘manger’, ‘mauler’ and so on. The connotations the words had were the defining factor in measuring aggression. Another variant of this is the story completion wherein the same situation was applied to the participants, but at the end of playing they were given an incomplete story. It was suggested that stories that ended in violence or used vocabulary conducive to aggressive thoughts would indicate the level of aggression in the player. No link was found between violent and non-violent games having an effect on word/story completion tasks.

All three of these studies are inherently flawed: none of them feature any real-world direct acts of aggression. Unfortunately there is only one way to truly measure aggression, and it is legally and morally forbidden. Each of these studies has been criticised as unreliable in exclusively linking videogames to aggression. Most of the studies in fact hinted at a myriad of other factors responsible for increased aggression: the idea of fairness, time invested, and competition were all far more likely to increase aggression. The fact that videogames were used in these studies is coincidental. Furthermore, studies have shown that the amount of violence and gore has zero effect on levels of aggression. A study featured two versions of the same game, one where the player shot virtual paintballs and one where the player used virtual bullets to inflict realistic wounds on then enemy. The results showed no difference in participant aggression between the two groups.

It may be an oversimplification, but, as anyone who has played Mario Kart will tell you, even a cute, friendly, non-violent game enjoyed by the whole family can make you rage. How many Boxing Days have been spent in silence after a bitter game of Monopoly? It’s a bold claim to make, but as yet the data is net enough to support the claim that videogames inherently cause increases in aggression. And by extension, there is the argument that links real-world violence to videogames. Statistically improbable. Videogames are the number one entertainment media on the planet; there are more gamers than ever, yet violence is consistently decreasing. Japan is the world’s number one consumer of videogames, and they also have one of the lowest crime rates. The figures do not add up.

The next myth: ‘Videogames kill imagination’. It is an interesting idea with zero evidence. In fact, there is masses of evidence to the contrary: fan fiction, cosplay, mods, arts and crafts, fan-made sequels, and coding jams all bring out the creative side of gamers. The skill and time devoted to creating a game-accurate costume is incredible. People take time to explore the stories of characters they like, fleshing out their histories on Wikis. Dedicated gamers will see flaws or missed opportunities in games and write their own modifications, or even completely re-design a game. Coding jams see game enthusiasts from all over the world get together to code a game to a theme within a punishing time limit. And let’s not forget the industry itself. Videogames are not birthed in a vacuum; they are made by gamers. If gaming really did kill imagination, the industry would have stagnated and died by now, instead we see a steady rise in the quality and creativeness of modern games, especially in the indie game scene.
And then there’s Minecraft, the gold standard in games that inspire creativity.

Another unfounded concept: ‘Gamers are antisocial’. When asked to picture in your head the average gamer, what do you see? A room with the curtains drawn, illuminated solely by a screen? An unresponsive, stereotypically male, motionless figure that communicates in monosyllables if at all? Are they wearing a headset? If so, then at least they aren’t being anti-social. The headset is the connection to an incredibly large network of like-minded people. An NPD Group study in 2013 indicated that 72% of gamers play online. This number will only have increased with the proliferation of high-speed broadband connections. The three main consoles each have their own online subscription platform, and in 2019 there were 36 million subscribers to the PlayStation Network and 48 million Xbox Live subscribers in 2016. As of January 2020, there are 15 million subscribers to Nintendo’s Switch Online Service. It is worth mentioning that the Nintendo online play subscription is actually the least social, featuring no online chat method and a complex system of adding players to your friends list. This will be addressed late in the article.
Again we can look at the previous argument about creativity: gamers’ responses to games are almost never in isolation. Someone who draws a picture of their favourite character doesn’t just file it away; they upload it to a forum or Reddit to share and get feedback. The cosplayers mentioned earlier do not spend a hundred hours making an accurate Master Chief costume just to stuff it in a closet, instead it’s taken to Comic-Con, or Gamescom. There are are communities attached to any game.
One of the things we notice at the Centre for Computing History is when a group of children see Minecraft running on our Pis, they all want to network their game and play together. Videogames bring people together. Speedrunning is a gaming subculture that sees gamers play games to the end as fast as they can. What started out as online leaderboards has bloomed into a global network of gamers exchanging tips on how to beat games faster. The two largest speedrun organisations are European Speedrunner Assembly and Awesome Games Done Quick. Both of these groups hold meetup events where gamers from across the globe demonstrate their skills in front of an audience and streamed on YouTube and Twitch. The audiences are enormous and positive, and both of these organisations have raised millions of dollars for global charities.

The nail in the coffin for games being anti-social is the incredible effect online gaming is having for those with disabilities. Whole charities exist to bring disabled gamers together: The Able Gamers and Special Effect charities both serve children with physical disabilities or special educational needs to participate in games. They make bespoke controllers, organise home visits and can even offer grants to keep people playing no matter what difficulties they may face.
Autistic people have a chance to interact with people within a virtual world that often makes more sense than the real one. The Centre was approached by a local school that provides bespoke care for young adults with special educational needs. We were asked for guidance on one of their students. One of the standout facts about the student was that he was an elective mute. Except for when playing games. He would talk to other players, even his own mother, in this virtual world in a way he never would in real life. It brings chances for connection to those who are normally cut off.
Gaming have never been more social or beneficial than it is now. There is so much positivity in playing online. However, it would be churlish to suggest that it is all rainbows and kittens, and in truth there are legitimate concerns with online gaming which will be covered later on.

The final myth is of “Gaming Disorder” or gaming addiction. A very dangerous designation based on anecdotal evidence and wobbly pseudo-science. The World Health Organisation has defined ‘gaming disorder’ as: “a pattern of gaming behavior (“digital-gaming” or “video-gaming”) characterized by impaired control over gaming, increasing priority given to gaming over other activities to the extent that gaming takes precedence over other interests and daily activities, and continuation or escalation of gaming despite the occurrence of negative consequences.” The biggest area for concern in deciding if someone is suffering from this disorder is the metrics that are being used. What follows is the criteria used to determine addiction:

• Preoccupation: Spends lots of time thinking about games, even when not playing them.
• Withdrawal: Feels restless when unable to play games.
• Tolerance: Needs to play more, or play more powerful games, to get the same excitement as before.
• Reduce: Feels he or she should play less, but is unable to.
• Give up other activities: Reduces participation in other recreational activities.
• Continue despite problems: Continues to play games despite knowing that they have a negative impact on his or her life.
• Deceive: Lies about how much he or she games.
• Escape mood: Plays games to reduce anxiety or stress.
• Risk: Risks loss of significant relationships or employment because of games.

How many of these statements apply to you? If the answer is five or more, you have a gaming disorder and need professional help.

What is glaringly obvious about the checklist above it that is simply a hastily repurposed substance / gambling addiction survey with ‘games’ instead of ‘heroin’ or ‘gambling’. The nonsensical ‘Tolerance’ criteria is very confusing. What is a more powerful game? If a gamer started playing Super Mario Bros. but then moved onto Super Mario Bros. 3 have they fuelled their addiction? Is Pikmin simply a gateway drug into the bowels of Pikmin 2 or worse yet, Pikmin 3? Substance addiction and behaviour addiction are two very different things and classifications should not be exchanged between the two.

Alongside the above checklist, the other data employed in the classification of Gaming Disorder is anecdotal evidence. A common statement republished on various news websites reads:
“Scott played online card games like Absolute Poker and Bridge Base Online, and massively multiplayer online roleplaying games like World of Warcraft and Final Fantasy XI. He was, he said, “obsessed” with the escape that they offered him. “Even when I wasn’t gaming, I was thinking about gaming,” Scott, who asked I not use his last name, told me.”
Despite numerous issues with this statement, it goes on:
“Scott had previously battled alcohol addiction. And he said gaming addiction began the same way: with a sense of despair — that “life just seemed pointless in a lot of ways.” Then came an escalation of use that over time crowded out the other things in his life.”
A common factor in people “addicted” to videogames is some sort of underlying disorder. The offhanded mention of alcohol addiction in the rush to denounce videogames is particularly troubling. The inchoate research findings suggest that “gaming disorder” affects 1-3% of gamers; alcoholism had a far higher rate, affecting 9.6% of the entire population (not limited to drinkers). In a comparison study it was found that anxiety, depression and poor impulse control paved the way for addictive behaviour in young adults. Research has also shown that adolescents who demonstrate lower conformity, antisocial behaviours, and poor coping skills are more likely to engage in gaming to an extent that suggests addiction. Again, the research suggest there is more work to be done before videogames can be classified as addictive.

It is interesting to consider the motivations for young people to turn to games. Until the age of 18 (for some adults it can be earlier or later in life) life is heavily regimented: sleep patterns, meal times, play times, social engagement, toilet usage, everything is out of their control. But not in World of Warcraft, not in Call of Duty, not in Minecraft. In these worlds, they have absolute agency. Particularly in WoW and Mincraft and other games with very high immersion and freedom, the player can affect the very world itself; it’s empowering, God-like, and very necessary. There is a strong argument that avoidance, not the mechanics of games themselves encourages excessive gaming. The same concept applies to adults, too. Many children imagine that becoming an adult will remove the restrictions places on them, and while adult life is not as regimented as a child’s, there are greater responsibilities and a whole new set of restrictions. Videogames would be a suitable escape for a hard-working adult from a job they might have no affinity for.
One final thought: if we substituted “gaming” with “reading” would it be a disorder? I posit that if a parent found their child reading constantly, eschewing chores, homework, personal hygiene to read, not only would they not send their child to a therapist, they would be shouting it from the rooftops and doing cartwheels down the street. Could it be that the general negative bias offered towards gaming is having an effect on determining gaming as a disorder?

With so much negativity towards gaming by the press and the uninformed, it would be easy to overlook the huge benefits offered by gaming. Several links have been provided in the references below should you wish to investigate further for yourself. In short, games have been demonstrated to improve numerous cognitive and physical abilities. As we saw above in the social and creative side of gaming, the opportunities offered to young people who might view themselves as outcasts to develop social skills, either inside or out of a virtual world, are really powerful.
Further more, despite what you might have heard, gaming does not dull your senses. After gaming sessions, participants in studies would have greater visual acuity and resilience in paying attention. In one study, a participant had to keep track of a specific white dot in a screen comprised of many identical dots as they moved around. Participants who had played games minutes before the task were able to keep track more successfully than the control group who did not. Similarly, a test featuring a selection of shades of grey was given to participants, and again the game playing participants were able to differentiate a greater selection of shades.

Special Educational Needs are also being treated with videogames. Sufferers of lazy eye and dyslexia demonstrated an improvement in visual processes. Participants with a lazy eye had their good eye covered and engaged in a hobby, be that gaming, watching TV or knitting. The results showed that playing games did more in increasing activity in the participants lazy eye than any other activity. Similarly positive results were seen in the treatment of dyslexia using games. One study saw two groups of dyslexic children play “Rayman’s Raving Rabbids” on the Nintendo Wii. The game is made up of various mini-games and the researchers divided these games into action and non-action categories. Reading ability we checked before and after gaming for each group, and there was a significant difference in the increased accuracy in participants who played the action games. In fact, the results actually overshadowed some dyslexia-specific treatment programs.
Gamers can also manage their mental resources better. A study which saw participants keep track of a moving target while keeping an eye on a gauge performed better after getting 50 hours experience with an action game. Video games also encourage resourcefulness: the act of playing a videogame is the paradigm of the scientific method. Constantly a gamer asks “What happens if I do this?” or tests a hypothesis, “Ok, if I do X here, Y will happen.” If the test fails, the gamer will try something else. Even if the gamer is unaware they are doing this, they are constantly re-evaluating what they are doing in the game. Motivation is often something criticised as missing in many young people, but mastery is motivating. The desire to be good at something, be that Fortnite, FIFA or Minecraft, is highly motivational
There are physical responses, too: hand-eye coordination is higher among gamers. A study by Schlicklum et al saw that novice surgeons who played games as training tools out performed experienced surgeons. A whole body of evidence exists that suggests that gaming is beneficial to the players, far more evidence that can be relayed here, but there are some legitimate concerns about aspects of gaming that are potentially very harmful.

The shift from local multiplayer to global has resulted in gamers being able to connect with like-minded players from all over the world, and while online engagement with other players is (for the most part) a fun and competitive experience, there are always going to be idiots determined to ruin things for everyone. As with any internet-based activity, be that gaming, chat or social media, there are risks. Thankfully there are many mechanisms in place that, despite being imperfect, do offer some protection. Bullying and griefing in games is never OK, and the game makers want to know about it. Punishments for people who intentionally make other gamer’s experiences miserable range from a ban on certain servers to having their entire accounts deleted. All gaming platforms have the ability to block and report abusive users, and there is the option to mute chat. As stated earlier, the Nintendo online service has no built-in online chat, largely due to Nintendo’s concerns over child safety. There is the ability to chat with other friends tied to your Switch account through a separate app, however. Nintendo’s concerns are well founded as there are reports of children being groomed through certain games. If in doubt shut down the chat or only allow games that provide communication through emojis or set vocabulary. Parental controls are available on all machines and can allow parents to limit what games are played, what games can be bought from online stores and the use of chat in games.

Not much of a concern for console gamers, but some PC gamers are offered downloads from chatrooms or forums. These downloads are promoted as cheats, bots or game enhancements, but more often than not contain malicious code to steal passwords or affect the computer negatively. If in doubt, steer clear. Similarly there is account selling. In games that require an investment of time to accrue money and experience, there are people offering a shortcut. It’s easy to find people selling game accounts featuring very powerful characters with all the best gear and a fat wallet. These accounts are frequently hacked or stolen, or just against the game maker’s terms of service and the accounts can be deleted without compensation. It’s important to make something clear: buying a level 30 character does not make you a level 30 player. You’ll still get gumped. Git Gud, kids.
The worst aspects of being part of an online community are absolutely destroyed by the amount of decent folk who are just there to play. For every torrent of abuse, you’ll get a half dozen GGs. There are members of any community dedicated to kicking the toxic fanbase off the servers. Don’t let a bad experience put you off. Block, report, reload. Better yet, become ambassadors for the games you like. Like Minecraft? Got a friend who might like to start? Teach them the ropes, show a few tricks. Report toxic behaviour - become the benchmark for what an online player should be.

While the addiction argument is unconvincing, you can play too much. If you are concerned that someone is playing for too long, set a limit. In the age of online, it’s not always possible to pause a game, or just stop at the drop of a hat; rather than just give a time limit of five more minutes, give a “Last game warning” and mean it. Let them finish what they are doing. Get involved in the games they are playing. If you want them to stick to the “last game limit” sit there and watch them wrap up. Have a chat about what they were doing, and what they learnt, then turn off the machine.

One of the most insidious aspects of gaming is the proliferation of lootboxes and in-game gambling mechanics. Some games offer players the change to buy mystery packs that contain upgrades or cosmetic items for games. Players have no indication of what is inside, and the probability is rarely if ever made clear. Lootboxes are gambling. No discussion. FIFA 20 and NBA2K20 are the epitome of predatory mechanics designed to get you hooked. They aim to make gambling the norm. You can earn bonus items just by watching someone else open a loot box in the hopes that you in turn will buy one. They encourage daily sessions by offering small rewards for popping in daily. There are “deals” on buying loot boxes: buy them at a pound each, or ten for five, that sort of thing. They are pushed as “essential” in certain parts of the game. FIFA in particular makes these purchases an absolute necessity in their Ultimate Team mode. In this mode players can build a team using players they have unlocked with cards. Of course you can get some of these cards from playing the game, but if you want several – and if you want the very best players – you’re going to need to spend cash. A lot of cash.
Loot boxes are illegal in Belgium. This needs to be Europe-wide and discussions are still going on in this country to label these predatory mechanics as gambling. There are horrifying videos online of how these mechanics are finely tuned to appeal to the most susceptible people. People have spent thousands of pounds on these things, and it’s not entirely their fault. Of particular offence is the “whale” label used by the gaming industry. A whale is someone who spends far too much on in game currencies and loot boxes. It is both contemptuous and offensive to their fanbase.
Free to play games are one thing, they rely on loot boxes and micro-transactions to fund their business, but FIFA and NBA2K20 are £50 to buy then the player is constantly force-fed in-game adverts for loot boxes and micro-transactions. The lowest point to date: the NBA2K20 Trailer has literal slot machines in games now. No excuses, they need to go away. EA has been pulled up in parliament to explain themselves. It's only a matter of time before these practices are outlawed.
Slightly less offensive are micro-transactions. Initially the domain of free-to-play or mobile games, micro-transactions are exactly that: buying costumes, emojis, dances, weapon colours and the like for a small amount. This has had a negative effect, though; the rise of “default” as an insult. Players who do not have custom gun designs (skins) or costumes are viewed as inferior to those who do. “Default” players are essentially scrubs who are unable to afford skins, while players with a pink machine gun are gods. ‘Default’ has become a playground insult which in turn is fuelling the purchase of in-game items by players who feel inferior.
Literature and strategies for the above concerns are available to concerned parents. The NHS and several children’s charities have published advice on lootboxes, gambling and online bullying. But there are so many things that a parent can do:

Educate yourself. What game are they playing? How does it work? Is there chat, in-game purchases?
Learn more about the games machines. You can set age ratings, limit spending, block in-game chat, invitations, player uploads.
Keep safe online. Put passwords on everything and activate two-stage authentication, discuss the dangers.
Stop habits developing early. Try not to spend money on micro-transaction or loot boxes habitually.
Uncover the causes of using games as escapism: What are they distracting themselves from? Is the level of gaming appropriate to the reasons behind it?

Most important of all: Engage with the games. There is to this day an overwhelming ignorance around games: that they are valueless; that they teach nothing; that they exist just to waste time; that they are only about killing.
Develop an understanding of the art of games. View games as literature: What’s happening? Who are the characters? What are their motivations? The skills young people learn in English lessons are wholly applicable to gaming. Why not encourage them to look deeper. Even in games like Fortnite there is a story being told, either overtly or subtly. Fortnite is actually an excellent example of story telling through environment. For games with a strong narrative it is absolutely possible to analyse them in the same way as one would classic literature. Ask questions about every aspect of the game.
Develop an understanding of the language of games: How players know what to do? What does the user interface tell them? How is the controller arranged? What does this tell you about the designer’s intentions? You could give a gamer a game and they would follow obvious and not so obvious cues. How are the intentions of the developed represented? These are all ideas that are worth investigating.
There is so much going on in games, which we should remember is still a relatively new media. There are discussions going on all the time which propel gaming from a hobby to an art form. There are far more positives than negatives, and that is unlikely to change. Play something yourself. Try to understand the appeal. The concerns you have as an observer might be different to those your have as a player.

References /Additional Reading:

Gaming Charities:
https://ablegamers.org/
https://www.specialeffect.org.uk/

The Effect of Video Game Competition and Violence on Aggressive Behavior: Which Characteristic Has the Greatest Influence?:
https://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/releases/vio-1-4-259.pdf

The effect of violence and competition within video games on aggression:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0747563219301773?via%3Dihub

Does video gaming cause violence? This research asks you to think again:
https://www.jcfs.org/response/blog/does-video-gaming-cause-violence-research-asks-you-think-again

Study Finds Violent Video Games Do Not Make Adults More Violent:
https://psychcentral.com/news/2018/01/18/study-finds-violent-video-games-do-not-make-adults-more-violent/131402.html

Violent video game engagement is not associated with adolescents' aggressive behaviour: evidence from a registered report:
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsos.171474

The Overhyped Data on Video Games and Aggression:
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/checkpoints/201810/the-overhyped-data-video-games-and-aggression

Hot Sauce, toy guns, and graffiti: A critical account of current laboratory aggression paradigms
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/227531969_Hot_Sauce_toy_guns_and_graffiti_A_critical_account_of_current_laboratory_aggression_paradigms

Cognitive Benefits of Playing Video Games:
https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog/freedom-learn/201502/cognitive-benefits-playing-video-games

Computers in Human Behavior:
www.elsevier.com/locate/comphumbeh

Adult drinking habits in Great Britain: 2005 to 2016:
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/drugusealcoholandsmoking/bulletins/opinionsandlifestylesurveyadultdrinkinghabitsingreatbritain/2005to2016

Alcohol Facts and Statistics:
https://www.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/brochures-and-fact-sheets/alcohol-facts-and-statistics

This web page has a reference ID of CH57377. Please quote this reference ID in any communication with the Centre for Computing History.