Frustration-Aggression Hypothesis

Question 1

Original Hypothesis (Dollard et al in 1939)

Answer 1

• Frustration always leads to aggression, and aggression is always the result of frustration
• This is based on the psychodynamic concept of catharsis and views aggression as a psychological drive akin to biological drives like hunger
• If our attempt to achieve a goal is blocked by some external factor, we experienced aggression – this can create an aggressive drive which leads to aggressive behaviour
• This is cathartic because the aggression created by the frustration is satisfied and reduces the drive and makes further aggression less likely

Question 2

What does the hypothesis recognise?

Answer 2

• Aggression is not always expressed directly against the source of frustration for 3 reasons:
• The cause of our frustration may be abstract
• The cause may be too powerful and we may get punished for showing outward signs of aggression
• The cause may just be unavailable at the time
• Our aggression is deflected/displaced onto a scapegoat – one that is not abstract, is weaker, and is available

Question 3

Green (1968) Procedure

Answer 3

• Male university students completed a jigsaw puzzle
• Their level of frustration was experimentally manipulated in 1 of 3 ways – for some, the puzzle was impossible to solve; for others, they ran out of time because another student in the room (a confederate) kept interfering; for a third group, the confederate insulted the participant as they failed to solve the puzzle
• All participants later had the opportunity to give the confederate electric shocks

Question 4

Green (1968) Findings

Answer 4

• The insulted participants gave the strongest shocks on average, followed by the interfered group, then the impossible task group – all 3 groups selected more intense shocks than a non-frustrated control group

Question 5

Berkowitz et al (1989)

Answer 5

• Frustration merely creates a readiness for aggression – aggressive cues make acting upon this readiness more likely

Question 6

Berkowitz & LePage (1967)

Answer 6

• Arranged for student participants to be given electric shocks in a lab, creating anger and frustration – the individual who gave the shock was a confederate
• The participants then had the opportunity to give electric shocks back
• The no. of shocks given depended on the presence/absence of weapons in the lab
• In one condition, 2 guns were present on a table next to the shock machine – the average no. of shocks given in this condition was 6.07; without guns, it was 4.67

Question 7

Doob & Sears (1939)

Answer 7

• Participants asked to imagine how they feel in different circumstances in which they may feel frustrated; most participants would feel angry in all of the frustrating situations

Question 8

Pastore (1952)

Answer 8

• Distinguished between justified and unjustified frustration; used different versions to Doob and Sears, involving both frustration types
• Participants expressed much lower anger levels when displaying the ‘out of service’ message (justified) compared to the bus not stopping (unjustified)

Question 9

Negative Affect Theory

Answer 9

• Frustration is neither necessary nor sufficient for aggression
• Berkowitz revised the frustration aggression hypothesis and said that frustration is one of many unpleasant experiences than can lead to aggression
• The unpleasant feeling forms a negative effect in the person and it’s this negative affect that causes aggression not the initial frustration
• Anything that restricts us from reaching a goal is an aversive and frustrating experience – this causes a negative effect to the person which means this anger will cause aggressive behaviour; unanticipated scenarios cause more frustration than anticipated scenarios

Question 10

Evaluation - Real world application with mass killings

Answer 10

• Staub suggests that mass killings are often caused by social and economic difficulties with society
• These frustrations typically lead to scapegoating and then discrimination and aggression against this group – following WWI, many Germans blamed the Jews for the loss and severe economic problems, leading to many condoning the violence against them
• This shows that widespread frustration, particularly when skilfully manipulated through propaganda, can have violent consequences for a scapegoated group

Question 11

Evaluation - Supporting evidence for the hypothesis from the real world based on sports violence

Answer 11

• Priks (2010) carried out a study on the violent behaviour amongst Swedish football fans, where he used teams’ changed position in the league as a measure of frustration and the number of objects thrown by the fans as a measure of aggression
• The study showed that when a team performed worse than expected, the supporters threw more things onto the pitch and were more likely to fight with opposing supporters – a one-position league drop led to a 5% increase in unruly behaviour
• These findings suggest that supporters become more aggressive when expectations of good performance are frustrated

Question 12

Evaluation - Aggression may not be cathartic

Answer 12

• Bushman (2002) found that participants who vented their anger by repeatedly hitting a punchbag actually became more aggressive rather than less, while doing nothing was more effective at reducing aggression than venting
• Bushman argues that using venting to reduce anger is like using petrol to put our fire – ‘the better people feel are venting, the more aggressive they are’