learnpsychology.net

knowledge is power

Frustration Aggression Hypothesis

This argument was proposed by Dollard et al. (1939) to explain that Aggression is always caused by some form of frustration. It is claimed that people are motivated to reach goals, but if these goals are blocked then Frustration occurs. In this Hypothesis Frustration always leads to aggression.

The frustration-aggression Hypothesis was originally developed using psychoanalytic ideas. Dollard argued that goal directed Behaviour involves the Arousal of psychic energy and that when we attain these goals the energy is released. Attaining the goal is therefore cathartic. However, if the goal is blocked we experience pent up psychic energy which must be released through aggression.

Frustration Aggression Hypothesis was first developed by Dollard, (1939). This proposed that the inability to attain a goal leads to frustration. The Frustration triggers an aggressive drive that leads to aggression. Berkowitz (1989) reformulated the frustration-aggression Hypothesis and proposed that Frustration results from an inability to attain a goal, creating a ‘readiness’ for aggression. This Frustration is more likely to lead to Aggression if aggressive cues (objects or persons currently or previously associated with aggression) are present. Although Berkowitz does say that aggressive cues do not have to be present to lead to overt Aggression they do make it more likely. He believed that sport might sometimes have a cathartic effect; however this would be reduced if the Frustration continued, the aggressive Behaviour becomes learned or the Aggression leads to anxiety, which will in turn lead to further frustration.
 Berkowitz theory is supported by a famous Experiment carried out in 1967.   In a Laboratory Experiment 100 male Psychology students were told that they would be involved in an Experiment on the effects of stress on problem solving. They each worked with a partner who was introduced as a fellow Participant but who was in fact a Confederate of the Experimenter (referred to as the ‘target’). Both were asked to work out the solution to a problem.  Participants were then told that their partner would be evaluating their solution by giving them between 1 and 10 mild electric shocks – 1 for a good solution, 10 for a poor solution (the number of shocks was actually decided by the Experimenter and consisted of either 1 shock, referred to as the ‘non angered condition’, or 7 shocks, referred to as the ‘angered condition’)
 Participants were then asked to evaluate the ‘target’s’ solution by giving them between 1 and 10 electric shocks. In fact, no shocks were given as the machine was bogus, but researchers were able to measure the participant’s level of Aggression by counting the number of shocks they believed they were administering. While the Participant carried out their evaluation there were sometimes objects present in the room including a badminton racket and shuttlecock or a shot gun and revolver, which were either described as belonging to their partner or belonging to someone else.
 In total there were 7 conditions in this experiment:


• Angered, no objects present.
• Non angered, no objects present.
• Angered, unassociated weapons present.
• Non angered, unassociated weapons present.
• Angered, associated weapons present.
• Non angered, associated weapons present.
• Angered, badminton racket present.
 The Dependent Variable was measured by:
• the number of shocks given to the target
• the duration of those shocks
• self-ratings of mood before and after shocking the target


 It was found that: 
• The greatest number of shocks were given by the angered participants in the presence of weapons.
• More shocks were given when the weapons were associated with the target, but not significantly more.
• Analysis of mood scales after initial shocks showed that angered participants were significantly more angry and sad than the non-angered participants.
• There was no significant change in mood seen in participants before and after they had ‘shocked’ the target.
     A main criticism of Frustration Aggression Hypothesis is that people can be aggressive even when they are not frustrated.   People can be aggressive simply because they are in a situation where Aggression is legitimate (for example in sport) or where somebody is seen as a legitimate target for Aggression (again, as in sport)