The Frustration-aggression Hypothesis: What It Is And What It Explains

Aggression has always been a topic studied by psychology since knowing the factors behind this response can reduce attacks and the commission of violent crimes.

In the middle of the last century, Yale University proposed the frustration-aggression hypothesis which stated that aggressiveness arose, in essence, from failing to achieve a set objective.

Below we will learn more about this now classic hypothesis, what reformulations have been made throughout the 20th century, how it has been approached experimentally and what controversies it has brought with it.

What is the frustration-aggression hypothesis?

The frustration-aggression hypothesis is a theory of aggression proposed by John Dollard, Neal Miller, Leonard Doob, Orval Mowrer and Robert Sears in 1939 and later expanded by Miller (1941), and Leonard Berkowitz (1969).

This theory postulates that Aggression is the result of blocking or frustrating a person’s efforts to achieve a goal or your goal. Originally, this group of researchers was called the Yale group, who presented their theory in the book Frustration and Aggression (1939).

According to Dollar and his colleagues, frustration would be the emotion that arises when something we had planned does not come true. Aggression is defined as an act whose objective is to harm another organism, either physically or emotionally. When something causes us frustration, our body has the need to release it or solve what caused it. However, If this is not possible, it ends up being released by other means, aggression being one of them. This aggression is unleashed on an innocent person.

For example, let’s imagine the following situation. We have a company worker who has just received a reprimand from his boss, and he has even felt humiliated. This causes him frustration, however, he cannot take charge against the boss for fear of losing his job. So, when he gets home, he takes it out on his wife and children, acting irritated and resorting to sarcasm and passive-aggressiveness, or even yelling.

Reformulation of the hypothesis

The original postulates of the frustration-aggression hypothesis, whether we like it or not, receive considerable Freudian influence, or at least that is what figures of the stature of Bandura and Walters recognized in the sixties. He initially considered that aggression is always a direct consequence of a previous frustration and, conversely, the existence of frustration always leads to some form of aggression.

However, these principles were modified in 1941 when Neal Miller changed the original hypothesis by recognizing that many people have learned to respond to their frustrations in a non-aggressive way. It is from then on that it is proposed that frustrations generate different inclinations or reactions, among which the instigation of aggression would be only one of the possible ones. Frustration creates the need to respond, with aggression being one of the possible responses of the individual in the face of the unfair situation.

In this way, the initially rigid binary of frustration-aggression was overcome. At the same time, if aggression was not always what came after frustration, there was also the idea that aggression could not be caused by frustration, but by other factors such as fear or the need to fight This could explain situations in which aggression appears without there having been a situation of frustration.

Hypothesis investigation

The frustration-aggression hypothesis has been approached experimentally, with proof of this being the research carried out by Jody Dill and Craig Anderson in 1995. Their experiment consisted of creating two experimental groups and a control group in which the aim was to observe to what extent the Frustration, justified and unjustified, led to verbally aggressive behavior.

During the experiment, participants were asked to learn how to make an origami bird. The experimental procedure involved two phases: a first, in which the participants were taught how to make the bird, and a second, in which the volunteers themselves had to try to make the bird. The three groups differed among themselves in the following aspects:

An experimental group was the one that received the unjustified frustration condition, which consisted of the fact that, when they were taught how to make the origami bird, the experimenter was very quick to indicate that, due to personal factors, he had to leave earlier than he should. In the justified frustration condition, the experimenter also did things quickly, but this time he indicated that he had to hurry because his supervisor had asked him to get the laboratory ready as soon as possible. In the control group, no explanation was given and they were taught to do the bird calmly.

At the end of the experiment, the participants were given questionnaires in which was asked about their perception of the competence and friendliness of the research staff They were explicitly informed that what they answered on these questionnaires would determine whether or not the research staff would receive financial aid, or whether they would be scolded and have their college benefits reduced.

Dill and Anderson found that participants in the unjustified frustration condition, who had not been able to learn how to make the origami bird well because the researcher had told them he had personal business, rated the experiment staff more negatively. In the justified frustration group, the staff were rated more negatively than those in the control group, but still they did so in a less negative way than the unjustified frustration group

From this it follows that if what makes us not achieve the stated objective is something that has no justification or we do not see sense in it, it ends up frustrating us more and makes us tend toward more violent behaviors. In this case, wishing that the research staff would fail academically or not obtain financial benefits due to their “clumsy” performance during the conduct of the study would be interpreted as a form of aggressiveness, albeit verbal rather than physical.

Reformulation of Leonard Berkowitz

In 1964 Leonard Berkowitz indicated that it was necessary to have an aggressive stimulus for aggression to take place In 1974 and 1993 he modified the frustration-aggression hypothesis, transforming it into a theory in which aggressive cues exerted an influence that did not have to be directly proportional to the response or aggression.

The most controversial aspect of this theory was that it stated that, for example, in young children, it would be enough to simply teach an aggressive cue such as shooting a gun in a video game to trigger an entire aggressive response. This vision would be the one that would end up being taken by many organizations in favor of illegalizing any type of video game or toy that suggested even the slightest bit of violence, ranging from Pokémon, to the Sims, and including things as non-aggressive as Kirby or The Legend of Zelda.

critics

The publication of Frustration and Aggression of the Yale group already sparked controversy as soon as it was published, especially among animal behaviorists, psychologists and psychiatrists. Behaviorists had studied animals, such as rats or primates, that show violent behavior in cases where they have felt frustration, but also to protect their territory or obtain a certain possession or partner.

The debate continues, given that One of the main concepts used by the hypothesis, that of frustration, is not adequately defined Frustration can be understood as feeling that a certain goal cannot be met due to an inference from a third party. This definition is too ambiguous and general, not allowing us to understand in depth whether a type of aggression is really due to frustration over not achieving a goal or due to envy, fear or intolerance of any other person’s action on our possessions or area of ​​influence.