Frustration-Aggression Hypothesis

Question 1

Dollard (1939)

Answer 1

Frustration-aggression hypothesis: frustration always leads to aggression and aggression always caused by frustration. Goal-blocking factors lead to frustration, creating an aggressive drive which can only be relieved by engaging in an aggressive act (cathartic)

Question 2

Defence mechanisms

Answer 2

Sublimation (using aggression in acceptable activities like sport) and displacement (directing aggression outwards onto other object)

Question 3

Berkowitz (1969)

Answer 3

Revised frustration-aggression hypothesis: frustration doesn’t always lead to aggression. Aggression only occurs in presence of cues

Question 4

Why may aggression not always be expressed directly?

Answer 4

Risk of punishment or the cause of frustration is too abstract or unavailable

Question 5

Strengths of the frustration-aggression hypothesis

Answer 5

• Supportive evidence for induced aggression (eg. Green found time limit, impossible to compete or receiving derogatory remarks during puzzle groups gave more shocks than control)
• Research supporting displacement (eg. Marcus-Newhall meta-analysis found p’s significantly more likely to show aggression to an innocent party when source unavailable for retaliation)

Question 6

Limitations of the frustration-aggression hypothesis

Answer 6

• Environmental cues (eg. Berkowitz & Page found number of shocks given to confederate higher when two guns were on the table)
• Catharsis not always effective (eg. Bushman found p’s who vented their anger by repeatedly hitting a punchbag became more angry)