Social psychological explanations of human aggression: frustration-aggression

Question 1

What is the frustration-aggression hypothesis?

Answer 1

Dollard et al, 1939) assumes that frustration always leads to aggression, and aggression is always the result of frustration. Therefore the greater the frustration the greater the aggressive response

Question 2

What is the hypothesis based on?

Answer 2

This hypothesis is based on the psychodynamic concept of catharsis; it views aggression as a psychological drive.

Question 3

What does the hypothesis claim?

Answer 3

This hypothesis claims that frustration occurs when a goal-directed behaviour is blocked; i.e. when we are prevented from doing something we really want or need to do. This frustration creates an aggressive drive, which leads to aggressive behaviour such as violent fantasy, a verbal outburst, or even physical violence. This is cathartic (cleansing) for the individual because the aggression created by the frustration is satisfied, thereby reducing the drive and making further aggression less likely. We feel better for ‘getting it off our chests.’

Question 4

What does cathartic mean?

Answer 4

cleansing (urge to do something/get something out of your system)

Question 5

What does hypothesis recognise?

Answer 5

that aggression is not always expressed directly against the source of the frustration for three reasons

Question 6

What are those 3 reasons recognised?

Answer 6

1. The cause of frustration is abstract e.g. economic status/government.
2. The cause may be too powerful and we risk punishment by aggressing against it, e.g. the teacher who gave you a lower grade than expected.
3. The cause may be unavailable at the time e.g. the teacher left before you looked at your grade.

Question 7

What happens if we can’t get our aggression out the subject?

Answer 7

our aggression is deflected (i.e. displaced) onto an alternative; someone or something else (e.g. a pet or an inanimate object). This is sometimes referred to as the ‘kicking the dog’ effect; in order to experience catharsis, a scapegoat needs to be found.

Question 8

What did Pastore (1952) distinguish?

Answer 8

distinguished between justified and unjustified frustration, arguing it is mainly the latter type that leads to anger and aggression

Question 9

What did Pastore (1952) do in his study?

Answer 9

he produced different versions of situations; he manipulated them so that some were justified frustration and others were unjustified frustration. For example, a situation involving a bus that did not stop (justified – ‘out of service’ message displayed, unjustified – driver chose not to stop).

Question 10

What were the findings of Pastore (1952) study?

Answer 10

It was found that PTs in the first condition (justified frustration) expressed lower levels of anger than those in the second condition (unjustified frustration). This, therefore, suggests that unjustified frustration is more likely to result in aggression; however, both groups did show frustration and some anger, which could result in aggressive behaviour.

Question 11

What did Geen (1968) investigate?

Answer 11

He carried out a study to invesitgate the effects of frustration on aggression.

Question 12

What did Geen (1968) do in his study?

Answer 12

Male university students were given the task of completing a jigsaw puzzle. Their level of frustration was experimentally manipulated in one of three ways. 1) puzzle impossible to solve, 2) ran out of time as another PT (confederate) kept interfering, 3) confederate insulted the PTs as they failed to solve the puzzle. There was also a fourth control group (non-frustration). The next part involved giving shocks to the confederate when they made a mistake on another task.

Question 13

What were the findings of Geen (1968) study?

Answer 13

The findings showed that insulted PTs (group 3) gave the strongest shocks on average, followed by the interfered group, then the impossible task group. All three groups selected more intense socks than the non-frustrated control group.

Question 14

Limitation to frustration-aggression theory - Contradictory evidence Bushman (2002)

Answer 14

There is research to contradict the frustration-aggression hypothesis as an explanation of aggression. ​
Bushman (2002) found that PTs who vented their anger by repeatedly hitting a punchbag actually became more angry and aggressive rather than less. In fact, doing nothing was more effective at reducing aggression than venting anger.​ These findings suggest that the aggressive behaviour (i.e. hitting the punchbag) kept aggressive thoughts and angry feelings active in memory making PTs angrier and more aggressive. ​
Therefore this evidence contradicts the claim that catharsis reduces aggression, and casts doubt on the validity of a central assumption of the frustration-aggression hypothesis.​
​

Question 15

Limitation to frustration-aggression theory - An alternative theory Berkowitz (1989)

Answer 15

It is clear from research evidence that frustration does not always lead to aggression, and that aggression can occur without frustration. ​Berkowitz (1989) reformulated the frustration-aggression hypothesis; he argued that frustration is just one of many aversive stimuli that create negative feelings (others include jealousy, pain, and loneliness). ​He proposed that aggressive behaviour is triggered by negative feelings generally rather than by frustration specifically (as the original hypothesis suggests); he, therefore, proposed the negative effect theory of aggression.​ Therefore it has been argued that the frustration-aggression hypothesis is inadequate and oversimplistic in its assumptions of aggressive behaviour, as it can only explain how aggression arises in some situations (i.e. from frustration), not all (e.g. from jealousy).​
​

Question 16

Strength to frustration-aggression theory - Real-world applications Priks (2010)

Answer 16

A strength of the frustration-aggression hypothesis is that it has practical applications in explaining real-world aggression.​
Priks (2010) conducted a study of violent behaviour among Swedish football fans. He used teams’ changed position in the league as a measure of frustration and the number of objects (e.g. fireworks) thrown as a measure of aggression. ​
The study showed that when a team performed worse than their fans expected, its supporters threw more things onto the pitch. ​
A one-position drop in the league led to a 5% increase in such unruly behaviour. ​
He also found that supporters were more likely to fight the opposition supporters when the team performed worse than expected. ​
These findings suggest that supporters become more aggressive when expectations of good performance are not met (i.e. frustration), thus supporting this explanation of aggression. ​

Question 17

Strength to frustration-aggression theory - Meta-Analysis Marcus-Newhall et al (2000)

Answer 17

There is further research evidence to support the frustration-aggression hypothesis as a social psychological explanation of aggression, particularly the concept of displaced aggression. Marcus-Newhall et al (2000) conducted a meta-analysis of 49 studies all of which investigated situations in which aggressive behaviour had to be directed towards a target rather than an individual that caused the frustration. They found that the PTs who were provoked but were unable to retaliate directly against the source of their frustration were significantly more likely to aggress against an innocent part than PTs who were not provoked. This is exactly the outcome predicted by the frustration-aggression hypothesis, thus increasing the validity of its social psychological explanation of aggression.