Social Psychological explanations- Frustration A hypothesis

• Frustration aggression hypothesis (FAP) :

  • Dollard et al. (1939) formulated the frustration-aggression hypothesis
  • This suggests that frustration always leads to aggression and aggression is always the result of frustration
  • This is based on the psychodynamic approach – aggression is a psychological drive similar to biological drives (e.g. Hunger) 
  • We therefore experience frustration if our attempt to achieve a goal is blocked by an external factors
• Aggression is cathartic :

  • If our attempt to achieve a goal is blocked, this builds up aggression
  • This then leads to aggressive behaviour which satisfies the aggression created by the frustration
  • Therefore, aggression is cathartic because it reduces the aggressive drive and makes further aggression less likely
  • We feel better for getting it ‘off our chest’
• Aggression may be expressed indirectly :

  • The hypothesis recognises that aggression is not always expressed directly against the source of frustration, for three reasons:
  • The cause of our frustration is abstract (e.g. Government, economic situation, etc.)
  • The cause may be too powerful so we risk punishment if aggressive towards it (e.g. Teacher)
• Aggression may be expressed indirectly :

  • The cause may be unavailable at the time (e.g. parents left before you realised you were grounded)
  • So our aggressive behaviour is displaced onto an alternative – one that is not abstract, is weaker and is available
• Geen (1968) – Research into Frustration-Aggression Hypothesis

  Procedure

  • Male university students completed a jigsaw puzzle, during which level of frustration was manipulated in one of three ways
  • For some participants the puzzle was impossible to solve
  • Others ran out of time because a confederate kept interfering 
  • Others were insulted by the confederate
  • Then the participants gave (fake) electric shocks to the confederate whenever he made a mistake on another task
• Green procedure - findings :

  • Insulted participants gave the strongest shocks on average, then the interfered group, then the impossible-task group
  • All three groups selected more intense shocks than a (non-frustrated) control group
• • Cues - Berkowitz and LePage
  • If we become angry, we still might not behave aggressively
  • According to Berkowitz, frustration merely creates a readiness for aggression
  • But the presence of aggressive cues in the environment make an aggressive response to this frustration much more likely
  • Berkowitz and LePage (1967) found that once students become frustrated in a lab task, they were more likely to give fake electric shocks when they could see a weapon next to them
  • This is because the presence of aggressive cues would stimulate their aggression if they were already frustrated 
• AO3:

  • One strength of the frustration-aggression hypothesis is that there is research evidence
  • In their meta-analysis, Marcus-Newhall et al. (2000) looked at participants who were provoked but unable to retaliate directly against the source of their frustration 
  • They found that these provoked participants were significantly more likely to aggress against an innocent person than people who were not provoked 
  • This suggests that displaced aggression is a reliable phenomenon, supporting the central concept of the hypothesis and increasing its validity as an explanation of aggression
• AO3:

  • One limitation of the F-A hypothesis is that it is not cathartic
  • The F-A hypothesis suggests that aggression following frustration allow us to ‘get it off our chest’ meaning further aggression is less likely
  • However, Bushman (2000) found participants who vented their anger by hitting a punch bag became more angry and aggressive rather than less
  • This casts doubt on the validity of a central assumption of the hypothesis – that aggressive behaviour can reduce the drive for further aggression
• AO3:

  • strength of the original F-A hypothesis is that it was reformulated to fit the evidence
  • Frustration does not always lead to aggression and aggression can occur without frustration
  • So Berkowitz argued frustration is just one of many negative stimuli that create negative feelings
  • Aggression is triggered by negative feelings generally, rather than by frustration specifically
  • This is a strength because it highlights the flexibility of the hypothesis and this is how science operates – a theory is adapted when evidence comes along that it cannot explain
• AO3:

  • limitation of the F-A hypothesis is the effects of justified and unjustified frustration
  • Dill and Anderson (1995) showed participants a paper-folding task but frustrated them by making it difficult to follow, either because:
  •  the experimenter was in a hurry to meet his girlfriend (unjustified), or 
  • because his boss told him to be quick (justified)
  • Unjustified frustration led to the highest aggression among participants, while justified frustration resulted in less aggression than the control group, challenging the original hypothesis.
• AO3:

  • strength of the F-A hypothesis is useful real-life applications
  • Berkowitz’s argument that the presence of aggressive environmental cues stimulates aggression has featured in the gun control debate in the US
  • Some states allow ‘open carry’, where a gun does not have to be concealed. But presence of a weapon could act as a cue to aggression making its use more likely
  • This is important because research into ‘weapons effect’ may reduce gun-related violence by showing that aggressive cues should be removed from the environment, saving lives