frustration-aggression hypothesis

•  

  The basic claim of Dollard’s frustration-aggression hypothesis was that all aggression was the result of frustration which was defined as ‘any event/stimuli that prevents an individual from attaining some goal and its accompanying reinforcing quality.’ Although it was claimed that frustration was a necessary condition for aggression, they also believed than contextual factors, such as threat of punishment, could inhibit aggressive behaviour in some situations.
• The F-A hypothesis predicts a cause-and-effect relationship between frustration, aggression and catharsis (an emotional release). Frustration was said to bring the arousal of an aggressive drive which then leads to aggressive behaviour. Frustration increases when out motivation to achieve a goal is very strong. Brown surveyed British tourists who were prevented by travelling on a ferry to France due to fishing boats blocking the port. An increase of hostile attitudes towards the French was a result of the passenger’s frustration.
• . Doob and Sears investigated conditions for frustration. They asked participants how they would feel in certain situations, such as a bus going past without stopping. Most participants reported that they would feel angry in the situations. Pastore then distinguished between justified and unjustified aggression. He produced different versions of the situations used, such as the bus that didn’t stop was changed to show that the bus had an ‘out of service’ message. Under this condition (justified frustration) participants expressed much lower levels of anger.
• . The F-A hypothesis states that when people are frustrated, they experience a drive to be aggressive towards the object of their frustration. However, it is often inappropriate to behave aggressively towards the source of the frustration and so it can sometimes be displaced onto something, or someone else. This is referred to as the ‘kicking the dog’ effect. So, if they can’t take out their anger, eg on a boss or the bank, they must find a scapegoat for catharsis to be experienced
• The revised F-A hypothesis is due to the fact that aggression can occur in the absence of frustration and frustration doesn’t always lead to aggression. The revised hypothesis argued that frustration is only one of mant different types of experience that can lead to aggression. These unpleasant experiences create ‘negative affect’ in the individual such as uncomfortable feelings. So these feelings are what triggers the aggression. Unanticipated interference is more likely to provoke an aggressive reaction than anticipated interference because the former is experiences as more unpleasant.
• SLT argues that aggressive behaviour is only one possible response to frustration.

  They claim frustration produces only generalised arousal in the individual, and that SL determines how that arousal will influence behaviour. An individual may respond to frustration by engaging in aggressive behaviour if it worked before and uses meditational processes or vicarious reinforcement.

  This view states that rather than frustration always leading to some form of aggression an individual learns to produce aggressive actions and learns the circumstances under which they are likely to be successful.
• a criticism of the frustration-aggression hypothesis is that not all aggression arises from frustration.

  Many other factors as well as frustration, such as pain, extreme temps and other stimuli can lead to aggression. In a study of baseball games in the US, Reifman et al found that as temperatures increased, so did the likelihood that pitchers would display aggressive behaviour towards the batters (balls thrown at 90mph direct at the head).

  This supports the revised aggression-frustration hypothesis in that other stimuli tends to make aggression more likely.
• However, there are problems with this study. 

  The findings seems to be from a content analysis, therefore the IVs are not manipulated, so findings are correlational. 

  Therefore, cause and effect cannot be established which decreases the value of the findings.
• One limitation is research showing that aggression may not be cathartic.

  Bushman found that pt who vented their anger by repeatedly hitting a punch bag actually became more aggressive than less. Doing nothing was more effective at reducing aggression than venting. Bushman argues that using venting to reduce anger is like using petrol to put out a fire. He believes ‘the better people feel after venting, the more aggressive they are’.

  This shows that a central assumption of the frustration-aggression hypothesis may not be valid.