Frustration Aggression Hypothesis

12 Key excerpts on "Frustration Aggression Hypothesis"

• 

  eBook - PDF

  Advances in the Study of Aggression

  Volume 2

  • Robert J. Blanchard, D. Caroline Blanchard, Robert J. Blanchard, D. Caroline Blanchard(Authors)
  • 2013(Publication Date)
  • Academic Press

    (Publisher)

  The theory posited a universal causal relation between frustration and aggression. More specifically, the theory, a behavioral adaptation of early psychoanalytic theory, pro-posed that frustration produced an instigation, inclination, or drive to aggression. The authors, recognizing that aggression did not always result from frustration, proposed that aggression would be inhibited if punishment was anticipated as a consequence of the aggressive act. However, the inhibition of the aggressive act, according to the authors, would increase the instigation to aggress, due to the added frustration produced by the thwarted goal response. Thus, the inhibition of aggres-sive behaviors intensifies aggressive drive. The authors utilized the concept of catharsis to account for the reduc-tion of aggression. They assumed that the greatest reduction would occur when hostility was directed at the original source of frustration. However, some catharsis was assumed to occur through fantasy, dis-placement, and attacks on inanimate objects. What are the implications of the frustration-aggression theory for the control of aggression? The theory suggests three means of reducing The Regulation of Aggressive Behavior 93 aggressive behavior: punishment (which will inevitably increase frustra-tion), the release of aggressive drive (which results in legitimizing ag-gressive acts), and the reduction or elimination of frustration (which is unrealistic). All three of these approaches are based on one basic prem-ise, that the aggressive drive regulates the expression of aggressive be-havior. One must either allow the drive to be discharged, delay the discharge, or prevent the instigation of the drive. The frustration-aggression theory has been extensively scrutinized and criticized. First, numerous investigators have demonstrated, as suc-cinctly stated by Bandura (1983), that frustration has varied effects on behavior; aggression does not require frustration.

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - PDF

  Progress in Behavior Modification

  Volume 12

  • Michel Hersen, Richard M. Eisler, Peter M. Miller, Michel Hersen, Richard M. Eisler, Peter M. Miller(Authors)
  • 2013(Publication Date)
  • Academic Press

    (Publisher)

  soon became scientifically indefensible. In light of this evidence, Neal Miller (1941), one of the original theoretical col-laborators, altered the second proposal to read, Frustration produces instigations to a number of different types of responses, one of which is the instigation to some form of aggression (p. 338). Although the amended hypothesis became defensible in relation to available data, Miller's revision substantially reduced the theory's predictive utility in that the conditions under which frustration leads to aggression were not specified. Moreover, in view of Miller's failure to modify the first proposal (i.e., that aggression always stems from frustration), frustration remained a necessary but not sufficient condition for the occurrence of aggressive behavior. This led to additional criticism pertaining to the fact that individuals aggress for many reasons and in response to many different situations unrelated to frustra-tion, for example, a Mafia hit m a n receiving monetary compensation for eliminating specified political targets (Bandura, 1973b; Baron, 1977). Although subsequent attempts to salvage the frustration-aggression hypothesis have led to such contemporary versions as, Frustration sometimes causes aggression, and is only one of many factors leading to such behavior (Baron, Byrne, & Kantowitz, 1980, p. 662), current research suggests that goal interference may play a role in aggression, but only under certain highly specified conditions. As a general rule, frustra-tion serves to facilitate aggression only in those cases where (a) frustration is quite high and perhaps unexpected, (b) aggressive responses possess strong instrumental value in overcoming frustrating circumstances, and (c) personal attack (especially if perceived as intentional, arbitrary, or unjust-ified) is coupled with active goal interference (see Baron, 1977; Zillmann, 1979).

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - PDF

  Human Aggression

  Theories, Research, and Implications for Social Policy

  • Russell G. Geen, Edward D. Donnerstein(Authors)
  • 1998(Publication Date)
  • Academic Press

    (Publisher)

  AFFECTIVE AGGRESSION 5 3 obtaining an expected reward. A truly clear understanding of how social stresses and strains can promote antisocial conduct obviously requires a more precise def- inition of frustration. The 1939 Frustration-Aggression Hypothesis The best known analysis of the effects of frustrations was spelled out in 1939 by a team of social scientists at Yale University led by John Dollard, Leonard Doob, and Neal Miller (Dollard, Doob, Miller, Mowrer & Sears, 1939). Rephrasing their behavioristic conception in more common sense terms, they basically defined frus- tration as an obstacle to the attainment of an expected gratification rather than as an emotional reaction. They also advanced two general propositions regarding the relationship between thwartings and the instigation to aggression: (1) Every frustra- tion, they maintained, produces an instigation to aggression, an urge to harm some- one, principally but not only the perceived source of the goal blocking, and (2) every aggressive action supposedly can be traced back to prior frustrations. It should be recognized, however, that soon after the theory was first published, Miller (1941) amended the first proposition, acknowledging that the inability to reach an expected goal can have nonaggressive as well as aggressive conse- quences. There need not always be an open .display of aggression. Still, he argued, if the affected persons continue to be thwarted, the nonaggressive reactions will diminish in strength and overt aggression will become more likely. As for the second proposition, Berkowitz (1989, 1993a) has pointed out that much aggression is instrumental behavior in which the primary aim of the attack is to achieve some end other than the target's injury or destruction; the aggressor at- tempts to hurt or kill the victim, but seeks to do this in order to gain some objective such as money, social status, or a restoration of a favorable identity.

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - PDF

  Social Psychology

  • Saba Safdar, Catherine A. Sanderson(Authors)
  • 2021(Publication Date)
  • Wiley

    (Publisher)

  One limitation of this theory is that frustration doesn’t have to lead to aggression, but could lead to other emotions, such as disap- pointment, sadness, and depression. In other words, aggression represents only one of the possible responses to frustration. A second limitation of this theory is that not all aggression stems from frustration (Berkowitz, 1989; Fung, Gerstein, Chan, & Engebretson, 2015). Most researchers now make the distinction between emotional/hostile aggression and instrumental aggression (see Bushman & Anderson, 2002, for an exception). Frustration is much more likely to lead to emotional or hostile aggression, than instrumental aggression is. 344 CHAPTER 11 AGGRESSION COGNITIVE-NEOASSOCIATION THEORY Another theory explaining aggression suggests that experiencing a negative mood or affect activates anger-related thoughts and feelings as well as aggressive behaviour (Berkowitz, 1984, 1990; Fung et al., 2015). This cognitive-neoassociation theory proposes that any event that leads to negative affect, such as heat, pain, unpleasant noises and odours, crowding, and so on, can lead to aggression. For example, if you’re in a bad mood because you recently failed an exam, you might be more likely to respond angrily to a salesman who knocks on your door. Such triggers to aggressive behaviour could include observing the following types of aggression: • aggression in daily life (e.g., watching two children fight on a playground) • aggression in the media (e.g., watching a television show in which cartoon characters behave aggressively) • reading a story containing aggressive acts (e.g., an action comic book) There are a variety of studies on how different factors can lead to negative mood or affect and thereby increase aggression. HOT TEMPERATURES. Numerous studies demonstrate that as the temperature increases, so does the incidence of aggressive acts, including murder, rape, domestic violence, and assault (Anderson, 2001; Mavroudeas et al., 2018).

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - ePub

  Aggression

  Individual Differences, Alcohol And Benzodiazepines

  • Alyson Bond, Malcolm Lader, Jose da Silveira(Authors)
  • 2013(Publication Date)
  • Psychology Press

    (Publisher)

  The current position seems to be that frustration sometimes facilitates aggression depending on certain factors. Baron and Richardson (1994) cite four important mediating factors: the magnitude; the presence of aggressive cues; the extent to which it is arbitrary or unexpected; and the emotional and cognitive processes of the frustrated individual. Frustration can be increased by intervening when the subject is close to his or her goal, by blocking expectation of success, and by making the subject's reasons for the action less legitimate (Harris, 1974; Kulick & Brown, 1979). Berkowitz (1989) has argued that frustration only produces a readiness for aggressive behaviour. The occurrence will depend on the presence of aggressive cues, i.e. stimuli associated with anger arousal. Such cues may be heightened by viewing violent films. Frustration that can be predicted or expected rarely produces aggression. However, if it is seen to be arbitrary or unjustified, it is more likely to result in aggressive behaviour. As well as aggressive cues, Berkowitz (1989) has emphasised the current feelings of the individual. Interpersonal or external factors that lead to negative affect or irritation increase the likelihood of aggressive behaviour.

  In his reformulation of the relationship between frustration and aggression, Berkowitz (1989) discerns an associative network between negative affects, frustration, and aggression. In his model, the intensity and arbitrariness of the frustration leads to negative affect, and then aggressive cues may intensify the instigation to aggress. Attributions and judgements may facilitate or inhibit this process.

  Provocation and attack

  Attack is the key instigator to retaliatory aggression. Interpersonal aggression takes place in an interactive situation between two people. Therefore Bandura (1973, p.153) suggests that "if one wished to provoke aggression, the most dependable way to do so would be simply to physically assault another person, who would then be likely to oblige with a vigorous counterattack". Many studies support this idea. Persons who have been insulted or physically attacked are likely to respond with verbal abuse (James & Mosher, 1967), or with physical counterattack (Baron, 1972; Berkowitz, 1974). Moreover, the intensity of aggression depends on the intensity of the initiating attack (Epstein & Taylor, 1967; O'Leary & Dengerink, 1973). Verbal provocation can often lead on to aggressive actions. In research examining police reports of criminal violence, Felson (1982, 1984) found a typical pattern to start with an insult leading to verbal retaliation, escalating to an argument, threats, and finally physical assault. This work emphasises the interactive nature of aggression. Several investigators have compared frustration (blocking of ongoing behaviour) with attack (delivery of noxious stimulus) as antecedents of aggression (e.g. Buss, 1963; Geen, 1968; Geen & Berkowitz, 1967). They conclude that attack is a more effective manoeuvre in eliciting aggression. Diamond et al. (1984) have also shown that attack is a more powerful source of arousal than is frustration. Baron (1977), however, argues that although frustration seems to be a weaker stimulus for aggression than either physical or verbal attack, comparable outcomes between the two variables have sometimes been misleading due to the ignorance of the subjective effects of each on the individual. The relevant question is whether or not a mild insult would always be more effective in eliciting subsequent aggression than extremely strong frustration. Somewhat more unexpected, however, is evidence that individuals often react aggressively to indications of aggressive intention on the part of others, even when they are not actually attacked by these persons. Greenwell and Dengerink (1973) found experimentally that although attack is an important instigator of aggressive behaviour, symbolic elements that are incorporated in that attack may play a major role.

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - PDF

  Psychology for Psychiatrists

  • C. G. Costello, Hugh L. Freeman(Authors)
  • 2016(Publication Date)
  • Pergamon

    (Publisher)

  His findings supported this hypothesis. Data obtained by Buss (1963) suggests that the instrumental value of the aggressive behavior is more important than the degree of frustration. Clinicians remembering their manipulative patients will probably agree readily with this. (d) Group identity and aggression. General observation sug-gests that an individual is more aggressive when in a group than when alone, and the experimental data support this. For instance, children frustrated in pairs are more aggressive than when frustrated alone. The cohesiveness of the group also appears to 76 PSYCHOLOGY FOR PSYCHIATRISTS be of importance. In Pepitone and Reisling's (1955) study, pairs of students who had been told that they would get along well with each other reacted with more hostility to the experimenter and the experiment than pairs of equally unacquainted students who were told that they would probably not get along well together. 3. Summary The literature we have reviewed relating to frustration and aggression may be summarized as follows: (1) Aggression is a frequent response to frustration. (2) The stronger the instigation to the goal response, whether measured in terms of the extent to which a primary drive such as hunger remains unsatified, or in terms of the closeness to a task goal which can be attained only after a series of trials, the stronger the instigation to aggression. (3) Some evidence suggests that the strength of instigation to aggression varies directly with the degree of hostility expressed by the frustrating agent. (4) Some evidence suggests that the strength of instigation to aggression varies directly with the number of previous frustrations. (5) Some evidence suggests that the strength of instigation to aggression increases as the number of nonaggressive responses extinguish through nonreinforcement. (6) Aggressive behavior may produce anxiety in the aggressor.

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - PDF

  Social Psychology

  Handbook of Basic Principles

  • Paul A. M. Van Lange, E. Tory Higgins, Arie W. Kruglanski(Authors)
  • 2020(Publication Date)
  • The Guilford Press

    (Publisher)

  If an organism encountered a stimulus thought to increase frustration but did not behave aggressively, then the stimulus was not frustrating. In this way, frustration–aggression theory was a product of its historical era, owing largely to the influence of philosophy on the advent of psychology theorizing (James, 1890). Unfortu- nately, this theoretical rigidity posed problems in terms of making frustration–aggression the- ory falsifiable (Popper, 1959). As a result, fu- ture iterations of frustration–aggression theory were modified to account for the possibility that frustration may not always increase aggression (Miller, 1941). However, these reformulations continued to argue that if an organism acted aggressively, it was always due to increased frustration (Zillman, 1979). Hence, frustra- tion–aggression theory no longer claimed that frustration was a sufficient cause of aggression, but it continued to assert that frustration was a necessary cause of aggression. Cognitive Neoassociation Theory Cognitive neoassociation (CNA) theory grew out of frustration–aggression theory (Berkow- itz, 1989, 2012). Unlike frustration–aggression theory, CNA theory was heavily influenced by the cognitive revolution and emerging work on discrete emotions (anger and fear vs. general frustration). Specifically, CNA theory asserts that people behave aggressively because they encounter unpleasant situational cues that au- tomatically activate cognitive associations with either fight or flight responses. When cognitive associations with fight responses become acti- vated, people tend to experience anger. In con- trast, cognitive associations with flight respons- es often lead people to experience fear. These emotions and the fight or flight responses they FIGURE 15.3. Homicide rates across the lifespan, 1990–2016. From Our World in Data. Licensed under Creative Commons 4.0.

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - ePub

  Psychology and Crime

  • Francis Pakes, Jane Winstone(Authors)
  • 2013(Publication Date)
  • Willan

    (Publisher)

  We could have decided to take an even wider stance on the subject and take warfare, weapons of mass destruction and genocide into account. However, as that would bring us into the world of politics and international relations, and away from psychology, we have decided to limit ourselves to interpersonal violence. In what follows, we will examine a number of factors that have been assumed to cause aggression, including frustration, testosterone, alcohol, and certain types of brain damage or injury, as well as heat, and violent television and video games. We will subsequently look at the role of cognition and social information processing. After that, we will seek to put all these findings into a more comprehensive framework, using Anderson and Bushman’s (2002) general aggression model. It is first important to provide definitions. According to Anderson and Bushman (2002), aggression is Any behaviour directed toward another individual that is carried out with the proximate (immediate) intent to cause harm. In addition, the perpetrator must believe that the action will harm the target and that the target is motivated to avoid the behavior. (28) Frustration and aggression The link between frustration and aggression seems straightforward enough. When an individual has a certain goal and finds that that goal cannot be achieved, frustration ensues. That frustration becomes a cue for aggressive behaviour. The typical example is the air passenger who abuses airline staff when refused entry to the plane. Another example is the football player who commits a foul after conceding a goal. Dollard et al. (1939) have been credited with formulating the so-called frustration-aggression hypothesis. Their theory has been subsumed into a wider framework proposed by the influential researcher Berkowitz. It is, rather unattractively, called the cognitive neoassociation theory (Berkowitz 1990; 1993)

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - PDF

  Understanding Family Violence

  Treating and Preventing Partner, Child, Sibling and Elder Abuse

  • Vernon R. Wiehe(Author)
  • 1998(Publication Date)
  • SAGE Publications, Inc

    (Publisher)

  The lack of stron g empirica l suppor t for th e origina l frustration-aggressio n hypothesi s ha s led to modification s of th e theory . Berkowit z (1978) suggeste d tha t two prerequisite s ar e necessar y for frustratio n to be expresse d in aggression ; namely , a readines s to act ag-gressivel y and externa l cues tha t trigge r th e expressio n of aggressio n (Penrod , 1986). Frustratio n can produc e an emotiona l stat e tha t can easily resul t in an aggressiv e re-sponse , but ther e must be a readines s to act in thi s manner . Also, externa l aversiv e stim -uli rathe r tha n only frustratio n can increas e th e likelihoo d of aggressiv e behavior . Frus -tratio n in such situation s is referre d to by social psychologist s as a stat e of arousa l an d can be stimulate d by aversiv e factor s such as physiologica l arousal , verba l and physica l attack , uncomfortabl e temperatures , espe-cially heat , and th e use of drug s or alcohol . Externa l condition s also can affect th e relationshi p betwee n frustratio n and aggres -sion. Thi s ha s been shown in studie s know n as th e weapon s effect (Berkowit z & LePage , 1967). Researcher s found tha t th e presenc e or availabilit y of weapon s could promp t or prime individual s to act aggres -sively. Student s participate d in an experi -ment involvin g th e giving and receivin g of mild electrica l shocks . Researc h partici -pant s sat at variou s tables . Some table s ha d nothin g on them except th e shock machine' s telegrap h key. Othe r table s containe d neu -tra l objects , such as badminto n racket s an d shuttlecocks . A thir d grou p of table s con-taine d a shotgu n and a revolver . Person s sittin g at th e table s with weapon s increase d th e numbe r and length of th e shock s the y gave other s as compare d to thos e person s sittin g at th e table s on which no object s wer e placed or at table s containin g neutra l ob-jects . The researcher s conclude d tha t th e

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  No longer available |Learn more

  The Social Psychology of Aggression

  3rd Edition

  • Barbara Krahé(Author)
  • 2020(Publication Date)
  • Routledge

    (Publisher)

  In the first version of the frustration–aggression hypothesis, Dollard et al. (1939) assumed that frustration would always trigger aggression, and that aggression would always be attributable to a preceding frustration. However, it quickly became clear that not every frustration leads to an aggressive response. Alternatively, frustrated individuals may withdraw from the situation or become upset rather than angry. Moreover, not every aggressive act is the result of a preceding frustration. Acts of instrumental aggression carried out to achieve a particular goal, such as robbing a bank to resolve a desperate financial situation, do not necessarily entail a previous frustration. Therefore, the earlier assumption of a deterministic relationship between frustration and aggression was changed into a probabilistic version by N. E. Miller (1941), one of the authors of the original theory. He stated that “frustration produces instigations to a number of different types of response, one of which is an instigation to some form of aggression” (p. 338). In this revised view, aggression is not the only but merely one possible response to frustration. To the extent that the aggressive act reduces the strength of the underlying drive, it becomes self-reinforcing – there is an increasing likelihood that an aggressive response will be shown following subsequent frustrations.

  Displaced aggression . Whether or not frustration will result in an aggressive response depends on the influence of moderating variables. Fear of punishment for overt aggression or unavailability of the frustrator are factors that may inhibit aggression following a frustration. These moderators also explain why aggression may be “displaced” away from the frustrator on to a more easily accessible or less intimidating target. The concept of displaced aggression plays a role in understanding aggression not only in response to frustration, but particularly in response to provocation. Frustration and provocation are related, but distinguishable constructs. Whereas frustration focuses on goal blockage, provocation

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - PDF

  Social Psychology

  • Jeffrey H Goldstein(Author)
  • 2013(Publication Date)
  • Academic Press

    (Publisher)

  Frustration may share a particular set of physiological characteristics with other emotions, such as anger, fear, or anxiety. An increase in autonomic nervous system arousal, including increased heart rate, blood pres-sure, respiratory rate, and electrodermal activity, is one of the physiological aspects of frustration. Anger, fear, and anxiety may also produce autonomic nervous system arousal. A cognitive label that an individual attaches to that state of heightened arousal may be what distinguishes frustration from other emotions. In a sense, we can think of frustration as a label which people assign to certain internal feelings in particular situations. Whenever we refer to an emotion, we are actually referring to two things at once: the phys-iological state accompanying the emotion and the cognitive label attached to that physiological state. The frustration-aggression the-ory states that a particular emotion, frustration, leads to a particular behavior, aggression. We can ask whether the crucial element of the hypothesis is the physiological arousal or the cognitive label, or, perhaps, the two together. It may be that only one of the two components of frustration causes aggression, in which case we would have to modify the original formulation in one of two ways. Either it should read Physiological arousal causes aggressive behavior/' or The cognitive label of frustration causes aggressive behavior. Of course, the original theory may be correct in that both compo-nents of frustration together cause aggression. Dolf Zillman (1971) reasoned that the crucial element of frustra-tion may be physiological arousal in and of itself. He therefore proposed that people who are aroused physiologically, as by a stimulating drug or some external event which is stimulating, should be more aggressive than people who are not physiologically aroused. In order to test this hypothesis, Zillmann showed groups of college males one of three different films.

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - PDF

  Human Behavior and Public Policy

  A Political Psychology

  • Marshall H. Segall, Arnold P. Goldstein, Leonerd Krenser(Authors)
  • 2013(Publication Date)
  • Pergamon

    (Publisher)

  For such studies really show us how our tendencies to aggress are dependent on external control. Human nature, in the classical sense of the term, may be relatively immutable, but the social environment may be changed; as it changes, so will the nature of men who inhabit it. If, as we have concluded from our examination of various findings and theories, aggressive behavior is (a) instigated by frustration, (b) inhibited by aggression-anxiety, and (c) triggered by the presence of cues that signal its apparent legitimacy, then the frequency of occurrence of overt aggressive responses should be reducible through policies and programs which (a) minimize frustration, (b) maintain or enhance inhibitions of aggression, and (c) remove from the environ-ment aggression-legitimizing cues. Berkowitz (1970), acknowledging that these prescriptions are more easily articulated than imple-mented, nevertheless asserted, A society that wants fewer violent outbursts should reduce frustrations, leave inhibitions intact, and remove immediate cues that can set off aggressive acts (p. 93). FRUSTRATION REDUCTION Frustration, we have seen, does not inevitably produce aggression but it is extremely likely to serve as an instigation to it. Accordingly, eliminating from the social environment some of the sources of frustration should decrease the probability of occurrence of aggressive behavior. The reduction of frustration is, of course, a long-term and difficult task. But the difficulties ought not deter us from making a start, for as frustrations mount, their reduction becomes increasingly difficult. Nor should we be deterred by the fact that not all sources of frustration can ever be eliminated. It is true that no society could permit every person to satisfy all of his wants all of the time. Inherent in social order is constraint of goal-seeking behavior when-ever the attainment of one man's goals interferes with the attainment of another's.

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book