Frustration-aggression hypothesis: what it is and what it explains

Aggression has always been a subject studied by psychology, since knowing those factors that are behind this response can reduce aggressions and violent crimes.

In the middle of the last century, at Yale University it was raised the frustration-aggression hypothesis, which stated that aggressiveness arose, in essence, from failing to achieve a set objective.

Below we will learn more about this already classic hypothesis, what reformulations have been made throughout the 20th century, how it has been approached experimentally and what controversies it has brought with it.

• Related article: "Top 4 Theories of Aggression: How is Aggression Explained?"

What is the frustration-aggression hypothesis?

The frustration-aggression hypothesis is a theory of aggression proposed by John Dollard, Neal Miller, Leonard Doob, Orval Mowrer, and Robert Sears in 1939, and later expanded by Miller (1941), and Leonard Berkowitz (1969).

This theory posits that aggression is the result of blocking or thwarting a person's efforts to achieve a goal

or your goal. Originally, this group of researchers was called the Yale group, who expounded their theory in the book Frustration and Aggression (1939).

According to Dollar and his colleagues, frustration would be the emotion that arises when something that we had planned is not fulfilled. Aggression is defined as an act whose objective is to harm another organism, either physically or emotionally. When something causes us frustration, our body needs to release it or solve what has caused it. However, if this is not possible, it ends up being released by other means, aggression being one of them. This aggression is unloaded on an innocent person.

For example, imagine the following situation. We have a company worker who has just received a reprimand from his boss, and he has even felt humiliated. This causes him frustration, however, he cannot take charge against the boss for fear of losing his job. So, when he gets home, he pays it off with his wife and children, showing irritation and resorting to sarcasm and passive-aggressiveness, or directly to shouting.

• You may be interested in: "The 11 types of violence (and the different kinds of aggression)"

Restatement of the hypothesis

The original postulates of the frustration-aggression hypothesis, like it or not, receive considerable Freudian influence, or at least that was recognized by figures of the stature of Bandura or Walters in the sixties. Initially, he considered that aggression is always the direct consequence of a previous frustration and, conversely, the existence of frustration always leads to some form of aggression.

However, these principles are modified in 1941 when Neal Miller changes the hypothesis original in recognizing that many people have learned to respond to their frustrations in ways aggressive. It is from then on that it is stated that frustrations generate different inclinations or reactions, among which the incitement to aggression would be only one of the possible ones. Frustration creates the need to respond, aggression being one of the possible responses of the individual in the unfair situation.

In this way, the pairing so rigid in principle of frustration-aggression was overcome. In turn, if aggression was not always what followed frustration, there was also the idea that aggression might not be caused by frustration, but by other factors such as fear or the need to fight. This could explain situations in which aggression appears without there having been a situation of frustration.

Investigation of the hypothesis

The frustration-aggression hypothesis has been approached experimentally, having as proof of this the research carried out by Jody Dill and Craig Anderson in 1995. His experiment consisted of creating two experimental groups and a control group in which it was intended to observe to what extent frustration, justified and unjustified, induced behaviors verbally aggressive.

During the experiment, the participants were asked to learn how to make an origami bird. The experimental procedure involved two phases: a first, in which the participants were taught how to they had to make the bird, and a second, in which the volunteers themselves had to try to make the bird. The three groups differed from each other in the following aspects:

An experimental group was the one that received the unjustified frustration condition, which consisted in that, when they were taught how to make the origami bird, the experimenter was going very fast indicating that, due to personal factors, he had to leave before he should. In the justified frustration condition, the experimenter also did things quickly, but this time It indicated that he had to hurry because his supervisor had asked him to have the laboratory ready as soon as possible. possible. In the control group, no explanation was given and they were taught to make the bird calmly.

At the end of the experiment, the participants were given questionnaires in which they wondered about your perception of the competence and friendliness of the research staff. They were explicitly informed that what they answered on these questionnaires would determine whether the staff at the research would receive financial support or not, or also if they were going to be scolded and their benefits reduced university students

Dill and Anderson found that participants in the unwarranted frustration condition, who had been unable to learn to do well the origami bird because the researcher had told them he had personal business, they rated the research staff more negatively. experiment. In the justifiable frustration group, staff were scored more negatively than those in the control group, but still they did it in a less negative way than the unjustified frustration group.

From this it can be deduced that if what makes us not achieve the stated objective is something that has no justification or we do not see sense in it, it ends up frustrating us more and makes us tend towards more violent. In this case, wanting the research staff to fail academically or not get financial benefits for their “awkward” performance during the course of the study would be construed as a form of aggressiveness, albeit verbal rather than verbal. physical.

Leonard Berkowitz reformulation

in 1964 Leonard Berkowitz indicated that it was necessary to have an aggressive stimulus for aggression to take place.. In 1974 and 1993 he modified the frustration-aggression hypothesis, transforming it into a theory in which aggressive cues exerted an influence that need not be directly proportional to the response or assault.

The most controversial aspect of this theory was that it suggested that, for example, in small children, just teach an aggressive hint such as firing a weapon in a video game as to trigger an entire response aggressive. This vision would be the one that would end up being taken by many organizations in favor of outlawing all kinds of videogames or toys that suggested some minimal hint of violence, ranging from Pokémon, going through the Sims and including things as non-aggressive as Kirby or The Legend of Zelda.

critics

The publication of Frustration and Aggression The Yale group already aroused controversy as soon as it was published, especially among animal behaviorists, psychologists, and psychiatrists. The behaviorists had studied animals, such as rats or primates, which show violent behavior in cases in which they have felt frustration, but also to protect their territory or obtain a certain possession or couple.

The debate continues, given that one of the main concepts used by the hypothesis, that of frustration, is not adequately defined. Frustration can be understood as the fact of feeling that a certain goal cannot be met due to an inference from a third party. This definition is too ambiguous and general, not allowing an in-depth understanding of whether a type of aggression is really due to frustration for not achieving a goal or for envy, fear or intolerance of any action of others on our possessions or area of influence.

Bibliographic references:

• Dill, Jody & Anderson, Craig. (1995). Effects of frustration justification on hostile aggression. Aggressive Behavior - AGGRESS BEHAV. 21. 359-369. 10.1002/1098-2337(1995)21:53.0.CO; 2-6.