The frustration-aggression hypothesis: what is it and what does it explain?

A summary of this hypothesis that explains the mechanics behind aggression.

Aggressiveness has always been a subject studied by psychology, since knowing the factors behind this responseThe study of aggression has always been a subject of psychology, since knowing the factors that are behind this response can reduce aggression and the commission of violent crimes.

In the middle of the last century, Yale University proposed the frustration-frustration hypothesis. the frustration-aggression hypothesisThe frustration-aggression hypothesis, which posited that aggression arises, in essence, from the failure to achieve a stated goal, was developed at Yale University in the middle of the last century.

Next 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.

What is the frustration-aggression hypothesis?

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

This theory postulates that aggression is the result of blocking or frustrating a person's efforts to achieve an objective or goal. or 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 is the emotion that arises when something we set out to do is not accomplished. Aggression is defined as an act whose objective is to harm another organism, either physically or emotionally. When something causes us frustration our body has the need to release it or to solve that which has caused it. However, If this is not possible, it is released by other means, aggression being one of them.one of them being aggression. This aggression is unloaded on an innocent person.

For example, let us imagine the following situation. We have the worker in a company who has just received a reprimand from his boss, and has even felt humiliated. This causes him frustration, however, he cannot take action against the boss for fear of losing his job. So, when he gets home, he takes it out on his wife and children by being irritated and resorting to sarcasm and passive-aggressiveness, or directly to shouting.

Reformulation of the hypothesis

The original postulates of the frustration-aggression hypothesis, whether it is wanted or not, are considerably Freudian-influencedor at least this was recognized by figures of the stature of Bandura and Walters in the 1960s. Initially, he considered that aggression is always a direct consequence of a previous frustration and, conversely, the existence of frustration always leads to some form of aggression.

However, these principles were modified in 1941 when Neal Miller changed the original hypothesis by recognizing that many people have learned to respond to their frustrations in a non-aggressive way. It is from then on that it is proposed that frustrations generate different inclinations or reactions, among which instigation to aggression would be only one of the possible ones. Frustration creates the need to respond, with aggression being one of the possible responses of the individual to the unjust situation. the individual to the unjust situation.

In this way, the very rigid binomial of frustration-aggression was overcome. In turn, if aggression was not always what came after 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. 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, as evidenced by the research conducted by Jody Dill and Craig Anderson in 1995. Their experiment consisted of creating two experimental groups and a control group in which the aim was to observe to what extent frustration, justified and unjustified, induced verbally aggressive behavior.

During the experiment, 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 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:

One experimental group was the one that received the condition unwarranted frustration.One experimental group received the unjustified frustration condition, which consisted in the fact that, when taught how to make the origami bird, the experimenter went too fast, indicating that, due to personal factors, he had to leave earlier than he should have. In the justified frustration condition the experimenter also did things quickly, but this time he indicated that he had to hurry because his supervisor had asked him to have the lab ready as soon as possible. In the control group, no explanation was given and the experimenter was taught to do the bird quietly.

At the end of the experiment, participants were given questionnaires asking about their perception of the competence and friendliness of the research staff. were asked about their perception of the competence and friendliness of the research staff. They were explicitly informed that what they answered on these questionnaires would determine whether or not the research staff would receive financial support, or also whether they would be reprimanded and have their university benefits reduced.

Dill and Anderson found that participants in the unjustified frustration condition, who had been unable to learn to do the origami bird well because the researcher had told them he had personal issues, rated the experiment staff more negatively. The justified frustration group rated the staff more negatively than those in the control group, but still less negatively than the unjustified frustration group..

From this it follows that if what makes us not achieve the objective set is something that has no justification or we do not see any sense in it, it ends up frustrating us more and makes us tend towards more violent behaviors. In this case, wishing that the research personnel fail academically or that they do not achieve economic benefits because of their "clumsy" performance during the study would be interpreted as a form of aggression, albeit verbal rather than physical.

Leonard Berkowitz's 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 aggression.

The most controversial aspect of this theory was that it suggested that, for example, in young children, it would be enough to teach an aggressive cue such as firing a gun in a video game to trigger an aggressive response. This vision would end up being taken by many organizations in favor of outlawing any type of video game or toy that suggested any hint of violence, ranging from Pokémon, through the Sims and including things as non-aggressive as Kirby or The Legend of Zelda.

Criticism

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

The debate is still ongoing, 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 achieved due to an inference from a third party. This definition is too ambiguous and general, not allowing to understand in depth if really a type of aggression is due to frustration for not achieving a goal or because of envy, fear or intolerance to any action of others on our possessions or area of influence.

Bibliographical 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.