Describe and evaluate the frustration-aggression hypothesis as an explanation for human aggression
The frustration-aggression hypothesis states that aggression is the consequence of frustration, which Dollard
defined as “any event or stimulus that prevents an individual from attaining some goal and its accompanying
reinforcing quality”. In other words, frustration is caused when people are prevented from getting something
they want. The frustration-aggression hypothesis predicts a cause-effect relationship between frustration,
aggression and catharsis (a form of emotional release that is achieved by the person engaging in aggressive
behaviour). Aggressive urges can be relieved through the production on an aggressive behaviour, which
therefore has a cathartic effect on the individual. Frustration increases when our motivation to achieve a goal
is very strong, when we expect gratification, and when there is nothing we can do about it. For example, a
study surveyed British people who were prevented from travelling to France by ferry because French fishing
boats blocked the French port. They found an increase in hostile attitudes towards the French as a result of
the passengers’ frustration. However, Dollard accepted that aggression cannot always be expressed directly
because it may be inappropriate to behave aggressively towards the source of frustration and as a result
aggression is sometimes displaced from the source of frustration on to someone or something else. This is
sometimes referred to as the ‘kicking the dog effect’ because the person may have an impulse to attack the
source of frustration, but because they are unable to for various reasons, they displace their frustration onto
something else. Green carried out a study to investigate the effects of frustration on aggression. He used
male university students who were given the task of completing a jigsaw puzzle and the level of frustration
was manipulated in one of three ways. Either the puzzle was impossible to solve, they ran out of time
because someone kept interfering or the confederate insulted the participants as they failed to complete the
puzzle. They then switched the roles and the participants gave shocks to the confederate when they make a
mistake on the task, measuring their levels of aggression due to their frustration about not being able to
complete the puzzle themselves. The findings were that the participants from the third group gave the
confederates the strongest shocks, followed by the second then the first, showing that the varying levels of
frustration was responsible for the different levels of aggression, giving support for the hypothesis.
Berkowitz came up with the revised frustration-aggression hypothesis. He developed the idea that frustration
does not always lead to aggression. Aggression can also occur in the absence of aggression. Frustration
creates a readiness for aggression, but the presence of aggressive cues in the environment makes acting upon
this much more likely. Other negative feelings for example can cause aggressive behaviours, not just
frustration – things like jealousy, pain and loneliness These unpleasant experiences create a ‘negative affect’
that can lead to aggression. Berkowitz also claimed that the outcome of frustration can include a greater
range of emotional displays than just aggression such as crying or being distant. He argued that anticipated
interference is less likely to lead to aggression than unanticipated interference because it is more expected
therefore, you are able to deal with it more easily.
A strength of the revised frustration-aggression hypothesis is that it has significant real-life applications as it
was found that aggression may be increased in the presence of aggressive cues. For example, Berkowitz
carried out a lab experiment where participants were again given the opportunity to shock a confederate who
had previously angered them. However, Berkowitz set up three different conditions – one with an aggressive
cue (a gun), one with a non-aggressive cue (a badminton racket), and one with no cue at all. Berkowitz
found those participants who were in the presence of the aggressive cue gave higher levels of shocks than
the other two groups. The practical applications od this research shed new light on the gun control debate in
America. If the presence of guns is more likely to result in aggression, then this ‘weapons effect’ could have
far reaching implications for gun laws. A strength of this is that the lab experiment means the results are
objective and falsifiable therefore, there is high internal validity so we can be sure that there is a cause an
effect relationship between aggression and aggressive cues because of the careful control on the independent
variable. Despite this, because this is a laboratory experiment, there are issues of ecological validity that can
be questioned. Lab experiments are artificial because they do not accurately represent real-life situations
therefore, they have low mundane realism. This means that the results cannot be generalised to the
population, making it lack external validity also.
The frustration-aggression hypothesis states that aggression is the consequence of frustration, which Dollard
defined as “any event or stimulus that prevents an individual from attaining some goal and its accompanying
reinforcing quality”. In other words, frustration is caused when people are prevented from getting something
they want. The frustration-aggression hypothesis predicts a cause-effect relationship between frustration,
aggression and catharsis (a form of emotional release that is achieved by the person engaging in aggressive
behaviour). Aggressive urges can be relieved through the production on an aggressive behaviour, which
therefore has a cathartic effect on the individual. Frustration increases when our motivation to achieve a goal
is very strong, when we expect gratification, and when there is nothing we can do about it. For example, a
study surveyed British people who were prevented from travelling to France by ferry because French fishing
boats blocked the French port. They found an increase in hostile attitudes towards the French as a result of
the passengers’ frustration. However, Dollard accepted that aggression cannot always be expressed directly
because it may be inappropriate to behave aggressively towards the source of frustration and as a result
aggression is sometimes displaced from the source of frustration on to someone or something else. This is
sometimes referred to as the ‘kicking the dog effect’ because the person may have an impulse to attack the
source of frustration, but because they are unable to for various reasons, they displace their frustration onto
something else. Green carried out a study to investigate the effects of frustration on aggression. He used
male university students who were given the task of completing a jigsaw puzzle and the level of frustration
was manipulated in one of three ways. Either the puzzle was impossible to solve, they ran out of time
because someone kept interfering or the confederate insulted the participants as they failed to complete the
puzzle. They then switched the roles and the participants gave shocks to the confederate when they make a
mistake on the task, measuring their levels of aggression due to their frustration about not being able to
complete the puzzle themselves. The findings were that the participants from the third group gave the
confederates the strongest shocks, followed by the second then the first, showing that the varying levels of
frustration was responsible for the different levels of aggression, giving support for the hypothesis.
Berkowitz came up with the revised frustration-aggression hypothesis. He developed the idea that frustration
does not always lead to aggression. Aggression can also occur in the absence of aggression. Frustration
creates a readiness for aggression, but the presence of aggressive cues in the environment makes acting upon
this much more likely. Other negative feelings for example can cause aggressive behaviours, not just
frustration – things like jealousy, pain and loneliness These unpleasant experiences create a ‘negative affect’
that can lead to aggression. Berkowitz also claimed that the outcome of frustration can include a greater
range of emotional displays than just aggression such as crying or being distant. He argued that anticipated
interference is less likely to lead to aggression than unanticipated interference because it is more expected
therefore, you are able to deal with it more easily.
A strength of the revised frustration-aggression hypothesis is that it has significant real-life applications as it
was found that aggression may be increased in the presence of aggressive cues. For example, Berkowitz
carried out a lab experiment where participants were again given the opportunity to shock a confederate who
had previously angered them. However, Berkowitz set up three different conditions – one with an aggressive
cue (a gun), one with a non-aggressive cue (a badminton racket), and one with no cue at all. Berkowitz
found those participants who were in the presence of the aggressive cue gave higher levels of shocks than
the other two groups. The practical applications od this research shed new light on the gun control debate in
America. If the presence of guns is more likely to result in aggression, then this ‘weapons effect’ could have
far reaching implications for gun laws. A strength of this is that the lab experiment means the results are
objective and falsifiable therefore, there is high internal validity so we can be sure that there is a cause an
effect relationship between aggression and aggressive cues because of the careful control on the independent
variable. Despite this, because this is a laboratory experiment, there are issues of ecological validity that can
be questioned. Lab experiments are artificial because they do not accurately represent real-life situations
therefore, they have low mundane realism. This means that the results cannot be generalised to the
population, making it lack external validity also.
