Frustration Aggression Hypothesis

Sometimes when we are angry our mind goes blank and all we see is red, by the time we calm down the damage is already done, and our aggressive behaviour cannot be taken back even if we regret it. We often use anger and aggression as interchangeable words but there is a stark difference between them. Anger is one of the basic emotions, just like happiness, sadness, disgust fear and surprise.

It is a natural response to a distressing situation. Despite contrary beliefs, anger is healthy when expressed productively and can even be constructive (American Psychologists Association, 2023). Unfortunately, the same cannot be said about aggression. Aggression is defined as behaviour aimed at harming others physically and psychologically (American Psychologists Association, 2018). 

It is completely normal and healthy to feel angry occasionally, but sometimes it goes out of control and turns into aggressive behaviour. We all act aggressively at some point or another in our lives, whether it is yelling at a driver who cut us off or arguing with a loved one. Aggression impacts interpersonal relationships and sometimes can even cause legal consequences. But why do humans act aggressively even after knowing its negative consequences? 

One explanation that psychologists came up with is the Frustration-Aggression Hypothesis. This theory is based on Freud’s concept of catharsis. It suggests that when people are frustrated they experience a drive to be aggressive towards the source of their frustration, but this is often difficult or impossible so the source of of their aggression is displaced by something or someone else (Nickerson, 2023). 

History and Assumptions 

Frustration-aggression hypothesis was formulated by Yale University researchers Dollard, Doob, Miller, Mowrer and Sears in 1939. They stated that “aggressive behaviour always presupposes the existence of frustration” ( Dollard et al., 1939). It is important to note that unlike the use of the word in everyday language frustration here is not understood as an event instead of an affective state.

In other words, frustration is the feeling of tension that is caused by interference in achieving a goal or target that someone anticipated attaining. (Dollard et al., 1939). A footballer yelling at the referee for an uncalled penalty or a student arguing with his sibling for being noisy while he is studying for a major exam are some everyday examples of the link between frustrating events and aggressive responses.

This definition was later on criticized as it suggested that any kind of frustration would always lead to aggression or that aggression cannot occur without prior frustration. To correct this oversight the same authors published a new definition in 1941 in which they stated that “frustration produces instigation to aggression but this is not the only type of instigation it may produce (Miller et al., 1941).

Causes Of Frustration 

Two sources of frustration were identified, namely, interpersonal causes and goal significance. 

Interpersonal Causes

One of the root causes of frustration is competition between multiple parties (Deutsch, 1949, 1993). Competition leads to frustration as several contestants try to block each other’s attempt to reach the goal. This not only applies to games or competitions but can also result from multiple parties with different goals fighting over limited resources. 

Goal Significance

Frustration is not always directed solely at opponents; it can also be aimed at incompetent, selfish, or overly controlling cooperators. Their behaviour may hinder individuals from achieving personal goals or prevent groups from reaching common objectives, particularly when teamwork is crucial.

Expectation and Goal Significance: 

Behaviourists defined frustration as a cause of extinction or an event resulting in the termination of reinforcement that has maintained a behaviour. This extinction resulted in a temporary increase in the frequency of behaviour they called extinction burst. Later this definition was reworked from a more cognitive perspective by Amsel who stated that frustration occurs from an anticipated reward being delayed, reduced or removed (Amsel, 1962). 

Brown and Farber gave two requirements for an event to be considered frustrating:

• The goal must be important or relevant to the individual 
• Achievement of the goal must be perceived as a positive outcome by the individual (Brown & Farber, 1951). 

The proximity to the goal also affects how severe the aggressive response would be. The closer a person is to attaining a goal, the more intense an aggressive response would be induced by the frustration. 

Berkowitz Modifications 

In response to criticism faced by Dollard’s original formulation of the frustration-aggression hypothesis, Berkowitz reformulated the hypothesis which is now commonly cited and used in recent and current research on the causes and effects of frustration. Berkowitz argued that frustration causes negative effects, which leads to aggression.

Berkowitz broadened the definition to include, anxiety, unpleasant environmental conditions and aversive circumstances (Berkowitz, 1989). He also suggested that a person may not act aggressively depending on the individual’s reappraisal of a situation. In other words, Berkowitz reformulated the definition to include causes and consequences that are difficult to falsify and observe.

Since it was formulated frustration-aggression hypothesis has continued to provide useful insights to researchers. It persisted through a period of clash between psychoanalysis, behaviourism and later cognitivism. Despite constant changes and refinements it has greatly advanced our understanding of aggression and will continue to inspire countless new studies in the future.