The frustration-aggression hypothesis is a social psychological theory that believes hostility, aggression

and violence is always the outcome when we are prevented from achieving our goals (frustration). Dollard
et al. (1939) suggested that there are various factors that affect the likelihood of aggression occurring:
1. The proximity of the goal. I.e. - an individual closer to achieving their goal is more likely to be more
aggressive, 2. Whether the aggression will remove the barrier that is causing the frustrating, no effect
means aggressive behaviour is less likely to occur.
The hypothesis is based on the psychodynamic concepts of catharsis as it views aggression as a drive
which needs to be satisfied, such as a biological drive - hunger. The hypothesis believes that after the act
of aggression has occurred the individual is satisfied, the drive is reduced and further aggression is less
likely to occur. This assumption is challenged by research conducted by Bushman who found that
participants who vented their anger through a punching bag had become angrier. This casts doubts on the
validity of central assumption of the hypothesis.
Another assumption of the hypothesis is that not all aggressive behaviour is expressed directly to the
source of cause, for example the cause may be too abstract to directly aggress against, or the cause may
be too powerful in which the individual will receive a punishment aggressing against it or the cause may
just be unavailable. When the cause is not directly aggressed against, the individual may displace their
anger on to an object or person, for example a little sibling.
Supporting evidence for frustration leading to aggression was obtained by Geen (1968). He studied male
university students who were given a task to complete a jigsaw puzzle in which the level of frustration was
manipulated in each condition. In condition one the confederate constantly kept interrupting the
participants, in condition two the puzzle was impossible to solve and in condition three the confederate
insulted the participant as they failed to solve the puzzle, all conditions led to frustration. The next part of
the study involved the participants giving the confederate electric shocks on another task. Geen found
those insulted gave the highest shocks and those who were in condition two (impossible task) gave the
lowest voltage of shocks, all groups selected higher shocks than the control group. This study can be
problematic as the participants may have been mentally scared for harming another therefore they will
need to be debriefed after. The study was also done on male university students, it cannot be easily
generalised to the rest of the population decreasing the validity of the results. However the study does have
high ecological validity as the task was reasonable to real life, i.e. - people always feel frustration when
loosing/competing in a game. The study was also a laboratory experiment, which allowed high control and
manipulation of variables, giving the study high replicability status as well as being reliable. This study
highly supports the frustration-aggression hypothesis.
Berkowitz suggested that frustration is simply a stimuli which stimulates the negative feeling of feeling
frustrated but it is the environmental cues that make acting upon the feeling more likely (aggressive cues,
i.e. Guns). Evidence to support this element of the hypothesis is supported by Berkowitz and Lepage
(1967); participants were given electric shocks within a laboratory setting creating anger and frustration,
they were then split into two conditions and then were given an opportunity to shock the confederates.
Condition one had aggressive cues present - 2 guns next to the electric shock machine and condition two
was non-aggressive with no cues present. They found an average of 6.07 shocks were given in condition
one compared to an average of 4.67 in condition two. The results suggest the weapon-effect supports
aggressive environmental cues stimulate aggression.
Critics of the study may be that the participants were displaying demand characteristics because the study
was under laboratory settings and they may have wanted to please the investigator, this means the results
may not be as valid. The study also lacks ecological validity since it is rare you will find yourself frustrated
over someone shocking you with guns being the environmental cue, the study has major ethical issues too,
all participant should be debriefed after. However the study was conducted under laboratory settings,
therefore it is highly controlled, allowing the manipulation of variables (cues) giving it high replicability
status.
It has become clear that frustration does not always lead to aggression and aggression can occur without
frustration from recent research. This allowed the hypothesis to be reformulated by Berkowitz who argued
frustration is only one of the many stimuli which stimulate an individual to feel negative feelings, for
example jealousy and pain my lead to aggression. He concluded that aggression is caused by negative
feelings rather than frustration. Berkowitz also claimed that there are different outcomes to feeling
frustration- Dill and Anderson found feelings of frustration have different effects, participants were split into
two conditions in which they would watch a man demonstrate quickly how to make an origami bird. In
condition one the confederate told the participants he had to hurry because his girlfriend was waiting (this
was the unjustified situation) and in the second condition the confederate told participant he had to hurry
because his boss said so ( justified situation). They found participants in unjustified situation showed more
aggression that the justified situation in which the participants were frustrated but were still calm,
supporting Berkowitz's claims. To conclude the frustration-aggression hypothesis is inadequate since it only
explains how aggression occurs in some situations, giving greater credibility to the negative feeling theory.