Frustrationaggression Hypothesis

Background and Assumptions

The frustrationaggression hypothesis was introduced by a group of Yale University psychologists, John Dollard, Leonard Doob, Neal Miller, O. H. Mowrer, and Robert Sears. These authors published an important monograph in 1939 entitled Frustration and Aggression, in which they sought to integrate ideas and findings from several disciplines, especially sociology, anthropology, and psychology. In terms of intellectual history, the work is notable for its eclectic use of psychoanalysis, behaviorism, and Marxism. It became one of the most influential explanations in the history of social science for the origins and expressions of aggressive behaviors.

The point of the frustration–aggression hypothesis was to identify a universal, parsimonious set of testable assumptions that would apply to virtually all situations of violence in humans and other animals. According to the original, strong version of the hypothesis that appeared in Frustration and Aggression, “the occurrence of aggression always presupposes the existence of frustration, and, contrariwise, frustration always leads to some form of aggression.” Thus, frustration, which was conceptually and operationally defined in terms of goal interference, was seen as both a necessary and sufficient condition for aggressive behavior.

The hypothesis was soon modified by the Yale group, however, and in 1941 it was proposed that frustration might lead to many different responses, one of which is aggression. Whereas the original formulation explained the lack of overt aggressive behavior in certain situations in terms of inhibition due to the fear of punishment (which would not diminish the aggressive drive), the subsequent version made clear that some responses to frustration could reduce the instigation response to such an extent that the aggressive response did not occur.

It is important to point out that Dollard and his colleagues believed that their account of frustration and aggression was valid for human as well as nonhuman (i.e., animal) actors, and for groups as well as individuals. That is, we should expect aggressive inclinations to result whenever a person or animal experiences frustration. The logic of the frustrationaggression hypothesis was applied to the context of intergroup as well as interpersonal relations.

Applications to Intergroup Relations

In the realm of intergroup relations, the frustrationaggression hypothesis was used to shed light on the dynamics of stereotyping, prejudice, and outgroup hostility. The theory of scapegoating is probably the most well-known application of the frustrationaggression hypothesis to the study of prejudice. The general idea is that as economic or other sources of frustration accumulate, people tend to seek out convenient social targets, or scapegoats, on whom to unleash their aggression.

Drawing in part on Freudian concepts of displacement, projection, and catharsis, the theory held that once frustration and the impetus for aggressive behavior have occurred, it makes relatively little difference who receives the brunt of the violence. In some cases, aggression naturally takes the form of retaliation against the initial source of frustration. In other cases, situational constraints can prevent a person from being able to react against the actual source of frustration (such as when the frustration was caused by a very powerful person or group). In still other cases, such as natural disasters, there may be no one to blame, but the frustration can still produce aggressive inclinations.

...