1. The frustration-aggression hypothesis

2. Deindividuation review
Name 2 theorists associated with the approach.
Identify 3 factors which make deindividuation more likely.
What is public self awareness?
What is private self-awareness?
How is disinhibition different to deindividuation?
Name 1 study that supports the theory.
Name 1 study that criticises the theory.
Can the theory explain gender differences in aggression?
Where does the theory stand on the 3 debates?
Of the 4 other issues, name 2 which might be a criticism of the theory.

3. Frustration-Aggression Hypothesis
DOLLARD ET AL 1939
His hypothesis sees aggression as being the consequence of frustration, 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 what they want.

4. The Frustration-Aggression Hypothesis
Drive to goal
Obstacle to a goal
Contextual factors play role in inhibiting aggressive behaviour in some situations, e.g. threat of punishment
Predicts cause-effect relationship between frustration, aggression and catharsis (form of emotional release achieved by engaging in aggressive behaviour)
Frustration increases when:
Motivation to achieve a goal is very strong
We expect gratification
There is nothing we can do about it
Frustration
Anger
Aggression
Catharsis

5. Attempt to be aggressive inhibited.
Displaced Aggression
Frustrated causes feelings of aggression towards the object that has frustrated them.
Often inappropriate to behave aggressively towards the source of frustration
Attempt to be aggressive inhibited.
Fun Fact
Displacement is often referred to as ‘kicking the dog’ effect, because a person may have an impulse to attack the source of their frustration (e.g. boss, bank) but cannot.
To experience catharsis, scapegoat needs to be found to release aggression.
Dollard et.al: aggression sometimes displaced from the source on to someone or something else.

6. Not all aggression arises from frustration!
Frustration is neither necessary nor sufficient for aggression.
Berkowitz revised the frustration aggression hypothesis: frustration one of many unpleasant experiences that can lead to aggression.
Unpleasant feeling forms negative effect in the person and its this negative affect that causes aggression not the initial frustration
Berkowitz (1989)

7. For example….
Anything that restricts us from reaching a goal is an aversive and frustrating (i.e. unpleasant) experience.
This causes a negative affect to the person which means this anger will cause aggressive behaviour.
Unanticipated scenarios causes more frustration than anticipated scenarios.

8. Research support
P- The frustration- aggression hypothesis has research evidence to support it..
E- Harris (1974): situations involving shop queues were used and confederates pushed in front of real people that were waiting to assess their reaction. Results found the closer people were to the front (their goal) the more likely they were to react aggressively to confederates pushing in front of them.
E- This supports the frustration-aggression theory and its idea that proximity to the goal was a factor in whether aggression is displayed.

9. Real-World Application: Sports Violence
P: There has been supporting evidence for the frustration-aggression hypothesis from the real world based on sports violence (Priks, 2010)
E: He carried out a study on the violent behaviour amongst Swedish football fans: when a team performed worse than expected, supporters threw more things onto the pitch and were more likely to fight with the opposing supporters. A one-position drop in the league led to a 5% increase in aggressive behaviour.
E: These findings suggest that supporters become more aggressive when expectations of good performance are frustrated. This supports the frustration- aggression hypothesis which would consequently explain the outbreak of aggressive behavior.

10. Lack of research support for the central claims
P  Critics say many of Dollard et al’s claims had no support. The concept of catharsis has not been supported by research. E  Bushman (2002) found behaving aggressively was likely to lead to more rather than less aggression in the future. Bushman found that aggressive behaviour kept aggressive thoughts and angry feelings active in memory and made people more angry and more aggressive, directly contradicting the catharsis reduces aggression. E  This shows that the frustration-aggression hypothesis claims made by Dollard et al does not have support and limits validity of theory.

11. Aggression is not an automatic consequence of frustration (AO3)
P – Social learning theorists (e.g. Bandura) argue aggression is only one possible response to frustration
E – Bandura 1961 (Bobo doll study)
Claim that frustration produces only generalised arousal and SLT determines how that arousal will influence individuals behaviour. May resort to aggression if it’s been effective for them before (direct conditioning) or have observed it being effective for others (SLT)
E – Frustration-aggression hypothesis = frustration always leads to some form of aggression
Alternative hypothesis = aggression + circumstances where it would be successful are learned