Frustration–aggression hypothesis

The frustration–aggression hypothesis, also known as the frustration–aggression–displacement theory, is a theory of <a href="/facts/Aggression/deWEwTyk">aggression</a> proposed by <a href="/facts/John_Dollard/AKskcMAV">John Dollard</a>, <a href="/facts/Neal_Miller/ugdjdaCg">Neal Miller</a>, <a href="/facts/Leonard_Doob/XbHbegUw">Leonard Doob</a>, <a href="/facts/Orval_Hobart_Mowrer/VPEaPJIK">Orval Mowrer</a>, and <a href="/facts/Robert_Richardson_Sears/vJlkIpWC">Robert Sears</a> in 1939, and further developed by Neal Miller in 1941 and <a href="/facts/Leonard_Berkowitz/gsMwRr1Q">Leonard Berkowitz</a> in 1989. The theory says that aggression is the result of blocking, or frustrating, a person's efforts to attain a goal.
When first formulated, the hypothesis stated that <a href="/facts/Frustration/qMbTB3cI">frustration</a> always precedes aggression, and aggression is the sure consequence of frustration. Two years later, however, Miller and Sears re-formulated the hypothesis to suggest that while frustration creates a need to respond, some form of aggression is one possible outcome. Therefore, the re-formulated hypothesis stated that while frustration prompts a behavior that may or may not be aggressive, any aggressive behavior is the result of frustration, making frustration not sufficient, but a necessary condition for aggression.
The hypothesis attempts to explain why people <a href="/facts/Scapegoating/nDQTWkQ8">scapegoat</a>. It attempts to give an explanation as to the cause of violence. According to Dollard and colleagues, frustration is the "condition which exists when a goal-response suffers interference", while aggression is defined as "an act whose goal-response is injury to an organism (or an organism surrogate)". The theory says that frustration causes aggression, but when the source of the frustration cannot be challenged, the aggression gets displaced onto an innocent target. For example, if a man is disrespected and <a href="/facts/Humiliated/ECU8IVx4">humiliated</a> at his work, but cannot respond to this for fear of losing his job, he may go home and take his <a href="/facts/Anger/7YyX9VCH">anger</a> and frustration out on his family. This theory is also used to explain riots and revolutions, which both are believed to be caused by poorer and more deprived sections of society who may express their bottled up frustration and anger through violence.
While some researchers criticized the hypothesis and proposed moderating factors between frustration and aggression, several empirical studies were able to confirm it as is. In 1989, Berkowitz expanded on the hypothesis by suggesting that <a href="/facts/Negative_affect/stGe4nqW">negative affect</a> and personal attributions play a major role in whether frustration instigates aggressive behavior.

Frustration–aggression hypothesis open-in-new

Frustration–aggression hypothesis