Frustration-aggression theory

SIGNIFICANCE: The frustration-aggression theory, introduced in the late 1930s, attempts to explain the cause of hostile, aggressive behavior. It proposes that many people will turn to intentionally hurtful behavior if they are blocked (frustrated) in pursuing their goals. If the actual blocking agents cannot be identified or attacked, aggression may be displaced onto innocent, relatively powerless groups. Once the aggression is released, the individual experiences a feeling of catharsis, or the relief of emotional tension.

From the beginning of recorded history, one can trace the theme that people often become aggressive when prevented from reaching some very basic goals—having food, feeling a reasonable degree of personal safety, having the chance to better themselves, and so on. Many people have been hurt because they were responsible for blocking the goals of others, thereby creating frustration. They have been victims of “instrumental aggression”—aggression that is primarily directed at attaining a goal rather than hurting another. Even more people, however, have been hurt as innocent victims of frustrated individuals purposely venting their rage on whatever nearby group or individual was easy to identify and was relatively powerless. This is known as “hostile aggression,” and it is carried out to make the aggressor feel better.

A 2023 study published in the Journal of Affective Disorders added a dimension to the understanding of frustration. What doctors formerly saw as an emotional response was actually a neural complexity and a reaction to the lack of achieving a specific goal or receiving a certain reward. The results of the study explained and highlighted the neuroscience of both frustration and the retaliatory behaviors that typically follow.

Freud’s Ideas

The seeds of a modern frustration-aggression theory can be found in the writings of Sigmund Freud, the father of psychoanalysis. He stated that aggression is an inherent characteristic of people and that they often use “displacement,” an ego defense mechanism, to redirect aggression from its appropriate target to a more easily available and safer one. Freud stated that much of what people do is motivated by “unconscious” forces. By unconscious, he meant forces of which people are largely unaware but that are nevertheless active in their minds. This concept of unconscious motivation is key to the process of scapegoating. If people realized consciously that they were blaming innocent individuals for their problems, rational thought would stop them from doing so. Unconscious direction of behavior, however, bypasses such rationality.

American theorists expanded on Freud’s ideas about frustration and aggression. John Dollard and his colleagues authored the now classic Frustration and Aggression (1939), which proposed that frustration always leads to aggression and that aggression is always preceded by frustration. The basic proposal was ultimately too simplistic, but the book motivated many researchers to examine and challenge parts of it. Leonard Berkowitz, for example, provided support for the commonsense notions that aggression may be generated by circumstances other than frustration and that frustration may produce responses other than aggression. He also documented what he termed the “trigger effect,” the ability of something in the environment to set off aggression under conditions of high frustration.

Scapegoating and Racism

When the cause of frustration is something that cannot be attacked, such as poor economic conditions, or when the cause is too dangerous to attack (for example, a powerful dictator), innocent victims often become scapegoats of hostile “displaced aggression.” For the displacement of aggression to be comforting to a frustrated individual, several conditions must be satisfied. First, since displacement is carried out as a substitute for aggression against the causes of frustration that cannot directly be attacked, a good scapegoat must be a manageable target. Attacking a person, or a few people, is far more manageable than attacking the government or an environmental condition such as a drought.

Second, a satisfying scapegoat must be relatively harmless compared with other possible targets and with the real cause of the frustration. Third, a scapegoat must be readily identifiable and easy to locate. Often a group (such as an ethnic, racial, or religious group) is an easy source of such individual scapegoats. A group contains many victims, some of whom are almost always present when needed, and the fact that it may also be easily identified and used by others gives social support for displacing aggression. Others may target the scapegoat for different reasons, but such differences are immaterial. That people can agree on their hatred is sufficient. This fact illuminates the connections between frustration, aggression, and racial prejudice.

Formation of Prejudice

Historical precedent can greatly enhance the utility of a group used as a scapegoat. African Americans were the first victims of institutionalized racial prejudice in the United States. Very early in the nation’s history, they became an ideal scapegoat group; because they were slaves, they were helpless to defend themselves against unjust blame, and because of their appearance, most were subject to easy identification.

Prejudice against many peoples can be explained by many of the factors that still contribute to prejudice against blacks. Immigrants have often been the targets of displaced aggression. Even those who speak English are, for a time, easily identifiable by accented speech, differences in preferred dress, and different customs. Those immigrants speaking different languages are easier to spot, and those with different features and skin color easier still. Identifiability as a factor leading to scapegoating was used in a malicious, yet clever, way by Adolf Hitler in the 1930s and 1940s. German Jews had assimilated to a greater degree than Jewish people in many other countries and were thus not always identifiable by dress or behavior, much less appearance, so Hitler demanded that they identify themselves and their businesses by symbols (for example, a yellow star) worn on clothing or the word “Jew” displayed on properties. Hitler and his advisers well understood scapegoating, and they used it to deflect aggression away from themselves and toward a common “enemy.” Historically, many politicians in the United States have done the same in an equally vile way, using Chinese, African Americans, or Hispanics, for example, as easily identified targets for hatred. Communists, intellectuals, and homosexuals have also been targets, but they have had to be somehow specially identified. Such scapegoating still occurs, but it generally takes more subtle and covert forms than it did in the past.

The long-honored view that racism can be caused by the formation of negative attitudes (prejudices) that lead to limiting behavior (discrimination) is also compatible with the frustration-aggression theory. “Aggression,” as the theory uses it, can be at any level—intellectual, emotional, or behavioral. A frustrated individual who uses blacks as a scapegoat may believe that they are inferior people, may hate them, and may discriminate against them at every opportunity. Such a person holds the prejudice that is often hypothesized to underlie racism and to facilitate scapegoating.

Stereotyping

The view that stereotypes encourage racism and scapegoating is also compatible with the frustration-aggression theory. Often, a group chosen as a scapegoat is far more variable than the frustrated individual recognizes. By accurate perception, a person would recognize that only some (if any) of the group members “deserve” the hostility directed at them. Widely held stereotypes simplify the process of scapegoating. If all black people are lazy, for example, and all Jewish people are money-hungry, the frustrated individual can simply hate them all without giving the matter further thought.

The Authoritarian Personality

Even the most individualistic theory about scapegoating and racism, that of the authoritarian personality, meshes well with the frustration-aggression theory. An authoritarian personality, as first characterized in the 1950s, is a personality type characterized by a number of qualities that fall only a bit short of ones needed for classification as mentally ill. The person designated “high authoritarian” by a score on the F-scale devised by Theodor Adorno and the other authors of The Authoritarian Personality (1950) displays several qualities—conventionalism, authoritarian aggression, superstition and stereotypy, and projectivity—that directly predispose him or her to scapegoating as well as most of the behaviors inherent in the several other theories of racism. High authoritarians have developed their personalities over a lifetime and are not likely to change spontaneously or to be changed by others’ efforts. Because of their typically rigid behaviors, they face many frustrations and are especially likely to find reasons other than their own shortcomings for their problems. High authoritarians’ aggressiveness under frustrating conditions is a prototype for the frustration-aggression hypothesis.

Challenging Significance

In 2023, a study was published in Aggressive Behavior that added a component to the theory, which is significance. These researchers asserted that a person becomes aggressive if their significance, or perceived social worth, is challenged and the person feels demeaned. In turn, they will become aggressive in order to demonstrate their significance or worth in the form of power, which demonstrates dominance. Though alternative means of establishing significance are possible—such as through socially acceptable and notable characteristics like honesty, courage, intellect, and creativity—the individual must be able to recognize these in themselves and justify their own significance. If they do not or they feel as though their worth has been challenged, this study argues that the individual will then become frustrated and turn toward aggression in the form of belittling another or a group to lessen their significance, thus asserting dominance.

Bibliography

Chadee, Derek, ed. Theories in Social Psychology. Wiley, 2011.

Churchman, David. Why We Fight: The Origins, Nature, and Management of Human Conflict. 2nd ed. Rowman, 2013.

Dugré, Jules R., and Stéphane Potvin. "Neural Bases of Frustration-Aggression Theory: A Multi-Domain Meta-Analysis of Functional Neuroimaging Studies." Journal of Affective Disorders, vol. 331, 2023, pp. 64-76. doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2023.03.005. Accessed 6 Nov. 2024.

Houghton, David Patrick. Political Psychology: Situations, Individuals, and Cases. 2nd ed. Routledge, 2015.

Kecmanovic, Dusan. The Mass Psychology of Ethnonationalism. Springer, 1996.

Kruglanski, Arie W., et al. "Frustration–Aggression Hypothesis Reconsidered: The Role of Significance Quest." Aggressive Behavior, vol. 49, no. 5, 2023, pp. 445-468. doi.org/10.1002/ab.22092. Accessed 6 Nov. 2024.

Nickerson, Charlotte. “Frustration-Aggression Hypothesis.” Simply Psychology, 28 Sept. 2023, www.simplypsychology.org/frustration-aggression-hypothesis.html. Accessed 5 Nov. 2024.