Frustration Aggression Hypothesis example essay topic

Defining aggression presents us with numerous problems, as every person has their own view to what sort of behaviour can be classed as acting aggressive. The text book definition suggests that aggression is " a first act of hostility with the deliberate intention of harming another against their will". A psychologists view is that aggression can be defined as "Intention to inflict some form of harm on others" (Baron and Byrne 1997). A more down to earth definition is that " an act of hostility or injury must be present, action is implied, and not just thought".

There are in all five types of aggression- Hostile aggression is solely hurting someone for aggressions sake (aggression for aggressions sake). Instrumental aggression is using aggression as a means to an end. If there is a motive or reward present. For example, in the case of using aggression in a sport, like boxing, the reward would be financial. Irritable aggression is when strong emotions are present such as being angry or frustrated as could be in the case of swearing at a careless driver. Sanctioned aggression is self defence.

If a person is being attacked for example there is the need to defend oneself... Pro-social aggression is for the good of society. Like killing a terrorist, who holds hostages under threat. It is important for aggression to be studied, as it plays a part in our every day lives. We see it at school, in work, in the media, all around us. So it is important for us to know, why we act this way and how aggression can be reduced.

I will endeavour to discuss three theories of aggression. Firstly, the "frustration - aggression hypothesis". It was said by Dollard and Miller (1939), that frustration always leads to some form of aggression, and aggression is always the result of frustration. Dollard et al said frustration is " an interference with the occurrence of an unsighted goal-response at its proper time in the behaviour sequence". Frustration can be defined as being angered by a particular situation, being stressed, or from being prevented from doing something we want to, in other words, not having our own way. In other theories, aggression is an instinct, or something biological passed on through a family line.

Here, aggression is a drive such as hunger or being over tired, but is triggered by social factors and things in our society that particulary annoy us. A study was carried out by Holland and Sears in South America (1940). They discovered that there was a link between the amount of aggression shown to the workers and how good the cotton crop had turned out. Aggressive behaviour was said to be at its highest towards the Black American workers in the years when the cotton crop was unsubstantial and poor.

In fact, the Black Americans were acting as scapegoats, as they had not committed any crimes, and were soaking up the crop farmers frustration. Dollard et al said that aggressive behaviour results from frustration in out attempts to achieve our own personal goals. Due to the demands from society, our goals in life can become nearly impossible to achieve, and if the result is not achieving, we become frustrated, and which the theory says, this leads to aggression. Barker et al (1940) had two groups of children.

One of the groups were made to wait, and were refrained from playing with some attractive toys. The other group were allowed to play with the toys straight away. It was found that the group which was made to wait, acted more aggressively towards the toys. The conclusion of this aggressiveness, was throwing, smashing and stamping on the toys. These behaviours did not occur in the other group.

Buss made an aggression machine, which was similar to Mil grams. Subjects were asked to give electric shocks to victims answering incorrectly in a learning task. It was found, the more frustrated the subjects were, the more shocks they delivered. Criticisms came in abundance for this theory. Kulik and Brown (1979) said it is not frustration, but the manner in which our goals may be interrupted. Two groups of students were told to ring companies, asking for charity donations.

One group of students found the receiver to be polite, stating kindly they were unable to donate. The other group found the receiver to be rude, unhelpful, and did not treat them in a kind manner when stating they did not want to donate. This resulted, in the students which had been spoken to the worst, acting aggressively also. S laming the phone down, shouting, and getting extremely frustrated. Miller argued that frustration may make aggression more likely, it is not a sufficient cause and there must be other factors in the environment.

Miller suggested that frustration can produce other responses as well as aggression. These include apathy, depression, crying, hopelessness and in some cases, an increased effort to achieve a goal. It is said by Kulik and Brown (1979), Mill (1990) and Berkowitz (1993) that frustration can produce different responses, depending on that particular person and the situation. Aggression is not always caused by frustration. Berkowitz argued it may be instrumental aggression, when the person knows they will receive some form of reward. Like being a boxer or a bouncer, they are doing it all for the money.

Or pro-social aggression, the killing of a mafia hit man, which could be thought as being done for the good of society. Aggression may also arise from other sources, not just frustration, such as the breaking down of social norms. There are other social factors which do explain aggressive behaviour without being frustrated. Linking back to the conformity theory, following a groups norms and expectations. As said previously aggression can lead to other responses, such as depression.

Seligman investigated " learning helplessness". He made two compartments (one and two), there was a barrier separating the two compartments. Seligman used dogs in his experiment. He put a dog into compartment one (which had a metal floor) and gave it electric shocks. The dog is taught to jump into the number two, where it will not receive any shocks. If the barrier was closed and the dogs were prevented from passing into number two, they developed "learning helplessness".

After this, if the barrier is opened again and they are able to escape, they become passive, sit down and make no effort to escape. They stay and take the shocks. This proves that when frustrated we do not always show violent behaviour. The frustration-aggression hypothesis leads us to the following assumption" How do we reduce aggression and frustration?" Two answers to this are; stopping people pursuing unrealistic goals. Frustration does make aggression more likely, but in today's society, expectations are high, and the demand to achieve is great. Psychologists call this the "Adaptation Level phenomenon".

Another answer maybe to prevent frustration occurring in the first place. This could be done with much work by improving economic conditions. In our lives there will always be frustration, but things can be done to help us reduce the likelihood of that frustration turning into aggression. Stress management training may solve some problems. Miller came up with a new theory. The "Arousal-aggression hypothesis", which is said to be the answer to the criticism made in the "Frustration-aggression".

He said that a general state of psychological arousal may be a better explanation for aggression than frustration. He pointed out that emotions such as anger, happiness and environmental factors such as overcrowding, loud music, stimulating drugs and high temperatures are "exciting" and in result increase the chances of us acting aggressively. Calhoun (1962) conducted an experiment involving rats. It proved that overcrowding can lead to aggressive behaviour.

The rats had plenty of food and some even ate their young. Berkowitz et al (1979) caused pain to his participants by placing their hands in cold or warm water while they delivered rewards or punishments to their partner. When their hands had been placed in cold water, it led them to induce more pain on their partner.