Theory Critique on Frustration-Aggression Theory

East Tennessee State University

Courtney Spencer

October 2018

Media Theory
 Theory Critique on Frustration-Aggression Theory

The Frustration-Aggression Theory was originally the work of John Dollard, Neal Miller,

Leonard Doob, Orval Mowrer, and Robert Sears. They published a book called, Frustration and

Aggression, in 1939. When originally created, the base of the theory was that “aggression is the

result of blocking or frustrating a person’s efforts to attain a goal” [ CITATION Dol44 \l 1033 ].

The original theory was based simply on the fact that “aggression is always a consequence

of frustration” [ CITATION Dol44 \l 1033 ]. Frustration was defined as anything that interfered

with achieving a goal. The size of the goal did not matter, so it could be as small as a child

wanting a toy (the goal), and a parent telling them no (the frustration) and then the child

screaming(aggression).

The original theory did consider that many frustrations could be accepted or displaced, but

it was stated as a limitation and not a part of the overall theory. Even if the frustration could

come out in another form, the theorists believed that frustration will always inevitably lead to

some form of aggression which is later found to not always be true.

The original theory is very limited, and is expanded upon and criticized through many

articles, including a revision article by two of the original theorists. Neal Miller's main

reformulation to the theory was that there can be many different responses to frustration, and

one of them is aggression[ CITATION Mil41 \l 1033 ]. This addition to the theory was published in

the Phycological review but did not seem to gain much traction because many have criticized

that the theory limits the response to frustration as only aggression, but it was expanded upon

by the original theorists shortly after they published the theory.

2
 Theory Critique on Frustration-Aggression Theory

In 1951 Brown and Farber criticized the theory and gave reasons for what makes something

frustrating. They theorized that for something to be frustrating it needs to be important to the

subject as well as be an attainable goal.

The next major criticism and reformulation of the theory came from Berkowitz in 1978. He

argues that an act of aggression does not always come from a frustration. He argues that there

are cases such as hit men, or individuals in an army that will make an act of aggression but have

no reason, other than orders, to do so. This proves that frustration is not always the reason for

aggression. He also argues that every instance of frustration will not end up in aggression. In a

later article, he discusses that unexpected failures will cause more aggression than expected

failures.

Some studies, such as the one done in Sore Losers? A Reanimation of the Frustration-

Aggression Hypothesis for Collocated Video Game Play will discuss the role frustration plays in

modern media. Most research into aggression and video game play directly links violence to

aggression, but this study shows that frustration may play a larger role than previously thought.

They showed that games with no violence at all can still lead to aggression if there is a

frustration from the difficulty of the game.

Even with studies that are showing links with frustration causing more aggression in

individuals, uses of this theory today seem very limited. In 2003 it was stated that “Despite its

importance to the understanding of human aggression in general, the frustration-aggression

model has little relevance to media violence effects, other than the methodological implication

3
 Theory Critique on Frustration-Aggression Theory

that media violence experiments need to account for potential frustration-inducing properties

of their violent and nonviolent stimuli” [ CITATION Gen03 \l 1033 ].

I believe that this is very true because frustration-aggression plays a small role in the large

scope of aggression research today. When it comes to media, I feel there is not much concern

aside from being aware that frustration can occur when customers use your product/service

and then knowing how to react/prevent it. The most theorists in the articles I have read show

that frustration-aggression theory is a theory you should be aware of because it can counteract

your aggression research or play a role in the outcome of the experiment. The usefulness of this

theory is only in the part it plays when looking at all aggression research as a whole. At the

beginning of aggression research, it was pertinent information, but now is only a small factor in

aggression research and the creation of better models used today such as the General

Aggression Model.

With the current research and criticism of the Frustration-Aggression theory, there needs to

be more research on prior learning with how someone reacts to frustration. Research has been

done that shows children who are physically maltreated will respond more aggressively to

frustrations [ CITATION Sha14 \l 1033 ]. This specific research backs up more general research

that has been done that shows previous experience and learning will affect how a person reacts

to a frustration.

There have also been arguments that input social norms as a factor for how a person reacts

to a frustration[ CITATION LEo89 \l 1033 ][ CITATION Bre17 \l 1033 ]. Cavemen would follow the

original theory perfectly, but civilized humans are dictated by social norms. You may want to

4
 Theory Critique on Frustration-Aggression Theory

yell or break things when you’re angry, but social norms and the fear of judgment will make you

respond without aggression at that moment.

This theory does contribute to the more general aggression research being done today and

has been critiqued and updated so its limitations are known, but as shown, it has many

criticisms and limitations. Aggression is not the only outcome of frustration, aggression is not

only brought on by frustrations, reactions to expected vs unexpected frustrations differ, prior

learning effects reactions, and social learning inhibits our reactions.

There are possible future uses for this theory, but I believe that standing on its own it does

not provide much use in media. It is a helpful attribute and can be an additional factor in some

research, but it does not provide enough to make it useful. The theory does not consider how

prior learning can affect how someone reacts to a frustration, it is a very limited theory, and

cannot stand on its own for any significant research.

5
 Theory Critique on Frustration-Aggression Theory

References

Berkowitz, L. (1978). Whatever Happened to the Frustration-Aggression Hypothesis. The American

Behavioral Scientist.

Berkowitz, L. (1989). Frustration-Aggression Hypothesis Examination and Reform. Psychological

Bulletin Vol 106.

Breuer, J., & Elson, M. (2017). Frustration-Aggression Theory. In P. Sturmey, The Wiley Handbook of

Violence and Aggression. Wiley-Blackwell.

Breuer, J., Scharkow, M., & Quandt, T. (2013). Sore Losers? A Reexamination of the Frustration-

Aggression Hypothesis for Colocated Video Game Play. Psychology of Popular Media Culture.

Dollard, J., Miller, N. E., Doob, L. W., Mowrer, O., & Sears, R. R. (1944). Frustration and Aggression.

Routledge, Trench, Trubner and Co., Ltd.

Miller, N. E. (1941). The Frustration-Aggression Hypothesis. Psychological Review, 337-342.

Shackman, J. E., & Pollak, S. D. (2014). Impact of physical maltreatment on the regulation of negative

affect and aggression. Development and Psychopathology.