Frustration–aggression hypothesis

The frustration–aggression hypothesis, otherwise known as the frustration–aggression–displacement theory, attempts to explain why people scapegoat. It is a theory of aggression proposed by John Dollard, Neal E. Miller et al. in 1939, and further developed by Miller, Roger Barker et al. in 1941 and Leonard Berkowitz in 1969.

According to Yale Group, 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 organism surrogate)." However, aggression is not always the response to frustration. Rather a substitute response is displayed when aggressive response is not the strongest on the hierarchy. Furthermore, this theory raises the question if aggression is innate.

However, this theory has some problems. First, there is little empirical support for it, even though researchers have studied it for more than sixty years. Another issue is that this theory suggests frustrated, prejudiced individuals should act more aggressively towards outgroups they are prejudiced against, but studies have shown that they are more aggressive towards everyone. The theory also has limitations, for example it cannot say why some outgroups are chosen to be scapegoats and why others are not.

Experimentation
The frustration-aggression theory has been studied since 1939, and there have been modifications. Dill and Anderson present a study that questions whether frustration that is justified or not plays a role in future aggression. The experiment consisted of three groups of subjects performing a folding origami task that was timed. The participants were split into the control, justified frustration and unjustified frustration groups. In each condition the experimenter states how they will only present the instructions one time and then start the timer. At a predetermined fold the confederate in the condition interrupts the experimenter and asks them to please slow down.

In the unjustified group, the experimenter responds, “I cannot slow down. My girlfriend/boyfriend is picking me up after this and I do not want to make them wait.” In the justified condition the experimenter responds, “I cannot slow down. My supervisor booked this room for another project afterwards and we must continue.” Finally, the experimenter in the control condition responded, “Oh, okay I did not realize I was going too quickly. I will slow down.”

The subjects were then given questionnaires on their levels of aggression as well as questionnaires about the quality of the research staff. They were told that these questionnaires would determine if the research staff would be award financial aid, or would result in verbal reprimands and a reduction in financial award. The questions presented on the questionnaire were designed to reflect the research staffs ability and likeability.

Dill and Anderson found that participants in the unjustified frustration group rated the research staff to have less ability and likeability, knowing this would affect their financial situation as graduate students. The justified frustration group rated the staff as less likeable and having less ability than the control group. However, the results were not as extreme. These results support the hypothesis that frustration can lead to aggression. This study presents data concerning behavioral aggression as well as introducing the level of frustration that needs to be taken into account.