Instruct: Given a question, retrieve passages that can help answer the question.
Query: When did John Dollard propose the frustration–aggression–displacement theory?
Frustration–aggression hypothesis, otherwise known as the frustration–aggression–displacement theory, is a theory of aggression proposed by John Dollard, Neal Miller, Leonard Doob, Orval Mowrer, and Robert Sears in 1939,[1] and further developed by Neal Miller in 1941[2] and Leonard Berkowitz in 1969.[3] The theory says that aggression is the result of blocking, or frustrating, a person's efforts to attain a goal.[4]
In "The Hesitation Ramification", Penny, inebriated and frustrated over the state of her acting career, proposes to Leonard, who is hesitant to answer, given the circumstances. Though this further frustrates Penny, she admits in the following episode, "The Occupation Recalibration", that Leonard did the right thing.
In terms of explaining reasons for which individuals join terrorist groups, motivational theories such as need for power and need for affiliation intimacy are suggested. Festinger (1954) explained that people often join groups in order to compare their own beliefs and attitudes. Joining a terrorist group could be a method to remedy individual uncertainty. Taylor and Louis (2004) explained that individuals strive for meaningful behavior. This can also be used to explain why terrorists look for such radical beliefs and demonstrations. Studies on children in northern Ireland by Field (1979) have shown that exposure to violence can lead to terrorist behavior later on. Implicating the effect of developing acceptable norms in groups. However this view has also been criticized (Taylor, 1998). Other theories suggest that goal frustration can result in aggression (Dollard, Doob. Miller, mower, and Sears, 1939) and that aggression can lead to frustration (Borum, 2004).
Group settings can cause a social identity and terrorist behavior to manifest. Methods such as dehumanization allow individuals to detach more easily from moral responsibility, and group influence increase the chance that individuals will concede to conformity and compliance. Manipulations of social control and propaganda can also instrument terrorist involvement.
When first formulated, the hypothesis stated that frustration always precedes aggression, and aggression is the sure consequence of frustration.[1] Two years later, however, Miller[2] and Sears[5] 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.[6]
The frustration–aggression theory has been studied since 1939, and there have been modifications. Dill and Anderson conducted a study investigating whether hostile aggression differs in justified vs. unjustified frustration conditions—compared to the control condition which would not induce frustration.[21] The study task required participants to learn and make an origami bird. The experimental procedure comprised an instruction phase and a folding phase. During the instruction phase, a participant paired with a confederate was shown how to fold a bird only one time. The folding phase was timed and each subject was required to make the bird alone as quickly and as accurately as possible. In all conditions, the experimenter started presenting the instructions in a deliberately fast manner. The conditions differed on how the experimenter responded to the confederate's request to slow down. In the non-frustration control condition, the experimenter apologized and slowed down. In the unjustified frustration condition, the experimenter revealed his desire to leave as quickly as possible due to personal reasons. In the justified frustration condition, the experimenter revealed a need to clear the room as fast as possible due to the supervisor demand. The subjects were then given questionnaires on their levels of aggression as well as questionnaires about the competence of the research staff. They were told that these questionnaires would determine whether the research staff would receive financial aid, or verbal reprimands and a reduction in financial awards. The questions presented on the questionnaire were designed to reflect the research staff's competence and likability. Dill and Anderson found that participants in the unjustified frustration condition rated the research staff as less able and less likable, knowing this would affect their financial situation as graduate students. The justified frustration group rated the staff as less likable and less competent than the control group, but higher on both rating scales than the unjustified condition participants. The authors concluded that unjustified frustration leads to greater level of aggression, compared to justified frustration, which, in turn, results in higher levels of aggression compared to the non-frustration situations.[21]
However, Dollard is likely best known within the psychological community as a member of the distinguished group of young researchers (among whom was Neal E. Miller) at Yale University in the 1930s who, inspired initially by Clark L. Hull, sought to combine learning theory and psychoanalysis. The groups' first major publication was Frustration and Aggression, and has become a classic which is still widely cited in introductory texts. It outlined a view, now referred to as the frustration-aggression hypothesis, which formed the basis for later developments such as Leonard Berkowitz's Aggression: A Social Psychological Analysis (1962) and the animal research on frustration and aggression in the 1960s and 1970s, which caused a controversy between the researchers and animal rights groups. Miller sums up Dollard's contributions to the group as such: "If trying to bring together contributions from sociology, anthropology, psychology, and psychotherapy no longer seems so novel, it is because Dollard and other pioneers had the courage and tenacity to break through traditional barriers".[6]
A variety of explanations have been offered for the popularity of the Dozens. Its development is intertwined with the oppression African Americans encountered, first as slaves and later as second-class citizens. John Dollard viewed the Dozens as a manifestation of frustration aggression theory, a theory that he helped develop. He hypothesized that African Americans, as victims of racism, have been unable to respond in kind towards their oppressors, and instead shifted their anger to friends and neighbors, as displayed in the strings of insults.
The hypothesis attempts to explain why people scapegoat.[7] It attempts to give an explanation as to the cause of violence.[8] 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 humiliated at his work, but cannot respond to this for fear of losing his job, he may go home and take his anger 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.[8]
In 1941, Neal E. Miller and John Dollard presented their book with a revision of Holt's social learning and imitation theory. They argued four factors contribute to learning: drives, cues, responses, and rewards. One driver is social motivation, which includes imitativeness, the process of matching an act to an appropriate cue of where and when to perform the act. A behavior is imitated depending on whether the model receives a positive or negative response consequences. Miller and Dollard argued that if one were motivated to learn a particular behavior, then that particular behavior would be learned through clear observations. By imitating these observed actions the individual observer would solidify that learned action and would be rewarded with positive reinforcement.
His research with Walters led to his first book, "Adolescent Aggression" in 1959, and to a subsequent book, "Aggression: A Social Learning Analysis" in 1973. During a period dominated by behaviorism in the mold of B.F. Skinner, Bandura believed the sole behavioral modifiers of reward and punishment in classical and operant conditioning were inadequate as a framework, and that many human behaviors were learned from other humans. Bandura began to analyze means of treating unduly aggressive children by identifying sources of violence in their lives. Initial research in the area had begun in the 1940s under Neal Miller and John Dollard; his continued work in this line eventually culminated in the Bobo doll experiment, and in 1977's hugely influential treatise, "Social Learning Theory". Many of his innovations came from his focus on empirical investigation and reproducible investigation, which were alien to a field of psychology dominated by the theories of Freud.
John Dollard taught anthropology, psychology and sociology at Yale and was interested in studying social class and specific learning experiences. Neal Miller studied under Hull at Yale, which is where he earned his Ph.D. Miller also founded the Laboratory of Physiological Psychology at Rockefeller University in New York, which is where he conducted research on animal training and this work helped to develop biofeedback. Miller and Dollard collaborated and developed a social learning theory that was successfully applied to psychotherapy and understanding. Their book, "Social Learning and Imitation", listed the four fundamentals necessary for instrumental learning. These were drive, cue, response and reward and were based on Hull's drive reduction theory of learning. They used a similar construct to Hull's theory, however, they proposed that any strong stimulus could have motivating or drive properties without essentially being tied to the need of that particular organism. Their book, "Personality and Psychotherapy" (1950) is considered to be a very important book for it combined Hullian learning theory with psychoanalysis and helped to lay the foundation of cognitive behavioral therapy.
In 1989 Berkowitz published an article, Frustration-Aggression Hypothesis: Examination and Reformulation, which addressed the inconsistency of empirical studies aiming to test the hypothesis, as well as its criticism. He proposed a modification to the hypothesis that would take into an account negative affect and individual attributions.[13] More recently, Breuer and Elson published a comprehensive overview of the Frustration-Aggression Theory[16]. The authors stated that despite an ample amount of empirical research that examines the link between frustration and aggressive behaviors, there is a decline in the number of studies that specifically refers to the frustration-aggression hypothesis. Breuer and Elson propose that there is utility in using the frustration-aggression hypothesis as a theoretical foundation for aggression literature and that this theory may have novel applications for other areas such as media psychology.[16]
In such scapegoating behavior, aggression may be displaced onto people with little or no connection with what is causing anger or frustration. Some people punch cushions when they are angry at friends; a college student may snap at his or her roommate when upset about an exam grade ... etc.
Bleibtreu-Ehrenberg's understanding of prejudice therein is largely informed by Critical Theory and its concept of the "Authoritarian personality" (also see "Right-wing authoritarianism"), but also incorporates, among other schools of prejudice studies, "Labeling theory" by George Herbert Mead and Howard S. Becker, "Social identity theory" by Henri Tajfel and John Turner, "Frustration-Aggression hypothesis" by John Dollard and Neal E. Miller, "Social learning theory" by Albert Bandura, as well as "dispositif" and "discourse analysis" by Michel Foucault.
In 1941, the Yale group clarified their original statement which was “that the occurrence of aggressive behavior always presuppose the existence of frustration and, contrariwise, that the existence of frustration always lead to some form of aggression”.[1] As it was, the second part of this hypothesis lead readers to think that frustration could only have aggression as a consequence, and it did not allow the possibility that other responses could arise and override the aggression response. The Yale group thus reformulated the hypothesis as following: “frustration produces instigation to a number of different types of response, one of which is aggression”.[17] With this new formulation, the researchers left more place for the idea that aggressive impulses are not the only kinds that can emerge when an individual feels frustration. Other impulses, such as fear of punishment, can outweigh or even attenuate aggression instigations until it disappears, which would explain situations where frustration does not lead to outright aggression.[17]
Other psychoanalysts such as E.F.M. Durban and John Bowlby have argued human beings are inherently violent. This aggressiveness is fueled by displacement and projection where a person transfers his or her grievances into bias and hatred against other races, religions, nations or ideologies. By this theory, the nation state preserves order in the local society while creating an outlet for aggression through warfare.
Some sources suggest that there is little empirical support for it, even though researchers have studied it for more than sixty years.[7] Also, this theory suggests frustrated, prejudiced individuals should act more aggressively towards out-groups they are prejudiced against, but studies have shown that they are more aggressive towards everyone.[7]
Frustration is another major cause of aggression. The Frustration aggression theory states that aggression increases if a person feels that he or she is being blocked from achieving a goal (Aronson et al. 2005). One study found that the closeness to the goal makes a difference. The study examined people waiting in line and concluded that the 2nd person was more aggressive than the 12th one when someone cut in line (Harris 1974). Unexpected frustration may be another factor. In a separate study to demonstrate how unexpected frustration leads to increased aggression, Kulik & Brown (1979) selected a group of students as volunteers to make calls for charity donations. One group was told that the people they would call would be generous and the collection would be very successful. The other group was given no expectations. The group that expected success was more upset when no one was pledging than the group who did not expect success (everyone actually had horrible success). This research suggests that when an expectation does not materialize (successful collections), unexpected frustration arises which increases aggression.
The frustration-aggression hypothesis implies that aggression is followed or triggered by a feeling of frustration as proposed by the Yale group. Yet, other studies support contradictory claims. Certain subjects in some studies have shown to not respond aggressively to frustration given their personal, moral and educational backgrounds. For instance, the Indian culture uses the Satyagraha, which means “non-violent resistance” to a trigger. Mahatma Gandhi exemplified this technique that essentially denounces the principles of the frustration-aggression theory in that he restrained himself from feeling these innate desires.[34]
Later research was focused more on refining the hypothesis, rather than on denying its correctness. In one of the earlier studies, following the publication of Dollard et al.'s book, Pastore argued[9] that the hypothesis should distinguish between arbitrary and non-arbitrary situations, as non-arbitrary situations decrease the aggressiveness of response. In this study, participants from a sample of 131 college students were presented with the verbal description of two types of situations, arbitrary and non-arbitrary. One of the arbitrary situation examples was being intentionally passed by the bus driver, while waiting at the correct bus stops. A non-arbitrary situation was described in one of the examples as being passed by the bus, while it was specifically marked as heading for a garage. The study results suggested that arbitrariness of the situation is an important factor in eliciting aggressive behavior in frustrating situations, with arbitrary situations inducing more aggression.
Indeed, the hypothesis does not take into consideration the individuality of human beings. According to Dixon and Johnson, two people can respond differently to the same frustration stimuli. For instance, some could respond aggressively while driving on the highway after being cut off by another car, whereas others with a different temperament could not react to it. However, the theory assumes that if two different people receive the same frustration stimuli, they will react similarly or equally aggressively[35]
With some limitations, research has established a correlation between frustration and aggression when it comes to anti-social behaviour. The presence of anti-social behaviour may be detected when an individual is experiencing an abnormally high amount of frustrations in their daily life routine and when those frustrations always result into aggression. The term "impulsivity" is commonly used to describe this behavioural pattern. Anti-social behaviour can also be detected if the aggressiveness and impulsiveness of the individual's behaviour in response to frustrations is so that it causes obstruction to social interactions and achievement of personal goals. In both of these cases, we can consider the different types of treatment and therapy previously mentioned in this article.
Building on Pastore's work, in his 1955 empirical study, Cohen confirmed[10] that the arbitrariness of a situation affects the level of aggressiveness. However, the study also supported his hypothesis that two more factors need to be accounted for in the frustration-aggression hypothesis. Those factors are social norms and the relationship with the frustrating agent. In his study, 60 volunteer participants were rating 14 statements on the levels of predicted aggressiveness. Cohen found that people tend to respond less aggressively if the frustrating agent is an authority figure, rather than a friend and that people respond to frustration with less aggression if the socially accepted norms require to do so. Berkowitz addressed this criticism in his 1989 article and proposed that frustration, and ultimately aggression, is induced when individuals think they have been deliberately and wrongly kept from their goal.[13]
The frustration-aggression hypothesis emerged in 1939 through the form of a monograph published by the Yale University Institute of Human Relations. The Yale psychologists behind the monograph were John Dollard, Leonard Doob, Neal Miller, O. H Mowrer, and Robert Sears.[1] The book is based on many studies conducted by the group that touched a variety of disciplines including psychology, anthropology and sociology. Marxism, psychoanalysis and behaviorism were used by the Yale group throughout their research. Their work, Frustration and Aggression (1939), was soon having repercussions on the explanation of aggressive behavior theories.[14] Their theory applied to human beings, but also to animals. The book created controversy on the subject which led to more than 7 articles critiquing the new theory. The Psychological Review and the Reading in Social Psychology are two of the papers that published articles on the subject. Many social scientists disclaimed the rather strict definition of frustration reactions as well as how the frustration concept is defined in itself.[15] By 1941, the Yale group modified their theory following the multiple critics and studies published by other psychologists. From there, many pioneers in the social science world modified and brought their knowledge to the original theory.[1]
Dollard, J. Criteria for the life history, with analysis of six notable documents. New Haven: Published for the Institute of Human Relations by Yale University Press, 1935. Dollard, John. Caste and Class in a Southern Town. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1937. Dollard, John, Leonard W. Doob, Neal E. Miller, Orval H. Mowrer and Robert R. Sears. Frustration and Aggression. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1939. Dollard, J. & Davis, A. Children of bondage: the personality development of Negro youth in the urban south. Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education, 1940. Dollard, J., & Miller, N. Social learning and imitation. New Haven: Published for the Institute of Human Relations by Yale University Press, 1941. Dollard, J. Fear in Battle. Yale University Press, 1943. Dollard, J. The acquisition of new social habits. In R. Linton (Ed.), The science of man in the world crisis (pp.442–464). New York: Columbia University Press, 1945. Dollard, J. Anniversary Papers of the Community Service Society: The Family in a Democratic Society. Columbia University Press, 1949. Dollard, John and Neal E. Miller. Personality and Psychotherapy: An Analysis in Terms of Learning, Thinking, and Culture. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1950. Dollard, John. Steps in Psychotherapy. New York: Macmillan, 1953.