The original formulation of the

frustration–aggression
hypothesis by Dollard, Doob,
Miller,
Mowrer, and Sears (1939)
stated that “the occurrence of
aggressive behavior always
presup-
poses the existence of
frustration and, contrariwise,
that the existence of
frustration always
leads to some form of
aggression” (p. 1).
The original formulation of the
frustration–aggression
hypothesis by Dollard, Doob,
Miller,
Mowrer, and Sears (1939)
stated that “the occurrence of
aggressive behavior always
presup-
poses the existence of
frustration and, contrariwise,
that the existence of
frustration always
leads to some form of
aggression” (p. 1).
The original formulation of the
frustration–aggression
hypothesis by Dollard, Doob,
Miller,
Mowrer, and Sears (1939)
stated that “the occurrence of
aggressive behavior always
presup-
poses the existence of
frustration and, contrariwise,
that the existence of
frustration always
leads to some form of
aggression” (p. 1).
The original formulation of the
frustration–aggression
hypothesis by Dollard, Doob,
Miller,
Mowrer, and Sears (1939)
stated that “the occurrence of
aggressive behavior always
presup-
poses the existence of
frustration and, contrariwise,
that the existence of
frustration always
leads to some form of
aggression” (p. 1).

Submitted for
Partial Fulfilment of Course of

Introduction to Psychology
BSMSNEU-S1-P2

Submitted By: Submitted To:

Riya Singh Rajawat Lepakshi Kaul
M.Sc. Neuropsychology Teaching and Research Assistant
I Semester School of Behavioral Sciences,
Batch:2022-24 NFSU, Gandhinagar
 School of Behavioral Sciences, National Forensic Sciences University, Police Bhavan Rd, Sector 9,
Gandhinagar, Gujarat 382007

 Frustration-Aggression Hypothesis:
The first and the most former frustration-aggression hypothesis was given by Dollard and Miller
(1939) in which they stated that frustration leads to aggression. They define frustration as a
causal factor either as an event or stimulus which inhibits the individual from fulfilling goal.
Then this frustration becomes fuel for the aggressive behavior. When the expression of this
behavior took place either by physically, verbally or through fantasy, then one’s emotional built
up tension got reduced and it is defined as catharsis. Most of the time, the expression of
frustration occurs on non-target person to prevent oneself from punishment or from indulging in
dangerous situation. And often the non-target population are either less dangerous or weak in
relation to the one. And this shift from target to non-target is called displacement. For instance,
when a toddler is paddling the cycle but someone is holding it from behind then toddler
experiences frustration which is expressed in the form of tantrums (Breuer and Elson, 2017). In
this example, holding the bicycle is a “blockade” from achieving the “goal” that is to move
forward.

A pictorial representation of Frustration-aggression theory by Charlotte Nickerson (2021).

Frustration-aggression theory linked aggression with frustration but they also emphasized on as
the “only” causal factor. Which clearly, is not the case and later various researches made it
evident also. As built up frustration can be expressed in many forms like crying spells, despair,
or depression. In above illustration, not all toddler expresses their frustration through tantrums,
some gets sad and escape from the scene.

The frustration driven aggression often becomes motive force when one’s aggressive behavior
found to be fruitful for one. Like, in above example once tantrum pays child with rewarding
response then they are likely to act aggressively again to get the same outcome.

Initially, aggression was linked with negative motivation like in bullies or some terrorist, that is
to show aggressive behavior over and over again to get what they want (Rizzuto, Meissner, &
Buie, 2004). Some scientist felt that this narrow understanding of the motivation of aggression is
inadequate. Thus, theories define aggression as a feeling of frustration with one’s needs, self-
defense, overcoming obstacles, striving to accomplish goals and asserting oneself have evolved
(Austin, 2005; Kast, 2003).

In conclusion, we can treat frustration derived aggression not only from individualistic
perspective as tool for growth or self-preservation, but also as a way to regulate distance and
closeness within interpersonal relationships.

 Cognitive theory:
According to cognitive theories, our behavior is the result of our ability to study, process and
interpret information. It includes two theories.

 Expectancy Theory:

According to expectancy theory, people believe that their performance and rewards are related to
how hard they make effort at work. A direct application of expectancy theory to work setting
was first developed by Victor Vroom (1964), later refined by Porter and Lawler (1968) and
others (Pinder, 1987).

This theory is based on four assumptions (Vroom, 1964). First, in organization, people usually
bring expectations regarding their wants, motivations, and past experiences with them. This
influences how individuals react to the organization. Second, individuals’ behaviors are a
function of their conscious choices. In other words, people have the freedom to choose their own
behaviors given their own expectations. Third, people have different expectation regarding
personal needs with the organization like satisfactory salary, job security, advancement
opportunities, and challenges. Fourth, individuals will select alternatives based on their personal
preferences.

The theory consists of three variables to clearly explain the given behavioral process. These are,

“E” for Expectancy, “V” for Valence, and “I” for Instrumentality.

A person is motivated to the degree that he or she believes that (a) effort will lead to acceptable
performance (expectancy), (b) performance will be rewarded (instrumentality), and (c) the value
of the rewards is highly positive (valence). The equation Vroom suggests relates motivation,
expectancy, instrumentality, and valence.

Motivation = Expectancy x Instrumentality x Valence.

This equation has a significant multiplier effect, which means that when expectancy,
instrumentality and valence are all high, motivation will be higher in contrast to when they all
are low. It is also implied by the multiplier assumption that if any one of the three factors are
zero, so is the overall motivation level.

This theory is solely depending on efforts of a person. But it doesn’t talk about skills, abilities or
innate talent that could also change the outcome of the work. And hence, have effect on
motivation which isn’t taken in consideration in this theory. Moreover, geographical or
developmental aspect of surrounding, education background isn’t considered. Like, in more
developed country, people are more ambitious and goal-motivated. Similarly, educated people
try to pursue more and they are driven by making a difference or gaining new insights.

1. Goal-Setting Theory:
The goal-setting theory of motivation given by Locke and Lantham (1960s) emphasizes how
goals influence performance. Researchers have found that the best performance can be achieved
when individual encounter challenging and specific goals, when their evaluation and feedback
are linked to the results, and are used to build commitment and acceptance. A person’s ability
and self-efficacy are moderators which have motivational effect on goals. While deadlines
enhance the effectiveness of their goals.

On critical analysis of this theory, a few pros and cons surfaces. This is found to be true in short
term goals but when goals have long deadline then task becomes mundane and motivation
eventually reduce which will have effect on performance. This theory doesn’t consider the
individual preference of goal. Like, someone like to have good score in marketing but instead
they are made to manage the marketing team. Having the option to choose goal also influence
the outcome.

In real life scenario, a single theory can’t bring the best results. Every theory has some limitation
which becomes the foundation for the next one. For optimum performance, motivational theories
should be seen as a whole and apply the aspect of it rather than seeing just the single aspect. It’s
focusing on the whole portrait instead of stroke of single color.
Frustration–
Aggression
Theory
Johannes Breuer
Frustration–
Aggression
Theory
Johannes Breuer
Reference
 Austin, S. (2005). Women's Aggressive Fantasies: A Post-Jungian Exploration of Self-
Hatred, Love and Agency (1st ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203087008
 Breuer, J., & Elson, M. (2017). Frustration-Aggression Theory. In P. Sturmey (Ed.), The
Wiley Handbook of Violence and Aggression (pp. 1-12). Chichester: Wiley Blackwell.
https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119057574.whbva040
 Dollard, J., Miller, N. E., Doob, L. W., Mowrer, O. H., & Sears, R. R. (1939). Frustration
and aggression. Yale University Press. https://doi.org/10.1037/10022-000
 Kast, V. (2003). Abschied von der Opferroll. Das eigen Leben leben. Freiburg: Herder.
 Locke, Edwin & Latham, Gary. (1991). A Theory of Goal Setting & Task Performance.
The Academy of Management Review. 16. 10.2307/258875.
 Lozovska, J., & Gudaitė, G. (2013). The understanding of aggression motivation and the
psychotherapy process. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 82, 360–365.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.06.275
 Lunenburg, F.C. (2011) Expectancy Theory of Motivation: Motivating by Altering
Expectations. International Journal of Management Business, and Administration, 15, 1-
9.
 Nickerson, C. (n.d.). Frustration-Aggression Hypothesis - Simply
Psychology. https://www.simplypsychology.org/frustration-aggression-hypothesis.html
 Pinder, C. C. (1987). Valence-instrumentality-expectancy theory. In R. M. Steers & L.
W. Porter (Eds.), Motivation and work behavior (4th ed.) (pp. 69-89). New York, NY:
McGraw-Hill.
 Porter, L. W., & Lawler, E. E. (1968). Managerial attitudes and performance.
Homewood, IL: Dorsey Press and Richard D. Irwin.
 Rizzuto, A.-M., Meissner, W.W., & Buie, D.H. (2003). The Dynamics of Human
Aggression: Theoretical Foundations, Clinical Applications (1st ed.). Routledge.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203486382
 Vroom V H. Work and motivation. New York: Wiley, 1964. 331 p.[Carnegie Institute of
Technology, Pittsburgh. PAJ