Frustration - aggression. A reconsideration

4

Frustration - Aggression. A reconsideration*

Compte rendu de quatre Ctudes sur les con- stquences du processus de frustration-agression. On a mesurt l’agression dtlibtrte com- me rCsultat de toutes les excitations nuisi- bles (bruits ou chocs tlectriques) que les sujets infligeaient B un comparse. Dans la premibre expikience, les sujets Ctaient sou- mis B une attaque verbale, ce qui conduisit B une inhibition de I’agression dtlibtrte. Dans la deuxikme exptrience, on ne per- mettait pas aux sujets de conduire 2 bon terme un travail leur apportant un gain fi- nancier. I1 n’en rtsulta pas moins ou plus d’agression qiie dans le cas de conditions contraignantes.

Dans la troisikme exptrience, on fit en- trer en leu plusieurs sortes de frustrations se difftrenciant entre elles par leur degrt d’auto-menace. I1 fut observt que plus forte ttait la menace sur la frustration, plus fai- ble ttait la formulation d’une agression dtlibtrte.

Dans la quatribme exp&ience, la variable principale h i t le dCcalage exptrimental. Dans l’ensemble, les sujets manifestaient bien plus d‘hostilitt B l’6gard de l’agent de

* I would like to thank Wim Brinkman, Tom Fris, Jan James, Wim Koomen and Mrs. Arni Streefkerk for reading and commenting on the manuscript in a prelim- inary phase. Furthermore I am indebted to

F R ED DY LAN G E

Department of group psychology, University of Amsterdam

Es werden vier Untersuchungen iiber den Ausgang von Frustration-Agression behan- delt. Offene Agression wurde gewertet als das Ergebnis schadlicher Reize (Larm oder elektrische Schocks) welche die betroffenen Personen zum Komparsen machten. In der ersten Untersuchung wurden Personen einer Wortattacke ausgesetzt, welche zu einer Hemmung offener Agression fiihrte. In der zweiten Untersuchung wurden die betreffenden Personen daran gehindert, eine Auf- gabe zu beenden, die eine finanzielle Ver- giitung zur Folge hatte. Dies fuhrte weder zu mehr noch weniger Agression als in der Zwangssituation.

In der dritten Untersuchung wurden ver- schiedene Formen von Frustration getestet, welche sich lediglich in der Hohe der Ich- Bedrohung unterschieden. Man stellte fest, dass je grosser die Frustrationsbedrohung war, desto weniger offene Agression zum Ausdruck kam.

In der vierten Untersuchung war Ver- schiebung die wichtigste Variable. Im all- gemeinen bekundeten die betreffenden Per- sonen dem Frustrator eine grossere Feind-

Clive Blake and Peter Cox for correcting the English, Pieter Arons and Miss Caro- line Bayer for typing the manuscript and all the students who cooperated in the experiments.

60 Freddy Lange

frustration qu’envers une personne non res- ponsable de la frustration.

Cependant, seuls les sujets posskdant beaucoup &amour-propre firent preuve d’agressiviti plus dklibkrke envers I’agent de frustration. Par contre, les sujets avec peu d’arnour-propre firent preuve d’une agressi- vitk ouverte envers une personne ‘inno- cente’.

seligkeit als jernandern, der nicht fiir die Frustration verantwortlich war.

Jedoch zeigten nur Personen rnit hoher Selbstachtung offenere Agression dern Fru- strator gegenuber. Personen rnit geringer Selbstachtung hingegen richteten eine offenere Agression mehr gegen einen ‘unschul- digen’ Dntten.

Introduction

Frustration-aggression as a theory

The phenomenon of human aggression has been of scientific interest for many years. Since 1939 a large part of the experimental research on determinants of aggression has been based on the frustration-aggression hypothesis (FAH) of Dol- lard, Miller et a1 (1939). Initially the theory states that frustration (interference in instigated goal behavior) is a necessary and sufficient cause for aggression. In other words, each act of aggression is based on some kind of frustration and each frustration will lead to aggression, in some form or another, toward some victim or another, which has a cathartic effect on the aggression-instigation.

In 1941 Miller broadened the theory: ‘Frustration produces instigations to a number of different types of response, one of which is an instigation to some form of aggression’. This means that instigation to aggression is only one of a number of possible instigations, which can be aroused by frustrations. If the instigation to aggression is the strongest, then acts of aggression will occur. If instigations to other responses, incompatible with aggression, are stronger, then these responses will occur at first and prevent, at least temporarily, the occurrence of aggression. Miller continues this line of thinking: ‘the more successive responses of non- aggression are extinguished by continued frustration, the greater is the probability that the instigation to aggression will eventually become dominant so that some response of aggression actually will occur. Whether or not the successive extinction of responses of non-aggression must inevitably lead to the dominance of the instigation to aggression depends, as was clearly stated in later pages of the book, upon quantitative assumptions beyond the scope of our present knowledge’.

It is worth noticing at this point that Miller only rephrased half of the theory. Frustration was no longer explicitly a sufficient cause for aggression. He stated however, that every act of aggression must be based on some kind of frustration. Frustration is still a necessary factor in aggression.

Frustration - Aggression. A reconsideration 6 1

Even in the revised form the FAH leaves two important questions: 1. Aggression has a cathartic effect on the aggression-instigation, but not on the

original instigation. What happens to that? Does its influence decrease or remain? If the latter is true, new aggression-instigations will continuously arise.

2. The biggest problem: the theory is not verifiable. According to one part of the theory frustration will always lead to aggression-instigation, which is a non- observable phenomenon. It does not have to lead to acts of aggression. So if we do not find aggression after frustration we can always explain this by pointing out that there were possibly other competing response-instigations which were stronger than the aggression-instigation. Miller (194 1) notices this problem.

He suggests two procedures: a) Reduction of competing instigations, such as fear of punishment. I do not

think this solves the problem. If one still does not find aggression one can still explain this by non-reduced competing instigations.

b) Confronting the subject with additional frustrations, which by themselves were not strong enough to override competing inhibiting instigations in previous experiments. Miller then states: ‘if the instigation from this additional frustration now results in an act of aggression, then it must have gained its strength to do so by summating with an already present but inhibited instigation to aggression’.

This procedure does not solve the problem either. New frustration may lead to new inhibiting responses which can prevent aggression responses, so the non-occurrence of aggression can still be explained within the model of frustration-aggression. The other part of the theory, stating that aggression is always based on previous frustrations, is subject to the same criticism. The theory does not state how far in the past the frustration, leading to aggression, may have been. If we do not detect the supposed frustration leading to the observed aggression the theory will still not be disproved. The frustration could have been so far back in the past that we did not connect it with the current act of aggression.

Frustration-aggression as a model for research

Although the FAH does not constitute, what it was meant to be, namely a theory explaining the nature of aggression it has been a useful model in carrying out experimental research on aggression. Berkowitz and Geen (1966) showed that after being frustrated, subjects who had seen a boxing film delivered more electric shocks to the confederate then subjects who had seen a film showing racing. In another experiment in 1966, Berkowitz and Geen demonstrated that experimentally frustrated subjects were more aggressive towards the confederate

62 Freddy Lange

than non-frustrated subjects. Berkowitz and Green (1962) showed that, after frustration by the experimenter, subjects were more hostile towards another subject and confederate than in the non-frustration condition. Most hostility was expressed against the other subject who, prior to the measurement of hostility, has been experimentally made to be disliked. Although some methodological criticism is possible about this last experiment it shows that frustration may lead to hostility (in the form of negative judgements) even towards subjects who are innocent of the frustration. Buss (1966) criticised the procedure of Berkowitz’s experiments. He stated that Berkowitz did not induce frustration but ‘physical or verbal attack’. Buss assumed that frustration in the strict sense of interference in goal-directed behavior would not lead to aggression whereas attack will always lead to aggression. In an ingenious experiment he demonstrated that frustration turned out to be the only (out of five) independent variables which did not have a main effect on the aggression scores. More important were instrumentality of the aggression, feedback by the victim, sex of the subject and sex of the victim. There was however an interaction effect between frustration and instrumentality of aggression: when aggression was helpful in reaching the goal the frustrated subjects were more aggressive than the non frustrated subjects. Although Buss, and to a lesser degree Berkowitz, criticised the original FAH, all their research is based on the assump- tion that in specific situations frustration is enough to lead to aggression. A slightly different view is taken by Bandura and Walters (1963). They emphasize the learning model; frustration leads to an increase in emotion and motivation. The dominant response at this moment (aggressive or not) will be strengthened. Whether frustration leads to aggression or not depends entirely on acquired response-patterns. In the process of socialisation, every individual acquires his own pattern of responses, by reinforcements which are often subtle. Bandura and Walters support their theory with material from a field study (1959), in which adolescent boys and their parents were investigated. They found that aggressive boys mostly had parents who handled their children in an aggressive way. These children were often positively reinforced for aggression, especially for aggressive behavior outside the house. By the mechanism of imitation, they acquire the pattern of aggression as a useful response when they become parents themselves. This may be generalized, for example, to other high-low status relationships, resulting in absence of aggressive behavior against superiors, but aggressive behavior against inferiors.

This article gives a brief description of four experiments in the field of frustration- aggression, which have been carried out in the Netherlands. Before describing each of the experiments a few points have to be made.

Frustration - Aggression. A reconsideration 63

1.

2.

3.

4.

5 .

In some aggression experiments, for example Berkowitz and Geen (1966) and Worchel (1961), aggression was measured by means of rating scales on which the subject could evaluate somebody else. In our experiments we use Buss’s (1961) definition of aggression: ‘a response that delivers noxious stimuli to another organism’. Hostility, measured by evaluation on rating scales, should therefore be treated as a separate concept. We follow Buss in separating the concept of frustration, in the strict sense of interference in goal-directed behavior, from verbal or physical attack. In Ex- periment 1, the effect of verbal attack on aggression-level was investigated. In Experiment 2 the effect of frustration was explored, while in the third experiment both were manipulated. Maslow (1941) pointed out that the effect of frustrations which are a threat to the personality must be quite different from frustrations which do not include an ego-threat. Strangely enough, there have not been any experiments in which this is investigated. In Experiment 3 we therefore manipulated frustrations differing in amount of ego-threat. Much has been written about displacement of aggression, for example by Berkowitz (1962) who discusses the stimulus qualities of the scapegoat. In Experiment 3 we wanted to investigate whether more aggression is expressed towards a frustrator or towards somebody innocent of the frustration, while in Experiment 4 we wanted to test Berkowitz’s hypothesis that displacement of aggression will only occur when the victim has given some sort of a ‘cue’ to aggression. In an unpublished report, Zimbardo showed that, under conditions of relative anonymity, subjects expressed significantly more aggression than subjects who were well identifiable. Although a replication of this experiment, in which the author participated (Zimbardo et al, 1967), did not reveal differences in the expected direction, we included this variable in the design of Experiment 2 .

Experiment 1

The influence of insult and risk on aggressive behavior in an experimental situation 1

Besides manipulation of verbal attack, we introduced in this experiment a second

1 . This experiment was carried out at the ‘Nederlands Instituut voor Prneventieve Freddy Lange (1967).

Geneeskunde’ in Leiden by Tom Fris and

64 Freddy Lange

independent variable; the subjects were told of the possibility, that they might or might not become victims themselves in a second session. We expected two main effects. 1 . Subjects who were insulted were expected to be more aggressive towards the

victim (the insulter) than subjects who were not insulted. 2. Subjects who were made to believe that roles afterwards might be changed, so

they would become victims themselves, would be less aggressive than subjects who were not told so.

Subjects

Subjects in this investigation were 48 schoolboys, average age 13 years. The boys were submitted to the experimental conditions in groups of four. The conditions were: 1. Insulting experience before, and the announcement that one of the four would

be the victim the next time round (I-V). 2. Insulting experience before, without announcement about being victim after-

wards (I-nV). 3. No insulting experience before, but with the announcement that one of the

four would be the victim in the next turn (nI-V). 4. No insulting experience before and no announcement about being victim

afterwards (nI-nV).

Procedure

Before coming to the laboratory the subjects were made to believe that the investigation (the word ‘experiment’ had been avoided) was about the effect of noxious sounds on visual perception. They came in groups of four into the laboratory together with the victim, a role-playing co-worker, whom they had already met in the corridor, without knowing his relation to the institute.

To the Ss he was introduced as ‘the subject Mr. X’. In the I-V and I-nV conditions the confederate behaved in a very unpleasant way towards the four schoolboys. He scorned their youth and said that ‘it was a waste of money to use such ycung, and therefore stupid, subjects for an investigation like this’. In both the nI-conditions he behaved in a neutral way.

Once in the laboratory, every real subject was given a place at a desk, sur- rounded by hard-board shelves, so that contact with other Ss was avoided. On the desk every subject had a small panel with six buttons. Thesc panels were connected to an Ericson polygraph by means of electric wires.


The instructions were transmitted to the Ss by means of a tape-recorder. The polygaph was introduced as ‘an apparatus for averaging the sounds’. The apparatus was connected to a head-phone placed on the head of the confederate. The Ss were made to believe that by pressing a button they could generate noxious sounds in that head-phone. The buttons were numbered from 1 to 6. The first would not cause any sound. The buttons 2 to 6 would cause sounds increasing in intensity.

The Ss were seated in a straight line. About 5 meters in front of them Mr. X was sitting, his back turned to the Ss. Just in front of Mr. X, at an oblique angle above his head, a board was placed, on which a number of horizontal lines were drawn. Each line was identifiable by a letter (A-U). The experimenter always called two lines whereupon Mr. X had to decide which one he thought to be the longer. If he thought the upper one of the two was the longer, he would switch on a light at the upper side of the board. If on the other hand he thought the lower of the two lines the longer, he would switch on the light at the lower side of the board. The Ss could thus always see which ‘decision’ Mr. X took. If the subject agreed then he pressed button number 1 . If he thought the decision was not justified he pressed one of the buttons 2 to 6. The more he disagreed with the decision, or the more stupid he thought the decision was, the higher the button which he could press, in other words the more noxious the stimulus which he

, could deliver to Mr. X. It was often difficult to judge whether the decisions of the confederate were right or wrong, because the lines which had to be compared were nearly of the same length. After one try-out every subject was given the opportunity to react in 15 trials to the decisions of the confederate. In fact these decisions were fixed before and the lights on the board were operated by the experimenter. Also the connections between the panels of the Ss and the head- phone were switched off after the Ss experienced the noxious stimuli through the head-phone themselves, so the confederate did not really suffer during the experiment. The polygraph registered on every trial which button was pressed by which subject and for how long.

Results

Of the 15 trials there were 7 in which it was very difficult to disagree with the decisions of the confederate. These decisions were nearly always judged by pressing button 1. On the other 8 trials, the decisions of the confederate were objectively wrong, but on many trials the error was difficult to observe. The reactions on these 8 trials provided the data for this investigation. A non-aggressive reaction received score 0, while the maximum aggressive reaction received score 5. For each subject an overall aggression score was computed for the 8 trials considered.

66 Freddy Lunge

A split-half reliability coefficient, computed by correlating the sum scores over the first four trials considered and the last four, had a value of .77.

Table 1. Average aggression scores of 12 subjects in each condition

I nI

V nV

16,72 13,92

20,oo 19,76

Table 2. Analysis of variance of the aggression scores

Source ss df V F F.95

Between I 248 1 248 534 4,11 Between V 28 1 28 0,63 I X V 20 1 20 0,45 Within 1975 44 44,s Total 227 1 47

From these two tables it appears that, contrary to expectation, the insulted boys reacted with significantly less aggression than the non-insulted boys. The announcement about the risk of being victims themselves did not lead to any differences.

In order to know whether the subjects who, on the average pressed higher buttons, were also aware of the fact that they gave the victim unpleasant moments, every subject was asked immediately after the experiment the question: ‘how much discomfort do you think Mr. X experienced from the sounds you brought upon him?’ Possible answers were ‘not at all’, ‘little’, ‘a lot’ and ‘a great deal’. A significant positive correlation (r = .32, n = 48, p < .05) appeared between the intensity of the sounds delivered and the discomfort thought to have been inflicted upon the victim. In addition the S s were asked whether they thought that the victim improved his performance during the trials as a result of receiving noxious stimuli.

The Ss could give the same answers as to the previous question. We expected that Ss who had been very aggressive would rationalize their behavior by stating they did it in the interest of the victim. However, no relation was found (r = .02, n = 48).


Experiment 2

Frustration, anonymity and aggression

In the first experiment we found that frustration in the form of attack did not lead to an increase in aggression. On the contrary, in the attack condition, Ss behaved significantly less aggressively than in the control condition.

In this experiment we manipulated a different kind of frustration. Besides this we wanted to test Zimbardo’s hypothesis that in many situations aggression is facilitated by anonymity.

Although cautious after the first experiment, we still expected more aggression in the frustration condition. In addition, we expected an interaction between frustration and anonymity; within the frustration condition, there would be more aggression expressed in the anonymous condition than in the well-identifiable condition. In the non-frustration condition we did not expect differences between the two conditions of anonymity.

Summary of the experimental conditions

1, Frustration, followed by the possibility of expressing aggression in an anonymous group situation (F-A).

2. Frustration, followed by the possibility of expressing aggression in a non- anonymous group situation (F-nA).

3. No frustration, but the possibility of expressing aggression in an anonymous group situation (nF-A).

4. No frustration, but the possibility of expressing aggression in a non-anonymous group situation (nF-nA).

Subjects

48 male students from a technical high school (average age 18) participated in groups of four. The subjects in each group did not know each other. They were paid f 4,- for participation in the investigation.

Experimental procedure and manipulations

Manipulation of frustration. The Ss were brought into a small test room by the

2. This experiment was carried out in 1968 of Amsterdam, department of group-psy- in the scope of a doctoral term of proba- chology by Jacques Winnubst under super- tion in social-psychology at the university vision of Freddy Lange.

68 Freddy Lange

first experimenter (E 1). He gave them response sheets and explained a test of concentration, the ‘Bourdon test’. In the frustration conditions he then said ‘In this institute we are investigating the minimum time that people need to finish this test without any mistake. For us this is very important. Therefore we offer f 7,50, in addition to the f 4,- which you will receive anyway, to those who succeed in finishing this test within 13 minutes without any mistake’.

The Ss then started. We had halved the length of the Bourdon test so it seemed possible to finish it within 13 minutes without much difficulty. After 8 minutes a second experimenter (E2) knocked on the door and entered the test room. He wanted to talk to E 1. E 1 left the room for a few seconds. Coming back he said, ‘I am sorry, but you have to stop. This man who just came in needs you for his investigation. His subjects did not appear. So you can’t finish the test and so I can’t give you the f 7,50 extra, but you will get the f 4,- which was promised anyway’. The Ss went with E 2 to the laboratory.

In the non-frustration condition Ss also were given the Bourdon test in the same test room. However, finishing the test was said to be unimportant and no extra financial reward was promised. After 8 minutes E 2 came in to take the Ss to the laboratory for the second part of the investigation. The subjects were informed that this was a study in the field of effects of noxious stimuli on visual perception.

Manipulation of anonymity. In the non-anonymous conditions, the Ss found on entering the laboratory a well illuminated space with: - 4 numbered cubicles. In the nF-nA conditions clearly visible nameplates of the

Ss were fixed on the outside of the cubicles. This was not possible in the F-nA condition, for E 2 could not know the names of the Ss before they came into the laboratory. In this condition E 2 let the Ss fill in their names themselves on the plates, which he fixed in the same way as the nF-nA condition. a clearly visible one way screen. a camera on a tripod.

- - As soon as the Ss were seated in their cubicles, E 2 told them that in the adjoining room some people who were very interested in this investigation were observing through the one way screen. In order to gain the credibility a tape-recorder with human voices was put in the ‘observation’ room. The Ss heard these voices when they entered the laboratory.

During completion of a satisfaction-before test photographs of the Ss were taken with help of flash-bulbs.

In the anonymous conditions, the laboratory was sparsely illuminated. The cubicles were not numbered and without name-plates. The one way screen was hidden. There were no voices from the adjoining room. No camera was used.


Aggression was measured in the same way as in the experiment of Fris and Lange described above, differing only in respect of the confederate who was of the same age as the Ss and whom they only met in the laboratory. After measurement of aggression the Ss had to fill in a satisfaction-after test and answer the question ‘how much discomfort do you think the subject experienced from the sounds you inflicted on him?’

Finally the Ss were briefed about the true nature of the investigation. No subject left with feelings of resentment.

Results

The summated score on each of the 9 discriminathg items was taken as the aggression score for each subject.

Table 3. Average aggression scores of 12 subjects in each condition

Frustrated Not frustrated

Anonymous Not anonymous

25,47 27,54

28,35 26,73

The Mann-Whitney U test showed that no differences between the conditions were significant (Analysis of variance was not possible because the variances within the conditions differed too much). Overall there was a trend towards more expression of aggression in the non-frustration conditions.

The relation between expressed aggression and satisfaction before and after the experiment respectively, was also investigated. The correlation between satisfaction-before and aggression was positive (r = .23, n = 48, p < .05). The relation between aggression and satisfaction-afterwards dso turned out to be positive (r = .26, n = 48, p < .05). We will discuss these results later.

As in the experiment of Fns and Lange an investigation was made of whether more aggressive Ss also felt they had caused more discomfort to the victim or not. Indeed this appeared to be the case; the correlation-coefficient between aggression and the aggression-perception-question was .32 (n = 48, p < .05).

70 Freddy Lange

Experiment 3

The effect o f frustration, attack and displacement on aggression ’

In the first experiment, it was shown that frustration could lead to inhibition of aggression. Although in the second experiment slightly more aggression was expressed in the (task-) frustration conditions than in the non-frustrated condition, the differences were by no means significant.

Considering these results and Maslow’s stand on ego-threatefiing frustrations (see page 63), we created in this experiment both ‘verbal attack’ conditions and frustrations differing in amount of ego-threat to the subjects. In addition we created conditions in which the subjects could be aggressive to a victim who was not responsible for the frustrations or attacks.

We expected most inhibition and therefore least aggression, in those conditions that were the most threatening to the personality.

We did not have clear cut expectations about differences between the displacement conditions. On the one hand we could assume that more aggression would be directed towards a frustrator or attacker than towards someone else. On the other hand we could expect that a frustrator/attacker might become too threatening for the victim to direct aggression towards him. In other words more inhibition of aggression could take place in the conditions in which the frustrator is also the victim.


1.

2.

3.

4. 5.

6 .

Ego-threatening task frustration, followed by the opportunity to deliver electric shocks to the frustrator (TF-V.F.). A non-threatening task frustration, followed by the opportunity to give electric shocks to the frustrator (nTF-V.F.). A nonthreatening task frustration, followed by the opportunity to deliver electric shocks to someone not responsible for the frustration (nTF-V.O.). Verbal attack, followed by the opportunity to shock the attacker (A-V.A.). Verbal attack, followed by the opportunity to give electric shocks to an ‘innocent’ person (A-V.O.). A control-condition with no frustration or attack.

3. This experiment was carried out in the scope of a doctoral term of probation at the university of Amsterdam in 1968 by

Miss Fokje Duursma and Jan James under supervision of Freddy Lange.


Subjects

98 boys of four ‘Lower Technical’ schools in Amsterdam participated. Their average age was 13 years. They were promised f 4,- for participation in the investigation.

Experimental procedure and manipulations

Threatening task frustrarion and shock to frustrator. The Ss came in groups of six. Once in the hall they were met by E 1, who brought them to the ‘test area’. First of all they had to fill in a self-evaluation test. E 1 made it clear that this had nothing to do with the real aim of the investigation and there was no possibility of being right or wrong in answering the questions of the test. After this the following introduction about the aim of the investigation was given; the community of Amsterdam p!anned to start a very special hobby club. Special, because in this club unique things would be done, like going on test-flights, assembling motor-cycles, etc. The Ss could be members, free of charge, if their results on the following test (a creativity test) were satisfactory. According to E 1 everyone could easily pass this test, which had to be completed within 10 minutes. When time was up, an examiner, ‘P’, was introduced. E 1 told the S s that this man would quickly examine the test papers.

In the meantime they had to write down what kind of special things they would like to do in the hobby club. After they had spent a short time working at this, the examiner came to take them, one by one, to another room, in order to discuss their test-results individually. He told them all the same thing: ‘You did a very poor job, much worse than the others. This is something which should be given attention! Anyway, you cannot join the club. We could however, let you participate in something else which is going on here’. The examiner then brought the subject to the laboratory where he was seated in a cubicle, in such a way that he could not see who else was in the laboratory.

Non-ego-threatening task frustration. Up to and including the creativity test the same procedure was followed as in the ego-threatening frustration condition. How- ever examiner ‘P’ was not introduced. The subjects had 5 minutes to write down their ideas about what to do in the hobby club. After working for 2 minutes at this Mr. P, whom they had not met before, entered the testroom and said ‘Is this the group with. . . (calls the names of the Ss)?’ E 1 confirmed this, whereafter the following dialogue developed. ‘P’ : ‘Then they must come with me, because Mr. De Leeuw’s (E 2) subjects did

not appear’.

1 2 Freddy Lange

‘E 1’: ‘Oh, if Mr. De Leeuw says so, it must be done, but it’s a pity, because they can’t become members of the hobby club now and they have just done well in the test’. ‘That is none of my business, let them come along’. cp9 . .

The Ss then went with ‘P’ to the laboratory. In the nT-condition, where the victim is the same as the frustrator, it is ‘P’ who gets electric shocks afterwards. In the nT-V.O. condition another confederate receives the electric shocks.

Attack-condition. From the beginning in this condition, six Ss and a confederate are together. Measurement of self-evaluation is done identically to the conditions described above. However, when the creativity test is being introduced, nothing is said about a hobby club. The research aim of the investigation is said to be creativity, therefore they have to do that test. After the test the experimenter said, ‘Imagine that a hobby-club was founded in which you could do anything you wanted. Therefore we ask you to write down in 5 minutes the activities which you would favor in such a club.’ After 5 minutes all seven (Ss and confederate) were taken to the laboratory. In the corridor they had to wait a few minutes because ‘they are too early’. This was being used by the confederate to attack the Ss in the following way: ‘In my opinion you are much too dumb to cooperate in a difficult investigation like this. They should only use college students like me. No stupid L.T.S.ers. This is a waste of money.’

After 5 minutes E 2 let them enter the laboratory. In the condition Attack and Victim-Attacker, the confederate also entered the laboratory. In the condition Attack and Victim Other, the confederate was sent away by E2. Another confederate, who was already in the laboratory, was judged afterwards.

Control-condition. In this condition the procedure is the same as in the attack condition differing only in that there is no confederate in the test room and corridor. So there is no attack or frustration in whatever form.

Measuremenf of aggression

As in the experiments described before, aggression was defined as delivering of noxious stimuli to someone else. However, in this exccriment +hcv stimuli did not consist of sound-impulses but of electric shocks. Seated in a cubicle in the laboratory every subject had a small panel with 10 buttons. By preysing these buttons he could deliver an electric shock to someone else (the confederate-subject). Button 1 would result in an almost unobservable shock. button 2 in a slightly stronger shock etc.


The ‘victim’ was seated a few meters in front of the cubicles, which were placed in a semi-circle, his back turned to the Ss. First of all, the Ss filled in a satisfaction- before test. After that E 2 gave the following instructions: ‘Electric shocks have a special impact on vision. We are investigating this. Therefore this subject (pointing at the confederate) will have to read letters on the board before him. You can all read these letters very well.

However, the subject will have to put on a pair of glasses which will make it very difficult to read the letters. I will now demonstrate these glasses. Every time he finishes reading 7 letters you judge his performance. You can do so by giving him an electric shock. These shocks are processed by a computer and the subject will receive a shock with the average intensity of the shocks you individually delivered. Now if you think the subject performed badly you give him a strong shock, by pressing a high numbered button. If, on the contrary, you think he did well, then you give him a very weak shock as if to encourage him.

To give you an idea of how such an electric shock feels, I will demonstrate it, together with the glasses. You should not feel too disturbed at giving shocks because he (pointing at the victim) is a little bit used to it’. (This was added because otherwise these young Ss would possibly have been too frightened to react at all.) E 2 then demonstrated the glasses (which indeed made it nearly impossible to read the letters) and submitted every subject to a mild shock (button 3). After this he fixed the electrodes to the fingers of the victim. He a!so Dut a head-phone on the victim’s head (supposedly to aid concentration). He then gave a sign that the first series of letters could be read.

In fact the panels of the Ss were not connected to the electrodes of the confederate-victim, but to a registration apparatus in another room. After every trial a co-worker in that room wrote down the score of every subject. Then she started a tape-recorder connected to the head-phone of the confederate, which told him which letters to call out. Thus the mistakes he made were exactly the same in every experimental session.

In total, there were 15 series of 7 letters. Every series was written on a card which was always changed by E2. On average the confederate made about 4% mistakes in one series.

When everything was over, the Ss were informed about the true goals of the experiment. No one left with hard feelings.

Results

Aggression scores were computed by summing the results of the 15 trials. A split- half reliability coefficient had a value of 0.84. One might however question the

74 Freddy Lange

validity of these kinds of measurements of overt aggression. In the strict behaviour- ist sense, there is no doubt that the more noxious the sounds or electric shocks which one inflicts on someone else, the more aggression is involved. There is however more to it. In a follow-up of this experiment, 21 former subjects (all from the control condition) were judged on aggressiveness by two of their teachers. The correlation coefficient of overt aggression in the experimental setting and judgement by the teachers (which had an inter-rater reliability of 0.98) had a value of 0.44 (p < .025). The experimental aggressiveness scores for these 21 subjects correlated 0.49 (p < ,025) with peer-ratings of their aggressiveness.

Table 4. Average aggression scores in the experimental conditions

Victim-frustrator/attacker Victim-other

Attack Threatening frustration Not-threatening frustration Control

64.60 79,18 71,77 76,75 76,88

84,06

In order to test whether the nature of the frustration or attack has significant effect on the amount of overt aggression, a test of Ho for k ordered independent samples (De Jonge, 1958) was used. Within the conditions where the frustrator or attacker was shocked, we compared the conditions in the sequence of most threatening to least threatening: A-V.A., TF-V.F., nTF-V.F., Control condition. The level of aggression appeared to increase significantly in that order (p < .01). Within the displacement condition the following conditions were compared: A-V.O., nTF-V.O., Control condition. No significant differences were revealed.

In order to test the effect of the displacement-variab!e the following conditions have been compared by Mann-Whitney U-test:

A-V.A. against A-V.O. (p < .03) nTF-V.F. against nTF-V.O. (n.s.)

These results closely match the results of the experiment in Leiden where, also, boys in the average age of 1 3 years had acted as subjects. In Leiden frustration, manipulated in the form of verbal attack, appeared to lead to inhibition of aggression.

In this experiment the inhibition aroused by the frustration/attack was found to be stronger the more threatening the frustration/attack. We do not find this effect when the subject gets the opportunity to direct his aggression towards someone who has not been frustrator or attacker. I n that case there is no increase of inhibition after any form of frustration or attack. The greater amount of aggres-


sion expressed in the A-V.O. condition than in the A-V.A. condition can be explained by this. We cannot, however, conclude from this that there exists a tendency to be aggressive towards other persons after frustration or attack, for the most aggression is expressed in the control condition.

Experiment 4

The effect of displacement on aggression

In Experiment 3 we rather surprisingly found that after attack subjects tended to express more aggression towards innocent victims than towards the attacker him- self, while there were no differences in aggression level after a task-frustration.

In Experiment 4 we again investigated the effect of task-frustration on displacement of aggression. In addition we manipulated a ‘cue’-condition, in order to test Berkowitz’s thesis that if displacement of aggression occurs, the victim who is innocent of the frustration, must have given some kind of cause for aggression which decreases the inhibition of aggression against innocent people. Thus, someone who has had a severe reprimand from his boss will need an excuse, e.g. burnt food, at home, to be able to express some overt aggression towards his wife.

As will be shown, the operationalisation of aggression in this experiment is different to the experiments described before, because we wanted to create a freer situation.


1. The frustrated subject is given the opportunity to direct aggression towards the frustrator (V.F.-n.Cue).

2. The frustrated subject is given the opportunity to direct aggression towards the frustrator who in addition has made an annoying remark about the subject just before (V.F.-Cue).

3. The frustrated subject is given the opportunity to direct aggression towards someone innocent of the frustration (V.0.-n.Cue).

4. The frustrated subject is given the opportunity to direct aggression towards someone innocent of the original frustration but who has made an annoying remark about the subject just before (V.O.-Cue).

4. This experiment was conducted in the dam, led by Wim Brinkman, Wim Koomen scope of a practical work-period for grad- uate students at the university of Amster-

and Freddy Lange (1969).

76 Freddy Lange

Subjects

Forty female subjects were recruited from among the acquaintances of the students participating in the experiment and, of course, randomly spread over the four conditions. There was little variance in education and age, averaging about 25 years. They were promised a reward in money, without specifying how inuch.

Experimental procedure

A subject was led to a waiting hall where a female confederate was siltins, wearing a coat. Both were fetched by the male E who brought them to the laboratory, where they were seated in cubicles and had to fill in a self-evaluation ques- tionnaire. Then the E gave the rationale of the investigation as follows:

‘In this research project we are investigating the effect of different forms of wcrking together. In everyday life people have often to carry out some kind of a task while they are being judged by others, for instance colleagues or a boss. We want to explore what the effect is of this sort of cooperation, where one is per- forming a task while the other judges the performance. To make the scene as realistic as possible the financial reward which you will get afterwards depends on the judgement of the other. I will now explain more precisely. There you see a map (size about 1.75 by 1.25 m). Next to the map you see a series of buildings, small houses, etc. One of you will have to build a city on that map in 10 minutes. That means planning all those buildings as quickly and as well as possible in that area. Whik one is building the other one has to judge’.

Then lots were cast, which were faked in such a way that the real snbiec: always had to start building. E gave both subject and confederate a list on which the sequence of the buildings which the builder had to follow was written down, and told them that judging would take place from behind the one way screen. Every time the judge thought something which the builder did was wrong, she could press a loud bell. The one who was building then had to move the last piece she had put on the map to another position. Subjects were allowed 10 minutes at the most for building. The E pointed out that the subject was to put all the pieces on the map within that period.

When the builder had finished or when the 10 minutes had passed the confederate-judge was brought from behind the one way screen to evaluate the performance of the builder by giving a mark. The frequency of ringing the bell by the confederate, as well as the mark to be given by her, were fixed befor-1-and. Chc rang the bell accordins to a very frustrating scheme and her evaluation always resulted in mark of ‘4’. This mark was written down on a blackboard under some other marks (supposedly from previous subjects) whose average was ‘7’.


Manipulations

In the V.F.-Cue condition, after the confederate had given the mark, roles were reversed and subject went behind the screen, while the confederate built (on the same map but with a different set of buildings for which the subject received a sequence list).

After a sign to start given by the E, the confederate remarked scornfully, ‘Well, I won’t be able to do it much worse’ (which the subject could hear behind the screen by way of a microphone installation).

In the V.F.-n.Cue condition this remark was not made. In the V.0.-Cue condition the confederate was taken away after she had judged

the subject. E explained this by saying that in a corresponding room downstairs the same investigation was being done and the judge from upstairs had now to build downstairs and the other way round. This meant that a few seconds later a second confederate was brought into the laboratory (who supposedly had judged downstairs).

E introduced subject and confederate 2 to each other after which the subject was led behind the screen. After the starting signal from the E, confederate 2 turned to the blackboard and asked ‘Is that 4 from the preceding subject?’ Follow- ing the affirmation by the E the confederate continued, ‘Well then I won’t be able to do much worse’.

In the V.0.-n.Cue condition the confederate started to build immediately after the starting-sign by the E.

In all conditions the confederate built according to the same scheme. In the first instance the place for every piece was fixed. If a subject rang the bell, the confederate moved the piece concerned about 20 cm. On the whole the confederate always tried to build the city as similar to our planned standard city as possible. We had the following rule about the speed with which the confederate should build. The confederate had to take the same amount of time for building as the subject, so the subject would not be intimidated by the apparently greater skill of the confederate who could build more quickly.

A complete standardisation of E and confederates unfortunately was not possible since, for educational reasons, we worked with three experimenters and six confederates. They were evenly distributed across the conditions.

When the confederate finished, or when the 10 minutes had passed, the subject was brought from behind the screen. She had then to give her judgement by a mark. After that she was taken away by a second E (female) to mother room (the confederate was to be taken away by another E and therefore had to wait a few seconds), where she had to complete a sympathy-hostility scale with regard to her

78 Freddy Lmge

partner (In the displacement condition this was her last partner, not the frustrator). Finally she received f 4,- and an explanation of the true nature of the experiment

was given.

Results

The number of times the subject rang the bell, during the building period of the confederate, was used as an operational measure of overt aggression. The map was so vague that there were no real criteria for evaluating the work of the other one. Therefore ringing the bell could only be seen as retaliation against the other.

Hostility, non-overt aggression, was measured by means of five '7-point scales (for instance not congenial-congenial, Hofstee, 1969). The lower the score, the more hostile the subject was towards the other.

Table 5 . Average overt aggression scores in each condition

Victim-f rustrat or Victim-other

Cue No-cue

29,6 21,5

19,2 22,4

The high average overt aggression score in the V.F.-Cue condition was caused by one subject who rang the bell 123 times. Also, because of this, the within cell variances differed so much that analysis of variance could not be considered. By testing the differences between the conditions by means of Mann-Whitney U test no significant differences appeared.

Table 6. Average hostility scores in each condition (the lower the score the more hostility)

Victim-frustrator Victim-other

Cue No-cue

18,s 22) 1

21,6 26,4

Analysis of variance of the hostility scores gave the following result.


Table 7. Analysis of variance of ?he hostility scores

Source ss df V F F.95

Victim 126 1 126 4,06 4,11 Cue 164 1 164 5,29 v x c 6 1 6 0,16 Within 1109 36 31 Total 1405 39

From these two tables it appears that both frustration and cue lead to an increase in hostility towards the last partner. Hostility however does not necessarily lead to overt aggression, as can be concluded from Table 5 . Some subjects showed the inhibition effect; because the confederate is very aggressive, the subject ascribes certain qualities to her and the subject’s own aggression is inhibited.

For exploration we investigated the relation between self-evaluation and overt aggression. This resulted in a positive correlation r = .17 (n = 39, p < .15).

Elaborating, we split the subjects on the median into a group of high and a group of low self-esteem Ss . For both groups, differences in overt aggression between the experimental conditions were tested again:

,Table 8. Differences in overt aggression scores between the experimental conditions for high self-esteem subjects, tested by means of Mann-Whitney U-test

Conditions p (two-sided)

V.F.-Cue > V.F.-n.Cue .27<p<.34 V.F.-Cue > V.O.-Cue .27<p< .34 V.F.-n.Cue > V.0.-n.Cue .16<p<.34 V.O.-Cue > V.O.-n.Cue p<.21 V.F.-Cue > V.0.-n.Cue p<.06

Table 9. Differences in overt aggression scores between the experimental conditions for low self-esteem subject, tested by means of Mann-Whitney U-test

Conditions p (two-sided)

V.F.-Cue < V.F. -n.Cue V.F.-Cue < V.0.-Cue V.F.-n.Cue < V.O.-n.Cue V.O.-Cue < V.O.-n.Cue V.F.-Cue < V.O.-n.Cue

p<.028 p<.075

.14<p<.20 p<.56 p<.02

80 Freddy Lange

The fact that we did not find significant differences by overall testing between the conditions can apparently be explained by the fact that Ss, high in self-esteem, reacted in the opposite way to the experimental manipulations compared with low self-esteem Ss. Ss low in self-esteem directed more aggression towards somebody innocent of the frustration than towards the frustrator herself.

Discussion

CGnsiderhg the results of the four described experiments in the light of our theoret- ical starting points, the following should be observed.

A. Both frustration and attack do not just lead to aggression. On the contrary in Experiments 1 and 3 attack, and in a lesser degree frustration, led to a decrease in aggression level.

However, concerning the frustration-aggression theory of Dollard, Miller, et al. we cannot consider these results as a disconfirmation. Aggression-instigation, apparently inhibited in our experiments, could theoretically still lead to some different form of aggression against other objects and at another time. Our results, however, leave a question mark against the findings of Berkowitz and Buss who report an increase in aggression after attack/frustration in all their experiments.

B. As pointed out above, in the three experiments in which frustration/attack was manipulated, most aggression was expressed in the control conditions. Sub- jects are apparently able to direct a lot of physical aggression, in the form of unpleasant sounds or electric shocks, at a victim without any reason. This in itself needs an explanation. Fris (1 970) introduced the concept ‘occasional aggression’, He states, and proves in his experiments, that the sheer opportunity to be aggressive in a legitimate way and without chance of revenge can be sufficient to cause strong acts of aggression. In our experiments we also offered subjects legitimate opportu- nities to act aggressively which were taken in the control conditions; much aggression was directed towards the helpless victim. In the frustration/attack conditions however, aggression was inhibited.

1. After frustration/attack subjects get conscious of their own aggressiveness, which has an inhibiting effect. This explanation does not however explain why aggression is least in the most ego-threatening conditions. which was clearly shown in the pattern of aggression of the L.T.S.-boys (Experiment 3), where least aggression was expressed against a frustrator/attacker after a direct verbal attack. Slightly more aggression was directed at the frustrator who had told the subject that he did very

Two explanations might be possible.


badly on the test, yet more aggression was shown after arbitrary frustration (a mistake on the part of the experimenter), while most aggression was expressed in the control condition. The second explanation might therefore be more plausible.

2. Being frustrated or attacked causes feelings of inferiority. The more threatening the frustration/attack the stronger this effect will be. At the same time the frustrator/attacker gains in status in the eyes of the victim. He makes a dominant impression, the impression of somebody to be reckoned with. Even if the roles are reversed, and the former victim gets the opportunity to get revenge, without any real fear of punishment, the dominance relation still has its effect resulting in the least aggression after the most ego-threatening frustrations/attacks. This line of thinking also explains why more aggression may be directed towards a victim who has not done any harm than towards a frustrator/ attacker, as shown in Experiments 3 and 4.

C. In Experiment 4 the amount of non-overt aggression (hostility) was also measured. Subjects appeared to be more hostile against the frustrator than against someone innocent of the frustration. With subjects high in self-esteem, this resulted in overt aggression. However the Ss with little self-esteem were apparently inhibited and directed more overt aggression at someone innocent of the frustration. This also fits the view we took above. The same holds for the positive correlation between satisfaction-before and aggression as shown in Experiment 2. The more the subjects felt at ease the less inhibited they were in expressing aggression. In future research, the relationship between situational satisfaction and self-esteem should also be investigated.

The positive correlation between satisfaction-afterwards and aggression in Ex- periment 2 might indicate that aggression, in itself, is satisfying. However, when the effect of satisfaction-before is partialled out, the correlation coefficient drops to an insignificant r = .16 (n = 48).

D. In future research interaction effects between situational variables and dispositional personality variables should be investigated. In Experiment 4, self- esteem seemed to play an important role in determining whether or not aggression was focused on a frustrator/attacker or someone else. In the same way variables like basic level of aggression, or dominance, might be decisive in whether frustration will lead to aggression or rather to inhibition of aggression. For carrying out this line of research much should be done to develop reliable, easy scored and valid tests for measuring these traits.

Besides, the intercorrelations between these personality traits should be studied and dealt with.

82 Freddy Lange

Although 1 X 2 or 2x2 experimental designs are important in gaining fruitful hypotheses about determinants of aggression, experiments should be designed in which more variables are manipulated at the same time, for example frustration, attack, anonymity, self-esteem of the subjects and sort of victim.

This way several important interaction effects might be studied. Experiments like these give us a better approximation of the complex reality outside the laboratory.

Finally, attempts should be made to set up field studies, if possible field experiments, in order to test results found in the laboratory. This type of research could, in addition, be important in gaining insight into the effects of different types of education on the way in which frustration is handled and on aggression in general.

REFERENCES

Bandura, A. H., and Walters, R. H. (1959) Adolescent Aggression. The influence of child-training practices and family interrelationship. New York, Ronald Press.

Bandura, A. H., and Walters, R. H. (1963) Social learning and personality devel- opment. New York, Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

Berkowitz, L. (1962) Aggressiorz, a psycho- logical analysis. New York, McGraw- Hill.

Berkowitz, L., and Green, J . A. (1962) Stimulus qualities of the scapegoat. J . abnorm. SOC. PAychol. 64 (4), 293-301.

Berkowitz, L., and Geen, R. B. (1966a) Film violence and the cue properties of available target. J . p u s . SOC. psycho[.

Berkowitz, L., and Geen, R. B. (1966b) Name-mediated aggressive cue properties. J . pers. 34 (3), 456-465.

Berkowitz, L., and Geen, R. B. (1967) Sti- mulus qualities of the target of aggression. 1. pers. soc. psychol. 5 (3) , 364-368.

Buss, A. H. (1961) The psychology o f aggression. New York.

Buss, A. H. (1963) Physical aggression in relation to different frustrations. 1. ab-

3 (9, 525-530.

norm. SOC. Psychol. 67 (l) , 1-7. Buss, A. H. (1966) Instrumentality of ag-

gression, feedback and frustration as determinants of physical aggression. J. pers. SOC. Psyclrof. 3 (2), 153-162.

Dollard, J., Doob, J. W., Miller, N. E., Mowrer, 0. H., and Sears, R. R. (1939) Frustration and aggression. Yale Uni- versity Press.

Duursma, F., James, J . , and Lange, F. (1968) Effect of frustration, attack and displacement on aggression. Amster- dam, I.W.A. Report (stencilled),

Festinger, L., Pepitone, A., and Newcomb, Th. (1952) Some consequences of de- individuation in a group. 1. abnorm. SOC. PJychol. 47, 382-389.

Fns, T., and Lange, F. (1967) The influence o f insult and risk on aggressive behaviour in an experimental situution. Lei- den, T.N.O. Report.

Fris, T. Occasional aggression and experi- menfal research. Unfinished doctoral thesis (Dutch language). Leiden, Inst. Praeventieve Geneeskunde.

Hofstee, W. K. B. (1967) Gunstigheids- voorwaarden van 196 eigenschappen. Ned. Tijds. Psychol. grerzsgeb. 7, 450- 457.

Frustration - Aggress ion . A reconsideration 83

Jonge, H. de (1958) Znleiding tot de me- dische statistiek. Leiden, Inst. Praeven- tieve Geneeskunde.

Lange, F., and Winnubst, J. (1968) Frustra- tion, Anonymity and Aggression. Am- sterdam, I.W.A. Report (stencilled).

Maslow, A. H. (1941) Deprivation, Threat and Frustration. Psychol. R. 48 (4),

Miller, N. E. (1941) The frustration-aggression hypothesis. Psychol. R. 48 (4),

Ray, W. S. (1960) An introduction to experimental design. New York, MG Millan.

Siegel, S. (1956) y o n Parametric Statistics f o r the Behavioral Sciences. New York, McGraw-Hill.

Singer, J. E., Brush, C. A., and Lublin, S. C. (1965) Some aspects of de-individuation, identification and conform-

3 64-366.

337-342.

ity. J . exp. SOC. Psychol. 356-378. Walker, H., and Lev, J. (1953) Statistical

Znference. New York, Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

Williams, J. F., Meyerson, L. J., and Eron, L. D. (1967) Peer-rated aggression and aggressive response elicited in an experimental situation. Child Devet- opment. 38, 181-191.

Worchel, Ph. (1961) Status restoration and the reduction of hostility. J . abnorm.

Worchel, Ph. (1966) Displacement and the summation of frustration. J . exper. research in pers. 4 (l) , 256-261.

Zimbardo, Ph., Abric, J. C., Bokorova, V., Honai, R., Lange, F., and Rijsman, J . (1967) The aggressive consequences of loss of personal identity. University of Leuven, stencilled report.

SOC. Psychol. 63 (2) , 443-445.

84 Freddy Lange

Documents

Frustration - aggression. A reconsideration