This newer way of looking at frustrat ion and aggression has several advan-
tages over the original hypothesis. First, the new model explains why frustration
does not always lead to aggression. Frustrat ion facilitates aggression only to the
extent that it is perceived as unpleasant. Second, the model clarifies why certain
thoughts increase or decrease the likelihood of acting aggressively. For example,
you may be very frustrated if you do p oorly on a test because your roommate
drove home for the weekend with your textbooks in the back of his or her car.However, you will have a very different reac tion to this frustration if you believe
your roommate was unaware of the books than if you determine he or she de-
liberately took off with them. Thoughts that create negative feelings make the
whole experience more unpleasant and increase the chances for aggression.Thoughts that decrease negative feelin gs reduce the likelihood of aggression.
Displacing Aggression
Like most people, you have probably had the regrettable experience of lash-
ing out at a friend far more than the situation called for. The outburst was
most likely met with a “What’s the matter with you? ”or“Someone had a
bad day. ”After calming down, you may have recognized that the source of
your anger wasn ’t really your friend at all but a poor grade on an assignment
or a boss who would not let you off work this coming weekend. Incidents likethese illustrate one prediction from early versions of the frustration-aggression
hypothesis. That is, we don ’t always attack the source of our frustration di-
rectly; we sometimes direct our frustration-induced anger toward someone
who does not deserve it. Expressing aggression toward these indirect targets is
usually safer than going after a frustrating teacher or employer.
Dozens of studies find support for the notion that we sometimes displace
aggression from a frustrating source to an innocent target (Marcus-Newhall,
Pedersen, Carlson, & Miller, 2000). Participants in one of these studies were asked
to work on some anagrams (Konecni & Doob, 1972). Some people found the task
frustrating, especially because another participant (a confederate of the experi-
menter) persistently annoyed them while they worked on the problems. Other par-
ticipants were allowed to work on the tas k without interruptions. Participants
were then given the opportunity to grade another individual on a creativity task.The means of grading was electric shock. Participants were told to give this
other person painful (but not harmful) shocks whenever they heard uncreative
responses. Although no actual shocks were delivered, the number of shocks
participants thought they were giving was used to measure aggression.
How was displacement tested in this study? Some participants were fortu-
nate enough to find that the person who had earlier annoyed them was theone hooked up to the shock apparatus. For other participants, the person re-
ceiving the shock was a stranger. The results from the relevant conditions are
shown in Figure 6.2. Not surprisingly, participants given the chance to get
even with the person who had frustrated them gave more shocks than the
nonfrustrated participants. However, frustrated participants given the oppor-tunity to shock a stranger also delivered more shocks than the nonfrustrated
participants. In other words, these people displaced their aggressive tenden-
cies onto the innocent bystander.Psychoanalytic Concepts and Aggression 135