Frustration-Aggression Hypothesis

The frustration-aggression hypothesis, proposed by Dollard, Doob, Miller, Mowrer and Sears (1939), states that frustration always causes aggression, and aggression always stems from frustration.

The theory combines Freud’s idea that aggression is an innate drive with learning theory.

Dollard argued this drive is triggered specifically by frustration, the blocking of a goal, rather than building up on its own.

Goal Blockage, Tension, and Catharsis

• Frustration: A deliberate or accidental external factor blocks an individual’s attempt to reach an expected goal.
• Emotional Tension: This blockage creates an internal psychological drive of tension and anger.
• Catharsis: Dollard et al. (1939) proposed that aggression releases this tension through catharsis, calming the person afterward. Modern evidence contradicts this: catharsis is now the theory’s least defensible claim.
• Displacement: We do not always aggress against the true source, which may be too dangerous or simply unavailable. When this happens, we displace our aggressive response onto a safer target instead.

Frustration-Aggression Examples

Here are several examples from psychological research and historical events that illustrate the Frustration-Aggression Hypothesis in action:

Everyday Interpersonal Frustration

• Closeness to a Goal: The closer you are to achieving a goal when you are thwarted, the more aggressive your reaction will be.
• Unjustified vs. Justified Frustration: A barrier seen as arbitrary or unfair triggers strong aggression. A barrier seen as fair or justified triggers much less, though rarely none.
• Unintentional Sabotage: The reduction of aggressive impulses when the source of frustration is attributed to an accidental, uncontrollable, or unintentional factor rather than deliberate malice or negligence.

Displaced Aggression and Scapegoating

• Economic Frustration and Violence: When people cannot retaliate against the actual source of their frustration (like a failing economy), they often displace their aggression onto a vulnerable, less powerful, or minority out-group.
• Shifting Targets of Scapegoating: The target of displaced aggression shifts over time with economic conditions and cultural prejudice. Existing social approval determines which minority or immigrant group becomes an acceptable target during times of scarcity.

A large meta-analysis puts this pattern on firm ground. Marcus-Newhall, Pedersen, Carlson and Miller (2000) pooled 82 comparisons from studies published between 1948 and 1997.

Each compared provoked participants with a chance to retaliate against someone other than the person who had provoked them.

The effect was medium-sized and reliable (d = +0.54), and it grew larger the more similar the substitute target was to the original provoker. Displacement, they concluded, is alive and well.

Relative Deprivation and Collective Unrest

• Urban Race Riots: Riots are sparked less by absolute poverty than by a perceived gap. People compare their situation to a standard they feel entitled to, and that gap fuels collective frustration, not the hardship itself.
• Political Rebellion and Terrorism: Rebellion is most likely after rising expectations suddenly stall or reverse. Even relatively privileged people turn to radical action once progress they expected stops.

Environmental Cues Triggering Aggression (Berkowitz’s Revision)

• The Weapons Effect: Berkowitz argued that frustration only creates a “readiness” for aggression. An environmental cue, such as a weapon, can tip that readiness into actual violence. The cue acts as a cognitive prime, turning an internal readiness into overt violence.

Causes of Frustration

Not all frustrating events lead to the same level of aggression. Dollard and later behaviorists identified specific environmental and cognitive variables that amplify or dampen the reaction:

Goal Gradient Principle (Closeness to the Goal)

The closer an individual is to achieving their goal when they are blocked, the greater their expectation of gratification.

Therefore, a sudden interruption at the final moment causes a far sharper spike in frustration and subsequent aggression.

Example: A website crash feels far more frustrating when you are entering your card details for a concert ticket. It feels like nothing when the same crash happens on the homepage.

A classic field experiment supplies direct evidence for this pattern.

Because this happened in a real queue rather than a lab, it answers a common criticism that frustration research relies too heavily on artificial settings.

Perceived Fairness (Justified vs. Unjustified Frustration)

Dill and Anderson (1995) tested whether a fair reason for a blockage switches off aggression entirely, or only turns it down.

Relative vs. Absolute Deprivation

Psychologists distinguish between lacking something entirely (absolute deprivation) and feeling like you have less than you deserve (relative deprivation).

Frustration is primarily born out of relative deprivation.

When a person’s actual situation falls short of their rising expectations or the standard they see others enjoying, the perceived unfairness generates acute frustration.

This is often used to explain collective violence, such as riots or political unrest.

Real-World Applications

The revised hypothesis, in which appraisal and environmental cues shape whether frustration turns into aggression, has been tested in several everyday settings beyond the laboratory:

• Workplace: blocked promotions and unfair supervision feed indirect hostility instead of open conflict.
• Driving: a visible weapon makes a blocked driver honk harder and for longer.
• Sport: pitchers retaliate against an opposing batter more often as the temperature rises.
• Online gaming: losing a match alone is enough to trigger angrier, more hostile messages.

Workplace Frustration

Fox and Spector (1999) applied the model to everyday work stress. Blocked promotions, unfair supervision, and resource shortages feed the same negative-affect pathway that drives aggression generally.

Fear of losing one’s job usually suppresses direct confrontation at work.

The result is often indirect hostility instead. Psychologists call this range of responses counterproductive work behaviour, and it can be as quiet as withdrawing effort or as visible as deliberate sabotage.

Organisational norms play the same inhibiting role here that fear of retaliation plays in the classic model. That is exactly why displaced hostility shows up at work far more often than open confrontation with a manager.

A missed promotion rarely ends in a shouting match. It far more often ends in quiet disengagement.

Driving and Road Rage

Turner, Layton and Simons (1975) took this into traffic.

A confederate’s car deliberately blocked another driver at a green light. In some trials a rifle sat visibly in the back window; in others there was no cue at all.

Drivers who saw the rifle honked their horns sooner and for longer than those who did not.

Nobody drew a weapon. The rifle just sat there.

This took the classic weapons-effect finding out of the laboratory shock paradigm. It showed the same cue-triggered escalation in a genuine everyday frustration, being blocked in traffic, which is exactly the mechanism popularly called road rage.

No shock machine, no confederate pretending to be a stranger: just an ordinary green light and an ordinary commute.

Example: Two drivers are cut off at the same green light, but only one has a rifle visible on the back seat of the car ahead. That driver leans on the horn sooner, and for longer.

Sport and Crowd Aggression

Larrick, Timmerman, Carton and Abrevaya (2011) studied Major League Baseball pitchers deciding whether to retaliate after a teammate had been hit by a pitch.

Retaliation became more likely as the temperature rose, even accounting for how many of their own teammates had already been hit.

Heat works here just like any other aversive stimulus. It raises background arousal and lowers the threshold at which an in-game frustration turns into deliberate retaliation.

The batter never touched the pitcher. The pitcher retaliated anyway.

Nothing about the game itself changed: the same rules, the same stakes, the same players. Only the weather did, which is exactly what a purely situational account of aggression would predict.

The pattern held across many games and many pitchers, not just one heated afternoon.

Online Gaming Aggression

Breuer, Scharkow and Quandt (2015) studied online gaming losses.

They compared players’ reactions after a co-located match, where losing, an unambiguous form of goal-blockage, predicted more self-reported anger and more hostile messages toward the winning opponent.

The size of the reaction still depended on the loser’s own trait competitiveness, which fits an appraisal-based account rather than a purely reflexive one.

No one was physically blocked from anything here. Losing a match was enough.

This gives the hypothesis a foothold in explaining hostility such as flaming and trolling after an online loss.

The pattern repeats everywhere.

It shows up at work, on the road, at the ballpark, and on the screen. Goal-blockage alone predicts little. Combined with a cue, an unfair judgement, or raised arousal, it predicts aggression well.

The Original Evidence Base

Two studies did most of the early evidence-gathering for the hypothesis, one in the laboratory and one in the historical archive.

Both are still widely cited today, but modern reanalysis has treated them very differently.

Barker, Dembo and Lewin (1941): Frustration and Regression

The finding is routinely cited as evidence for aggression, but it actually measured regression in play maturity, not hostile behaviour. It fits Miller’s later revision better than Dollard’s original claim.

Hovland and Sears (1940): The Lynching Correlation and Its Correction

Hovland and Sears (1940) offered the most famous real-world test of the displacement idea, using a grim historical record: reported lynchings in the American South between 1882 and 1930.

The lynching figures are reported here strictly as a historical record, not as proof of the mechanism.

Two variables that both drift steadily over time can correlate strongly even with no causal link between them.

Together, these two cases cut in opposite directions. One used a strong design but measured the wrong outcome. The other measured the right outcome, but its design could not rule out an obvious confound.

Critical Evaluation

Strengths of FAH (AO3 Support)	Limitations of Original FAH (AO3 Criticisms)
Explains Displaced Aggression and Scapegoating	Too rigid & deterministic (assumes a 100% cause-and-effect reflex)
Explains Collective Unrest via Relative Deprivation	Ignores Situational Inhibitions (fear of retaliation)
Strong Field Experiment Support (Goal Proximity)	Ignores Individual Differences & learned behaviors

1. Major Strengths and Explanatory Power

The primary value of the FAH lies in its ability to explain complex, real-world social phenomena that pure biological theories cannot.

A. Robust Account of Displaced Aggression

People cannot always safely retaliate against their true frustrator.

The frustrator might be a powerful authority figure, such as a boss, or something abstract, like a failing economy. In these cases, people turn to the ego defence mechanism of displacement.

The aggressive drive is redirected onto weaker, safer, or socially approved substitute targets (scapegoats).

B. Explains Macro-Level Social Violence

The FAH successfully scales up from individual behavior to explain large-scale riots, revolutions, and terrorism through the concept of relative deprivation.

• Absolute deprivation (simply living in poverty) does not inherently cause violence.
• Instead, relative deprivation (the acute, perceived gap between what people currently have and what they believe they deserve) creates explosive collective frustration.

C. Empirical Validation of Goal Proximity

Real-world field experiments consistently validate the theory’s claim that frustration escalates based on how close a person is to their objective (the Goal Gradient Principle).

For example, a stranger cutting into the 2nd place of a waiting line triggers vastly more overt aggression than a stranger cutting into the 12th place.

2. Key Criticisms & Theoretical Weaknesses

Despite its strengths, psychologists quickly realized that Dollard’s original 1939 “all-or-nothing” statement was a rigid overstatement that completely ignored human cognition.

A. Overlooks Situational Inhibitions

Neal Miller (1941), one of the original co-authors, later criticized the rigidity of the theory.

He argued that even if frustration instigates an internal urge to attack, situational constraints often suppress the behavior.

Factors such as a fear of retaliation, social norms, or the sheer physical size and strength of the frustrator dictate whether someone will actually lash out.

Miller’s own 1941 restatement went further than this. He proposed that frustration creates a response hierarchy: several possible reactions, ranked by strength, of which aggression is only one.

Where a non-aggressive response ranks higher for a given person, it wins out, and the aggressive urge stays hidden or resurfaces indirectly.

As Miller himself put it, frustration “produces instigations to a number of different types of response, one of which is an instigation to some form of aggression.”

B. Misidentifies Arousal as a Fixed Reflex

Albert Bandura (1973) argued that frustration does not automatically manufacture a targeted “aggressive drive.”

Instead, frustration simply produces a generalized state of physiological arousal.

Whether an individual uses that energy to act violently, problem-solve, or withdraw depends entirely on their learned patterns of behavior (Social Learning Theory) and environmental cues.

C. Fails to Account for Individual Differences

The original hypothesis struggles to explain why different personality types handle stress differently.

For instance, studies of overcontrolled violent criminals show that some people chronically bury their resentment under rigid psychological controls.

They do not instinctively react to frustration with immediate aggression, but may eventually “explode” after a long period of suppression.

Megargee (1966) named this pattern. He called it the overcontrolled personality type, and contrasted it with an undercontrolled type that reacts to provocation with immediate, low-threshold aggression instead.

The same frustrating event can produce almost no visible reaction in one person, and a delayed, extreme reaction in another. Situational variables alone cannot predict this pattern.

3. The Cognitive Evolution of the FAH

To remain viable, the FAH had to be heavily revised to incorporate how humans mentally interpret a situation (cognitive appraisal and attributions).

[Goal Blocked] ──> [Cognitive Appraisal] ──> Unjustified/Arbitrary? ──> Aggression
                                         ──> Justified/Accidental?  ──> No Aggression

• The Role of Intent: Research revealed that frustration only reliably produces aggression when the blocking event is perceived as arbitrary, illegitimate, or intentional.
• Mitigating Circumstances: If an event is deemed accidental or understandable, the urge to aggress is neutralized. A group whose task was sabotaged by a broken hearing aid, for example, showed no measurable aggression once they saw the failure as a genuine accident.
• Hostile Attributional Bias: In modern clinical psychology, chronic aggression is often linked to a cognitive distortion where highly reactive individuals rapidly misinterpret completely ambiguous situations as intentional provocations.
• Testing the Reason Itself: Kulik and Brown (1979) found that an unexpected failure produced more aggression. A weak excuse (“charities are a rip-off”) drew more anger than a reasonable one (“I can’t afford it”).

4. The Ultimate Revision: Berkowitz’s Aggressive-Cue Theory

Berkowitz’s Aggressive-Cue Theory (ACT) holds that frustration only creates a readiness for aggression. An environmental cue, like a weapon, is what actually triggers violence.

The full account, including the classic Weapons Effect study, is covered below under Aggressive-Cue Theory (ACT).

5. Contemporary Research

Two large studies anchor the post-2015 evidence.

Benjamin, Kepes and Bushman (2018) pooled the weapons-effect literature; Dodge et al. (2015) tested the attributional account across nine countries.

Does the Weapons Effect Hold Up in Meta-Analysis?

Does Hostile Attributional Bias Predict Aggression Across Cultures?

• Aim: To test whether children who read hostile intent into ambiguous situations become more aggressive, across very different cultures.
• Method: 1,299 children from 12 communities in nine countries were followed for four years and rated ambiguous provocation vignettes for hostile or benign intent.
• Results: In every one of 12 communities, children who saw hostile intent reacted more aggressively, and hostile-attributional-bias scores predicted higher chronic aggression even controlling for prior aggression.
• Conclusion: A stable tendency to read hostility into ambiguous situations, not just the frustrating event itself, drives much of a child’s later aggression.

Put together, these two studies point the same way: the reformulated hypothesis holds up better than the strong 1939 original.

The weapons effect survives large-scale scrutiny, and the attributional route to aggression holds across very different cultures.

Two older pieces of evidence have not aged as well. The catharsis idea, that acting out aggression relieves it, no longer has research support.

A famous historical correlation between hard times and mob violence also turned out to be much weaker once modern statistical methods were applied.

Aggressive-Cue Theory (ACT)

Leonard Berkowitz significantly expanded upon the original 1939 Frustration-Aggression Hypothesis, showing that frustration rarely triggers aggression as a direct, automatic reflex.

Instead, he introduced the Aggressive-Cue Theory (ACT), also known as cue-arousal theory.

This shifted how psychologists view the triggers of violent behavior. Dollard’s original theory was deterministic: frustration led automatically to aggression.

Berkowitz disagreed. He argued that internal emotion and external environmental cues must combine to produce violence.

Frustration → Anger → Aggression (The Three-Step Flow)

Berkowitz dismantled the idea that frustration automatically forces a person to attack. Instead, he separated the internal emotional state from the actual physical behavior.

• The Reality of Frustration: Frustration is just one of many unpleasant experiences (alongside physical pain, extreme heat, or loud noises) that produces negative affect (psychological pain and annoyance).
• The “Readiness to Aggress”: This negative affect turns into anger. Anger does not guarantee violence; it simply puts the individual into a state of psychological “readiness.” The behavior is not “pushed” out by internal pressure; it must be “pulled” out by the environment.

The Power of Cognitive Appraisal: Appraisal and Intent

Berkowitz emphasized that humans are not like early behaviorist lab rats; we mentally evaluate why our goal was blocked before we react.

• Justified vs. Unjustified: If a goal is blocked but we perceive it as fair, accidental, or legitimate, we rationalize it, and anger is avoided.
• The Triggers: Frustration only converts to anger if we appraise the event as arbitrary, illegitimate, or intentional. We must believe the frustrator deliberately broke social rules to interfere with us.

Berkowitz (1993) explains this using the idea of intent. People are rarely bothered by a blocked goal unless they think the block was deliberate and improper.

In his own words: “we aren’t usually bothered by a failure to reach our goals unless we believe that the frustrater intentionally or improperly tried to interfere with our efforts.”

Even the same block can be forgiven once its cause looks accidental rather than deliberate.

Exam Link: In clinical psychology, individuals with chronic anger issues often suffer from a hostile attribution bias—a cognitive distortion where they automatically appraise ambiguous accidents as deliberate, hostile provocations.

Aggressive Cues & The “Weapons Effect” (Key Study)

An aggressive cue is any stimulus in our immediate environment that we subconsciously associate with violence.

If an individual is already in a state of “readiness to aggress” (angry), the presence of a cue acts as the physical trigger to release that aggression.

Core Study: Berkowitz and LePage (1967)

Crucial Quote for Essays: This study proved the Weapons Effect. As Berkowitz famously concluded: “Guns not only permit violence, they can stimulate it as well. The finger pulls the trigger, but the trigger may also be pulling the finger.”

4. Semantic Associations: Subtle Media Cues

Berkowitz proved that an environmental cue does not have to be a physical weapon; it can be a purely semantic (meaning-based) link or a media association.

The “Kirk/Kelly” Study (Berkowitz & Geen, 1966)

Standardizing Psychology Terminology

To make research more scientific, Berkowitz helped standardize how psychologists categorize hostile behaviors:

• Aggression: Any behavior directed toward another individual that is carried out with the proximate intent to cause harm.
• Violence: Specifically reserved for extreme forms of aggression where the deliberate goal is to inflict severe, major physical injury or destruction on another person.

Evaluation

• Real-World Application: Berkowitz’s Cue-Arousal theory has shaped debates about gun control and open-carry laws, since the visibility of weapons is linked to a higher chance of impulsive, reactive violence.
• Bridges Approaches: Unlike the original 1939 model, Berkowitz’s revision blends biological arousal, cognitive appraisal, and learned associations between cues like names or guns and violence.
• Demand Characteristics: Critics argue the classic Weapons Effect study lacks realism. A 1960s participant seeing a shotgun on the table may simply have guessed what the researchers wanted, rather than reacting with a genuine psychological reflex.

References

Amsel, A. (1962). Frustrative nonreward in partial reinforcement and discrimination learning: Some recent history and a theoretical extension. Psychological Review, 69(4), 306–328.

Anderson, C. A., & Bushman, B. J. (2002). Human aggression. Annual review of psychology, 53(1), 27-51.

Barker, R. G., Dembo, T., & Lewin, K. (1941). Frustration and regression: An experiment with young children. University of Iowa Press. https://doi.org/10.1037/11387-000

Benjamin, A. J., Jr., Kepes, S., & Bushman, B. J. (2018). Effects of weapons on aggressive thoughts, angry feelings, hostile appraisals, and aggressive behavior: A meta-analytic review of the weapons effect literature. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 22(4), 347–377. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868317725419

Berkowitz, L. (1958). The expression and reduction of hostility. Psychological Bulletin, 55(5), 257.

Berkowitz, L. (1988). Frustrations, appraisals, and aversively stimulated aggression. Aggressive behavior, 14(1), 3-11.

Berkowitz, L. (1989). Frustration-aggression hypothesis: examination and reformulation. Psychological bulletin, 106(1), 59.

Berkowitz, L. (1990). On the formation and regulation of anger and aggression: A cognitive-neoassociationistic analysis. American Psychologist, 45(4), 494.

Berkowitz, L. (1993). Aggression: Its causes, consequences, and control. McGraw-Hill.

Bettencourt, B., & Miller, N. (1996). Gender differences in aggression as a function of provocation: a meta-analysis. Psychological bulletin, 119(3), 422.

Breuer, J., Scharkow, M., & Quandt, T. (2015). Sore losers? A reexamination of the frustration–aggression hypothesis for colocated video game play. Psychology of Popular Media Culture, 4(2), 126.

Breuer, J., & Elson, M. (2017). Frustration-aggression theory (pp. 1-12). Wiley Blackwell.

Brown, J. S., & Farber, I. E. (1951). Emotions conceptualized as intervening variables—with suggestions toward a theory of frustration. Psychological bulletin, 48(6), 465.

Burnstein, E., & Worchel, P. (1962). Arbitrariness of frustration and its consequences for aggression in a social situation. Journal of Personality.

Buss, A. H. (1963). Physical aggression in relation to different frustrations. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67(1), 1.

Buss, A. H. (1966). Instrumentality of aggression, feedback, and frustration as determinants of physical aggression. Journal of personality and social psychology, 3(2), 153.

Caprara, G. V. (1982). A comparison of the frustration-aggression and emotional susceptibility hypotheses. Aggressive Behavior.

Cohen, A. R. (1955). Social norms, arbitrariness of frustration, and status of the agent of frustration in the frustration-aggression hypothesis. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 51(2), 222.

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. New York, NY: Harper Perennial.

da Gloria, J. (1984). Frustration, aggression, and the sense of justice. In A. Mummendey (Ed.), Social psychology of aggression: From individual behavior to social interaction (pp. 127–141). Berlin, Germany: Springer.

Davitz, J. R. (1952). The effects of previous training on postfrustration behavior. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 47(2S), 309.

Deutsch, M. (1949). An experimental study of the effects of co-operation and competition upon group process. Human Relations, 2(3), 199–231. doi:10.1177/001872674900200301

Dill, J. C., & Anderson, C. A. (1995). Effects of frustration justification on hostile aggression. Aggressive Behavior, 21(5), 359-369.

Dodge, K. A., Malone, P. S., Lansford, J. E., Sorbring, E., Skinner, A. T., Tapanya, S., Uribe Tirado, L. M., Zelli, A., Alampay, L. P., Al-Hassan, S. M., Bacchini, D., Bombi, A. S., Bornstein, M. H., Chang, L., Deater-Deckard, K., Di Giunta, L., Oburu, P., & Pastorelli, C. (2015). Hostile attributional bias and aggressive behavior in global context. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 112(30), 9310–9315. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1418572112

Dollard, J., Miller, N. E., Doob, L. W., Mowrer, O. H., & Sears, R. R. (1939). Frustration and aggression.

Geen, R. G. (1968). Effects of frustration, attack, and prior training in aggressiveness upon aggressive behavior. Journal of personality and social psychology, 9(4), 316.

Filer, R. J. (1952). Frustration, satisfaction, and other factors affecting the attractiveness of goal objects. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 47(2), 203.

Fox, S., & Spector, P. E. (1999). A model of work frustration-aggression. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20(6), 915–931. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-1379(199911)20:6<915::AID-JOB918>3.0.CO;2-6

Grossarth-Maticek, R., Eysenck, H. J., & Vetter, H. (1989). The causes and cures of prejudice: An empirical study of the frustration-aggression hypothesis. Personality and Individual Differences, 10(5), 547-558.

Haner, C. F., & Brown, P. A. (1955). Clarification of the instigation to action concept in the frustration-aggression hypothesis. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 51(2), 204.

Hanratty, M. A., O’Neal, E., & Sulzer, J. L. (1972). Effect of frustration upon imitation of aggression. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 21(1), 30.

Harris, M. B. (1974). Mediators between frustration and aggression in a field experiment. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 10(6), 561-571.

Hepworth, J. T., & West, S. G. (1988). Lynchings and the economy: A time-series reanalysis of Hovland and Sears (1940). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55(2), 239–247. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.55.2.239

Hokanson, J. E. (1961). The effects of frustration and anxiety on overt aggression. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 62(2), 346.

Hovland, C. I., & Sears, R. R. (1940). Minor studies of aggression: VI. Correlation of lynchings with economic indices. The Journal of Psychology, 9(2), 301–310. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223980.1940.9917696

Ichheiser, G. (1950). Frustration and aggression or frustration and defence: A counter-hypothesis.

Kregarman, J. J., & Worchel, P. (1961). Arbitrariness of frustration and aggression. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 63(1), 183.

Kulik, J. A., & Brown, R. (1979). Frustration, attribution of blame, and aggression. Journal of experimental social psychology, 15(2), 183-194.

Larrick, R. P., Timmerman, T. A., Carton, A. M., & Abrevaya, J. (2011). Temper, temperature, and temptation: Heat-related retaliation in baseball. Psychological Science, 22(4), 423–428. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797611399292

Marcus-Newhall, A., Pedersen, W. C., Carlson, M., & Miller, N. (2000). Displaced aggression is alive and well: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78(4), 670–689. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.78.4.670

Megargee, E. I. (1966). Undercontrolled and overcontrolled personality types in extreme antisocial aggression. Psychological Monographs: General and Applied, 80(3), 1–29. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0093894

Miller, N. E. (1941). I. The frustration-aggression hypothesis. Psychological Review, 48(4), 337–342. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0055861

Morlan, G. K. (1949). A note on the frustration-aggression theories of Dollard and his associates. Psychological review, 56(1), 1.

Pastore, N. (1950). A neglected factor in the frustration-aggression hypothesis: a comment. The Journal of Psychology, 29(2), 271-279.

Pastore, N. (1952). The role of arbitrariness in the frustration-aggression hypothesis. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 47(3), 728.

Rothaus, P., & Worchel, P. (1960). The inhibition of aggression under non-arbitrary frustration. Journal of Personality.

Rule, B. G., Dyck, R., & Nesdale, A. R. (1978). Arbitrariness of frustration: Inhibition or instigation effects on aggression. European Journal of Social Psychology, 8(2), 237-244.

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68–78.

Seligman, M. E. P. (1975). Helplessness: On depression, development, and death. San Francisco, CA:Freeman.

Sherif, M., Harvey, O. J., White, B. J., Hood, W. R., & Sherif, C. W. (1961). Intergroup cooperation and competition: The Robbers Cave experiment. Norman, OK: University Book Exchange.

Thompson Jr, R. J., & Kolstoe, R. H. (1974). Physical aggression as a function of strength of frustration and instrumentality of aggression. Journal of Research in Personality, 7(4), 314-323.

Turner, C. W., Layton, J. F., & Simons, L. S. (1975). Naturalistic studies of aggressive behavior: Aggressive stimuli, victim visibility, and horn honking. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31(6), 1098–1107. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0076960

Verona, E., & Curtin, J. J. (2006). Gender differences in the negative affective priming of aggressive behavior. Emotion, 6(1), 115.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Whitaker, J. L., Melzer, A., Steffgen, G., & Bushman, B. J. (2013). The allure of the forbidden: Breaking taboos, frustration, and attraction to violent video games. Psychological science, 24(4), 507-513.

Worchel, S. (1974). The effect of three types of arbitrary thwarting on the instigation to aggression 1. Journal of Personality, 42(2), 300-318.

Zillmann, D., & Cantor, J. R. (1976). Effect of timing of information about mitigating circumstances on emotional responses to provocation and retaliatory behavior. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 12(1), 38-55.