Frustration–aggression hypothesis reconsidered: The role of significance quest

Abstract

One of the oldest scientific theories of human aggression is the frustration–aggression hypothesis, advanced in 1939. Although this theory has received considerable empirical support and is alive and well today, its underlying mechanisms have not been adequately explored. In this article, we examine major findings and concepts from extant psychological research on hostile aggression and offer an integrative conception: aggression is a primordial means for establishing one's sense of significance and mattering, thus addressing a fundamental social-psychological need. Our functional portrayal of aggression as a means to significance yields four testable hypotheses: (1) frustration will elicit hostile aggression proportionately to the extent that the frustrated goal serves the individual's need for significance, (2) the impulse to aggress in response to significance loss will be enhanced in conditions that limit the individual's ability to reflect and engage in extensive information processing (that may bring up alternative, socially condoned means to significance), (3) significance-reducing frustration will elicit hostile aggression unless the impulse to aggress is substituted by a nonaggressive means of significance restoration, (4) apart from significance loss, an opportunity for significance gain can increase the impulse to aggress. These hypotheses are supported by extant data as well as novel research findings in real-world contexts. They have important implications for understanding human aggression and the conditions under which it is likely to be manifested and reduced.