Effects of Mild Frustration on Prejudice

8/6/2019 Effects of Mild Frustration on Prejudice

1/6

THE EFFECTS OF MILD FRUSTRATION ON THE EXPRESSION OFPREJUDICED ATTITUDES 1- 8

E MO RY L. C O WE N

University of RochesterJUDAH LANDES

Stanford University

A N DDONALD E. SCHAET

U . S. Marine Corps

T HE concept that unacceptable ag-gressive or hostile impulses may be"displaced" to targets more suitablethan th e original one has been with us in

psychology at least since the writings ofSigmund Freud (8). However,it is primari lyas a resu lt of the explicit form ula tion offrustration-aggression theory (7 ) that con-certed expe rime ntal testof this propositionhas been attempted in diverse areas. Onespecific formulation derived from theseconceptualizations isthat increasing personalfrustration may have, as one consequence,an increase in expressionof prejudice. Suchatheoretical notionhas been referred to as a"scapegoat" theory of prejudice (23). A moredetailed considerationof possible relationsbetween frustration of personal needs andprejudice has been presented byKrech andCrutchfield (13) under the heading of "amotivational analysis of prejudice."

Criticism has been directed to a scapegoattheory of prejudice both on theoretical andempirical grounds. In the former instance,th e argumenthas been advancedthat a scape-goat theory is an insufficient basis for ex-plaining a sizeable numberof instances ofprejudice (23). As stated, there can be littlequestion as to thejustifiabilityof this argu-ment . On the other hand,a scapegoat theoryof prejudice may quite appropriately beviewed as no more than one of a series ofexplanatory principles requiredfo r completeunderstanding of the phenomena of prejudice.Gordon Allport,in his scholarly treatmentof

1 Portions of the present paper were presentedtoDivision 8 at the annual meetingsof the AmericanPsychological Association in New York, September,1957.

2 The authors wish to express their appreciation toRussel F. Green for his contributions to the finalmethod of analysis.

3 The study w as carried out w hile both junior author swere at the University of Rochester.

this problem (2), takes exac tly sucha position.Allport reviews six major classes of theoreticalexplanationsof prejudiceand points out tha teach seems to constitute a construc tive vehicle

for augmentation of our understanding of thephenomenon. Allport states ". . . as a rulemost 'theories' are advanced by their authorsto call attention to some one importan tcausal factor, with out implying thatno othercausal factors are operating" (2, p. 207).I t may thereforebe importan tto re-emphasizethat when we are dealing with complex socialprocesses such as, for example, prejudice,delinquency, industrial conflict, and inter-national tensions, multiple determinantsare

likely to be involved. The identificationof asingle determ inant does not in any w aypositively demonstrate that this is a soledeterm inant; nor does it nece ssarily precludethe operationof differing determinants towardthe same end result.

An examination of some empirical databearing on a scapegoat type theory indicatesfairly conclusive ly tha t suc han explanationshould indeed be considered partial. Forexample, Morse and Allport (17), in a com-prehensive investigationof seven hypothesesabout the causes of anti-Semitism,found thatonly the factor of "national involvement"co-varied uniquely with anti-Semitism. "Cir-cumstance frustration," th e factor mostdirectly derivablefrom a scapegoat theory,related only modestly to discriminatorytreatment of Jews, leading the authors toconclude that scapegoat theoriesmay not betaken as "general explanationsof anti-Semi-

tism."Lindzey (15),in partial supportof a scape-goat explanation, reportedthat both highand low prejudice s increased significantlyin displaced aggressionfollowing frustration.On th e other hand, since th e high prejudice

33


2/6

3 4 E M O R YL. C O W E N ,JUDAH LANDES,ANDD O N A L DE. S C H A E T

5s (contrary to deductions) failed to displacemore aggression than th e lows, the authorrejects scapegoating as a comprehensiveexplanatory principle.

Studies offering less qualified support fo rthe existence of the scapegoating phenomenonare also reported in the literature. ThusAllport and Kramer (3), in their classicinvestigationof the ' ' roots of prejudice," ob-serve that among their 5s (Harvard , Dart-mouth, and Radcliffe undergraduates)Catho-lic and Jewish 5s who sawthemselvesas morevictimized alsotended to be more prejudicedtoward other minority groups.Thesefindings,interpreted w ithin a frustra tion aggression

framework, were subsequently replicated byRosenblith (20) w ith Sou th Dak ota und er-graduates . Gough (9) found that high anti-Semite 5s are "less able to overlook and ignoreminor irritations and frustrations." Mussen(18) reports that high prejudice childrenhadstronger aggressive and dominant needsthat did low prejudice5s, and that they alsoshowed an increase in prejudiced feelingstoward Negroes, in contrast to lows w hoshowed a decrease, following four weeks in aninterracial summer camp. Finally, Bettleheimand Janowitz (4) have demonstratedsignifi-cant contingenciesbetween downward socialmobility of veterans an d intensity of anti-Semitic and anti-Negro attitudes.

With regard to the empirical data thus farreviewed,w e m a y tentatively conclude that ascapegoat concept provides a basis for under-standing some instancesof prejudice, but isinsufficient as a general explanatory principle.Two additional investigations (5, 15), eacho f which constitutesa direct test of the scape-goat proposition rem ain to be considered.Miller and Bugelski (16), working in thecontext of a CCC camp, were ableto show asignificant drop in positive attitudes andsome trend toward increasing negativeatti-tudes tow ard Mexicansand Japanese followinga rather realistic experimental induction off rustrat ion. On the basis of these findings theauthors concluded thatfrustrat ion increasedaggression, whichw as in tu rn displaced in theform of deteriorationof atti tude to minoritygroup members .

Recently, however, on the basis of someexperimental work by Congdon (5), as re-

ported by Stagner and Congdon (22), somequestion has been raised with respectto thegenerality, if not substance, of the Miller an dBugelski findings (15). Congdon assessed

attitudes toward various in-groupsand out-groups using a series of modified Osgoodsemantic-differential-type scales. Followingthis, experimental 5s in two groups wereeither mildlyor strongly frustratedby failureon two of four or four of four subtests of theGrace-Arthur, respectively. A control groupreceived no frustration. Subsequent read-ministration of the attitude scales indicatedno differences in attitude change scores amongth e three groups.On the basis of these data,

Congdon challenges the defensibility of ascapegoat theoryof prejudice. He goes on tospeculate that the fai lure to support the Millerand Bugelski findings may reflect some com-bination of: (a) having used a less arbitrarytype of frustration (e.g., seePastore (19),(b ) having provided outletsfo r self-punitivebehavior which were presumed not tohavebeen present in the Miller and Bugelskiexperiment, and (c ) th e higher intellectuallevel of his subjects.

If on theoretical groundsone espouses, asw e have, th e view that a scapegoat theoryofprejudice may be most useful as one o f aseriesof complementary explanatory principlesunderlying the complex social phenomenonof prejudice, th e Congdon findings raise thequestion as to whether such a view is usefuleven as a single particularist explanation fo runderstanding some man ifestationsof preju-dice. It is to this latter specific issue that th epresent research is addressed. In essence, we

have attempted to re-exarnine th e propositionthat frustration will lead to an increasedverbal expression o f prejudice, p reserving inour design th e features of nonarbitrariness,opportunity fo r expressive and self punitivebehavior, and high intelligence level of 5s,to which Congdon hasattr ibuted his negativefindings.

METHOD

InstrumentsTwo comparable subscales, each presumably meas-

uring authoritarian attitudes and minori ty groupprejudice, were drawnfrom a larger poolof i tems uti-lized in the California studies (1).These included th e30-item F scale (combined Forms40 and 45), the 12-


3/6

FRUSTRATIONAND THE EXPRESSIONOF PREJUDICE 35

item Anti-Negro (AN) scale, and eight items eachfromthe Anti-Minority (AM)1 and Patriotism (P) scalesofthe larger Ethnocentrism (E ) scale. Items wereas-signed so that th e subtestswould be equated withre-spect to item discrimination quotientsas reported inThe AullioritarianPersonality (I). The final forms (Xand Q) each contained 29items as follows: (a) F scale15 items, (b )AN scale6 items, (c ) AM scale4items,(d ) P scale4 items.

Subjects and . Procedu re

Subjects (5s) were 32 male and 32 female intro-ductory psychology volunteers,all of whom weretested individ ually. The actual experime nt consisted ofthree phases: th e att i tude pretest, frustration, and theattitude posttest.In the pretest phase, 5s were giveneither Form X or Form Q of the attitude scale, withorder of presentation counterbalanced for both sexes.Immediatelyfollowing completion of this first atti tudescale, 5s were informed that w e wished to collect someadditionalan d separate data bearing on the problem-solving habits of college students. It was in thiscon-text that frustration w as introduced.

In order to induce frustration,all 5s were giventw opuzzles which, though appearing soluble, were func-tionally nonsoluble in the time allotted. The actualpuzzles used werethe nine-dot problem reportedelse-where by Cowen (6), and one of the Katonamatchstick problems(12). Fictitious tim e norm s were given,so as to increase thelikelihood that frustration wouldoccur. The actual time allotted byB f e l l far short ofwhat would be needed by most people to solve th eproblems.6 The attitude of the E during administrationof the frustrating puzzles might best be described asaloof, nonsupporting,and disbelieving of 5s inabilityto achieve a correct solution."Upon the 5s failure tosolve the second puzzleE stated simply, "I'm afraidou r time is up for this problem too. W e will have tocomplete th e second part of the attitude scalenow."The 5 then completedth e alternate form of the com-bined attitude scale.

RESULTS

Table 1 summarizes mean "pre" and "post"frustration test scores for each of the attitudetest subscales. The data are presented sepa-rately by sex and for the two orders of ad-ministration,

4 Several itemswhich were consideredinappropriateeither because of temporal or geographic factors (e.g.,"zoot-suiters"an d "Filipinos") were either deletedorslightly modified in wording.

5 Five 5s who got correct solutions to one of thepuzzles, were dropped fromthe study an d replaced bynew 5s.

6

It was theimpressionof the J3s that failure to solvethe puzzle did constitute a frustrating experiencefo rthe great majorityof 5s in terms of such behavioralmanifestations as increased fidgetiness or blushing,an d verbal commentsof discomfort, self-depreciationand/or hostility to the Es.

TABLE 1MEAN "PEE" AN D"Posi" S C O R E S

F O R A L LS D B S C A L E S

Order

AN

F

A M

P

MF

MF

MF

MF

X p r e

11.29 .9

49 .747 .4

8.67 .8

13.612.4

Q post

15.611.3

44.942.6

9 .48.8

11.711.4

Q p r e

10.411.3

44.040.9

10.37 .9

13.412.1

X post

10.610.8

55.246 .3

9 .48.1

13.512.9

TABLE 2A N A LY S I S O F VA R I A N C E F O R A N T I -N E G R O S C A L E

Source

Between5sBA X CA X B X CError (b )

Within 5sACA X BB X CError (w)

Total

d /

63111

60

641111

60

127

Sum ofSquares

1942.539.148 .S86.4

1768.5

345.573.358.0

9.830.2

174.2

2228.0

MeanSquare

39.148.586.429 ,5

73.358.09.8

30.22 .9

F

1.331.642.93

25.2820.003.38

10.41

p

n.s.n.s.n.s.

,001.001n.s..01

Note.A = Test form; B = Sex; and C = Pre-Post frustrat ion.

For each of the constituent subscales, athree-way analysis of variance was carriedout, involving the main effects of test form(A), sex (B), and pre-post frustration (C),Since both test form and pre-post frustration(the effect in which our major interest cen-tered) are "within subjects" effects, aLindquistType IV design (14) was employed as thebasic model for the analysis. In general, theonly subscale that presented consistentlypositive findings was the AN scale,

AN Scale

Table 2 presents the results of a three-wayanalysis of variance for the Anti-Negro scale.The most salient f indings in this table are thesignificant F ratios involving pre-post frustra-tion (C). Although the main effect here is


4/6


5/6

FRUSTRATION AND THEEXPRESSIONOF PREJUDICE 3 7

vasivenessof response tendency behavior,th efact remains that there w asreason to anticipatethat they would have "behaved" similarly inour study. However, they did not . O u r o w n

pre- and postscale intercorrelationsrun sub-stantially lowerthan those originally reported,suggesting that our 6s responded with adegree of independence to the subscales. Thepositive resultson the AN scale can be seenmost defensibly as an illustration of"targeting" a specific minority group(2, 10,23). That th e Negro is the targeted groupinth e present studymay be a manifestat ionof atendency noted earlierby Horowitz (11) fo rthis group to constitute a preferred target inthis geographic locale. In another vein,Bettleheim and Janowitz (3) observe thatthresholds fo r anti-Negro prejudicemay belower than those fo r other minori ty groupstothe point where negativeattitudes m ay breakthrough despite the presence of "relativelyadequate controls."In agreement w ith suchaninterpretat ion is our observation that ant i-Negro feelings seem to constitute a preferredprejudice in informal conversations of under-graduates at this institution.

In general overview,the present findings areviewed as confirmingth e hypothesis that frus-tration augm ents the expression of prejudice.The major limitation placed upon this conclu-sion is that th e consequent increasein preju-dice may be specific rather than generalized.Our findings in no way limit the role or impor-tance of other types of antecedents of preju-dice. Undoubtedlythe relat ionships betweenmany such antecedentsand the same finalproduc t will have to be identified if we areul t imate ly to have an adequate, comprehen-sive theory of prejud ice. For the present, how -ever, th e usefulness of a scapegoat theory,atleast as one of a series of complementary ex-planatory principles, appears defensible.

S U M M A R Y

The present study was designed to test theproposit ion that f rus t ra t ion m ay increase theexpression of prejudice.Sixty-four 5s we r egiven a seriesof attitude scales,followingwhichall were exposedto a relatively m ild, expe ri-menta l ly induced frustrat ion. Immediately

thereafter, alternate forms of the attitu de scalewere administered.

Significant increases were foundin the ex-pression of ant i-Negro prejudice following

frustration, this effect being more pronouncedin male S s . Since comparable postfrustrat ioneffects were not observed on other subscales,th e results were interpretedas an instance of"targeting" of a minori ty group withinth egeneral f ramework of the scapegoat phe-nomenon.

R E F E R E N C E S1. A D O R N O ,T. W., F R E N K E L - B R O N S W I K ,ELSE,

LEVINSON,D. J., & S A N F O R D ,R. N. T heauthori-tarian personali ty.New York: Harper, 1950.

2. A L L P O R T ,G. W. The natureof prejtfdice.Cam br i dge :Addison-Wesley,1954.

3. A L L P O R T ,G. W ., & K R A M E R ,B. M. Some rootsofprejudice. J. Psycho l , 1946, 22, 9-39.

4. BETTLEHEIM, B., & J A N O W I T Z ,M. Dynamicsofprejudice. New York: Harper, 1950.

5. C O N G D O N ,C. S. Effects on a t t i tudes resultingfrom experimental frustrat ion. Unpublishedmaster 's thesis, Univer. ofIllinois, 1954.

6. C O W E N ,E. L. The influence of varying degreesofpsychologicalstress on problem-solving rigidity.J. dbnorm.soc. Psychol . ,1952, 47 , 512-519.

7. B O L L A R D ,J., DOOB, L. W ., MILLER,N. E., M o w -

R E R ,0. H., & S E A R S ,R. R. Frustrationandaggression.New Have n: YaleUniver.Press, 1939.8. FREUD, S. The basic -writings of Sigmund Freud.

New York: RandomHouse, 1938.9. G O U G H ,H. G. Studies of social intolerance:I.

Some psychologicalan d sociological correlatesof anti-Semitism. /. soc. Psychol., 1951, 33,237-246.

10 . HARDING, J., KDTNER, B., P R O S H A N S K V,H., &CHEIN, I. Prejudice an d ethnic relations. In G.Lindzey (Ed.), Handbook of social psychology.Vol. II. Cam bridge: A ddison-W esley, 1954.Pp.1021-1061.

11 . H O R O W I T Z ,E. L. "Race" at t i tudes. In 0. Kline-berg (Ed.), Characteristics of the AmericanNegro.New Y ork : Ha rper, 1944. Pp. 139-247.

12 . K A T O N A ,G. Organizing andmemorizing.New York:Columbia Univer. Press, 1940.

13. KRECH, D., & CRUTCHEIEI.D, R. S. Theory andproblems ofsocial psychology.New York: Mc-Graw-Hill,1948.

14. L I N D Q T J I S T,E. F. Designand analysisof experimentsin psychologyand education.Boston: HoughtonMifflin, 1953.

15 . L I N D Z E Y,G. An experimental examinat ionof thescapegoat theory of prejudice. /. abnorm.soc.

Psycho l , 1950, 45, 296-309.16 . MILLER, N. E., & BUGELSKI,R. Minor studiesinaggression: The influence of frustrations im-posed by the in-group on atti tudes expressedtoward out-groups.J. Psychol . ,1948, 25, 437-442.


6/6

38 E M O R YL. COWEN, JDDAH LANDES,ANDDONALDE. SCHAET

17 . MORSE, N A N C YC., & ALLPORT, F. H. The causa-tion of anti-Semitism:An investigation of sevenhypotheses. /. Psycho!., 1952,34, 197-233.

18. MUSSEN,P. N. Some personalityand social facto rsrelated to changes in chi ldren 'sattitudes towardsNegroes. J. a b n o r m . soc . Psycliol . , 1950, 45,423-441.

19. PASTORE, N. The role of arbitrariness in the frus-tration aggression hypothesis./. abnorm. soc .Psycho! . ,1952, 47, 728-732.

20 . ROSENBLITH, JUDY F. A replication of "Some

roots of prejudice." J . abnorm. soc . Psycl io l . ,1949, 44, 470-489.

21. SAPPENPIELD, B . R. Personal i ty dynamics .N ewYork: Knopf, 1954.

22. S T A G N E R ,R., & C O N G D O N ,C. S. Another fa i lu reto demonstrate displacementof aggression. /.abnorm. soc . Psycl io l . ,1955, 51, 695-696.

23. ZAWADSKI, B. Limitations of the scapegoat theoryof pre jud ice . J . ab no rm. soc .Psycliol. , 1948, 43,127-141.

Received September3, 1957.

Effects of Mild Frustration on Prejudice

Documents

Transcript of Effects of Mild Frustration on Prejudice