THE EFFECTS OF MILD FRUSTRATION ON THE EXPRESSION OF PREJUDICED ATTITUDES1- 8

EMORY L. COWEN University of Rochester JUDAH LANDES Stanford University AND DONALD E. SCHAET U. S. Marine Corps

HE concept that unacceptable ag- this problem (2), takes exactly such a position. gressive or hostile impulses may be Allport reviews six major classes of theoretical "displaced" to targets more suitable explanations of prejudice and points out that than the original one has been with us in each seems to constitute a constructive vehicle psychology at least since the writings of for augmentation of our understanding of the Sigmund Freud (8). However, it is primarily phenomenon. Allport states ". . . as a rule as a result of the explicit formulation of most 'theories' are advanced by their authors frustration-aggression theory (7) that con- to call attention to some one important certed experimental test of this proposition causal factor, without implying that no other has been attempted in diverse areas. One causal factors are operating" (2, p. 207). specific formulation derived from these It may therefore be important to re-emphasize conceptualizations is that increasing personal that when we are dealing with complex social frustration may have, as one consequence, processes such as, for example, prejudice, an increase in expression of prejudice. Such a delinquency, industrial conflict, and intertheoretical notion has been referred to as a national tensions, multiple determinants are "scapegoat" theory of prejudice (23). A more likely to be involved. The identification of a detailed consideration of possible relations single determinant does not in any way between frustration of personal needs and positively demonstrate that this is a sole prejudice has been presented by Krech and determinant; nor does it necessarily preclude Crutchfield (13) under the heading of "a the operation of differing determinants toward motivational analysis of prejudice." the same end result. Criticism has been directed to a scapegoat An examination of some empirical data theory of prejudice both on theoretical and bearing on a scapegoat type theory indicates empirical grounds. In the former instance, fairly conclusively that such an explanation the argument has been advanced that a scape- should indeed be considered partial. For goat theory is an insufficient basis for ex- example, Morse and Allport (17), in a complaining a sizeable number of instances of prehensive investigation of seven hypotheses prejudice (23). As stated, there can be little about the causes of anti-Semitism, found that question as to the justifiability of this argu- only the factor of "national involvement" ment. On the other hand, a scapegoat theory co-varied uniquely with anti-Semitism. "Cirof prejudice may quite appropriately be cumstance frustration," the factor most viewed as no more than one of a series of directly derivable from a scapegoat theory, explanatory principles required for complete related only modestly to discriminatory understanding of the phenomena of prejudice. treatment of Jews, leading the authors to Gordon Allport, in his scholarly treatment of conclude that scapegoat theories may not be 1 Portions of the present paper were presented to taken as "general explanations of anti-SemiDivision 8 at the annual meetings of the American tism." Psychological Association in New York, September, Lindzey (15), in partial support of a scape1957. 2 The authors wish to express their appreciation to goat explanation, reported that both high Russel F. Green for his contributions to the final and low prejudice ^s increased significantly method of analysis. 3 The study was carried out while both junior authors in displaced aggression following frustration. On the other hand, since the high prejudice were at the University of Rochester.
33

34

EMORY L. COWEN, JUDAH LANDES, AND DONALD E. SCHAET ported by Stagner and Congdon (22), some question has been raised with respect to the generality, if not substance, of the Miller and Bugelski findings (15). Congdon assessed attitudes toward various in-groups and outgroups using a series of modified Osgood semantic-differential-type scales. Following this, experimental 5s in two groups were either mildly or strongly frustrated by failure on two of four or four of four subtests of the Grace-Arthur, respectively. A control group received no frustration. Subsequent readministration of the attitude scales indicated no differences in attitude change scores among the three groups. On the basis of these data, Congdon challenges the defensibility of a scapegoat theory of prejudice. He goes on to speculate that the failure to support the Miller and Bugelski findings may reflect some combination of: (a) having used a less arbitrary type of frustration (e.g., see Pastore (19), (b) having provided outlets for self-punitive behavior which were presumed not to have been present in the Miller and Bugelski experiment, and (c) the higher intellectual level of his subjects. If on theoretical grounds one espouses, as we have, the view that a scapegoat theory of prejudice may be most useful as one of a series of complementary explanatory principles underlying the complex social phenomenon of prejudice, the Congdon findings raise the question as to whether such a view is useful even as a single particularist explanation for understanding some manifestations of prejudice. It is to this latter specific issue that the present research is addressed. In essence, we have attempted to re-exarnine the proposition that frustration will lead to an increased verbal expression of prejudice, preserving in our design the features of nonarbitrariness, opportunity for expressive and self punitive behavior, and high intelligence level of 5s, to which Congdon has attributed his negative findings. METHOD Instruments
Two comparable subscales, each presumably measuring authoritarian attitudes and minority group prejudice, were drawn from a larger pool of items utilized in the California studies (1). These included the 30-item F scale (combined Forms 40 and 45), the 12-

5s (contrary to deductions) failed to displace more aggression than the lows, the author rejects scapegoating as a comprehensive explanatory principle. Studies offering less qualified support for the existence of the scapegoating phenomenon are also reported in the literature. Thus Allport and Kramer (3), in their classic investigation of the ''roots of prejudice," observe that among their 5s (Harvard, Dartmouth, and Radcliffe undergraduates) Catholic and Jewish 5s who saw themselves as more victimized also tended to be more prejudiced toward other minority groups. These findings, interpreted within a frustration aggression framework, were subsequently replicated by Rosenblith (20) with South Dakota undergraduates. Gough (9) found that high antiSemite 5s are "less able to overlook and ignore minor irritations and frustrations." Mussen (18) reports that high prejudice children had stronger aggressive and dominant needs that did low prejudice 5s, and that they also showed an increase in prejudiced feelings toward Negroes, in contrast to lows who showed a decrease, following four weeks in an interracial summer camp. Finally, Bettleheim and Janowitz (4) have demonstrated significant contingencies between downward social mobility of veterans and intensity of antiSemitic and anti-Negro attitudes. With regard to the empirical data thus far reviewed, we may tentatively conclude that a scapegoat concept provides a basis for understanding some instances of prejudice, but is insufficient as a general explanatory principle. Two additional investigations (5, 15), each of which constitutes a direct test of the scapegoat proposition remain to be considered. Miller and Bugelski (16), working in the context of a CCC camp, were able to show a significant drop in positive attitudes and some trend toward increasing negative attitudes toward Mexicans and Japanese following a rather realistic experimental induction of frustration. On the basis of these findings the authors concluded that frustration increased aggression, which was in turn displaced in the form of deterioration of attitude to minority group members. Recently, however, on the basis of some experimental work by Congdon (5), as re-

FRUSTRATION AND THE EXPRESSION OF PREJUDICE item Anti-Negro (AN) scale, and eight items each from the Anti-Minority (AM)1 and Patriotism (P) scales of the larger Ethnocentrism (E) scale. Items were assigned so that the subtests would be equated with respect to item discrimination quotients as reported in The Aullioritarian Personality (I). The final forms (X and Q) each contained 29 items as follows: (a) F scale 15 items, (b) AN scale6 items, (c) AM scale4 items, (d) P scale4 items. TABLE 1 MEAN "PEE" AND "Posi" SCORES FOR ALL SDBSCALES Order
AN M F

35

Xpre 11.2 9.9

Q post
15.6 11.3

Qpre
10.4 11.3

X post
10.6 10.8

F 49.7 44.9 44.0 55.2 M Subjects and. Procedure F 42.6 40.9 46.3 47.4 Subjects (5s) were 32 male and 32 female intro10.3 AM M 8.6 9.4 9.4 ductory psychology volunteers, all of whom were 8.8 7.9 8.1 F 7.8 tested individually. The actual experiment consisted of three phases: the attitude pretest, frustration, and the P M 11.7 13.4 13.5 13.6 attitude posttest. In the pretest phase, 5s were given F 12.1 12.4 11.4 12.9 either Form X or Form Q of the attitude scale, with order of presentation counterbalanced for both sexes. Immediately following completion of this first attitude TABLE 2 scale, 5s were informed that we wished to collect some ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR ANTI-NEGRO SCALE additional and separate data bearing on the problemsolving habits of college students. It was in this conMean Sum of F p Source d/ text that frustration was introduced. Squares Square In order to induce frustration, all 5s were given two puzzles which, though appearing soluble, were func- Between 5s 63 1942.5 B 1 39.1 1.33 n.s. 39.1 tionally nonsoluble in the time allotted. The actual AX C 1 48. S 48.5 1.64 n.s. puzzles used were the nine-dot problem reported else1 86.4 86.4 2.93 n.s. AX B X C where by Cowen (6), and one of the Katona match 60 1768.5 29,5 Error (b) stick problems (12). Fictitious time norms were given, so as to increase the likelihood that frustration would Within 5s 345.5 64 occur. The actual time allotted by B fell far short of 1 73.3 73.3 25.28 ,001 A what would be needed by most people to solve the 58.0 58.0 20.00 .001 1 C 6 problems. The attitude of the E during administration 1 AX B 9.8 9.8 3.38 n.s. 1 30.2 30.2 10.41 .01 B X C of the frustrating puzzles might best be described as 174.2 2.9 Error (w) 60 aloof, nonsupporting, and disbelieving of 5s inability to achieve a correct solution." Upon the 5s failure to Total 127 2228.0 solve the second puzzle E stated simply, "I'm afraid our time is up for this problem too. We will have to Note.A = Test form; B = Sex; and C = Precomplete the second part of the attitude scale now." Post frustration. The 5 then completed the alternate form of the combined attitude scale. For each of the constituent subscales, a RESULTS three-way analysis of variance was carried Table 1 summarizes mean "pre" and "post" out, involving the main effects of test form frustration test scores for each of the attitude (A), sex (B), and pre-post frustration (C), test subscales. The data are presented sepa- Since both test form and pre-post frustration rately by sex and for the two orders of ad- (the effect in which our major interest centered) are "within subjects" effects, aLindquist ministration, Type IV design (14) was employed as the 4 Several items which were considered inappropriate basic model for the analysis. In general, the either because of temporal or geographic factors (e.g., "zoot-suiters" and "Filipinos") were either deleted or only subscale that presented consistently positive findings was the AN scale, slightly modified in wording. 5 Five 5s who got correct solutions to one of the puzzles, were dropped from the study and replaced by AN Scale new 5s. 6 It was the impression of the J3s that failure to solve Table 2 presents the results of a three-way the puzzle did constitute a frustrating experience for analysis of variance for the Anti-Negro scale. the great majority of 5s in terms of such behavioral The most salient findings in this table are the manifestations as increased fidgetiness or blushing, and verbal comments of discomfort, self-depreciation significant F ratios involving pre-post frustration (C). Although the main effect here is and/or hostility to the Es.

36

EMORY L. COWEN, JUDAH LANDES, AND DONALD E. SCHAET

greater increase in prejudice following frustration on the AN scale) than do females. This finding too is in line with empirical evidence (3, 20) and theoretical expectations (21) discussed elsewhere. There remains a sharp contrast between our basic findings in support of a scapegoat theory and those of Congdon (5) which fail to support this view. The latter has proposed that his failure to obtain significant postfrustration effects may reflect some combination of less severe and less arbitrary frustration, provision of opportunities for self-punitive behavior, and the higher intellectual level of his 5s. In the present study, frustration was neither Incidental Findings severe nor arbitrary or, at least insofar as can For the P scale, no significant main effects be judged, no more so than Congdon's. Opporor interactions are observed. The pattern of tunities for self-punitive behaviors should have findings for the AM and F scales is highly been roughly comparable, as was the intellecsimilar. In each case there are significant tual level of the 5s. These factors notwithdifferences in the two test forms, a finding standing, it was possible to demonstrate the entirely tangential to our present focus, and operation of the scapegoat effect in the present on both scales there is either a significant study. The source of the discrepant findings in these (AM) or near significant (F) main effect of sex. Male 5s tend to score consistently higher two ostensibly comparable studies cannot be (more negative attitudes) on both of these identified with any confidence, but several scales. This difference, however, is a general procedural variations may be noted that might one, which does not vary systematically for have obscured the scapegoat effect in the Congdon experiment. The attitude dimensions "pre" vs. "post" frustration. In order to test the generality of responses used for the ratings tended to have quite highly to the various subtests, a series of 12 Pearson crystallized social desirability values (e.g., product-moment correlations, in which AN kindcruel, strongweak, etc.). Both pre- and scores were related to each of the other three postscores may thus have been pushed toward scale scores (by sex, for both the "pre" and the socially desirable response, obscuring dif"post" tests), were computed. The corre- ferences. Then, too, the use of identical items lations ranged in magnitude from .27 to .58 in both pre- and posttest (in contrast to the and averaged .40. These correlations are alternate forms of the present study) may have substantially lower than the ones reported operated to help sophisticated 5s sense the purpose of the experiment. Finally, Congdon by the California group (1). used speed instructions, which may possibly have impaired the reliability of the attitude DISCUSSION scales. The most notable finding in the present Possibly the most interesting issue raised by experiment is the significant increase in antiour findings is the fact that significantly higher Negro feelings following experimental induction of frustration. Such a datum offers anti-Negro attitudes are present following additional support for the existence of the frustration, in the absence of a parallel increase scapegoat phenomenon and is quite consistent in F, AM, and P scale scores. In the basic with earlier findings of Miller and Bugelski development of these scales (1), substantially (15). Of incidental interest is the consistent high intercorrelations have been reported. trend observed on three of the subscales for Whether such correlations reflect a true clusmale 5s to show greater prejudice (as well as tering of these classes of attitudes, or a per-

highly significant, suggesting, in support of our hypothesis, the presence of stronger antiNegro feelings following frustration, this finding may be pinpointed somewhat more specifically by noting other significant main effects and interactions, together with the means presented in Table 1. Thus it appears that there may be differences in the two supposedly equated subtests, with higher AN scores being given on Form Q. Perhaps more germane is the significant B X C interaction, indicating that male 5s express significantly stronger anti-Negro attitudes after frustration than do female 5s.

FRUSTRATION AND THE EXPRESSION OF PREJUDICE vasiveness of response tendency behavior, the fact remains that there was reason to anticipate that they would have "behaved" similarly in our study. However, they did not. Our own pre- and postscale intercorrelations run substantially lower than those originally reported, suggesting that our 6s responded with a degree of independence to the subscales. The positive results on the AN scale can be seen most defensibly as an illustration of "targeting" a specific minority group (2, 10, 23). That the Negro is the targeted group in the present study may be a manifestation of a tendency noted earlier by Horowitz (11) for this group to constitute a preferred target in this geographic locale. In another vein, Bettleheim and Janowitz (3) observe that thresholds for anti-Negro prejudice may be lower than those for other minority groups to the point where negative attitudes may break through despite the presence of "relatively adequate controls." In agreement with such an interpretation is our observation that antiNegro feelings seem to constitute a preferred prejudice in informal conversations of undergraduates at this institution. In general overview, the present findings are viewed as confirming the hypothesis that frustration augments the expression of prejudice. The major limitation placed upon this conclusion is that the consequent increase in prejudice may be specific rather than generalized. Our findings in no way limit the role or importance of other types of antecedents of prejudice. Undoubtedly the relationships between many such antecedents and the same final product will have to be identified if we are ultimately to have an adequate, comprehensive theory of prejudice. For the present, however, the usefulness of a scapegoat theory, at least as one of a series of complementary explanatory principles, appears defensible.

37

thereafter, alternate forms of the attitude scale were administered. Significant increases were found in the expression of anti-Negro prejudice following frustration, this effect being more pronounced in male Ss. Since comparable postfrustration effects were not observed on other subscales, the results were interpreted as an instance of "targeting" of a minority group within the general framework of the scapegoat phenomenon.
REFERENCES 1. ADORNO, T. W., FRENKEL-BRONSWIK, ELSE, LEVINSON, D. J., & SANFORD, R. N. The authoritarian personality. New York: Harper, 1950. 2. ALLPORT, G. W. The nature of prejtfdice. Cambridge: Addison-Wesley, 1954. 3. ALLPORT, G. W., & KRAMER, B. M. Some roots of prejudice. J. Psychol, 1946, 22, 9-39. 4. BETTLEHEIM, B., & JANOWITZ, M. Dynamics of prejudice. New York: Harper, 1950. 5. CONGDON, C. S. Effects on attitudes resulting from experimental frustration. Unpublished master's thesis, Univer. of Illinois, 1954. 6. COWEN, E. L. The influence of varying degrees of psychological stress on problem-solving rigidity. J. dbnorm. soc. Psychol., 1952, 47, 512-519. 7. BOLLARD, J., DOOB, L. W., MILLER, N. E., MowRER, 0. H., & SEARS, R. R. Frustration and aggression. New Haven: Yale Univer. Press, 1939. 8. FREUD, S. The basic -writings of Sigmund Freud. New York: Random House, 1938. 9. GOUGH, H. G. Studies of social intolerance: I. Some psychological and sociological correlates of anti-Semitism. /. soc. Psychol., 1951, 33, 237-246. 10. HARDING, J., KDTNER, B., PROSHANSKV, H., & CHEIN, I. Prejudice and ethnic relations. In G. Lindzey (Ed.), Handbook of social psychology. Vol. II. Cambridge: Addison-Wesley, 1954. Pp. 1021-1061. 11. HOROWITZ, E. L. "Race" attitudes. In 0. Klineberg (Ed.), Characteristics of the American Negro. New York: Harper, 1944. Pp. 139-247. 12. KATONA, G. Organizing and memorizing. New York: Columbia Univer. Press, 1940. 13. KRECH, D., & CRUTCHEIEI.D, R. S. Theory and problems of social psychology. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1948. 14. LINDQTJIST, E. F. Design and analysis of experiments in psychology and education. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1953. 15. LINDZEY, G. An experimental examination of the scapegoat theory of prejudice. /. abnorm. soc. Psychol, 1950, 45, 296-309. 16. MILLER, N. E., & BUGELSKI, R. Minor studies in aggression: The influence of frustrations imposed by the in-group on attitudes expressed toward out-groups. J. Psychol., 1948, 25, 437442.

SUMMARY
The present study was designed to test the proposition that frustration may increase the expression of prejudice. Sixty-four 5s were given a series of attitude scales, following which all were exposed to a relatively mild, experimentally induced frustration. Immediately

38

EMORY L. COWEN, JDDAH LANDES, AND DONALD E. SCHAET

roots of prejudice." J. abnorm. soc. Psycliol., 1949, 44, 470-489. 21. SAPPENPIELD, B. R. Personality dynamics. New York: Knopf, 1954. 22. STAGNER, R., & CONGDON, C. S. Another failure to demonstrate displacement of aggression. /. abnorm. soc. Psycliol., 1955, 51, 695-696. 23. ZAWADSKI, B. Limitations of the scapegoat theory of prejudice. J. abnorm. soc. Psycliol., 1948, 43, 127-141. Received September 3, 1957.

17. MORSE, NANCY C., & ALLPORT, F. H. The causation of anti-Semitism: An investigation of seven hypotheses. /. Psycho!., 1952, 34, 197-233. 18. MUSSEN, P. N. Some personality and social factors related to changes in children's attitudes towards Negroes. J. abnorm. soc. Psycliol., 1950, 45, 423-441. 19. PASTORE, N. The role of arbitrariness in the frustration aggression hypothesis. /. abnorm. soc. Psycho!., 1952, 47, 728-732. 20. ROSENBLITH, JUDY F. A replication of "Some