User:Ameliegagnon/sandbox

Draft Wiki Assignment:

History
The frustration-aggression hypothesis emerged in 1939 through the form of a monograph published by the Yale University Institute of Human Relations. The Yale psychologists behind the monograph were John Dollard, Leonard Doob, Neal Miller, O. H Mowrer, and Robert Sears. The book is based on many studies conducted by the group that touched a variety of disciplines including psychology, anthropology and sociology. Marxism, psychoanalysis and behaviorism were used by the Yale group throughout their research. Their work, Frustration and Aggression (1939), was soon having repercussions on the explanation of aggressive behavior theories. Their theory applied to human beings, but also to animals. The book created controversy on the subject which led to more than 7 articles critiquing the new theory. The Psychological Review and the Reading in Social Psychology  are two of the papers that published articles on the subject. Many social scientists disclaimed the rather strict definition of frustration reactions as well as how the frustration concept is defined in itself. By 1941, the Yale group modified their theory following the multiple critics and studies published by other psychologists. From there, many pioneers in the social science world modified and brought their knowledge to the original theory.

Sources for the Article review:

www.rug.nl/research/portal/files/2908668/A-FAT.pdf

https://connect.issaquah.wednet.edu/cfs.../frustration-aggression-theory.pdf

psychclassics.yorku.ca/FrustAgg/miller.htm

citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.321.3829&rep=rep1...pdf

Article Evaluation:

Frustration-Aggression Theory
 * The text is well written, but very unorganized. The titles are not expressing what is written under them and many aspects pointed are not relevant to the title. I believe the authors could have created two more titles based on what they wrote: Critics and Definition
 * The article only mentions critics that argues against the theory, the authors had a positions when writing the article.
 * There are a few citations that I think are well put, but it is definitely lacking in variety of information
 * When evaluating the theory, the authors mentioned only one study which I believe is not a good base for evaluation.
 * Most sources are taken from the mid 1900, which is not bad because the theory was created a long time ago, but I believe the article would be more relevant with more recent sources.