Reviewer #2 Comments
I regret to inform the authors that I read this manuscript three times, each time hoping I had perhaps misunderstood the theoretical framework, the study design, or the basic logic of the paper. Unfortunately, I can now confidently conclude that I did not misunderstand it—the manuscript simply does not contain a coherent argument. While I applaud the authors’ effort to examine the “role of spooky costumes in fostering team cohesion” (p. 2), the execution is more bewildering than illuminating.
Theoretical Contribution
The authors claim that allowing employees to wear Halloween costumes fosters psychological safety, reduces hierarchy, and thereby increases collaboration. This is arguably an interesting starting point—but somewhere between the introduction and the conclusion, the theory is replaced with what appears to be extended personal anecdotes. The key conceptual claim (“dressing as a group-themed ensemble creates a flattening of power differentials”—p. 5) is stated confidently but supported only by speculation and one citation to BuzzFeed (2017), which, while culturally resonant, is not a peer-reviewed source in this journal or any journal that takes itself seriously. Additionally, the authors repeatedly assert that “costume-based identity fluidity” is a “core tenet of team-based synergy.” I am not aware of any literature that uses these terms, nor any theoretical reason to believe they should be linked. If the authors intend to propose a new construct, they must define it more clearly. At present, “identity fluidity” seems to mean “wearing a hat.”
Analysis
The methods section raises substantial concerns. The authors describe their sample as “employees in a Midwestern insurance firm,” but then describe collecting data at the annual town square Halloween pumpkin festival. It is unclear whether these individuals were employees at all, or merely festival attendees who wandered within clipboard range. If the latter, the present study measures funnel cake enthusiasm, not organizational behavior. The quantitative analysis compares collaboration scores between teams wearing coordinated group costumes (e.g., The Scooby-Doo Gang) and individuals wearing independent costumes (e.g., Sexy Vampire Accountant). The authors report statistically significant differences at p < .15, which they describe as “marginally ultrahighly significant.” I must emphasize that p < .15 is not significant in any known empirical discipline. It is, in lay terms, just a number.
Moreover, observational coding was performed by “two undergraduate research assistants dressed as zombies.” While commendably on-theme, interrater reliability cannot be established if the raters were unable to see through prosthetic eyelids.
The manuscript transitions from descriptive statistics to narrative impressions such as: “One could feel the collaborative synergy radiating from the group dressed as the Avengers.” This is not a result. This is a vibe.
The authors further claim that group-costumed participants “spoke in more harmonious vocal tones,” yet no vocal tone analysis was conducted. Saying “we just noticed it, you know, in the moment” does not constitute empirical evidence. This section reads less like a results discussion and more like the authors are reminiscing about a block-party.
Practical Implications
The authors conclude that organizations should mandate Halloween participation, claiming: “Mandatory fun leads to mandatory unity.” This is a bold declaration, and notably one that ignores the entire literature on autonomy, identity threat, and why people unionize. One could just as plausibly argue that forcing employees to dress as Teletubbies may expedite mass workplace revolt.
The writing style is energetic but alarmingly whimsical. Phrases such as “the conference room vibrated with ecstatic echoes of shared whimsy” would be more appropriate in a community theater playbill. Figures 2 and 3 are non-anonymized photographs of costumed strangers, decorated with clip-art pumpkins. I cannot stress enough how unpublishable this is.
Recommendation
I cannot recommend publication. The idea has seasonal charm, but:
- The theory is not grounded
- The sample may not exist
- The statistics are… creative
- The conclusions are not supported
- Not everyone wants to dress as a Minion
Recommendation: Reject