http://www.fondecrans.be/fond/halloween/halloween003.jpg
As it is said, there is strength in numbers. Those who find themselves in a group hold more power than if they were alone. Mischief designates itself to one night a year in the United States. That night, commonly, is adjacent with the candy grubbing, mystical holiday known as Halloween. Why is "mischief night" affiliated with Halloween? Why not Easter? Or Columbus Day? According to Ed Diener and his application of de-individuation, Halloween offers us the opportunity to shake free of our identity, an identity that keeps us responsible for our actions.
De-individuation means exactly what it sounds like: "de-individual." The reason late October may be a more susceptible time for mischief to ensue or for childish vandalism to occur is because of this loss of individualism. As Diener says, putting on a mask, fitting into a costume, or even pulling your hood up all contribute to your loss of identity, which in turn contributes to your uninhibited, or mischievous, behavior. A mere costume leads to an often unconscious "loss of self-observation and self evaluation, with a lowered concern for social evaluation." This idea makes one "indistinguishable" from the environment and therefore more inclined to act out of moral character.
Halloween also feeds de-individuation through its group dynamic: children and adolescents celebrate Halloween in groups. Those who are out and about on October 31st are most likely in a group, a group that shares the aim of de-individualizing. As Diener also points out, being in a group increases one's likeliness to engage in uninhibited behavior because of the anonymity one holds while in a group. This "mob mentality," where one unconsciously frees themselves from moral responsibility within a group, is supported further by Halloween. This allows even more "mischief."
Diener's 1970's experiment is the root of these claims. Twenty-seven houses were selected as deceptive laboratories on Halloween in order to observe children and their morality in relation to individuation and group settings. The researchers formed categories of "children subjects" depending on if children were in a group or alone and if they were asked their names at the door or kept anonymous. The adult that would answer the door would greet the trick-or-treaters and ask them to take only one piece of candy. The adult would then walk back into the house, leaving the children alone with this sugar-fueled moral dilemma. Should we obey and take only one piece? Or should I take a handful and run?
The results showed that the four different categories of children differed, depending on if their identity was revealed and if they were in a group. The category least likely to commit this Halloween sin was the children who arrived at the house by themselves and were then asked their name. This enhances the child's individualism to the adult, not only by giving his or her name, but by eliminating all other possible culprits he could theoretically hide behind. The category most likely, at about 60%, to cheat the Halloween system and take more candy against the adult's will was the children who were in a group and were not asked their name. More than half the time, with their identities protected through anonymity and group mentality, children acted uninhibited and broke the rules.
Individuality grants us responsibility, which is valuable in most instances, but not when you're up to no good. Group mischief provokes and protects, a harmful combination.
Individuality grants us responsibility, which is valuable in most instances, but not when you're up to no good. Group mischief provokes and protects, a harmful combination.
-Ryan Scanlon
Works Used:
Works Used:
No comments:
Post a Comment