A psychological effect known as “Social Proof” may possibly explain HOW a Penn State “Code of Silence” could have occurred.

In the wake of the tragic reality of events at Penn State, a very common question being asked – at the kitchen table, at the water cooler and in the media – is “How could they [Penn State] have kept this situation so quiet and so hidden for so long?” People – understandably – are stunned that these crimes could have been “kept quiet” or suppressed for possibly years, if not decades. 

How could this possibly happen? Is this really an example of a society devolving to the point where we, as individuals, have become so cold and detached that we would overlook a crime perpetrated on an innocent child for the sake of a revered football coach/team and a national college institution such as Penn State?  

Perhaps.

But is there more here? Is there perhaps a less-cynical, less-salacious, less-sinister explanation for the psychology behind this apparent “Code of Silence” behavior at Penn State?

Obviously, one can never know with certainty, but we can look to the psychological theory of Social Proof to give us a glimpse – a bit of a psychological explanation, if you will – as to how something horrible like this could have ever been kept quiet, for so long.  

Now let me be very clear, I am not trying to explain the exact reason why Penn State officials allegedly did not report these  crimes in a proper manner. I am not trying to justify nor rationalize away the alleged actions of Jerry Sandusky or the alleged inactions of Penn State officials. But if egregious criminal acts were perpetrated, Penn State could be guilty and held liable as a result of their inaction. I am not trying to excuse anything away. I am simply trying to suggest a possible psychological explanation as to how and why people would remain quiet – despite egregious crimes being committed.

I believe many factors were in play, which may have led to a possible “Code of Silence” at Penn State. I doubt one singular answer will ever suffice or entirely explain it all. No doubt the specter of a dominant national powerhouse – both athletically and financially – of a Penn State football program could give us a bit of a context as to the why silence would occur. Psychologically, I could understand how coming forward as a single, individual “whistleblower” against a huge, institutional powerhouse like Penn State would seem very intimidating. But this explanation on its own, is not complete enough. I believe this explanation answers the “Why” with regard to the inaction, not the “How”.

Perhaps the protection of Joe Paterno’s “demigod” status, the protection of a football legacy – not only for Penn State specifically, but for the NCAA, if not the entire country – can account for the silence? Again, this answers the question of “Why” in the inaction, but not necessarily the “How”.

Many factors led to the silence, no doubt. But at the end of the day, it may be that the real psychological/behavioral explanation of “How this silence could have happened?” may boil down to the concept of Social Proof.

What Is “Social Proof”?

The theory of Social Proof “is a psychological phenomenon where people assume the actions of others reflect correct behavior for a given situation. This effect is prominent in ambiguous social situations where people are unable to determine the appropriate mode of behavior, and is driven by the assumption that surrounding people possess more knowledge about the situation.” (Wikipedia)

In its essence, the theory of Social Proof is a form of herd behavior, or conformity, that comes into play psychologically during a time of stress and uncertainty. During these situations, we look around to see what others are people are doing in order to figure out what we should do. In fact, author Robert Cialdini did a masterful job of explaining Social Proof this in his bestselling book, Influence.

According to Social Proof Theory, during these times of stress and uncertainty; we assume/decide those around us actually know better than we do as to the correct course of action to take. But – here is the tricky part (and where it may be relevant to the subject of Penn State) – the individuals we look to for guidance/direction at that very moment are looking at us  for the exact same guidance because they have no idea what do to either!

One can now begin to see how very problematic this could become…

Let me give an example before I go to Penn State directly. Social Proof is in play when a victim is being shot or stabbed outside her apartment building – and no one calls the police – despite many individuals hearing the screams or cries for help. The thought is “someone else will take care of it”. But in Social Proof, EVERYONE is thinking the same thing – “someone else will take care of it” – and in the end, no one takes action. Social Proof can explain why we just pass by someone on the sidewalk even though they may be in the middle of the street, in distress or homeless. It isn’t because we are cold, uncaring people, it is because – in an instant – we look around to get proof from other people on HOW we should act, especially if that situation is ambiguous, tense or frightening.

I hope now you can begin to see how very bad decisions can potentially be made – not only by individuals, but also by entire institutions as well – via the theory of Social Proof.

Why do we act this way? No one knows for sure. Perhaps we have been hard-wired by hundreds of thousands of years of evolution to act this way. One could understand a possible survival benefit to this type behavior. Think about it…early man probably survived the dangers and threats to his survival more often if he instinctually acted as the group did during a situation that was uncertain or threatening. To do something against the group – and then be wrong – could threaten one’s survival (ie. the saber-tooth tiger has you for dinner).  Perhaps those who survived passed down this trait because they survived. Acting with the group instinctually ensured their survival more often. But I am digressing…

In the case of Penn State, a truly horrid crime may very well have been kept quiet for years, if not decades. It is possible (given Social Proof Theory) that everywhere up and down the Penn State chain of command, individuals had absolutely no idea what to do given the serious implications and uncertainty of this horrible reality. They were terrified to take action and looked to others for guidance on how to act.

Given Social Proof Theory, perhaps one could understand how well meaning people – logically knowing a crime was being committed – kept quiet. The more no one did anything (out of fear or uncertainty) the more the Social Proof came in to play and “doing nothing” became the behavioral norm. And people saw silence as the norm rather than action.

Keep in mind, I am not trying to justify or excuse away any action (or lack thereof) that would prevented innocents from being abuse. I am simply trying to put a context around how a “culture of silence” could have been fostered – and then festered – at Penn State.

The silence – similar to the apartment building example above – was not necessarily driven by a volitional, sinister attempt to “keep things quiet, the victims be damned!” That particular explanation may possibly answer the “Why” behind the (in)action of some individuals in the wake of this scandal.

But regarding the question of “How” this silence could have possibly occurred at Penn State, the answer may reside in a very basic, yet immensely powerful phenomenon of human behavior known as Social Proof.
 

July 12, 2011
Peter Zafirides, MD

Image Credit: Caitlin Regan