Each new report of sexual harassment and assault that has come out in the wake of the Harvey Weinstein revelations—Kevin Spacey, James Toback, Brett Ratner–is followed by evidence that the predatory behavior was widely known, but that victims chose not to speak. Why? One reason is that sexual harassment and assault victims find themselves in a situation similar to that of the prisoner’s dilemma, a game-theory calculation. This is a travesty that we, as a society, must change.
The prisoner’s dilemma is routinely seen in cop television shows, politics, business, and our interpersonal relationships. In the game first created by Merrill Flood and Melvin Fresher in 1950, two gang members are arrested and placed in solitary confinement. Prosecutors lack the evidence to convict both on the main charge, but possess enough evidence to convict both on a lesser charge. Simultaneously, but without knowledge of their counterpart’s decision, the gang members are offered a deal to betray the other for a lesser sentence. If both remain silent, the prosecutor lacks the evidence for the larger penalty, so both receive one year in jail. If one betrays the other, the one who talks goes free and the other receives three years. If both betray the other, both serve two years. Game theory suggests that if the experiment is repeated, the most advantageous choice for the prisoner is to betray the other.
The parallels to the current, horrific allegations in Hollywood are significant. Many have questioned why victims and onlookers with knowledge of this reprehensible behavior by powerful men chose to remain silent. This is perfectly conceptualized by the prisoner’s dilemma, or as termed herein, the “victim’s dilemma.”
The victim’s dilemma relies on a framework of reported and non-reported behavior—and in this case, reporting can be in the form of police reporting or public statements, such as Rose McGowan’s tweets or public statements of others. As observed by the celebrities who have said they knew of the predatory behavior and said nothing, it can also be presumed that victims, in most instances, likewise either assumed or could imagine further victims with access to similar reporting abilities as their own.
The dilemma, then, is as follows: If in a finite situation with two victims of the same perpetrator in which neither victim reports, both risk continued harassment coupled with career ramifications as we have seen in the case of Weinstein. If one victim reports and one does not, the victim who has taken on a famous and powerful figure is apt to receive extreme negative publicity and/or ostracization. If two or more victims report, there is more credence given to the report by the public and thus less fallout on the reporting party. Yet, there are still negative consequences, so reporting isn’t a net gain. Furthermore, anecdotal evidence suggests victims’ careers also suffer, even when there are multiple victims reporting, because they can be perceived, unjustly, as a liability. (Never mind the fact that out of 1,000 instances of rape, only 13 will get referred to a prosecutor resulting in only seven felony convictions.)
Note this tracks parallel to the prisoner’s dilemma save for one inversion: When one victim reports and another victim does not, the reporting victim receives the potential larger negative consequence, unlike the prisoner’s dilemma where the prisoner who talks receives the benefit to the silent gang member’s detriment.
A quick aside: the economic and sociological benefits are not perfect numerical indicators and are not reflective of all victims’ experience. A victim who doesn’t report may carry a more significant personal toll from their victimization than society would benefit from outing a “known” predator. This isn’t meant to put individual benefit at a crossroads with the necessity of reporting to protect society.
Victims reporting a crime and harassment solo face a terrible proposition in taking on the perpetrator alone, one that improves only slightly if they have the benefit of others coming forward. Even staying silent, though, carries negative consequences: the perpetrator is still “at large” and the victim harbors the pain of harassment and the alleged assault, but doesn’t take on the detriment of reporting necessarily. Sexual assault and harassment victims face a situation far too similar to that of the prisoner’s dilemma. There must be significant gains to alter the calculus of the situation.
