When graduate assistant Mike McQueary spoke about it to Penn State football coach Joe Paterno, and then also to Curley and Schultz, there was no connection was done (Chappell). This is the beginning of when cognitive dissonance occurs. This case, much like the Milgram experiment, involved step-by-step exposure. Throughout the scandal, from 1977 to 2012, small reports were published here and there. This was the first time that the case was not questioned further, that it was not investigated further, that it was not brought to trial: this is where the cognitive dissonance occurs. Here, those involved had an attitude of looking out for the children and their well-being, but their behavior of not questioning or reporting anything went against their attitude. This has caused dissonance that can be reversed by changing one's attitude. Maybe it meant, oh, it was just a “ruckus” or “it’s not that bad.” This statement starts the cycle of constantly not speaking out because that would then have meant they were a “bad guy” since they chose not to report it the first time. Much like the participants in the Milgram experiment, it is easier to follow the routine and stay on the path than to face the reality of the situation and why they did nothing in the first place.