c.o 

0 

~~ . 

!lfJ 

~ 

0 

d! 

Q ' ~ 

rt: 

I Q 

I c..:» 

\ 

I LLJ . __. 

·-

' . . 

- ·- -----

_JALE AND _FEMALE SOLDIERS' BELIEFS 

= ABOUT T~~ APPRDPRIATENESs·.-YoF 1 

1 ARIOUS JOBS-FOR JlOMEN IN THE .::: ~~ j ·-'I " - .. ....-. - o Joel ,$ave~ aRd John c .J.Noelfel 

Army Researc itute- fer the Behavtmat- ial Sciences 

- --

/ 

f I/ 7 0/ 

\....:;' / ...- I / ~ // 

I ( # -

LEADERSHIP AND MANAGEMENT TECHNICAL AREA 

/t / - 0 F j/1 I -;, -:~ ;-d .;_L ¢ 61-/ I '/I ; 

.. 

(~l[Li) 

U. S. Army 

Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences 

August 1979 

Approved for publtc releese; d rllribution unlim i ted. 

Lj / ~ I I 'I~ 
. . 

U. S. ARMY RESEARCH INSTITUTE 

FOR THE BEHAVIORAl AND SOCIAl SCIENCES 

A Field Operating Agency under the Jurisdiction of the 

Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel 

JOSEPH ZEIDNEA 

Technical Director 

NOTI CE S 

WilliAM L. HAliSEI\ 

Colonel . U S Army 

Commander 

ST~ IB UTION Promary d on robu toon o l t h os re pOrt h n been madt b y ARI PI••• edoren orrt~IOO" '' 

r. on~ "' "9 donr•butoon o l reports 10 u s. Army R-erch l nU olult lor lhl Bl hlvoor el Ina Soc·· · Srof'•orro 

:. T ' 'II PF. AI P, !laO I Eo\enhv -• Aven ue . Ale•enc1roe , Vorgonoa 22333 

f !I'I!Ab D!$PDS!T!ON Thol rePOrt mey bl denroyld wnen •I os no longer needed PlUM on ntll oetu• oo •t tu 

lhl U S. Army R-erch lnuotutt for l hl 81hevoor11 1nd Socoe l ScolnCIII. 

!1Qli Th l lond •"QI on lhol rii)Orl ... not 10 bl co n n ruld .. 10 off ocol l DIPertml n l of lhl Army !:OS• loon, 

.,noeu so d ll'llnllld by o ther authororeo o ocurnenu 
Unclassified SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE (5Th.,. D.f. Fn;.rod)

REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE BEF E FORM

F. REPORT NUMBER 2. GOVT ACCESSION NO. 3 R EC IPIEN TS CATALOG NUMBER

Technical Paper 352 ____________________________

5. TITLE (~~,d SubHlI.) S. TYPE OF REPORT & PERIOO COVEREO

MALE AND FEMALE SOLDIERS ’ BELIT .FS ABOUT THE -- “APPROPRIATENESS” OF VARIOUS JOBS FOR WOMEN

IN THE ARM Y S PERFORMING ORG. REPORT NUMBER

7. AUTHOR(.) S- CONTRACT OR GRANT NUMB(R(.)

Joel ti. Savell , John C. Woelfel,

Barry E. Collins , and Peter M. Bentler -—

I. PIRFORMINO OROANIZATION NAM E AND ADDRESS 10 . PROGRAM ELEMENT, PROJ ECT . TASK

AR EA & WORK UNIT NUMBERS

U.S. Army Research Insti~ tite for the Behavioral

and Social Sciences ~~PERI_IM)

5001 Eisenhower Avenue , Alexandria , VA 22333 2Q762717A767

II. CONTROLLING OFFICE NAME AND ADDRESS 12. REPORT OA TE

Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel August 1979

Washington , DC 20310 13. NUMBER OF PAGES

18

5 4. MONITORING AGENCY NAME C AOORESS(I( dIff.rmi t from ControWng OtfIc.) IS. SECURITY CLASS. (of tRio rop ott)

Unclassified

IS.. OECLASSIFICATION700WNGRAO ING SCHEDULE 

—

IS. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT (of thiS Rsport)

Approved for public release ; distribution unlimited .

17. DISTRISUTI ON STATEMENT (of P. .b.tr.cl .nt.r.d I.. Block 20, I dIf f . r . n i from R.porf)

IS. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

A paper discussing the results of this research was presented at the 39th

Annual Meeting of the Southern Sociological Society , April 1976.

I~ . KEY WOROS (Comiinu. 0., rev~~.. .14. Sf n.c..I

~~ y mId Id.ntIfy b block numb.,)

Women in the Army

Attitudes

ZO ASS~~~~~T rCt ~~’s A,SV~~ dde N nee...s,y —d ldsnSSf7 by block numb~~)

“M’his research (1) documented the expanding role of women in the U.S.

Army and (2) collected evidence regarding one aspect of the reaction which

soldiers in 1974 may be viewed as having had to this expansion--speciFically ,

the extent to which soldiers at that time believed certain jobs were “appropriate” for women and the extent to which these beliefs were related to

such things as military rank , sex , length of service , and expectation of

leaving the Army before retirement. (Continued)

DO I

’ ”.

~

,, W3 EBST O* OF I WOV 55 55 OBSoLETE ‘ Jq~

j

~

0.. ,.1 Unclassified

SECURITY CLASSIFICATtOVC OP THIS PAGE (RIi.u. Os,. Enis,.d)

- .- —‘1.-fl’ - . ~~~ - - -

na-- .. — . -- - ~~~~~~~~~~~ . -~~~ -- - -———-— _- . .

~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~Stha . — -.
-

~~~~

Unc lass it ied

SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE(UW D~~. L.s.s,d)

Ite~~~~O (Continued)

To obtain data on the expanding role of Women in the Army , we examined

the appropriate Army records. To obtain data on soldiers’ beliefs about

job approprtat eness , we exainin ei responses to 24 items f rom a larger set of

items included in a questionnaire we administered in 1974 to approx imately

800 male and female soldiers (both officers and enlisted) at three CONUS

installations . The results of this investigation are summarized below .

When soldiers were asked in 1974 which jobs (out of 24 that were presented) they t hought were and were not appropriate for women , the majority

of soldiers of both sexes said that——with one exception (‘ritle—c arryinq

i t i t a ntry foo t soldier ” )——t . hey thought all the jobs presented were appropriate. The~~ udqmen t were strongly related to respondents ’ educational

level .iini sex , with soldiers who had had more years of formal education

move o tt en judging the jobs appropriate than soldiers with fewer yearr of

tet nu l educat ton and with women more often j udging the job s appropriate

tikt n melt . rher e was no evidence that these jud gments were related to

r e spcmdt ’ti t ‘ mi lit at v rank (when t’ducat ional leve l was controlled) , length

ot t ime in the Army , or intention of making the Army a career.

‘Tic uc .- -.

.Tu~

.t.

~

-l iC.~~

:,

~ _.___—-

———-

~~~~~ . ‘‘

~

r ‘ 

~~~ ~ ‘l - - - - 

~ ~~~ .1/or

rI

~~ U n classified

SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF T5415 PAGt (WP.n ttat. R,,,.rod)

- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~
- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Technical Paper 352

MALE AND FEMALE SOLDIERS’ BELIEFS

ABOUT THE “APP ROPRIATENESS” OF

VARIOUS JOBS FOR WOMEN IN THE ARMY

Joel M. Savell and John C. Woelfel

Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences

and

Barry E. Collins and Peter M. Bentler

University of California, Los Angeles

-

~

Submitted by: ( T. 0. Jacobs, Chief

LEADERSHIP AND MANAGEMENT TECHNICAL AREA

Approved by:

E. Ralph Dusek

PERSONNEL AND TRAINING

RESEARCH LABORATORY I - .

U.S. ARMY RESEARCH INSTITUTE FOR THE BEHAVIORAL AND SOCIAL SCIENCES

5001 Eisenhower Avenue, Alexandria , Virginia 22333

Office, Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel

Department of the Army

- August 1979

Army Prolect Number Women in the Army

20762717A767

L 

- 

Approved bc public release ; distr ibut iOn unlimited.

- -
ARI Research Reports and Technical Papers are intended for sponsors of

R&D tasks and other research and military agencies. Any findings ready for

implementation at the time of publication are presented in the latter part of

the Brief. Upon completion of a major phase of the task, formal recommendations for official action normally are conveyed to appropriate military

agencies by briefing or Disposition Form.

-I

I

’ 

iv
FOREWORD

The Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences -:

(ARI) has responded over the past years with a number of efforts to

meet concerns expressed in the Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for

Personnel regard ing the consequences of increasing the proportion of

women in the Army and of extending the range of jobs that these women

would perform. One of the earlier efforts , the research reported here ,

was begun in 1972 under Army Project 2Q062106A740 and completed under

Project 2Q762717A767.

Some of the data presented here were collected by Con temporary

Research , Incorporated , under Contract DA }1Cl9-73-C-00t~4 and discussed

in ARI Research Memorandum 75— 3. A paper discussing the results of this

research was also presented at the 39th Annual Meeting of the Southern

Sociological Society, April 1976.

chriica irector

V
____ — ~~—

MA LE AND FEMALE SOLDIERS ’ BELIEFS ABOUT THE “APPROPRIATENESS”

OF VARIOUS JOBS FOR WOME N IN THE ARMY

BRIEF

Requirement:

In view of the expansion of women ’s role in the U. S. Army, to

learn , in 1974 , the extent to which soldiers believed certain jobs were

“appropriate” for women and the extent to which these soldiers ’ beliefs

were related to such factors as their sex , military rank, length of

service , and career plans.

Procedure:

Army records provided documentation on the changing role of women

in the Army . Data on soldiers ’ beliefs about job appropriateness were

obtained from answers to 24 items that were part of a larger questionnaire administered in 1974 to approximately 800 male and female soldiers

(both officer and enlisted) at three Army installations in the United

States.

Findings :

In 1945 women made up about 2.6% of the Army , for the next 25 years

about 1-2% , and by 1976 about 6%. F’rom December 1973 to December 1975

the number of e~ i~~.ted women (EW) increased 131%, while the number of

EW in traaiti. nally female jobs increased 100% and in nontraditional

j c~~s 2 ,000%.

Out of 24 traditional and nontraditional jobs under consideration ,

only one , “rifle—carrying foot soldier ,” was considered by a major ity

of the soldiers to be inappropriate for women . Respondents ’ judgments

were strongly related only to their sex and amount of education : women

and those with more education more often judged nontraditional jobs to

be appropriate for women.

Utilization of Findings :

This.early attitude research indicates a basic degree of support by

Army personnel for the current Army policy of equal opportunity for women

in all military occupational specialties except those in the combat arms.
~ ---- -— - -- —--- -

MALE AND FEMALE SOLDIERS ’ BELIEFS ABOUT THE “APPROPRIATENESS”

OF VARIOUS JOBS FOR WOMEN IN THE ARMY

CONTENTS

Page

INTRODUCTION 1

INVESTIGATION OF SOLDIERS ’ BELIEFS ABOUT JOB APPROPRI ATENESS . . . 4

Source of the Data Reported Here 4

Description of the Sample 4

Results 5

Final Note Concerning the Validity of the Data 12

REFERENCES 15

DISTRIBUTION 17

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Percentage and number of - enlisted women in traditional

and nontraditional MOS categories by year 3

2. Percentage of respondents perceiving jobs as

appropriate for women , overall , by rank , and by sex . . 6

3. Difference in the percentage of officers and enlisted

personnel who judged specified jobs to be appropriate

for woinen 7

4. Differences in the percentages of officer and enlisted

personnel who judged jobs appropriate for women , shown

separately for the total sample , for high school

graduates, and for those with 1 to 3 years of college . 8

5. Difference in the percentage of men and women who

judged jobs to be appropriate for women , shown for

those jobs (N = 9) for which the difference was

significant 9

6. Differences in the percentages of men and women who

judged the jobs appropriate for women , shown separately

for the total sample , for high school graduates, and

for those with 1 or more years of college 11

H 

ix

L

E•u.

~~~~~~~~~T
MALE AND FEMALE SOLDIERS ’ BELIEFS ABOUT THE “APPROPR IATENESS”

OF VARIOUS JOBS FOR WOMEN IN THE ARMY

The pLrpose of this paper is to document the often discussed

(Coates , 1965; Goldman , 1973) and recently initiated expansion of

women ’s role in the U.S. Army and to present evidence regarding one

aspect of soldiers’ probable reaction to this expansion—-the

extent to which soldiers believe certain military jobs are “appropriate” for women and , in particular , the extent to which these beliefs

are related to respondent sex , rank , and expectation of leaving the

Army before retirement.

INTRODUCT ION

At the end of World War II there were about 156 ,000 women soldiers

on active duty (about 2.6% of the total number of soldiers) J After

the war there was rapid demobilization , and by the middle of 1948 the

number of women was down to approximately 8,000—-about 1.4% of the

total. There was a temporary increase to just over 18,000 (1.1%) at

the time of the Korean War , but by June 1958 the figure was back down

to fewer than 12,000 (1.3%). And while there was an increase during

the l960s, as late as June 1972 the figure was still below 17 ,000

(2.1%). In l~

)72, however , there began a series of actions, the final

results of which cannot yet be seen clearly but which in only a few

years has raised the proportion of women in the Army to the point

where it is now greater than it has been at any other time in this

country ’s history .

One of the first of these actions was the formulation by the Defense Department of what was called a “contingency plan ”—-a plan for

bringing more women into the Army and for employing them more widely in

the event the all-volunteer/no—draft environment failed to produce

enough qualified men . In a memorandum dated April 6, 1972 , Assistant

Secretary of Defense William Brehm requested the military departments

to “eliminate all unnecessary distinction in regulations applying to

women . . . . As a guiding principle , women must be given equal opportunity and treatment .” In the Army , two immediate actions in response

to this request were to set a goal of having 50,000 women in the active

Army by June 1979 and to open to women a large number of jobs that

1

Manpower statistics in this paragraph were taken from Selected Manpower

Statistics, Department of Defense , OASD (Comptroller) , Directorate for

Information Operations, May 1976. Numbers and percentages of women in

various job categories were calculated from figures provided in Strength

of the Army, DCSPER-46 (December 1973, December 1974, and December 1975).

For a discussion of the Army’s use of women soldiers during World War II,

see Treadwell (1954).

1 

--- - - --~ —~~ 

:

~~.
previously had been closed to them . The effect of these various actions

on the recruitment of women was dramatic. By December 1973 the number

of women in the Army had risen to 25 ,000 (3.2%) ; by December 1974 the

number had risen to 38,000 (5%); and at the t ime of this writing (April

1976) there were approximately 46,000 women in the Army—-approximately

o% of the total.

No t only are there more women jo ining the Arm y than there have been

since World War I I (making a higher percentage of the total number of

sold i ers) , bu t there are also more women work ing in jobs tha t prev iously

were largely or exclusively the domain of men . To illustrate , Table 1

shows the number and percentage of enlisted women who , in December 1973, — December 1974, and December 1975 were working in what we have called

“traditionally female ” and “not traditionally female” mili tary occupational specialties (MOS ) . 

-

The data in Table 1 show that during this 24-month period , when

the total number of enlisted women increased by 131% (from 13 , 397 to

30,965), the number of women who were in traditional jobs increased by

only 100%, while the number of women who were in nontraditional jobs

increased by nearly 2 ,000% (from 176 to 3,688). This means that the

distribution of enlisted women shifted during this period in the direc—

tion of greater relative representation in the nontraditional job areas.

Table 1 shows that the percentage of the female enlisted populati on who were in traditional jobs declined by 14% between 1973 and 1975 ,

while the percentage of this population who were in nontraditional jobs

during this period rose 11%. A particularly striking example of this

latter shift is the increase in the percentage of enlisted women who

were in maintenance and law enforcement job categories-—increases of

1,300% and 700%, respective ly. The number of women in these job categories is still very small , both in absolute terms (1,294 in maintenance

and 1 ,263 in law enforcement) and as a percentage of the total number of

soldiers holding these jobs (5.8% and 1.3% , respectively).

The difference between these figures and the correspondi ng fi gures

for the 2 previous years , however , suggests that in the years ahead

the re are likely to be more and more women turn ing to jobs w e have

classified as “not traditionally female.” Given this recent and proje cted inc rease in both the n umber and the per cen tage of women in Army

The following procedure was used in clas si f yinq MOS as traditional and

nontraditional: First , we grouped the MOS into MOS categories or “career

management fields ’ as described in the relevant A rmy document (DCSPER—

~

;

sA: 1975) . Second , we made an arbitrary decision to consider as “ tra—

ditionally female ” any category that included at lea:1t 3% of the women

in the Army on the date (31 December 1973) we were using as a baseline .

Third , we made an arbitrary decision to consider as “not traditionally

female” any category which (a) included at least one MOS open to women

on our baseline date but which (b) included less than 1% of the total

number of women in the Army .

-- —- --~~—-~ —~ --- - -~ --—~~~~~~ -- --~~~~- ~~~ -- - —~~~~~~--- ---~~~ - - ~~~-—- ~~~ ;~~~~L~-
I 

I 

Table 1 

Percentage and Number of Enl isted Women in Traditional and 

Nontraditional MOS Categories by Year 

Year 

MOS category 197 3 1974 

Traditional 

Administration 36.0 (4 ,830) 33 . 6 (7 , 6 50) 30. 1 

Medical 32 . 7 (4, 377) 26 . 5 (6 , 035) 21. 8 

Telecommunications and 

audiov isual 12.0 (1 , 603 ) 11. 9 ( 2 ,70 3) 12 . 2 

Supply 4 . 6 ( 6 16) 5 . 9 ( 1, 335) 9 . 0 

Automatic data 

processing 3.0 (40 1) 2 . 9 ( 671) 1. 2 

Total 88.3 (11 , 827) 80 . 0 (18 ,394) 74.3 

Nontraditional 

Ammunition • (0 ) .1 (2 7) .6 

Ba llistic missil e repair • (0) • (4) • 

Chemical • (0 ) . 1 (20) • 2 

Combat s urveillance and 

target acquisition • (0 ) • (8 ) . 1 

Field s e rvices • (0) . 2 (40 ) . 2 

Power production • (1) . 3 (6 3) . 7 

Wire antenna and 

central office • (1) .1 (29) .4 

General engineering • ( 3) . 2 (56) . 6 

Topographic e ngineering 

and map production . 2 (28) .5 (12 3) . 6 

Air defense artillery • 3 (3 7) . 5 (118) .4 

!-lain tenancea . 3 (40) 1.4 ( 316 ) 4. 2 

Law enfo r cement . 5 _j_§2l 3 . 7 (848 ) 4 . ! 

Total 1.3 (1 77 ) 7 . 3 (1, 652 ) 12 .1 

1975 

(9 , 327} 

(6 , 739) 

(3 , 785 ) 

,790~ 

(382 ) 

( 23 , 023) 

(181) 

(11 ) 

( "/9 ) 

( 2 3) 

( 73 ) 

( 2 19) 

(1 24) 

( 200) 

(18B) 

(112) 

(1, 294) 

(1 , 263) 

( 3 , 767 ) 

Note. The percentage for the MOS categories i s based on the total nlmilier of 

enlisted women in the Army not in Bas i c Training a s of 31 December for that 

particular year and who were listed as having a primary MOS . The actual number of women on which these percentages are derived is 1 3 , 397 (1973), 22 , 749 

(1974) , and 30 , 965 (1 975) . The figures in parentheses are the a ctual number 

of women in that c lassific ation . 

aMaintenancF. include~ all the MOS within each of the following c lassifications: air-defense missil e mainte nance , aviation mdinte nance , combat missile maintenance , elec trical / electroni c equipment maintenance, field and 

area communication maintenance, fixed pl ant communication maintenance , intercept equipment maintenance , mE'chanic al maintena nce, and nonintegrated radar 

maintenance. 

*Less t han .1 t. . 

3 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~

—-~~~~ -— -- - -

~~~~~----

jobs (particularly in nontraditional jobs), it is worth asking how Army

personnel are likely to react to this development.

INVESTIGATION OF SOLDIERS’ BEL IEFS ABOUT JOB APPR OPRIATENE SS

Source of the Data Reported Here

In January 1974 we administered a 174-item questionnaire to a combined sample of some 800 soldiers at three U.S. Army installations (Fort

Dix , N.J.; Fort Lewis , Wash .; and Fort Meade , Md .). From this group ,

721 usable questionnaires (approximately the same number from each of

the three posts) were obtained . The purpose of this effort was to test

the then—current version of an instrument3 we were constructing to

measure sex-role attitudes in the Army. Examination of the results ,

however , suggested tha t some of the data might also be informative about

substantive matters (e.g., whether in 1974 soldiers thought certain jobs

were appropriate for women) and provide a basis for predicting immediate

reactions to the Army ’s increasing utilization of women in traditionally

male roles. With this possibility in mind , we reanalyzed some of the

data.

Description of the Sample

The sample included 540 men (75%) and 181 women (25% ) , of which

401 were officers (56%) and 320 were enlisted (44%) . The sample design

was constructed to include both white and nonwhite respondents and to

include installations tha t varied in type and tha t were geographically

dispersed . At each installation , our instructions were that respondents

were to be random samples from the specified populations , selected on

the basis of the final digits of their social security numbers. We were

unable to determine the extent to which the local action officers departed from these instructions, but our conversations with these off icers indicated that such departures , if any , were minor . As a final

bit of information about the characteristics of the sample , we note

that approximately 52% (47% of the men and 66% of the women)4 either

agreed or strongly agreed with the statement “I think I will leave the

Army before I retire .” Forty-six percent (51% of the men and 44% of

the women ) either disagreed or strongly disagreed . There is thus the

suggestion that a substantial fraction of our sample was considering

making the Army a career .

3

This version of the instrument was developed by Harry Collins and

Peter Bentler.

4

This 47% “getting out” figure for men is similar to the figures obtained in other ARI studies conducted about the same time . We have no

comparable figures for women .

4 

------ - - --— - - -~——~~--———-—
Results

Among the items included in the questionnaire was a set that asked

about job appropriateness. The respondent was presented with a list of

24 jobs and was asked to indicate , for each job, whether he/she did or

did not think it was appropriate for women. Table 2 shows the jobs

ranked according to the frequency with which respondents judged them

appropriate for women . The table shows the overall frequencies of endorsement and also the separate frequencies of endorsement by rank and

sex. The overall pattern is consistent with what one would expect :

higher frequencies of endorsement for traditional or conventional jobs

(e.g., cook , human relations officer , radar technician) and lower frequencies of endorsement for nontraditional or unconventional jobs (e.g.,

welder , diesel mechanic , rifle—carrying infantry foot soldier) . Perhaps the most striking thing about the table as a whole is the fact

that of all the jobs listed , only one (rifle-carrying infantry foot

soldier) was consistently judged by the majority of respondents to be

inappropriate for women .~ All the other jobs, including one that requires exercising command authority over men (company commander in a

mixed—sex company) and several that potentially involve physical danger

or violence (e.g., MP-guard duty , helicopter pilot , bomb disposal

specialist) were judged appropriate for women by the majority of respondents of both sexes.

Officer-Enlisted Comparisons. For each of the 24 jobs , a comparison was made between the percentage of officers and the percentage of

enlisted who judged the job appropriate- for women . In every case but

one (“company commander in a mixed-sex company ”), it was the officers

who more often considered the job appropriate ; with few exceptions ,

none of them statistically significant , the pattern held up even when

the comparisons were controlled for sex of the respondents. This finding is consistent with the results reported in two recent studies of

the military (Fuller , 1973) •6 There were 18 jobs (out of 24) on which

the officers and enlisted differed significantly (all ~ s’ .05) ,

~ with

the officers more often judging the jobs appropriate than the enlisted

(see Table 3). An explanation that immediately suggests itself for

these officer-enlisted differences is the average difference in educational level between the two groups: The majority of officers have

attended or graduated from college , while the majority of enlisted

have not.

5

unfortunately , we have no data on how many soldiers think this job

is inappropriate for men .

6

Also , an unpublished study by the U.S. Army Military Personnel Center ,

Washington , D.C.

7

statistical comparisons reported in this paper are based on twotailed difference-of-proportions tests.5
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ -- - - ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 

Table 2

Percentage of Respondents Perceiving Jobs as Appropriate

for Women , Overall, by Rank , and by Sex

Overall Officers Enlisted Men Women

Job (N = 721) (N 401) (N 320) (N = 540) (N = 181)

Cook 98 99 98 99 97

Social worker 98 99 96** 98 99

Human relations

officer 97 99 96** 97 99

Lawyer 96 97 93** 95 98

Band leader 96 97 95 96 96

Statistician 95 97 93** 96 92**

General’s aide 91 92 91 91 92

Radar technician 90 95 85*** 91 87

Bartender 86 88 83* 88 79**

Butcher 83 86 80* 86 76***

Truck driver 82 85 79* 81 84

Navigator 82 86 78** 81 86

Janitor 81 87 73*** 82 77

Parachute rigger 80 85 73*** 81 78

Plumber 77 83 68*** 75 81

Welder 76 82 68*** 76 74

Ammunition supply

person 75 80 70*** 76 74

Company commander

in a mixed—sex

company 74 74 76 71 83***

Diesel mechanic 69 76 59*** 67 74

MP-guard duty 69 71 68 68 78**

Helicopter pilot 66 69 62** 62 78***

Jet pilot 60 63 55** 55 76***

Bomb disposal

specialist 55 61 48*** 5]. 67***

Rifle-carrying

infantry foot

soldier 28 30 27 24 42***

‘

~ .05 , two-tailed difference-of—proportions test.

c .01, two-tailed difference-of—proportions test.

— .001 , two—tailed difference—of—proportions test.

6

- -

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ - ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
- -

~~~~-----~~~~--- -~~~

--- ---- -- - -- ~

-

~

-—- --

~~--~~~ 

--

~~

--—-—-- ---,-- -- - --—

~~

- -----— --—-

~~

-- - -----

Table 3

Difference in the Percentage of Officers and Enlisted Personnel

Who Judged Specified Jobs To Be Appropriate for Women

Percentage b Job differencea p

Social worker +4 .01

Human relations officer +3 .01

Lawyer +4 .01

Statistician +4 .01

Radar technician +10 .001

Bartender +6 .05

Butcher +6 .05

Truck driver +6 .05

Navigator +8 .01

Janitor +14 .001

Parachute rigger +12 .001 —

Plumber +14 .001

Welder +13 .001

Ammunition supply person +11 .01

Diesel mechanic +17 .001

Helicopter pilot +7 .01

Jet pilot +8 .01

Bomb disposal specialist +14 .001

a

percentages shown are for those jobs (N = 18) for which the difference was statistically significant (p —

~ .05). Plus sign (+) indicates

that more oft icers than enlisted viewed the job as appropriate for

women.

is determined by two-tailed difference-of-proportions test .

Most studies——certainly most of those since 1972 (Ferree, 1974)-—

have shown a positive relationship between educational attainment and

liberalism in sex—role attitudes (Erskine, 1971; Ferree , 1974; Mason &

Bumpass , 1975; Yankelovich , 1974); it seemed reasonable to suppose that

the officer-enlisted difference observed here might be explained in

this way . For each of the 18 jobs, therefore , we compared officers

and enlisted at each of the two levels of education (high school graduate and 1 to 3 years of college) for which we had enough respondents

to provide an interpretable comparison , making 36 comparisons in all

(see Table 4). The result of introducing this control for education

7

L ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ —~~~~~~~~~— — ~~~~~ ~~~~~~~

~—
Table 4 

Differences in the Percentages of Officer and Enlisted Personnel 

Who Judged Jobs Appropriate for Women, Shown Separately for the 

Total Sample, for High School Graduates, and for Those With 

1 to 3 Years of College 

a High school 1 to 3 years 

Total sample graduatesb of collegeb 

(401 officers and (81 officers a~d (75 officers and 

Job 320 enlisted) 213 enlisted) 67 enlisted) 

Social worker +4 +3 0 

Human relations 

officer +3 +2 0 

Lawyer +4 -2 -2 

Statistician +4 -5 -1 

Radar technician +10 0 +5 

Bartender +6 -11 0 

Butcher +6 -10 -10 

Truck driver +6 -6 +2 

Navigator +8 -1 0 

Janitor +14 - 2 +8 

Parachute rigger +12 -11 +7 

Plumber +14 - 2 +5 

Welder +q +2 -2 

Ammunition 

supply person +11 -6 +5 

Diesel mechanic +17 +5 +5 

Helicopter 

pilot +7 -6 +4 

Jet pilot +8 -6 +3 

Bomb disposal 

specialist +14 -3 +3 

Note. Percentages shown are for those jobs (N = 18 ) on which the 

ference was statistically significant in the total sample. 

sign (+) indicates that more officers than e nlisted viewed 

job as appropriate for women; minus sign (-) indicates the 

reverse. 

diEPlus 

the 

aincludes 35 (7 officers and 28 enlisted) who had not graduated from 

high school and 250 (238 officers and 12 enlisted) who had 4 or more 

years of college. 

b None of these differences is significant (all £S > .05). 

8 
@U:IIIIl 

was i n every case either to reduce in magn itude or to reverse i n din~·­

tion t he difference prev iously observed . I n on ly one ·ase ("di sol 

mechanic ") was t he original officer-enlisted differen c retained i.n 

both t he high school a nd t he ollege s ubgroups: neither t h i•' di Heren 'c 

nor i ndeod a ny of t he other differences was sign ifi a n t (all s '> . 0 ' ). 

The ratl'.er strik i ng offi er-en listed differen ·es obset·ved i n Lh is 

study , t herefot·e , s~em largely expl ainable i n terms oC t he cH ((cnmcc 

i n a verage leve l of edu cation between t he t wo groups. The qreal r t h • 

number of y ars of forma l education, t he more likely t hese soldlct:!3 

were to say t hey con sidered t he jobs appropriate f r women . 

Male- Female omparison s . A omparis n of t he per c n ta\t> of me n 

a nd wome n who j udged ea'Ch of t he .!4 jobs approprial • for wonP il s h we d 

not on ly t h at t he differen es vary i n magn itude , bu t <lls Lhat t hey 

are not a lways i n t he same dire ti n (see Table ) . There are n ine 

jobs (see 'l'able 5) on whi h males a nd females differed ig ifi. ~.c\1\ tly. 

In six cases (company commander in a mi xed-sex ompany , P-y ard d u ty, 

he l icopter pilot , jet pilot , bomb dist sal sp• iali.st , a nd riflecarrying infantry foot soldier) women j udqed t h j b appr pri<'lte for 

W\>men more often t ha n t he me n did : i n t hro as s (statisti ~t~\ n, b;trtender , a nd b utcher) it was t he other way ar und . 

'l'able 5 

Differen ·e i n t he Per e n tage f n <md \olomen \~ho J\1dged J ~ 

To B Appropriate f r \~omen , - hown for Those Jobs (N "' ') 

for Wh i h t he Diffcren e WO'ls Siqn iCi a n t 

Job 

Statistician 

Bartend r 

But her 

Company comma nder i n a mi x d-sex ompany 

guard du ty 

Helicopter tilot 

Jet pilot 

Bomb disposal spe ialist 

Rifle- arryinq i n fan try f t so1die t· 

re1· e ntago 

,.H (( "t'Cll ca 

+" 

. ~ 

+10 

- 12 

- 10 

~ 

.~0 

- 11 

-w 

b 

l' 

. lll 

l 

.lhl l 

• ()•J 1 

. l t . Hl l 

.00 1 

0 1 

.Ol I 

3 Plu s sign (+) i ndi <l tcs t hat more men t h.,n womc>n vi.~ l.' d l he \ob .:'IS ·"'1'- propr iate for wome n : mi nus sign (-) i 11d i. ,,te::: th' rcv~.•r 'C. 

b_l' is detet·min d by t wo-tail 'd diffet:e n ·c- f - 1'1' l' rt io11s tc ·t. 
Since the education distribution is somewhat different for the 

men and the women in our sampleS (as in the Army as a whole) , and 

since the officer-enlisted differences in endorsement frequency were 

largely eliminated by controlling for education, we examined the sex 

differences in endorsement frequency with education controlled at the 

two levels (high school graduate and 1 or more years of college) for 

which we had enough respondents to provide interpretable comparisons 

(see Table 6). The pattern of these differences~ however, was unchanged. Some of the differences were larger and some of them were 

small9r, but the only clear change was a general lowering of the p 

values (which one expects from a reduction in sample size). We conclude that the men and women in our sample, like men and women elsewhere (Coye, Denby, Hooper, & Mullen, 1973; Erskine, 1971; HaavioMannila, 1972; McCune, 1970; Peters, Terborg, & Taynor, 1974; Rosenkrantz, Bee, Vogel, & Braverman, 1968; Savell & Woelfel, in press), 

teud to differ in their sex-role attitudes and that this difference 

is not explained by level of education. For a discussion of some exceptions, see Ferree (1974), Schreiber (1975), and Savell and Woelfel 

(in press). In addition, several observations may be made. 

First (see Table 6), going to college appears to increase the 

magnitude of the "usual" sex differences (i.e., differences in which 

women show greater acceptance of sex-role diversity than men) and to 

reduce the magnitude of the "unusual" ones (i. e. , differences in the 

opposite direction) , a pattern consistent with that observed i11 

several other studies (Ferree, 1974, Table 3; Yankelovich, 1974). 

Second, there appear to be some areas in which women are less 

accepting of sex-role diversity than men, although this pattern seems 

to appear only among those with fewer years of formal education (see 

also Ferree, 1974, Table 3). 

Third, all the jobs that were more often judged appropriate by 

the wome n than by the men are primarily military or military-type 

jobs. Thus, while these jobs, with one exception (rifle-carrying infantry foot soldier) , were endorsed by the majority of sol diers of 

both sexes, the women were less like ly to have doubts on this score 

than the men were. 

Beliefs About Job Appropriateness and Intention to Leave the 

Army. As indicated above, a sizable fraction of our sample implied, 

in response to one questionnaire item, that they were considering 

making the Army a career. It seemed worthwhile , therefore, to find 

out whe ther the respondents' expectations in this regard were related 

to their views about job appropriateness. If the minority who hold 

traditional views about job appropriateness were found disproportionately 

among those staying in the Army, and if the majority who hold more 

8 Among the me n there were 34 (6.3~) who had not graduated from high 

school, but among the women there was only 1 (.6\). 

10 
,...... 

,...... 

Table 6 

Differences in the Percentages of Men and Women Who Judged the Jobs 

Women, Shown Separately for the Total Sample, for High School G

and for Those With 1 or 1-!ore Years of College 

a High school 

Total sample graduates 

Job (540 men, 181 women) (212 men, 83 women) 

.3tatistician +5** +7 . 4* 

Bartender +9** +17.4** 

Butcher +10*** +12.7* 

Company commander in a 

mixed-sex company -12*** -5.9 

M.O-guard duty -10** -11.0 

Helicopter pilot -15*** -12.4 

Jet pilot -20 *** -17. 6U 

Bomb disposal s pecialist -16*** -11.5 

Rifle-carrying infantry 

foot soldier -18*** -16.9** 

Note . Percentages sho·~ are for those jobs (N = 9) on which the difference w

nificant in the total sample. Plus sign (+ ) indicates that more men t

job as ~ppropriate for women; minus sign (-) indicates the reve~se. 

alncludes 86 (1 woman and 85 men ) who had not g raduated from high school. 

*E < . 0 5. 

**2 < . 0 1. 

***E. ,. . 00 1. 
contemporary views were found disproportinately among those getting 

out, the day-to-day running of the Army would be left to those whose 

attitudes are not consistent with contemporary social norms in this 

area. Under these circumstances, we would expect that many talented 

women would avoid the Army who otherwise would not. Women joining 

the Army would be those who were not (or not too much) offended by 

the restrictions placed upon them (Goldman, 1973). If, on the other 

hand, those with contemporary sex-role attitudes were no more likely 

to leave the Army than persons whose attitudes in this area are more 

traditional, women should find in the Army little more resistance to 

fulfilling their aspirations than they find outside the Army. 

To check on this relationship, we correlated the job appropriate -

ness responses (yes/no) with response to the item "I think I will leave 

the Army before I retire" (agree/disagree).9 These correlations clustered around zero. There was no evidence that those with more contemporary sex-role attitudes are more likely to leave the Army than 

are those whose attitudes in this area are more traditional. 

Beliefs About Job Appropriateness and Time in the Army. The variable "length of time in the Army" is obviously closely related to two 

other variables--"intention to stay in the Army" and "paygrade within 

rank." These two variables were shown to exhibit little or no relationship to soldiers' judgm~nts of job appropriateness; we therefore expec t 

to find little or no relationship between this latter variable and 

"length of time in the Army." Consistent with this expectation, the 

correlations clustered around zero and provided no evidence that length 

of time in the Army is related to the attitudes measured here.lO 

Final Note Concerning the Validity of the Data 

Perhaps one of the most striking aspects of the data is the extent to which respondents expressed favorable attitudes toward the idea 

of employing women in traditionally male jobs. For all job categorie s 

except one (rifle-carrying infantry foot soldier) , the majority s a id 

they thought the jobs were appropriate for women. A question to be 

raised, then, is whether these data are valid. One possibility is 

9This item (leave/stay) correlated in the ~xpected direction with r e -

spondent age (~ = .48) and length of service (~ = .54). 

10This finding (of no relationship) is consistent with one of the findings from a recent national sample survey of young men and women conducted for ARI by the University of Michigan S~~v y Research Centa r. 

The data from that survey show essentially no relationship be twe en 

measures (N = 9) of interest in the Army/favorableness toward the Army 

and a measure of attitudes toward "the women's liberation movement." 

We are indebted to E. M. Schreiber for conducting this particular analysis and calling the resul ts to our attention. 

1 2 
- — —---- - —---

that in spite of precautions taken, a biased (“nontraditional”) sample

was obtained. This possibility cannot be rejected completely , but data

bearing on it are available from an Army-wide sample survey (N = 6,533)

conducted by the Military Personnel Center at about the same time . Included among the questions was, “What is your reaction to the increase

in the number of MOS open to women in the Army?” Examination of the

results indicated favorable reactions from 90% of the female officers,

77% of the male officers , 85% of the female enlisted , and 64% of the

male enlisted . These percentages are not greatly different from those

obtained in the study reported here.

A second possibility is that prior to the survey the Army had been

carrying out an intense troop indoctrination program aimed at changing

soldiers ’ attitudes regarding the utilization of women . Examination of

troop training programs existing at the time , however , provides no evidence that such a program (certainl y not one of the magnitude and intensity required to change strongly held attitudes in a large population)

was in existence.

A third possibility is that the respondents were trying to represent themselves as being more “liberal” than they really were. It is

possible, for example , that at the time of this survey the dominant

social norms in the Army were those of male-female egalitarianism and

that the attitudes expressed in the survey constitute a sort of compromise between the respondents’ true (“conservative”) attitudes and the

(“liberal”) attitudes they attribute to others. As reported elsewhere

(Savell & Woelfel, 1976), however , other data from the same survey show

quite clearly that the respondents described themselves as less traditional than others of their own age and sex. An alternative interpretation of this possibility is that the idea of male—female egalitarianism

(like the idea of white—black egalitarianism) has achieved something of

the status of a dominant social value. If this is indeed the case , and

if being egalitarian in sex—role attitudes is indeed socially valued by

Army personnel , we would expect to find more and more soldiers changing

their attitudes in the future to bring them in line with their values,

e.g., on this issue becoming more and more egalitarian.

13
REFERENCES

Coates, C. H., & Pellegrini , R. J. Military sociology: a study of

military institutions and military life (pp. 354—72) . University

Park, Md.: The Social Sciences Press, 1965.

Coye, B., Denby, S. P.,, Hooper , C. C., & Mullen, K. A. Is there room for

women in Navy management : an attitudinal survey. Naval War Cotlege Review. January 1973, 69-87. —

Erskine , H. The polls: women’s role. Public Qpinion Quartenly, 1971,

35, 275—290.

Ferree , M. M. A woman for president? Public Opinion Quarterly, 1974, 38, 390—399.

Fuller , C. H. The role of women in the Navy: a study of attitudes and

scale development. Washington , D.C.: Navy Personnel Research

and Development Laboratory , June 1973.

Goldman , N. The changing role of women in the armed forces. American

Journal of Sociology, 1973, 78, 892—911.

Haavio-Mannila, Elina. Sex—role attitudes in Finland , 1966—1970 .

Journal of Social Issues, 1972, 28, 93—110.

Mason , K. 0., & Bumpass, L. L.. U.S. women ’s sex-role ideology, 1970.

American Journal of Sociology, 1975, 80.

McCune, S. Thousands reply to opinionnaire ; many document cases of

discrimination . A.AUW Journal, May 1970.

Peters, L. H., Terborg , .3. R., & Taynor, J. Women as Managers Scale

(WAMS) : a measure of attitudes toward women in “~ nagement positions. Abstracted in the JSAS Catalog of Selected Documents in

Psychology, 1974, 4, 27.

Rosenkrantz, P., Bee, H., Vogel, S., & Broverman , I. Sex-role stereotypes and self—concepts in college students. Journal of Consulting

and Clinical Psychology, 1968, 32, 287-295.

Savell, 3. M., & Woelfel, 3. C. Attribution of gender—role egalitarianism to self and to others: some evidence regarding two kinds of

discrepancy . Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Eastern

Psychological Association, New York City , April 1976.

Savell, J. M ., & Woelfel, ~~. C. A 7—item scale to measure sex—role

attitudes in the Army . ARI technical paper , in press.

Schreiber , E. H. The social bases of opinions on woman ’s role in

Canada. Canadian Journal of Sociology, 1975, 1, 61-74.
Spence , J. T., & Helmreich , R. The Attitudes Toward Women Scale :

an objective instrument to measure attitudes toward the rights

and roles of women in contemporary society. Abstracted in the

JSAS Catalog of Selected Documents in Psychology, 1972, 2, 66.

Treadwell , M. E. U.S. Army in World War II: special studies-—the

Women ’s Army Corps. Washington, D.C.: Office of the Chief of

Military History, Department of the Army , 1954.

Yankelovich , D. The new morality : a profile of American youth in the

• 70s. New York : McGraw—Hill, 1974.

16 

--
DISTRISUT ION

*

- AR) O.t ~

,)’, io, , Lis t

4 OASO )M&RA) 7 HOUSACOEC , Ft Qtd, ATYN: L’h’wy

2 HODA IDAMI t

~

S~) ¶ HOUSACOEC . Ft Otd, ATTN AlEC - LX -E Hum Far i

~.,

I HODA IUAPI PBR( 7 USAEEC . Ft Benjimin HN,,$o,,, ATTN L’Iuuy -

I ))0))A IDAMA ARI USAPACDC. FI B.,,4.vnu, He,, iiv, AflN ATCP HR

I HOOA )DAPF HRE P(J) 1 USA Cunwts-EI,-ct Sc)., FtMtv unuuth, ATTN ATSN (A

* HODA SGRD ‘Dl USAEC . Ft Monmo.itt, ATTN AMSE L CI HOP

I PI4JDA (DANI DOT C) I USAIC. Ft MOnrnOUtP, , ATIN: ANSEL -PA P

I HODA )DAPC PMZ A) I USAEC. F(Nonmouth ATTN AMSEL Si—C S

I HODA )DACH-PP? A) 1 USAEC. F( Monmouth, ATTN C. Fact Div B’ I HODA (DAPE HRE) 1 USA Mai.r,a)s Syv Anil Agcy, Absidee,. ATTN AMXSY - P

I HODA (OAPE-MPO C) 1 Edgewoud Aria.), Abendivn, ATTN: SARFA IlL H

I )400A )DAI’F OWl 1 USA 0,.) Ct, & Sc).. AhetUmo. A n N : ATSL-TEM - C

I HODA (DAPE HRL) 2 USA Hum E ngi Lab. Alarrilee.,, ATTN Lilieaiy/OW

1 HODA (DAPE CPSI 1 USA Cothb~t Arms Tng Sd. Ft Bin’..nq, ATTN. Ad Supervitu.

1 HODA ) DAFD MIAI 1 USA Intintty Hum Ridi Unit , Ft B.nninq, ATTN : C).,,)

I HODA (DAR D AIt SP ) 1 USA Infan t r y Sd, Ft Sunning, ATTN: STEBC TF- T

I HODA IDAPC PAS-A) I USASNA . Ft Slim. AT T N: ATSS (. RC

I HODA (OUSA OR) I USA Ait Del Sc)., Ft Bu st , AITN: ATSA CTD MF

I IIODA (DA M)) RORI I USA Au Del Sd. Ft 8)ust , ATTN Tic’

, Liii

IIODA )I)AsC ) I USA Air 0,-I Sd. F, Rlscs, ATTN FILES

I HOItA (flA)~~P )) 1 USA A~ 0.4 Bd, Ft BI,u, ATTN STEBD P0

I Cii.) , Consu lt Div )OA OTSG ) . AuIeI4,Pn. NO I USA Cmii & Gene,.) SI) College , Ft Leavenworth, ATTN 1,),

I M,l Ats i H,u,s R.. OI’tt*tj,F - OAt) ((515) 1 (ISA Cud & General Sti College , Fl Livvenwo.Ih, ATTN ATSW -SE I 1 44 0 LISA HAL . APO 5.-atti.- ATTN ARAGP R I USA Cmii S General SI) College, Ft L,’av,-nw,uut) . ATTN. Ed Adv,so ,

I HO Fi rti A,,,,5. ATTN: AFKA-0 ) Ti I USA Ci’nulen.d A,i,ui t r,,h t Des A,’t. Ft Le~v,-,iwuith, A TTP4: DspCiI,

2 HO lila, Army, Ft San Houston I USA Combined Arms Cmbt Dew Act. Ft Leavenworth , ATTN: CCS

* Dii - A’my Sit Stuthes 01⁄4, ATIN: OAVCSA (DSP) I USA Coitsb,n.al Asmt Cn~~

% Di’. AcT. Fi Leimnwielh, MTh: ATCASA I (Iii Chu•I ii) Sit . StuiI,e. ftc I USA Con.hinuwd Arm s Cmbt Div Ad . Ft Leavenworth. ATTN: ATCACO -I

I iii ’Sl’I-R A I TN CPS.t)CI’ I (iSA Ciwntun.’d ArititCisgi, 0.,. A.-t , rt L,aw’ivr,o. th, ATIN: ATC AC t-t: )

* F ).,’ Au my L it ’ . l’uiil.qu.i , ATTN RSB Chief I )JSAFCOM , Nigh t Vision Lab, Ft fteIv,w , ATIN: AM SEL —NV—S D

I The Army Lii, , Pv~

itagon, ATTN ANRA I. 3 USA Compute, Syt Cmd , Ft 5,1.0,, . AT TN Tech libr ar y

I 04,;, At Sect of the Army ID&O ) 1 USANERDC. Ft Belvoir , ATTN SI SFB - DO

I Tech Suppo. t Otc , OjCS 1 LiSA E tig Sc)., Ft Selvoir. ATTN Lib r ary

* USASA, Atlu sii)ton , ATTN lARD - I 1 USA Topoqra~

thic Lib, Ft Belvoir, ATTN: (IL TO—S

I USA M.d. 0),; Durham, ATTN Lit .- Sc,i,n,;-ei Ou r I (ISA Tnpograpbic Lab, Ft 5e)y~iir , ATTN: ST I NFO Cen ter

? USARIEM, N.,,,,-k , AT TN SCRO UE CA I LISA Toi’ug’.uphic Lab . Ft BeIv,,i,, ATTN: E U, GSL

4 IISAI rc . I. (J,.

~ tu.i Al IN ~

;ii 1, MOA I lISA Iust ,’lhq,- iws - Cl, Ii Sdi . Ft Hii.ich,s-.,, ATTN CT)) MS

1 USAIMA. I-I ~~~~ A I IN A 1St) CI 0-ON I USA ln telliq,nct- CI. & Sgth . Ft Hu,,chu,,i, AITN: AT$—CT D— MS

I USAIMA , Ft Br an . ATTN. Mar ,t uat Lib I USA l,it.)l.tence Ct, & Sc).. Ft Huachuca , ATTN ATSI --TE

I US WAC Cs, & Sc)., Ft McClellan A’TTN: Lii, 1 USA intelligence Cit & Sc).. Ft Huac).uca, ATTN ATSI - TEX - CS

1 US WAC Cit & Sc)., Ft Mcclellan , ATT N: Tn,, Di. I USA InlelIlgenc. Cs. & Sc).. Ft Hu.,c).tic~, ATTN : ATS I —CTS~ OR

t USA Ouertecmsttr, Sc).. Ft Lee, ATTN: ATSM-T( 1 USA Intelligence Ctt & Sc)., Ft Huachisc a, ATTN AISI—CT)) OT

t In telligence Material Div Oft’ . EWL. Ft Hola L’,rd 1 USA Intelligence Cs , S Sc)., Ft Huactiuca. ATTN ATSI- Cr0 - CS 1 USA SE Sipia t SC). . Ft Gririlon , ATTN ATSO (A I USA Intelligence C~i S Sc)., Ft Huachuci, ATTN DAS/SAD

* USA (3sa ’t,iuii Ci, S Si-h . F Hamilion , ATTN AT$ C-TE RD I USA Iii telliqi’nce Ct, & Sd.. Ft Hu.ctsoc.i , ATTN A l’S)- TEN

I USAISC H. Fr (ml.,, ATTN Educ Advitoi 1 USA ti.telhgenc.Ct~ & Sc$i , FtHu.chucj , ATTN. t,it..ary

I USA War ColIarp,, Carlisle B,i’,a, lit. ATTN lib I CDR . HO Ft Huichuca ATTN Tech Ret Div

‘ WRAIR , Nnii,.intrhi,.tiy Div 2 COIl, USA Elsctni,.,c P,’.g Cmi, A’TTh : STEFP MT—S

I DL) . SDA . Meie,r ~

, I HO, TCATA. ATTN - Ted. Libre,y

I USA Conc ,’I’t Anal Ages. Bethesda, ATT N: MOCA MR 1 HO. TCATA. ATIN: AT CAT-OP-0, Ft F4t.o,1

I USA Cont, pt Anal Agey, Bethesd a. ATTN : NOCA-JF I USA Ricr uit ,.

~ Cud, Ft S)ser udan. ATTN . USARCPM.P

* USA Arcti c Test Cir , APO Seattle . AUNt STEAC PL Ml 1 Senior Army Mv., USAFAGOD(TI~ . Etgin Al ~~iv (iii No 9

1 USA Arct ic Test CIt . APO Seattl e , ATTN: AMSTE.PL TS 1 HO. USARPAC. DCSPER , APO SF 96551. ATTN~ GPPE -SE

I USA A,mam,nt Cmii. Redstone Amen.). AT’TN: ATSI(’TEM I Stimien Ub, Academy of Health Sciinc.i, Ft San 14ors.tor.

1 USA A,m.m.nt Cud. Rock Island, ATTP4: A M$AR-T DC I Marine Corp. Inst.. ATTN: Dean-MCI

• I FAA .NAFEC , Atlantic City, ATTN: library 1 HO. USMC. Command ant. ATTN : Code NTMT

1 FAA NAFEC . At)ant. c City . AT’TN: Human Engr Br I HO. USMC. Commandant. ATTN: Code MPI-20’2S

I FAA Aeronautic.) Cs. . Ok)ahoma City, ATTN : AAC 44D 2 uSCG Ac.dumy. New London. ATTN : Admission

2 USA FM Arty Sc).. Ft Sill. ATTN: Library 2 USCG Ac.dumy. New London, AT TN: Librery

I USA Armor Sc).. Ft knot . ATTN: Library I USC~. training CU, NY . ATTN: CO

I (ISA Arnini Sc).. Ft knos , AITh: ATS8.DI F 1 USCG Tr a.ning Ct,. NY , ATTN Educ Sac Oft ’ I USA Artno, SrI., It Xui.,w , ATTN A TSA DY TI’ I USCG. PtyCIIO) Re. St . DC. ATTN OP t /62

I USA Aunt.. Sc)., Ft lt ui,. ATTN ATSO-CO - AL) I HO Mid-Range II , MC Del, Ouanticu, ATTP4: P&S Div

17

- . - - 

-

~~ - ..:, - -—, - ,
1 US Marine Corps L uson Otc. ANC. Aler andria. ATTN AMCGS - 1 0.-f & Civil Inst of Enviro Medicine, Canada

I USATRADOC . Ft Monroe, ATTN ATRO I’D I AIR CRESS. kensington . ATTN Info Sys B.

6 USATRADOC , Ft M,,rirt.. ATTN ATP H AD I Militaerpsykolngisk T1eneste. Coper.f..gun

1 USATRADOC. Ft Monroi, ATTN AITS TA I Military Attache, French Embassy. ATTN Doc Ser

USA Foiies Crnd. (I McPhe,usn, ATTN It,,”, 1 Meilec,n Chef , C.E R.P A. - Arsenal, Toulo.ifNanii Fian,,

~

,

’

2 iSA Aviarion Test SrI. Ft Riur~ eu , ATTN STEBG- P0 1 Pr,n Scientific Ott , Apt.) Hum Engi Rsch Div . Munuss ,y

1 USA Ae’, g It.. Aviation Salety. Cl Ru th.,, ATTN Libr a.y ol Qelpose , New Delhi

1 USA Age’, br Aviation Saieiy• Ft Rutluer . ATTN Educ Adsusor I Per. Mach O$c Libr ary, AKA . lvael Defense Fo.o,s

* USA Aviation Sc).. Ft Rucker , ATTN P0 Drawer 0 1 Minister,. van Detensie, 000P/KI AId Sociaal

I 540U5A Avu,,iion Sy, Cmd. St Lou i s . ATTN: AMSAV—ZD R Pt’,chot~gi

~ he Zaken , The Hague, Nettierlan.i,

7 USA Asu ..iir,., 5’,, 1.-t I A.-t - Edwai uJs AFB . ATTN: SAVIE - -T

* USA A,. fe’ S.’), Ft HI,,’. Mm A TSA TFM

I lISA A.. Mi.Iv),i’, Rsu. li & Div L,,li. Moffet) Ill , A1TN: SAVOL AS

I USA Aviation Scfs . Re, TiM Mgi, Ft Rucker , ATTN ATST - T -- RTM

I USA Aviation Sc).. CO. Ft Rucker , ATTN: AT ST—D - A

1 HO ))ARCON . AWean d,,., ATTN AMXCO -TI

I HO, DARCUM . Alesandoa. ATTN CDR

I US Military Academy, West Point , ATTN: Serials Unit

1 US MitiIa,y Academy Vdest Poini. ATTN O*c ot SAlt Ld.shp

I (iS Mulut a u’, Ai’,.ilemy Wi’s, Point. ATTN MAOR

I USA Standaidi,at,on Gp UK , FPO NY , AT’TN: MASE--GC

1 01c c) Naval Mac). A il iiiqton , ATTN Code 452

3 Of c of Navel M.d. Ar1inqton. ATTN Code 455

I OIc of Naval Mach, Ar lington , ATTN Code a50

I Of.- ii, Nav.uI AscIi, Ailuiiqtnn, ATTN Co.le 44 1

I N ..v~I Ar ‘stuc hArd Ret Lab . Pensatnla ATTh Aeon, Sd. Div

N,.v,,l Aaruyuuir Mvii Re, Lab . Pviisacnl,i . ATTN Code 151

1 PI.iv.iI Arrui

~ .c Med Hi”5 Lab, P.nsacola, ATIN: Code IS

1 (‘i,, i’i ol NavP.’rs , ATTN. Per,.OR

1 NAVA IRSTA , Norfolk , ATTN: Safety Ctr

1 Nuis Oceaiiogrwihic DC. ATTN: Code 6251, Charts & Tech

1 Cr-nter of Naval Anal . ATTN Doc Cii’

1 NuivAiiSy

~

Con~

, ATT N AIR 5

~ l3C

* Nav BuMed. ATTN: ?I3

I NavNelicopter$uts5gua 2, FPO SF 96601

I AFHRL IFT1 William, AFB

I AFHRL (TT ) Iov,r5 AFS

I AFHRL (AS) WPAF8 , OH

2 AFHRL IDOJZ) Brooks AFO

1 AFHRI. )OOJN) I

~~

kisnd AIB

1 HOUSAF (INYSDI

I HOUSAF (DPXXA I

I AFVTG (MDI Randolph AFB

3 AMRL (HE) W PAF B. OH

2 AT Initof T -ci. W PA FB. OH. ATIN: (NE/SI

1 AIC )XPTOI Randollih AF IT

* (ISAF AeriuMyil 1,1.. Brooks AF6 15111 4), AT’TN: OOC SEC

I AIOSR (NLI . Arlinptori

* Al Log Cmii , McCIeII.iii Al B. ATTN . ALC/ DPCR8

1 A,. Force Academy, CO. AUNt Dept of Bel Sen

5 NavPer, & Dv, Ct’, San Diego

~‘ Navy Mail Neuropsychuetr.c M.d. Unit . S~rs Diego

1 N,iv Electron ,.- Lali , San Diego ATTN: Re, lab

1 Nay TriiqCvn, San Diego , ATTN Code 9000- Liii

I NevPnctGrsScI,, Mont ‘,, ATTN: Code 555.

1 N.irPii.tGra5ch, Moøteie’,, ATTN Code 2124

1 N,ivlingEquipCtr , Orlando, ATT N Tech Lib

1 US Oept nf L,,bor , DC , ATTN Msr’power Admin

I US Dept of Justice, PC, ATTN: Drug Enforce Admin

1 Nat Bur of Standards. DC, ATTN : Compute r into Section - - I Njt Clearing House Ic. MH Info, Rockville - 

- 1 Denver Federal CIr, Lakewood , ATTN: BLM

*2 Defense Document,tion Center

4 Dir Ptyth, Army Hg, Russell Dics, Canberra

I Scientific Advi’. M,I Rd. Army Hg. Russell Ofcs. Canberra

I M,l 

~

nd A,r Attache, Austrian Embassy

1 Ci’,,pp do Recherche Des Fac teurt, Humain. do Ia Defense

Natinnale , Briiste lt

2 Ca.i,viian Jou r Staff Washiiiqtnn

I C A,, Staff , Roy~it Canailijn AT , ATTN: Per, Std Anal Br

3 Chief . C.nadian Del Ms.-). Stall, ATTN C/CRDS(W)

4 II ‘lus h Del Si,,)). 11. 1 sf Funliassy , Washington

18