Lisa D. Bastian and Anita R. Lancaster

Defense Manpower Data Center

and

Heidi E. Reyst

George Washington University

1995

Sexual

Harassment

Survey

Department of Defense

Defense Manpower Data Center

1600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Virginia 22209

DMDC Report No. 96-014

December 1996
ii DEFENSE MANPOWER DATA CENTER
1995 SEXUAL HARASSMENT SURVEY iii

Executive Summary

In March 1994, the Deputy Secretary of Defense

asked the Secretary of the Air Force and the Under

Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness

to develop a sexual harassment policy action

plan. This plan was provided in April 1994, and

included among its elements (1) the establishment of a Defense Equal Opportunity Council

(DEOC) Task Force on Discrimination and Sexual Harassment to review the Military Services’

discrimination complaints systems and recommend improvements, and (2) the conduct of a

Department-wide sexual harassment survey.

Three survey forms were used in the study. The

first survey (Form A) replicated a 1988 DoD-wide

survey that produced the first baseline data on

sexual harassment in the active-duty Services. The

sole purpose of administering Form A was to permit

comparisons of the 1988 and 1995 time frames.

The second survey (Form B) differed from

the first in three major ways. It provided: (1) an

expanded list of potential harassment behaviors

that survey respondents could report; (2) an opportunity to report on experiences that occurred

outside normal duty hours, not at work, and

off the base or installation; and (3) measures of

service members’ perceptions of the complaint

process, reprisal, and training. The main purposes of the second survey were to assess:

• what elements of the active duty military

population had unwanted, sex- or genderrelated experiences;

• the context, location, and circumstances

under which such experiences occurred;

• the extent to which these experiences were

reported and, if reported, members’ satisfaction with the complaint process and response;

• the extent to which those attempting to

report harassment experienced reprisal;

• the amount of training on sexual harassment

and members’ assessment of the effectiveness of training received;

• service members’ views of current policies

designed to prevent, reduce, or eliminate

sexual harassment, of leadership commitment, and of progress in reducing the incidence of sexual harassment.

The third survey (Form C) was administered

to a small sample of active-duty members for

research purposes. No results were calculated

from this survey. The three surveys were sent to

over 90,000 active-duty military members from

15 February to 18 September 1995. Form A was

sent to 30,756 personnel, and 13,599 completed

it, for a response rate1

 of 46 percent. Because

detailed analyses of Form B were planned, the

sample size was larger. Form B was sent to

50,394 personnel and 28,296 completed it, for a

response rate of 58 percent. Form C was mailed

to 9,856 and 5,360 completed it, for a response

rate of 56 percent. No military member received

more than one survey.

Major Findings

How do 1995 results compare to those obtained

in 1988? (Form A)

Form A, the replication of the 1988 survey, was

fielded for the sole purpose of comparing reports

of unwanted sexual attention in 1995 and 1988.

Senior DoD officials believed these indicator data

would be extremely important in answering the

overall question, “Have we improved?”

Based on responses to Form A, reports of

sexual harassment declined significantly since

1988. In 1988, 22 percent of active-duty military

personnel (64% of women and 17% of men)

reported one or more incidents of unwanted,

uninvited sexual attention while at work during

1 Response rates are adjusted for eligibility to complete the survey. See Table C-2 for calculation of response rates.
iv DEFENSE MANPOWER DATA CENTER

Executive Summary

DEFENSE MANPOWER DATA CENTER

the year prior to the survey. In 1995, 19 percent

of personnel (55% of women and 14% of men)

reported one or more incidents while at work

in the year prior to the survey.

Were there differences, across the Services, in

reporting unwanted, uninvited sexual attention?

Overall, rates declined significantly across all

Services except the Coast Guard, where there

was no significant change. Navy women exhibited

the greatest decline in reporting, dropping 13

percentage points, from 66 percent in 1988 to

53 percent in 1995.

In 1988, more women in the Marine Corps

than in the other Services reported one or more

incidents of unwanted, uninvited sexual attention (75% of active-duty Marine women reported

experiencing one or more incidents). Army and

Navy women reported at about the same levels

(68% and 66%, respectively), Coast Guard was 62

percent, and Air Force was lowest at 57 percent.

In 1995, the percentage of women reporting one

or more incidents of unwanted, uninvited sexual

attention continued to be highest for the Marine

Corps (64%, down 11 percentage points from

1988), but the Army rate, at 61 percent (down

seven points), is now not statistically different

than the Marines. The Navy’s incidence rate, at

53 percent (down 13 points), is much lower and

not statistically different than that of the Air

Force (at 49%, down eight percentage points

from 1988). In 1988, 62 percent of Coast Guard

women reported experiencing one or more

incidents, compared to 59 percent in 1995,

not a statistically significant change.

Why was a second survey (Form B) used

and what was learned from it?

Form A replicated the 1988 survey and permitted comparisons to that baseline, but the 1988

survey had limitations for use in a 1995 sexual

harassment survey. Form B contained new items

of interest to Defense policy officials (e.g., how

much training was being provided, how effective

was the training, opinions of the complaint

process). It also contained a considerably

expanded list of behaviors that might be

checked by a respondent in reporting unwanted

sexual attention (e.g., sexist behavior items).

To cover the spectrum of behaviors that might

be construed as sexual harassment, an extensive,

behaviorally-based incident reporting list, consisting of 25 items (versus the 10 items used in

1988), was developed and used in Form B. After

the data were collected, the 25 items were factor

analyzed and reported in five broad categories:

(1) Crude/Offensive Behavior (e.g., unwanted

sexual jokes, stories, whistling, staring); (2) Sexist

Behavior (e.g., insulting, offensive and condescending attitudes based on the gender of the

person); (3) Unwanted Sexual Attention (e.g.,

unwanted touching, fondling; asking for dates

even though rebuffed); (4) Sexual Coercion (e.g.,

classic quid pro quo instances of job benefits or

losses conditioned on sexual cooperation); and

(5) Sexual Assault (e.g., unsuccessful attempts

at and having sex without the respondent’s

consent and against his or her will).

Form B more than doubled the possible

categories of reporting and broadened the circumstances under which incidents that might be

considered to be harassment could be reported

to include off-duty hours, off-base, etc. Thus, we

expected that the rates would be higher on Form

B than on the Form A/1988 survey. Based on

responses to the 25 items from Form B, 43 percent of active-duty military (78% of women and

38% of men) indicated they had experienced

one or more of the behaviors listed in the

survey during the previous 12 months.

Form B also contained many new items

designed to help the Department of Defense

broaden its understanding of sexual harassment

and related behaviors. For example, items were

included on where such behaviors were occurring

and to whom. Results of new items on Form B are

summarized below under “Other Findings.”
1995 SEXUAL HARASSMENT SURVEY v

Executive Summary

Did service members consider the experiences

they reported to be sexual harassment?

Many did not. Because numerous new items

were included on the Form B survey, a question

was added that asked respondents if they considered any of the behaviors they checked in

the 25-item list “sexual harassment.” Although

78 percent of women and 38 percent of men

checked one or more items, only 52 percent of

women and nine percent of men both checked

one or more items and indicated they considered at least some of those experiences to be

sexual harassment.

Did service members think sexual harassment

in the military had declined?

Yes, nearly three-quarters of military members

with six to 10 years of service indicated harassment was occurring less often than a few years

ago. Fewer women than men expressed this

opinion (60% vs. 76%). Women in the Navy and

Coast Guard (71% and 70%) were more likely

than women in the other Services to report

sexual harassment had declined.

Since there were multiple surveys and results

for this study, how do they compare?

In 1988, 64 percent of active-duty women and

17 percent of men reported experiencing one

or more instances of sexual harassment based

on a 10-item list provided in the survey. In 1995,

the same survey (re-labeled Form A) was administered to active-duty service members and

55 percent of women and 14 percent of men

reported experiencing one or more instances

of unwanted, uninvited sexual attention. In

1995, a new survey (Form B) was also fielded.

It was labeled a “Gender Issues” survey and

contained an expanded list of 25 items potentially related to sexual harassment, for example,

quid pro quo items and sexist behavior items.

On this survey, 78 percent of women and 38

percent of men reported experiencing one or

more incidents on the 25-item list. When the

harassment rate is calculated as those who

had experienced one or more behaviors involving uninvited, unwanted sex/gender-related

attention and considered at least some of those

behaviors to be sexual harassment, the figures

are 52 percent for women and nine percent

for men.

Summary of Major Findings

Based on the data collected in this study,

there is evidence that sexual harassment is

declining significantly in the active-duty Military Services. Between 1988 and 1995, the percentage of women reporting incidents of sexual

harassment declined nine percentage points,

and the percentage of men reporting incidents

declined three percentage points. On the other

hand, sexual harassment remains a major

challenge that all the Services must continue

to combat.

Other Findings

Who reported they had experienced uninvited,

unwanted sex/gender-related behaviors?

Clearly, as noted earlier, women reported at

considerably higher rates than men. In addition,

for active-duty military, junior enlisted personnel (E1-E4) were more likely to report they had

experienced behaviors than were senior enlisted

(E5-E9) or officers. Among junior enlisted, 49

percent reported experiencing one or more such

instances compared to 40 percent of senior

enlisted and 39 percent of officers. For women,

83 percent of junior enlisted reported experiencing uninvited and unwanted gender-related

behaviors, compared to 74 percent for senior

enlisted and 75 percent for officers.

The analysis of Form B indicated that black

men reported incidents at slightly higher rates

than white men (43% vs. 36%). The overall rates

for black and white women were not significantly

different (76% vs. 78%).

Who were the offenders?

The most frequently cited sources of unwanted
vi DEFENSE MANPOWER DATA CENTER

sex/gender-related behaviors, by both women

and men, were military co-workers (44% of

women and 52% of men), other military personnel of higher rank/grade (43% of women and

21% of men), and other military persons (24%

of women and 22% of men). Active-duty women

and men were far less likely to mention civilians.

For example, only six percent of women and

seven percent of men reported civilian co-workers

had bothered them.

Where and when did the uninvited, unwanted

sex/gender-related behaviors occur?

These behaviors primarily occurred on military

installations, at work, and during duty hours. For

example, 88 percent of women and 76 percent of

men reported that in the situation that had the

greatest effect on them, all or most of the uninvited, unwanted sex/gender-related behaviors

occurred on a military installation.

In terms of when the reported experiences

occurred, 74 percent of women and 68 percent

of men reported that all or most of the experiences occurred while at work. In addition, 77

percent of women and 68 percent of men

reported that all or most of the experiences

occurred during duty hours. Only five percent

of women reported none occurred on an installation, 14 percent said none occurred at work,

and nine percent said none occurred during

duty hours.

Did service members report their experiences

and, if so, to whom?

Approximately 24 percent of those who indicated experiencing an incident said they

reported the incident (40% of women and

17% of men). Members experiencing these

behaviors most often reported the incidents

to their immediate supervisor (26% of women

and 11% of men), someone else in the chain

of command (21% of women and 8% of men),

and the supervisor of the person bothering

them (18% of women and 8% of men).

What actions did organizations take

in response to members’ reports?

Fifty percent of women and 22 percent of men

reported that the person who bothered them

was talked to about the behavior and 20 percent

of women and 10 percent of men reported that

the person who bothered them was counseled.

Fourteen percent of women and four percent of

men indicated their complaint was being investigated. However, 39 percent of men and 15 percent of women indicated no action was taken

and 23 percent of women and 16 percent of

men said their complaint was discounted or

not taken seriously. About 10 percent of those

who reported their experiences said they did

not know what action was taken.

If service members did not report their

experiences, why not?

Where members indicated they did not report

an incident, women most commonly gave

as a reason for not reporting that they took

care of the problem themselves (54%). Men,

more frequently than women, said that they

did not think the matter was important (51%

of men and 35% of women). Twenty percent

of women and 10 percent of men said they

did not think anything would be done. In

terms of negative consequences, 25 percent

of women and 13 percent of men indicated

they did not report because it would make

their work situations unpleasant. Seventeen

percent of women and eight percent of men

thought they would be labeled troublemakers.

Thirteen percent of women and 10 percent

of men did not want to hurt the person who

bothered them.

Did service members experience reprisal?

Some did. In the section of the survey where

members who had experienced unwanted

behaviors were describing the one situation

that had the greatest effect on them, they were

asked if they had experienced “a performance

Executive Summary
1995 SEXUAL HARASSMENT SURVEY vii

rating that was unfairly lowered.” Twenty

percent of women and nine percent of men

who had experienced such behaviors indicated

this had occurred to a small, moderate, or

large extent.

All respondents on the survey were asked

if they felt “free to report sexual harassment

without fear of bad things happening” to them.

Eighty percent of women and 86 percent of

men said that was true to a small, moderate,

or large extent.

To what extent were members who said they

reported the behaviors to someone satisfied

with the complaint process?

Of those who said they reported their experiences, 35 percent of women and 33 percent of

men were dissatisfied with the complaint process overall. About a third were neither satisfied

nor dissatisfied and a third were satisfied.

Had service members received training and,

if so, what was their opinion of the effectiveness

of the training?

Seventy-nine percent of women and 85 percent

of men reported receiving sexual harassment

training. In terms of how much training had

occurred in the last 12 months, 26 percent of

women and 34 percent of men reported receiving 4 hours or more of training. Forty percent

of women and 42 percent of men reported

receiving one to four hours of training. In addition, 98 percent of women and men reported

they knew what kinds of words or actions are

considered sexual harassment. When asked

how effective the training was in reducing or

preventing sexual harassment, 54 percent of

women and 65 percent of men said “moderately to very effective,” 33 percent of women

and 27 of men said “slightly,” and 12 percent

of women and eight percent of men said

“not effective.”

Did service members know how to report

sexual harassment? Did they know their

formal complaint channels?

Overall, 87 percent of women and 89 percent

of men said they knew the process for reporting sexual harassment, although fewer women

(59%) than men (67%) said they understood

how to report “to a large extent.” Junior enlisted

(E1-E4) were less likely to know how to report

(83% indicated they knew how), compared to

senior enlisted (E5-E9) (92%), and officers

(95%). In terms of publicizing of formal complaint channels at their current duty stations,

65 percent of women and 74 percent of men

said such channels had been publicized.

Only 60 percent of junior enlisted (E1-E4)

were aware of formal complaint channels at

their duty stations, compared to 79 percent

of senior enlisted (E5-E9) and 85 percent of

officers. About 55 percent of men and women

reported they knew of a specific office that

investigated complaints at their duty station.

What did active-duty service members

think of their leadership’s efforts to make

honest and reasonable efforts to stop

sexual harassment?

When asked their opinion about whether

leadership at different levels made honest and

reasonable efforts to stop sexual harassment,

53 percent of women and 67 percent of men

answered “yes” for senior leadership of their

Service, 52 per-cent of women and 67 percent

of men answered “yes” for the senior leadership of their installation/ship, and 59 percent

of women and 68 percent of men answered

“yes” for their immediate supervisor. Ten

percent of women and five percent of men

said that senior leadership was not making

honest and reasonable efforts to stop sexual

harassment while about a third said they

did not know.

Executive Summary
viii DEFENSE MANPOWER DATA CENTER

Summary

These survey results are encouraging. They

document a decline in harassment experiences

and reflect DoD and the Services’ increased

emphasis on combating sexual harassment.

At the same time the surveys were being developed and fielded, other significant DEOC-related

initiatives were implemented. It should be noted

the timing of this study precluded measuring the

effects of those initiatives. No doubt, the additional initiatives of the DEOC Task Force on

Discrimination and Sexual Harassment will

advance the ability of the Department of

Defense to combat sexual harassment.

Executive Summary
1995 SEXUAL HARASSMENT SURVEY ix

Table of Contents

Page

Introduction ................................................................................................................................................... 1

Historical Overview ............................................................................................................................... 1

1995 DoD Sexual Harassment Survey.................................................................................................. 3

Study Methodology ...................................................................................................................................... 5

Survey Design and Administration ...................................................................................................... 5

Analytic Approach ................................................................................................................................. 6

Major Findings .............................................................................................................................................. 9

1995 Form A Comparisons to 1988 ....................................................................................................... 9

1995 Form B Results ............................................................................................................................ 10

Overall Reporting Rates .............................................................................................................. 10

Reporting Rates by Service ......................................................................................................... 11

Characteristics of Targets ............................................................................................................ 14

The Circumstances in Which Unwanted Behaviors Occurred.................................................. 15

Reporting of Experiences ............................................................................................................ 19

The Harassment Complaint Process.......................................................................................... 23

Reprisal ......................................................................................................................................... 27

Sexual Harassment Training Issues ........................................................................................... 28

Assessments of Progress—How Are We Doing?....................................................................... 33

Summary and Conclusions .......................................................................................................................... 37

References .................................................................................................................................................... 39

Appendix A. Form A Questionnaire.......................................................................................................... 41

Appendix B. Form B Questionnaire ......................................................................................................... 59

Appendix C. Technical Information .......................................................................................................... 77
x DEFENSE MANPOWER DATA CENTER
1995 SEXUAL HARASSMENT SURVEY xi

 Page

1. Unwanted Sexual Attention, by Type of Behavior, Gender, and Year .............................................. 9

2. Any Type of Unwanted Sexual Attention, by Service, Gender, and Year......................................... 10

3. Unwanted Sex/Gender-related Experiences, by Type of Behavior, Gender, and Race ................... 15

4. Percentage of Targets Who Reported Their Experiences, by Service .............................................. 20

5. Percentage of Female Targets Who Reported Their Experiences, by Race and Paygrade ............ 20

6. Organizational Responses to Complaints ........................................................................................ 21

7. Targets’ Reasons for Not Reporting Incidents .................................................................................. 22

8. Knowledge of Actions Taken at Current Duty Station to Reduce Occurrences of Sexual

Harassment, by Gender ...................................................................................................................... 25

9. Knowledge of Actions Taken at Current Duty Station to Reduce Occurrences of Sexual

Harassment, by Paygrade ................................................................................................................... 25

10. Extent to Which Targets Said They Experienced a Performance Rating That Was

Unfairly Lowered ................................................................................................................................. 28

11. Complainants Who Experienced Retaliatory Actions as a Result of Reporting Harassment ...... 29

12. Percentage Indicating Whether Awareness Training Had Been Provided for Military

Personnel at Their Current Duty Stations, by Gender...................................................................... 30

13. Percentage Indicating Whether Awareness Training Had Been Provided for Military

Personnel at Their Current Duty Stations, by Paygrade................................................................... 30

14. Training Received During the Last 12 Months, by Type of Training and Service ........................... 32

15. Ratings of the Effectiveness of Training, by Women and Men Who Received Training ................ 33

16. Percentage of Women Indicating That Leadership Makes Honest and Reasonable

Efforts to Stop Harassment, by Service............................................................................................. 35

C-1. Levels of Factors Defining Key Reporting Domains ......................................................................... 80

C-2. 1995 Sexual Harassment Survey Sample Size and Response Rates............................................... 81

List of Tables
xii DEFENSE MANPOWER DATA CENTER
1995 SEXUAL HARASSMENT SURVEY xiii

Major Findings

 Page

1. Unwanted Sex/Gender-related Experiences...................................................................................... 11

2. Any Type of Unwanted Sex/Gender-related Experiences, by Service.............................................. 11

3. Crude/Offensive Behavior, by Service ................................................................................................ 12

4. Sexist Behavior, by Service ................................................................................................................. 12

5. Unwanted Sexual Attention, by Service ............................................................................................ 13

6. Sexual Coercion, by Service ............................................................................................................... 13

7. Sexual Assault, by Service .................................................................................................................. 14

8. Unwanted Sex/Gender-related Experiences, by Race/Ethnicity of the Target................................ 14

9. Unwanted Sex/Gender-related Experiences, by Paygrade of the Target ......................................... 15

10. Gender of the Offender(s) in the One Situation ............................................................................... 16

11. Race/Ethnicity of the Offender(s) in the One Situation ................................................................... 16

12. Military Status of the Offender(s) in the One Situation .................................................................. 17

13. Civilian/Unknown Status of the Offender(s) in the One Situation ................................................. 17

14. Occurrence of the One Situation at a Military Installation ............................................................. 18

15. Occurrence of the One Situation at Work ......................................................................................... 18

16. Occurrence of the One Situation During Duty Hours ...................................................................... 19

17. Percentage Who Said That When the One Situation Occurred, They Were... ............................... 19

18. Percentage of Targets Who Reported Their Experiences to the Chain of Command.................... 20

19. Extent of Understanding of the Harassment Reporting Process, by Gender ................................ 23

20. Extent of Understanding of the Harassment Reporting Process, by Paygrade ............................. 23

21. Extent of Understanding of the Harassment Reporting Process, by Service ................................. 24

22. Percentage of Members Indicating Whether Complaint Hotlines Had Been

Publicized, by Service.......................................................................................................................... 26

23. Percentage of Members Indicating Whether Formal Complaint Channels Had

Been Publicized, by Service ................................................................................................................ 26

24. Percentage of Members Indicating Whether a Specific Office Had Been Established

to Investigate Complaints, by Service ............................................................................................... 27

25. Extent to which Members Feel Free to Report Sexual Harassment Without Fear of

Bad Things Happening ....................................................................................................................... 27

List of Figures
xiv DEFENSE MANPOWER DATA CENTER

List of Figures

26. Extent to Which Targets Feel Free to Report Sexual Harassment Without Fear of

Bad Things Happening ....................................................................................................................... 28

27. Extent to Which Female Targets Said They Experienced a Performance Rating That

Was Unfairly Lowered, by Service ...................................................................................................... 29

28. Extent of Knowledge About What Kinds of Words or Actions Are Considered Sexual

Harassment, by Gender ...................................................................................................................... 29

29. Extent of Knowledge About What Kinds of Words or Actions Are Considered Sexual

Harassment, by Paygrade ....................................................................................................................30

30. Training Received During the Last 12 Months.................................................................................. 31

31. Awareness Training Provided at Current Duty Stations, by Service................................................ 31

32. Amount of Sexual Harassment Training Received During the Last 12 Months ............................ 32

33. Amount of Sexual Harassment Training Received During the Last 12 Months, by Service ......... 33

34. Rating of the Effectiveness of Training, by Women Who Received Training .................................. 34

35. Percentage Indicating Whether Honest and Reasonable Efforts to Stop Harassment

Are Being Made ................................................................................................................................... 34

36. Opinions of Members with 6-10 Years Service About the Frequency With Which Sexual

Harassment Occurs Now Compared With a Few Years Ago ............................................................ 35

37. Opinions of Female Members With 6-10 Years Service About the Frequency With Which

Sexual Harassment Occurs Now Compared With a Few Years Ago, by Service ............................ 35
1995 SEXUAL HARASSMENT SURVEY 1

Introduction

Historical Overview

The Department of Defense (DoD) has led the

nation in expanding opportunities for minority

groups. Initial DoD equal opportunity policies

and programs that prohibited discrimination of

employees and service members on the basis

of race, color, and religion were first formulated

in the 1940s and were formally codified in 1963

in DoD Directive 5120.36 (“Equal Opportunity

in the Armed Forces”). However, it was not until

1970 that “sex” was added to the list of prohibited

discriminations, and “sexual harassment” was not

a policy focus within the federal government or

the Department of Defense until the mid-to-late

1970s, when several national sexual harassment

surveys of working women were conducted. The

results of these surveys catapulted the issue of

sexual harassment to public attention and, by

the late 1970s, other sexual harassment surveys

were being conducted (e.g., Michigan Employment Security Commission’s survey and an

unofficial survey of Department of Housing

and Urban Development employees) (Defense

Equal Opportunity Council [DEOC], 1995).

By 1979, the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) recognized sexual harassment was

a problem in the federal workplace and issued

“Policy Statement and Definition on Sexual

Harassment” to federal departments and agency

heads. Sexual harassment was defined as “deliberate or repeated unsolicited verbal comments,

gestures, or physical contact of a sexual nature

which are unwelcome.” Within DoD, the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Manpower, Reserve

Affairs and Logistics issued a memorandum

to the Military Services and Defense Agencies,

asking them to incorporate the new OPM guidance into employee orientations and to provide

employees with information on how to obtain

redress from sexual harassment.

The first Congressional hearings on sexual

harassment in the federal government were held

in 1979 and, in 1980, the first hearings on sexual harassment in the military were conducted.

These hearings were held by the Subcommittee

on Military Personnel of the House Committee

on the Armed Services, U.S. House of Representatives. Importantly, 1980 also saw the landmark

issuance of the Equal Employment Opportunity

Commission’s (EEOC) guidelines on sexual

harassment, and an overall definition for sexual

harassment of American workers was finally

established (Equal Employment Opportunity

Commission [EEOC], 1980).

By 1980, a concerned Congress asked the

U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) to

study sexual harassment of federal employees

and the results of its first sexual harassment

survey of federal civilian workers were released

in May 1981. In that survey, 42 percent of women

and 15 percent of men reported experiencing one

or more incidents of sexual harassment during

the 24 months prior to the survey. The report

concluded that sexual harassment was a major

problem in the federal workplace and recommendations for addressing the problem were provided (U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board

[MSPB], 1981). Over the next 14 years, MSPB

replicated this survey effort two times, in 1987

and 1994, and found sexual harassment rates

had not abated. In the most recent survey,

44 percent of women and 19 percent of men

reported experiencing sexual harassment at

work. For DoD civilian employees, the percentages were somewhat higher, with 46, 50, and

49 percent of women in the Departments of

the Army, Navy, and Air Force, respectively,

reporting they had experienced sexual harassment at work (MSPB, 1995).
2 DEFENSE MANPOWER DATA CENTER

Introduction

DEFENSE MANPOWER DATA CENTER

DoD sexual harassment policy initiatives

in the 1980s largely mirrored events in society.

Sexual harassment was increasingly emerging

as an important issue that affected individuals,

the organizations for which they worked and,

for DoD, ultimately military performance and

readiness. In 1981, Secretary of Defense Caspar

Weinberger issued a memorandum encouraging

compliance with the 1979 OPM and 1980 EEOC

guidance. Secretary Weinberger reiterated similar

guidance in May 1985, and again, in December

1986. The December memorandum was issued

after the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Meritor

Savings Bank, FSB v. Vinson, et al., that sexual

harassment was a violation of Title VII. In this

decision, the EEOC’s guidelines were adopted

by the Court as definitive and two categories

of harassment were identified: (1) quid pro quo—

basing conditions of employment on unwelcome

sexual favors; and, (2) hostile environment—

conditions that, while not necessarily affecting

economic benefits, create a hostile, offensive

working environment.

It took until 1987, however, and the issuance

of DoD Directive 1350.2 (“The Department of

Defense Military Equal Opportunity Program”),

for the Department to address military equal

opportunity separately from civilian and contractor equal opportunity policies and programs for

the first time. This Directive also established a

Defense Equal Opportunity Council (DEOC),

composed of senior DoD officials, to advise the

Assistant Secretary of Defense for Force Management and Personnel on military and civilian

equal opportunity initiatives.

In January 1988, a DoD Task Force on Women

in the Military recommended that DoD conduct

its own sexual harassment survey of active-duty

service members inasmuch as DoD-wide selfreported sexual harassment incidence rates

among active-duty military women had never

been examined. While the Defense Manpower

Data Center (DMDC) completed this survey in

the 1988-89 time frame, Secretary of Defense

Frank Carlucci issued both a policy memorandum that defined sexual harassment and a

memorandum that highlighted the results

of the 1987 MSPB survey.

After intense internal review, results of the

DoD 1988 survey were released in September

1990. Results indicated that 64 percent and

17 percent of active-duty women and men,

respectively, reported experiencing one or more

instances of unwanted, uninvited sexual attention while at work in the 12 months prior to the

survey. The DoD 1988 survey was modeled after

the previous MSPB surveys. In one section that

was identical to the MSPB surveys, the DoD survey contained a list of 10 behaviors, and asked

respondents if they had experienced “unwanted,

uninvited whistles, hoots or yells of a sexual

nature,” “unwanted, uninvited pressure for dates,”

“unwanted, uninvited pressure for sexual favors,”

“actual or attempted rape or sexual assault,” and

so on. The label “sexual harassment” was not

used, just behavioral statements. It was from

this list that the overall incidence rates were

calculated for the Department. The DoD survey

also asked respondents their opinions of policies,

programs, and leaders and, for those who had

experienced unwanted sexual attention in the

last 12 months, it asked them to describe in

detail the incident that had the greatest effect

on them. It was from these detailed reports that

important information was gleaned (e.g., who the

offenders were, what formal actions were taken,

what effect those actions had) (Martindale, 1990).

From the late 1980s through mid-1991, the

Department continued providing policy guidance

on this issue: (1) in 1988, DoD Directive 1350.2

was revised and the sexual harassment definition

was expanded; (2) in 1991, DoD officials continued to examine Service-specific findings from the

1988 survey; (3) in July 1991, Secretary of Defense

Dick Cheney issued “Department of Defense Strategies to Eradicate Sexual Harassment in the
1995 SEXUAL HARASSMENT SURVEY 3

Introduction

Military and Civilian Environment.” This memo

included the 1988 sexual harassment definition

as well as a series of points on how to eliminate

sexual harassment throughout the Department.

1995 DoD Sexual Harassment

Survey

In March 1994, Defense Secretary William Perry

issued new equal opportunity guidance. One

initiative restructured the Defense Equal Opportunity Council (DEOC) so that it would be chaired

by the Deputy Secretary of Defense and Service

Secretaries would be members. Subsequently,

Deputy Secretary John Deutch, DEOC Chairman,

requested that the Secretary of the Air Force and

the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel

and Readiness (USD(P&R)) formulate a plan

for reducing and eliminating sexual harassment

within the military. They developed a five-part

plan, which included establishment of a DEOC

Task Force on Discrimination and Sexual Harassment, co-chaired by the Secretary of the Air Force

and USD(P&R), and composed of senior DoD

leaders. The Task Force was charged with review

of the Military Services’ discrimination complaints

systems and formulation of recommendations.

Another aspect of the five-part plan was a sexual harassment survey of active-duty military

personnel, because one had not been conducted since 1988.

Three surveys were used in the study. The

first survey (Form A—shown in Appendix A)

replicated the 1988 DoD-wide survey that produced the initial baseline data on sexual harassment in the active-duty Services. The sole purpose

of administering the Form A survey was to permit

comparisons of the incidence of sexual harassment in the 1988 and 1995 time frames. However,

because considerable advances in understanding

and measuring sexual harassment had taken

place since 1988, these developments were

incorporated in the design of a new survey

(Form B), to be administered concurrently

with the Form A replication.

The second survey (Form B—shown in

Appendix B) differed from the first in three major

ways. It provided: (1) an expanded list of potential harassment behaviors that survey respondents could report; (2) an opportunity, for the first

time, to report on experiences that occurred

outside normal duty hours, not at work, and off

the base, ship, or installation; and, (3) measures

of service members’ perceptions of complaint

processing, reprisal, and training. The main purposes of the Form B survey were to assess:

• what elements of the active-duty military

population had unwanted, gender-related

experiences;

• the context, location, and circumstances

under which such experiences occurred;

• the extent to which these experiences

were reported and, if reported, members’

satisfaction with the complaint process

and response;

• the extent to which those attempting to

report harassment experienced reprisal;

• the amount of training on sexual harassment and members’ assessment of the

effectiveness of training received;

• service members’ views of current policies

designed to prevent, reduce, or eliminate

sexual harassment, of leadership commitment, and of progress in reducing the

incidence of sexual harassment.

The Form B survey incorporated recent

psychometric and theoretical advances in sexual

harassment research. Survey items measuring

sexual harassment were largely based on work

by Fitzgerald and her colleagues and were modeled after the Sexual Experiences Questionnaire

(SEQ) developed by Fitzgerald, et al. (1988).

The SEQ is widely used and is generally considered the best instrument available for

assessing sexual harassment experiences

(Arvey & Cavanaugh, 1995).
4 DEFENSE MANPOWER DATA CENTER

The third survey (Form C) was administered

to a smaller sample of active-duty members for

research purposes, to aid in the transition to

using one survey in future research. No results

were calculated from this survey.

Throughout this report, the authors have

tried to minimize using terms such as “harassment” and “harasser” in reporting and discussing

results of the survey. This is especially true of the

Form B results. There were two reasons for this

decision. First, survey respondents were asked

only to mark any unwanted, uninvited genderrelated behaviors that had occurred during the

preceding 12 months. They did so, but many

respondents also indicated that not everything

they experienced constituted sexual harassment.

Second, the term “sexual harassment” carries

certain pejorative connotations that a straightforward reporting of data does not.

Introduction
1995 SEXUAL HARASSMENT SURVEY 5

Survey Design and Administration

The data were collected with the 1995 Status

of the Armed Forces Surveys, Forms A, B, and C.

Each of the three survey populations included

the worldwide distribution of Army, Navy, Marine

Corps, Air Force, and Coast Guard military personnel with at least six months of active-duty

service. Flag rank officers were excluded. The

Forms B and C survey populations were personnel on active duty, including members of the

National Guard and Reserve Components on

active assignments for more than 179 days

(AGR/TARS). The Form A survey population was

limited to active-duty personnel excluding AGR/

TARS to match the population represented by

the 1988 survey.

The Form A survey was a replication of the

1988 Survey of Sex Roles in the Armed Forces. Form A

was administered solely to provide a comparison

of prevalence rates for 1988 and 1995, and was

not pretested for this administration. Form B

was developed specifically for the 1995 survey

and incorporated the most recent advances in

understanding and measuring of incidents. The

Form B survey thus provides the primary source

of information on sexual harassment for 1995.

The large number of new and revised items in

Form B required developing and pretesting several iterative versions of the questionnaire. Form

B was pretested at six sites using 18 focus groups

with a total of approximately 130 participants.

Once the item wording for Form B was determined, Form C was developed as a research tool

to link the results of Forms A and B. Form C was

pretested on two focus groups of approximately

20 participants.

A non-proportional stratified random sampling

design was used for each of the three surveys.

Information for constructing the sampling frame

was taken from DMDC’s October 1994 Active Duty

Master File (ADMF) and DMDC’s September 1994

Reserve Components Common Personnel Data

System (RCCPDS). The ADMF and RCCPDS

provided the information for constructing strata

and determining the sample size and allocation.

Data collection for each of the surveys was by

mail. An introductory letter explaining the survey

and soliciting cooperation was sent to individuals

in each sample starting 15 February 1995. The

introductory letter was followed about six weeks

later by a package containing the questionnaire

and instructions for completing and returning the

survey. A second letter was sent to thank individuals who had already returned the questionnaire

and to ask those who had not to complete and

return it. At approximately four weeks and eight

weeks after the initial survey mailing, second

and third questionnaires, with letters stressing

the importance of the survey, were mailed to

individuals who had not responded to previous mailings.

The three forms of the surveys were sent to

over 90,000 active-duty military members from 15

February to 18 September 1995. Form A was sent

to 30,756 personnel, and 13,599 completed it, for

a response rate of 46 percent. Because detailed

analyses of Form B were planned, the sample size

was larger. Form B was sent to 50,394 personnel

and 28,296 completed it, for a response rate of

58 percent. Form C was mailed to 9,856 and 5,360

completed it, for a response rate of 56 percent. No

military member received more than one form of

the survey. For detailed information on location,

completion, and response rates, see Appendix C.

Responses were weighted up to population

totals adjusting for differential sampling and

response rates in demographically homogenous

groups. As with other random-sample surveys

that use non-proportional sampling and weighting

compensations, most of the parameter estimates

of interest take the form of non-linear statistics,

and the variances used to test for statistical

Study Methodology
6 DEFENSE MANPOWER DATA CENTER

significance must be approximated. All variance

estimates for this report are based on Taylor

series linearizations computed by SUDAAN®

.

Further details on the survey methods are

provided in Appendix C. For more details on survey administration and datasets, see Edwards,

Elig, Edwards, and Riemer (in preparation, a, b, c).

Details on sampling and weighting are reported

by Mason, Kavee, Wheeless, George, and Riemer

(in preparation), with an overview on the sample

optimization reported by Mason et al. (1995). For

further details on the measurement of sexual

harassment, see Drasgow, Fitzgerald, Magley,

Waldo, and Zickar (in preparation).

Analytic Approach

A limited amount of editing of skip patterns and

inconsistencies in the Form B data was conducted.

For example, a number of respondents indicated

they had reported unwanted, sex/gender-related

attention to at least one individual or organization, but also marked an item giving a reason for

not reporting the attention. Conversely, a small

number of respondents who claimed they had

not reported the unwanted sex/gender-related

attention to any individual or organization also

marked an item, ”Does not apply–I DID report

the behavior... ” Some recoding of variables was

necessary to resolve these kinds of conflicting

responses. Analysts using different interpretations and approaches to data quality issues

may produce slightly different estimates.

In order to preserve as many cases as possible

for analyses, missing data on respondents’ selfreported demographics were imputed from DMDC’s

administrative records. See Edwards et al. (in preparation, a, b, c) for details. All respondent demographics (sex, race/ethnicity, Service, paygrade)

presented in this report have been imputed in this

manner. The respondent self-report information

was considered to be the most accurate or, as in the

case of paygrade, the most current information.

The 25-item list of behaviors presented on

the Form B questionnaire covered a broad

spectrum of situations potentially considered

harassment, from telling dirty or offensive jokes,

for example, to more egregious incidents, such

as sexual assault. While the list was comprehensive in scope, treating the 25 items as separate,

independent measures was not practical for

analytic purposes. Therefore, factor analyses

of the items were conducted to collapse the list

into more manageable and substantive groupings. This resulted in identifying five major

categories: Crude/Offensive Behaviors (items

71a-d, f, g, l, m), Sexist Behaviors (items 71e,

h, i, k), Unwanted Sexual Attention (items 71j,

n, q, r), Sexual Coercion (items 71o, p, s-v), and

Sexual Assault (items 71w, x). Item 71y (other)

was excluded from analyses. Statistically, the

two Sexual Assault items fit into the Unwanted

Sexual Attention grouping. However, the decision was made to treat these items as a separate group because of the serious nature of

the behaviors involved. The terminology of

the factors reflects DMDC naming conventions

only. Other analysts may choose different terminology, suited to their needs and objectives.

See Drasgow et al. (in preparation) for details

of the factor analysis.

The sexual harassment survey utilized a nonproportional stratified random sample and data

weighting. Many of the standard statistical software packages, such as SPSS® and SAS®, will

not properly compute variance estimates from

weighted data that have not been collected using

a simple random sample. Therefore, all analyses

presented in this report have been conducted

using SUDAAN® statistical analysis software.

The SUDAAN® software accounts for complex

sample designs when computing variance estimates and test statistics.

The standard error of a survey estimate is

a measure of the variation among estimates

from all the possible samples that could be

Study Methodology
1995 SEXUAL HARASSMENT SURVEY 7

done. Estimates in this report are displayed

with 95% confidence interval “whiskers” that are

based on the standard error of the estimate.

That is, there is a 95% likelihood that the true

number will fall within a certain interval around

the estimate. The whiskers seen on the graphics

in this report represent the 95% confidence

intervals around various estimates of percentages. In tables, the standard error is shown in

parentheses below the estimate. The 95% confidence interval is calculated as the percentage

plus and minus 1.96 standard errors. Comparisons significant at a level between 90% and 95%

are qualified by phrases such as “somewhat” or

“some evidence.” In general, comparisons that

are not statistically significant at least at the 90%

confidence level are not discussed or presented

in this report.

Sampling error is just one source of error,

however. Major sources of non-sampling error are

related to the ability of the respondent to recall

in detail events in the past year. Other sources

of non-sampling error include other types of

response mistakes, such as respondents’ mismarking the survey form or misunderstanding

the questionnaire instructions.

The sole purpose of the Form A survey was

to provide a vehicle for replication of and comparisons to the original 1988 sexual harassment

survey. These data provide a measure of the

progress the military has made in this area

since 1988. The Form B questionnaire (with an

expanded behaviors list, broader context within

which harassment could be reported, and additional questions on the harassment complaint

process, training, reprisal, and service satisfaction) was considered the primary research tool

for this effort. As such, with the exception of the

following section, all results presented in this

report are based upon data collected with Form B.

Study Methodology
8 DEFENSE MANPOWER DATA CENTER
1995 SEXUAL HARASSMENT SURVEY 9

1995 Form A Comparisons to 1988

The 1995 Form A replicated the 1988 sexual harassment survey, in order to permit comparisons of

incident rates in the 1988 and 1995 time frames.

Overall, members’ reports of unwanted sexual

attention in 1995 declined significantly from 1988.

In 1988, 64 percent of women reported that they

had experienced one or more incidents in the 12

months preceding the survey. In 1995, this figure

dropped to 55 percent, a decline of nine percentage points. For men, there was a decline from

17 percent in 1988 to 14 percent in 1995. Table 1

shows the cross-year comparisons for women

and men, for the ten items in the behavior list.

Major findings shown in Table 1 include:

• The proportion of women experiencing

behaviors such as whistles, calls, hoots,

and yells declined 15 percentage points

between 1988 and 1995, from 38 percent

to 23 percent—more than in any other

category.

• Unwanted, uninvited sexual touching,

pinching, or cornering dropped nine percentage points for women (38% vs. 29%)

and three percentage points for men

(9% vs. 6%).

• In 1995, 44 percent of women reported being

subjected to sexual teasing, jokes, or remarks,

down from 52 percent in 1988, an eight

percentage-point decline. This category of

behaviors was the most commonly reported

by men and women in both 1988 and 1995.

The percentage of men experiencing unwanted, uninvited sexual teasing, jokes,

Major Findings

Table 1

Unwanted Sexual Attention, by Type of Behavior, Gender, and Year

Percent

Men Women

Behavior 1988 1995 1988 1995

Rape/assault a — c — c 5 4

(.12) (.12) (.35) (.34)

Pressure for sexual favors 2 1 15 11

(.27) (.23) (.58) (.55)

Touching, cornering, pinching 9 6 38 29

(.50) (.56) (.78) (.78)

Suggestive looks, gestures 10 7 44 37

(.53) (.54) (.79) (.85)

Letters, telephone calls 3 2 14 12

(.30) (.36) (.57) (.58)

Pressure for dates 3 2 26 22

(.28) (.29) (.70) (.72)

Sexual teasing, jokes, remarks 13 10 52 44

(.59) (.65) (.79) (.89)

Whistles, calls 5 3 38 23

(.36) (.33) (.77) (.70)

Attempts b 2 2 77

(.24) (.30) (.43) (.49)

Other 1 1 5 5

(.15) (.23) (.35) (.46) a Includes attempts.

b The complete response option is “Attempts to get your participation in any other sexual activities.”

c Less than 0.5 percent.
10 DEFENSE MANPOWER DATA CENTER

or remarks decreased three percentage

points during this time period, from 13

percent to 10 percent.

• Sexually suggestive looks, gestures, or

body language were reported by 44 percent

of women in 1988 and 37 percent in 1995.

For men, these figures were 10 percent

and seven percent, respectively.

• The percentage of women reporting that they

had been pressured for sexual favors was 15

percent in 1988 and 11 percent in 1995. The

percentage of women pressured for dates

also decreased (26% compared to 22%).

• The percentage of women who reported

experiencing an attempted or actual rape

or sexual assault did not drop significantly

between the two survey administrations

(5% vs. 4%).

Percentages reporting any type of unwanted,

uninvited sexual attention, for each of the Services,

are shown in Table 2. In 1988, Service-specific

reports of unwanted, uninvited sexual attention

varied. For women, incidence rates were highest

for Marines (75% reported one or more instances)

and lowest for members of the Air Force (57%).

For men, incidence rates ranged from 21 percent

for Army members to 14 percent for both Air

Force and Marine Corps members. In 1995, reports

by women of unwanted, uninvited sexual attention declined across all Services, although the

decrease for Coast Guard women was not statistically significant. For men, incidence rates

declined or remained about the same.

Although incidence rates for women declined

significantly across the Services (excluding the

Coast Guard), Navy women exhibited the most

precipitous decline. In 1988, 66 percent of activeduty Navy women reported experiencing unwanted,

uninvited sexual attention compared to 53 percent in 1995, a 13 percentage-point decline.

1995 Form B Results

Overall Reporting Rates

The Form B survey was developed for the overall

purpose of broadening the Defense Department’s

understanding of sexual harassment in the activeduty Military Services in 1995. It was considerably different from Form A in that it: (1) greatly

expanded the context for reporting experiences

(e.g., off base, not during duty hours) and asked

if members considered any of the behaviors they

reported to be sexual harassment; (2) contained

items on key areas of importance to policy

officials (e.g., the complaints process, reprisal,

training); and, (3) expanded the former 10-item

behavior reporting list to 25 behaviors, including

items in new areas (e.g., sexist behavior items).

Figure 1 shows the distribution of unwanted

behaviors experienced by women and men, as

reported on the 1995 Form B survey. The expanded

list of potential harassment behaviors that could

be reported virtually ensured that more experiences overall would be reported on this form

compared to Form A. Thus, 78 percent of women

and 38 percent of men reported experiencing one

or more instances of unwanted behavior, with

43 percent for the total active force.

It is important to note, however, that when

asked whether they considered any of the behaviors they had experienced to be sexual harassment,

Table 2

Any Type of Unwanted Sexual Attention,

by Service, Gender, and Year

Percent

Men Women

Service 1988 1995 1988 1995

Army 21 14 68 61

(.98) (1.38) (.98) (1.54)

Navy 18 16 66 53

(.91) (1.69) (.91) (1.54)

Marine Corps 14 15 75 64

(.95) (1.67) (.96) (1.32)

Air Force 14 12 57 49

(.62) (1.61) (.78) (1.73)

Coast Guard 16 13 62 59

(.44) (1.86) (1.06) (4.32)

Major Findings
1995 SEXUAL HARASSMENT SURVEY 11

78

38

82

37

77

39

86

37

74

37 37

75

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Men Women

Percentage

Active Force Army Navy Marine Corps Air Force Coast Guard

4

2

2

1

40

43

21

12

35

38

15

8

6

78

13

70

63

41

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Crude/offensive

behavior

Sexist behavior

Unwanted sexual

attention

Sexual coercion

Sexual assault

Any type 

Percentage

Women

Men

Total

establish a romantic sexual

relationship despite efforts to

discourage it, was reported

by 41 percent of women

and eight percent of men.

Sexual Coercion, such as

job benefits (or losses)

contingent on sexual cooperation, was reported by

comparatively lower proportions of women and

men (13% and 2%, respectively). Six percent of

women and less than one

percent of men reported

experiencing actual or

attempted rape in the 12 months prior to

being surveyed.

Reporting Rates by Service

Overall reporting rates varied little for men across

the Services (approximately 38%). For women,

however, 86 percent serving in the Marines

reported one or more experiences, followed by

82 percent of Army women. About three-quarters

of the women in the Navy, Air Force, and Coast

Guard reported experiencing one or more behaviors on the Form B list (Figure 2).

Figure 1

Unwanted Sex/Gender-related Experiences

Figure 2

Any Type of Unwanted Sex/Gender-related Experiences, by Service

Major Findings

about one-third of women and nearly threequarters of men said that none of their experiences constituted harassment.

Service members most frequently reported

experiencing Crude/Offensive Behaviors, such

as offensive jokes, remarks, or gestures (70% of

women and 35% of men). Although women were

significantly more likely than men to report having experienced each type of behavior, the greatest gender difference in reporting was in the

Sexist Behaviors category. Sexist Behaviors consist of sexist remarks, condescending treatment,

and other behaviors of a verbal

or non-verbal nature that convey

offensive attitudes based on

gender, such as “made offensive sexist remarks (for example, suggesting that people

of your sex are not suited for

the kind of work you do).” Sixtythree percent of women and

15 percent of men said they

had experienced this type of

harassment in the 12 months

preceding the survey, a difference of 48 percentage points.

Unwanted Sexual Attention, such as attempts to
12 DEFENSE MANPOWER DATA CENTER

Crude/Offensive Behavior

The category of Crude/Offensive Behavior includes

survey items on unwanted sexual jokes, stories,

whistling, and staring. For example, “Repeatedly

told sexual stories or jokes that were offensive to

you” is a survey item included in this category of

behaviors. Both women and men most frequently

reported experiencing behaviors of this nature.

For women, reporting was highest for Marines

(78%), followed by members of the

Army (74%) (Figure 3). Across all

Services, about one-third of activeduty military men reported experiencing Crude/Offensive Behavior.

Sexist Behavior

This category of behaviors consists of items relating to offensive

actions and comments or condescending treatment based on

respondents’ gender, whether

male or female. The item “Treated

you ‘differently’ because of your sex

(for example, mistreated, slighted,

or ignored you)” is an example.

70

74

35 35

68

37

78

36

65

34 35

65

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Men Women

Percentage

Active Force Army Navy Marine Corps Air Force Coast Guard

Figure 3

Crude/Offensive Behavior, by Service

63

15

67

16

62

14

78

15

59

15 14

65

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Men Women

Percentage

Active Force Army Navy Marine Corps Air Force Coast Guard

Figure 4

Sexist Behavior, by Service

After the Crude/Offensive Behaviors category,

both women and men were most likely to report

experiences of this type. Seventy-eight percent of

Marine Corps women, 67 percent of Army women,

62 percent of Navy women, 59 percent of Air Force

women, and 65 percent of Coast Guard women

reported experiencing Sexist Behaviors (Figure 4).

About 15 percent of men across the Services

reported such behaviors.

Major Findings

Unwanted Sexual Attention

This category includes unwanted attempts to touch,

fondle, or kiss as well as efforts

to establish a sexual relationship. “Continued to ask you

for dates, drinks, dinner, etc.,

even though you said ‘No’ ”

is an item representing this

group of behaviors. Women

in the Marine Corps (52%) and

Army (47%) more frequently

said that they had experienced

Unwanted Sexual Attention in

the preceding 12 months than

women in the three other
1995 SEXUAL HARASSMENT SURVEY 13

2

13

4 2

8

1

18

11

17

3 2

9

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Men Women

Percentage

Active Force Army Navy Marine Corps Air Force Coast Guard

Services (Figure 5). Navy women followed with

40 percent reporting in this category. Air Force

and Coast Guard rates for women were not

significantly different at 35 percent and 34

percent, respectively. Overall, about eight

percent of men reported experiencing

Unwanted Sexual Attention.

in the Marines Corps and

the Army, at 17 percent

and 18 percent respectively, exhibited slightly

higher rates of Sexual

Coercion than women in

the other Services (Figure

6). Eleven percent of Navy

women, eight percent of

Air Force women and nine

percent of women in the

Coast Guard reported

experiencing a Sexually

Coercive behavior or

behaviors. Overall, two

percent of men reported

experiencing Sexual

Coercion.

41

8

47

8

40

8

52

8

7

35

5

34

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Men Women

Percentage

Active Force Army Navy Marine Corps Air Force Coast Guard

Figure 5

Unwanted Sexual Attention, by Service

Major Findings

Sexual Coercion

This category includes the

classic quid pro quo behaviors,

including instances of job

benefits (or losses) conditioned on sexual cooperation.

For example, “Implied faster

promotions or better treatment if you were sexually

cooperative” and “Made you

feel threatened with some

sort of retaliation for not

being sexually cooperative

(for example, by mentioning

an upcoming review)” are

items included in the category

of Sexual Coercion. Women

Sexual Assault

This category includes two items denoting

actual and attempted rape. Nine percent of

women in the Marines, eight percent of women

in the Army, six percent of Navy women, and

four percent each of Air Force and Coast Guard

Figure 6

Sexual Coercion, by Service
14 DEFENSE MANPOWER DATA CENTER

women reported a rape or attempted rape

(Figure 7). One percent of men reported such

experiences.

Characteristics of Targets2

Figure 8 shows targets’ racial/ethnic distribution

for the five categories and the overall index of

Any Type (category). At the time of the survey,

or more incidents in the 12 months

preceding the survey.

The largest difference occurred

in the category of Crude/Offensive

Behaviors, with black service members reporting at a rate of 47 percent and white members at 38

percent, a difference of nine percentage points. Only marginal

black-white differences were found

for the categories Sexual Assault

and Sexist Behaviors.

When tabulated separately

for women and men, some of the

racial differences in reporting rates

become less pronounced (Table 3).

38

41

20

11

1

3

47

50

24

16

3

6

2

44

4

41

25

13

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Crude/offensive

behavior

Sexist behavior

Unwanted sexual

attention

Sexual coercion

Sexual assault

Any type 

Percentage

Other

Black

White

Figure 8

Unwanted Sex/Gender-related Exeriences, by Race/Ethnicity of the Target

Major Findings

2 Terminology in this area is not completely satisfactory; the term “recipients” carries an inappropriate connotation of

voluntariness, whereas “victims” implies both more severity and more passivity than is often the case. The term “target”

provides an approximation of the nature and dynamics of these experiences. It is used here and in Drasgow et al. (in

preparation) to mean those men and women who reported experiencing one or more of the uninvited, unwanted

sex/gender-related behaviors in the 25-item checklist (question 71) on the Form B questionnaire.

1

6

2 1 1 1 4 0

8 6 9 4

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Men Women

Percentage

Active Force Army Navy Marine Corps Air Force Coast Guard

Figure 7

Sexual Assault, by Service

For instance, although black men reported a

somewhat higher rate of harassment than did

white men (43% vs. 36%), the overall rates for

black and white women were not significantly

different (76% vs. 78%).

Junior enlisted service members, defined here

as E1-E4, comprised about 37 percent of the total

the racial composition

of the total active force

was 72 percent white,

19 percent black, and

nine percent other race

or ethnicity. Blacks

tended to report at

slightly higher rates

than did whites in most

categories. Overall,

about 50 percent of

black and 41 percent

of white active-duty

members said they

had experienced one
1995 SEXUAL HARASSMENT SURVEY 15

active force at the time the survey was conducted.

Senior enlisted members constituted an additional 46 percent, and 17 percent of the force

were officers. Junior members consistently

reported experiences at higher rates than did

senior enlisted members (E5-E9) and, in most

categories, officers as well (Figure 9). For women,

83 percent of junior enlisted reported experiencing uninvited and unwanted gender-related

behaviors, compared to 74 percent for senior

enlisted and 75 percent for female officers.

Forty-six percent of junior enlisted members

experienced Crude/Offensive behaviors, the largest category of reporting. Comparable figures

for senior enlisted members and officers were

37 percent and 34 percent, respectively.

Junior enlisted also reported receiving Unwanted Sexual Attention at nearly twice the rate

of both senior enlisted and officers (17% vs. 9%

and 8%, respectively). The category Sexual Coercion, the classic quid pro quo experiences, was

reported by this group about two times more

frequently than by senior enlisted members and

three times more frequently than by officers

(6% vs. 3% and 2%, respectively).

While a greater proportion of junior enlisted

than senior enlisted experienced Sexist Behaviors

(24% vs. 19%) in the 12 months preceding the

survey, the difference between the proportions

for junior enlisted members and officers was

not significant; 21 percent of officers reported

experiencing behaviors in this category.

The Circumstances in Which

Unwanted Behaviors Occurred

Respondents who indicated that they had experienced one or more of the behaviors in the 25-item

list offered in Form B were asked to think about

the one situation, occurring in the preceding 12

months, which had the greatest effect on them.

Major Findings

6

3

46

49

24

17

3

1

37

40

19

9

1

39

2

34

21

8

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Crude/offensive

behavior

Sexist behavior

Unwanted sexual

attention

Sexual coercion

Sexual assault

Any type 

Percentage

Officer

Sr. Enlisted (E5-E9)

Jr. Enlisted (E1-E4)

Table 3

Unwanted Sex/Gender-related Experiences,

by Type of Behavior, Gender, and Race

Percent

Men Women

Behavior White Black White Black

Any type 36 43 78 76

(.90) (2.04) (.62) (.61)

Sexual assault 1 3 5 7

(.16) (.70) (.41) (.38)

Sexual coercion 2 4 11 15

(.26) (.84) (.50) (.54)

Unwanted 7 10 39 44

 sexual attention (.50) (1.23) (.72) (.78)

Sexist behavior 14 16 66 57

(.66) (1.54) (.70) (.85)

Crude/offensive 34 42 69 69

 behavior (.89) (2.03) (.66) (.68)

Figure 9

Unwanted Sex/Gender-related Exeriences, by Paygrade of the Target

A series of questions

pertaining to this event

were then presented in

order to gather specific

details about the circumstances that tended to

surround the experiences.

These details provide

answers to questions

such as: Who were the

offenders? When did the

experiences occur? Did

the situation take place

on or off base? Was the
16 DEFENSE MANPOWER DATA CENTER

experience reported, and, if so, to whom?

The next three sections provide a summary

of these details about the one situation.

Characteristics of Offenders

Information was collected on the gender of the

offender(s). Figure 10 shows that, overwhelmingly, service women reported men as the offenders; 91 percent of women said that the offender(s)

what behaviors were reported by men in the

situation that affected them most. Almost all

(about 97%) of the 51 percent who said the

offenders were male, reported that the situation

included behaviors in the category of Crude/

Offensive Behaviors. This category consists

of behaviors such as crude stories or jokes or

offensive remarks or gestures, and were frequently reported by both service men and

Major Findings

17

32

28

66

40

15

26

53

12

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Other

Black

Percentage

White

Same as your own 

Different from your own 

Some were the same, some different 

Figure 11

Race/Ethnicity of the Offender(s) in the One Situation

men reported men as

the offenders. Another

16 percent noted that

some of the offenders

were male and some

were female. Approximately one-third of the

men said the offenders

were women.

With 51 percent

of the men reporting

that other men were

the offenders, it is

important to examine

13

16

6

48

32

91

38

51

2

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Total

Men

Percentage

Women

Same as your own 

Different from your own 

Some were the same, some different 

Figure 10

Gender of the Offender(s) in the One Situation

women (35% and 70%,

respectively). However,

given that men constitute 87 percent of the

active force, it is not

unexpected that, for

men reporting experiences in the Crude/

Offensive Behaviors

category, the offender(s)

is often another man.

Respondents were

also asked about the

racial/ethnic identity

of the person or persons who had bothered

was a male. An additional six percent experienced a situation involving both sexes, while

only two percent said that other women were

the offender(s). Just over one-half of service

them during this incident (Figure 11). Fifty-three

percent of white service men and women indicated that offenders were of the same racial/

ethnic background as their own. Fifteen percent
1995 SEXUAL HARASSMENT SURVEY 17

said they had been bothered by someone of a

background that was different from their own.

Over one-quarter reported that offenders were

of various racial and ethnic backgrounds.

Active-duty military women and men were far

less likely to mention civilians (Figure 13). For

example, only six percent of women and seven

percent of men reported that civilian co-workers

had bothered them.

Major Findings

1

22

15

52

21

11

2

24

2

10

44

43

18

4

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Other military person(s)

Military subordinate(s)

Military co-worker(s)

Other military personnel

of higher rank/grade

Military training

instructor(s)

Unit commander

Immediate military

supervisor

Percentage

Women

Men

0

0

1

7

12

2

7

2

1

2

7

8

6

4

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Other or unknown

person(s)

Other civilian person(s)

Civilian training

instructor(s)

Civilian co-worker(s)

Civilian subordinate(s)

Other civilian personnel of

higher rank/grade

Immediate civilian

supervisor

Percentage

Women

Men

Figure 13

Civilian/Unknown Status of the Offender(s) in the One Situation

Figure 12

Military Status of the Offender(s) in the One Situation

Place and Time of Occurrence

Both women and men said their experiences in

the one situation largely occurred on military

installations, at work, and during duty hours.

Eighty-eight percent of female service members

and 76 percent of male members said that all or

most of their experiences occurred at a military

installation (Figure 14). Only five percent of the

Both men and women cited other military

members as the major source of the unwanted

attention (Figure 12). Men were most likely to

report that military co-workers had bothered

them (52%). Similar proportions of service women

said that either co-workers or military personnel

of higher rank or grade were involved (44% and

43%). Military supervisors were mentioned by

18 percent of women and 11 percent of men.

Black service members were more likely

to say that the racial/

ethnic background of the

offender(s) was different

rather than the same as

their own (40% vs. 26%).

This is not surprising,

considering the proportion of black service

members. At the time

of this survey, blacks

constituted approximately 20 percent of

the active-duty military population.
18 DEFENSE MANPOWER DATA CENTER

52

52

52

17

16

22

12

12

13

19

20

14

0 10 20 30 40 50

Percentage

60 70 80 90 100

Total

Men

Women

None of it occurred at work; all at other place(s) 

Some of it occurred at work; most at other place(s) 

Most of it occurred at work; some at other place(s) 

All of it occurred at work 

Figure 15

Occurrence of the One Situation at Work

65

62

72

15

14

16

10

10

7

11

13

5

0 10 20 30 40 50

Percentage

60 70 80 90 100

Total

Men

Women

None of it occurred at a military installation; all at other place(s) 

Some of it occurred at a military installation; most at other place(s) 

Most of it occurred at a military installation; some at other place(s) 

All of it occurred at a military installation 

Figure 14

Occurrence of the One Situation at a Military Installation

service men—indicated that when the situation

took place they had been serving in a work

environment where personnel of their gender

were uncommon (Figure 17); six percent of

service men said the same. In addition, 16 percent of women also reported that, at the time

of the event, they were serving in a specialty not

usually held by their gender. Similar proportions

of women and men (18% for women, 17% for

men) were in an assignment related to training

when the situation they reported on occurred.

women and 13 percent of the men said that none

of their experiences occurred at an installation.

Similarly, nearly three-quarters of women

and over two-thirds of men indicated that most

or all of the unwanted behaviors had occurred

at work (Figure 15). About equal proportions

of women and men (13% and 12%, respectively)

said that only some of the experiences took

place at work. Fourteen percent of women and

20 percent of men indicated the situation did

not occur at work.

Major Findings

Service members

also reported that the

unwanted behaviors

primarily occurred

during duty hours

(Figure 16). Seventyseven percent of women

and 68 percent of men

indicated that most or

all of the situation took

place during duty hours.

Nine percent of women

and 19 percent of men

said that none did.

Almost a third

of service women—

significantly more than
1995 SEXUAL HARASSMENT SURVEY 19

Reporting of Experiences

Overall, approximately 24 percent of targets chose

to report experiences in the one situation to

someone; women were more likely to report than

were men (40% and 17%, respectively). Across

the Services, members of the Marine Corps were

least likely to report incidents, with a reporting

rate of 14 percent (Table 4). This was significantly different from the rates for Army (28%),

17

12

12

10

17

6

14

7

18

6

16

30

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

In an assignment related 

to training

Serving aboard ship

In a specialty not usually

held by your gender

In an environment where

your gender uncommon

Women

Men

Total

Figure 17

Percentage Who Said That When the One Situation Occurred, They Were...

50

48

54

21

20

23

13

13

13

16

19

9

0 10 20 30 40 50

Percentage

60 70 80 90 100

Total

Men

Women

None of it occurred during duty hours; all off-duty

Some of it occurred during duty hours; most off-duty

Most of it occurred during duty hours; some off-duty

All of it occurred during duty hours

Figure 16

Occurrence of the One Situation During Duty Hours

Air Force (23%), and

Navy (23%) personnel.

Rates for women

were examined further,

as they comprised

the largest proportion

of those both experiencing harassment

and reporting it.

Findings show that

female officers were

significantly less

likely than either

junior or senior

enlisted women

to report instances

of harassment

Major Findings

(Table 5). This difference was reflected across

racial/ethnic groups.

If reported, incidents were most frequently

brought to the attention of the immediate supervisor (26% of women reporting, 11% of men reporting), someone else in the chain of command (21%

of women, 8% of men), the supervisor of the harasser

(18% of women, 8% of men), or the commanding

officer (7% of women, 3% of men) (Figure 18).
20 DEFENSE MANPOWER DATA CENTER

Other resources to whom targets reported

their experiences included:

• law enforcement officials (3% of women,

1% of men)

• special office for complaints (7% of women,

3% of men)

• an Inspector General’s office (3% of women,

2% men)

12

15

4

11

8

11

3

8

7

18

21

26

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Someone else in my

chain of command

Commanding officer

Supervisor of person

bothering me

My immediate

supervisor

Women

Men

Total

Figure 18

Percentage of Targets Who Reported Their Experiences to the Chain of Command

Table 5

Percentage of Female Targets

Who Reported Their Experiences,

by Race and Paygrade

Junior Senior

Race Enlisted Enlisted Officer

White 45 41 29

(1.63) (.87) (1.53)

Black 41 38 25

(1.70) (1.10) (2.18)

Other 45 42 31

(3.02) (2.37) (2.44)

Major Findings

Table 4

Percentage of Targets Who Reported

Their Experiences, by Service

Service Percent

Army 28

(1.80)

Navy 23

(1.86)

Marine Corps 14

(2.49)

Air Force 23

(1.64)

Coast Guard 22

(2.65)

• a Judge Advocate’s office (2% of women,

1% of men)

• members of Congress (1% of women,

1% of men)

• other persons in office (6% of women,

2% of men)

When asked about the organizational

response to complaints of harassment, more
1995 SEXUAL HARASSMENT SURVEY 21

than twice as many

women as men said

that the person who

bothered them was

talked to about the

incident (50% of

women reporting,

22% of men reporting)

(Table 6). Also, 20 percent of women and

10 percent of men

said the person who

bothered them was

counseled. Fourteen

percent of women said

the complaint was

investigated; only four

percent of men noted

this. Similarly, women

were far less likely than

men to say that no

action was taken on

their complaints (15%

vs. 39%, respectively).

Negative reactions

were noted by many of

the complainants. Ten

percent of women and

seven percent of men

were encouraged to

drop their complaints.

Twenty-three percent

of women and 16 percent of men indicated

that they felt their

complaints were not

taken seriously. Twelve

Table 6

Organizational Responses to Complaints

Percent

Response Total Men Women

Encouraged to drop complaint 8 7 10

(1.05) (1.71) (.59)

Complaint not taken seriously 19 16 23

(1.58) (2.54) (.93)

Supervisor (or others in chain 10 8 12

 of command) was hostile (1.20) (1.91) (.81)

Co-workers were hostile 6 4 9

(.83) (1.34) (.56)

Reassigned against my will 1 1 2

(.44) (.72) (.19)

Harasser was talked to 33 22 50

(1.79) (2.77) (1.02)

Complaint was/is being 8 4 14

 investigated (.85) (1.31) (.69)

Granted a requested transfer 3 2 5

(.56) (.88) (.41)

Harasser was transferred 5 4 7

(.76) (1.22) (.49)

Harasser was counseled 14 10 20

(1.30) (2.05) (.91)

Other 17 18 16

(1.63) (2.67) (.70)

No action was taken 30 39 15

(2.18) (3.46) (.69)

Don’t know 10 10 9

(1.21) (1.97) (.60)

percent of women and eight percent of men

said that individuals in their chain of command

became hostile toward them and, similarly, nine

percent of women and four percent of men said

that co-workers were hostile. Seven percent of

women and four percent of men indicated the

harasser was transferred, while five percent of

women and two percent of men requested and

received transfers for themselves. A small percentage (2% or less for both genders) reported

they were transferred against their will after making a harassment complaint. About 10 percent

indicated that they did not know what action

had been taken.

Major Findings
22 DEFENSE MANPOWER DATA CENTER

Table 7

Targets’ Reasons for Not Reporting Incidents

Percent

Reason Total Men Women

Not important enough 48 51 35

(1.35) (1.73) (.72)

It would take too much time 4 4 6

(.53) (.68) (.30)

Took care of it myself 49 47 54

(1.35) (1.73) (.72)

Unsure what to do 4 3 8

(.48) (.61) (.40)

Person not assigned to my 4 3 5

 duty station (.50) (.65) (.30)

Didn’t know the person 2 2 3

(.36) (.46) (.25)

Wanted to fit in with my group 7 7 9

(.69) (.89) (.39)

Thought I would be labeled 10 8 17

 troublemaker (.72) (.92) (.52)

It would make work unpleasant 16 13 25

(.93) (1.19) (.68)

Didn’t want to hurt the harasser 11 10 13

(.84) (1.08) (.49)

Too afraid 3 2 6

(.37) (.46) (.35)

Too embarrassed 7 6 11

(.65) (.82) (.46)

Talked out of it by a peer — a — a 1

(.10)

Talked out of it by a supervisor — a — a — a

Harasser was my supervisor 4 3 7

(.47) (.60) (.34)

My evaluation would suffer 5 5 8

(.58) (.74) (.35)

Thought I would not be believed 4 3 9

(.47) (.58) (.59)

Thought nothing would be done 12 10 20

(.83) (1.06) (.66)

Other 11 11 12

(.84) (1.08) (.44)

a Less than 0.5 percent.

Although 18 percent

of the women and men

who filed reports of

harassment felt their

military careers would

be negatively affected,

most individuals

believed their chances

of having successful

military careers would

be unaffected. Eighty

percent of men and

women claimed reporting the harassment

would have no effect

on their careers, and

an additional two percent actually expected

their career opportunities to improve.

Although these high

rates are encouraging,

it is important to remember that nearly one-fifth

believed reporting

the harassment would

have negative consequences for their military careers.

Reasons for Not

Reporting Incidents

When the incident

went unreported, women

most commonly gave as

a reason for not reporting that they took care

of the problem themselves (54%) (Table 7).

Men, more frequently

than women, said that

they did not think the

matter was important

(51% vs. 35%).

Major Findings
1995 SEXUAL HARASSMENT SURVEY 23

Twice as many

women as men said

that they did not think

anything would be done

about the situation

(20% vs. 10%, respectively), while three

times as many felt

that they would not

be believed (9% for

women vs. 3% for men).

Seven percent of service women and three

percent of service men

chose not to report

because the harasser was their supervisor. Eight

percent of women and five percent of men thought

that their performance evaluations would suffer

as a result of reporting.

Women (17%) were more inclined than men

(8%) to fear being labeled a troublemaker. Twentyfive percent of women and 13 percent of men felt

that their work situations would become unpleasant, while nine percent of women and seven percent of men indicated they wanted to fit in with

their work groups.

A small proportion of targets listed fear (6%

of women and 2% of men) and embarrassment

(11% of women and 6% of men) as reasons for

11

11

13

23

22

28

66

67

59

0 10 20 30 40 50

Percentage

60 70 80 90 100

Total

Men

Women

Not at all Small to moderate extent Large extent 

Figure 19

Extent of Understanding of the Harassment Reporting Process, by Gender

Major Findings

18

8

5

29

19

20

54

73

75

0 10 20 30 40 50

Percentage

60 70 80 90 100

Jr. Enlisted (E1-E4) 

Sr. Enlisted (E5-E9) 

Officer

Not at all Small to moderate extent Large extent 

Figure 20

Extent of Understanding of the Harassment Reporting Process, by Paygrade

Almost 90 percent, overall, said that to a small,

moderate, or large extent they understood the

complaint process (Figure 19). Only 11 percent

indicated that they had no understanding of

this process.

Women were somewhat less likely than men

to say they had an understanding of the process,

with 59 percent indicating they understood the

harassment complaint process to a large extent,

while 67 percent of men said the same. Likewise,

junior enlisted members were less likely than both

senior enlisted members and officers to report

that they understood the process (Figure 20).

Almost one-fifth of junior members felt they

not reporting, although

some were concerned

about potentially hurting the individual who

harassed them (13% of

women and 10% of men)

by making a report.

The Harassment

Complaint Process

Service members

largely felt that they

understood the process

for reporting incidents

of sexual harassment.
24 DEFENSE MANPOWER DATA CENTER

had no grasp of the process compared to eight

percent of senior enlisted members and five

percent of officers.

Placement in an assignment overseas did

not affect the likelihood that service members

would know and understand the sexual harassment complaint process. Military members

stationed outside the continental United

States (OCONUS) reported in almost identical proportions to those stationed within the

continental United States (CONUS) that they

understood. About two-thirds of CONUS

and OCONUS service members felt they

understood the process to a large extent.

Few Service-specific differences were found

on this item (Figure 21), although Air Force

members were somewhat less likely than other

Service members to indicate they understood

the harassment reporting process to a large

extent. Also, Coast Guard members were somewhat more likely to know the reporting process

with only seven percent saying they did not

understand it at all.

Service members were also asked whether

specific complaint channels, such as harassment

hotlines, were available at their current duty

stations. Most noted that these avenues for

reporting harassment did exist, although a

large proportion of women and men did not

know about the availability of certain channels at their duty stations. For example,

29 percent of service members were unsure

whether harassment complaint hotlines

had been publicized at their current duty

stations, but 60 percent said that they had

(Table 8). Additionally, service women were

less likely than service men to say that hotlines had been publicized (51% vs. 61%).

Almost three-quarters of the force said

that formal complaint channels had been

publicized, but about a fifth were unsure.

Again, women were less likely to report

that channels had been publicized (65%

vs. 74%). A large proportion of service

members (39%) did not know whether a

specific office had been established at their

duty stations to investigate sexual harassment complaints. Just over half (56%) knew

such offices existed.

Junior enlisted members (E1-E4) were

frequently unsure of the complaint options

Major Findings

66

23

11

69

12

19

70

9

21

64

14

22

59

13

28

69

24

7

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Not at all Small to moderate

extent

Large extent 

Percentage

Active Force Army Navy Marine Corps Air Force Coast Guard

Figure 21

Extent of Understanding of the Harassment Reporting Process, by Service
1995 SEXUAL HARASSMENT SURVEY 25

Regardless of the availability of these complaint channels, across all Services about onethird of members who had experienced and

reported an incident were dissatisfied with the

complaint process. Thirty percent were satisfied

and another 36 percent had no opinion of the

process. Satisfaction levels did not vary by gender.

Service Differences

It should be noted that equal opportunity

programs vary across the Services. For example,

on smaller bases, there may not be specific

Major Findings

Table 8

Knowledge of Actions Taken at Current Duty Station to

Reduce Occurrences of Sexual Harassment, by Gender

Percent

Response Total Men Women

Publicizing the availability of hotlines

for sexual harassment complaints

Yes 60 61 51

(.66) (.75) (.51)

No 12 11 18

(.44) (.50) (.37)

Don’t know 29 28 30

(.61) (.70) (.47)

Publicizing the availability of formal complaint channels

Yes 73 74 65

(.60) (.68) (.52)

No 8 7 13

(.37) (.42) (.35)

Don’t know 19 19 22

(.54) (.61) (.49)

Establishing a specific office . . . which has authority

to investigate complaints regarding sexual harassment

Yes 56 56 55

(.67) (.77) (.52)

No 5 5 6

(.30) (.34) (.34)

Don’t know 39 39 39

(.66) (.76) (.50)

Table 9

Knowledge of Actions Taken at Current Duty

Station to Reduce Occurrences of Sexual

Harassment, by Paygrade

Percent

Junior Senior

Response Enlisted Enlisted Officer

Publicizing the availability of hotlines

for sexual harassment complaints

Yes 47 67 68

(1.15) (.10) (1.16)

No 16 10 8

(.84) (.63) (.64)

Don’t know 37 23 24

(1.11) (.90) (1.07)

Publicizing the availability of formal complaint channels

Yes 60 79 85

(1.12) (.87) (.87)

No 11 7 4

(.70) (.55) (.46)

Don’t know 29 14 11

(1.04) (.75) (.77)

Establishing a specific office . . . which has authority

to investigate complaints regarding sexual harassment

Yes 46 62 64

(1.14) (1.04) (1.21)

No 6 4 4

(.57) (.42) (.46)

Don’t know 48 34 32

(1.15) (1.02) (1.18)

that were available to them at their duty

stations. Compared to both senior enlisted

and officers, junior members were significantly more likely to say that they did not

know whether any of the specific complaint

channels discussed here existed at their

current duty stations (Table 9). Of each of

these potential complaint options, members

were most likely to report that formal complaint channels had been publicized and

least likely to report that a specific office

had been established to investigate

complaints.
26 DEFENSE MANPOWER DATA CENTER

likely than members of other Services to say

that they did not know whether or not formal

complaint channels had been publicized (27%)

(Figure 23). About three-quarters of the members

in each of the other Services said that formal

complaint channels had been publicized.

Major Findings

60

12

29

59

27

13

70

21

9

49

35

16

53

35

11

53

16

31

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Don't know No Yes

Active Force Army Navy Marine Corps Air Force Coast Guard

73

8

19

75

17

9

75

17

8

63

27

9

72

21

7

72

9

20

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Don't know No Yes

Active Force Army Navy Marine Corps Air Force Coast Guard

Figure 22

Percentage of Members Indicating Whether Complaint

Hotlines Had Been Publicized, by Service

Figure 23

Percentage of Members Indicating Whether Formal Complaint

Channels Had Been Publicized, by Service

Army and Air Force members were more

likely than those in the other Services to note

that they had a specific office available to

them for the investigation of complaints

(62% and 61%, respectively) (Figure 24). Navy

and Coast Guard members were about equally

offices to investigate

complaints. Further, the

Services vary in their use

of hotlines for complaints

handling. Survey results

indicate that members of

the Navy were particularly

aware of the existence

of complaint hotlines at

their duty stations (70%)

compared to members in

the other Services (Figure

22). Army members were

next most likely to indicate that this avenue for

complaints existed (59%).

Members of the

Marine Corps were more
1995 SEXUAL HARASSMENT SURVEY 27

likely to say this (50% for the Navy and 51% for

Coast Guard). Marines were least likely to know

if an office existed at their duty stations (42%).

Reprisal

For the most part, service members felt free to

report sexual harassment without fear of reprisal.

Sixty-nine percent of members, overall, said

that to a large extent they felt free to report

sexual harassment without fear of bad things

happening to them

(Figure 25). Seventeen

percent said that this

was true to a small or

moderate extent. Only

15 percent indicated

that they did not feel

at all free to report

sexual harassment.

Thus, the majority—

86 percent—felt some

degree of freedom in

reporting instances of

sexual harassment.

However, a significant gender difference

was evident. Women

Major Findings

56

5

39

62

33

5

50

44

6

42

52

5

61

36

2

51

12

37

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Don't know No Yes

Active Force Army Navy Marine Corps Air Force Coast Guard

Figure 24

Percentage of Members Indicating Whether a Specific Office

Had Been Established to Investigate Complaints, by Service

15

14

20

17

15

28

69

71

52

0 10 20 30 40 50

Percentage

60 70 80 90 100

Total

Men

Women

Not at all Small to moderate extent Large extent 

Figure 25

Extent to Which Members Feel Free to Report Sexual Harassment

Without Fear of Bad Things Happening

were significantly more likely than men to

say that they did not feel free to report harassment without bad things happening (20% for

women, 14% for men), and were nearly two

times more likely than men to say that they

felt free to report only to a small or moderate

extent (28% for women and 15% for men).

Results did not vary significantly across

the Services.
28 DEFENSE MANPOWER DATA CENTER

Perhaps not surprisingly, targets of sexual

harassment were somewhat less likely than members overall to feel they could report an incident

without negative consequences. Eighty-one

percent of targets (Figure 26) felt free, at least to

a small extent, to report harassment compared

to 86 percent overall (Figure 25). Again, women

who had been targets were more likely than men

who had been targets to fear reprisal; nearly onequarter of the women and about a fifth of the

men said that they did not feel they could report

harassment without fearing reprisal (Figure 26).

Service women were more likely than service men to believe they experienced a lowered

performance rating as a result of their harassment experience. Twenty percent of women,

compared to only nine percent of men, indicated their performance ratings were unfairly

lowered to some extent as a result of their

experience (Table 10).

Responses for women also varied by Service.

Women in the Army (25%), Marine Corps (23%),

and Coast Guard (25%) were somewhat more

likely to report that they felt they had received

lowered performance ratings as a result of their

experiences (Figure 27). The comparable proportions for female members in the Navy and

Air Force were 17 percent and 14 percent,

respectively.

Major Findings

Table 10

Extent to Which Targets Said They Experienced a

Performance Rating That Was Unfairly Lowered

Percent

Extent Total Men Women

Large extent 5 4 8

(.45) (.61) (.29)

Small/moderate 7 5 12

 extent (.52) (.70) (.44)

Not at all 88 91 80

(.67) (.90) (.49)

19

18

23

24

22

32

57

60

45

0 10 20 30 40 50

Percentage

60 70 80 90 100

Total

Men

Women

Not at all Small to moderate extent Large extent 

Figure 26

Extent to Which Targets Feel Free to Report Sexual

Harassment Without Fear of Bad Things Happening

Some targets faced retaliation as a result

of reporting their experiences. Of those who

reported, 10 percent noted that their supervisor

(or others in the chain of command) was subsequently hostile, and one percent said that they

had been reassigned against their will (Table 11).

Sexual Harassment Training Issues

It appears that considerable sexual harassment

training is occurring across the Services, and

members indicated they know what kinds of

words and actions constitute sexual harassment. Ninety-eight percent of both women

and men claimed that, at least to some extent,

they know what sexual harassment is (Figure 28).

The majority, over 80 percent, were confident

to a large extent that they could identify
1995 SEXUAL HARASSMENT SURVEY 29

harassment. Further,

there were no significant

differences across the

Services; Army, Navy,

Marine Corps, Air Force,

and Coast Guard personnel were equally likely

to say that they understood what constitutes

harassment.

Junior enlisted members were less likely than

were both senior enlisted

members and officers to

know what constitutes

sexual harassment.

Seventy-seven percent

of junior enlisted (vs.

Major Findings

Table 11

Complainants Who Experienced Retaliatory

Actions as a Result of Reporting Harassment

Percent

Action Total Men Women

My supervisor (or 10 8 12

 others) was hostile (1.20) (1.91) (.81)

I was reassigned 1 1 2

 against my will (.44) (.72) (.19)

8

12

80

9

75

16

6

83

11 10

77

13

6

85

8 10

15

75

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Not experienced Small to moderate

extent

Large extent

Percentage

Active Force Army Navy Marine Corps Air Force Coast Guard

Figure 27

Extent to Which Female Targets Said They Experienced a

Performance Rating That Was Unfairly Lowered, by Service

2

2

2

14

14

16

84

84

82

0 10 20 30 40 50

Percentage

60 70 80 90 100

Total

Men

Women

Not at all Small to moderate extent Large extent 

Figure 28

Extent of Knowledge About What Kinds of Words or

Actions Are Considered Sexual Harassment, by Gender

86% of senior enlisted and 90% of officers)

indicated they knew to a large extent what

words or actions are considered sexual

harassment (Figure 29).

Members’ confidence in their ability to

identify sexual harassment may result from

receiving awareness training on the issue.

Considerable sexual harassment training

has been provided, although the types of
30 DEFENSE MANPOWER DATA CENTER

training received and the length of training

varied. More than 80 percent of the total

active force said awareness training had been

provided to military personnel at their duty

stations (Table 12). Women were slightly

less likely than men (79% vs. 83%) to say

that awareness training had been provided.

Junior enlisted members were less likely than

both senior enlisted and officers to know

if training was provided (18% vs. 9% each)

(Table 13). Over three-quarters of junior

enlisted members knew that such training

was provided at their duty station.

Major Findings

Table 12

Percentage Indicating Whether Awareness Training

Had Been Provided for Military Personnel at

Their Current Duty Stations, by Gender

Response Total Men Women

Yes 83 83 79

(.51) (.58) (.43)

No 5 4 7

(.29) (.33) (.25)

Don’t know 12 12 14

(.44) (.51) (.39)

19

12

9

77

86

3

1

2

90

0 10 20 30 40 50

Percentage

60 70 80 90 100

Officer

Jr. Enlisted (E1-E4) 

Sr. Enlisted (E5-E9) 

Not at all Small to moderate extent Large extent 

Figure 29

Extent of Knowledge About What Kinds of Words or

Actions Are Considered Sexual Harassment, by Paygrade

Table 13

Percentage Indicating Whether Awareness Training

Had Been Provided for Military Personnel at Their

Current Duty Stations, by Paygrade

Junior Senior

Response Enlisted Enlisted Officer

Yes 76 87 87

(.97) (.71) (.84)

No 6 5 3

(.51) (.45) (.43)

Don’t know 18 9 9

(.89) (.59) (.75)

Additionally, members stationed in overseas

assignments were about as likely as those

assigned in CONUS to say that awareness

training had been provided at their duty station

(81% vs. 84%).

When asked about the content of the training, military members were most likely to

receive training on their Service’s policies regarding sexual harassment (81%) (Figure 30). About

three-quarters of the force received training on

identifying, avoiding and dealing with harassment (77%), as well as procedures for reporting
1995 SEXUAL HARASSMENT SURVEY 31

Major Findings

81

72

75

77

74

82

76

78

71

75

67

59

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Legal and career consequences

of sexual harassment

Identifying, avoiding, dealing

with sexual harassment

Procedures for reporting

sexual harassment

Service's policies on sexual

harassment

Percentage

Women

Men

Total

Figure 30

Training Received During the Last 12 Months

sexual harassment (75%). Service members were

somewhat less likely to learn about the legal

and career consequences for those who do not

comply with harassment policies (72%). In every

category, women were less likely than were men

to say they had received training.

Service Differences

Some variation in training levels was apparent

across the Services. Navy and Coast Guard

personnel were more likely to say that training

had been provided to them compared to members in the three other Services (91% and 88%,

respectively) (Figure 31). Eighty percent of Army

12

5

83

7

14

80

2

6

91

4

13

83

5

17

77

8 4

88

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Percentage

Don't know No Yes

Active Force Army Navy Marine Corps Air Force Coast Guard

Figure 31

Awareness Training Provided at Current Duty Stations, by Service

personnel, 83 percent of

Marines and 77 percent of

Air Force members said

that training had been

provided for military

personnel at their

current duty stations.

There were also

some Service differences

in the types of training

implemented. Navy

personnel were significantly more likely than

members in the other Services to report that they

had received training in each of the areas cited

here (Table 14). Train-ing statistics for Navy

members ranged from 94 percent receiving

training in Navy policies and procedures on

sexual harassment to 85 percent receiving

training on the legal and career consequences

of harassment.

Marine Corps and Coast Guard personnel

were generally next most likely to say that each

type of training had been conducted, followed

by Army members. Air Force members were

least likely to report receiving any kind of sexual

harassment training; about two-thirds said they
32 DEFENSE MANPOWER DATA CENTER

had received training on their Service’s policies

and procedures relating to sexual harassment,

and 59 percent reported being trained in the

legal and career consequences of harassment.

The largest proportion of Service members

(42%) indicated they had completed one to

four hours of training, in total, on topics related

to sexual harassment (Figure 32). Thirty-four

percent received more than four hours of

sexual harassment training, with half of

Figure 32

Amount of Sexual Harassment Training Received

During the Last 12 Months

17

17

13

17

17

13

42

42

40

9

9

13

16

15

20

0 10 20 30 40 50

Percentage

60 70 80 90 100

Total

Men

Women

1 or more days 4-8 hours 1-4 hours Less than 1 hour I haven't received any training

Table 14

Training Received During the Last 12 Months, by Type of Training and Service

Percent

Marine Air Coast

Type of Training Army Navy Corps Force Guard

Service’s policies on 78 94 86 67 87

 sexual harassment (.99) (.66) (1.51) (1.19) (1.30)

Identifying, avoiding, dealing 75 90 82 64 79

 with sexual harassment (1.04) (.82) (1.68) (1.22) (1.70)

Procedures for reporting 74 87 77 61 79

 sexual harassment (1.06) (.90) (1.82) (1.24) (1.56)

Legal and career consequences 69 85 76 59 73

 of sexual harassment (1.11) (.95) (1.84) (1.24) (1.82)

these claiming to have completed one or

more days. Navy personnel were more likely

than members of the other Services to fall

into this category, with 31 percent reporting

one or more days of training (Figure 33).

When asked to assess the sexual harassment training they had received, more than

half of service women and nearly two-thirds

of service men indicated that they felt the

training was moderately or very effective in

Major Findings
1995 SEXUAL HARASSMENT SURVEY 33

42

17 17

44

12

16

38

31

21

46

17 19

41

6

11

43

21 19

16

9 9

18

5 4

8 10

14

28

11

7

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

1 or more 

days

4-8 hours 1-4 hours Less than 

1 hour

I haven’t 

received any

training

Percentage

Active Force Army Navy Marine Corps Air Force Coast Guard

Figure 33

Amount of Sexual Harassment Training Received During the Last 12 Months, by Service

Table 15

Ratings of the Effectiveness of Training,

by Women and Men Who Received Training

Percent

Rating Total Men Women

Moderately or 64 65 54

 very effective (.73) (.82) (.55)

Slightly effective 28 27 33

(.68) (.77) (.52)

Not effective 9 8 12

(.43) (.48) (.35)

reducing and preventing sexual harassment

(Table 15). Only 12 percent of the women and

eight percent of the men felt that training was

not at all effective. Nonetheless, a third of service

women and 27 percent of service men thought

their training would have only a slight positive

impact on levels of harassment in the military.

Members’ assessments of the effectiveness of harassment training varied little across

the Services. Women serving in the Navy (62%),

however, were generally more likely than women

in the other Services to say that training had

been moderately or very effective in reducing

and preventing sexual harassment (Figure 34).

There were no significant Service differences

for men.

Assessments of Progress

—How Are We Doing?

When asked to give their opinions of the leadership’s efforts to stop harassment, service women

consistently presented a less favorable assessment than service men. Slightly over half of the

women and two-thirds of the men said that the

senior leadership of their Service, as well as

the senior leadership of the installation or

ship, made honest and reasonable efforts to

put an end to harassment (Figure 35). Thirtyeight percent of women and 28 percent of men

responded that they did not know whether

honest efforts were being made at these high

levels of leadership. When asked about efforts

made by their immediate supervisors, about

a quarter of both women and men were unsure,

while 59 percent of the women and 68 percent

Major Findings
34 DEFENSE MANPOWER DATA CENTER

of the men felt that their supervisors had made

honest efforts to stop sexual harassment.

Women in the Army were somewhat less

likely than women in the other Services to feel

12

33

54

15

51

33

9

62

29

15

48

37

12

50

38

11

33

55

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Moderately or very

effective

Slightly effective Not effective

Percentage

Active Force Army Navy Marine Corps Air Force Coast Guard

Figure 34

Rating of the Effectiveness of Training,

by Women Who Received Training

Figure 35

Percentage Indicating Whether Honest and Reasonable

Efforts to Stop Harassment Are Being Made

68

59

67

52

67

53

24

26

29

38

28

38

7

15

4

10

5

10

0 10 20 30 40 50

Percentage

60 70 80 90 100

Rated by men

Rated by women

Rated by men

Rated by women

Rated by men

Rated by women

Yes Don't know No

By my immediate supervisor

By senior leadership of my installation/ship

By senior leadership of my Service

that the senior leadership of their Service

(47%), as well as their

immediate supervisors

(54%), were making

reasonable efforts

to stop harassment

(Table 16). At 62 percent each, Navy, and

Coast Guard women

were more likely than

women in the Army,

Marines and Air Force

to say that senior leaders of the installation

or ship were making

honest efforts.

Both women and

men believed that

sexual harassment is occurring less frequently

than it used to. Nearly three-quarters of military members with six to 10 years of service

said that, in their opinion, harassment occurs

Major Findings
1995 SEXUAL HARASSMENT SURVEY 35

Table 16

Percentage of Women Indicating That Leadership Makes Honest

and Reasonable Efforts to Stop Harassment, by Service

Marine Air Coast

Type of Leadership Army Navy Corps Force Guard

Senior leadership of service 47 61 57 51 61

(.87) (1.00) (2.01) (.87) (1.92)

Senior leadership of 45 62 51 51 62

 installation/ship (.86) (1.01) (2.21) (.88) (1.91)

Immediate supervisor 54 64 60 61 64

(.91) (1.00) (1.88) (.88) (1.79)

73

76

60

20

18

30 10

5

5

0 10 20 30 40 50

Percentage

60 70 80 90 100

Total

Men

Women

Less often About the same More often

Figure 36

Opinions of Members With 6-10 Years Service

About the Frequency With Which Sexual Harassment

Occurs Now Compared With a Few Years Ago, by Gender

less often in the military now compared with a

few years ago (Figure 36). Fewer women than men

expressed this opinion, however (60% vs. 76%).

Thirty percent of women and nearly one-fifth of

men said that sexual harassment is occurring at

about the same rate as in the past. Ten percent

Major Findings

of women and five percent of men claimed that

harassment is occurring more often that it did

a few years ago. Women in the Navy and Coast

Guard (71% and 70%) were more likely than

women in the other Services to feel that harassment is occurring less often (Figure 37).
36 DEFENSE MANPOWER DATA CENTER

60

30

10

51

13

35

71

6

22

59

9

31

59

9

31

70

24

6

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

More often About the same Less often

Percentage

Active Force Army Navy Marine Corps Air Force Coast Guard

Figure 37

Opinions of Female Members With 6-10 Years Service

About the Frequency With Which Sexual Harassment

Occurs Now Compared With a Few Years Ago, by Service
1995 SEXUAL HARASSMENT SURVEY 37

Sexual harassment persists today as an area of

concern in organizations, both public and private,

throughout the United States. The Department of

Defense has made progress toward reducing this

problem since the first survey of sexual harassment in the military was conducted in 1988.

When measured in the same way, incidents of

sexual harassment have declined nine percentage

points for women, from 64 percent in 1988 to 55

percent in 1995, and three percentage points for

men, from 17 percent to 14 percent. In addition,

almost three-quarters of members with six to

10 years of military service believed that sexual

harassment occurs less often now compared

with a few years ago.

Despite these positive findings, there is

room for improvement in achieving the DoD

goal of eliminating sexual harassment from

the DoD workplace. Results of the 1995 DoD

Sexual Harassment Survey highlight a number

of issues that warrant continued consideration.

• Junior enlisted members, both female and

male, consistently reported experiencing

unwanted sex/gender-related behavior at

higher rates than senior enlisted members

and, in most categories, officers as well.

Junior enlisted personnel were also less

likely than senior enlisted and officers to

claim to understand the process for reporting harassment, and were less sure of the

complaint options available to them at

their duty stations. This combination of

factors indicates the vulnerability of junior

enlisted personnel and suggests they might

benefit from targeted efforts that provide

information on the resources available to

them for dealing with sexual harassment.

• Those experiencing unwanted sex/genderrelated attention indicated it is largely

occurring on military installations, at work,

and during duty hours. In addition, military

co-workers were most frequently cited, by

both women and men, as the sources of this

attention. Military members rarely indicated

that civilians are the offenders. This information is helpful because harassment and

other behaviors occurring on base, at work,

during duty hours is a scenario for which

the Department of Defense can hold commanders accountable.

• Fifteen percent of women and 39 percent of

men indicated that nothing was done about

their complaints. Some also said they experienced negative consequences as a result of

reporting: ten percent overall indicated that

supervisors or others in the chain of command were subsequently hostile toward

them; six percent said that co-workers

were hostile.

• Most service members who filed complaints

said that their chances of having a successful military career would not be affected by

filing a complaint. However, 18 percent of

the members who filed complaints said that

reporting the harassment would have negative consequences for their military careers.

• Considerable sexual harassment training is

being provided. Over 80 percent of military

members reported receiving some training

on sexual harassment policies or other related

matters in the previous 12 months. Fifty-four

percent of women and 65 percent of men felt

that training is effective in actually reducing

and preventing sexual harassment.

The results of this survey are important and

highlight areas worthy of periodicre-examination.

However, documenting the incidence of sexual

harassment is problematic due to the increased

awareness, in recent years, of what constitutes

sexual harassment. This means that more

people, of both sexes, are viewing and reporting more behaviors that occur at work as sexual

Summary and Conclusions
38 DEFENSE MANPOWER DATA CENTER

harassment. For example, in a periodic survey

of federal civilian workers, male employees were

asked if pressuring someone in their work group

for sexual favors could be considered sexual

harassment; 65 percent responded affirmatively

in 1980 compared to 93 percent in 1994. In that

same survey, conducted in 1980, 1987 and 1994,

the reports of sexual harassment by women did

not decline.

Thus, in today’s environment, where people

have increased knowledge about and less tolerance for sexual harassment, the 1995 survey of

active-duty military members documented an

unprecedented decline in the occurrence of such

experiences. No other study has identified such

a decline in sexual harassment rates. It is clear

that recent DoD and Service initiatives (e.g., a

re-formulation of military sexual harassment policies and programs and provision of increased

training) are making a difference. However, the

Department of Defense is far from achieving its

“zero tolerance” policy. Sexual harassment of

active-duty military personnel remains a problem that requires top-down attention and continuing program improvement and emphasis.

The DoD 1995 Sexual Harassment Survey

provides a great deal of information about sexual harassment and related behaviors as experienced and perceived by the active-duty military

population. The Department’s policy of zero

tolerance for sexual harassment requires continued vigilance in efforts to eradicate the problem. The elimination, or virtual elimination, of

sexual harassment in the military would mark

the realization of an important equal opportunity goal for the Department of Defense. As

Secretary Perry has stated: “Equal opportunity

is not just the right thing to do, it is a military

and economic necessity.”

Summary and Conclusions
1995 SEXUAL HARASSMENT SURVEY 39

References

Arvey, R. D., & Cavanaugh, M. A. (1995). Using

surveys to assess the prevalence of sexual

harassment: Some methodological problems.

Journal of Social Issues, 51, 117-138.

Council of American Survey Research Organizations. (1982). On the definition of response rates:

A special report of the CASRO task force on completion

rates, Lester R. Frankel, Chairman). Port Jefferson,

NY: Author.

Cochran, W. G. (1977). Sampling techniques. New York:

John Wiley & Sons.

Defense Equal Opportunity Council. (1995).

Report of the Task Force on Discrimination and

Sexual Harassment (Vol. II). Washington, DC:

U.S. Department of Defense.

Drasgow, F., Fitzgerald, L. F., Magley, V. J., Waldo,

C. R., & Zickar, M. J. (in preparation). The 1995

Armed Forces Sexual Harassment Survey: Report on

scales and measures (Report No. 96-015). Arlington, VA: Defense Manpower Data Center.

Edwards, J. E., Elig, T. W., Edwards D. L., & Riemer,

R. A. (in preparation a). The 1995 Armed Forces

Sexual Harassment Survey: Codebook for Form A

(Report No. 95-014). Arlington, VA: Defense

Manpower Data Center.

Edwards, J. E., Elig, T. W., Edwards D. L., & Riemer,

R. A. (in preparation b). The 1995 Armed Forces

Sexual Harassment Survey: Codebook for Form B

(Report No. 95-015). Arlington, VA: Defense

Manpower Data Center.

Edwards, J. E., Elig, T. W., Edwards D. L., & Riemer,

R. A. (in preparation c). The 1995 Armed Forces

Sexual Harassment Survey: Codebook for Form C

(Report No. 95-016). Arlington, VA: Defense

Manpower Data Center.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

(1980). Final guidelines on sexual harassment in

the workplace (Federal Regulations, 45:74676).

Washington, DC: U.S. Government

Printing Office.

Fitzgerald, L. F., Shullman, S., Bailey, N., Richards, M.,

Swecker, J., Gold, A., Ormerod, A. J., & Weitzman,

L. (1988). The incidence and dimensions of

sexual harassment in academia and the workplace. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 32, 152-175.

Martindale, M. (1990). Sexual harassment in the

military: 1988. Arlington, VA: Defense Manpower

Data Center.

Mason, R. E., Wheeless, S. C., George, B. J., Kavee,

J. A., Riemer, R. A., & Elig, T. W. (1995). Sample

allocation for the Status of the Armed Forces

Surveys. In 1995 Proceedings of the Section on Survey

Research Methods, Vol. II (pp. 769-774). Alexandria, VA: American Statistical Association.

Mason, R. E., Kavee, J. A., Wheeless, S. C., George,

B. J., & Riemer, R. A. (in preparation). The 1995

Armed Forces Sexual Harassment Survey: Statistical

methodology report (Report No. 96-016). Arlington, VA: Defense Manpower Data Center.

U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board. (1981).

Sexual harassment in the federal workplace—Is it

a problem? Washington, DC: Author.

U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board. (1995).

Sexual harassment in the federal workplace: Trends,

progress, continuing challenges. Washington,

DC: Author.
Appendix A

Form A

Questionnaire
42 DEFENSE MANPOWER DATA CENTER

Executive Summary

DEFENSE MANPOWER DATA CENTER
1995 SEXUAL HARASSMENT SURVEY 43

Appendix A. Form A Questionnaire

 

PLEASE DO NOT WRITE IN THIS AREA

SERIAL #

• 1 •

This is a worldwide scientific survey of how men and women work together in the four DoD

Active-duty Military Services and the Coast Guard being conducted for the Office of the Secretary of

Defense by the Defense Manpower Data Center (DMDC). The purpose of this survey is to ask you

about your observations, opinions and experiences with ALL KINDS of sexual talk and behavior that

can occur at work. IT IS IMPORTANT THAT PERSONS WHO HAVE NOT BEEN SEXUALLY

HARASSED, AS WELL AS THOSE WHO HAVE BEEN SEXUALLY HARASSED, RESPOND.

In accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974 (Public Law 93-579), this notice informs you of the purpose of the

survey and how the findings will be used. Please read it carefully.

AUTHORITY: 10 United States Code, Sections 136 and 2358.

PRINCIPAL PURPOSE: Information collected in this survey will be used to sample attitudes and perceptions of

military members about personnel relationships, programs, and policies. This information will assist in the

formulation of policies which may be needed to improve the military working environment and relevant

personnel policies. Reports will be provided to the Secretaries of Defense and Transportation, each Military

Service, and the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Findings will be used in reports and testimony provided to Congress. Some

findings may be published by the Defense Manpower Data Center (DMDC) or professional journals, or

reported in manuscripts presented at conferences, symposia, and scientific meetings. In no case will the data be

reported or used for identifiable individual(s).

ROUTINE USES: None

DISCLOSURE: Providing information on this survey is voluntary. There is no penalty if you choose not to

respond. However, maximum participation is encouraged so that the data will be complete and representative.

Your survey instrument will be treated as confidential. Identifying information will be used only by persons

engaged in, and for the purposes of, the survey. Only group statistics will be reported.

DMDC Survey No. 95-001a DEFENSE MANPOWER DATA CENTER

ATTN: SURVEY PROCESSING ACTIVITY

DATA RECOGNITION CORPORATION

5900 BAKER ROAD

MINNETONKA, MN 55345-5967

SURVEY PURPOSE

PRIVACY NOTICE

RCS: DD-P&R(BI)1947

Exp. 6/27/97

IRCN 0423 DoD BI

Exp. 8/31/98

STATUS OF THE ARMED FORCES SURVEYS

1995 Form A—Sex Roles in the Active-Duty Military 
44 DEFENSE MANPOWER DATA CENTER

Appendix A. Form A Questionnaire

 

• 2 •

This survey deals with sexual talk and behavior which can range from apparently casual

remarks (like “Mary (or Joe) looks sexy today”) to the serious crimes of sexual assault and rape.

Sometimes this sexual talk and behavior is considered sexual harassment and sometimes it is

not.

Certain kinds of UNINVITED and UNWANTED sexual talk and behavior occurring at work can

be considered sexual harassment. Examples are: 

Actual or attempted rape or sexual assault.

Unwanted, uninvited pressure for sexual favors (Example: Someone tried to talk you into

performing a certain sexual act with or for them, maybe promising a reward).

Unwanted, uninvited touching, leaning over, cornering, pinching or brushing against of a

deliberately sexual nature.

Unwanted, uninvited sexually suggestive looks, gestures or body language (Example: Someone

at work kept staring at your sexual body parts).

Unwanted, uninvited letters, telephone calls, or materials of a sexual nature (Examples:

Someone at work called you and said foul things; someone at work brought nude pictures for

you to look at; someone sent you letters suggesting that you and the person have sex).

Unwanted, uninvited pressure for dates (Example: a superior kept pressuring you to go out).

Unwanted, uninvited sexual teasing, jokes, remarks or questions (Examples: Someone told you

that you have a nice body; someone asked you how your sex life is; someone told crude jokes

to embarrass you; someone jokingly made some comment about how you might perform in

bed).

Unwanted, uninvited whistles, calls, hoots or yells of a sexual nature (Example: One or more

persons whistled at you or yelled some sexual things at you from a window or from a car

driving past you).

Unwanted, uninvited attempts to get your participation in any other kinds of sexually oriented

activities (Examples: Someone tried to get you involved in group sex, or pose for nude films, or

to seduce someone for fun).

BOTH MEN AND WOMEN CAN BE VICTIMS OF SEXUAL HARASSMENT; BOTH WOMEN

AND MEN CAN BE SEXUAL HARASSERS; PEOPLE CAN SEXUALLY HARASS PERSONS OF

THEIR OWN SEX.

Your frank and honest answers will help give us an accurate picture of the situation, and assist

in the evaluation and development of policies. Please read all questions and instructions

CAREFULLY before responding. We appreciate your time.

PLEASE READ THIS

BEFORE YOU BEGIN

THANK YOU

•

•

•

•

USE NO. 2 PENCIL ONLY

• THIS IS NOT A TEST, SO TAKE YOUR TIME.

• SELECT ANSWERS THAT BEST FIT YOU.

• MARK ONLY ONE ANSWER FOR EACH QUESTION UNLESS

THE QUESTION SAYS TO MARK ALL THAT APPLY.

RIGHT MARK WRONG MARKS

• MAKE HEAVY BLACK MARKS THAT FILL THE RESPONSE CIRCLES.

• DO NOT MAKE ANY MARKS OUTSIDE OF THE RESPONSE CIRCLES

OR WRITE-IN BOXES.

• IF YOU CHANGE YOUR MIND, ERASE OLD MARKS COMPLETELY.

• DO NOT USE INK, BALLPOINT, OR FELT TIP PENS.

✓ ✗

★U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1994–386-734/00013
1995 SEXUAL HARASSMENT SURVEY 45

Appendix A. Form A Questionnaire

 

• 3 •

The CO very ACTIVELY DISCOURAGES 

sexual harassment

The CO has spoken out against it AND does 

seem to want it stopped

The CO has NOT spoken out against it BUT

seems to want it stopped

The CO HAS spoken out against it BUT really 

seems not to care about it

The CO seems uninformed about sexual 

harassment

The CO may or may not have spoken out 

against sexual harassment but really seems to 

condone it

The CO has NOT spoken out against it AND

seems not to care about it

The CO seems to actually encourage sexual 

harassment

The CO’s attitude is unknown/The CO is 

new/The subject hasn’t come up

In this section, we ask you some general questions about sexual harassment in the active-duty military

environment and your perceptions about official actions and policies concerning such harassment.

1. If you have worked outside the active-duty 

military, would you say that there is more 

or less unwanted sexual attention in nonmilitary jobs?

2. Please read the statements below and select the

one which best represents the attitude toward

sexual harassment of the commanding officer at

your base/post.

3. For each person or organization given below, please give your opinion about whether it or they make

honest and reasonable efforts to stop sexual harassment in the active-duty military, regardless of what is

said officially.

a. Senior leadership of my Service

b. Senior leadership on my installation/ship

c. My immediate supervisor/commanding officer

d. Other unit commanders I’ve had

e. My training instructor(s)

f. Commanding officers at my other assignment stations

MAKE REASONABLE EFFORTS?

Yes

No

Opinion No

Not

Applicable PERSON OR ORGANIZATION

SECTION 1

STATUS OF THE ARMED FORCES SURVEYS

1995 Form A—Sex Roles in the Active-Duty Military 

PLEASE DO NOT WRITE IN THIS AREA

SERIAL #

There is about the same in military and 

nonmilitary jobs

I have never observed unwanted sexual 

attention in either active-duty military or 

non-military jobs

I have never held a nonmilitary job

There is more in nonmilitary jobs

There is less in nonmilitary jobs

Don’t know/Can’t judge
46 DEFENSE MANPOWER DATA CENTER

Appendix A. Form A Questionnaire

 

No

No, but I have considered asking for a transfer

Yes, I have requested a transfer and have 

been transferred

Yes, I have requested a transfer but am 

awaiting transfer

Yes, I have considered leaving the military due 

to sexual harassment but decided to stay

Yes, I am considering leaving now due to 

sexual harassment

• 4 •

Makes

Things

Worse

Not

Effective Effective

Somewhat

Effective

HOW EFFECTIVE IS THE ACTION?

No, I don’t know anyone

I know one person

I know two people

I know three people

I know four or more people

5. Do you, from your own knowledge or from what

the person(s) said, know anyone who has

experienced sexual harassment while on duty?

Mark one answer. Do not include yourself.

4. Have you ever requested a transfer or considered

leaving the active-duty military because someone

was bothering you sexually? Mark all that apply.

6. In most cases, how effective do you think it is for personnel to take each action given below to make others

stop bothering them sexually? Mark one answer for each action.

Very ACTION: Effective

7. Do you personally know anyone in the activeduty military who, in your opinion, was unfairly

accused of sexual harassment (officially or

unofficially) in the past year?

Yes

Not sure

No

8. Was there any sexual talk or behavior at work

during the past year that, overall, created an

offensive, hostile or intimidating environment 

for you?

Always

Most of the time

Sometimes

Rarely

Never

a. Ignoring the behavior

b. Avoiding the person(s)

c. Asking or telling the person(s) to stop

d. Threatening to tell or telling co-worker(s)

e. Threatening to tell the person(s)’ unit commander(s)

f. Reporting the behavior to the person(s)’ unit 

commander(s) or others up the chain

g. Filing a formal complaint

h. Threatening to tell the person(s)’ spouse(s)

i. Threatening to tell your own spouse or mate

j. Threatening some drastic action outside channels if 

the person(s) doesn’t (don’t) stop

k. Becoming extra firm and professional at work

l. Other (Specify:

)
1995 SEXUAL HARASSMENT SURVEY 47

Appendix A. Form A Questionnaire

• 5 •

Yes No

Don’t

Know

HAS THE ACTION BEEN TAKEN

AT YOUR BASE/POST?

9. Listed below are some actions which might be taken in an effort to reduce sexual harassment. We ask you

to indicate whether any of these actions has been taken at your current duty station. Mark one answer for

each action.

ACTIONS:

10. Have you ever observed American military personnel at your current duty station sexually

harassing any nonmilitary persons listed below? Mark all that apply.

Go To Next Section

One or more civilian employee(s) of the Department of Defense (DoD), one of the 

Services or Coast Guard

One or more local civilian residents

One or more foreign national employee(s) of the DoD, of the Services or Coast Guard

One or more other foreign national(s)

Civilian contractors with DoD/one of Services

No, I have NOT observed American military personnel sexually harassing any 

nonmilitary person(s) listed

PLEASE DO NOT WRITE IN THIS AREA

SERIAL #

a. Establishing policies prohibiting sexual harassment

b. Providing swift and thorough investigation of sexual harassment 

complaints

c. Enforcing penalties against unit commanders or other superiors who 

allow sexual harassment to continue

d. Enforcing penalties against sexual harassers

e. Publicizing the availability of formal complaint channels

f. Providing counseling services for victims of sexual harassment

g. Providing awareness training for active military personnel

h. Providing awareness training for unit commanders and Equal 

Opportunity officials

i. Establishing a specific office at each base/post which has the authority 

to investigate complaints regarding sexual harassment, to provide 

remedies for victims and/or penalties against harassers

j. Other action (Specify:

)
48 DEFENSE MANPOWER DATA CENTER

Appendix A. Form A Questionnaire

• 6 •

Actual or attempted rape or sexual assault

Unwanted, uninvited pressure for sexual favors 

(Example: Someone tried to talk you into performing a certain sexual act with or for them, 

maybe promising a reward)

Unwanted, uninvited touching, leaning over, cornering, pinching or brushing against of a 

deliberately sexual nature

Unwanted, uninvited sexually suggestive looks, gestures or body language 

(Example: Someone at work kept staring at your sexual body parts)

Unwanted, uninvited letters, telephone calls, or materials of a sexual nature 

(Examples: Someone at work called you and said foul things, someone at work brought

nude pictures for you to look at, someone sent you letters suggesting that you and the 

person have sex)

Unwanted, uninvited pressure for dates 

(Example: A superior kept pressuring you to go out)

Unwanted, uninvited sexual teasing, jokes, remarks or questions 

(Examples: Someone told you that you have a nice body, someone asked you how 

your sex life is, someone told crude jokes to embarrass you, someone jokingly made 

some comment about how you might perform in bed)

Unwanted, uninvited whistles, calls, hoots or yells of a sexual nature 

(Example: One or more persons whistled at you or yelled some sexual things at you 

from a window or from a car driving past you)

Unwanted, uninvited attempts to get your participation in any other kinds of sexually 

oriented activities 

(Examples: Someone tried to get you involved in group sex, or to pose for nude films, 

or to seduce someone for fun)

Other unwanted, uninvited attention of a sexual nature (Specify:

 )

No, I have NEVER experienced any UNINVITED and UNWANTED sexual attention 

from someone at work while in the active-duty military 

This section asks about any experience YOU have had with UNINVITED and UNWANTED sexual

attention in the course of performing your duties in the active-duty military. ALTHOUGH THE SECTION

WILL TAKE SOME TIME TO COMPLETE, IT WILL PROVIDE THE MOST IMPORTANT INFORMATION

BEING GATHERED BY THIS SURVEY.

Please Note: Sexual attention can be welcome or unwelcome. “UNINVITED AND UNWANTED

TALK AND BEHAVIOR” is talk and behavior which you did NOT provoke, did NOT ask for, are

NOT responsible for and do NOT participate in willingly or jokingly. Keep the examples of sexual

attention given below in mind as you answer the rest of the survey.

11. Have YOU EVER RECEIVED any of the following kinds of UNINVITED and UNWANTED sexual attention

from someone AT WORK while serving in the active-duty military? Mark all that apply.

TYPE OF UNINVITED, UNWANTED SEXUAL ATTENTION

SECTION 2
1995 SEXUAL HARASSMENT SURVEY 49

Appendix A. Form A Questionnaire

This was my only experience

This was my most recent experience

This experience is still continuing

This experience permanently damaged my career

This experience caused me to lose friends

This experience caused me to transfer

This experience may cause me to leave the Service

This did not actually occur (only) at the work site

This experience took place here

This experience took place at another 

duty station

This experience took place on recruit 

(basic) training elsewhere

This experience took place while I was on TDY

• 7 •

PLEASE DO NOT WRITE IN THIS AREA

SERIAL #

a. Actual or attempted rape or sexual assault

b. Pressure for sexual favors

c. Sexual touching, leaning over, cornering, pinching 

or brushing against

d. Sexually suggestive looks, gestures or body language

e. Letters, telephone calls or materials of a sexual 

nature

f. Pressure for dates

g. Sexual teasing, jokes, remarks or questions

h. Sexual whistles, calls, hoots or yells

i. Attempts to get your participation in any other 

sexual activities

j. Other sexual attention (Specify:

 

 )

k. No, I have NOT experienced any unwanted, 

uninvited sexual attention from someone at work 

IN THE LAST 12 MONTHS

IF YOU HAVE NEVER RECEIVED ANY FORM OF SEXUAL ATTENTION THAT WAS UNWANTED

AND UNINVITED FROM SOMEONE AT WORK WHILE IN THE ACTIVE-DUTY MILITARY, GO TO

SECTION 3 ON PAGE 14. OTHERWISE, GO TO QUESTION 12 BELOW.

Never Once

2–4 Times

a Month

Once 

a Month 

or Less

FREQUENCY IN THE LAST 12 MONTHS

Once

a Week

or More TYPE OF UNINVITED, UNWANTED SEXUAL ATTENTION

12. Have you received any of the following kinds of UNINVITED AND UNWANTED sexual attention DURING

THE LAST 12 MONTHS from someone where you work in the active-duty military? (If you have served less

than 1 year, answer for your entire service period.)

IF YOU HAVE NOT RECEIVED ANY UNWANTED, UNINVITED SEXUAL ATTENTION FROM

SOMEONE WHERE YOU WORK IN THE LAST 12 MONTHS, GO TO SECTION 3 ON PAGE 14.

OTHERWISE, GO TO QUESTION 13 BELOW.

14. Did this experience take place at the duty 

station where you are now assigned, at some

other assignment location, while you were on

temporary duty elsewhere (TDY), or on recruit

(basic) training? Mark one.

13. Describe the experience you have in mind.

Mark all that apply.

If uninvited and unwanted sexual attention HAS happened to you while AT WORK in the active-duty

military within the last 12 months: SELECT THE ONE EXPERIENCE THAT HAD THE GREATEST EFFECT

ON YOU AND ANSWER THE REST OF THE QUESTIONS IN THIS SECTION IN TERMS OF THAT

EXPERIENCE.
50 DEFENSE MANPOWER DATA CENTER

Appendix A. Form A Questionnaire

k. I did something else (Specify: 

 )

Actual or attempted rape or sexual assault

Pressure for sexual favors

Sexual touching, leaning over, cornering, pinching or brushing against

Sexually suggestive looks, gestures, or body language

Letters, telephone calls, or materials of a sexual nature

Pressure for dates

Sexual teasing, jokes, remarks or questions

Whistles, calls, hoots or yells of a sexual nature

Attempts to get your participation in other sexually oriented activities

Other unwanted, uninvited sexual attention

 (Specify: )

It was a single event (GO TO QUESTION 19)

Less than one week

1 to 4 weeks 

1 to 3 months

4 to 6 months

More than 6 months

Once a month or less

2 to 4 times a month

Every few days

Every day

It varied—sometimes a lot, sometimes not often

Every time the person(s) saw me

• 8 •

15. During the experience you have in mind, which of the following UNINVITED, UNWANTED sexual

attention happened to you? Mark all that apply.

a. I ignored the behavior or did nothing

b. I avoided the person(s)

c. I asked or told the person(s) to stop

d. I threatened to tell or told others

e. I reported the behavior to the unit commander or 

other official(s)

f. I made a joke of the behavior

g. I went along with the behavior

h. I transferred, disciplined or gave a poor fitness report 

to the person(s)

i. I got someone else to speak to the person(s) about 

the behavior

j. I threatened to harm the person(s) if the behavior continued

You

Did Not

Do This

Made

No

Difference

Made

Things

Worse

EFFECT OF ACTION

Made

Things

ACTION Better

16. How did you respond to this sexual attention and what effect did your action(s) have? FOR EACH

ACTION BELOW, please FILL IN EITHER the “Did Not Do This” circle OR the circle below the effect your

action had.

18. During this period of time, how frequently did 

the person(s) involved sexually bother you?

17. Over what period of time did you keep receiving

this uninvited, unwanted sexual attention?

Mark one.
1995 SEXUAL HARASSMENT SURVEY 51

Appendix A. Form A Questionnaire

• 9 •

Found my charge to be true

Found my charge to be false

Corrected the damage done to me

Took action against the person(s) who bothered me

Were hostile or took action against me

Unit commander/other officials did nothing

The action is still being processed

I don’t know whether anyone did anything

a. I requested an investigation by my unit commander

b. I requested mast

c. I requested an investigation by the special office for 

handling these kinds of complaints, such as Equal 

Opportunity, Social Actions

d. I requested a judicial board to review the case

e. I requested an investigation by a person above my 

unit commander

f. I requested an investigation by the Inspector General’s Office

g. I requested a temporary assignment elsewhere

h. Other (Specify:

 

 )

ACTION

22. What formal action(s) did you take, and what effect did each have? FOR EACH ACTION BELOW, please

FILL IN EITHER the “Did Not Do This” circle OR the circle below the effect your action had.

21. What were your reasons for not taking any

formal (official) actions? Mark all that apply.

19. As a result of your response to the uninvited,

unwanted sexual attention, did any of the 

following changes happen in your work situation?

Mark all that apply.

20. Did you take any formal (official) action(s) against

the person(s) who victimized you?

No (GO TO QUESTION 21)

Yes (GO TO QUESTION 22)

NOW GO TO QUESTION 24 ON PAGE 10.

23. How did your unit commander or other officials respond to the formal action you took? 

Mark all that apply.

You

Did Not

Do This

Made

No

Difference

Made

Things

Worse

EFFECT OF ACTION

Made

Things

Better

I took care of the problem myself/thought I 

could take care of it

The person(s) was (were) not at my duty station

Didn’t know the person(s) who did it

Someone else took action for me or said 

something in my behalf

I did not know what actions to take

I saw no need to report it

I did not want to hurt the person(s) who 

bothered me

I was too embarrassed

I did not think anything would be done

I thought it would take too much time 

and effort

I thought that it would be held against me or 

that I would be blamed

I thought it would make my work situation 

unpleasant

I thought I would be labelled a troublemaker

My work assignments or conditions got worse

I was denied a promotion or good fitness report

I transferred to another location

I was reassigned/transferred to another location

I transferred to another work site at the 

same installation

My working conditions got better

I received a promotion or good fitness report

No changes occurred in my work situation
52 DEFENSE MANPOWER DATA CENTER

PLEASE DO NOT WRITE IN THIS AREA

SERIAL #

• 10 •

158458–4/4

Not

Applic.

No

Effect

Became

Less

Favorable

EFFECT OF ATTENTION

More

Favorable FACTOR

24. How did the unwanted, uninvited sexual attention affect you? For each factor listed below, mark the circle

which best describes how you were affected.

No one else knew, as far as I know

 (GO TO QUESTION 27)

At least one other person knew

Several other people knew

Almost everyone in the unit knew

25. Did others in your unit know about this

unwanted, uninvited sexual attention? (If you

were on TDY, answer for the persons you were

working with while at that location.) 

26. Did anyone in your unit (or at the TDY location)

who knew about this tell the person(s) who

bothered you that the behavior was unacceptable,

or otherwise try to stop the person(s)? 

Yes

No

Don’t know

Your immediate military supervisor

Your immediate civilian supervisor

Your unit commander

Other higher level military personnel

Your military co-worker(s)

Your civilian co-worker(s)

Your military subordinate(s)

Your civilian subordinate(s)

Other military person(s)

Other civilian person(s)

Other or unknown

27. Was/were the person(s) who sexually bothered

you: Mark all that apply.

Yes, the person(s) was (were) in my unit

No, the person(s) was (were) NOT in my unit

Some were, some were not in my unit

No, but the person(s) and I had been in 

the same unit in the past

28. Was (were) the person(s) who sexually bothered

you in your unit? 

a. My feelings about the military

b. My feelings about my unit

c. My opinion of the opposite sex

d. My opinion of members of my own sex

e. My feelings about work

f. My self-esteem

g. My opinion of my superiors

h. My emotional condition

i. My physical condition

j. My ability to work with others on the job

k. The quality of my work

l. The quantity of my work

m. My relations with my spouse

n. My relations with other family member(s)

o. My time and attendance at work

p. My overall fitness for service

q. My readiness

r. My attitude about doing a good job

s. My sense of control over my job

Appendix A. Form A Questionnaire
1995 SEXUAL HARASSMENT SURVEY 53

• 11 •

30. How long had you been in the active-duty

service when the incident or episode occurred

or began? 

29. Please describe the person(s) who sexually

bothered you. Mark one circle in sections 

a–c below. Mark all circles that apply in sections

d and e.

Male

Female

Two or more males

Two or more females

Both sexes

Unknown

Less than 6 months

6 months but less than 1 year

1 year but less than 2 years

2 years but less than 5 years

5 years or more

31. Do you know whether the person(s) who

bothered you has (have) sexually bothered

other military personnel during duty hours? 

32. Did you receive medical assistance or emotional

counseling from a trained professional as a 

result of the sexual attention? 

Yes, I received medical assistance

Yes, I received counseling from a 

trained professional

Yes, I received both medical assistance 

and emotional counseling

No, but emotional counseling might have 

been helpful

No, but medical assistance might have 

been helpful

No, I did not need either medical assistance 

or emotional counseling

Older

Same age

Younger

Mixed

Unknown

Same as yours

Different

Some same, some different

Unknown

Married

Single

Divorced, separated, widowed

Unknown

U.S. military

DoD/Service civilian employee

Civilian contractor

DoD/Service foreign-national employee

Local civilian resident

Local foreign-national resident

Unknown

a. Sex of Person(s)

b. Age of Person(s)

c. Race of Person(s)

d. Marital Status of Person(s)

Mark all that apply.

e. Military/Civilian Status of Person(s)

Mark all that apply.

33. Aside from other actions you might have taken,

did you discuss the situation privately with

family, friends or others, or seek advice about

what to do? Mark all that apply.

No, I did not discuss it or seek advice

I talked with one or more friend(s) briefly

I talked with one or more family 

members briefly

I talked at length with friend(s) about it

I talked at length with one or more family 

members about it

I talked with one or more co-worker(s) 

about it

I talked “off the record” with my 

unit commander

I asked for advice from one or more friend(s)

I asked for advice from one or more 

family member(s)

I asked for advice from one or more 

co-worker(s)

I talked to a chaplain, priest, rabbi, minister 

or other church-related person about it

Other (Specify:

 )

I don’t know if the person(s) has (have) 

done this

I know one person has; I don’t know 

about others

The only person involved has not 

bothered others

The only person involved has bothered others

Most or all involved have bothered others

Most or all involved have not bothered others

Appendix A. Form A Questionnaire
54 DEFENSE MANPOWER DATA CENTER

• 12 •

158458–3/4

PLEASE DO NOT WRITE IN THIS AREA

SERIAL #

None

One day

Two days

Three to five days

Six to ten days

More than 10 days

37. At the time this unwanted, uninvited sexual

attention occurred or began, who was in your

normal work group (that is, the people you worked

with every day)? (If you were on TDY, answer for

the group you worked with daily while at the

temporary location.)

34. If you used any annual leave or were ever out 

sick as a result of the unwanted, uninvited sexual

attention, please indicate how many days you

were absent.

35. In comparison to your normal job performance,

was your productivity (that is, either how much

work you did or how well you did it) affected by

the unwanted, uninvited sexual attention? If so,

please indicate the extent your productivity was

affected. (In responding, do not count time lost

due to use of sick or annual leave.) 

All men

More men than women

Equal numbers of men and women

More women than men

All women

My productivity was not affected

(GO TO QUESTION 37)

Don’t know/Can’t judge

(GO TO QUESTION 37)

My productivity was slightly reduced 

(10% or less)

My productivity was noticeably reduced 

(11%–25%)

My productivity was markedly reduced 

(26%–50%)

My productivity was dramatically reduced 

(more than 50%)

36. If your productivity was reduced, how long did

this reduction continue? 

Only when the uninvited, unwanted behavior 

was occurring

Only during the TDY

Less than 1 week

1 week but less than 1 month

1 month but less than 4 months

4 months but less than 6 months

6 months or more

Don’t know/Can’t judge 

38. At the time this unwanted, uninvited sexual

attention occurred or began, was your immediate

supervisor male or female? (If you were on TDY

and were not traveling with your usual supervisor,

answer for the person in charge at the TDY

location.)

Female

Male

Yes, I was the first and only of my sex

Yes, I was in the first group of my sex along 

with some others

Yes, I was in one of the first groups of my sex to 

be doing the work but not in the very first group

No, members of my sex had been doing the work 

for a while

No, members of my sex had been doing the work 

for a long time

No, members of my sex have always been doing 

that work in the unit

Don’t know

39. At the time this unwanted, uninvited sexual

attention occurred or began, were you one of the

first of your sex to be doing your kind of work 

(that is, your specific MOS/AFSC/rating/designator)

in the unit where you were assigned? (If you were

on TDY, please answer for the group you were

working with at that location.)

Appendix A. Form A Questionnaire
1995 SEXUAL HARASSMENT SURVEY 55

• 13 •

42. At the time the unwanted, uninvited sexual

attention occurred or began, how many

people were in your immediate work group

(that is, the people you saw and worked with

every day)? (If you were on TDY, answer for

your work group at that temporary location.) 

40. At the time this unwanted, uninvited sexual

attention occurred or began, what was your

paygrade? 

ENLISTED

E-1

E-2

E-3

E-4

E-5

E-6

E-7

E-8

E-9

WARRANT OFFICER

W-1

W-2

W-3

W-4

W-5

O-1

O-2

O-3

O-4

O-5

O-6

O-7

O-8

O-9

41. At the time the unwanted, uninvited sexual

attention occurred or began, were you a

supervisor who gave fitness reports to others? 

Yes

No

1–5 persons

6–15 persons

16–25 persons

More than 25 persons

43. At the time the unwanted, uninvited sexual

attention occurred or began, did you have

your own private work space? (If you were 

on TDY, answer for your temporary situation

at that location.) 

Yes, a private office with a door that could 

be closed

Yes, a semiprivate office with a door that 

could be closed

Yes, but I could be seen from one to three sides 

(include cubicles)

Yes, but I could be seen from four sides

No, I just worked in a common working area

44. At the time the unwanted, uninvited sexual

attention occurred or began, what was your

marital status? 

Married for the first time

Remarried

Legally separated

Informally separated

Widowed

Divorced

Single, never married

45. Did the unwanted, uninvited sexual attention

occur in CONUS (Continental United States),

overseas or at sea?

CONUS (Continental United States)

(GO TO QUESTION 47 ON THIS PAGE)

Overseas

(GO TO QUESTION 46 ON THIS PAGE)

At sea

(GO TO SECTION 3 ON PAGE 14)

47. If you were in CONUS, what was the general

location where the uninvited, unwanted sexual

attention occurred? 

Alaska and Hawaii

Pacific Trust Territories

Other Pacific

The Mediterranean

Other Europe

Atlantic Islands

Other Latin America

46. If the unwanted, uninvited sexual attention

occurred overseas, please indicate the specific

location below. Mark one.

WEST COAST (California, Oregon, Washington)

ROCKY MOUNTAIN STATES (Arizona, Nevada, 

Utah, Idaho, Wyoming, Colorado, Montana, 

New Mexico)

SOUTHWEST (Texas, Oklahoma, Arkansas, 

Louisiana)

MIDWEST (N. Dakota, S. Dakota, Nebraska, 

Kansas, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois, 

Indiana, Ohio, Missouri, Iowa, Michigan)

SOUTHEAST (Kentucky, Tennessee, Mississippi, 

Alabama, Georgia, Florida, North Carolina, 

South Carolina)

MID-ATLANTIC (West Virginia, Virginia, 

Pennsylvania, Maryland, Delaware, 

New Jersey, District of Columbia)

NEW ENGLAND (New York, Connecticut, 

Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Vermont, 

Rhode Island, Maine)

Appendix A. Form A Questionnaire
56 DEFENSE MANPOWER DATA CENTER

48. Are you:

Male

Female

YEARS

• 14 •

158458–2/4

PLEASE DO NOT WRITE IN THIS AREA

SERIAL #

51. Are you of Spanish/Hispanic origin or descent?

Mark one.

52. What race do you consider yourself to be?

Mark one.

This section of the survey asks for information we need to help us with the statistical analyses 

of the survey.

49. How old were you on your last birthday?

SECTION 3

54. In what Service are you?

Army

Navy

Marine Corps

Air Force

Coast Guard

1

2

3

4

5

6

53. What is your current marital status?

Never married

Married

Separated

Divorced

Widowed

No (not Spanish/Hispanic)

Yes, Mexican, Mexican-Amer., Chicano

Yes, Puerto Rican

Yes, Cuban

Yes, other Spanish/Hispanic

White

Black or African-Amer.

Indian (Amer.), Eskimo, or Aleut

Asian or Pacific Islander

Other Race (Please specify below)

50. How much education have you completed? 

Mark the ONE answer that describes the

HIGHEST grade or academic degree that 

you have COMPLETED.

Less than 12 years of school (no diploma)

GED or other high school equivalency 

certificate

High school diploma

Less than 2 years of college credits, but no 

college degree

2-year college degree (AA/AS)

More than 2 years of college credits, but no 

4-year college degree

4-year college degree (BA/BS)

Some graduate school, but no graduate degree

Master’s, doctoral, or professional school 

degree (MA/MS/PhD/MD/JD/DVM)

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

E-1

E-2

E-3

E-4

E-5

E-6

E-7

E-8

E-9

W-1

W-2

W-3

W-4

W-5

O-1

O-2

O-3

O-4

O-5

O-6 or above

MONTH DAY

DATE

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

0

1

2

3

JAN

FEB

MAR

APR

MAY

JUNE

JULY

AUG

SEPT

OCT

NOV

DEC

55. What is your current paygrade?

56. On what date did you complete this questionnaire?

Appendix A. Form A Questionnaire
1995 SEXUAL HARASSMENT SURVEY 57

• 15 •

Thank you very much for your cooperation in this survey. If you have comments or concerns that you were

not able to express in answering this survey, please write them in the space provided. 

Any comments you make on this questionnaire will be kept confidential, and no follow-up action will be taken in

response to any specifics reported. If you want to report a harassment problem, information about how to do so is

available through your command Equal Opportunity, Social Action, or Civil Rights Office.

SECTION 4

Appendix A. Form A Questionnaire
58 DEFENSE MANPOWER DATA CENTER

• 16 •

PLEASE DO NOT WRITE IN THIS AREA

SERIAL #

PLEASE RETURN YOUR COMPLETED SURVEY IN THE 

BUSINESS REPLY ENVELOPE.

IF YOU ARE RETURNING THE SURVEY FROM ANOTHER

COUNTRY, BE SURE TO RETURN THE BUSINESS REPLY

ENVELOPE ONLY THROUGH A U.S. GOVERNMENT

MAIL ROOM OR POST OFFICE. 

FOREIGN POSTAL SYSTEMS WILL NOT DELIVER

BUSINESS REPLY MAIL. 

THANK YOU FOR COMPLETING THIS SURVEY!

Appendix A. Form A Questionnaire
1995 SEXUAL HARASSMENT SURVEY 59

Appendix B

Form B

Questionnaire
60 DEFENSE MANPOWER DATA CENTER
1995 SEXUAL HARASSMENT SURVEY 61

Appendix B. Form B Questionnaire

STATUS OF THE ARMED FORCES SURVEYS

1995 Form B — Gender Issues

PLEASE DO NOT WRITE IN THIS AREA

SERIAL #

RCS: DD-P&R(BI)1947

Exp. 6/27/97

IRCN 0423 DoD BI

Exp. 8/31/98

DEFENSE MANPOWER DATA CENTER

ATTN: SURVEY PROCESSING ACTIVITY

DATA RECOGNITION CORPORATION

5900 BAKER ROAD

MINNETONKA, MN 55345-5967 DMDC Survey No. 95-001b
62 DEFENSE MANPOWER DATA CENTER

Appendix B. Form B Questionnaire

In accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974 (Public Law 93-579), this notice informs you of the

purpose of the survey and how the findings will be used. Please read it carefully.

AUTHORITY: 10 United States Code, Section 136 and 2358.

PRINCIPAL PURPOSE: Information collected in this survey will be used to sample attitudes and

perceptions of military members about personnel relationships, programs, and policies. This

information will assist in the formulation of policies which may be needed to improve the military

working environment and relevant personnel policies. Reports will be provided to the Secretaries of

Defense and Transportation, each Military Service, and the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Findings will be used

in reports and testimony provided to Congress. Some findings may be published by the Defense

Manpower Data Center (DMDC) or professional journals, or reported in manuscripts presented at

conferences, symposia, and scientific meetings. In no case will the data be reported or used for

identifiable individual(s).

ROUTINE USES: None.

DISCLOSURE: Providing information on this survey is voluntary. There is no penalty if you choose not

to respond. However, maximum participation is encouraged so that the data will be complete and

representative. Your survey instrument will be treated as confidential. Identifying information will be

used only by persons engaged in, and for the purposes of, the survey. Only group statistics will be

reported.

RIGHT MARK WRONG MARKS ✓ ✗

• MAKE HEAVY BLACK MARKS THAT FILL THE RESPONSE CIRCLES.

• DO NOT MAKE ANY MARKS OUTSIDE OF THE RESPONSE CIRCLES OR WRITE-IN BOXES.

• IF YOU CHANGE YOUR MIND, ERASE OLD MARKS COMPLETELY.

• DO NOT USE INK, BALLPOINT, OR FELT TIP PENS. 

THIS IS NOT A TEST, SO TAKE YOUR TIME.

SELECT ANSWERS THAT BEST FIT YOU.

MARK ONLY ONE ANSWER FOR EACH QUESTION

UNLESS THE QUESTION SAYS TO MARK ALL THAT APPLY.

- 2 -

PRIVACY NOTICE

★U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1994–386-734/00015
1995 SEXUAL HARASSMENT SURVEY 63

Appendix B. Form B Questionnaire

PLEASE DO NOT WRITE IN THIS AREA

SERIAL #

This survey is one of several surveys DoD and the Coast Guard are administering to assess personnel

issues and the state of the Armed Forces. These surveys ask questions about job demands, job stress,

job satisfaction, physical and personal well-being, and current personnel issues such as relations

between men and women in the Armed Services. You will also be asked your feelings about the

effectiveness of certain military policies intended to ensure fair treatment and equal opportunity for all

military members.

WHY ME?

You have been selected at random to be part of a sample of people who represent members of

the Armed Services. The only information used to sample individuals for this survey was to group

them by Service, rank, gender, military occupation, race/ethnic group, and location (CONUS,

OCONUS). Enough people were scientifically sampled for this survey so that valid conclusions

can be made about the views and experiences of Service members overall and by demographic

subgroups. The survey results will not be valid if you allow or ask someone else to fill it out for

you.

WHY SHOULD I BOTHER? DO SURVEYS CHANGE ANYTHING?

Statistics from surveys provide valuable information to policy makers and planners. While no

decisions about you alone will be made based on this survey, survey results will influence policy

discussions and may result in changes that affect you and other Service members like you. You

may not see the changes directly since policy statements do not list sources of information

considered in adoption. And, policy changes often impact the future with the affected personnel

unaware of a survey completed a few months or even years earlier. Your response counts. If you

don’t respond, your views and the views of other members like you will not be considered in

personnel policy reviews and changes.

WILL MY SURVEY RESPONSES BE KEPT PRIVATE?

Yes. Under no circumstances will any information about identifiable individuals be released.

Identifiable information is only being used by persons engaged in conducting the survey and

building the survey databases to represent the Armed Forces. Your responses will be combined

with information from many other members to report the views and experiences of groups of

members. Comments may be reported word for word but never with identifiable information. Do

not use any personal, unit, or place names anywhere on this survey.

AREN’T SOME OF THE QUESTIONS VERY PERSONAL?

Yes. Although people will have different views on what is or is not personal, most people will

consider some of the questions in this survey to be very personal. We are asking these questions

to evaluate the success of current personnel policies of the Armed Services. Good estimates can

be made only if most people answer all the questions on the survey that apply to them. However,

you can choose not to answer particular items. Please do not discard the entire survey because

there are some particular items that you want to skip.

ABOUT THIS QUESTIONNAIRE

- 3 -
64 DEFENSE MANPOWER DATA CENTER

Appendix B. Form B Questionnaire

6. What is your current marital status?

3. How much education have you completed? Mark

the ONE answer that describes the HIGHEST

grade or academic degree that you have

COMPLETED.

4. Are you of Spanish/Hispanic origin or descent?

Mark one.

E-1

E-2

E-3

E-4

E-5

E-6

E-7

E-8

E-9

W-1

W-2

W-3

W-4

W-5

O-1

O-2

O-3

O-4

O-5

O-6 or

above

1. Are you:

Male

Female

2. How old were you on your last birthday?

YEARS

Less than 12 years of school (no diploma)

GED or other high school equivalency

certificate

High school diploma

Less than 2 years of college credits, but no

college degree

2-year college degree (AA/AS)

More than 2 years of college credits, but no

4-year college degree

4-year college degree (BA/BS)

Some graduate school, but no graduate degree

Master’s, doctoral, or professional school

degree (MA/MS/PhD/MD/JD/DVM)

No (not Spanish/Hispanic)

Yes, Mexican, Mexican-Amer., Chicano

Yes, Puerto Rican

Yes, Cuban

Yes, other Spanish/Hispanic

5. What race do you consider yourself to be?

Mark one.

White

Black or African-Amer.

Indian (Amer.), Eskimo, or Aleut

Asian or Pacific Islander

Other race (Please specify below)

Never married

Married

Separated

8. What is your current paygrade?

7. In what Service are you?

Army

Navy

Marine Corps

9. How many years of active duty service have

you COMPLETED (including enlisted, warrant

officer, and commissioned officer time)?

YEARS

10. Suppose that six months from now you will

be faced with the decision about whether to

remain in military service. Assuming that you

could remain, how likely is it that you would

choose to remain in the military?

Very unlikely

Unlikely

Undecided

Likely

Very likely

1

2

3

4

5

6

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

0

1

2

3

4

I. BACKGROUND, CAREER, AND READINESS

INFORMATION

To indicate less than

one year, enter “00.”

To indicate forty-nine or

more years, enter “49.”

- 4 -

11. If you had a friend considering active duty military

service, would you recommend that he/she join?

Answer both.

Yes Yes

a. A male friend? b. A female friend?

No No

Divorced

Widowed

Air Force

Coast Guard
1995 SEXUAL HARASSMENT SURVEY 65

Appendix B. Form B Questionnaire

Poorly prepared

Very poorly prepared

Very well prepared

Well prepared

Neither well nor poorly prepared

PLEASE DO NOT WRITE IN THIS AREA

SERIAL #

- 5 -

Disagree

Strongly disagree

Neither agree nor disagree

Agree

Strongly agree

12. I have been taught valuable skills in

the Service that I can use later in

civilian jobs.......................................

13. I will get the assignments I need to

be competitive for promotions .........

14. If I stay in the Service, I will be

promoted as high as my ability and

effort warrant ...................................

15. My Service’s current evaluation/

selection system is effective in

promoting the best members ............

16. I am proud to tell others that I am a

member of my Service ......................

17. Being a member of my Service

inspires me to do the best job I can ..

18. My Service treats its personnel fairly

19. I find it difficult to agree with the

personnel policies of my Service.......

20. I would accept almost any job

assignment in order to stay in my

Service ..............................................

21. I am willing to make sacrifices to

help my Service ................................

Mostly false

Definitely false

Don’t know

Mostly true

Definitely true

24. I seem to get sick a little easier than

other people......................................

25. I am as healthy as anybody I know....

26. I expect my health to get worse .........

27. My health is excellent .......................

How TRUE or FALSE is each of the following for you

DURING THE PAST 4 WEEKS?

The next questions ask about readiness in terms of your

training, experience, and general health/well-being.

How much do you agree or disagree with the following

statements about your military career and Service?

22. Taking into account your training and experience,

how prepared are you to perform your wartime

job?

Very well prepared

Well prepared

Neither well nor poorly prepared

A little of the time

None of the time

Some of the time

A good bit of the time

Most of the time

28. Have you felt calm and peaceful?..

29. Have you been a very nervous

person?..........................................

30. Have you felt so down in the

dumps that nothing could cheer

you up? .........................................

31. Have you felt down-hearted and

blue? .............................................

32. Have you been a happy person?....

All of the time

How much of the time DURING THE PAST 4

WEEKS . . .

b. any emotional problems (such as feeling

depressed or anxious)?

b1. Cut down on the amount of time

you spent on work or other

activities..........................................

b2. Accomplished less than you would

like..................................................

b3. Didn’t do work or other activities

as carefully as usual ........................

Poorly prepared

Very poorly prepared

23. How prepared are you physically to perform

your wartime job?

33. DURING THE PAST 4 WEEKS, have you had any

of the following problems with your work or

other regular daily activities as a result of . . .

YES NO

a1. Cut down on the amount of time

you spent on work or other

activities..........................................

a2. Accomplished less than you would

like..................................................

a3. Didn’t do work or other activities

as carefully as usual ........................

a. your physical health?

YES NO
66 DEFENSE MANPOWER DATA CENTER

Appendix B. Form B Questionnaire

- 6 -

44. I feel myself to be a part of this

organization......................................

45. I’m not willing to put myself out to

help this organization .......................

34. How many months have you COMPLETED at

your duty location/area?

MONTHS

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

To indicate more than

ninety-nine months,

enter “99.”

• If you have been at your current duty location for

one month or more, answer the questions in this

section (YOUR WORKPLACE) for your current duty

location, even if you are not permanently stationed

at that location. 

• Otherwise, answer these questions for the last duty

location where you were located at least a month.

II. YOUR WORKPLACE

b. Serving aboard ship?.........................

c. In a military occupational specialty

(MOS/AFSC/rating) not usually

held by personnel of your gender?....

d. In a work environment where

personnel of your gender are

uncommon? ......................................

e. A supervisor? ....................................

38. What is the gender of your immediate

supervisor?

Male

39. Which statement best describes the gender mix of

your current work group (that is, all persons who

report to the same immediate supervisor that you

do)?

All men

Almost entirely men

More men than women

Equal numbers of men

and women

40. Are you of the same racial/ethnic background as

the rest of your current work group?

Everyone is of my background

Almost everyone is of my background

More personnel are of my background than other

backgrounds

About equal numbers of personnel are of my

background and other backgrounds

More personnel are of other backgrounds than

my background

Almost everyone is of other backgrounds than my

background

I am the only person of my background

Female

Yes

No, I am TDY/TAD

attending training

36. Is this location your permanent duty location?

35. Where is your current duty location?

Inside the continental United States (CONUS)

Alaska or Hawaii

Another location outside continental United

States (OCONUS)

More women

than men

Almost entirely

women

All women

Do you agree or disagree with the following statements

about the MILITARY ORGANIZATION (YOUR CHAIN

OF COMMAND) WHERE YOU CURRENTLY PERFORM

YOUR MILITARY DUTIES?

Disagree

Strongly disagree

Neither agree nor disagree

Agree

Strongly agree

41. Being a member of this organization

inspires me to do the best job I can ..

42. I am willing to make sacrifices to

help this organization .......................

43. I am glad that I was assigned to this

organization......................................

37. Are you currently . . .

a. In an assignment related to training

(for example, as an instructor,

student, or training support

person)? ............................................

YES NO

No, I am TDY/TAD for

reasons other than

training

To indicate less than

one month, enter “00.”
1995 SEXUAL HARASSMENT SURVEY 67

Appendix B. Form B Questionnaire

PLEASE DO NOT WRITE IN THIS AREA

SERIAL #

55. Do you trust your supervisor?...........

56. Does your supervisor ensure that all

assigned personnel are treated fairly?

57. Is there conflict between your

supervisor and the people who

report to him/her? ............................

58. Is your work performance evaluated

fairly?................................................

To what extent . . .

- 7 -

Small extent

Not at all

Moderate extent

Large extent

Very large extent

59. Is there conflict among your

co-workers? ......................................

60. Are work assignments made fairly in

your work group? .............................

61. Is your present assignment good for

your military career? ........................

68. The kind of work you do...................

69. Your chances to acquire valuable job

skills..................................................

70. Your job as a whole ..........................

To what extent . . .

Disagree

Strongly disagree

Neither agree nor disagree

Agree

Strongly agree

46. My work group’s output is high ........

47. My work group produces high

quality work......................................

48. My group works well in handling

unexpected workload demands ........

49. My work group gets maximum

output from available resources (for

example, personnel and materials) ...

50. Compared to similar groups, my

work group’s performance is high.....

How much do you agree or disagree with the following

statements about the EFFECTIVENESS OF YOUR WORK

GROUP?

Small extent

Not at all

Moderate extent

Large extent

Very large extent

51. Are you performing the work you

should be doing, considering your

military occupational specialty? .......

52. Does your work provide you with a

sense of pride? ..................................

53. Does your work make use of your

skills? ................................................

54. Does the chain of command provide

you with the information you need

to do your job? .................................

How satisfied are you with . . .

Dissatisfied

Very dissatisfied

Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied

Satisfied

Very satisfied

62. The amount of effort of your

co-workers compared to your effort

63. Your opportunities for promotion.....

64. Your pay and benefits .......................

65. Your job security...............................

66. The direction/supervision you

receive ..............................................

67. The relationship you have with your

co-workers........................................
68 DEFENSE MANPOWER DATA CENTER

Appendix B. Form B Questionnaire

- 8 -

Often

Very often

Sometimes

Once or twice

Never

d. Made crude and offensive sexual

remarks, either publicly (for

example, in your workplace) or to

you privately? ..............................

e. Treated you “differently” because

of your sex (for example,

mistreated, slighted, or ignored

you)?............................................

f. Made offensive remarks about

your appearance, body, or sexual

activities?.....................................

71. Unwanted sex-related attention is sex/genderrelated talk and/or behavior that was unwanted,

uninvited, and in which you did not participate

willingly.

How often during the past 12 months have you

been in situations involving . . .

• military personnel

 • on or off duty

 • on or off base/post

and/or

• civilian employees and contractors employed

 in your workplace

where one or more of these individuals (of either

gender) . . .

III. GENDER-RELATED EXPERIENCES

In this section you will be asked about experiences you

have had in the past 12 months that were related to

your gender, including unwanted sex-related attention.

Often

Very often

Sometimes

Once or twice

Never

a. Repeatedly told sexual stories or

jokes that were offensive to you?

b. Whistled, called, or hooted at you

in a sexual way?...........................

c. Made unwelcome attempts to

draw you into a discussion of

sexual matters (for example,

attempted to discuss or comment

on your sex life)?..........................

g. Made gestures or used body

language of a sexual nature which

embarrassed or offended you? .....

h. Displayed, used, or distributed

sexist or suggestive materials (for

example, pictures, stories, or

pornography which you found

offensive)?....................................

i. Made offensive sexist remarks (for

example, suggesting that people of

your sex are not suited for the

kind of work you do)?..................

j. Made unwanted attempts to

establish a romantic sexual

relationship with you despite your

efforts to discourage it?................

k. Put you down or was

condescending to you because of

your sex?......................................

l. Stared, leered, or ogled you in a

way that made you feel

uncomfortable?............................

m. Exposed themselves physically (for

example, “mooned” you) in a way

that embarrassed you or made

you feel uncomfortable? ..............

n. Continued to ask you for dates,

drinks, dinner, etc., even though

you said “No”?.............................

o. Made you feel like you were being

bribed with some sort of reward

or special treatment to engage in

sexual behavior? ..........................

p. Made you feel threatened with

some sort of retaliation for not

being sexually cooperative (for

example, by mentioning an

upcoming review)?.......................

q. Touched you in a way that made

you feel uncomfortable? ..............
1995 SEXUAL HARASSMENT SURVEY 69

Appendix B. Form B Questionnaire

- 9 -

Often

Very often

Sometimes

Once or twice

Never

r. Made unwanted attempts to

stroke, fondle, or kiss you?...........

s. Treated you badly for refusing to

have sex?......................................

t. Implied faster promotions or

better treatment if you were

sexually cooperative?...................

u. Made you afraid you would be

treated poorly if you didn’t

cooperate sexually?......................

v. Offered to be sexually cooperative

to you in exchange for a favor or

special treatment from you (for

example, offered sex in exchange

for a good assignment)? ...............

w. Attempted to have sex with you

without your consent or against

your will, but was unsuccessful? ..

x. Had sex with you without your

consent or against your will? .......

y. Other sex-related behavior not

listed above? Unless you mark

“never,” please specify below......

74. Did this situation that had the greatest effect on

you occur at a military installation (for example,

a base or post)?

THE REST OF THE QUESTIONS IN THIS

SECTION ASK ABOUT THIS SITUATION THAT

HAD THE GREATEST EFFECT ON YOU.

All of it occurred at a military installation

Most of it occurred at a military installation;

some at other place(s)

Some of it occurred at a military installation;

most at other place(s)

None of it occurred at a military installation;

all at other place(s)

The One Situation with the Greatest Effect

a b c d e f g h i j

k l m n o p q r s t

u v w x y

73. Think about the situation(s) you experienced

during the past 12 months that involved

unwanted sex/gender-related attention. Now

pick the SITUATION THAT HAD THE

GREATEST EFFECT ON YOU. Which of the

behaviors in Question 71 happened during this

situation? Blacken the bubbles below for the

behaviors that apply to THIS SITUATION that

had the greatest effect on you.

75. Did this situation occur at work (the place

where you perform your military duties) or

some other place?

All of it occurred at work

Most of it occurred at work; some at other

places

Some of it occurred at work; most at other

places

None of it occurred at work; all at other places 72. Do you consider ANY of the behaviors (a–y)

which YOU MARKED AS HAPPENING TO YOU

in Question 71 to have been sexual harassment?

None were sexual harassment

Some were sexual harassment; some were

not sexual harassment

All were sexual harassment

Doesn’t apply—I marked “never” to every item

in Question 71 Go to Question 109 on

page 14

76. Did this situation occur during duty hours or

while you were off-duty?

All of it occurred during duty hours

Most of it during duty hours; some off-duty

Some of it during duty hours; most off-duty

None of it occurred during duty hours; all

off-duty
70 DEFENSE MANPOWER DATA CENTER

Appendix B. Form B Questionnaire

PLEASE DO NOT WRITE IN THIS AREA

- 10 -

81. During the course of the situation you have in

mind, how often did you experience unwelcome

sex/gender-related attention from the person(s)?

Once

Once a month or less

2–4 times a month

87. Were you TDY/TAD when this situation

occurred?

Yes, in a training situation

Yes, in other than a training situation

No

77. How many people were responsible for the

unwanted behavior(s) in this situation that had

the greatest effect on you?

Your immediate military supervisor

Your immediate civilian supervisor

Your unit commander

Other military personnel of higher rank/grade

than you

Other civilian employee of higher rank/grade

than you

Your military co-worker(s)

Your civilian co-worker(s)

Your military subordinate(s)

Your civilian subordinate(s)

Your military training instructor

Your civilian training instructor

Other military person(s)

Other civilian person(s)

Other or unknown person(s)

Questions 77 through 80 ask about the PERSON OR

PERSONS from whom you experienced unwanted

sex/gender-related attention in this situation that

had the greatest effect.

78. Was the person(s) . . . Mark all that apply.

One person

A group (more than one person)

79. Was the racial/ethnic background of the

person(s) . . .

The same as your own

Different from your own

Some were the same, and some were different

Don’t know

80. Was the gender of the person(s) . . .

The same as your own

Different from your own

Some were the same, and some were different

Don’t know

86. When this situation occurred, was your

supervisor . . .

82. How long did this situation last (or, if

continuing, how long has it been going on)?

Less than one week

One week to less than one month

One to six months

More than six months

83. Is this situation still going on?

84. Using the following scale, indicate the degree to

which you found this situation to be . . .

Very

Extremely

Moderately

Slightly

Not at all

a. Annoying......................................

b. Offensive......................................

c. Disturbing....................................

d. Threatening..................................

85. When this situation occurred, were you . . .

YES NO

a. In an assignment related to training

(for example, as an instructor,

student, or training support

person)? ...........................................

b. Serving aboard ship?........................

c. In a military occupational specialty

(MOS/AFSC/rating) not usually

held by personnel of your gender?...

d. In work environment where

personnel of your gender are

uncommon? .....................................

Male Female

SERIAL #

Every few days

Every day

Yes No

88. Did this situation occur at your current duty

location?

Yes No
1995 SEXUAL HARASSMENT SURVEY 71

Appendix B. Form B Questionnaire

- 11 -

Small extent

Not at all

Moderate extent

Large extent

Very large extent

89. It hurt my productivity/job

performance .....................................

90. I was embarrassed ............................

91. I became upset..................................

92. I became ill/suffered physical

problems...........................................

93. Working became unpleasant/hostile

for me ...............................................

94. My feelings about being in military

service were negatively affected .......

95. My feelings about my unit were

negatively affected............................

96. My performance rating was unfairly

lowered.............................................

To what extent did you experience the following

effects AS A RESULT OF THIS SITUATION?

99. Which, if any, of the following actions did you

take to stop this unwelcome sex/gender-related

attention; and if you took that action, did it make

things better or worse for you?

98. Do you consider this situation to have been

sexual harassment?

Definitely was not sexual harassment

Probably was not sexual harassment

Uncertain

Probably was sexual harassment

Definitely was sexual harassment

97. As a result of this situation, did you . . .

YES NO

a. Seek medical attention? ...................

b. Seek counseling from the chaplain

or other religious source? ................

c. Seek psychological counseling? .......

d. File a formal complaint? ..................

e. Think about leaving military

service?............................................

Yes, but it made no difference.

Yes, and it made things better.

Yes, and it made things worse.

No, I did not do this.

a. I ignored the behavior .....................

b. I avoided the person(s) ....................

c. I asked or told the person(s) to stop

(either orally or in writing) ..............

d. I asked someone else to speak to

the person for me.............................

e. I threatened to tell or told a

coworker(s)......................................

f. I acted as though it didn’t bother

me....................................................

g. I called a hotline for

advice/information (not to file a

complaint) .......................................

h. I requested additional training for

the person(s’) work center/unit .......

i. I requested a transfer or temporary

assignment elsewhere ......................

j. I discussed it with or got advice

from someone unofficially ...............

k. I informally requested

advice/assistance from other

base/post sources, such as the

chaplain or counselors.....................

l. Other. If you answer “yes,” please

specify below...................................
72 DEFENSE MANPOWER DATA CENTER

Appendix B. Form B Questionnaire

No, I did not report it to this person/office.

- 12 -

PLEASE DO NOT WRITE IN THIS AREA

SERIAL #

Yes, but it made no difference.

Yes, and it made things better.

Yes, and it made things worse.

a. My immediate supervisor.............

b. The supervisor of the person who

was bothering me.........................

c. Someone else in my chain of

command.....................................

d. Law enforcement officials

(for example, military police).......

e. A special office responsible for

handling these kinds of complaints

(such as Equal Opportunity, Social

Actions, Military Civil Rights

Office, etc.)....................................

f. The Commanding Officer.............

g. The Inspector General (IG) office

100. Did you REPORT this unwanted sex-related

attention to any of the following individuals or

organizations; and if so, did it make things better

or worse for you?

If you answered “no” to EVERY item in

Question 100, go to Question 107.

If you answered “yes” to one or more

items in Question 100, continue with the

next question.

The person who bothered me was talked to

about the behavior

My complaint was/is being investigated

I was encouraged to drop the complaint

My complaint was discounted or not taken

seriously

My supervisor (or others in my chain of

command) was hostile toward me

My co-workers were hostile toward me

I requested and was granted a reassignment

or transfer

I was reassigned against my will

The person who bothered me was transferred

or reassigned

The person who bothered me was counseled

Other (Specify in the box below)

I don’t know what action was taken

No action was taken

Less than a month

1–3 months

4–6 months

101. What action(s) did the organization take in

response to your reporting this behavior? Mark

all that apply.

102. How long has it been since you first reported

the behavior?

103. How satisfied are you with the following as

they relate to your experience with reporting

unwanted sex/gender-related attention?

7–9 months

10–12 months

More than 12 months

h. Judge Advocate General (JAG).....

i. A member of Congress.................

j. Other person or office with

responsibility for follow-up.

If you answer “yes,” please

specify below ..............................

a. The availability of information

about how to report or file a

complaint..................................

b. Treatment by personnel

handling your complaint...........

c. The amount of time it took/is

taking to resolve your

complaint..................................

d. How well you were kept

informed about the progress 

of your complaint .....................

Very dissatisfied

Dissatisfied

Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied

Satisfied

Very satisfied
1995 SEXUAL HARASSMENT SURVEY 73

Appendix B. Form B Questionnaire

104. What was the outcome of your complaint?

Mark all that apply.

- 13 -

Very dissatisfied

Not applicable

Dissatisfied

Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied

Satisfied

Very satisfied

The action is still being processed Go to

Question 106

They found my complaint to be substantiated

They found my complaint to be

unsubstantiated

They corrected the situation

They took action against the person(s) who

bothered me

They took action against me

They did nothing

I don’t know whether they did anything

105. How satisfied are you with the outcome of

your complaint?

Very satisfied

Satisfied

Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied

Dissatisfied

Very dissatisfied

106. Do you feel that your chances of having a

successful military career will be affected by

your making this report?

Yes, my chances are improved

Yes, my chances are worse

No, my career will not be affected

e. How well the outcome of the

investigation was explained

to you........................................

f. The complaint process,

overall.......................................

107. If you DID NOT report the behavior to someone

in Question 100, what were your reasons for

not reporting? Mark all that apply.

Does not apply—I DID report the behavior to

someone specified in Question 100

I did not think it was that important

I did not know what to do

I took care of the problem myself

I did not think anything would be done

I was too afraid

I was too embarrassed

I thought I would not be believed

I thought it would make my work situation

unpleasant

I thought it would take too much time and

effort

The person(s) was (were) not assigned to my

duty station

I thought I would be labeled a troublemaker

I was talked out of making a formal report by

a PEER

I was talked out of making a formal report by

a SUPERVISOR

I did not want to hurt the person who

bothered me

I wanted to fit in with my work group

I didn’t know the person(s) who did it

I thought my performance evaluation or

chances for promotion would suffer

The person who bothered me was my

supervisor

Some other reason (Specify in the box below)

108. How satisfied are you with the way YOU handled

this situation involving unwelcome sex/genderrelated attention?

Very satisfied

Satisfied

Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied

Dissatisfied

Very dissatisfied

Space is provided on page 16 for additional

concerns or comments you may have about

your experience with unwanted

sex/gender-related attention or the complaint

process.

NA
74 DEFENSE MANPOWER DATA CENTER

Appendix B. Form B Questionnaire

PLEASE DO NOT WRITE IN THIS AREA

SERIAL #

- 14 -

IV. PERSONNEL POLICIES

In this section you will be asked your opinions about

relationships among personnel in your organization

and military personnel practices.

109. Listed below are some actions an organization

might take to reduce the occurrence of sexual

harassment. Have any of these actions been taken

at your current duty station?

a. Establishing policies

prohibiting sexual

harassment...........................

b. Providing thorough

investigation of harassment

complaints ...........................

c. Enforcing penalties against

harassers ..............................

d. Enforcing penalties against

unit commanders or other

superiors who allow sexual

harassment to continue........

e. Publicizing the availability

of hotlines for sexual

harassment complaints.........

f. Publicizing the availability

of formal complaint

channels...............................

g. Providing counseling

services for victims of

sexual harassment ................

h. Providing awareness

training for military

personnel .............................

i. Establishing a specific office

at each base/post/

installation/ship which has

authority to investigate

complaints regarding sexual

harassment .............................

YES NO DON’T

KNOW

Not at all

Don’t know

Small extent

Moderate extent

Large extent

111. I know what kinds of words or

actions are considered sexual

harassment...............................

112. I have experienced or

observed sexual harassment in

my work group/unit.................

113. I feel free to report sexual

harassment without fear of

bad things happening to me.....

To what extent are the following statements true?

Very large extent

YES NO

a. Senior leadership of my

Service .................................

b. Senior leadership of my

installation/ship ...................

c. My immediate supervisor.....

110. Please give your opinion about whether the

persons below make honest and reasonable

efforts to stop sexual harassment, regardless of

what is said officially.

DON’T

KNOW

114. I understand the process for

reporting sexual harassment at

my current duty location .........

115. Sexual harassment of women

is occurring at my current

duty location............................

116. Sexual harassment of men is

occurring at my current duty

location....................................

117. The leadership at my current

duty location enforces military

policy against sexual

harassment...............................

118. Actions are being taken at this

duty location to prevent

sexual harassment....................

119. Actions are being taken in my

Service to prevent sexual

harassment...............................

j. Providing awareness training

for unit commanders and

Equal Opportunity officials ..
1995 SEXUAL HARASSMENT SURVEY 75

Appendix B. Form B Questionnaire

- 15 -

Do you agree or disagree with the following

statements?

Strongly agree

120. Women should not be restricted

from any specialties for which they

can qualify .......................................

121. Men have an unfair advantage over

women when it comes to having a

successful military career.................

122. Women have an unfair advantage

over men when it comes to having

a successful military career..............

123. Much of what women call sexual

harassment is actually a

misunderstanding.............................

124. Men and women have equal

opportunities for promotion in my

Service .............................................

Disagree

Strongly disagree

Neither agree nor disagree

Agree

I haven’t received any training Go to

Question 132

Less than 1 hour

1 hour–4 hours

More than 4 hours but less than 8 hours

1–2 days

More than 2 days but less than 5 days

5 days or more

125. People at my current duty station

who sexually harass others usually

get away with it ...............................

126. Too much attention has been paid to

sexual harassment in the past several

years ................................................

127. Sexual harassment is not tolerated at

my current duty station ...................

128. Work groups whose members are all

the same gender generally work

together more effectively.................

130. In total, about how much training have you had

during the past 12 months on topics related to

sexual harassment?

Don’t know—I have been in Service less

than 2 years

Much less often

Less often

About the same

More often

Much more often

132. In your opinion, how often does sexual

harassment occur in the military now, as

compared with a few years ago?

Not at all effective

Slightly effective

Moderately effective

Very effective

131. In your opinion, how effective was the training

you received in . . .

a. making personnel aware of behaviors which

might be seen as sexual harassment?

b. actually reducing/preventing sexual

harassment?

Not at all effective

Slightly effective

Moderately effective

Very effective

YES NO

a. Your Service’s policies on sexual

harassment.......................................

b. Procedures for reporting sexual

harassment.......................................

c. Identifying, avoiding, and/or dealing

with sexual harassment....................

d. Legal and career consequences for

those who do not comply with

sexual harassment policies...............

129. During the last 12 months, have you had any

training on the following topics?

133. On what date did you complete this

questionnaire?

MONTH DAY

DATE

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

0

1

2

3

JAN

FEB

MAR

APR

MAY

JUNE

JULY

AUG

SEPT

OCT

NOV

DEC
76 DEFENSE MANPOWER DATA CENTER

Appendix B. Form B Questionnaire

PLEASE DO NOT WRITE IN THIS AREA

SERIAL #

- 16 -

Thank you very much for your cooperation in this survey. If you have comments or concerns that you were

not able to express in answering this survey, please write them in the space provided.

Any comments you make on this questionnaire will be kept confidential, and no follow-up action will be taken in

response to any specifics reported. If you want to report a harassment problem, information about how to do so is

available through your command Equal Opportunity, Social Action, or Civil Rights Office.

V. COMMENTS
1995 SEXUAL HARASSMENT SURVEY 77

Appendix C

Technical

Information
78 DEFENSE MANPOWER DATA CENTER
1995 SEXUAL HARASSMENT SURVEY 79

Major Findings Technical Information

Sample Design

A non-proportional stratified random sample

was used for the three surveys (Mason et al.,

in preparation). Source information for constructing the sampling frame consisted of a

computer accessible file totaling 1,687,320

records containing information extracted from

two DMDC person-level files: the October 1994

Active Duty Master File (ADMF) and the September 1994 Reserve Components Common

Personnel Data System (RCCPDS). The information used to construct strata and to identify

key reporting domains was taken from the

source records. A formal mathematical procedure based on Karush-Kuhn-Tucker theory

was used to determine the sample size and

allocation (Mason et al., 1995). Responses

were weighted up to population totals adjusting for differences in initial probability of

selection and differential response rates

in demographically homogenous groups.

The stratum definitions are common

across all three surveys. Using the same set

of stratum definitions allowed the selection

of a single sample of approximately 91,000

individuals, large enough to accommodate

the stratum-level allocations for all three

surveys. The sample individuals selected

were then assigned at random to a particular

survey. Because data collection for the three

surveys occurred during the same time period,

this arrangement was instituted to reduce the

potential reporting burden, particularly for

individuals classified into the smaller strata

who are also members of the more important

reporting domains.

A simple random sample without replacement was selected within each stratum. Stratum

level sample sizes were determined by variance

constraints imposed on key parameter estimates of the proportion of persons belonging

to specified domains who had experienced one

or more of the behaviors defined in the survey

as unwanted sexual attention. The more restrictive variance constraints were imposed on estimates for women.

The factors used to define the key reporting domains for each of the surveys are listed

in Table C-1. An initial set of candidate domains

was generated by considering various combinations of and crosses among the factors listed

in the table. Since the sample size and allocation were based on a large number of domains

having unique precision constraints, several iterations were required to develop a set of domains

and precision constraints that achieved the goals

of the survey without exceeding resources available to carry out the surveys.

The factors listed in Table C-1 are selfexplanatory except for the occupational groupings. These groupings were constructed in two

steps. First, the occupational specialties for

enlisted personnel and officers were ordered

based on the prevalence of women in those

occupations. Next the ordered list of occupations was divided into quartiles. Then, the

first quartile (those occupations with the

fewest women) was further arbitrarily divided

into four groups, identifying occupations

ranging from those in which a woman might

expect to be working only with men, through

those with an increasing, but still small,

number of women.
80 DEFENSE MANPOWER DATA CENTER

Technical Information

domains were defined for

the Form B survey. For the

Form C survey two domains

were defined, with precision

requirements imposed only

on the overall estimates of

prevalence rates for males

and females.

Response Rates

Completed surveys were

received from 13,599 respondents for Form A, 28,296 for

Form B, and 5,360 for Form C.

Table C-2 shows the sample

sizes, location and completion rates, and the unweighted

response rates for the three

forms. In this table, the Sample

row shows the number of

individuals chosen for the

samples, while the Eligible

Sample rows shows the

number of these individuals

who were still in the Armed

Services by the time that the

surveys were fielded. Eligibility was defined as being

in the Armed Services for

at least one month after the

surveys were first mailed.

In accordance with industry

standards, the basic response

rate is computed as the percent of eligible sample members who return completed

surveys (Council of American

Survey Research OrganizaTable C-1

Levels of Factors Defining Key Reporting Domains

Form A Form B Form C

Service

Army Army none

Navy Navy

Marine Corps Marine Corps

Air Force Air Force

Coast Guard Coast Guard

AGR/TARS

Location

none CONUS none

OCONUS

Paygrade group

E1 to E3 E1 to E3 none

E4 to E9 E4

WO1 to WO5 and O1 to O3 E5 and E6

O4 to O6 E7 to E9

WO1 to WO5 and O1 to O3

O4 to O6

Gender

male male male

female female female

Race/ethnicity

non-Hispanic White non-Hispanic White none

non-Hispanic Black non-Hispanic Black

Hispanic any race Hispanic any race

Other Other

Occupational grouping based on prevalence of women

none First Quartile - low 1 none

First Quartile - low 2

First Quartile - low 3

First Quartile - low 4

Second Quartile

Third Quartile

Fourth Quartile

The final set of domain definitions adopted

for each of the surveys and the sizes of each

domain are provided in Mason et al. (in preparation, Appendix B). A total of 55 domains were

defined as the basis for the precision requirements imposed on the Form A survey, and 124

tions [CASRO], 1982). Table C-2 also shows that

all mail was returned for five to eight percent

of the sample. The Completion Rate is higher

than the overall Response Rate since the nonlocatables are not included in the calculation.

Since both non-location and non-completion
1995 SEXUAL HARASSMENT SURVEY 81

Variance Estimates

In general, the procedures

used to compute sample

estimates of population

parameters and their associated variances, including

population totals, means,

proportions, tests of hypotheses and regression relations, are derived from the

probability structure that

gives rise to the observations. As with other surveys

that involve complex probability structures, most of

the parameter estimates of

Table C-2

1995 Sexual Harassment Survey Sample Size and Response Rates

Form A Form B Form C

Sample 30,756 50,394 9,856

Eligible Sample 29,697 49,003 9,510

Eligible, Located Sample 27,759 46,467 8,998

Location Rate—(eligible, 93% 95% 95%

located sample/eligible sample)

Completed Surveys 13,599 28,296 5,360

Completion Rate—(completed 49% 61% 60%

surveys/eligible, located sample)

Response Rate (completed 46% 58% 56%

surveys/eligible sample)

can contribute to bias in the estimates, both

need to be minimized in survey operations.

Because non-proportional sampling was

used, the observed response rate can be the

result of differences in the response rate of

groups either over- or undersampled for the

survey. The most useful comparison of response

rates can be made by weighting the response

rate up to the overall population to remove

differences in the observed rate based on differences in the sampling rates for sub-groups.

At the level of the population, as opposed to

unweighted frequency tabulations, the overall

response rates associated with the data collection procedure employed for the surveys were

50.9 ± 1.4 percent for the Form A survey, 54.7 ±

0.9 percent for the Form B survey, and 57.9 ± 1.2

percent for the Form C survey. Corrected for

eligibility, the rates were 52.3 ± 1.5 percent for

the Form A survey, 56.8 ± 1.0 percent for the

Form B survey, and 59.5 ± 1.2 percent for the

Form C survey (Mason et al., in preparation).

Response rates differed significantly depending on Service, paygrade, and race/ethnicity.

Weighting class adjustments were used to compensate for any bias associated with differential

response rates.

interest in this survey take the form of non-linear

statistics. Examples include domain means and

proportions where the denominator values are

unknown and must be estimated from the

sample data. The estimator takes the form of

a ratio of random variables; that is, the ratio

of the estimated numerator and denominator

totals or counts. Ratio estimates, in general,

are not unbiased and their variances cannot

be expressed in closed form. The bias in a ratio

estimate depends on the variance associated

with the denominator total or count and can

usually be ignored in samples having a large

number of observations. As a working rule,

the bias may be assumed negligible if the number of observations on which the estimate is

based exceeds 30 or is otherwise large enough

so that the coefficient of variation [standard

error(x)/x] of the denominator is less than .10

(cf., Cochran, 1977, pp. 153-165).

Approximations must, however, be found

for the variances. The approximations commonly

used take the form of Taylor series linearizations

or replicate methods, such as those based on

resampling methods. All variance estimates for

this report are based on Taylor series linearizations computed by SUDAAN® for a stratified,

without replacement design.

Technical Information
82 DEFENSE MANPOWER DATA CENTER

Technical Information
1. AGENCY USE ONLY (Leave Blank) 2. REPORT DATE

02 Dec 96

13. ABSTRACT (Maximum 200 words)

This report describes basic results from the 1995 Status of the Armed Forces Surveys of sexual harassment. 

Defense Manpower Data Center (DMDC) conducted the first Joint-Service, active-duty sexual harassment survey

in 1988. In 1994-95, DMDC updated and re-administered the survey. Form A replicated the DoD-wide 1988

Survey of Sex Roles in the Armed Forces. Form B expanded and updated measures. A non-proportional

stratified random sample of active-duty Army, Navy, Marine Corps, Air Force, and Coast Guard personnel were

surveyed by mail starting 15 February 1995. The weighted response rate was 54%. Responses were weighted up

to population totals, adjusting for differential sampling and response rates in demographically homogenous

groups. The survey results document a decline in harassment experiences since 1988 and reflect DoD and the

Services’ increased emphasis on combating sexual harassment. Despitethe decline, there is room for

improvement in achieving the DoD goal of eliminating sexual harassment from the DoD workplace. Results of the

1995 DoD Sexual Harassment Study highlight a number of issues that warrant continued consideration. The DoD

1995 sexual harassment survey provides a great deal of information about sexual harassment and related

behaviors as experienced and perceived by the active-duty military population.

11. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

Heidi E. Reyst is a Research Fellow at DMDC under contract DASW01-94-C-0125 with the Consortium of

Universities of the Washington Metropolitan Area. 

9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)

Defense Manpower Data Center (DMDC), Survey & Program Evaluation

Division, 1600 Wilson Boulevard Suite 400, Arlington, VA 22209

7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)

Defense Manpower Data Center (DMDC), Survey & Program Evaluation

Division, 1600 Wilson Boulevard Suite 400, Arlington, VA 22209

14. SUBJECT TERMS active-duty sexism

survey discrimination

sexual harassment equal opportunity

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE

Department of Defense 1995 Sexual Harassment Survey

6. AUTHOR(S)

Lisa D. Bastian, Anita R. Lancaster (DMDC), and Heidi E. Reyst (Consortium

of Universities; George Washington University)

20. LIMITATION OF ABSTRACT

UL

Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions searching existing data sources, gathering

and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of

information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Washington Headquarters, Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite

1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302, and to the Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project (0704-0188), Washington, DC 20503.

3. REPORT TYPE AND DATES COVERED

Final (15 Feb 95 -- 18 Sep 95)

8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION 

REPORT NUMBER

96-014

10. SPONSORING/MONITORING

 AGENCY REPORT NUMBER

5. FUNDING NUMBERS

REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE Form Approved

 OMB No. 0704-0188

17. SECURITY CLASSIFICATON 

OF REPORT

Unclassified

18. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION

 OF THE PAGE

Unclassified

19. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION

 OF ABSTRACT

Unclassified

12a. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

Approved for public release;

distribution is unlimited.

12b. DISTRIBUTION CODE

15. NUMBER OF PAGES

101

16. PRICE CODE

SF298 (Rev 7/95)
GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLETING SF 298

The Report Documentation Page (RDP) is used in announcing and cataloging reports. It is important that

this information be consistent with the rest of the report, particularly the cover and title page. Instructions

for filing in each block of the form follow. It is important to stay within the lines to meet optical scaning

requirements.

Block 1. Agency Use Only(Leave blank). 

Block 2. Report Date. Full publication date

including day, month, and year, if available (e.g. 1

Jan 88). Must cite at least the year.

Block 3. Type of Report and Dates Covered.

State whether report is interim, final, etc. If

applicable, enter includsive report dates (e.g. 10

Jun 87 - 30 Jun 88).

Block 4. Title and Subtitle. A title is taken from the

part of the report that provides the most

meaningful and complete information. When a

report is prepared in more than one volume,

repeat the primary title, add volume number, and

include subtitle for the specific volume. On

classified documents enter the title classification

in parentheses.

Block 5. Funding Numbers. To include contract

and grant numbers; may include program

element number(s), project number(s), task

number(s), and work unit number(s). Use the

following labels:

C - Contract PR - Project

G - Grant TA - Task

PE - Program WU - Work Unit

Element Accession No.

Block 6. Author(s). Name(s) of person(s)

responsible for writing the report, performing the

research, or credited with the content of the

report. If editor or compiler, this should follow the

name.

Block 7. Performing Organization Name(s) and

Address(es). Self-explanatory.

Block 8. Performing Organization Report Number.

Enter the unique alphanumeric report number(s)

assigned by the organization performing the

report.

Block 9. Sponsoring/Monitoring Agency Name(s)

and Address(es). Self-explanatory.

Block 10. Sponsoring/Monitoring Agency Report

Number. (If known)

Block 11. Supplementary Notes. Enter information

not included elsewhere such as: Prepared in

cooperation with...; Trans. of...; To be published

in.... When a report is revised, include a statement

whether the new report supersedes or

Block 12a. Distribution/Availability Statement. 

Denotes public availability or limitations. Cite any

availability tothe public. Enter additional

limitations or special markings in all capitals (e.g.

NOFORN, REL, ITAR).

DOD - See DoDD 5230.24, "Distributio

Statements on Technical

Documents."

DOE - See authorities.

NASA - See Handbook NHB 2200.2.

NTIS - Leave blank.

Block 12b. Distribution Code

DOD - Leave blank

DOE - Enter DOE distribution categories

from the Standard Distribution for

Unclassified Scientific and Technical

Reports.

NASA - Leave blank.

NTIS - Leave blank.

Block 13. Abstract. Include a brief (Maximum 200

words) factual summary of the most significant

information contained inthe report.

Block 14. Subject Terms. Keywords or phrases

identifying major subjects in the report.

Block 15. Number of Pages. Enter the total

number of pages.

Block 16. Price Code. Enter appropriate price

code (NTIS only).

Block 17. - 19. Security Classification. Selfexplanatory. Enter U.S. Security Classification in

acccordance with U.S. Security Regulations (i.e.,

UNCLASSIFIED). If form contains classified

information, stamp classification on the top and

bottom of the page.

Block 20. Limitation of Abstract.This block must be

completed to assign a limitation to the abstract.

Enter either UL (unlimited) or SAR (same as report). 

An entry in this block is necessary if the abstract is

to be limited. If blank, the abstract is assumed to