Technical Paper 293

WOMEN AND ROTC SUMMER CAMP, 1975

E. S. Mohr and G. P. Rowan - .

U.S. Army Research ,nstituted- -i '

and

R. F. Reidy /

U.S. Army

C5 William H. Hinlme, Work Unit Leader

• I -g.I

Q.7 PERSONNNELACCESSION AND UTILIZATION TECHNICAL AREA

U. S. Army

Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences

I" September 1978

ApprovedJ for public release; distrib~. ited.

"u 0

v :.w
U. S. ARMY RESEARCH INSTITUTE

FOR THE BEHAVIORAL AND SOCIAL SCIENCES

A Field Operating Agency under the Jurisdiction of the

Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel

WILLIAM L. HAUSER

JOSEPH ZEIDNER Colonel, U S Army

Technical I)irector Conam ander

NOTICES

DISTRIBUTION: Primary distribution of this report lins been made by ARI. Please address corresrpondlence

concerningI disitribution of reports; to: Q,, S. Army Research Institute for slit Behavioral and Social Sciences, ATTN: fPERl-P 50011 Liscitliuwr Aveniue, Alexandiria, Virginia 22333.

£ifl&"LJŽL.QýIIQ ! This report maey tie destroyed M~en it is no longer needed. Pleawe do riot return is to

the U. S. Army Fleissich iristil'jjg for Ihe Behavioral and Social Scienciek.

DaýJ The findings in this report are not to be construed as en official Depati nens of she Army position, unites to dgaxinsald by, oilier authorized documents.

5'

i
"ii

. (T.AR'qTPTFT

.. '•iRfl Y CLASSIFICATION or THN2 PAGE (57t.." Date Ent.e.d)

REPORT DOCUMEN'TATr0N PAGE READ INSTRUCTIONS BE-FORE COMPLETING FORM

"9EORT JMBE ..... 2. GOVT ACCSSION NO. 3. RECIPIENT'S CATALOG NUMBER

Sc~hnicai •apltEC1f93l

A. 'ITLE (and S.btle). ) -FR.P E qpQD-OVEE

!WOMEN AND ROTC SUMMER CAMP, 1975 2?- Cr .

- &•*'1zQ.R."•- ORt. REPORT NUMBER

S. H .. P.... wa...... . A. CONTRACT OR GRANT NUMBER(.)

/ E. S. Mohr, G. P.i/owan•.-A R.. .... . Reidy '

9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS IG. PROGRAM ELEMENT, PROJECT, TASK

M/ AREA & WORK UNIT NUMBERS

U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral

and Social Sciences )112Q7637'ilA768

5001 Eisenhower Ave., Alexandriap VA 22333 __._- _

I•I. CONTROLLING OFFICE NAME AND ADDRESS I. tII 8EPQ.RT ATE .- -

U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Coumnand /" [ Septeathr 1978

Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff ROTC V-1`- NUMIERO5JF -- -. ,

Fort Monroe, VA _ ).- - __ _'__;______

'4. MONITORING AGENCY NAME & AODRESS(II different from Controllhn, Office) IS. SECURITY lttAS. (of th-Is epo-)

Unclassified

D5a. OECLASSIFICATION/DOWNGORADING

SCHEDULE

I.DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT (of thinl Report)

Approved for public release; distribution unlimited ." . -,

17. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT (of th. abetjctl entered In Block 20, If dlff.rnnt from Report) •

1S. SUPrLEMENTARY NOTES19. KEY WORDS (Conlinue on r•.vee side if n. e-.-y end Identify by block number)

ROTC Leadership ratings

ROIC Advanced Summer Camp Sex bias in ratings

Women in ROTC

Peer ratings

2U. AI" AC•T (C7 ltlr0

u on rever sIdy If nece-ery aid IderitIly by block numnber)

eFemale cadets attending the 1975 ROTC Advanced Summer Camp at Fort Bragg,

N.C., were rated lower than male cadets on leadership performance by their

platoon officer evaluators. Ratings by NCO evaluators did not differ for

male and female cadets. While female cadets scoz-ed lower than men on the most

physically demanding exercises, they ucored as well or better on exercises

emphasizing cognitive and motivational abilities. Also, females systematically

were rated lower by both male and iemale peers on a leader preferunce dttrzension.

FORM

DD J JAN 73 1473 EDITIoN OF 1 NOV SS IS OBSOLETE UNCLASSIFIED

SECURITY CLASSIFICAIION OF THIS PAGE (W"en Dale Entered)

6 ;|I C7
UNCLASSIFIED

SECURITY CLASSIFlCATION OF THIS PAGo(W•w• D&A. Ralidtel

20. ABSTRACT (Continued)

4hanges are suggested in the sutmier camp program of instruction, along with

manipulating the peer rating procedure to clarify the peer rating dimension.

A Cl

/ .... • ..1... -

I l/7 '" . '

1vr18

C 1 --io

.UNCLSI~sqTFIED]']

SECURITY CLASSIIFICATION OF THIS PAGE(Who• 1)nga -nt'te
Technical Paper 293

WOMEN AND ROTC SUMMER CAMP, 1975

E. S. Mohr and G. P. Rowan

U.S. Army Research Institute

and

R. F. Reidy

U.S. Army

William H. Helme, Work Unit Leader

Submitted By: Approved By:

Ralph R. Canter, Chief E. Ralph Dusek, Director

PERSONNEL ACCESSION AND UTILIZATION INDIVIDUAL TRAINING AND

TECHNICAL AREA PERFORMANCE RESEARCH LABORATORY

Joseph Zeidner

TECHNICAL D RECTOR

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

5001 Eisenhower Avenue, Alexandria, Virginia 22333

Office, Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel

Department of the Army

September 1978

Army Project Number Officer Accession

20763731 A768

Approved f or public roefteo dictri 0rrkoetdj.'

ILL

.1,,--_
ARI Research Reports and Technical Papers are intended for sponsors oi

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

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

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

agencies by briefing or Disposition Form.

IU
FOREWORD

The Personnel Accession and Utilization Technical Area of the

Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences

performs research in recruiting, selection, classification, and

career development of Army officer and enlisted personnel.

Research in officer career prograis includes suppo--t of the

Officer Personnel Management System (OPMS) and development of

officer achievement measures and rating techniques. ROTC cadets'

performance and their leadership potential are evaluated during

ROTC Advanced Summer Camp with measures and rating techniques

which ARI helped develop.

In 1975 the first women ROTC cadets attended Advanced Camp.

This report analyzes cadet scores and ratings obtained in 1975

to investigate possible sex bias. Preliminary and collateral

analyses from this project are reported in ARI Research Memorandums 76-22, 77-6, and 78-1.

Research was done under Army Project 2Q763731A768, in response

to requirements of the Office Deputy Chief of Staff, ROTC, of the

Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC), with the cooperation of the

ROTC training cadre at Fort Bragg, N, C., and the assistance of kTC

Clark Bailey in data collection.

J SPH ZE

"chnical Director

L

1.1
WOMEN AND ROTC CAMP, 1975

S~BRIEF

Requirement:

To analyze measures of ROTC Summer Camp performance in the

first group of cadets where women were trained much the same as

men, and to determine whether evaluation procedures--later used

in decisions concerning Regular Army and Reserve commissioning,

Branch assignment, and training status--are fair to cadets of

both sexes.

Procedure:

During the 6-week Summer Camp in 1975, 392 male and 83 female

cadets (about to enter their senior year) were rated on leadership by their platoon NCO, and on leadership and personal characteristics by their platoon officer evaluator. Other measures

obtained were peer ratings and scores on Orienteering, Military

Stakes Test, and Field Problems Test. On performance variables,

differences between means were tested with the t-test. Differences between correlation coefficients were computed for possible

differences in :ating prucesses or schemas applied to male and

female cadets. Peer ratings for four rater/ratee groups were

subjected to a 2 x 2 (sex of rater by sex of ratee) analysis of

variance (unweighted means).

Findings:

Female cadets were rated lower than male cadets by their

platoon officer evaluator and scored lower than males on Orienteering, a set of three physical~y demanding exercises. No

differences were found on ratings of leadership by the NCO

eva.uatoi. Female cadets were higher on :he Military Stakes Test

and equal to imales on the Field Problems Test, both measures

emphasizing cognitive abilities and motivation. Difference in

peer ratings by sex of raLee was significant, female cadets

being rated lower than male cadets by both male and female raters.

Utilization of Findings;

The fiadings identif.ed a number of factors which limited

the operational usefulness of Summer Camp ratings on ROTC cadets

in 1975. First, sex differences in training programs may well

have increased rather than eliminated initial differences in
competence. Secondly, peer rating instructions may have operated

to the disadvantage of females. Since 1975, sex differences in

Summer Camp training have been removed essentially and peer

rating instructions modified to provide a more accurate assessment of female performance. While these modifications have

removed the most apparent problems in evaluating females at

Advanced Camp, male scores continue to exceed female scores on

most Advanced Camp measures. Continued effort is needed to

identify and correct biases which contribute to the differences.
WOMEN AND ROTC CAMP, 1975

CONTENTS

Page

METHODS 2

Sample 2

Procedures 3

RESUILTS 6

DISCUSSION 6

REFERENCES 13

DISTRIBUTION 15

TABLES

Table 1. Male and female means, standard deviations and

T-values on performance variables 7

2. Intercorrelation matrix of performance variables

for males (N = 392)/ females (n - 83) 8

3. Peer rating means and standard deviations 9

4. Intercorrelations of peer rating scores and

performance variables 10
WOMEN AND ROTC CAMP, 1975

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits unfair discrimination on the basis of race, color, sex, or religion. While there is

some question as to the extent of change in employment practices brought

about by Title VII, women do have increased opportunities to enter nontraditional occupations. The Army, as an institution, has many such

occupations.

While women are not new in the Army (see Treadwell, 1954, for a history of women in the Army), the extent of their involvement has changed

recently. Of significant importance is the fact that the Women's Army

Corps (WAC) is being terminated as a separate agency.

Male and female officers now will be accessioned through the same

channels--ROTC, U.S. Military Academy, and Officer Candidate School.

Due to legal restrictions, women will be assigned differently from men,

i.e., no combat jobs, but with identical career patterns.

As a first step toward this eventuality, ROTC opened its doors to

women in 1973. In the summer of 1975, the first group of female cadets

attended the ROTC Advanced Summer Camp and trained in a simulated military environment in much the same manner as male cadets.

`he present papev examines scores received by male and female cadets

during one of these Summer Camps. Nine performance scores were collected, as well as peer rating scores. All variables were analyzed according

to sex of cadet. A special analysis was performed ort peer rating scores

because (I) they are heavily weighted in the Leadership Potential Index

(LVI), discussed below; (2) they have a long tradition of use in the

military; and, (3) they have a long research history in the military.

First, a few words describing the summer camp are in order. Cadets

assemble in early June and are randomly assigned to battalions, companies, and platoons. The only restrictions on these random assignments

arc that no cndet from the same college be assigned to the same platoon

as another cadet from that college, and, in those platoons where assigned, the women be assigned in pairs.

While cadets received much of the same training, females were not

allowed to: serve as crew members in any capacity on tanks or field

artillery weapons; participate in offensive combat operations or offensive tactical training; train with bayonets, pugil stick, hand grenades,

silent weapons, or hand-to-hand combat; march farther than six miles or

carry more than 25 pounds. On the other hand, females were allowed to:

carry and fire weapons for familiarization or qualification on a voluntary basis; observe practical exercises or demonstrations for orientation and informational value; participate fully in defensive tactical

training; receive the female confidence course as deemed appropriate;

participate in activities on a reduced level commensurate with their

physical abilities; and, receive the female physical training program

of instruction.
In sum, female cadets received 54 hours of separate and different

training. Most of the training they did not receive dealt with offensive

tactics, per TRADOC Reg. 145-1. 1..', cadets were garrisoned with their

own company. Female cadets had their own garrison company. Women's

barracks were separate from and off-limits to male cadets.

During the course of the six-week camp, cadets were evaluated on a

variety of dimensions. Some evaluations were objective while others

depended upon qualitative ratings made by the cadre. Still other scores

depended on peer ratings.

Performance during camp is considered in the determination of Regular

Army (RA) commissions, as well as branch assignments, reserve commissions,

and training status.

Cadets are rank-ordered for RA commissions, based in part on the LPI,

which is a weighted index of various scores and ratings received during

camp. Fifty percent of the LPI is composed of ratings made by the Platoon Officer Evaluator (POE), 25% of field problems, and 25% of peer

ratings.

Peer ratings have a long tradition of use in the military in evaluating leadership potential and ability (Hollander, 1965; Stodgill, 1974).

The basic paradigm involves each group member estimating (either by

ratings, rankings, or nominations) the leadership potential or ability

(or other specified characterLstic) of all other group members. This

technique has been shown to bo valid (Hollandor, 1965; Lindzey and Byrnie,

1968), reliable (Hollander, 1957), unaffected by friendship factors

(Hollander, 1956; Wherry and Fryer, 1949), stable across changing groups (Gordon and Medland, 1965), and valid in predicting future performance

even when the groups are established for short periods of time (Medland

and Olans, 1964). Most of these studies used white males for subjects,

however, and there are data to to indicate that differences in peer

ratings due to racn of the rater and ratee may be due, in part, to bias

(Cox and Krumboltz, 1958; deJung and Kaplan, 1962; Mohr and Reidy, 1978).

Also, there are data available suggescing that in Officer Basic Course,

women are rated lower tLan their male peers on leadership potential by

both males and females, and that, regardless of training program, combat

orientation, skills and interests are primary in these evaluations (Mohr

and Downey, 1978. It is still an empirical issue whether sex of rater

and/or ratee effects peer ratings given by college students attending

Advanced Summer Camp.

METHODS

SAMPLE

Subjects were 392 male and 83 female cadets attending ROTC Advanced

Summer Camp at Ft. Bragg, N.C. These cadets are college students about

to enter their senior year. Tley are representative of the first ROTC

region, generally.

-2
PROCEDURES

Performance variables included evaluations based on overall camp

leadership activities made by cadre (officers and NCOs) and objective

measures of specific performances.

Leadership Activities

Platoon NCO Performance Ratings (NCO Performance). These ratings

were designed to assess the cadet's ability to deal with people and

situations while in leadership positions in day-to-day camp activities.

Using a 7-point scale, the platoon NCO evaluator rated along ten

dimensions. They were:

Delegates authority effectively.

Keeps subordinates informed.

Keeps troops motivated.

Utilizes subordinates effectively.

Directs and maintains control of subordinates.

Maintains military bearing and manner.

Possesses physical and mental endurance for effective

leadership.

Responds quickly and appropriately to a changed situation.

Sets the example.

Shows Initiative in accomplishing assigned duties.

Platoon Officer Evaluator Performance Ratings (POE PerformanceL

These ratings were designed to assess the cadet's ability to handle

people and situations while in leadership positions as above. Using a

7-point scale, the POE rated cadets on ten performance characteristics.

These were:

Responds quickly and appropriately to a changed situation.

Directs and iaaintalnG c..... . 'o subordinates.

Thinks on his feet.

Keeps troops organized and initiates action force&1⁄2_ly.

Keeps troops motivated.

Obtains cooperation from subordinates.

Maintains emotional control under stress.

Shows ability to anticipate problems.

Maintains communications with subordinates.

Makes careful and systematic plans.

-3-
Situations. These ratings indicate the willingness of the POE to

have the cadet represent or act in his stead in Job situations with

varied task requirements, based on the leadership positions. The POE

evaluated each cadet on six independent statements. These ratings, again

based on a 7-point scale, were:

Represent your viewpoint and make decisionis in your name on

an extremely important mission.

Be responsible in an emergency situation calling for great

initiative, coolness, and doluinant leadership.

Prepare plans for all aspects of a large undertaking (a task

requiring considerable initiative, coolness, and judgment).

Represent you in a meeting where considerable tact and

ability to get along with people are required.

Work on an assignment requiring great attention to detail and

routine.

Have him lead a unit under your command.

Personal Characteristics. This rating evaluated the cadet's personal

characteristics related to effective leadership, ability to think under

stress, take action in emergencies and proceed under general conditions

of duress. The POE rated cadets on a ?-point scale on eight separate

dimensions. They were:

Takes appropriate action on his own responsibility'm

Calm and cool under pressure.

Gets a job done effectively, follows through to the final

desired results.

Knows how to bandle personnel.

Appearance and bearing cause people to react positively.

Gives and executers orders firmly without creating a

negative attitude.

Takes speedy and appropriate action.

Shows common sense and good Judgment.

Specific Performance Measures

Orienteering. Orienteering is a specific camp activity requiring

both physical and cognitive abilities. There are three kinds of orienteering--free style, line, and score. Free-style orienteering is a

time-distance combination where the goal is to go from point A to point

B in the least amount of time. Line orienteering emphasizes only land

navigational (compass and map reading) skills by requiring a specific

route be followed in getting from point A to point B. Scure orienfeerin&

combines problem solving ability with land navigational skills. In all

three types of orienteering, check points, or stations, have differential

-4-
[V

point value. The goal is to accrue as many points as possible in the

time allowed by going to those stations having the highest point value.

Military Stakes. This test, given in the last week of camp, measures

the cadet's ability to apply individual military skills in different

situations. While it is a performance measure, cognitive abilities

and motivational levels may influences scores received sifice cadets can

learn and practice during off-hours for these tests. Information needed

is contained in field manuals available in garrison libraries.

Field Problems Test FPT). The test evaluates the cadet's leadership

aptitude in a number of standardized military situations. Each station

requires the cadet to demonstrate leadership abilities under simulated

combat conditions. The FPT consists of 12 stations. Each cadet was

designated leader in three problems, during which time his/her performance was evaluated by station graders. Female cadets were not allowed to

be leaders in stations requiring offensive tactics.

Peer Ratings

Another evaluation collected during summer camp was peer ratings.

These ratings were administered during the fifth week of camp. Cadets

were presented a list of their platoon members and were instructed:

"Considering all you know about each of your fellow cadets, select

the 10 you would be most willing to serve under if one person from your

platoon were placed iu charge of yo..r uit. Ieluut the 10 cadets you

would be least willing to serve under."

Further, cadets were instructed not to nominate the same person for

both high and low preferences. At the same time, cadets were not to

nominate themselves for high or low.

Analysis. Male and female scores were computed for all performance

variables. Complete intercorrelatlon matrixes were were also computed.

Differences between male and female means for these performance variables

were tested with the t-test. Differences between correlation coefficients were also computed to investigate possible differences in rating

processes or schemas which raters may have applied to male and female

cadets.

Peer ratings were analyzed by using four rater/ratee groups. They

were males rating males, males rating females, females rating males,

and females rating.females. To determine if the sex of the rater and

ratee interacted, the four peer scores were subjected to a 2 x 2 (sex of

rater by sex of ratee) unweighted means analysis of variance, with

repeated measures across raters.

The method used for scoring ratings allowed for no significant differences between raters but did allow opportunity for either a ratee or

interaction term to be significant. A statistically significant interacticn term would be strongly suggestive of a rating bias. A significant
ratee effect could be the result of real sex differences, or a rating

bias shared by rating groups, or both.

RESULTS

Performance Variables. Table I presents means and standard deviations for males and females, as well as t-values from testing for differences, for the nine performance variables. Female cadets were rated

significantly lower than male cadets on POE performance, situations, and

personal characteristics ratings. Females received significantly lower

scores on all three orienteering exercises. Male cadets scored significantly lower than females or. military stakes. No differences based on

sex obtained for either NCO performance or FPT scores.

Table 2 presents the complete intercorrelation matrix of all performance variables for males and females. Most correlation coefficients

are significantly different from zero; those that are not underlined.

There are no real differences between coefficients as a function of sex

of cadet, which indicates that raters used the same criteria to evaluate

both male and female cadets. For all, cadets, intercorrelations among

NCO, POE, situations and personal characteristics ratings are strongly

clustered. Performance scores--FYI', Military Stakes and the three

orienteering exercises--appear to compose individual factors, since each

test seems unique with little common variance with the leadership

ratings.

Peer Ratings_,. hI the uppper portion of Table 3, means and standard

deviations for the four peer rater/ratee groups are presented. The

lower portion of the table presents summary statistics from the two-way

analysis of variance. A significant difference was found for all class

members and sex of ratee (F = 73.65, d.f. = 1,946, p < .05), with female

cadets rated lower than males by all raters.

Table 4 presents correlation coefficients between peer rating scores

and the perJormance variables. While most of the coefficients significannt-y difier from zcru, the uthei coefficients are underlined.

Two significant differences betwien correlation coefficients were:

(1) between male and female peer sco es given by females and POE performance ratings; and (2) between male and female peer scores given by males

and POE performance ratings. The two differences suggest that the POE

may use different standards in evaluating cadets than the cadets use when

evaluating their peers. Tbwever, due to the number of coefficients

tested, these differences probably should be interpreted with caution.,

DISCUSSION

Females attending the 1975 ROT(C Advanced Summer Camp at Ft. Bragg,

N.C., systematically received lower scores than their male counterparts

on both performance ratings and scores and on peer ratings. There are

a number of reasons that could account for these findings.

-6-
Table 1

MALE AND FEMALE MEANS, STANDARD DEVIATIONS AND T-VALUES

ON PERFORMANCE VARIABLES

Variables Males (n = 392) Females (n - 83) T-value

NCO Performance 100.79 19.76 96.42 20.00 .82

POE Performance 101.10 19.30 93.94 21.46 3.00 *

Situations 101.02 19.24 93.52 21.20 3.16 *

Personal Charac. 101.45 19.21 92.51 21.04 3.78 *

Free-Style Orient. 103.34 18.83 87.58 18.96 6.90 *

Line Orienteering 101.79 19.19 92.78 21.38 3.80 *

Score Orienteering 103.94 19.29 84.70 16.4¶ 8.44 *

Military Stakes 98.43 17.46 110.23 19.60 -5.46 a*

Field Problems 99.73 5.96 99.14 6.34 .81

, p K .05

a Negative sign indicates females scored higher than males

The most obvious explanation is that women enrolled in ROTC and attending summer camp are less capable than males. One way to investigate

this would be to institute a pre-camp measure which would serve as a

baseline against which to measure progress. However, even with such a

measure, other considerations may question such a conclusion. The two

different and unequal training programs may have exaggerated any existing differences already there in ability as a function of sex when

cdULet ad-LIvUd at: camp. That. i, if inatial abiliLy differeuces eXiLteU

between male and female cadets, the separate training program may well

have increased these differeices.

Another factor contributing to differences in scores received by

male and female cadets may have been bias on the part of the POE. The

platoon officer evaluator was usually a young male company grade officer

with opinions about the suitability of women in the Army.

Anecdotal evidence suggests that these young men, usually captains,

do not like the idea of women in combat or combat support roles. One

company commander said that if women had been put in his company, he

would have asked for a transfer.

-7--
Table 2

INTERCORIELATION MATRIX OF PERFORMANCE VARIABLES FOR

MALES (N 392)/FEMALES (N = 83)

Sr o11

Pt 0 H

0 00

rr tt

NCO Perform. 80/80' 73/79 77/83 24/39 14/16'_ 19/22 16/32 27/29

POE Performance 82/89 85/87 24/38 18/27 20/2-0 20/33 27/38

Situations 93/94 25/39 20/20- 19/22 2-1/35 31/4-3

Personal Characteristics 26/39 20/15 23/23 20/35 32/09

Free-Style Orienteering 17/27 23/11 25/26 16/04

Line Orienceering 15/L_6 11/31 12/18

Scare Orienteering 17/1-5 11/17

Military Stakes 23/40

adecimals have been deleted

bunderlined values not significant; all others are significantly

different from zero, p < .05

1 -- H.-
S~ i.

Table 3

PEER RATING MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS

Peer Rating Score Mean S.D.

Males rating Males 2.06 .39

Males rating Females 1.71 .35

Females rating Males 2.03 .41

Females rating Females 1.80 .44

Summary Statisitics for

Analysis of Variance

Source of Variation SS DF MS F

Sex of RaLuc- .14 1 .14 .90 [

Sex of Ratee 11.78 1 11.78 73.65*

Rater by Ratee .50 1 .50 3.16

Error within Cells 151.33 946 .16

* p < .05

The officers were instructed to make independent evaluations of

performance in general, in different situations, and along persona! characteristic dimensions. Ratings were to be based only on behavioral

observations made during integrated training.

As the complete intercorrelation matrix shows in Table 2, ratings

are highly intercorrelated and, quite obvioislv, not independent measures. The lack of significant differences between males and females,

along with significant correlations within the female matrix, also suggests, however, that the POEs discriminated among females as well as

among males. What seems to be happening is that, once the i'OE established the lower baseline, i, e., lower means, for the fcmales, he can

still discern between females. Interestingly, NCOs, geMerally older

and more experienced males, did not establish this lower bascline for

females, but did use similar rating criteria as the POE. The NCO thus

appears to be less biased than the POE, perhaps because female cadets,

who will be future officers, do not threaten them significantly

-9-
ri

Table 4

INTERCORRELATIONS OF PEER RATING SCORES AND

PERFORMANCE VARIABLES

Female Rater (n - 83)

Variables Female Ratee Ma?'e Ratee

NCO Performance 47a 55

POE Performance 37 58

Situations 44 51

Personal Characteristics 45 54

Free-Style Orienteering 07b 09

Line Orienteering 18 08

Score Orienteering 18 12

Military Stakes 30 12

Field Problems 35 31

Male Rater (n - 392)

NCO Performance 61 63

POE Performance 49 66

Situations 65 64

Personal Characteristics 61 67

Free Style Orienteering 22 20

Line Orienteering 10 16

Score Orienteering 23 18

Military Stakes 26 20

Field Problems 34 32

a decimal points have been deleted

bunderlined values are not signiftcat ly different from zero

-10-

//
The three kinds of orienteering do reflect true performance differences. These scores are based on combinations of time and distance

measures. Differences in the physical training (PT) programs could

have contributed to these differences, since running between checkpoints

was essential for a good orienteering score.

An interesting point is that women out-scored men at the military

stakes. The stakes were a series of written exercises in which cadets

responded to a scenario with the most appropriate course of action. The

tests heavily relied on cognitive abilities and probably tapped motivational levels as well, since cadets could, if they so desired, study and

review material contained in field mý LS prior to these tests.

No performance differences were obt, -i for field problem tests.

Again, where pure physical endurance was nut required, females were

evaluated equally with males.

However, the exercises for both military stakes and the Field Problems Test (FFr) differed to some extent between males and females. That

is, since females received no offensive tactical training, they were

specifically not tested on such material, while males were. Therefore,

since the problems were not the same, comparisons between scores are

difficult to make.

Male and female cadets systematically rated females lower than

males on peer ratings, a finding found elsewhere (Mohr and Downey, 1977).

While these ratings have been used historically to evaluate leadership N

potential in the military (Hollander, 1965; Stodgill, 1974), the wording

of the ratings employed in summer camp emphasized preferences as the

criteria for nominations. Instructions stated: ". . . select the 10

(cadets) you would most be willing to serve under .

There are a number of problems in interpreting results from this

type of rating. Frnce ROTC Advanced Camp is a simulated combat training

environment, a response set of choosing a combat leader versus a technical/ managerial one (Helme, Willemin, & Grafton, 1974), may have been

established inadvertently. Since women are unable to serve in the combat

arms of cumbatISLuppot, Lthe• •fc l tio Df m• f.or ..... of....... __ 

may reflect environmental constraints, realistically.

Another confounding may have resulted from the separate training programs for men and women. Since the females had a less rigorous training

program, males may have felt resentment toward them. When asked to state

preferences for a leader, males may have chosen other males from hostility or a feeling that females were incapable of carrying a fair share of

the work. Te females themselves may have shared this feeling since they

were restricted from engaging in the most "military" i. e., offensive

tactics, of the training.

A further confounding in the peer ratings arises from the recognition that there may he some overlap between potential and preference.

That is, there may be occasions when one would prefer a leader with

-11-
potential. On the other hand, there may be occasions when one would

prefer a leader for reasons other than potentiality. This issue of overlap clouds what dimension is actually being evaluated by the cadet.

To clarify whether women are considered for leadership roles, changes

in instructions should be made in future summer camps specifying selection of combat leaders versus technical/managerial. ones (Helme et al.,

1974). Instructions could also specify selection on the basis of actual.

ability, future potential, and/or current preferences. Until then,

results from peer ratings administered during summer camp should be used

cautiously, if at all, since there are limited data on the reliability

and validity of these ratings for females, and minority group members.

Major conclusions from the data would seem to pose necessary changes

in the ROTC Advanced Summer Camp program of instruction, as well as

caution about the use of sumer camp results. Problems associated with

separate training programs for all cadets who are competing for the same

jobs are obvious. A group receiving inferior or incomplete training

program will suffer. Women attending the 1975 summer camp were such a

group. The women were disadvantaged when competing with males whose

superior and more complete training made them no longer "peers." A Basic

purpose of any training program is to equalize disparate levels of

effective performance. With two training programs at summer camp, the

initial desparate levels were exaggerated, with women increasingly below

the level of men.

It is encouraging to note that the 1976 camps gave the same training

to both sexes. From a research standpoint, it is important to develop

measures of background and readiness prior to Advanced Camp. The extent

of improvement for both sexes then can be evaluated, and training designed to equalize the level of competence as nearly as possible. The

findings on Military Stakes and FPT offer some promise in this regard.

- 12 -
REFERENCES

Cox, J. A., & Ktumboltz, J. D. Racial Bias in Peer Ratings of Basic

Airmen. Sociometry, 1958, 21, 292-299.

deJung, J. E., & Kaplan, H. Some Differential Effects of Race of Rater

and Ratee on Early Peer Ratings of Combat Aptitude. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 1962, 46, 370-374.

Gordon, L. V.,& Mediand, F. F. The Cross-Group Stability of Peer

Ratings of Leadership Potential. Personnel Psychology, 1965, 18,

173-177.

Helme, W. H., Willemin, L. P., & Grafton, F. C. Prediction of Officer

Behavior in a Simulated Combat Situation. Army Research Institute

Research Report 1182, March 1974. (AD 779 445).

Hojlruder, E. P. The Friendship Factor in Peer Nomination. Personnel

Psychology, 1956, 9, 435-447.

Hollander, E. P. The Reliability of Peer Nominations Under Various

Conditions of Administration. Journal of Applied Psychology, '957, 41,

85-90.

Hollander, E. P. Validity of Peer Nominations in Predicting a Distant

Performance Criterion. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1965, 49, 434-438.

iLindzey, G., & By LLC, D. ,asuremicmnt of Soc-iil Choice and Interpersonal

Attractiveness. In C. Lindzey and E. Aronson (Eds.), The Handbook of

Social Psychology. Reading, Mass.: Addison-W,•sley Publishing Go., 1968.

Medland, F. F., & Olans, J. C. Peer Rating Stability in Changing Groups.

Army Research Institute Technical Research Note 142, April 1964.

Mohr, E. S., & Downey, K. G. Are Women Peers? Journal of Occupational

Psychology, 1977, 50, 53-57.

Mohr, E. S., & Reidy, R. F. Racial Bias in Peer Ratings at ROTC Advanced

9ummer Camp. Fort Bragg, 1975. Army Research Institute Research

Memorandum 76-22, October 1976.

Stodgill, R. M. Handbook of Leadership. New York: The Free Press, 1974.

TRADOC Reg. 145-1. Department of the Army, Headquarters U.S. Army

Trainirng and Doctrine Command, Ft. Monroe, VA: March, 1975.

Treadwcll, M. E, The Women's Army Corps. U.S. Army in World War 11

Special Studies. Office of the Chief of Military History, Department

of the Army, Washington, D.C.: 1954.

Wherry, R. J., & Fryer, D. HI. Buddy Ratings: Popularity Contest or

Leadership Criterion. Personnel Psychology, 1949, 22 147-159.

-13-
DISTRIPUTION

ARI Distribution List

4 OASD IM&RAI 2 HOUSACDEC, Ft Ord, ATTN: Library

2 HNDA (DAMI-CSZ) 1 HOUSACDEC, Ft Ord, ATTN: ATEC-EX-E-Hurr Factors

IHQOA (DAPE-PB 2 1USAEPEC, Ft Benjamin Harrison, ATTN: Library

HVDA (DAMA-AR) 2 USAPACDC, Ft Benjamin Harrison, ATTN: ATCPr HR I HNDA (DAPE-HRE-PO) 1 USA Comm-Elect Sch, Ft Mornmouth, ATTN: ATSN-EA

SHNODA (SGRD-ID) I USAEC, Ft Monmouth, ATTN: AMSEL- CT- HOP

1 HQN A (DAMI-DOT-C) 1 USAEC, Ft Mcnmouth, ATTN: AMSEL-PA-P

1 HQDA (DAPC-PMZ-Ai 1 USAEC, Ft Monmouth, ATTN: AMSEL--Sl--CB

1 HOSA (DACH.PP?-A) 1 USAEC, Ft Monmouth. A1TN: C. Fatr Dev Br

1 HNDA (DAPE-HRE) 1 USA Materials Sys Anal Agcy. Aberdeen, ATTN: AMXSY-P

1 NOVA (DAPE-MPO-C) I Edgewood Arsenal, Aberdeen, ATTN' SAREA--BL--H

1 HQOA (DAPE-DWI 1 USA Ord Ctr & Sch, Aberdeen, ATTN: ATSL-TEM-C

1 HQDA (DAPE-HRL) 2 USA Hum Engr Lab, Aberdeen, ATTN: Library/Dir

1 HNDA (DAPE.CPS) 1 USA Combat Arms Tog Rd, Ft Benning, ATTN: Ad Supervisor

1 HNDA (DAFD-MFA) 1 USA Infantry Hum Rsch Unit, Ft ATrT.ug, AUN: Chief

1 HQDA (DARD-ARS.P) 1 USA Infantry Rd. Ft Benning. ATTN: STEBC-TE-T

1 HNDA (DAPC-PAS-A) 1 USASMA, Ft Bliss, ATTN: ATSS -L'RC

SHQNOA (DUSA-OR) 1 USA Air Def Sch, Ft Bliss, ATTN: ATSA- CTD--ME

1 HQDA (DAMO-ROR) 1 USA Air Def Sch, Ft Bliss, ATTN: Tech Lib

1 HQDA (DASG) 1 USA Air Def Bd, Ft Bliss, ATTN: FILES

1 HNDA (DAIOPI) 1 USA Air Def Bd, Ft Bliss, ATTN: STEBD -PO

1 Chief, Consult Div (DA-OTSG), Adelphi, MD 1 USA Cmd & General SNf College, Ft Leavenworth, ATTN: Lib

1 Mil Asst. Hum Res, ODDR&E, DAD (E&LS( I USA Cmd & General SOt College, Ft Leevenworth, ATTN: ATSW-SE-L

1 HO USARAL, APO Seattle, ATTN: ARAGP-R 1 USA Cmd & General SO College, Ft Leavenworth, ATTN: Ed Advisor

1 HO First Army, ATTN: AFKA-OI-TI I USA Combined Arms Cmbt Dcv Act, Ft Leavenworth, A1TN: DepCdr

2 HQ Fifth Army, Ft Sam Houston I USA Combined Arms Cmbt Dcv, Act, Ft Leavenworth, ATTN: CCS

1[Dir, Army SNf Studies Ofc, ATTN: OAVCSA IDSP) I USA Combined Arms Cmbt Dav Act. Ft Leavenworth, ATTN: ATCASA

I Ofc Chief of Stf, StuJdies Oftc I USA Combined Arms Cmbt Dev Act, Ft Leavenworth, ATTN; ATCACO-E

I DCSPER, ATTN: CPS/OCP 1 USA Combined Arms Cmht Dev Act, Ft Leavenworth, ATTN: ATCACC-CI

1 The Army Lib, Pentagon, ATTN: RSB Chief I USAECOM, Night Vision Lab, Ft Belvoir, ATTN: AMSEL-NV-SD

I The Army Lib, Pertagon, A'TN: ANRAL 3 USA Computer Sys Cmd, Ft Belvoir, ATTN: Tech Library

1 Ofc, Asst Sect of the Army IR&D) 1 USAMERDC. Ft Belvoih, ATTN: STSFB--DG "1 Tech Support Ofc. OJCS I USA Eng Seh, Ft Belvoir, ATTN: Librery

1 USASA, Arlington, ATTN: IARD-T 1 USA Topographic Lab, Ft Belvoir, ATTN: ETI. -ID-S

1 USA Rsch Ofc, Durham, ATTN: Life Sciences Dir 1 USA Topographic Lab, Ft Belvoir, ATTN: STINFO Center

2 USARIEM, Netick, ATTN: SGRD-UE-CA 1 USA Topographic Lab, Ft Belvoir, ATIN: ETL-GSL

1 USATTC, Ft Clayton, ATfN: STETC-MO-A I USA Intelligence Ctr & Sch, Ft Huachuca, ATTNf: CTD-MS

1 USAIMA, Ft Bragg, ATTN: ATSU-CTD-OM I USA Intelligence Cer & Sch, Ft Huachuca, ATTN: ATS-CTD-MS

1 USAIMA, Ft Bragg, ATTN: Marquat Lib I USA Intelligence Car & Sch, Ft Huachuca, ATUN: ATSI-TE

I US WAG COr & Seh, Ft McClellan, ATT N: Lin USA Intelligence Ctr & Sch, Ft Huachuca, ATTN: ATSI-TEX-GS

1 US WAC Ctr & Sob, Ft McClellan, ATTN: Tng Dir 1 USA Intelligence Ctr & Sch, Ft Huachuca, ATTN. ATSI-CTS-OR

1 USA Quattermaster Sob, Ft Lee, ATTN: ATSM-TE 1 USA Intelligence Car & Seh, Ft Huechuca, ATTN: ATSI-CID-DT

1 Intelligence Material Dev ODc. EWL. Ft Holabird 1 USA Intelligence Car & Sch. Ft Huachuca. ATIN: ATSI-CTD -CS

1 USA SE Signal Sh, Ft Gordon, ATTN: ATSO-EA I USA Intelligence Ctr & Sch, Ft Iluachuca, ATTN: DAS/SRD

1 USA Chaplain COr & Sch, Ft Hamilton, ATITN: ATSC-TE-FID 1 USA Intelligence Csr & Sch, Ft Huachuca, ATTN: ATSI-TEM

1 USATSCH, Ft Eustis, AUTN: Educ Advisor 1 USA Intelligence COr & Sch, Ft Huac-uca, ATTN: Library

USA War College, CarliIle Barracks, ATTn: Lib 1 CDR, HO Ft Huachuca, ATTN: Tec-, Ref Div WRAIR, Neuropsychiatry Div 2 CDR, USA Electronic Prvg Grd, ATTN: STEEP-MT-S 1 DLI, SDA, Monterey 1 CDR, Proeect MASSTER, ATTN: Tech Info Center

1 USA Concept Anal Agcy, Bethesda, ATTN: MOCA-WGC 1 Hq MASSTER, USATRADOC, LNO

1 USA Concept Anal Agcy, Bethesda, ATTN: MOCA-MR 1 eseearch Institute, HO MASSTER. Ft Hood USA Concept Anal Agcy, Bethesda, ATTN: MOCA-JF 1 USA Recruiting Cmd, Ft Sherdian, ATTN: USARCPM-P I USA Artie Test Ctr, APO Seattle, ATTN: STEAC-MO-ASI 1 Senior Army Adv., USAFAGOD/'IAC Elgin AF Aux Fid No. 9

1 USA of tic Test Ctr, APO Seattle, ATTN: AMSTE-PL-TS 1 HO USARFAC, DCSPER, APO SF 96558, A'TN;: PPE-SE

1 USA Armar•ent Cend, Redstone Arsenal. ATTN: ATSK-TEM 1 Stirnson Lib, Academy of Health Sciclces, Ft Sam Houston

1 USA Armament Cmd, Rock Island, ATTN: AfISAR-TDC 1 Marine Corps Inst,, AT•N: Dean-MCI

1 FAA-NAFEC, Atlantic City, ATTN: Library 1 HOUSMC, Commandant, ATTN: Code MTMT 51

I FAANAFEC, Atlantic City, ATTN: Hum Engr Br I IOUSMC, Commandant, ATTN: Code MPI -20

1 FAA Aeronautical Ctr, Oklah,..ma City, ATTN: AAC-44D 2 USCG Academy, New London, ATIN: Adm;ssion

2 USA Fid Arty Seb, Ft Sill, ATTN: Library 2 USCG Acaidemy, New Lonidon, ATT N: Library

I USA Armor Sch, Ft Knox, ATTN; Library 1 USCG Trainir.g Ctr, NY. ATTN: CO

I USA Armor Sch, Ft Knox, ATTN: ATSB-D;IE 1 USCG Training Ctr, NY, ATIN: Edco Svn Ofe

1 USA Armor Sch, Ft Knox, ATTN: ATSBODT TP 1 USCG, Psychul Ane Br, DC, ATTN: GP 1/62

1 USA Armor Seh, Ft Knox, ATTN: ATSO CD.AD 1 HQ Mid--Range Br, MC Det, Quantico, ATTN; P&S Div

- 15-

pffL pAGE BLANK-NOT F11 i vew.-
1 US Marine Corps Lieision Oftc, AMC, Alexandria, ATTN: AMCGS-F 1 Del & Civil Inst of Enviro Medicine, Canada

1 USAT NADOC, Ft Mcnroe, ATTN: ATRO -ED 1 AIR CRESS, Kensington, ATTN: Info Sys Br

6 USATNADOC, Ft Monroe, ATTN: ATF'R-AC 1 Militaerpsykologisk Tjeneste. Copehfsn

1 USATRADOC. Ft Monroe, ATTN: ATTS-EA 1 Military Attache, French Embassy, ATTN: Doc See

1 USA Forces Cmd, Ft McPherson. ATTN: Library 1 Medecin Chef, C.E.R.P.A.-Arsenal. Toulon/Naval France

2 USA Aviation Test Ed. Ft Rucker, A-TN: STEBG--PO 1 Prin Scientific Off, Atpl Hum Engr Rsch Div, Ministry

1 USA Agcy for Aviation Safety, Ft Rucker, AITN: Library of Defense, New Delhi

I USA Aycy for Aviation Safety, Ft Rucker. ATTN: Educ Advisor 1 Pets Rach Ofe Library, AKA, I:rael Defense Forces

I USA Aviation Sch, Ft Rucker, ATTN: PC Drawer 0 1 Ministeris van Defensie, DOOP/KL Afd Sociaal

1 HOUSA Avirtion Sys0 C0d, St Louis, ATTN; AMSAV-ZDR Peychologisohe Zaken, The Hague, Netherlands

2 USA Aviation Sys Test Act., Edwards AFB, ATTN: SAVTE-T

SLISA Air Def Sch, Ft Bliss, ATTN: ATSA TEM

1 LISA Air Mobility Rsrh & Dev Lab, Moffett Fld, ATiN: SAVDL-AS

1 USA Aviation Sch, Res Tng Mgt. Ft Rucker, ATTN: ATST-T-RTM

1 USA Av;ation Sch, CO, Ft Rucker, ATTN: ATST-D-A

1 HQ, DARCOM, Alexandria, ATIN: AMXCD-TL

1 HO, DARCOM, Alexandria, ATTN: CDR

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

1 US Military AcadernV, West Point, ATTN; Ofc of Milt Ldrshp

1 US Military Acaderey, West Point, ATIN: MAOR

1 USA Standardization Gp, UK, FPO NY. ATTN: MASE-GC

I Ofe of Naval Rsch, Arlington, ATTN: Code 452

3 Ofe of Naval Rsch, Arlington, ATTN: Code 458

1 Ofe of Naval Rsch, Arlington, ATTN! Code 450

1 Ofe of Naval Rsch. Arlington, ATTIN: Code 441

1 Naval Aerospc Med Res Lab, Pensacola, ATTN: Acous Sch Div

1 Naval Aerospc Med Res Lab, Pensacola, ATTN: Code L51

1 Naval Aerospc Med Res Lab, Pensacola, ATTN: Code LB

1 Chief of NavPers, ATTN: Pers Off

1 NAVAIHSTA, Norfolk, ATTN: Safety Ctr

1 Nau Oceanographic, DC, ATTN: Code 6251, Chtrts & Tech

1 Center of Naval Anal, ATTN: Doc Ctr

1 NavAirSysCom, ATTN: AIR-5313C

1 Nav BuMed, ATTN: 71.3

1 NavyHaliopterSuhSqav 2, FPO SF 66l01

1 AFHRL (FTI William APB

SAFHRL (TT) Lowry AF8

1 AFHRL (AS) WPAFS. OH

2 AFHRL (DOJZ) Brooks AFB

1Ar-ERL (DOJNI Laclland AF8

1 HQUSAF (INYSD)

1 HOUSAF (DPXXA)

1 AFVTG (RD) Randolrh h 'U

AMRL (HE) WPAFB.OF

2 AF Inst of Tech, WPAF1t, OH, ATTN; ENE/SL

1 ATC IXPTD) Randolph AFI

1 USAF AeroMcd Lib, Brooks AFB (SUL-41, ATTN: DOC SEC

1 AFOSR (NLQ, Arlington

1 AF Log Cmd, McClellan AFB, ATTN: ALC/DPCRB

1 Air Force Academy, CO, ATTN: Dept of DEl Scn

5 NvtPers & Dev Ctr, San Diego

2 Navy Med Neuropsychilatric RBch Unit, San Diego

I Nay Electronic Lab. Sen Diego, ATTN: Res Lab

1 Nav TrngCen, San Diego, ATTN: Code 9000-Lit

1 NavPostGraSch, Monterey, AT"TN: Code 55Aa

I NavPostGraSch, Monterey, ATTN- Code 2124

I NavTinEequipCtr, Orlando, ATTN: Tech Lib

1 US Dept of Labor, DC, ATTN; Manpower Admin

1 US Dept of Justice, DC. ATTN: Drug Enforce Admin

I Nat Bur of Standates. DC. ATTN: Computer Info Section

1 Nat Clearing House for MH Info, Rockville

1 Denver Federal Cur, Lakewood. ATITN: BLM

12 Defense DocLrmentaticn Center

4 Dir Psych. Army Hq, Russell Ofcs, Canberra

1 Scientific Advir, Miu Ed, Army Hq, Russell Ofcs, Canberra

1 Mil and Air Attache, Austrian Embassy

1 Cerire c1t Recherche D" Factuuri, Humaine de la Defense

Nationale, Brussels ,

2 Canadian Joint Staft Washington

1 C/lir Staff, Royal Canadian AF, ATTN: Pars Std Anal fir

3 Chief, Canadian Def Fisch Staff, ATT-N: C/CNDS(W)

4 rilisir Lef Dal.Sff, British Embassy, Washington

161