r j

~

THE RACIAL ATTITUDES AND

PERCEPTIONS SURVEY (RAPS)

Robert L. Hlett

Robin S. McBride

Byron G. F,mar,

Human Sciences Research , Inc.

and

James A. Thomas

Francis E. O’Mara

Exequiel Sevilla

Ar my Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences

ARI FIELD UNIT AT PRESIDIO OF MONTEREY , CALIFORNIA

C-)

LJJ

C-,

DDC

i

~

ir

U. S. Army

~

kes~.*

~~rrh lnc~ 1tLj 1c IoL tIi~ R4h, 1

~ i

~’ta l 

~

fl

~

j ¶

~

‘I(j

~

I Sci~ nccs

September 1978

Approvid for public rpI ~~~$e , d,$Ir,but ,on unh,m ~ t~ d .

.7.9 UI UJ~~ 

_L

~ 

I
p -.-,-.— - ——.-.- ~~~~~~~~~~ —~

-.

U. S. ARMY RESEARCH INSTI TUTE

FOR TH E BE HAVIORAL AN D SOCIAL SCI E NC ES

A Field Operating A gency under the Jurisdiction of the

Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel

~ itl i V~

1 I Ii

~

\t SI R

JOSEPH Z E II) N IR ( c.IoneI

~ 

5 At ut~

Tcchnic.tl I)ircctor ( UII1I11J IIdCF

Research accomplished under contr Ict

to the Department of the ?~

rmy

Human Sciences Research , Inc.

NOTICES

DISTRIBUTI ON Pr nrs.y di

~tnbut~on of tPr~i report ha, bun nida by ARI PI.a,e addrs~ tor tpondSn~e

conc,rnrig d,itr

~

bution of r.pOrti to U S Army Reiu,rcPi In~itute to, I

~

a Bøiav oral anct Social Scerict,.

ATTN PE RIP , 5001 E pr , e~

q” Avenue . AIe,.anitr a , V rqr r . 72333

FINAL DISPOSITION Thu ra port may be da,troy.d when i a no longer nh.dld. Pu ., do nOt ~Iti

~~r I t o

Iii U S Army Rei,.rch Iflitututi to, the B.ha, or.l and Soc ial Sciences

!j.

~

IL Tht Ind rigs ~ thu report arC not to be con Stru ed as an offici al Qep rtment ~f ~

pi

~ Army posi tion

unleSS so desi gnated by Oilier author ized documents

_______ 

.4
Unclissi f i ~~d

-

~~~~ ¶E5URIT SIFICATIOH OF THIS PAGE (Thin 0.1. Ent.ra~~

(/> ,q

~~.!7 REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE BEFORECM GFORM

T~~WEP0RT ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ .

~ 

2. GOVT ACCESSION NO. ~~. *CG4~

PiENT’ 5 CATALOG NUMBER

Technical Pape~ 338 1 ( 9/ 4. TITLE (aid Sybtltl.) “ ~~~~~~~~~~~~ CEPORT..i PL~~O~~

RACIAL ATTITUDES AND PE EPTIONS SURVEY 

~

7, ~

‘in a1 te~~~~,)Mar

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

7. AUTHOR(.) 1

~ ONTRACT OR GRANT NUMSER(.)

Hiatt , Robert L., Mcbride , Robin S., ~~~~ .

Fiman , Byron G., Thomas , .3. A., O’Mara , Frank E., DAH6 19 73Có 0 3 7

and Sevilla , E. R.

9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAM E AND ADDRESS — tO. PROGRAM ELEMENT. PPO,IECT , TASK A R E AeW ORK UNITN0M e ERS Human Sciences Research , I nc.

7710 Old Springhouse Road ,

‘2~ 

2Q1621~ 8A74 3j

McLean , VA 22101

II. CONTROLLING OFFICE NAME AND ADDRESS 4~ . CEPOWT DATE

U .S. Army Research Institute for the ~~~~~ Sep~e~~~~r

~~~~78J “ Behavioral and Social Sciences

5001 Eisenhower Avenue , Alexandria , VA 223 33 70

14. MONITORING AGENCY NAME C ADORESS(II diU.,.f froa Controlling OWe.) IS. SECURITY CLASS (of thu ,.porl)

Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel ,

Human Resources Directorate (DAPE—HRR) ~~~~~ 

Unclassified

Washington , DC 20310 ‘ 

/ / 

~~~~~~ ts f. ~~~~~I~

!ICA TION /DOWNGRA OING

IC. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT (ol lhi. R.porl) /

~~~~ .

Approved f ‘ e- re}ea~e-r

~~ ~ rTh~~ t

~n u nlimi

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ k./ ~

!

~~~ Ii. DISTRIBU .~ ffi_ .k.tr..i n

~~i.~k a., te d~H4iITt R.po,t)

~~~~~~ ~

-

~~

•°

~~~~t t)

~a(~I -

~~ \ ~~/“ ~~~~~ 

‘ ~~~~~~ , 

~~~~~~~~~~~~ 

.t

IC. SUPPLENEN~~ S ~ S /

~~~. S 

~

• , ~~ 

/

~ 

/ T1 

~ ~ ~ -- J A L~~~’~~ 

L’ /

19. KEY CORDS (C flu. on r.r.r. . aid. if n.c..aary aid ld.ntIty by block numb.r)

Race rela tions in the Army

Racial Attitudes and Perceptions Survey

Race relations survey ins trument

Race rela tions/equal oppor tunity

Measuremen t of racial climate (continued )

2O~ A~ STRACT (Conllnu. a, vise •td. If n.c,..ay aid id.ntify by block nu sb.r)

An instrument was developed to obtain information from black and white

military personne l about their racial attitudes and perceptions. The instrument also obtained reports of the frequencies of specific discriminatory behaviors and the tension levels associated with each . The instrument——known

as the Racial Attitudes and Perceptions Survey (RAPS)——was evaluated in terms

of its construct validity and its reliability. Attitudes and perceptions

were measured in four areas : U) Perceptions of Discrimination Against —~~ (continued)

FORM 1473 EDITiON OF V NOV SI IS OSSOLETI Unclassified .)

ICCU*1V CLAS$IFICA~~~ N OF twf$ PAGI (IPII~~~~SliMl. Inlet

~~~~~~~~~ ~1 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Unclassified

SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAOEOPIIai Data InIer. ~

19. (Continued)

Equal opportunity and treatment

Administration of race relations survey

Manual for Racial Attitudes and Perceptions Survey

Racial Perceptions Inventory

Incidence of discriminatory behavior

Feelings of reverse racism

Perceptions of discrimination against blacks

Attitude toward racial interaction

Racial climate

.~3 . (Continued)

lacks ; (2) Attitude Toward Racial Interaction ; (3) Feelings of Reverse

Racism ; and (4) Racial Climate. Evidence indicated the instrument provided valid measures , and reliabili ty estimates were satisfactory .

Analysis across demographic variables indicated that several variables

were related to RAPS results , wi th race being the most important. Results indicated that (1) blacks perceived more racial discrimination

than whites , (2) both blacks and whites favored racial interactions,

and (3) more whites than blacks felt the racial climate in the military

was favorable. The repor t makes several recommendations regarding the

use of the RAPS at the local and command levels.~~ .

)

- icgaii.u

urn miw s

~~ kft~~cflss fl

0

_____

I? ._._..... 

ci.o

1 . ‘ ~~~~ ______

Unclassi fied

SECURITY CLASSIFICATION 3F 1141$ PAGI(Tlsen Data Inten d)

- 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~ :. ——
___________________ - 

~~“

Techn~

caI Paper 338

THE RACIAL ATTITUDES AND

PERCEPTIONS SURVEY (RAPS)

Robert L. Hiett

Robin S. Mc Bride

Byror G. Fiman

Human Sciences Research, Inc.

and

James A. Thomas

Francis E. O’Mara

Exequiel Sevilla

Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences

ARI FIELD UNIT AT PRESIDIO OF MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA

Submitted as complete and Approved By:

technically accurate , by:

JackJ. Sterruberg E. Ralph Dusek , Director

Field Unit Chief INDIVI DUAL TRAINING AND.PERFORMANCE

R ESEARCH LABORATORY

Joseph Zeidner

TECHNICAL DIRE CTOR

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

5O(

~ c,~~

u l .‘i.pr Avenue, Alexandria, Virginia 22333

ict tJep

~

..

~ . i.! of ~‘

~~

f ‘

or Pei~ u .

L jar Arr’~~

i

C

Army Pro jer

20162’

-~~~ 

j
-

~~~~~ 

‘

~ T ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

ARI Research Reports and Technical Papers are intended tot sponsors of

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

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

the Brief . Upon completion of a major phase of the task, formal recommen

dations for official action normally are conveyed to appropriate military

agencies by briefing or Disposition Form.

~ 

~~~~~~ :

~~~.) —S- ——- 

— 

—

- —---.—— -~~ - --- - ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ E - . —-- . .

~~~~~~~
FOREW ORD

Since 1972, the Army Research Institute for the Behavioral & Social

Sciences (ARI ) has been active in research on the policy , operational

problems, and programs of the Army ’s race relations/equal opportunity

(RR/EO) program . In 1973 , in response to a specific requirement of the

Assistant Secretary of Defense (M&RA) ARI initiated the development of

the Racial Attitudes and Perceptions Survey (RAPS). The purpose of the

survey was to measure racial climate at installation level, servicewide.

This paper , the first of two, covers the research involved in the development of tht. survey instrument. The research was conducted under Army

Project 2Q162108A743 , “Race Harmony Promotion Programs,” in the FY 1974

Work Program , as an in—house effort augmented by a contract with Human

Sciences Research , Inc., under contract DAHC 19—73—C—0037.

Since 1974, the Army Equal Opportunity Research Program has been

conducted at the Presidio of Monterey, Calif., Field Unit.

.3 SEPH ZEIDNER

- TOchnical Director
THE RACIAL ATTITUDES AND PERCEPTIONS SURVEY ( RAPS)

BRIEF

Requirement:

To develop , validate, and determine the reliability of an instrument

that can measure racial attitudes and perceptions of military personnel.

Procedure :

An experimental instrument was developed and given experimental

field tryout on approximately 3 , 020 Army personnel. It was revised and

then administered to approximately 4,000 personnel in the Army , Marine

Corps, Air Force , and Navy . The resulting data were subjected to a van —

ety of analyses, including item analysis, factor analysis, congruence

analysis, correlation ana lysis, and analysis of variance, as appropriate.

Indicators of reliability and construct validity were also obtained.

Findings:

The research produced the Racial Attitudes and Perceptions Survey

( RAPS). A separate manual provides detailed instructions on RAPS administration and the interpretation and use of results. The RAP S has two major

components: the Racial Perceptions Inventory (RPI) and the Incidence of

Discriminatory Behaviors ( 1DB).

The RPI measures attitudes or perceptions on four scales: (1) Perceived Discrimination Against Blacks (PDB); (2) Attitude Toward Racial

Interaction (ATI): (3) Feelings of Reverse Racism (FRR); and (4) Racial

Climate (RC).

The 1DB lists 42 specific discriminatory behaviors and asks respondents to rate each one on how frequently they observe that behavior

occurring at their installations . The RPI is intended to measure attitudes and perceptions, and the 1DB is intended to measure the frequency

of occurrence of specific discriminatory behaviors.

Highlights of additional findings are summarized as follows.

• Racial attitudes and perceptions are reliably measured by the

instrument on four scales. Internal consistency measures (coefficient alpha) range from .79 to .90 for whites and .74 to .92

for blacks.
• In terms of a construct validity mo de l, the evidence obtained

supports the conclusion that the RPI is a valid measure of these

four dimensions.

• The RAP S instrument appears to work equally well in all fou r

services and for blacks as well as whites (except that the

response of blacks to FRR items is difficult to interpret).

• The RAPS appeared to be a highly appropriate instrument to assess

racial climate at a military installation at a given time and for

measuring changes in that climate over time.

Utilization of Findings :

The RAPS is used ~~ t- selected Army installations to measure racial

climate. The Defense Race Relation s Institute (DRRI ) includes the RAPS

in its Phase II curriculum for Army Equal Opportunity staff personnel.
TIl E RACIAL ATTITUDES AND PERCEPTIONS SURVEY ( RAPS)

CONTENTS

Page

INTRODUCTION 1

DEVELOPMENT O THERAP S 1

Racial Perceptions Inventory 2

Incidence of Discriminatory Behaviors 4

Instrument Pretesting 4

PRELIM INARY FIELD TRYOUT OF THE RAP S 5

Obj ectives 5

Method 5

Results of Preliminary Field Tryou t 5

Conclusion 11

INTE RSERV ICE FI ELD TEST OF THE RAPS . 12

Objectives 12

Method 12

Results and Discussion 14

CON CLUSION S 38

REWM!.

~~NDATIO NS 39

REFERENCES 41

APPENDIX A: THE RACIAL ATTITUDES AND PERCEPTIONS SURVEY 43

B: FAC1~)R ANALYSIS DATA PRELIMINA1~’ FIELD TRYOUT . . 53

C: FACTOR ANALYSIS DATA— INTERSERVICE FIELD TEST . . . 61

D: 1DB ITEMS BY CONTENT WITH MEAN TENSION SCY)RES

BY RACE 67

DISTR.I9JTION . . . . . . 69

L

L . ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ____
Pa ge

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. RPI intercorrelation matrix 6

2. Reliability estimates of the RPI (coefficient alpha) 7

3. Black—white differences on RPI scales 9

4. ANOVA results for RPI scales 9

5. Correlations between 1DB scores and RPI scales 10

6. lOB results 12

7. Samp le locations 15

8. Alpha coefficients for RPI scales 18

9. Retest reliability coefficients 19

10. Correlations of RPI scale scores 20

11. Correlations of the RPI scales wi th other variables 21

12. Mean scale scores for criterion group ccAnparisons . 24

13. Correlation of demographic variables with RPI scales

by race 25

14. Al pha coefficients for 1DB summary scores 29

15. Correlations of 1DB summary scores wi th RPI scales . . . 30

16. 1DB black—white differences on r eports of frequency . . . 32

17. 1DB black—white differences on reports of tension . . . . 36

k ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
THE RACIAL ATTITUDES AND PERCEPTIONS SURVEY ( RAPS)

IN TRODUCTION

In the early 1970’s, as the military services initiated new and more

comprehensive programs aimed at improving race relations and equal opportunity , an obvious need arose for means of measuring the changes these

programs were producing. How effective were the programs? To what extent

did the programs achieve their intended objectives?

One of the few available measuring instruments holding pronis - for

meeting this need was the Racial Perceptions Inventory (RPI), developed

at Walter Reed Army Institute of Research (Borus, St anton , Fiman , & Doud ,

1972).~ The Department of Defense tasked the Department of the Army tc

establish the reliability and validity of the RPI for assessing race relations program effectiveness in the military services (Secretary of Defense ,

1972). The Army Research Institute was given the mission by the Office

of the Chief of Research and Development , Department of the Army . Accordingly, a research project was initiated to determine the reliability and

validity of the RPI and to further develop it as an instrument that could

measure the impact of race relations programs.

The major objective of the research was to establish a way of measuring changes that are a result of race relations programs. This required

the development of an instrument that would reliably measure racial attitudes and per cepti~~ s. In addition , it required an assessment of the

usefulness o1

~ the instrument for measuring the impact of race relations

programs , specifica l ly including training programs. According ly, the

Racial Attitudes and Perceptions Survey (RAPS) was developed and validated.

The RAPS is a paper—and—pencil questionnaire that measures the attitudes and perc..~

ptions of military personnel on racial matters experienced

in daily life (Appendix A). Its prima ry purpose is to provide objective

inform a-ion t . the installation commander (or the post race relation!

equal opportunity (RR/EO) C~

fficer) to aid in the general program to reduce

racial discrinination and promote racial harmony .

This report describes the development and validation of the RAPS.

Assessment of RAPS’ usefulness in measuring impact of race relations

training is covered in another report.

DEVELOPMENT OF THE RAPS

The RAPS consists of two major parts: the Racial Perceptions Inventory (RPI) and the Incidence of Discriminatory Behaviors (1DB). This

section describes the development of each part. 

—- -—- ~ .---~~~--- -.

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

- ------- -- ..—
-— --- - , ~~ - - ----

~~~

Racial Perceptions Inventory

Rationale. A review of the relevant sociolog i cal and psycholo~

jica l

literature concerning the measurement of racial attitudes and ~(x cept1on s

indicated much research with sing le—item questions specifically ,J,o)ttr~jt ,~d

for that research (Robinson , Husk , t. Head, 1973 ). Single—item measures

are unreliable and are not a useful measur i ng techni que . kilativel y few

attitude scales have been developed , and most of these are plagued by the

psychometric issues of reliability and valid ity that reduce their usefulness. Also , most of these focus exclusively on the attitudes of whites

about blacks and other minority groups and do not examine attitudes of

minority groups about people of other races. For example , the Multifac—

tor Racial Att itude In ventory (Wo odmansee & Cook , 1967) oousxsts of 10

separate subscales of various attitudes toward blacks. These scales were

based entirely on e white sample and can only be used to measure the

attitudes of whites toward blacks.

Little attention has been paid to measuring perceptions of racial

discrimination or discriminatory behaviors. Schurnan and Harding (1964)

developed scales that attempt to measure prejudice toward tHree minor ity

groups and the ra tionality with which these views are held. Those scales

have si gnifica nt theoretical interest reloted to the dynam ics of prejudice , but they were not developed to assess racial climate. In addition ,

many of the available attitude scales were developed 10 to 20 years ago

and consequently have outdated item content that is sometimes offensive

to people of different races. The Ethnocentrism scale, for example , in

The Authoritarian Personality (Adorno , 1950) was desi gned to measure a

person ’s i deological system pertaining to groups and group relations.

Although the instrument provided useful and interesting results in the

past , its i tem content is quite outdated and its results would no longer

be useful.

The goals of thi s project require the development of am instrument

that will tap into the attitudes of blacks as well as whi tes and yield

information about the perceptions by both blacks and whites of unequal

opportunities and racial discrimination . Also , the instrument must be

able to measure attitudes and perceptions as they are uniquely defined

by the military environment . Concepts and terminology unique to the

military must be satisfactorily included.

Instrument Development. Three instruments servef as the primary

sources of an item pool for the development of an instrument consistent

with the desired rationales: the original Racial Perceptions Inventory

(Borus , Fiman , Stanton , & Doud , n .d.), the Na vy Human f~~lations Questionnaire (CNA ) (Stoloff , 1972), and the Enlisted Personnel Questionnaire

on Race Relations in the Army (EPQ ) (Nordlie & Thomas, 1974) used in previous ARt research.

2
~~~~~~~~~~~~~ -

In its initial form , the RPI was a series of Likert—type items primarily developed by Jonathan F. Borus and Byron G. Fiman. They administered their instrument at a number of Army posts and , through factor

analysis, found that their items clustered into three scales: Attitude

Toward Integration (ATI); Perceptions of Racial Discrimination (PHD), and

Backlash Feelings (BF).

Even tuough as many as 66 items had been used as part of the RPI at

various times, only 31 items fell into the three factors. It was determined that it would be necessary to develop new items to add to the 31

items which had been defined as the RPI. Particular emphasis needed to

be placed on developing items for the Backlash Feelings (HF) scale , since

it only consisted of six items. Because one of the major research tasks

was to evaluate the RPI, it was decided to treat the 31 items that had

been defined as the RPI as a major element of the questionnaire. With

some minor wording changes for greater clarity , the RPI i tems were retained intact throughout the instrument modification and development

stages so that the validity of these 31 items could be evaluated.

The other instruments were reviewed with the idea of using them to

accomplish three purposes: to add it- ems to the RPI to increase its

reliability; to add items to measure other, but similar, concepts; and

to add items susceptible to the kinds of changes that might occur as the

result of race relations training.

The best possible source for new RPI-tupe items appeared to be an

instrument used earlier by the Center for Nava l Ana lyses (CHA ) with Navy

personnel and used in a previou s study for the A rmy . This instrument

consisted of Likert—type items similar to those used in the RPI. A

factor analysis of results obtained with this instrument had shown three

somewhat different factors, called Racial Climate , Perceptions of Die—

crimimation , and Racial Generalization. The Perceptions of Discrimination items corresponded to the RPI Perceptions of Racial Discrimination

scale items. The Racial Generalization items were simi lar to the Backlash Feelings items on the RPI. The Racial Climate items apparently had

not been tapped in previous work on the RPI. These items ultimately combined to create a Racial Climate scale.

Because the available instruments had been used on different audiences and for other purposes than those in the current effort, it was

necessary to review each item carefully. The goal was to eliminate excess redundancy while still asking enough relevant questions to achieve

instrument reliability .

CNA items that did not duplicate RPI items were added to this section of the questionnaire. In addition , questions from the Enlisted Personnel Questionnaire (EPQ) on race relations in the P~

ruty were reviewed

for possible use as RPI—type items.

3
I..

Incidence of Discriminatory Behaviors

During the review of requirements for this project , it became apparent that none of the instruments was useful for assessing behavior as

opposed to attitudes. Therefore it was decided that an instrument should

be developed that indicated how mu ch discriminatory behavior respondents

saw around them. A list of types of discrimination that might occur on a

military post was therefore prepared. This list was discussed in detail

in interview s with black soldiers on a military post to add and refine

the items that would ultimately constitute the 1DB .

The 1DB , as pretested, consisted of 44 statements in a personal ,

localized form, having to do with actual discriminatory acts. Respondents were asked to indicate, on a 5—point scale ranging from “very good”

to “very bad ,” how they would feel if such an act happened. They were

also asked to indicate how often (frequency ) they personally “saw or

heard” such acts “on this post” on a 5—point scale ranging from “neve r”

to “very often.”

Instrument Pretesting

The experimental RAPS (RP I plus the 1DB ) was subjected to a series

of revisions , based upon administration to three small Army samples

(N = 32 , N = 54, and N = 114). Each sample was approximately half black

and half white, with sample 3 (N = 114) including 8orr.e officers with enlisted personnel. Minor changes were made to clarif y wording or meaning

prior to the third pretest. With regard to 1DB items, the question “How

does this make you feel?” was changed to “How much do you think an act

• of this type will lead to racial tension?” Responses formed a 4—point

scale , ranging from “will not lead to racial tension” to “will always

lead to racial tension. ”

• RPI items were examined in terms of distribution of responses for

blacks and whites. Those items that did not discriminate between black

and white respondents, when (a) mean scores were computed (using a t test

at the .01 level) or (b) when variances were compared (using the F test

at the .01 level), became candidates for elimination. These items were

then reviewed indivi dually to see if the items might measure att itude

change as the result of program training; if not, the items were deleted.

The only exceptions to this analysis were the original 31 RPI items.

The 1DB was also examined to determine if any items should be

deleted. The items were divided into four groups:

1. High frequency , high tension;

2. Hi gh frequency , low tension;

4

--•-

~~
3. Low frequency , high tension; and

4. Low frequency , low tension.

Items belonging to the fourth group, for both black and white respondents,

became candidates for elimination. Mean scores were then computed on all

items, and the mean frequency scores were multiplied by the mean tension

scores. The resulting distribution of products was examined , and the

items that fell one standard deviation below the mean of the distribution

were also considered candidates for elimination. An experimental form of

the RAPS was prepared as the basis of these revisions for use in a preliminary field tryout.

PRELIMINARY FIELD TRYOUT OF THE RAPS

Objectives

At this stage of the research , the objectives were to determine the

psychometric characteristics of the RAPS, to permit factor analysis and

scaling, and to ascertain post, race , and grade differences.

Method

Data Collection Procedures. The data were collected at two Army

overseas commands and four continental United States (CONUS) Army posts

during May and June 1973. Biracial survey teams traveled to each site to

administer the questionnaires. Subjects used an average of 45 minutes to

complete the instrument; the time range was 25 minutes to 2 hours.

Samples. A stratified sampling design was used that required that

half the subjects be black and half white , with each of these two sub—

samples stratified by grade in proportion to the grade percentages in the

Army . Installation requirements ranged from 500 to 1 ,000 , depending upon

the population of the installation. In all , 1 ,345 black and 1 ,723 white

Army personnel wer . administered the experimental RAPS .

Additional small samples were also collected at selected posts as

test—retest samples for use in the evaluation of test—retest reliability .

These personnel were required to post their social security numbers to

enable matching the test and retest data. The test—retest interval was

7 weeks.

Results of Preliminary Field Tryout

Racial Perceptions Inventory. RPI items were typically Likert—type

items with a 5—point scale ranging from “strongly agree” to “strongly

disagree.” Scales within the RPI were identified through factor analysis

procedures. In conducting the factor analysis, sub ject~

s were random ly

5
divided into construct and cross—validation halves, with the analysis

conducted separate ly on each group. The principal components solution

with a varimax rotation was used for this analysis (Harmon, 1967). The

factor analysis yielded these four factors on both groups:

1. Perceptions of Racial Discrimination (P1W),

2. Attitude Toward Integration (API),

3. Backlash Feelings (HF), and

4. Racial Climate (RC).

The results, along with factor loadings for the construct and cross—

validation halves, are shown as Appendix B.

Once the factor analysis was completed, scale scores were calculated

for each indivi dual by summing the scores on each item falling in a factor. The correlations between these factor scores for whites are shown

in the upper half and for blacks in the lower half of Table 1.1

Table I

RPI Intercorrelation Matrix

Whites

(N = 1 ,691)

PHD ATI HF RC

Blacks

(N — 1 ,335)

~In interpreting these correlations, it is important to note that the

polarity of scoring differs on each scale. On the PHD, a low score means

that the individual sees a lot of discrimination . On the ATI, a low

score indicates an unfavorable attitude toward integration. On the HF - scale , a low score indicates the respondent agrees with ba cklash—type

statements. And on the RC scale, a low score indicates the respondent

sees a favorable racial climate.

6
~

- -- -

~~~~~~~~ -

The data show that a number of the scales are correlated. The hi ghest correlations are between the Attitude Toward Integration and Backlash

Feelings scales for whites (r = .59) and between the Attitude Toward

Integration and Racial Climate scales for blacks (r = — .50). For blacks

there is also a strong correlation between Perceptions of Racial Di scrimination and Racial Climate (r = — .49) scales.

The reliability of these scales was evaluated in three ways . The

cross—validation procedures provided one estimate of the reliability of

the instrument . The coefficient of congruence (Harmon , 1967) between the

two factor analysis samples was .99 for all four of the scales . This

i ndicates that the factor loadings in the two independent samples were

similar and that the responses were stable. Coefficients alpha were also

computed on each of the four scales (Cronbach , 1951). These are measures

of internal consistency , which are interpreted similarl y to am r value .

These results are shown in Table 2.

Table 2

Reliability Estimates of the RPI

(Coefficient alpha)

I. Discrimination .945 (30 items)

II. Integration .904 (16 items)

III. Backlash .869 (15 items)

IV. Climate .778 ( 9 i tems)

Note. Alpha represents the expected correlation of one

test with an alternative form containing the same

number of items .

In addition to evaluating the internal consistency of the instrument ,

the sample design allowed for a test—retest reliability estimate. In one

group of subjects , the following correlations were obtained : PHD, .47;

ATI , .56; BF , .56; and RC, .45.

The test—retest coefficients were only moderately high correlations,

but the internal consistency measures were very strong. These were seen

as better estimates of the reliability of the instrument because of the

• many extraneous variables that act to affect test—retest subjects during

a 7—week period (Nunnally, 1967).

7
Following the initial analysis of data to identify response patterns,

the scales were examined for racial , post, and grade differences. Table

3 shows that the RPI detected major differences in responses for black s

and whites. Note also major differences in the variability of the data

by race. Table 4 shows major differences in responses by grade and , to

a lesser extent , by post.

Indicators of Discriminatory Behavior (1DB). The 1DB was not intended to be a scale as the RPI had proven to be, and therefore, factor

analysis procedures were not appropriate. Two other types of analyses

were used. First, based on the content of indi -.ri dual items, indexes of

acts of discrimination and of reports of verbal slurs and insults were

developed. Scores for each index were computed and correlated with the

RPI scales. Second, the individual items were categorized into quatrains ,

based on the responses to the frequency and tension responses: low tension , low frequency; low tension , high frequency; high tension , low frequency; and high tension , high frequen cy .

Table 5 shows the correlations between 1DB scores and the RPI scales.

For whites , strong correlations between the RPI Backlash scale and the 1DB

items indicated whites were the victims of discrimination and insults.

Those items in which blacks were seen by whites as the victims of discrimination had their highest correlations with the RPI Perceptions of Racial

Discrimination scale, For blacks, the RPI Perceptions of Racial Discrimination scale had its highest correlations with the 108 items that describe

discrimination against blacks. Also, items that described discrimination

and insults against whites were rrKl re likely to be associated with a

black ’s attitude toward integration than his or her score on the HPI Backlash Feelings scale.

The second type of analysis performed on the 1DB examined items in

terms of both frequency of occurrence and degree of tension associated

with each. For whites , high tension and high frequency items were as

follows:

1, I hear whites on this post using expressions such as “work like

a nigger,” “free , white , and 21 ,” etc.

2, I see blacks on this post asking that they be treated better

than whites.

3. I hear whites on this post refer to blacks as “nigger,” “coon,”

etc.

4. I hear whites at this post maki ng insulting remarks about the

ha ir styles, music, or food preference of blacks.

5. I hear blacks on this post refer to whites in such terms as

“honky,” “rabbit,” or “beast.

”8
- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ —~~~~~- .

Table 3

Slack—White Differences on RPI Scales

Blacks (N = 1 ,326) Whites (N = 1 ,686)

F test t test

x S.D. ~2 S.D. of S2 of means

PHD 79.58 322.94 17.97 105.56 69.64 8.34 4.64** _48.68**

ATI 60.66 98.88 9.94 59.33 94.54 9.72 1.05 + 3.69**

SF 53.02 44.03 6.64 45.22 91.83 9.58 2.09** +25 .16**

25,31 34.19 5.85 24.17 27.00 5.20 1.27** + 5.70**

**significant at .01.

Table 4

ANOVA Results for RPI Scales

F values

Variable Whites Bla cks

Perceptions of Racial

Discrimination Post 3,95** 6.34**

Grade 24.16** 16.49**

Attitud e Toward

Integration Post 6.13** 1.47

Grade 27.63** 107.73**

Backlash Feelings Post 6.11** 4 .12**

Grade 9 44** 4,64**

Racial Climate Post 2.56* 3.30*

Grade 72.84** 44.69**

significant at .05.

**Signifjcant at .01.

9
Table 5

Correlations Between 1DB Scores and RPI Scales

Item PHD ATI BF RC

Whites

Discrimination against whites —0.21 —0.39 —0.46 0.38

Discrimination against black s —0.3B —0.17 0.18 0.27

Insults against whites 0.15 0.28 0.40 0.28

Insults against black s —0.31 0,13 —0.24 0 ,24

Blacks

Discrimination against black s —0.64 —0.41 —0.02 0.50

Discrimination against whites —0.23 —0.41 —0.25 0.28

Insults against blacks —0.45 —0.23 —0.04 0.31

Insults against whites —0.25 —0.18 —0.19 0.20

6. I see blacks getting away with breaking rules that I am

punished for.

7. I see whites around here asking that they be treated better

than blacks,

8. I hear whites on this post refer to black s as “boy .”

9. I see blacks on this post getting together in certain situa—

tions to harass or exc lude me from facilities open to all.

For black s, high tension and high frequency items were as follows:

1. White supervisors on this post judge my work in a different

way than they do for whites.

10 

.

-

~~

- -- -—-- ~~

-

~~~~~~

- .- - 

~~~~~~~~~~~ - --~
—

2. I see white supervisors pass blacks over for training oppor—

tunities for which they are qualified.

3. White supervisors at this post give me less credit for good

performance than they give white soldiers.

4. I hear blacks on this post refer to whites in such terms as

“honky,” “rabbit,” or “beast.”

5. I see whites getting away with breaking rules that I am

punished for.

6. I hear whites on this post refer to blacks as “boy .”

The differences in items selected by blacks and whites as being high frequency, high tension items suggested that the individual items were doing

a good job of discriminating between indivi duals with different perceptions.

Tests were also made to determine if the 1DB detected post and grade

differences. Since the 1DB indexes were not comparable across race,

2 the

con~ arisons were made by race across post and grade (Table 6). As on the

HPI, the 1DB generally identified differences in responses by post and

grade. Grade again appeared to be the major variable of interest.

Conclusion

The analysis of the RPI and the 1DB in the preliminary phase of the

study strongly indicated that the RPI was a reliable and sensitive measure

of perceptions of racial discrimination , attitudes toward integration,

backlash feelings, and racial climate, and that the 1DB was a reliable

measure of incidences of discriminatory behavior. Consequently , it was

concluded that the RAPS , with minor modification, had sufficient psycho—

metric rigor to be administered across all the services as a final field

test.

indexes consist of different items and numbers of items for blacks

and whites, therefore, the index scores are not cos~ arable as they would

be if the same items were used for each group.

1 1

___ —- - -— -

~~~

- -

~~~~~~~~~
_ .____ __ _ _

~~~~~~~i!-r----------_ -,—-— - -- —_--_ — -

~ -•- - •

~

‘

~

1

Table 6

1DB Results

F wilues F values

Race fo r posts for grades

White

Discrimination against whites 3.09* 72.97**

Discrimination against blacks 2.76* 47.04**

Insults against wh i tes 5.07* 55.16**

Insults against blacks 2.99* 27.32**

Black

Discr imination against whi tes 1.23 46.46**

Discrimination against blacks 6.21** 86.32**

Insults against whites 3,62* 9.88**

Insults against blacks 1.80 14.52**

*si gnificant at .05.

**significant at .01.

INT ER SERVICE FIELD TEST OF THE RAPS

Objectives

The objectives of this phase of the research were as follows :

1. To determine the reliability of the RAPS for each of the military services.

2. To establish the validity of the Racial Perceptions Inventory

(RPI) section of the RAPS .

3. To examine the relationshi ps between racial attitudes and perceptions and selected demographic variables.

Method

Descri ption of the RAPS. As aeveloped after the preliminary field

tryout , the Racial Perceptions Inventory consisted of i tems to which sub—

c-i~~ were asked to respond on a 5—point scale ranging from “agree

12

-— 

-

~~~~~~~~~ - - 

:--

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

--
-- - _

strongly ” to “disagree strongly .” These items measured attitudes and

perceptions in four conceptual areas:

1. Perceived Discrimination Against Black s (PDB),

2. Attitude Toward Racia l Interaction (ATI),

3. Feelings of Reverse Racism (FRR),

4. Racial C’imate (RC).

A second section, consisting of statements about specific discriminatory acts that might occur on or near military installations , was the

“Incidence of Discriminatory Behaviors” (1DB). Subjects were asked t

~ indicate whether they thought each act would lead to racial tension, how

frequently they actually saw or heard such acts occurring “on this

installation.”

The final instrument used in the field test included

Section I: Demographic Questions 13 items

Section II: The Racial Perceptions Inventory (RPI) .. 73 items

Section III: Incidence of Discriminatory Behaviors

(1DB) Tension Questions 42 items

Section IV : Incidence of Discriminatory Behaviors

( 1DB ) Frequency Questions 42 items

Section V : Questions on Job Satisfaction; Experience

in Race Relations Training 11 items

181

Description of the Samp le. For this field test, a sample of 125

permanent ly assigned personnel was requested at each of 36 installations

throughout the Department of Defense. These installations are listed in

Table 7. It became apparent during the prelimi nary field tryout that it

was extreme ly difficult to obtain a 50—50 samp le of black and white person nel , parti cularly at the higher ranks. Since the Army has the largest

representation of blacks of all the services, it was assumed that this

difficulty would be increased for other services that have proportionately

fewer black personnel. Accordingly, the samples for this field test were

to be proportionate by grade but were to reflect an overall distribution

which was 75% white and 25% black. The shortfall (15% service A , 40%

service B , 30% service C, and 37% service D) was considerable and necessitated the use of the total sample for most of the analysis. The total of

3 ,404 usable cases obtained was 22.1% black and 77.9% white.

13
Results and Discussion

Racial Perceptions Inventory

1. Scale Development. The first step in the development of t~-e RPI

scales was to generate item distributions by race . The distributions

were inspected to determine whether or not items should be omitted from

further analyses , based on low response rates or lack of response variation, Th.

~ results indicated that although there were high ly significant

differences between blacks and whites on item responses , the responses

were normally d istributed in general , and the nonresponse to any one item

did not exceed 6~~. Therefore , all items were submitted to factor analysis. Nonresponses to individual itens were recoded to the modal value ,

based on the population estimate for each race separately . Subjects who

failed to respond to at least 90% of the items were eliminated from further analysis.

The i’eii~s on the RPI were submitted to factor analysis3 in order to

iden tify subsets of items which grouped together . Factor ana lyses were

run on tne total sample ani for black s and whites separately .

Constructs similar to those obtained in previous analyses emerged

from the factor analysis: Perceived Discrimination Against Black s (P1DB);

Attitu d e To%.ard Racial Interaction (ATI); Feelings of Reverse Racism

(FRR); and Racial Climate (RC).

a. Perceived Discrimination Against Black s (PDB)——The perception of

the amount of racial discrimination in the treatment of black

personnel in specific areas of military life, such as supervisory treatment , opportunities for advancement, and milita ry

justice. Examples of statements in this group are: “Whites get

away with breaking rules that blacks are punished for ,” and ‘In

my unit , black s get worse jobs and details than whites.”

b. Attitude Toward Racial In teraction (ATI)——The attitude of being

favorably or unfavorably oriented toward interaction of people

of different races in the military and society in general.

Example of statements in thi3 group are: “In my opinion , black s

and wh ites should work in separate groups ,” and “I would prefer

to live in quarters that are mixed racially. ”

c. Feelings of Reverse Racism (FRR)——The perception and attitude

that wh ites are feeling threatened or fearful of blacks, and

that black personnel are treated more favorably than white personnel. Examp les of statements in this group are “Black s give

3Principal components solution with a varimax rotation was m ed for this

analysis. See H. H. Harmon. Modern Factor Analysis. Chicago , Ill.:

University of Chicago Press, 1967.

14

_ --~ ~ -- -- -- -

~~

- - - _ - - --- ---

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

-

~~~~~
Table 7

Samp le Locations

ARMY

Army Base Command , Japan

25th Infantry Division Support Command , Hawaii

101st Airmobile Division , Fort Campbell , Ky .

Fort Richardson , Alaska

Fort Benning, Ga.

Quartermaster School , Fort Lee, Va.

Engineer School, Fort Belvoir , Va.

Basic Combat Training, Fort Ord, Calif.

Ordnance School , Abe rdeen Proving Groun d, Md.

AIR FORCE

Randolph AF B, Tex.

Ma cDill AFB , Fla.

Basic Military Training, Lackland AFB , Tex.

Ellsworth AFB , S.D.

Bitburg AB , Germany

Sembach AB , Germany

Mcclellan AFB , Calif.

NCO Leadership School , MacDill AFB, Fla.

NCO Academy , Langley AFB , Va.

Squadron Officer School, Maxwell AFB , Ala.

NAVY

Subic Bay Naval Station , Philippines

U.S.S. Inchon

Naval Air Station , Imperial Beach , Calif.

U.S.S. Enterprise

Recruit Training Center , Sa n Diego , Calif.

Navy Supply School, Athens , Ga.

Navy Technical Training Center , Memphis, Teon,

Navy Postgriduate School, Monterey, Calif.

Naval Training Center , San Diego, Calif,

MARINE CORPS

3d Marine Division , Okinawa

1st Marine Aircraft Wing, Iwakuni, Japan

Headquarters , USMC

2d Marine Division , Camp Le jeune , N.C .

Marine Corps Recruit Depot, San Diego, Calif.

Marine Corps Recruit Depot , Parris Island , S.C.

3d Marine Divisi ~~, Camp Pendleton , Calif.

15

L ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ __ 

~~~~~~~ - ---— ---~~~~~~~~~~~~

--

~~~~~

--

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 

-- - -

~~~

---
-_

— 

whites good reason to distrust blacks,” and “Black s get extra

advantages on this installation, ”

d. Racial Climate (RC)——The perception and iti tude concerning the

quality of race relations in a specific service and t ie level

of commitment of each service to racial harmony . Examples of

statements in this group are “Race relations in my service are

good,” and “My service is firmly committed to the principle of

equal opportunity. ”

Item factor loadings for the total samp le and for black s ~nd w hites

sepa rately are presented in Appendix C. In this study .40 was used as a

criterion for the factor analysis of the total sample , whereas .35 served

as a criterion for the separate factor ana lyses by race w her e the sample

sizes were considerably smaller. In addition , the selected items demonstrated similar applicability for both black s and whites, so that comparisons could be made di rect ly across the scale scores by race. Finally ,

items not indicating a clear association to one scale were omitted f rom

scoring.

Overall , the factor loadings were simi lar for both i l ~i - -ks anI whit .~~,

with the exception of three items : 63 , 69, and 70. These items had relatively high loadin gs on th” POB scale for the combined samp le. However,

an inspection of the separate analyses by race indicated that for whites

the items had low loadings (.15 , .26, and .11) on the PDB , and for black s

the items had loadings of — .44, — .53 , and — .52. The content of the items

seemed, on a logical basis, to account for the differences found. For

blacks, the items appeared to be a direct measure of PDB. Howeve r, for

whites they seemed to be more of a reflection of backlash. In fact ,

these items had relative ly high loadings on the reverse racism scale for

whites. These items were eliminated from the analysis. Two additional

items (25 and 53) were also omitted from scorinq , since moderate loadings

occurred on more than one scale and were difficult to interpret.

As a final step in measuring the degree of factor similarity, coefficients of congruence were computed for each scale to verif y that the

structures were similar for bla cks and whites. The coefficients can

range from —1 to 1 , where va lues approaching +1 indi cate a high degree of

similarity and values approaching 0 indicate a low relationshi~~. The

coefficients from this analysis were relative ly high , rangincz from .97 to

.99. Thus, a highly similar basic factor structure emerged for both

blacks and whites. Scales indicating the highest agreement were PDB and

RC. Coefficients of congruence (factor simi larity ) were as follows.

PDB ATI FRR RC

.97 .99 .98 .98

Total scores on each factor or scale were calculated by summing the

responses on each item , reversing the direction of those items where the

response alternatives were reversed, These scores were calculated by

utilizing a unit weighting scheme to take less advantage of the sample

16

- 

— -
error variance (Horn , 1965). Scale scores were calculated so ~ha t higher

PDB scores meant the respondent perceived more discrimination. Hi gher

ATI scores mean more favorable attitudes toword racial interact ion ,

whereas high FRR scores indicate agreement with reverse racism—type statements. A hi gh RC scale score means a favorable view of the racial climate. Scale scores were all transformed for reporting purposes , so th!t

the maximum possible was 100 and the minimum possible was 20, wi th a midpoint of 60. The transformation involved ad justing the scores by the

total number of items on a scale , so that the data could he presented in

comparable units.

Item—total scale score correlations were then generated for the

total sample and for blacks and whites separate ly. Inspection of the

correlations further supported dropping items 63 , 69 , aol 70. Af ter

dropping these items as part of the scale score for PDH , item—tot -~l correlations were recalculated. T)’~ range of item—total correlations for

each of the scales was PDB .~~1 to .76); ATI (.46 to .78); FRR (.48 t o

.70); and RC (.49 to .64). The results of this analysis suggested tha t

the item— total score correlations were of sufficient size to obtain

satisfactory reliability estima t es.

2. Reliabili ty. The next step of the analysis was to compute

internal consistency reliability estimates , using coefficient alpha.

Alpha is based on the average correlation among items and the number of

items on a scale. It represents the expected correlation of one test

with alternative forms containing the same number of items (Cronbach ,

1951). Table 8 gives the a lpha coefficients for bla ck and white respondents separately. Alphas were also calculated for each service to determine if the scales were reliable subsets of items for each service.

The alpha coefficients across the variou s subsarnples indicate a hi gh

degree of interna l consistency of items for all scales, with a range of

.74 to .95. The alpha coefficients for each service are based on the

tota l service sample of blacks and whites and are generally similar.

Also , the alpha coefficients for black s and whites are quite simi l o r ,

with the exception of the FRR scale. The ambi guity surrounding the FRR

scale for blacks is supported by the relative ly low reliability on this

scale for blacks.

Generally , coefficient alpha , as a measure of internal consistency ,

provides the most basic estimate of scale reliability, since the major

source of measurement error is associated with the samp ling of content

(Nunnally , 1967). Other types of reliability estimates do not consider

as many sources of error and are more susceptible to external response

influences. However , it was of some interest to determine the extent to

which scales consistently measure attitudes over time ; i.e. , retest reliability. This estimate of reliability suffers from a number of defects ,

such as the effects of subjects recalling responses from an earlier admin—

istration when responding to a second administration and the generaliza—

tion of response styles across administrations. Also, for scales measuring perceptions of the environment, as in the RPI, low r?test reliability

17 
~~-

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

-

Table 8

A lpha Coefficients for RPI Scales

Scales

Sample N PDB ATI FRR RC

Black 753 .92 .87 .74 .81

White 2,652 .89 .90 .90 .79

Service A 1 ,059 .89 .90 .88 .84

Servi ce B 467 .92 .91 .88 .78

Service C 728 .93 .90 .87 .80

Service 0 1 ,180 .95 .88 .88 .80

may be due to real changes in the environment over time or to a lack of

reliability.

In spite of acknowledged weaknesses in the concept, the retest reliability was considered useful in gaging the stability (f the RPI scales

over time . To measure the retest reliability , the same subjects were

administered the RPI twice, with 6 to 9 weeks between administrations.

These subjects were untrained , so as not to confound the results by the

effects of training. Table 9 gives the retest coefficients product—

moment correlations separately for b’acks and whites. The retest coefficients range from .66 to .76 , and .69 to .76 for blacks and whites,

respective ly . There appeared to be little variation among the scales

or difference by race, with all coefficients moderately high.

3. Validity of R1’I Scales. The most effect ive model to use in

developing scales is a predictive validity model, where individual items

are selected for their ability to predict some future external , behavioral

criterion. For the RPI, individual items would be related to future

behavioral indicators of racial climate, and items successful in predicting or discriminating favorable and unfavorable rac ial climates would be

selected. However, resources were not available to develop such behav—

iora l indicators of the racial climate. Therefore, the model used to

develop the scales of the RPI was essentially a construct validity model.

After internal item analysis, using factor analytic techniques to isolate

internally consistent subjects of items, a numbe r of analyses were

18 
r __________________ __

Table 9

Retest Reliability Coefficients

Blacks Whites

Scale (N = 108) (N = 351)

PDB .73 .69

API .76 .72

FRR .66 .76

RC .76 .72

undertaken to demonstrate that the scales indeed measure what they purport to——that is, that they have construct validity. These analyses

essentially develop a type of nomological network (Cronbach & Meeh l,

1955) to provide ample evidence that the scales are measuring the hypothesized constructs.

4. Correlations of the RPI Scales. Table 10 presents the correlations among the scale scores. The PDB scale correlated substantially in

a negative direction with RC for both black s and whites. It seems that

the greater the perception of amount of racial discrimination against

black s, the lower the quality of racial climate. This result is consistent with the meaning of the constructs of the scales. Similarly, the

FRR scale was negatively correlated with RC for whites; i.e., high feelings of reverse racism were associated with a poor quality of race relations in the service. This relationship did not exist for blacks. Howeve r, there were difficulties in interpreting the FRR scale for blacks.

For both black s and whites , API correlated negatively with FRR , suggesting the understandable association of positive attitudes about racial

interactions with a low level of reverse racism feelings . The moderately

negative relationship between ATI and PDB may suggest a cognitive consistency in attitudes and perceptions. People who prefer racial interactions also tend to see a lower amount of discrimination, which would be

necessary for the success of an integrated living system. ATI and RC

were positively related , so that people who favored racial interactions

also perceived a higher quality racial climate,

Genera lly, the relationships were in the directions that would be

hypothesized , based on the meaning of the underlying constructs of each

scale. With the exception of the FRR scale, the scales seemed to be

19

L - ________ 

- 

___
___________ __________________

Table 10

Correlations of RPI Scale Scores

Scal e PDB API FRR RC

Black s (N = 753)

PDB 1.00 — .37 — .04 — .53

ATI 1.00 — .26 .45

FRR 1.00 .02

RC 1.00

Whites (N = 2,651)

PDB 1.00 — .20 — .09 — .44

API 1.00 — .54 .41

FRR 1.00 — .29

RC 1.00

equally relevant for black s and whites. The correlations differed in

magnitude for blacks and whites, but not in directions. Also , the correlations were sufficient ly modest to imply that the scales were measuring related , yet different constructs.

5. Correlations of the RPI Scales with Other Variables. To pr-D—

vide further evidence for the construct validity of the RPI scales, an

attempt was made to assess racial attitudes by asking subjects to indicate their feelings about meeting members of variou s organizations that

had relative ly clear racial goals. It was hypothesized , for example,

that people wi th a favorable orientation toward racial interactions would

have less positive feelings about meeting a member of the Ku K lux Klan

(XXX ) than those with unfavorable orientations toward racial interactions .

This hypothesis was , for whites , strongly supported by the data. The

correlations between ATI and feelings about meeting a member of the XXX

and other relevant correlations are presented in Table 11 . Significance

levels of the correlation coefficients are not presented , because with

20

_ _
Table 1 1

Correlations of the RPI Scales with Other Variables

PDB ATI FRR RC

Black White Black White Black White Black White

Feelings about

meeting a white

XXX member — .14 — .03 .09 — .43 .13 .29 .04 — .21

Feelings about

meeting a black

NAACP member .10 .06 .03 .33 — .10 — .27 .05 .18

Feelings abou t

meeting a white

CORE member — .03 .09 .25 .35 — .09 — .27 .20 .13

Feelings abou t

meeting a black

militant organization member .25 .07 — .30 .05 .05 — .1 7 — .24 .00

1DB summary scores

Frequency of black

discrimination (FB) .67 .43 — .29 — .1 3 — .06 .21 - .48 — .30

Frequency of white

discrimination (FW ) .29 .18 — .31 — .35 .29 .52 — .27 — .40

Note : White N = 2,389; Black N = 674.

such a large number of subjects most correlations are statistically significant. The discussion concerns those relationships that relate to the

construct validity of the scales.

The API scale would be expeci ed to provide the hi ghest magnitude of

relationships , and the FRR scale the next highest. These two scales are

mos t clearly attitudinal scales , whereas the P08 and RC scales, to a

greater extent , measure perceptions of the environment and are less concerned with an attitude or predispositional set. The pattern of corre lations tends to support this hypothesis , particularly for whites. Those

whites who had positive feelings about meeting members of the NAACP and

21

—..—. -
CORE also tended to favor racial interactions and to express less reverse

racism feeling. There appeared to be little relationship for whites

between API and feelings about a member of a black militant organization.

Apparently the goal of such an organization was not so clearly defined

in relation to a goal of greater racial interactions.

For black s, this same pattern seemed present, to a lesser extent;

however , black s considered the NAACP the organization whose goals were

ambiguously perceived. ATI was correlated positive ly with feelings about

a member of CORE , as expected , and negative ly with feelings about a

member of a black militant organization. Apparently, bla cks in the

sample did not perceive the goals of a black militant organization as

consistent with a goal of increased racial interactions.

The lack of relationships between ATI and black feelings about KICK

and NAACP members probably pointed to an inconsistent perception of the

goals of these organizations or a differential dynamic related to the

potential encounter with members of these organizations. Some blacks

with high ATI scores may relish the opportunity to confront a person with

such antithetical beliefs, while others may be repulsed by such contact.

Some may perceive the NAACP as an effective change agent , whereas others

may characterize it as an ineffectual refuge for “Uncle Tom” types of

blacks. In any event , the pattern of associations clearly supports the

constructs being assessed by the RPi scales, with the exception of the

FRR scale for blacks. The low correlations on that scale clearly show

the difficulties in interpreting it as it relates to blacks.

Another relationship, not included in the table but related to construct validity, was the association between the scale scores and knowledge about race relations issues. Previous research has demonstrated

that knowledge may serve as an unobtrusive measure of attitude concerning

civil rights activities (Fiman , Stanton , & Borus, 1972). Knowledge was

hypothesized as positive ly related to the ATI score and to a lesser extent negative ly re lated to the FRR score. In a samp le of 576 people who

received both the RAPS and a questionnaire dealing with knowledge of race

relations issues, knowledge correlated .31 with ATI and — .19 with FRR ,

both correlations significant at the .001 level. Greater knowledge is

associated with favorable orientation toward increased racial thterac—

tions and lower feelings of reverse racism. Thus, the constructs underlying the RPI scales again appear reinforced.

6. Criterion Grogp Analysis. Another analysis provided further

evidence for the underlying constructs of the RPI scales. Two groups of

subjects were identified as criterion groups that varied along a dimension that hypothetically related to the scale constructs. The two criterion groups were selected on the basis of their involvement in and

commitment to high—quality race relations in the military. Subjects in

Group 1 were instructors in the race relations training schools, field

instructors for race relations training at the unit level, or students

in courses designed to make them instructors in the area of race relations. In almost all cases these subjects volunteered to be in those

22
programs, and presumably this voluntary involvement represented a tangible commitment to racial harmony. Group 2 was composed of subjects who

had not behaviorally demonstrated any interest or commitment in race

relations bet were similar in other relevant variables to the subjects

in Group 1. All subjects in both groups were from the same service and

have been in the military over 3 years.

With respect to the constructs of the RPI scales, the following

a priori hypotheses were made.

Hypothesis 1: PDB. Subjects involved in the area of race relations

will perceive more discrimination against blacks than

other subjects. Work in the area of race relations

sensitizes people to the more subtle indicators of

discrimination and enhances th€ r awareness of such

indicators.

Hypothesis 2: ATI. Subjects committed to racial harmony will be

more favorably oriented toward racial interactions.

This difference may be somewhat lower for black s

because of some disagreement among black s about the

advantages of other ways toward successful racial

coexistence.

Hypothesis 3: FRR. Subjects in the race relations area will indicate less reverse racism feeling than other subjects.

This difference may not hold for blacks because of

the weakness in the FRR scale for blacks.

Hypothesis 4: RC. Subjects in the race relations area will have

a slightly lower perception of the racial climate.

Familiarity with the area of race relations tends to

breed a sense of frustration in attem pting to deal

with such a pervasive , massive phenomenon and a well—

develope~

i acuity for perceiving discrimination.

Subjects concerned with race relations are more

aware of the extensive service commitment to racial

harmony but at the same time are more aware of the

lack of service involvement in other areas they see

as critical.

The results for the criterion group analysis are presented in Table

12. The results supported the hypotheses based on the constructs for

each of the RP1 scales. All differences except those for black API

scores were in the hypothesized direction. For example , both bla cks an d

whites who worked in the area of race relations perceived more discrimination against blacks. Differences in the RC scale were not statistically significant but did reflect the tentativeness and ambiguity associated with the contrasting assumptions surrounding the hypotheses. We

expected a lower difference for blacks on API scores, but the results

23
- -~~~~~~~- - -

~~~~~~~ 

.- --

~~~~~~~~~~~

--- ,

- -—~~~ 

--. .---

~~~

-- -—-

Table 12

Mean Scale Scores for Criterion ~ rouJ Comparisons

Hig h involvement L~~w involvement Si gnificance

in race area , in race area , level of

Scale Group 1 Group 2 differences

PDB

White 57.60 49.29 .001

Black 67.35 62.67 .05

AT I

White 81.49 74.49 .001

Black 81.62 82.07 n.s.

FRR

White 49.28 59.67 .001

Black 48.15 44.11 n .s.

RC

White 70.87 73.30 n.s.

Black 70.37 72.48 n.s.

Note. Group 1 whites , N = 154; Group 2 whites , N = 83;

Group 1 blacks , N = 156; ~rr)up 2 bl.icks , N = 35.

showed no difference at all. With this minor exception , the overall

results did support the ori ginal hypotheses.

The previous analyses provi de evidence that the RPI scalf~ ; do measure the concept s that they were int~~n I ~~1 to measure. ‘r.- patterns f

the results support the construct validity of the scales, in t hat t t t ~

hypothesized relationship continued to appear in a variet y of sitj

~

j tons

with a number of different variables. This network of a~ sociat1ons and

accumulation of evidence clearly indicated the constru~-t validity of the

RPI scales.

7. Relationships of Demographic Variables with RPI Scales. The

demographic variables in the questionnaire were correlated with the four

RPI scales. ~~e attitudinal variable, “job satisfaction ,” was included

in this set . Job satisfaction score was tht sum of four questions dealing

24

L .

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~.
--- ---~~~~~~~ - -.- -

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ -~~~~---~~~~~~~~ -_______

dealing with satisfaction with the individual’ s military job ( RAP S , Section V , questions 1—4).

The correlation patterns given in Table 13 were simi lar for black s

and whites. Blacks tended to have higher relationships than whites with

those variables correlating with the ATI scale. Age , Rank , and Time in

Service were all fairly colinear and show similar relationships across

the RPI scales. The average intercorrelations among these variables was

.73 for whi tes and .75 for blacks. Older, hi gher ranked soldiers and

those with more time in service perceived less discrimination , ~iad more

Table 13

Correlation of Demographic Variables with RPI Scales

by Race

PDB ATI FRR RC

V ariable White Black White Black White Black White Black

Age — .18 — .13 .16 .47 — .12 — .12 .36 .33

Rank — .11 — .13 .24 .44 — .16 — .11 .33 .36

Time in Service — .20 — .16 .10 .44 — .09 — .10 .37 .38

Education .31 .04 .24 .24 — .15 — .17 .19 .07

Career Intent — .17 — .15 .13 .43 - .10 — .09 .37 .37

Racia l Composition

of N eigh borhood — .01 — .01 .10 .00 — .0 5 .01 — .06 — .10

Close Persona l

Contact — .07 — .07 .14 .13 — .06 — .09 — .05 .00

Off—duty Contact .01 — .15 .19 .30 — .13 — .07 .04 .20

Drafted .‘)3 .08 — .02 — .11 .02 .10 — .04 — .10

Job Satisfaction — .21 .34 .20 .48 .15 .02 .46 .51

Note. With the large samples used in this ana lysis , very small

correlations are significant . At the P .005 correlations

of .10 are significant for black s (N — 674) and .05 for

whites (N 2,300).

25

L
~~ -

~-- -~~~~~~~~~ ----~~~~~ --~~~~ -,

positive attitudes toward racial interaction, felt less reverse racism

and had more positive attitudes toward the racial climate in the service.

Th e relationships were highe r for bla ck s, r ang ing f rom .44 to .47 , than

for whites , .10 to .14. As pointed out previously , the relationships may

in part be due more to a selection process than to Age , Rank , or Time in

Service. In this -a~ e, career—oriented individuals may see the service

in a more positive way . That is, they may perceive less discrimination ,

a mor e positive racial climate, fe el less reverse racism , and have more

positive attitudes toward interaction.

R~ spondents with higher education had rr~ re positive ATI , less FRR ,

and more positive attitudes on RC. In part, the Education variable may

be a reflection of age , since it correlated .33 and .38 for whites and

black s, respective ly, although one might expect the more educated to be

better informed and aware of racial issues.

Caree r Intent had similar relationships with the RPI scales as did

Age , Rank , a nd T ime in Service , and correlated .66 with Age for both

black s and white s. It was probabl y in large pa rt another me asure of

these variables , since those who have reenlisted are older and , by reenlistment, have indicated a commitment to a career in the military .

The variable Racial Composition of Nei ghborhood had low relationships with the scales. For whites, there was a sli ght tendency for those

who lived in racially mixed neighborhoods to have higher ATI (.10)

scores. For black s, there was a negative relationsh ip with RC (— .10).

The amount of Close Persrnal Contact with people of other races was

moderately correlated with the ATI scale. More contact was associated

with more positive attitudes. Black s (.13) and whites (.14) had simi lar

correlations.

Bla ck respondents with more Off—duty Contact with people of other

races had lower PDB , higher ATI and hi gher RC scores. For whites , those

with mo rfl contact had hi gher ATI scores and lower FRR scores. These

results were in an expected direction .

~

here both black s and whites who

had more positive attitudes tended to interact with each other during

off-duty hours.

The variable Drafted had very low relationships with the RPI scales.

Black s who were drafted tended sli ghtly tc~ perceive more discrirr~~

iation

against black s, to have less favorable ATI scores, to have higher FRR

scores, and to have less positive RC scores. This variable may be a

measure of career orientation.

I.e Job Satisfaction variable was highly related to the career in—

tent variable , with correlations of .62 for whites and .55 for bla cks.

It was also highly rel~ ted to Age , Rank , and Time in Servipe . For whites

the correlations of Job Satisfaction with Age , Rank , and Time in Service

were .54, .51 , and .54. For black s the correlations were .53 , .47, and

.53. The correlational pattern of job sat~i .~~

action with the RPI scales

26
was similar for both blacks and whites. Respondents indi cating high job

satisfaction perceived less discrimination , with the correlations slightly

higher for black s (— .34) than whites (— .21). Although higher job satisfaction was associated with positive ATI scores for both races, the

relationship was much stronger for blacks (.48) than whites (.20). On

the FRR scale, there was a slight correlation for whites only, where

higher job satisfaction was associated with less reverse racism feelings

(— .15). As one might expect, more positive attitudes toward racial climate were expressed by respondents indicating high job satisfaction. The

correlation was slight ly higher for blacks (.51) than whites (.46).

To some extent, Age , Rank , Time in Service, Career Intent, and Job

Satisfaction variables represented a continuum of overlapping concept s,

because individuals with a high career orientation obviously become increasingly older, hold higher rank , and have more active duty time. To

a lesser extent, job satisfaction is not a necessary condition of career

intent, although one would expect people to leave the service if they

were not satisfied. Taken together , individuals with a career intent

perceive d less discrimination , had more positive attitudes toward racial

interact ion, expressed less reverse racism feeling, and had more positive attitudes toward racial interaction and the racial climate in the

military . The pattern was similar for blacks and whites. The Education

variable demonstrated similar relationships with the RPI scales, with

the exception of the near—zero relationships with the PDB .

Amount of contact with people of other races either before or during

military service demonstrated sli ght relationships with the RPI scale.

In genera l, individuals with more contact perceived less discrimination,

had more positive attitudes toward racial interactions , and expressed

less reverse racism feeling. The only meaningful relationsh ip with RC

was for blacks. More off-duty contact with other races was related to

more positive attitudes on racia l climate. The variable Drafted had low

correlations with the RPI scales. This finding is probably not meaningful for the tota l sample , since not all services used the draft , and it

is not used today.

Incidence of Discriminatory Behaviors

An objective of race relations programs is to develop attitudes that

prcxnote .acial harmony . Measurement of these attitudes , therefore, is

the primary focus of the RPI. Another general objective of race relations and equal oppor t u n ity programs is to reduce and eventually eliminate all forms of racially discriminatory behaviors. The 1DB was developed to measure the frequency of occurrence of such behaviors within any

particulir unit . It is i mportant to be clear abou t this difference between the two measures. RPI scale scores tell something about an mdi —

vidual’s attitudes and perceptions , whereas 1DB frequency scores tell

abou t what that individual sees in the or~ anizational milieu in which he

exists. 1DB frequency questions are a lways asked relative to a specific

27

- . - 

_ i_ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ -

~~~~~~~~~~~~ - --—---~~~~~
installation or unit. By averaging scores on each item for that particular installation , one obtains a measure applicable to that installation.

There is then a critical difference between the RPI scale scores and

the 1DB frequency scores. The RPI is aimed at measuring general attitudes and perceptions , whereas the 1DB is aimed at measuring the frequency of occurrence of specific behaviors on any particular installation.

RPI scores, therefore, reflect characteristics of the individual a~.d 1DB

scores reflect characteristics of the installation.

The 1DB was envisioned primarily as a diagnostic tool for installation commanders and as a measure of total program effectiveness over time.

It is obviously not an appropriate measure of training effects, because

its questions ask about the behavior of people who cannot be presumed to

have gone through the same training programs as the subjects being surveyed. To the ex~ ~nt that the long-run program goal is elimination of

racially discri °natory behaviors , the 1DB is, at least theoretically,

more appropri~- ’- - - as an assessment tool~ thart the RPI , inasmuch as it

focuses directly on behavior. However , further research would be necessary to verify this assumption.

Since the 1DB was deve loped to describe the incidence of behaviors

on an indivi dual installation , ana lysis for this report was difficult.

It was not possible to describe the findings across 42 items for each in—

st~~Ilation separately for two reasons. First, there are simply too many

installations and too many items. Second , the results only have meaning

when they can be related to the individual characteristics of the instal

lation——~ nformation most useful to a local commander.

Nevertheless, it seemed appropriate to describe results in more

general terms, and so the data were combined and results given in terms

of all of the installation samples obtained. Caution should be exercised

in interpreting these composite findings , because they do not reflect

conditions at any real installation. For example, if one installation

has frequent occurrences of some behavior and another installation has

no such occurrences , then the averaging misrepresents both. The combined

data do give a general idea about occurrences of such behaviors at military installations and show differences in how blacks and whites judge

potential for racial tension and indicate frequency of discriminatory

behaviors. Appendi x D lists the mean scores for black and white personnel for each item , based on the total sample.

1. 1DB Summary Scores. Although the original intent of the 1DB was

to maintain the integr ity of the specific items , am attempt was made at

sca ling the 1DB , based on the subjects ’ judgments of potential racial

tension . Certain items could conceivably cluster together to form inter—

pretable scales, such as behaviors associated with supervisors or behav—

i( rs relating to educational or occupational opportunities. The scaling

attempt used factor ana lysis, done separately by race because of the pre—

viously demonstrated interaction of race with other attitudinal and perceptual variables.

28 

--—-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ -~~~~~~~~~~~~ -

~~~

——
~ 

~~~~~~~~

-

~

- - --

~~~~~~~~~~~~

- - - --

~~~

Both factor analyses yielded vry large first. factors that accounted

for most of the available v~~~iance. Subsequent factors were composed of

onl y a few items with low factor loadings a i d were essentially umiriter—

pretable. There appeared to be substantial intercorrelations among all

the items, suggesting that the discriminatoiy acts are consistently related to a unitary conceot of racial tension. Therefore, it seemed useful to combine the responses to items that reflect discrimination against

a specific race in order to develop a broad, summary indicator of dis—

cr iminatory behaviors against blacks and whites. Two summary scores were

cr~~~~-’d by summing separately the frequency responses to those items that

reflect discrimination against whites and blacks. The summa ry score of

the frequency of behaviors directed against black s (FB ) include d 24 items,

in~ the summa ry score that reflects discriminatory behaviors against

whit es (FW ) wis composed of 18 items.

T~ insure that the separate items of the summa ry score were consis—

tentl~ interrelated , in ternal consistency reliability estimates were cal—

c u l i t ei for each summa ry score for black s and whites. Table 14 shows the

alpha coefficients for the ~wo 1DB summary scores by ra e. All coeffi—

cie nt~ ire quite high , ind icating substantial internal consistency of the

summary scores.

Tab le 15 show s the intercorrelations of the two summa ry scores with

the RPI scales, and presents further evidence of the construct validity

of these scales. For examp le, one would h ypothe size that high scores on

frequency of discriminatory acts against black s would correlate with a

hi gh score on PDB.

Table 14

Al pha Coefficients for 1DB Summary Scores

Scale Alpha c.efficient

Bla cks

t~requency of black discrimination (FB) .92

Frequency of wh i te discri minat ion (FW)

Whites

Frequency of black discrimination (FB) .90

Frequency of white discrimination (FW) .91

Note. White N 1 ,988; black N 552.

29

‘4

___________________ 

~~~~~ ,— -—----—-~~~~~~~~--- - ---~~~~~ -—-
-

~~--~~ -

Table 15

Correlations of 1DB Sunvnary Scores With RPI Scales

PDB ATI FRR RC

Scale Black .

~~ite Blank Wni’e Bl ack Whi t i

~ Black White

Frequency of black

discrimination (FB ) .67 .43 — . — .13 -.06 .21 .48 — .30

Frequency of white

discrimina tion (FW) .29 .18 -.31 — .35 .

~~ 

.52 -.27 — .40

Note . White N = 2,389 ; black N 674.

2. Frequency of Occurrence of Discrin~

inatory Behaviors. The litte rent types of behaviors examined in the 1DB items have been c-itegorized

in to four groups . These are not scales, but merely colle ctions of items

wi th similar content . The four grc~’nings aria examples of the t y~~~ of

items in each are as follows :

• Harassment

2. I hear whites on t h i s installation making insulting remarks

about th e hai rstyles, music , or food prefer en-’ s of blacks .

7o. I hear blacks on this installation refer to whj~~~ : in

terms as “}onk y ,“ “ rabb ,“ or “beast .“

• System Treatment

4. I see whites who work in offices like finance , di sbur semen

or transportation providing whites with better service tan

they provide blacks.

6. I see whites assigned to less desirable l iving quarters than

bla cks of the same grade .

• Self—Segregation

L

i. Whites on my job stick together.

1 8. During off—duty hours , I see blacks spending time with just

blacks .

30

-- - ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
• Supervisor Treatment

5. I see white supervisors looking more closely at the work of

blacks than at the work of whites.

11. I see black supervisors pass whites over for training opoor—

tunities for which they are qualif ied.

The items on the 1DB were initially examined to see if there were

significant differences in the responses of blacks and whites. The

results showed significant differences on all items except one (.01

level).4 Items on which there were the largest differences are shown in

Table 16. Each of these items represented discrimination by whites

against blacks. Three of the items were supervisory treatment items and

one was a system treatment item. In each case , more blacks than whites

reported the items occurring “often ” or “very often. ” Both blacks and

whites selected the self—segregation items as occurring most frequently.

~

hese were

18. During of f—duty hours , I see blacks spending time with just

blacks.

29. During off—duty hours , I see whites spending time with just

whites.

1. Whites on my job stick together.

23. Black s on my job stick together.

Further analysis indicated that there were other acts occurring on

which whites and black s do not necessarily aqree . For whites , other

items occurring most frequently were

2. 1 hear whites on this installation making insulting remarks

about the hairstyles, music, or food preferences of blacks.

9. I hear whites telling racist jokes about blacks.

35. I hear whites on this installation refer to blacks as

“nigge r , ” “coon , ” etc.

3. 1 see black s on this installation asking that they be

treated better than whites.

4

Chi—square tests were made for black—white differences on all items.

The item for which there were no differences was Item 12 , which read ,

“1 see whites receiving discriminatory treatment at military facilities

(such as the exchange , commissary , or service club) . ”

31
Table 16

1DB Black—White Differences on Reports of Frequency

Whites Blacks

Item (%) (%)

8. I see white supervi sors passing bla ck s

over for training opportunities for

which they are qualified.

Never 62.1 18.0

Sel dom 24.4 21 .1

Sometimes 11.0 30.7 ~ 2 861.89**

Ofte n 2.0 21.7

Very often 0.5 8.4

24. I see whites getting away with breaking

rules that black s are punished for.

Neve r 58.1 18.1

Seldom 28.7 22.7

Sometimes 11 .1 32.1 813.44**

Often 1.6 16.2

Very often 0.5 10.9

7. I see whi te supervisors qiving bla cks

less credit for good performance than

they give to wh ites.

Never 52.3 16.0

Seldom 31.4 22.1

Sometimes 13. 4- 35.1 ~ 2 745 49**

Often 2.3 19.2

Very often 0.4 7.5

17. I see white superv isors paying more

attention to the requests and suggestions

of wh ites than they do to those of bla cks.

Never 55.7 19.3

Seldom 30.9 2 4 • 5 -

Sometimes 10.9 29.3 = 724. 13**

Often 2.0 19.0

Very often 0.5 8.0

**significant ~t the .01 level.

Chi—square base on actual frequencies rather than percentages.

Wh ite N ~ 2 ,587; black N 728.

32
These tended to be harassment—type items . Whites in the military apparently felt that there was name calling and other types of racial slurs.

Item 3 appears to be a backlash—type item.

Other items which blacks felt were occurring most frequently were

20. I hea r whites at this installation refer to blacks as “ t hose

people , ” or “ your peop le. ”

2. I hear whites on this installation making insulting remarks

about the hairsty les , music, or food oreferences of blacks.

5. I see white supervisors looking more closely at the work of

blacks than at the work of whites.

19. I see white supervisors judging the work of black s in a di fferent way than they do fo r whites.

While for whites the items other than self—segregation items concentrated

on harassment, blacks were also reporting discrimination in treatment by

supervisors. Black s agreed with whites about insulting remarks concerning hairstyles, music, and food preferences. But blacks did not report

hearing racist jokes or use of the word “nigger” so much as whites reported hearing them. This is logical, since in the racial climate in the

m i l i t ary today whites would probably not tell such jokes or use racial

slurs in the presence of blacks. On the other hand , blacks report that

terms like “your people ” are used , which whi tes do not report. It would

seem that while whites are aware that words like “ ni gger ” are uni versally

r ecogn ized as racial slu rs, white s are not aware of the offensive nature

of a ph r ase like “you r people ” and are not therefore conscious of its use.

In fact , whi tes indicate that use of “your peop le ” would cause much less

tension than a word like “ nigger. ” Bla ck s a lso reported supervisory dis—

crimination , even though whites did not select this as an item they saw

occurring more frequent ly. This corresponds to findings on the RPI scale

reported previously which indicated that whites do not perceive discrimination against blacks to the extent that bla cks do.

Behaviors which whites felt occurred least frequently were

37. I see black s assigned to less desirable living quarters than

whites of the same grade.

6. I see whites assigned to less desirable living quarters than

black s of the same grade.

40. I see blacks receiving discriminatory treatment at military

fa cilities ( such as the exchange , commissary , or service club).

14. I see white supervisors making it easier for whites to go

th rough the chain of command to present a complaint than they

do for blacks.

33
- -----j-- 

~~

-

Three of these items were system treatment items and one a supervisory

treatment item. Whites reported that housing was assigned equally fairly

and , furthermore, denied that there was any discrimination in military

facilities. Whites also said that they did not have easier access to the

chain of command than blacks.

Behaviors that blacks felt occurred least frequently were

12. I see whites receiving discriminatory treatment at military

facilities (such as the exchange , commissary , or service club).

6. I see whites assigned to less desirable living quarters than

black s of the same grade.

34. I see black supervisors on this installation giving whites less

credit for good performance than they give blacks.

38. 1 see black s getting away with breaking rules that whites are

punished for.

Three of these items were system treatment items and the fourth related

to supervisory treatment. All four items represent black s getting better

treatment than whites. It would appear, therefore, that black s specifically denied treatment in their favor.

In summa ry , it appeared that both blacks and whites felt that self—

segregation was the most frequent type of racial behavior in the military.

Both black s and whites agreed that racial slurs occurred , althou gh th e

nature of these differed somewhat: blacks were reporting the occurrence

of terms such as “your people” and comments about lifestyles, whereas

whites were also reporting uses of such terms as “nigger ” and racial

jokes. Whites, it a7peared , were inclined to deny the occurrence of dif—

fer ential system treatment. Black s, on the other hand , denied that there

was discrimination against whites.

3. Racial Tension—Producing Behaviors. The attempt to utilize an

eva luation of potential tension that may be caused by a behavior as a

measure of importance in developing a weighted composite of discriminatory behavior was not successful. Although weighted composites intuit ively seem fruitful , they are often extremely difficult to generate due

to the instability of the wei ghts. In this study there was relative ly

little variance among the items in the judgments about the potential

level of racial tension, and the judgments did not appear to be suffi—

ciently stable across a number of samples. Therefore, it seemed appropriate to utilize the judgments of tension on ly in a more general way ,

where RAP S users would be made aware that the specific sets of behaviors

are more likely to lead to racial tension and warrant a greater degree

of attention. For example, behaviors representing racial harassment have

a higher mean leve l of potential tension than behaviors dqaling with

supervisory practices. Information abou t the level of potential tension

for specific content areas of behaviors is provided in the RAP S manual

34
- . - - - ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ - --

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

of administration and interpretation (Fiman , 1974). Howev er , there were

also significant differences in the extent to which blacks and whites

felt the behaviors would lead to tension. 5 Items with the largest black—

white differences are shown in Table 17.

The three items on which there were toe largest differences were all

verbal harassment types. In each case, a hi gher percentage of bla cks

indicated that such acts were more likely to lead to racial tensions.

The fourth item was a system treatment item , and agai n blacks were more

likely to feel it would lead to racial tensions.

The behaviors whites felt were most likely to lead to racial ten—

sions were

33. I see black s on this installation getting together in certain

situations to harass or exclude whites from facilities open

to all.

39. I see whites at this installation getting together in certain

situations to harass or exclude black s from facilities open

to all.

35. I hear whites on this installation refer to black s as “nigger,”

“ coon , ” etc.

3. I see blacks on this installation asking that they be treated

better than whites.

White subjects apparently felt that harassment and exclusion of either

black s or whites was likely to lead to racial tensions. Whites also

indicated that the use of terms like “nigger” would lead to tensions.

This finding is interesting because this is one behavior that whites

reported as occurring more frequently than blacks did. Whites also m di—

cated that racial tensions would be caused by blacks asking for prefer—

ential treatment. This behavior also is one that whites reported was

occurring more frequently.

Behaviors that blacks felt would lead to tensions were

35. I hear whites on this installation refer to blacks as “nigger,”

• “coon ,” etc.

22. I hear whites on this installation using expressions such as

“work like a nigger ,” “free, white, and 21 ,” etc.

41. I hear whites on this installation referring to blacks as “boy.”

5Chi—square values for black—white differences were significant on all

items except Item 19 , which read , “I see white supervisors judging the

work of blacks in a different way than they do for whites.”

35

-

~ 

“—•——- - ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~— - — -- - -i- 

-— 

----- - --- -
Table 17

1DB Black—White Differences on Reports of Tension

White s Blacks

Item (%) (

~~)

22. I hear whites on this installation using

expressions like “work like a nigger ,”

“free , white, arid 21 , ” etc.

Will not lead to racial tension 4.4 4.4

Will in some cases lea l to racial tension 33.3 15.0

Will in most cases lead to racix a l tension 34.9 20.6 = 275.22**

Will always lead to racial tension 27.4 60.0

20. I hea r whites at this installation refer to

blacks as “those peop le, ” or “your people.”

Will not lead to racial tension 14.0 9.8

Will in some cases lead to racial tension 53.8 37.5

Will in most cases lead to racial tension ~4.2 30.6 151.02**

Will always lead to racial tension 7.9 22.1

41. I hear whites on this installation refer to

blacks as “boy. ”

Will not lead to racial tension 3.8 3.1

Will in some cases lead to racial tension 28.5 16.3

Will in most cases lead to racial tension 36.7 25.8 126,67**

Will always lead to racial tension 31.0 5.8

16. I see whites wearing ID brace lets , while blacks

are not allowed to wear “ slave ” bracelets

(symbol ic black unity wristbands).

Will not lead to racial tension 8.8 7.6

Will in some cases lead to racial tension 44.9 32.0

Will in most cases lead to r. cial tension 33.6 32.8 k~ 102. ~~~~

Will always lead to racial tension 12.7 27.6

**significant at the .01 level.

~ote. White N = 2,587; black N 728.

36
39. I see whites at this installation getting together in certain

situations to harass or exclude blacks from facilities open to

all.

Blacks selected some of the same items as whites——the items about the use

of “ni gger ” and the exclusion and harassment of blacks from facilities

open to all. Blacks also reported that the use of words like “boy ” and

phrases like “work like a m u gger” would lead to tensions , whereas whites

lid not list these.

All the items among the four most tension producing for black and

whites were harassment items , with one exception. It is apparent that

both blacks and whites saw exclusion and harassment as tension producing.

Both blacks and whites agreed that the self—segregation items were

least likely to lead to tensions. These items were reported by both

blacks and whites as occurring most frequently.

These results are interesting from several standpoints. First , they

suggest major differences in the extent to which blacks and whites saw

t he same types of 1is~ rim inatory behaviors , as well as in the leve l of

tension that they believe each act would cause. Second , racial insults

were extreme ly important. Both blacks and whites agreed that such acts

cause tensions, and both agreed that they are among the acts occurring

more frequently. In addition , while whites seemed to recognize that the

use of words like “nigger ” woull lead to racial tensions , they seemed

less aware of the extent to which other words might be offensive .

Despite the fact that whites recognized the offensive nature of words

like “nigger ,” they apparently still used them. There was also some

feeling among whites that blacks were asking for better treatment , and

they reported that this would lead to racial tensions. Blacks , on the

other hand , did not report that discrimination against ~hites was occurring or ~~ : i ~ it would lead to racial tensions. Based on findings such

as t 4 ; e, it appears that there was considerable potential for interracial conflicts throughout the militar y. The findings provided evidence

that tension—producing behaviors were occurring with some frequency and

that there was little cc risensus between blacks and whites aFout what was

occurrin~ ari d how important such occurrences were.

The f i ndings that the behaviors which occurred most frequently were

the ones leas’

~ likely to lead to tensions is important as well. Self—

segregation , it appeared , by itself was ~~t likely to he a problem on an

• installation , but if it became exclusion , as is suggested by items 33 and

39, tensions mi ght resu’t.

The evidence that tension—producinq behaviors were occurring with

some frequency gives cause for concern. This was particularly true in

those cases where , for example, whites seemed unaware that blacks were

offended by such behaviors. If blacks and whites operate unde r different

assumptions about how much tension will result from certaui behaviors,

then the likelihood for racial tensions and even violence is heightened.

37
CONCLUSIONS

During recent years the military services have become more responsive to the need to eliminate discrimination , and many programs have been

set in motion to insure that the policy of equal opportunity and treatment is implemented fully in practice . Effective feedback about the way

people in the military are actually feeling and about the disrrimination

they see in the service can prevent these programs from losing their

direction or , at worst , becoming counterproductive.

The Racial Attitudes and Perceptions Survey helps insure that this

does not happen. The instrument reliably measures attitudes and perceptions and obtains information about the frequencies of specific discrim—

inatory behaviors. The RAPS , when correctly used , helps equa l opportunity program managers obtain information they need to guide their

efforts. A separate manual (Fiman , 1974) ha s been prepared that provides

detailed instructions on its administration and the interpretation and

u se of results.

Two sources of information are derived through the use of the RAPS.

The first of these is the global view of the racial climate provided by

the RPI scale scores. Large racial differences in these scores would

indicate a disturbing degree of racial polarization within the installation or major unit. Inspect ion of the responses to the individual RPI

and 1DB items , the second source of information derived from the RAPS,

would isolate and identify specific problem areas within the installation

or major unit. Inspection of the responses to the individual RPI and 1DB

items , the second source of information derived from the RAPS, would isolate and identif y specific problem areas which might be contributing to

this polarization . Thus, by using the RAPS information , a commander not

only can determine the approximate proportions of the racial problems in

his unit , but al so can determine priorities in combating t-h~ se problems .

One final point should be made . The mean item responses and scale

scores contained in this report should in no way be construed as Army—

wide or Department of Defense—wide norms. Because of variations in mission , population , and locale , the appropriate norms for a particular

installation should be established only through repeated administrations

of the RAPS over time . Then the results of each RAPS ‘dministration can

be compared with previous ones; through such comparisons , determinations

can be made regarding the deterioration , amelioration , or stability of a

unit ’s racial climate, and inferences can be drawn as to those things

which contribute to these conditions . Thus, the RAPS is most effective

when administered periodically within a command or at an installation ,

acting as a barometer of racial conditions. The commander can then keep

a close surveillance on those problem areas which , left unchecked , could

undermine the effectiveness of his unit.

38
RECOMMENDATIONS

The ultimate value of the Racial Attitudes and Perceptions Survey

( RAPS ) lies in its ability to measure racial climate . Uo wever , no matter

how good the RAPS is , its ultimate value is related to how it is used.

Certainl y, without appropriate safeguards , the use of the RAPS will not

yield valid results, and , in fact , may even be counterproductive. A manual of administration and interpretation has been created as a companion

to this report and provides guidelines for appropriate usage . However ,

a systematic framework is needed , to insure that the RAPS is prope rly

used to meet the needs of prospective users , serve as a catalyst for the

m odification and establishment of new programs, and ultimately contribute

to the elimination of racial discrimination .

Based on the prior military experiences of the authors and on the

comp rehensive view of the military environment that the work on this

project provided , the following recommendations are made.

1. The RAPS should be used “annuall y” in servicewide evaluations

of racial attitudes and perceptions, in conjunction with other

measures of the overall racial environment .

2, The RAPS should be used at the installation level to help commanders assess race relations programs and changes in attitudes

and perceptions over time. A manual has been developed to help

installation commanders use the RAPS for this purpose ( Fiman ,

1974).

3. The RAPS should not be used to evaluate specific commanders .

The identification and punishment of commanders who obstruct the

gen eral goal of racial harmony is a desirable consequence , but

using the RAPS for thi s purpose will contaminate the validity

and truthfulness of responses from the units of thr se commanders

in the future. If the commander thinks that responses of his

personnel will be used to directly evaluate his own performance,

that commander will very likely attempt to pressure his personnel to give the “right” responses, violate his pledge of confidentiality and anonymity, and inevitably destroy the level of trust

with his personnel that is critical to the RAPS and race relations program s in general .

4. In general , the RAPS should not be used to evaluate specific race

relations program s at the local level. Although the instrument

is sensitive to changes in the racial climate , statements of causality and precise evaluation require very special circumstances

(such as control groups). Detailed evaluctions should only be

done by qualified social scientists who have experience in program evaluation and can use scientifically Sound research designs .

5. The RAPS should be revalidated at least every 2 years , because

changes over such an interval could cause specific items on a

39 

~~-~~= - ~~~ “~~~~~~~ - 

.

-~ ---- 
. - -

sca le , h~~t h in the RPI and the 1DB , to lose their meaning. Furthermore , additional areas of concern am no military personnel

may arise that should be included in the instrument .

6. The conditions under which the RAPS is adm iriistored should r u t

be changed without revalidation . These include face—to—face

group administrations , biracial survey teams , and standardized

instructions .

7. It is important that the RAPS be used “systematically.” In tL~ s

sense, the purpose should be to obtain information about att itudes and perceptions and to communicate t h is information to

those responsible fo r race relations programs . As programs are

modified to improve the racial env ironment , the RAPS shoul d be

used to assess the impact of the prc qram changes. Onl y through

such a “systems” approach to the development and imp lem entation

of race relations programs can success be attaine :. Two things

about such a systematic approach are important:

a. It is very easy to misuse the RAPS to allow managers to get

only he information they want to hear. This must be

avoided by providing strong safeguards to uhtain accurate

assessment of the racial climate. This system should be

expanded to provide more objective measures of racial clirndte as a companion t i the self-reports of racial perceptions. Information systems can be established which , f o r

example , measure general ~ r m o t ion rat~~u for each race

sepa rately.

b . This system itself should be evaluated after it has been in

operation for a substantial period of time . There are many

ways in which data can be incorrectly collected and improperly analyzed. These factors must be examined so that the

F/stem can be changed to promote more effective , efficient

use of the RAPS.

Some attention shoul d also be given to the kind of structure within

which these recommendations mi ght best be carried out. In our view , the

establishment of a centralized agency within each service would be hi g hly

app ropriate. The specific functions of such an agency should he determined by t he nee Is and requirements of the individual services; i

~ should ,

at a minimum , be responsible for such administrative functions as preparing guidelines for the use ot the RAPS , overseeing reproduction of the

RAPS, and ;~r viding technical assistance to loca l commanders who wish to

use the RAPS. ~

ther possible functions might include the conduct of

servicewile surveys using the P21 portion of the RAPS. Because of possible overuse of the RAPS , this function would be facilitated great1 y by

the deve~ u~iiient of alternative forms of the P21. A centralized agency

w~~~~ I ~r ovide a -rained pool • f professional personnel who could provide

technicsl assls ’ arice where needed and help insure quality control in

-~dmi n :o ’ ration and analysis of results .

40

‘4
REFE RENCES

Adorno , T., et al. The Authoritarian Personality . New York: Harper , 1050

A.mir , Y. ‘ Cont a ct Hypothesis in Ethnic Relations ,” Psychological

Bulletin , 71 , Winter ~~~~~ pp. 3 1 0—42.

Borus , J. F., Fiman, B. G., Stant o n , M. D., and Dou d , ~. F. “The Racial

Perceptirns lnv, nt o n . ” washington , D. r.: Army Institute of

Research , n.d .

Borus, 3. F., Stanton , M. ~., and Doud , ~~. F. “Racial Percep tions in

the Army: An A pproach , ” Am erican Journal of Psychiatry, 11 , 128 ,

May 1972 , pp . 1360— 74 .

‘r nbach , L. 3. “ Coefficient Alp ha and the Internal Structure of Tests, ”

P sy c h o m e t r ik a, 1€ , 1q5 1 , pp. 297—334.

Cronlia ch , L. J., and Meeh l, P. E. “Construct Validity in Psychologica l

lest s,” ~~~~ cho~~~~~~ cal_ Bullet in , 52 , 1955 , pp. 28 1—302.

Defense Race Relations Institute Commanders Notebook , Draft. Patrick AFB ,

Fla.: Defense Race R e 1at~~ ons Institute, 1 December 1971.

D ep art ment of Defense , o ffice of the D eputy Assistant Secretary of

Defense ( E qua l Opportunity). ~!-e Negro in the Armed Forces: A

Statistical Fact Book. Washin ot on , D.C., 15 Septembe r 1971 .

Liw i rds , Allen . Exj ri m e n t al Des:or in Psychological Research, Third

El. New York : Holt , Rinehart and Winston , Inc. , 196r~.

Fima n , B. . Manual for Administration and Interpretation of the Racial

Attitudes and Perceptions Survey ( RAPS). McLean , Va .: Human

— Sciences Research , Inc., March 1974.

F ima n , ‘ . G., Stanton , 1. D., and Born.is, 3. F. “An Unobtrusive Measure

of Race Relations Attitudes ” (unpublished manuscript), Washington,

D . C., 1

~~7 2 .

Harmo n , H. H. Modern F a ctor An~j -

~j 1s. Chicago , Ill.: University of

Chicago Press , I

Ho rn , J. I. “An Empirical Comparison of Variou s Methods for Estimating

Commo n Factor Scores,” Educational and Psychological Measurement, 25,

1 4t5.

Human Sciences Re search , Inc., “V alidation of the Racial Pcrcrp t l D n s

Inventory (RPI), ” McLean , Va.: Jul y 11

~73 , Interim Report on Con—

ra -t D A}IC 19—73—C—0037 (unpublished) .

41
Kelly, Francis 3., Begg s, E~~nald L., and McNeil , Keith A. Research

Design in the Behavioral Sciences: Multiple Regression Approach.

Carbondale and Edwardsville: Southern Illinois University Press,

1969.

Kerlinger , Fred N. Foundations of Behavioral Research. New York: Bolt ,

Rinehart and Winston , Inc., 1964.

Memorandum, Assistant Secretary of Defense (M&RA). Subject: Evaluation

of Race Relations Education Programs, 6 May 1972.

Nor I l i e , P. G., and Thomas, J. A. Black and White Perceptions of the

Army ’s Equal Opportunity and Treatment Programs. ARI Technical

Paper 252, March 1974.

Nunnall y, 3. C. Psychometric Theory . New York : t’cGr aw—Hill , 1967.

Robinson , John P., Rusk , Jerrold G., and Head , Kendra B. Measures of

Political Attitudes. Ann Arbor, Michigan : Institute for Social

Research , The University of Michi gan , 1973.

Runyon , R. P., and Haber , A. Fundamentals of Behavioral Statistics,

Second Ed. Reading, Mass.: Addi son Wesley Co., 1971.

Schuxnan , H., and Harding, J. “Prejudice and the Norm of Rationality ,”

Sociometry, 27 , 1964.

Stoloff , P. H. Use of Navy Human Relations Questionnaire With U.S. Army

Personnel , CNA Memorandum 1879—2, Institute of Naval Studies , Center

fo r Na val Analyses, 7 De cember 1972.

Stoloff , P. H., Lockm an , R. F., Ajibritton , A. S., and McKinley, H. H.

Development of the Navy Human Relations Questionnaire. Arlington ,

Va.: Center for Naval Analyses, October 1972, RC 225.

Woodmansee, 3., and Cook , S. “Dimensions of Racial Attitudes: Their

Identification and Measurement ,” Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 7, 1967.

42
AP PENDIX A

The Racia l Attitudes and Perceptions Survey

During the instrument development phases of the research , the

instrument was referred to as the Inventory of Racial Climate and Attitudes (IRCA) . This was subsequently revised , and throughout this report

the instrument was called the Racial Attitudes and Perceptions Survey

( RAPS).

43
F- - - -

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

-

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

- - -— - 

~~

- .

~~~~~~~~

---- -

GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLETING THIS QUESTIONNAIRE

1. Do not put your name or service number anywhere on the answer sheet or the questionnaire.

2. Answer all the questions. Read each question and a~

l of its responses carefull y before selecting

your answer.

3. Choose only one answer to each question.

4. Mark your answer on the answer sheet only. Do not write on the questionnaire booklet.

5. Use only a #2 pencil when filling out the answer sheet. Do not use ink.

6. On the answer sheet , mark the box that has the same letter as the response you selected from

the questionnaire.

7. The answer sheet is numbered from top to bottom. Check your answers once in a while to be

sure that you are marking in the right place.

8. Fill in the box with a heavy mark; do not go outside the lines of the box. Look at the example below:

~

-r i.

RIGHT WRONG WRONG

9. If you make a mistake , erase the mark completely before entering a new one.

10. Do not tear or fold the answer sheet.

44
~ ---.- -.- - ~~~~~~~~ - - ---. -

On your answer sheet , mark your answer

to eac h of these questions . as follows:

\ DISAGREE STRON(;lY

B I)ISAGRF F

C N’EITIIIIR AGIU F. NOR DIsA(;Rl I

I) AG REE

E ACRE ! STROM;l.Y

I. Race relations in the Arms have been getting 13. After duty hours, soldiers should stick

better during the past eai together in groups made up of their race

only (Blacks only with Blacks , and Whites

2. Wit h the same education and skills , Black only with Wh ites).

soldiers get better treatment than Whites.

14 . The Military Police in the Army treat Blacks

3. White soldiers and supervisors assume the wo rse than they treat Whites.

worst about Blacks in any doubtful situation.

IS . Blacks are trying to get ahead too fast.

4 Blacks were better ott before this integration

husiness got started. 16. Whites act as t hough ste reot

~ pes about Blacks

were true (fo r example , all Blacks are lazy).

5. White supervisors pay little or no attention to

Blacks’ complaints about discrimination in the 17 . The Army needs race relations programs.

civilian community -

18. Black s get extra advantages on this installation.

6. Harsher punishments (Articles 15 , cour ts~ martial , etc .) are given out to Black offenders 19. i t migh t be a good idea to have all-Black and

than to White offenders for the same types of all-Wh ite unit s in the Army.

offe n ses.

20. Trying to bring about racial integration is more

7 Whites who supervise Black supervisors doubt trouble than i t ’s worth.

their competence.

2 1. If the race problem can be solved anywhere . it

There is more racial discrimination on this can he solved in the Army.

military installation than there is in civilian

life . 22 There is racia l discrimination against Whites

on this i n -tal l ation.

Q If things continue the way they are going.

Blacks w i ll get more than their fair share. 23 Wh Ite’s hase a better chance than Blacks to

get the best training opportunities.

10. Blacks get more extra work details than

Whit es 24 Whites ,issur ne t h at Blacks commit ans Lflfl1C

that occLirs , such as thefts in barracks.

II. I underst and the feelings of people of other

races better since I joined the Army. 25. ~

V h ites do not show proper respect for Blacks

with higher rank

12. The Army is firmly committed to the

principle of equal opportunity. 26. Blacks in the Army are not interested in how

Whit es see things

45
On your answer sheet , mark your answer

to each (it these questions . as follows

A DISAGREE STRONGLY

B DIS~~

GR1 I

C Nl1~rtIF R A(;RII NOR DISAGRI I

D ACRI F

I A G REI STRON(;L\

27 . Race relations in the Army are good . 4! BlaLk power is a dangerous thing.

28. Blacks and Whites would be better off if they lived 42. White supervisors assume that Rl a k s hj

~e hidden

and worked only with people of their own races. niotis e s when they ask for somethi ng.

29. The Army is doin g all it can to improve race 43. The Army is tryin g t o improve treatment of Black

relations. scr ~

,ice mi”~ and women in the civilian community

30. In the Army, I would prefer to live in quarters 44 There is ra cij i discnm inat i on against Blacks on

that are mixed racially, this installation .

31. If my unit had a supe rvisor of a race different 4 5. Whites give Blacks good reason to distr ust Whites.

from mine , I would dislike it.

46. It would be a good thing for Blacks and Whites to

32 . White supervisors ex pect Blacks to do poorly on hang around together after duty hours.

any jobs other than menial ones.

47 . A Black in the Ar my must do more than the

33. Equal opportunity and treatment regulations are average White to make the grade.

seldom enforced.

48. I like people of other races more since I joined

34, Whites are not willi ng to accept criticism from the Army.

Blacks.

49. The .Arm ~ ‘s eq ual oppo rt un ity program s have

35. Whites get away with breaking rules that Blacks been hel pful to Blacks in the Army.

are punished for.

50 . - soldiers and supervisors act as

36. In my opinion, Blacks and Whites should work t1iough Blacks have to “earn the right ” to be

in separate groups (all Blacks in one group, all tr eated equally.

Whites in another group).

SI . There is serious racial tension in the Arrn~

37 . Blacks and Whites should mix together “only ”

while they ’re on duty. 52. Whites accuse Blacks of causing trouble and

starting fight:

38. Our supervisor picks people to do certain details

on the basis of their race. 53. Callin g attention tu racial problems only makes

things worse.

39 . On this installation , Blacks who work hard can

advance as fast as Whites who work just as hard. 54 . Blacks frequently cry “prejudice ” r athe r tha n

accept blame for personal faults.

40 Some Blacks get promoted just because they are

Black . 55. In my unit . Blacks get worse jobs and d cta i l .~ than

Whites
On your answer sheet , mark y our answer

to each of these questions , as follo ws:

A DISAGREE STRONGLY

B DISAGREE

C NEITHER AGREE NOR DISAGREE

I) AGREE

E AGREE STRONGLY

56. Most commanders apply the military justice system

fairly to Whites bu t not to Blacks.

57. The reason Blacks stick together is to keep out

Whites.

58. A Black who attends an all-Black school is better

off as long as it is just as good as a White school.

59, The Arm y provides a good career opportunity for

Blacks.

60. Blacks get away with breaking rules that Whites

are punished for.

61. There should be more close friendships between

Blacks and Whites in the Army.

62. Blacks assault Whites just because they ’re White.

63. Blacks should stay with their own group.

64. Blacks are not willing to accept criticism from

Whites.

65. On this installation , I have personally felt

discriminated against because of my race.

66. At stores, bars , theaters and restaurants in the

civilian community, I have been treated

disrespectfully because of my race.

67 . Blacks don ’t take advantage of the educational

opportunities that are available to them.

68. Blacks give Whites good reason to distrust Blacks.

69. Many Blacks have begu n to act as if they ire

superior to Whites.

47
~

. . “ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~ 

.-..———.-—.

H~~ OFTEN IX)I SF IllS .-

~(tION O((t 1R ON Tills l\SF.-\ l,L.~TR\

On you r answe r slicer , iiiark your answer

to i’Jc li of tIleSt ’ questions . .Is

= NEVER

B = Sl I.U)()\I

C = ‘~

oMi:!I \1I S

I) = OFTE N

F ~ IRY OFTI;N

70. Whites on my job stic k together.

71 . 1 he ar Whi t es on this installation making insulting remarks

about the hairsty les , music or food preferences of Blacks.

7’2. I see Blacks on this installation asking that they be treated

bet ter t han V~ h ites.

7 ~,. I see Whites ssho work in offices like finance , disbursement ,

or transportat ion providing White s with better service than

they provide Blacks.

74 . I see White supervisors looking more closely at the work of

Blacks than at the work of Whites .

75. I see Whites assigned to tess desirable living quarters than

Blacks of the same grade.

76. I see Whit e sup er ~isors giving Blacks less credit for good

performance than they give to Whites.

77. 1 see White supervisors pass Blac ks over for tr .iining

opportunities for which they are qualified.

78. I hear Whites telling raci st jokes about Blacks.

79. I see Bl.icks who work in offices like finance , disbursement ,

or transportation providing Blacks with better sers ice than

they provide Whites

80. I sL’e Black supervisors pass Whites Over for training

opportunities for which they are qualified.

81. 1 see Whit e ’. receiving discriminatory treatment at milita t y

t

~iL i l i ties (such as the exchange . commissarv , or se rvice club).

82. 1 hear Blacks on this installation making insulting remark s

about hairstyles , music or food preferences of Whites

83. I see White supervisors making it easier for White s to go

through the chain of command to present a complaint than

they do for Rl;ick s

84. I see White supe i v is ors a~ p lving the Uniform Code of

Nlih tary J ust i ce ( L i M. J 1 and ~l ilita ry Ru’gu lat io ris di ffercnt l~

to l1la~ ,s than to Whites

48 
—.~~~~~~~~~---— ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ .

~~~~~~~~

.

— —- .-

lIO~ OF1’I N DOE S ntIs A( 1 ION OCCUR ON 11115 INSTAI . t .!\TI()N ~

Oii y our answer sheet , mark your aiiswci

to each of tlics& ’ qu& s (ioIls , as follows:

A NIV ER

B SE LIX)M

C SOMETIM E S

I) OFTE N

E VERY OFTEN

85. I see Whites wearing ID bracelets , while Blacks are not

allowed t o wear “slave ” bracelets (symbolic Black unity

wrist bands).

86. I see White supervisors paying more attention to the

requests or suggestions of Whites than they do to those

of Blacks.

87. During off-duty hours, I see Blacks spending time ~

sith

just Blacks.

88. 1 see White supervisor s judging the work of Blacks in a

different way than they do for Whites.

89. I hear Whites at this in stallat ion refer to Blacks as “those

people .” or “your people. ”

90. I see Black supervisors looking more closel~ at the work

of Whites than at the work of Blacks

91. I hear Whites on this installation using e\pressions such

as “work like a nigger ,” “free , white and 2 1 ,” etc.

92. Blacks on my job stick together.

9 ~~. I see Whites getting away with breaking rules that Blacks

are punished for

~4. I- see Black supervisors paying less attention to the

requests and suggestions of Whites than they do to

those of Blacks.

95. I see While supervisors assigning Blacks to n’or.ri ’ work

details than they do Whites.

96. I see Black supervisors making it niore difficult for Whites

to go through the chain of command to present a

compla int than they do tor Blacks.

97. I hear Blacks (ill this insta ll.i tion refer to Whites in such

terms as “h onky,” “rabbit .

“ or “beast

98. During off.-dut~ hours , I see White s spending time with

just Whites

49

L ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 
HOW OFTEN IX)ES THIS ACTION OCCUR ON THIS I N STALLATION?

On your answer sheet , mark your aiiswcr

to each of these questions. ,is follows:

A = NEVER

B = Sl t.IX)M

C = SOMITIMISS

I) = OFTEN

I = VERY OFTEN

99. I see Whites on this installation asking that they be treated

better than Blacks.

100. I see Black supervisors judging the work of Whites in a

differen t way than they do for Blacks.

101. I see Black supervisors assigning Whit es to worse work

details than they do Blacks.

102. I see Blacks on this installation harassing or excluding

Whites from facilities open to all.

103. I see Black supervisors on this installation giving Whites

less credit for good performance than they give Blacks.

1 t)4. I hear Whites on this installation refer to Blacks as

“nigger ,” “coon ,” etc.

105. I see Black supervisors on this installation applying the

Uniform Cod e of Military Justice (UCMJ) and Military

Regulations differently to Whites than to Blacks.

106. 1 see Blacks assigned to less desirable living quarters than

Whites of the same grade.

107. 1 see Blacks getting away with breaking rules that Whites

are punished for.

108. 1 see Whites at this installation harassing or excluding

Blacks from facilities open to all.

109. 1 see Blacks receiving discriminatory treatment at

military facilities (such as the exchange , commissary,

or service club).

110. I hear Whites on this installation refe r to Blacks as

“boy. ”

111. 1 hear Blacks telling racist jokes about Whites.

50
I

Please tell us the following things about yourself.

1 12. Race : 116. Hi ghest grade comp leted in school :

A. White A. Less than hi gh school graduate

B. Black B. Hi gh school graduate or C. E. I).

C. Oth er _____________ C. Some college

(fl..s. sp.cify i D. College degree

E. Advanced college work or degree

1 L3. How old are you ?

A. Nineteen years or less 117. How long have you been on activ e dut y ?

B. Twent y to 23 years A. Less than one year

C. Twent y-four to 29 years B. One to three years

I). Thirt y years or over C. Four to nine years

D. Ten to fifteen years

114. Sex: E. More than sixteen years.

A. Male

B. Female 118. Durin g your off-dut y hour s now , ho w often

do you have close personal contact with

115. Rank: peop le of oth er races?

A. El - E4 A. Dail y

B. ES - E6 B. Weekl y

C. E7 - E9 C. Monthl y

D. WOl - W04 D. Never

E. 01 - 03

F. 04 or hig her

-J
F .

~~~~~~~~~~~~

-.-

~~~~~

-.- -- -

~~~~~~~~~~

- -..

~~~~~~~

AP PENDIX B

Factor Ana lysis Data——Preliminary Field Tryout

PHASE I——B.A SEWI DE SAMPLE (BLACK—WHITE COMBINED )

I. Perceptions of Racial Discrimination

(‘oj i s ! iLic ~ (rCis ’ .- \ :lliJ.t(Ii)n

Ha l l L I:ilt Item

(. 7~ 4) 36. \Vli t e s get away with bre aking rule s t h . ~t Blacks ar c punished for .

(.7S~ ) 33. \Vi.iise punishments (Artic les 15 , courts-mar tial , tnn.~ in sto.J.a Ie

are i’j vefl Oil t to B~,ick soldi ci S 1 1 1 ,111 to \VI itc soldiers for the s :iilie

typ: s of offenscs . *

. 73(1 (. 73S) 81. ~

\ Iik s ip. r ,iso rs and soldi ers a~ t as tho u c h Black s l ive to ‘‘earn

the r i g h t ’’ 

lii be t r e.ltL ’ equally.

.73° (. 775) 23 A fll.R k s o ldi er must do more t ! i ~ n the average \\i i ite soldier to

ln !.e the gra de .

723 (. 737) 62 . Blacks ~ct more c~ t r a ssor k deta ils th. n \

~ ide so~die r s .

.733 (.71 ~) 6S. W h ite supervisors e\pL’et l

~Licks to (10 poerl y on an~ jobs other

than mcii al on es.

.735 ( .6~

)7 ) 80. WiIi t es do i:ot slios v proper resp ect f i r lU cks with h i g h e r rank .

.70 (.693) 87 . \Vliitcs ass u m e t h a t Blacks commit a ii\ crime dma t occur s, SUCh

as a barracl,s theft.

.659 (.623) 14. White su pervisors assume that Blacks have hidden motives v~ li e n

they ask for something.

(.71 2) 40. Whit es h ave a Fetter chance than Blacks to eet the Fest trainin c

op port ii nit Cs.

.666 (.6 19) 70. Th ere is racial discrimination against b lacks on this posl .

~~

679 (.667) 78. White s who supervise Black supervisors question their competence .

613 (. 602 ) 13. Most ccr 1

~manders apply the military justice system rrtore fairly

to \Vhi t es th a n to Blacks .

*origina l RPI Items.

53

-— --— --4
t..u*,.,t, act t. i ~~~~~~ ~~~~ iil t tioii

Ilalt Item

.645 (.643) 21. In my unit Bla ck sohd i ei s get worse jobs :tii ~ 1 (letailS tItan Whit e

soldiers. *

.652 (.676 ) 28. \Vii Ic sokilers amid stipL ’rvisoI s :issumnc the \V oI 

~1 aI)ou t Blacks in

any doubt ltd situat ion .

.6 17 (.630) 32 . Whites give Blacks good reason to distr ust \Vlijtes .

.607 (.613) 37 . \Vltitcs act as though sti ’reotypcs :iboui t Pd ac ks were true (for

example , that B l acks don ’t sunburn).

.630 (— .627) 4 2 . On t i is post a Black soldier who works hard can a d v aii c L ’ as fast

as a White soldier who works just as baud .

~~

.63S (.577) 43. \Vhite supervisors pay little or no attention to Black comp l aint s

about off-po~I d i s cri i i iination.

.614 (.64 1) 44 . \Vhit es are not wi lling to accept criticism from Blacks.

.62 1 (.603) 52. \Vhitcs assault Blacks just because they ’re Black.

.655 (.669) 58. MPs treat Black soldiers worse than they treat \Vhite soldiers. *

.627 (.578) 60. Whit es try to force their attitudes and way s upon Blacks.

.567 (.S03) 35. F~~ al opportunity and treatment regulations are seldom enforced .

.527 (.483) 71. At stores , bars , theate rs , and re st ; w aii ts oft ’ post . I h ave been tre a ted

disre sp ec tfully because of my race . *

.508 (.465) 73. Whites tend to be serv suspicious of any grouping of )fla ~ ks . eit her

on or off duty.

.5S2 (.545) 83. White s accuse Blacks of causing trouble and starting fi g hts.

.580 (.5 I 4) 84. N(’05 on this post hassle with black soldiers who wear Afro haireuts , *

505 (.477) 89 . Our sergeant picks sold iers to do certain details out the basis of

th eir race. *

.455 (.443) 29, There is racial prejudice against Black soldiers in the civili an

community surrounding this post.

30

*Orjgjna l RPI Items.

54

- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 
ii . Attitude toward 1nleg~ati on

Construct (ills ~~

‘% iitLl ~

il ho i

J I n if Half It em

.700 (. 67 I ) I 5. Blacks slmou lil stay with their own group.

.706 (. 707 ) I 7. Blacks and Wh ites v. od d be better off if they lived ari d worked

only Wi ~1i membe r s of their own races.

.739 (. 735) 45. In my op im m iom i , Bl acks and \\l ii tes slmouild work in separate groups

(all Blacks ut one group, all Wim i tes iii another group ).*

(.680) 63. After duty hours soldiers should stick together in groups made

up vt t heir race only (Blacks only with Blacks and Whites only

with W ii ites). *

.6~ S (.695) ~o. It mi ght be a go~ d idea to have all—Black and all—White units iii

the Army.

.

~~ 17 (.6 13) 8. Blacks and Whites should mi~ tog et lic i only whi le they ’re on duty ,*

.61) 2 ( .5 86) 30 rrying to brim i g abou t n acia l integration is more trouble than i t ’s worth.

- .6Ut~ (

~ 51)4) 39. It would be a good thing for Blacks and \ V h i m t es to hang around

toge titer a ftc r di~ t y hours.

51)7 (. 566i ‘1~ ltl.ueLs were better off b~ tor~ thi s intccratio ~

s business e.ot started.

- .615 (— (I Id) 6o . There should be more close friendshi ps hctw e cmi Hla~ ks and \ V liitc s

i n tl.ie Amiy . *

— .550 (— . 5331 20 . In the Arrn ~’ I would pre fer to live in a F r i r r aL ks th at is mixed Ifl .cks

and Whiles . *

.538 (.536) 50. If mv unit had an Nd.’OlC of a race different than m ine , I would

dislike it .*

• .459 (- .429) 34 . The A rmy needs race relations pmograiti ~

( 4° 1) 57 . A Bl ,eh who attends an all-Black school is Fell er ol as long as

j u st as good as a \Vhite school .

.464 (.4 I 5) In the It inn run , dat u m lee t ’t

~ e e m m Ill. cks and WIii t e~ does more ha rm

than good.

4 ‘

~~ (. 443) 85. Call irm g attention t ti racial problems only makes iF ’ .. Wi~ s

~

I (i

55
- 

-

III. 13,ickl .ishm l e e li i

& iimi.. f rt; tt ( rti..~ \‘,

~t i ~l .it jomm

t 1,i If [halt I temn

.661 ( . 6 5 7) 47. Blacks give Who tes good ne~

t somi to ili ..t ii t Blacks .

.6 32 (.630) 4~~. M . iti ~ W i cks have begun to act a’. ml ‘h ey m i t e sm i p e I or to \Vhi ~ tes .

(.631) 59. Blacks assault W h i te s ju5t because they ’re \ V i m i m e .

5

~~0 (.61 1) 3. Blacks get :iw .i~ with breaking rules th at Vt mm t e~ arc p u n ished for.

.577 (.592) 1 6. Blacks m et extra a dva ri tages on this post.*

. 563 ( .545) 25. \Vi! h the same education and skills , a Idack i !Lhie r ~

‘,ts Fetter

treat iei , t than a \Vl m its ’ soldicr .*

.557 (. 567) 4 1. Blacks ft e

~p m e n t l y cry ‘‘prejudice ’’ umc .h m er iha~ :mc cc p~ blame for

~.‘rson.tl I mol t . . .

( F’ ~) 46. Some ltl . mcus ~et ~o ’ imi ded j u i ~t b ecaus e tli:\ are R ack .

.57 ~ ( .5 3 1) 51. Blacks are tot willing to accept cii ~ie i s ;mi 1r~cmi V.’I t ites .

.517 ( .537) ~ ) . If thu tu’s continue tI l e WJV they aic g oir m e . Rl , :ks ‘

~ ill ne t more tha n

their fair s himi m e .

.547 (.533) 10. Bl ,~ . soldi ers are not interested in h ow \\hidc s see t liiti y s .

.502 (. 144) 88. The reasom m L3 T a ek soldiers stick together is to keep out \Vhiite ~.*

. 459 . (.4 i5) 56. There is racial di scrimination against \ V iii t us on this post. *

. 113 (.367) 74~ Black powe r ~

s a dangerous th i ing. *

.4 18 (.420) 61. Blacks don ’t take ad v ; mmmlag c of t I me c d ue ,tti onal opportunit ies that

are available to th em.

l 5

56 

~~~. .~ .. .

~~~~ 

‘

,.
IV . Racial (‘lu nate

( iii stfl~

(

~ (

~r &tss ~

\ .ihitl a tion

flaIl Hail Item

.603 (. 55 1) 1. The A r immv is firmly committed to t h e principl e of equal oppor tmit i t ~

. 6 11 (.579) 18. The Arm i iy is doing all it can to improve race relations.

(.597) II . Race relations in the Army have been getting be tte r during the

past year.

.553 (.602) 19. If the race pm oblern c ait be solved anywhere , it can he solved in the

Army.

.552 (.555) 6. Race relatio n s iii the Ar m y are good .

.476 (.4 67) 2 . 1 understand t h e feelings of peop le of oth er r a ces better since I

joi t i ed the A r m n y~

.431 (.47 I) 4. 1 like people of other laces m ore since I joined the At mmiv

(.53 I) 24 . Tim e r\Inlly is t r viil 7 to improve oft” post treatment of Black soldiers.

.437 (. S IS; 3 I. The Am mmv ’s equal opportunity programs have Fi en h e lpI ml to

Black soldiers

9

L . . -

~~~~~~~~ -~~ - -~~ ._ _± .

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

-

~~~~~~~~~

--- . -

~~~~~~.---— , .~~~~~~
-.----- ~~~~—~~~~~~-

-- -- -- ~~~.-- , ,

R[

~ It eitis N u t in Any Ba i tor or ut Two Factors

Item

5. Blacks shouldn ’t need to give up their cultural i d e r m t it y in order to

achiev e success .

7. A coun t i y made up of m m ’ai iy differ ent races is better off t h an one thta t~s

all one race .

II. lu cre is more racial dis cri mni natio im on this Army post titan there is in

civi h ia mm life .

4

22. Must NCOs try to hel p Blacks with personal matters...

26. If Blacks w ant to do well in American society, they need to t a h k and

act more like Whites tb .

27 . The Army provides a good cancer opportunity for Blacks .

38. Whites were better off before this integration busines s got start ed .

53. At this ItO st I have persomi .ill y felt discriminated : ‘gi inst because of my race.~

’

54 . If my unit had a comnma nd imin officer of a race different ram mine , I

would hike it a Iot . *

S S . White siffic eis h ave more ti is , it ..hc comman ding Black en listed personnel

than Black officers do.

i l . A Black soldier with mmii A fro hai tcii t is showing his dislike of \Vhit cs~

65. Bl acks are trying to get ahead too fast .

67. ~~iere is seriotts racial tension on this post that may cause widespread violenc e.4

69. I trust people of other races less since I joined the Ar m y .

~~

72. Different races shouldn ’t have to give up their values in order to live

together.

75. The re are many fights about racial matters on this post.*

76. At the IF’s. c ommissary am id other on-post semviees , I have heen treated

disrespectfully because of m y race.4

77 . Otir country is stron er because many different races h i ~ e lmere .

79. If I were in the day room and someone made loud bad r em umi rks about

soldiers of my r ice , I would t . i l k I the person to try to change his mind .

~

19

58

___ ___ ___ _______ _____
-,-- .

~~~~----- . —-- . -~~- ~~~-..- . ___-~-~~ -- -

Contrilni l i oim of l ;ittors to 0: i niii . ml ( omnmnunal ify

1 11 III IV

(‘om itribut ion ~f factor (V p) i ~~~~~~ 8.~

.,o 8.44 4.54

Percent of total original conmni unality 40.66 23.65 23.20 12 .49

59 

-~~~~~

- -,. -‘---

~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 

.

.,- -,- . 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
. -

APPENDIX C

FACTOR AN ALYSIS DATA——INTERSE RVICE FIELD TEST

FACTOR ANALYSIS RESULTS

Factor 1: Perceived Discrimination Against Blacks

Factor Loading

Blacks %Thites Total Item Question

-723 .647 -.759 36. Whites get away with breaking rules that Blacks are

punished for.

,

.t, i) 5 .621 -.731 51. White enlisted personnel and supervisors act as though

Blacks have to “earn the righ t ” to he treated equally.

-.582 .660 -.720 4~ . A Black in my service must do more than the average

White to make the grade.

-.618 .600 -.699 33. White supervisors expect Blacks to do poorly on any jobs

other than menial ones.

-.566 .581 -.698 24. Whites assume that Blacks commit any crime that occurs ,

such as thefts in living quarters.

-.587 .535 -.681 6. Harsher punishments (Articles 15 , courts-martial , etc.) are

given out to Black offenders than to White offenders for

the same types of offenses.

-.562 554 -.a70 26. W hites do not show proper respect for Blacks with l i:’lie r

rank.

-.579 .630 -.667 57. In my unit , Blacks get worse jobs and details than Whites.

-.553 .585 -.661 23. Whites have a better chance than Blacks to get the best

training opportunities.

-.568 .576 -.656 10. Blacks get more extr a work details than Whites.

- .5 77 .525 -.654 7. Whites who supervise Black supervisors doubt their

competence .

-.609 .514 -.631 46. Whites give Blacks good reason to distrust Whites.

-.599 .483 -.629 43. White supervisors assume that Blacks have hidden motives

when they ask for something.

61

- .-- .

‘~~CEDI .

~

, PACK BL&M (-N0T FILJ4ED

. ~~~~ 

— — -- -- :. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ . ,.-,

- -- -~~~~
~ -- -—- -

Factor Loading

Blacks \%h it e ’~ Total Item Que’~l ion - .

-.t-~

57 .473 -.617 35. Whites are not willing to accept critiLi ~m from Bla ~ks.

-.57 6 . 4° I -MI 3 5

~ . Most commanders apply the milit ary justice system fairly

to Whites but not to Blacks.

-.530 .541 -.609 3. White enlisted personnel and supervisors assume the worst

about Blacks in any doubtful situation.

-.474 .556 -.599 14. The military police in my service (MPs , APs, SPs) treat

Blacks worse than they tieat Whites.

-.535 . 44 1 -.575 45. There is racial discrimination against Blacks (Jfl this installation.

-.47 1 .468 -.5 65 5. White supervisors pay little or no attention to Blacks ’ complaints about discrimination in the civilian community.

-.615 . 412 -. i55 54. Whites accuse Blacks of causing trouble and starting fiphts.

.507 -.425 +.550 40. On this installa tion , Blacks who ssork hard can advance as

fast as Whi tes who work just as hard.

-.48 2 .443 -.546 16. Whites act as though stereotypes about Blacks were true

(for example , th at Blacks don ’t sunhunt).

- .452 .429 -.482 39. Our supervisor picks people to do certain details on the

basis of their race.

-.44 2 . 146 -.469 *7Q At stores , bars, theaters and restaurants in the civilian community, I have been treated disrespectfully because of my

race.

-.500 .297 -.4~ 4 34. Equal opportunity and treatment regulations are seldom

enforced.

-.532 .259 - .462 *63. Whites tend to be very suspicious of any grouping of Blacks .

either on or off duty.

-.5 19 .110 -.411 ~69. On this installation , I have personally felt discriminated against

— because of my race.

27 items

lhese items were dropped from the f’mna l scale. Refere nt groups were unclear for items ‘70 and 69.

Item 63 had low factor loading on PDB Scale for Whites,

62 

___ ~~~._ ~~~~ .._

~~~~ _ .1__ __.____ _.___ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
_________________

Factor Ii: Attitude toward Integration

Factor Loading

Blacks Whi tes Total Item Question

.7 79 .734 -.748 29. Blacks and ~

Vhites would be better off if they lived and

worked only with members of their u.wIi laces .

.737 .738 -.745 37. In my opinion , Blacks and Whites should work in separate

groups (all Blacks on one group, all Whites in another group).

.66 1 .743 -.7 29 67. Blacks should stay ~ith their own group.

.703 .709 -.7 17 38. Blacks and Whites should mix together “only ” wh ile they ’re

on duty.

.66 1 .680 -.67 7 l

~~. It might be a good idea to have all-Black and all-White units

in my service.

-.1 -.65 I ÷.h40 65. There shou d he more close triendships between Blacks and

Whites in my ServiLe .

-.5 10 - .659 +.632 47 . It would he a good thing for Blacks and Whites to hang

around together after duty hours.

.595 . o4~

) -.646 13. After duty hours , enh ~te tl pe rsonnel sho ul d st i ~ L tn~ether in

groups made up ‘I t . .ir .i

~ e ~n l~ (Blacks only with Blacks,

and ~

Vh i tes only with Whites).

.565 .605 -.59 1 20. Trying to bring ab o ut racial integration is more trouble than

it ’s wo rth.

— .557 - .59n ÷ .588 31. In my ser, ice , I wou~~ prefer to live in .Iu a rtc rs that are mixed

r.i cia lly.

.

~ 40 .545 -.550 32. If my unit had a supervisor of a r a ce different from mine , I

would disl ike it.

.501 .544 - 5.~

4 60. A Black who attends an all-Black school is better off as

long as it is just as good as a White school.

.509 •4 u () -.4~

s4 4. Blacks were b c t t ~ r off t ’etcr e this integration business got started.

-.350 -.430 . 4~

) 1 17. ~~ service rieed .~ rice relations pi ~

‘ra ms.

. .

~92 .358 . 363 55. (aIlin g attenti on to r.t~ ial pr oNems only makes things worse.

IS items 63

I -- ___ ~~~. -~~~~_- -~~~~~--_~~ 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ --

~~~~- - .--- 

Factor III: White Backlash Feelings

Factor Loading

Blacks Whites Total Item ______________________ Question ___________________

.525 -.662 -.667 66. Blacks assault Whites just because tlie ~ ‘re White.

.604 -.674 -.690 72. Blacks give Whites good reason to distrust Blacks.

.518 -.695 -.683 73. Many Blacks have begun to act as if they are superior to Wli tes

.5 19 -.659 -.665 56. Blacks frequently cry “prejudice ” rallier than accept blame t o i

personal faults.

.453 -.630 -.659 62. Blacks get a~~i~ wi t h breaking rules that Whites are punished for.

.414 -.645 -.6 20 68. Blacks are not willing to accept criticism from Whites.

.43 1 -.587 -.( 20 18. Blacks get extra advantages on this installation.

.398 -.618 -.597 27. Blacks in my service are not i iterested in how Whites see thin s.

.408 -.566 -.575 59 . The rea~on Blacks stick together is to keep out Whites.

.532 -.47() -.546 15. Blacks ~re trying to get ahead too last.

.259 -.540 -.543 9. If things continue the way they are going, Blacks will get more

than their fair share.

.393 -.472 -.502 41. Some Bl.1~ k get promoted just because they are Black.

.53 1 -.505 -.493 71. Blacks don ’t take advantage of the educational opportunities

that are available to them.

.281 -.435 -.488 2. With the same education and skills , Black personnel get

better treatment than Whites.

.451 -.472 -.459 22. There is racial discrimination against Whites on this installation.

.315 -.403 -.44 1 42. Black power is a dangerous thing.

16 items

64

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~ _~~~~.. _ . _:. _

~~~~~~~~~~ _ _ _. 
—.- - - -.~~~—- ~~~—-~~~~ —,---- -.~~~ ------ ----..

1’ actor IV: Racial Climate

Factor Loading

Blacks Whites Total Item Question ___________________

-.644 .557 .62 1 78. Ra . e relations in my service are good.

-.6 17 .480 .574 1. Race rel ations in m~ service h ave been getting better during

t he past yea r.

-.6 19 .536 .560 50. My service ’s equal opportunity programs have been helpful

to Blacks in the service.

-.470 .

~~

)S .549 44. My service is trying to improve treatment of Black service

men and women in the civilian community.

-.498 .557 .547 30. My service is doing all it can to improve race relations.

-.553 .571 .530 21. If the race problem can be solved anywhere , it can be solved

in my service.

-. 479 .5u4 .514 12. My service is firmly committed to the principle of equal

oppilrt unity.

- .4-) 7 37~ .454 49 . 1 like people of other races more since I joüied the ser~

’ice.

.426 -.513 - .479 8. There is more racial discrimina tion on this military installation

th an there is in civilian life.

-. 4~ 4 .400 445 II. I understand the feelings of people of other races better since

I joined the service.

.338 ..396 -.425 52. There is serious racial tension in my service.

-.509 .463 .428 61. My service provides a good career opportunity for Blacks.

1 2 items

65

_____ ~~- :. ..

~~~~~~ .

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ -—. ~~~~~~~ - 

-

-

-

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ --~~~~
_________________________ 

. ____

Variance Explained by Factors

I st iin ~

iies u,i the pe rcent of s ar i an c e exp lained by eac h of the factors comput ed for

the total sample and I S race separately are outlined as follows:

Exp lained

PDH AT! WBF RC Total Variance

Total vp 14. 99 17 9.95 5.7 1 41.82

Black v i p 13. 47 7 .J3 5.93 6 . 12 34.85

\

~

‘hit e v/p 10.02 10.44 10.75 5.82 37.03

The totd amount of variance explained by the RP1 items in the tour factors is 4 1.

~~

2

pe rcent for the total sam ple and when computed separately by race , 34 . 85 percent and 37 .03

pe rcent or Blacks and \

~ His respectively. Fo~ the combine d sample PDB a~cout i.s (or approximately I S Per c ent ut the ~i r iaiice The remai n ing scales are ATI tl i perce nt i, WBF (10 perc e nti a nd RC(6per e e rin

For Blacks the t,t~~tor ~eeouut ii~g for the hi ghest variance is PDW For \Vhiies there

is very little d itfe ren ~e among the I’t ) H , A ( I. aoLl WBF scales .

66

‘.. — 

—‘- - .-~~~~-
AP PENDIX 0

11Th ITEMS BY CONTENT WITH ~

IlE.\N FREQUFN.Y OF

OCCURRENCE AND ~

V 1EAN TENSION SCORES BY RACE

f ( ~ )

Item Whites Blacks Whites Blacks

Harassment 2 2.87 3.03 2.80 2. 93

Items 3 2.50 1. 9 1 5.0 1 2 73

9 2.81 2.78 2.76 2.98

13 2.32 2.62 2.55 2.6?

20 2.34 3.21 2. 73 3.00

22 2.43 2.34 2 .85 3.36

30 1.73 2.25 2.82 2 .~~4

13 2.12 1 3)4 3 ~8 3.09

35 2.79 2.68 3.24 3.52

39 1.63 2.0 1 3.27 3.31

41 2.2 8 23)4 2. 95 3.32

42 2.22 2.67 2.60 2.77

System Treat- 4 1. 74 2. 44 2. 73 2. 85

meat Items 6 1.43 1. 73 2. 72 2.72

10 2. 133 2.06 2.68 2.65

12 1.67 1.61 2. 6n 2.i~

16 1.58 2.48 2.50 2.80

24 1.5 8 2.79 2.8% 3.00

37 1.3 6 1 .97 2.87 2.98

38 2.16 1.76 2 , 82 2 .83

40 t .51 2 .10 3.01 3.lo

Self-Segregation I 3.23 3.55 1. 99 2.12

18 3.~)4 3.88 1. 9% 1.19

23 3. 13 3.40 2. 10 2.02

29 3.81 3.85 1 .76 1.6/

Supervisor Treat- S I 84 2 84 2.51 2 (14

men t Items 7 1. 67 2 80 2.6~ 2 72

8 1 ,~ 4 2.81 2.71

II 1.63 1.80 7 04 2.~ 5

14 1.51 2.55 2. 70 2.88

15 1.62 2.65 2. 85 3.00

17 1.6 1 2.72 2.60 2.80

- continued -

67
—--~~~~~~~~~~~~~

f(s) T x ~ Item Whitcs Blacks Whites H acks

19 1.81 2.84 2.4% 2.53

21 1131 ‘II 141 ~ S0

25 1.67 1 . ’-)5 2.55 2.:

~~ 26 1.57 2.58 2.82 3.01

27 1.54 1. 79 2. 63 2. 71

31 1.65 2.04 2.56 2.62

32 1.62 1.79 2.75 2.82

34 1.63 1.75 2.62 2. 72

36 1.57 1.90 2.78 2.82

.

68
.

~~ - -— -.~~~~~~~~~ -

DISTRIB ION

ARI Distribution List

4 OASV (M& RA I 2 )-)OUSACOEC , Ft O,o. A T T N Librar ,

2 HUDA IDAMI CSZ) 1 HOUSACDEC , Ft Ord . ATTN ATEC I N Hir r i F arr ~

,,s

1 HODA IDAPE I’BR 2 USAEEC . Ft Beitj arrsi n Harr,su ,, ATTN Librars

1 HOLIA (DAMA AR) 1 USAPACL)C. Ft Benj am in H,i,,i~ , ATTN ATCP- HR

1 HODA DAP E HRE-PO) 1 USA Comm E lect Sch . Ft Moi rmouth . Al TN ATSN -EA

1 HODA )SGRDID) 1 USAEC , Ft Monmo uth . ATTN: AMSI L -CT HDP

1 HODA IOAM I DOT-C) I USAEC . F’ Mor,rrrouth, ATTN: AMSEL-PA- P

¶ HODA (DAPC PMZ - A( 1 USAEC . Ft Morr mout h ATTN A MSEL Sl..CB

HODA (DA CI4 PPZ-A , 1 USAEC . Ft Monmoutrr . ATT N C , F ic O.~ b

1 HODA ()AP E-H REI I USA Mater i als 551 A’ ral Agcy, AlCr~ r’en . ATTN AMX S V — P

1 HODA IOAPE MPO-CI 1 Edgewood Arsen al Alrrrfi,’,rn ATTN ~A k c A - BL - H

1 HODA IDAPE-OW ) I USA Ord Ctr & Sct i . Abcr ,Ii i

~~ ATT N A TSL - TEM - c I HODA (TAPE HRL 7 USA H irr Engr Lab Abe,”. , ‘ ir ATTN L .b rarv Dir

1 HODA )DAPE-CPS ) 1 USA Comba t Ar ms Tng Bd . It di. i i’ , ATTN A l S,yi.rrs,sor

1 HODA DAF D NlFA ~ I USA liila,,tr~ Hum Rsch Unit . It Benri. ’r,i Nil N Chief

1 HQDA IDARD-ARS P) 1 USA I t . ntry lTd . Ft Nu’ ,

~ . , , . . , AT) N’ STECC TE T

1 HQDA (DAPC PAS A) 1 USASMA Ft Bliss . ATTN ATSS LRC

1 HODA IDUSA OR ’ 1 USA Air Del Sc ” , Ft Bl.ss ATTN ATSA CTO - ME

I HODA (DAMO-ROR I 1 USA Air Del Sub , Ft Bl,ss , ATTN T i , Lii ,

1 HODA 040.11 1 USA Air Del Rd Ft Bliss ATTN FILES

1 HODA D A b - Ph 1 USA Air Del BiT Ft Bliss A l . N c’T f RD PC’S

1 Ch,et C’rr ’s,, lt O’~ (DA OTSG) . Adel ph, . MD 1 USA Cmd & General Stt Col;euje Fr Lees w, ,,th , ATTN Lib

M Ass t Hurst Res . ODO R&E . OAD )E&LS ) 1 USA Crrsd ~

. 

~ r”ieral Sti Coll ege , F’ L,’avenw,,rrt’ AT ~~ , ATSW— S E-1

1 HO USARAL . APO S.~-itt le . ATTN: ARA GP R I USA Cmd & Genera’ 5rr (nll,ge F t L u.iveflw, ,rt b . ATTN Ed Advi sor

1 HO F ‘,r Arrr~’

~ ATTN AF A Ol It 1 USA Cornl,, re,t Ari”i

~ rrr’r, r (

Tr.s A, , Ft L,’aeerrw,,rth A TTN DepCdr

2 HO F ItS Army, Ft Sam H~’ ,, st. s ” 1 USA Comb ined Ar rr’r Ci.’bt Den Act Ft Le.uveiiworth, ATTN . CCS

1 Dir , Ar’,,’. St I St udies Ok . AT TN OAVCSA (DSP ) 1 USA Com(,, .’ nd Arm s C” Des 5.ct Ft Leavvn w ,. ’tl ATTN~ ATCASA

I ON Cha t of SrI Studies Ofc I USA Cornt,irsed Arm s Cr”l’r Dcv Act i r Leavenwort h. A T TN. ATCACO- F

1 OCSPER . ATTN CPS’OCr I USA Comt,. r’oc Arms C ” l’

~ ‘ i’ ~~‘ Leaver . ~~~‘rtT, ATTN: ATCACC C,

T’ . - Army L I ’ , Pe itagu n . ATTN RSB Chief 1 USAECO M . N’ . ” ~ Vis io n Liii H .1 ‘

~~ i. . ATTN AMSEL -NV-SD

1 The Army Lib . P.’riragorr ATTN A N I TAL 3 USA Computer Sys Cmd , Ft Bele,n u . ATTN Tech Libeaty

1 Ofc , Asst Sect of the Army R&D ) 1 USAMERDC . Ft ReIn,” . ATTN STSFB DO

1 Tech Support Ofc , OJCS 1 USA Eng Sch, Ft Bels oir . ATTN L l ’r a i y

1 USASA , Arlington , A TTN IARD -T 1 USA Topographic Lal, , Ft Beln. r . ATTN : Eli TO--S

1 USA Rsch Olc , Dr utir am , ATTN: L ,), Sciences Dir 1 USA Topnqraph~

c Lab , Ft Belso r . ATT N STINFO Ci”ter

2 USARIEM Nat , ’k ATTN SGRD-UE CA 1 USA T ’1’’ 1i a,,i’ ,c Lab . Ft Belv ri r , ATTN £TL GSL

1 USATT C , Ft Clayton , ATTN STETC MO A 1 USA “t,’ l I ” ,r-’ce Ctt & Sch , Ft Hc.rc h ,,ce ATTN . CTD MS

uC IMA , ‘I ~~~~ ATT N AT SU CTD OM 1 USA I n telli gence CD & Sub F, Hi,ai’l,,ita . ATTN AT S—CTD — M S

1 USAIMA . Ft Bragg ATT N Marq uat Lb 1 USA Intelligence Ctr & S” h , Ii i l , , u i ’h,icc , AT\ A TSI -T E

1 US WAC Ct ’ & 5th . Ft ‘.1, fl ‘Itan . ATTN Lib 1 USA l nrtn ’ .ligerice Cr ’ Pa 5r5 , Ft Huach uca . ATTN ATSI TEX -OS

1 USWAC Ctr & Sch , Ft .I,Clr’Ilan . ATTN Tng Dir 1 USA I “rr’ l! ,, r’-rce Ct, & Sch. Ft Hiaactr,ica , ATTN ATS I—CTS—O H

1 USA Ouartermaster Sch , Ft Lee, ATTN AT SM•TE 1 USA ,rte I,.n” ” Ct & Se ’

~ Ft Huach i,ca ATTN~ ATSI --CTD—DT

1 Intell igence M,,t er,al Den Ofc . EV L . Ft Holal,irnl 1 USA lotr,l!,~r’n .

’ CD N Scri , Ft ‘-I,,,rchi,ca ATTN ATS I—CTD -—CS

USA SE Signal Sch , Ft Gordon . AT IN ATSOEA 1 USA Intirtligence Ct r A Sch Ft H acO ca . ATTN DAS/SR D

USA Chaiiln ,iu Ctr & Sch , Ft H um Ii”. ATTN: ATSC TE RD 1 USA lnte ll ’qe -

‘ ‘i’ Ctr 1. SO r1 ii .,ic,, is.a . - TiN AT S -rE M

I JSATSCH Ft Eust is , AT TN Educ A ,Is ,s ,, r 1 USA lniIi’l,,,n,r,:,’ Ctr & SuN It Hi .,,’ hi a , ATTN Lih r.,rv

1 USA W ar College . Carlisle Barracks . ATTN~ Lib 1 CID R , HO Ft Huachuca . ATTN Tech Rn ITs

2 WRAIR Nnu ropsyc h ,atr ~ Die 2 COlT , USA Electroni r. P,1. 6’ ,) ATTN STEEP MT -S

1 DLI 0l.’A NI,i.i ’’, ny t CDR . Protect MP.SSTER ATTN , ,,cr, Info Cn’,rr,

USA Concept Anal Agry. Bethesd a , AT TN: MOCA WGC 1 Hq MA SSTE R IISAT RA C)CC , LNO

I USA Concept Anal Aijcy Bt’o’.’sd a , ATT N MOCA MR 1 Research Inst ,

~~

,r.’ HO lIAITS ’ER , F r Hood

1 USA C~

,,i, C III A ” ., Agcy , Bethesda , A T TN MOCA-JF 1 USA Ru ’ , r ,,, r ~ n’1 Cmd . Ft S F. y r . I arm . ATT N .SAhCI’M P

1 USA Art ic Test CIr APO Seattle . ATT N~ STEAC M0-ASL 1 Senior Arr m, v Ads . USAFAGOD’TAC , EliFn AF Au s FId No 9

1 USA Art ic Tes t Ct , , APO Seattle . ATTN: AMSTE -PL TS 1 HO USARPAC , DCSPER API’) Ci 96558. A TTN OPt” -SE

I USA Armament Cmd, Rerl, rn rs e Ar,”.r ATTN. AT SK rEM t Stirrrson Lib , A ca ’ i’m, I H, aI

~

,, , .,‘,‘,,c ,’ c Ft Sam H ~~,

I USA Arm ament Cmd , Rock Island , ATTN: AMSAR -TDC 1 Mer,r, e Corps Inst. . ATT N Onc, MIT )

1 t’A A . NAFE C , A t I a ’ rtc C ry, ATTN~ I ibrary 1 IIOIISMC , Com rsranu iant , AT’ N Code M “T 51

l FAA NAFEC . At lan tic City ATTN~ Hum Errg. Br 1 HOUSMC Ct ,n’, ’’ ,” ,,anr A: , ,, . I., d~

1 F A A Aeron autical Ctr , Oklahoma City, ATTN AAC 44D 2 USCG Academy, New Losd r,n ATTN A )” sv ,oe

2 USA FId A,rs ScPr . Ft Sill , ATTN~ Library 2 USCG Academ y, New London , ATTN Library

1 USA Armor Sch , Fr Knox , ATTN: Library I USCG Training Ct r , NY , ATTN CO

1 USA Armor Sch , Ft Knox , ATTN ATSB -Dl F 1 USCG Training Ctr , NY . ATTN. Educ Svc Ofc

I USA Armor Sd,. Ft K~ i ’x ATTN : ATSB .DT.TP I USCG, Psychol Res Br . DC, ATTN : OP F?

1 USA Armor Sch , Ft Knox , ATTN: ATSB .CD.AD I HO Md—Range Br . MC Del , Ouant co . ATTN P&S Din

69

—

~

-. --- --- -~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ .~~ 

~~“—--- —1-—— 
-~~~~~~~~~~~~ - 

-

~~~~~~~~~

1 US luI,ir,ne Corps Lia

usiors Otc , AMC . Alexandria , ATTN: AMC GS—F 1 

Del & C mi Inst of Envuro Medicine . Canada

1 LISAT HADOC, Ft Monroe . ATTN ATRO -ED I AIR CRESS . Kensington . ATTN: Info Sys Br

6 USA I’

R ADOC . Ft Monro e , ATTft ATPR 

-AD 1 M i hita

erpsykologiils T

~

.r,eate . Copehag.rr

1 USATRADOC , Ft Monro e , ATTN ~ ATTS—EA 1 Military Attach.. French Embassy, ATTN: Doc Sec

I USA F,’,c ,r s Cmd , Ft M,Phr’i

,

~ l TTN Library 1 Medecin 

Ch.f . C

. E.R,

P

.A. —Arsena

l , Tou lon /Naval 

F rance

2 USA 

Ao at,on 

T,st Bd , Ft Rucker , ATTN. STEBG—PO 1 Prin Scr.ntefic Off . Ap

~ I Hum 

Ee~ 

Rsch Din , 

Mi nistr y

USA Ag ry for A

~,.iti.

. r’ S,iIel ’s Ft Rucker , 

A TTN: Library of 

Def ense . New Delhi

1 USA 

Ag es 

(or 

A

~

.,, cii i-

,,,Ii’ls Ft Rucker , 

ATTN: Educ Advisor 1 Pers Rsch Ofc Lib rary, AKA . Israe l Defense 

Forces

1 USA 

An,ai ,on 

SuN Fr Rucke r , ATTN: P0 Drawer a 1 Ministeri s van Defensie , DOOP/KL AId Socuaa

l

I HOUSA Aem atuon Sys Cmd . St Louis , ATTN: AMSAV—ZDR Psycho

logiache Zaken , The Hague . Netherlands

2 USA Av iat ion Sys Tes t Ar cs. , Edw ards AFB . ATTN: SAVTE—T

1 USA Air Del Sch. Ft Bliss , ATTN : ATSA TEM

1 USA Air Mobilil

~ Rsch & Des Lab . Molt en FId , ATTN: SAVDL—AS

1 USA Aviation ScFr . Res Tng 

MgI , Ft R,,,:ker ATTN: AT5T—T—RTM

1 USA Av,a tio n Sch , CO Ft Rucker , ATTN: ATST—D—A

1 HO, DARCOM . Ale

v and ria , ATTN AMX CD—TL

ha , DARCOM 

Aie sandri a , ATTN 

C OlT

1 US Mu t er 5 Acadr

~

ny. West Point , 

ATTN Serials Unit

1 US M i taly Acad e’,c, West P o,

r,r AT

”N Of c of Mill Ldrthp

1 US NI itJl’s Acadeviy, Wmt 

Poi’ ,t , ATTN : MAO R

1 I S A St.,ciard’z. ,t cv, Op. 51K FPO NY ATTN MASE—GC

1 iNc of Naval Rsch , Ar l,rig tcrn , ATTN: Code 452

3 QD ,r ’ Njv al 

Rv ch , A ’ l, ngt on , ATTN : Code 458

I Ofc “ Nasal R’

.clr , Arlington , A)’’ . Code 450

I Qr,

,.t.

’,,. 

, Stsc i’ A iI ,vgtu i r, , ATTN: Code 441

1 N,rval Ai’r

~

si,i: M,

’. 1 

Fles Lal, Pensacola , ATTN Acous Sch Div

An ,osl.c “-I Rui n Let, Pensaco la , ATTN: Coda L5

1

1 Naval A.

” ,,’ s’i 

‘

it, ’ Re, L a)’ Pensacola , A” ’ N Code L5

1 (.

h’eI 

,‘ ‘tesP” 

.

,

A TTN Pert OR

1 N AS ’ A I RSIA , 

N’ ’r’

o :’ AT 

T N N.,).,, Ctr

1 N~v Ocear,u,.t ma:, ), ,c 

L

~

C A TIN Code c25 I , Charts & Tech

1 

C,,

,te r oI l)

’ ,,. , 

i’

s 

‘a ATTN Doc CIt

1 Fi

,-aA ’i S . . 

.,,r,, ATT

~ , AIR5

3 1 3C

I ‘5,,, Rsl

.i

,

’’! A 1 TN :1

.

’

ai, ci

.ujate

rh,uuSou,ua 2, FPO SF 96601

I . ,F i’ll 

I ) I) 

W’ h,ar,r 

AIR

vs l’PL ITT) Low

’- , MB

i 

\I’HRL AS) ,I

PAF B i

.)

H

2 

AIH,

’L 

IDOJZ) Brooks AFB

1 AFHRL DOJN) Lackt and AFB

¶ HU)lS,

’~

’ il 

“t

’SD,

I lOch \

~ 

ti ’ < X

d’

1 AF T/t O PD’ Ft i’

do)p

l’ APR

3 \ ‘ t

R ~ Il-IF) 

m ill C 

0

2 AF In,, Tech , 

V

~f’A FB , OH . ATTN [“

IE’ SL

1 A’ IT X”TL

i , It,”mulolpr 

“ii 

6

I )

.ITAF 

,

‘, ,,,N’.,,l Lii,, tt,,yii 

.~,F B SIl L 

- 4), ATTN DOC SEC

I /ll O

SI) (Nb , 4,1,0.1,

’

.

1 AF Log Cnr,h . 

t,I,

’ Lellan AFB . ATTN: A L C’DPCRB

1 Air For ce Ac ad emy, CO. ATTN Dept 

ol lTd Sun

5 N’ . i dN

~5 

‘

u Dcv LI’ San Diego

2 Navy M.’,l Neurop

s~ ,Oi a

lt ,c RseI , Unit , Sari Dingo

1 Na ‘i Ironic Lab . San Diu’qo, ATTN Rot Lab

1 Nec )i:) Cer. San Diego , ATTN Cod., ROOD -G

b

1 NovPostGraSch , 

V~ ‘r. 

‘

.

‘ , A Ti” ) Code 

55Aa

1 

Irije 

‘ ‘st G,

”

,, Nt

,.,’ 

Ic,” , Al TN Code 2124

I Nas 

‘ ‘ng

F’

~ 

‘u ’

C

~’ Orlando , ATT N Tech L’b

I U

~ Dep 

oh L~ )vir , iC /s YTN Mi’ “,“.m Admin

1 US Dept ‘,‘ J ui sr,c e , DC, A IT 

‘~

~

, Drug E,itu,,, e Admin

I N,,t 

Ba’ of Sta

’ Iards DC. I 

~N Computer I ,

~

I, Section

1 Net C r’ s’’” ; Ho

,,

~

’ ’ ‘ ‘ 

M” i-lnto Fl,,’

~

l v ,llr

1 Denne, ledera l 

Ct’ Lak”

,

’

.’or ,ul , ATTN BLM

1 2 Defence [)ocu nrv ntv tioi- Center

4 Dir Psych A “is Hg, Russ ell Ofcs , Canberra

I Sci en lmf’ c A vu Mi Bd , Army Hg, R,

~cci ’ ll Oics , Canberr a

I M~, a’rd A’ Attache , Austr art Embass

y

1 

Ce,,iu, i’ Rei

.l ,eic ha Des ‘i 

‘cu rs H.,ir ,a’ne de ha Defense

Natrona le , Br , -si

’

7 Cc nadian 

jc’ vt hIatt 

Wethir’itlo”

I 

CIA” Staff , 

Ritya l Canadian A F , ATTN Pert SId Ay e Br

3 Ch ef , Canad

’an Oaf 

Rcfm Staff . ATTN. C/ CRDS(W)

4 Brrt sN Del SIafl , Bri tish Embassy , Washington

70

~

--—--~