— - . — ____________ -

~~~~~

U. 

_______ _____ ______________ ________

Technical Paper 339 L_ -.

~

4

~ ~ 

~~~

• : THE UTILITY OF THE RACIAL ATTITUDES AND

~ 

PERCEPTIONS SURVEY (RAPS) FOR ASSESSING

IMPACT OF RACE RELATIONS TRAINING

PROGRAMS IN THE MILITARY

RobertLHlett -‘ Byron G. Flman ~ ~

. ‘

.

-

Robin S. McBride ~ ~~~~~~ \

~~ ~~

~~ \~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Human Scienc es Research , Inc. - - - •

• 

. 

and

James A. Tho mas

Exequ iel SevUla

C~

)

• u.i ARI FIELD UNIT AT PRESIDIO OF MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA

I

- • _____ oE~

C iS ~

g1B ‘

~~~~~

U. S. Army

kesrarrh In*t~

tutc kW the Rdi,ivi*’ral and S~eiaI Sciences

S pt•mbsr 1978

Approved for pub

t

~~~fl~~~~S d41Mta~~~ JflflmItj~

________________________________________ 

a ___
__________ 

~

~~ - 1L

F

F

U S ARMY RESEARCH INS TITUTE

FOR THE BEHAVIORAL AND SOCIAL SCI ENCES

A Field Operating Agency under the Jurisdiction of the

Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel

W~LLJAM 1. HAUSER

JOSEPH ZEIDNER Colonel , US Army

Technical Director Commander

Research accomplished under contract

to the Department of the Army

Human Sciences Research , Inc .

NOTICES

DISTRIBUTION: Primary distribution of this report has been made by AP I. Plies. address cOrre5ponde fl~ concerning distribution of reports to: U. S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences.

ATTN. PERI~

P, 5001 Eisenhovw r Avenue , AlexandriS, Virginia 22333.

I

FINAL OISPO&(TION: Thu report may be destroyed when ii is no longer needed. P1.1w do not return it to

the U. S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences.

~QIL lit, findings in this report ire not to be constru•d ss en official Department of the Army position .

unlall so duignatid by other authorilid documents.

/ 

~- .b& ,~~- ,~i!ir1~~

t r. -

~~’ — ’ _~~~~~ T~.i

•

~

— :-;---
Unclassified

SECURITY Ct. AUIF%CA’TI OM OF THIS PAGE (Wh.se D~~a Z.itir. ~~

D~~DADT IW’l l3& IITATII~~l DAl E READ DISTRUCTIONS _ 

~~~~ u ~~~~wmi~~u’

~ iv” ‘

~~~‘ BEFORE COMPLETING FORM

1. REPORT NUM•ER ,

.- 2. GOVT ACCESSION NO 3. RECIPIENrS CATALOG NUNSER

Technical Paper 339 I”

4. TITLE (mid SubWl.) 5. TYPE OF REPORT S PERIOD COVERED

THE UTILITY OF THE RACIAL M~~ITUDES AND PE~~ EPTIONS SURVEY FOR ASSESSING IMPACT OF RACE Final Report (Ma r 73 - Mar 74)

RELATIONS TRAINING P~~)GRAMS IN THE MILITARY 6. PERFORMING ORG. REPORT NUMUER

1. AUTH0R(.) S. CONTRAC T OR GRANT NUMSER(.)

Hiett, Robert L., Fiman, Byron G., McBride, Robin .;

Thomas, J. A., and Sevilla, B. (API) DABC 19-73—C-0037 .

.

1. PERFORMING ORGANIZAY~

ON NAME AND ADDRtJ

~ 10. PROGRAM ELEMEN t. PROJECT . TASK AREA S WORK UN IT NUMSERS

Human Sciences Research, Inc.

7710 Old Springhouse Road 2Q162108A743

McLean, VA 22101

tI. CONTROLLING OFFICE NAME AND ADDRESS *2. REPORT DATE

U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral an~ pf~ mh~ r •IQ~

7~ Social Sciences, 5001 Eisenhower Avenue II. ~

huMsER or PAG ES

Alexandria, VA 22333 48

L4. MONITORING AGENCY NAM E & AOOREU(U dUf .omit from CanuolUn Offlc.) *8. SECURITY CLASS. (.1 UiJ. ispovI)

Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel,

Human Resources Directorate (DAPE-FIRR) Unclassified

Washington, DC 20310 Ii.. ~~~~kt~J

SS~~

ICATI ON/DOWNGRADING

$4. DISTRISUTION STATEMENT (of lila RePOrt)

Approved for public release; distribution unlimited

*1. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT (

~ I (A, ab.fracf wø.r d In Block 20. II dltfovmit f rom R.porf)

IS. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

If. KEY WORDS (Cc~

pilMu. on ,•v.ra. aid. if n.c.ua v mid id.nUfy by block numb.r)

Race relations training impact

Race relations education impact

Racial attitudes and perceptions survey (RAPS)

ASSTRACT (CmiffSiIa. mi re.ira. aid. if u,.c .

~~~y mid I d.nf lf y by block ,i bov)

The Racial attitudes and perceptions survey (RAPS) was administered to

approximately 10,000 military personnel in the Army, Air Force, Marine

• j ~ Corps, and the Navy in a variety of research designs to assess the utility

• of the instrument for measuring impact of race relations training. Results indicated that the RAPS can be used for this purpose, but only as a

part of an evaluation package specifically designed to assess race relations training impact.

DO ‘~, 1473 EDITION OF ( NOV 61 IS OSSOLETE unclassified SECURITY CLASS$FICATION OF THIS PAGE (When 0.1. Eniov.d)

- 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~• - ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ _______________________
______________________________________ -

~~~~~~~~~~ .

,“.•—• .— -—‘--—.--~~ ~

_‘-.w—-- . ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 

.•-.-,--• —.

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

—__~~~~ -- ~~~~~ - -

~~. - ~~~~~~~~~~~ •~~~~ ~~~~~~

s(curnTY cs.AUIP,CA,Iow OF THIS PAOE(Wh DMa ~~~Ieesd)

. .

a

C

I

SECURITY CL.AUIFICAT%O*I 0? ThIS PASIfWheus Oar. L,ie,.d)
Technical Paper 339

~)j~~UTILITY OF THEJ.

ACIAL~ TTITUDES AND /

‘

~ERCEPTIONS~ URVEY 

~~~~ 

FOR ASSESSING

JMPACT OF RACE !

~

ELATIONS jj~

AINING

PROGRAMS IN THE • - 

J!LITARY

—-— 

~ 

:

Army Research Institute for the Behavioral andSncial Sciences —

~~~~

IAI IELD UNIT AT PRESIDIO OF MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA L/1_ I -

~~~~

Submitted as complete and Approved By:

technically accurate, by:

Jack J. Sternberg E. Ralph Dusek , DI rector

Field Unit Chief INDIVIDUAL TRAINING AND PERFORMANCE

~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~ r

B0MAT0

~~

_____ 

TECHNICAL DIRECTOR

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

• 5001 Eisenhower Avenue, Alexandria , Virginia 22333

Office. Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel

Department of the Army

• 

(i

~~~pa*~un1 78 J

___________________ Human Relations

~~~~~ 

J Management

~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~ ,, ,slseee;

I 

‘ - 

-- ____ __
___________ • --~~v -~•••-

~ — . 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ••,-

~

v. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~.-••—- --—-‘-•- ‘.,“—• —“-—•--.

~

•,—•

———,• — —‘,~~~~~~

‘•-•‘•-‘•---.•

ARI Research Reports and Technical Papers are intended for sponsors of

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

implemen tation at the time of publication are presented in the latter part of

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

agencies by briefing or Disposition Form.

FI 4,

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
- _ — ~~~~~ .

~~~ - .~

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

--

~~ ~~~~~~ •

~~~.w- -~~ - fl’ ~~~~~~~~ -

~--‘~ 

FOREWORD

Since 1972 , the Army Research Institute (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&R&),

ARI developed the Racial Attitudes and Perceptions Survey ( RAPS). The

- RAPS was designed for use by installation commanders service—wide to

~saess racial clisete in the installations. ARI Technical Paper 338

- ; describes development of the RAPS : this technical paper describes re—

- 

search involved in determining utility of the RAPS in measuring impact

- 

- of race relations training in the military. The research waa~c9i uc - ~~~ under Army~~~~ject 2Qi621OBA743-.~- ’RaCe HarnK ny Pron~ tion Progr ams ,’ in

the FY 74 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 Equa l Opportunity Research Progr am has been

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

hnical Director I 

y 

- H t __

____

- --~~~ - -•• •—~~~~~~~~~~~~~ -~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ -•~~~ ~~~—~~~T~ :TT — - - - 

~~~~~~ - -- - TTT ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ -- - -

~~~~~~~
__________________

____ - ____

THE UTILITY OF THE RACIAL ATTrXUDES AND PERCEPTIONS SURVEY FOR ASSESSING

IMPACT OF RACE RELATIONS TRAINING PROGRAMS IN THE MILITARY

BRIEF

Requirement:

To determine whether the Racial Attitudes and Perceptions Survey

(RAPS ) can be used to measure the impact of race relations training in

the Army , Air Force , Ma rine Corps , and the Navy .

Procedure:

The Racial Perceptions Inventory section of the RAPS consists of

four scales: Perceived Discrimination Against Blacks (PDB), Attitude

Toward Racial Interaction (ATI), Feelings of Reverse Racism (FRR), and

Racial Climate (RC). This instrument was administered to approximately

10 ,000 personnel in the Army , Air Force , Marine Corps, and Navy in a

number of research designs to determine what effect race relations training programs had on attitudes and perceptions. Race relations training

in all services was examined. This training included the 18—hour unit

training program , 4—h our courses in forma l schools, and the 2— to 4—week

race relations discussion leader courses.

Findings:

— • Considerable variation in the effect of training on RAPS scores was

found. For some courses, there were no effects. For other courses, - - there were effects in only one or two areas.

The overall findings are summarized as follows:

1. Race relations training has an impact on attitudes and percep—

tions as measured by the RAPS .

• 2. The impact , in general , was very small when defined in terms

of actual change on RAPS scale scores. This was true even

though there are statistically significant results.

3. Where changes occurred as the result of training, they tended

to be in the following directions: higher PDB scores, higher

ATI scores, and lower FRR scores. There was no clearly defined

direction in which RC scale scores would be expected to go.

$ —~~~~ 4 

- --- - 

--__

--

I 4 - -— - — - - a-. - - - -~ ---- -——--—---—--------~~~~~~~~ -~-- --——--- —- --
r~~ r

4. There was evidence that trained subjects scored higher on

content— type questions than did untrained subjects.

5. Those who received training generally considered it to be valuable and important. They reported that the quality of training

was good and said that they were more highly motivated to try to

eliminate racial discrimination.

6. Instructors who actually taught the courses appeared to have

diverse goals and had different opinions about the best targets

for tra ining efforts.

Utilization of Findings:

The RAPS can be used to evaluate race relations, but only as a part

of a package designed specifically for evaluation purposes; the RAPS

should not be used alone.

F

/

_______—-

~~~~~~~

_____ •• - - - -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 

-

~~~~~~~ -
- - -

~~~~ %;—~~~~ -~~-t- -. -r ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ - -

THE UTILITY OF THE RACIAL ATTITUDES AND PERCEPTIONS SURVEY FOR ASSESSING

IMPACT OF RACE RELATIONS TRAINING PROGRAMS IN THE MILITARY

CONTENTS

Page

INTRODtETION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Research Objective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Race Relations Training Programs in the Military . . . . . . . . 2

HETHOD . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Description of the Instruments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Data Collectiofl Procedures . . .. . .. .. . . . . .. .• . 4

Sample . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

P Experimental Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -6

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Effects of Unit Race Relations Training . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Effects of Race Relations Training on School Samples . . . . . . 23

Knowledge of Race Relations Content Items . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

Evaluations of Race Relations Training . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

Interviews with lnstructors . . . . . . .. • • 37

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS •. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...... 38

REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

APPENDIX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

DISTRIBUTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . * . . . 47

LIST OF TABLES

Table l. S.mple location s. . . .e . . . . .. . .. . . .... 6

2. Niunber of subjects requested and obtained . . . . . . . . 7

3. Total sample——category of training on ATI sceli e . . . . . 11

4. Total sample——category of training on 1

~ scale . . . . . . 11

5. Service A——cate gory of training on the PDB scale . . . . . 12

6. Service A——category of training on the AT! scale . . . . . 13

J

I

i ~~~ 

-— ___

L ____________

- ——--- -~-

~~~~ -~~~~ •~~~ - - —-—-- - r~~~~~-:~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~ ~-
- - - - -~~ - -~~~ -- - - -

•——

~~

• --•~~-

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

Page

Table 7. Service A——category of training on the ~~ scale . . . . . 13

8. Service B——category of training on AT! scale . . . . . . . 14

9. Service B——category of training on RC scale . . . . . . . 15

10. thanges from pretest to posttest for a sample receiving

only 4 hours of the 18—hour curriculum . . . . . . . . . . 16

4 

11. Effects of prior training level on pretest scores on

FRR scale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

12. Effects of prior training level on posttest scores on ATI scale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

13. Effects of prior training level on pretest scores on

the RC scale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

14. thanges on scale scores for students attending race

relations instructor training courses . . . . . . . . . . 24

: 15. thanges on scale scores from pretest to posttest for

white students attending leadership school . . . . . . . . 25

16. thanges on scale scores from pretest to poattest for two

samples of white students attending leadership school . . 25

17. Analysis of changes for officers with and without race

relations training . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

18. Analysis of changes for white students at technical

school courses with and without race relations

training . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

19. Analysis of changes from pretest to posttest for

white recruit samples with and without race relations

training . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

20. Summary of significant training effects on the - - 

-

PDB scale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 — 21. Summary of significant training effects on the

AT! scale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

22. Summary of significant training effects on the

FRR scale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

23. Summary of significant training effects on the

RC scale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . 33

• ~ -

•, - • ••,

~~~~‘ - -• - •~ 

• ~~ -~~~~~~~~----~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ • •

~~~~~~~~~~~ -----~~~ - - ~~~ ------~~~~~~~-- - - - - ~~~~--~~~~~~~~~~~~ ••• - • •-
pI.

~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ • ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ - --,-~

._~ - ._--- --

~~

-_-~-- - -

~

—--

~~~~

.—

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

- .— — -•-

~~

- •—,— —•--.-,. —--,••——-.- • .,

~~~~~~~~

-.

~

--—-—-- - -•

~ 

.— 

~~ 

~~~~

Page

Tabl e 24. Average scores for black and white , trained and

untrained , respondents on the content questionnaire . . 35

25. Average scores on content questionnaire for students -• at different levels of race relations training . . . . . 35

26. Percentage of respondents reporting aspects of

training courses as valuable . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

- 

A—i . Percent variance contribution (R 2 ) by demographic

variable and design .................. 46

- LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Changes on the AT! scale for trained and control groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

2. Changes on the PDB scale for blacks and whites . . . . . 19

3. Changes on the FRE scale for blacks and whites . . . . . 19

I —

• 

1’

1

- • ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~ - ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
___ “1

THE UTILITY OF THE RACIAL ATTITUDES AND PERCEPTIONS SURVEY

FOR ASSESSING IMPACT OF RACE RELATIONS

TRAINING PROGRAMS IN THE MILITARY

INTRODUCTION

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

comprehensive progr ams aimed toward improving race relations and equal

opportunity , a need arose to measure the changes these programs were producing. How effective were the programs? To what extent did they achieve

their objectives?

One of the few available measuring instruments that had promise for

meeting this need was the Racial Perception s Inventory (RPI), developed at

Walter Reed Army Institute of Research ( Borus et al., 1972). Th. Department of Defense tasked the Department of the Army to establish the reliability and validity of the RPI for assessing race relations program effec—

tiveness in the military services (Department of Defense , 1972). The

Army Research Institute (AR!) was given the mission by the Office of the

Chief of Research and Developuent, 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 to measure the 1*—

• pact of race relations programs.

Research Objective

The major research objective was to establish a way of measuring

changes resulting from race relations programs. This objective required

an instrument that could reliably measure racial attitudes and percep—

• tions, in addition , it required an assessment of the usefulness of the

instrument for measuring the impact of race relations programs, specif i— - 

- cally training progr ams. The research involved in developing and validat—

ing the Racial Attitudes and Perceptions Survey ( RAPS) is reported in

Hiett et al. ( 1974). The present report is concerned with assessing the

utility of the RAPS for measuring impact of race relations training pro—

gr ams in the military services. The ~~~s is a paper—and—pencil questionnaire that measures the attitudes and perceptions of military personnel

about day—to—day racial matters. Its primary purpose is to provide objective information to the installation commander (or the post Race Bela—

tions/Equal Opportunity ( RR/BO ) Officer ) to aid him in his general pro—

gram to reduce racial discrimination and promote racial harmony.

The RAPS consists of two parts: the Racial Perceptions Inventory ,

which measures racial attitudes and perceptions, and the Incidence of

Discriminatory Behavior ( 1DB), which measures the frequency with which

selected discriminatory behaviors are perceived to occur. The research

reported herein concerns only the PPI portion of the RAPS , since the 1DB

is inappropriate as a direct measure of training effects.

‘18 12 i : ~

-

4 

~ ~~~~~

__—.

~

----—.- -

~ 

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

- : 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
• Race Relations Training Programs in th. Militg~~

In Tanuary 1970 , the Interservice Ta~

ik Force on Education in Race

Relations was formed to develop an education program in race relations to

be used throughout the armed forces. The Defense Race Relations Institute (DRAI ) developed from this effort and currently has the mission of

conducting training for military personnel designated as Instructors in

Race Relations. In 1973, the year in which this research was conducted ,

the Department of Defense required a minimum of 18 hours of race relations training to be conducted annually for members of each service.

Although modified somewhat by service and for each course, the general

objectives of the DRRI core curriculum were as follows ( Department of

Defense, 1971):

1. Provide all service personnel the opportunity to become aware

of and fully understand current DoD, service , and command equal

-: opportunity and treatment policie, and directives.

2. Provide service personnel with continuing opportunities to

examine, analyze, and discuss solutions of real—life problems

in the military intergroup relationships.

3. Facilitate behavioral changes in the area of intergroup relations among service personnel that will result in enhancing

efficiency and effectiveness in the accomplishment of assigned

missions.

4. Prepare service personnel to prevent or deal more effectively

• with racial and ethnic group conflict situations.

5. Provide the commander with an additional channel through which

he can obtain current information and recommendations relative

to the state of racial or ethnic relations in his organization.

6. Maintain the good order and discipline of the military services

through teaching all service members that interracial problems

can be solved more effectively through dialog than by violence.

• All services followed the pattern of instruction established by

DRRI except for the Marine Corps, which had developed a 20—hour course ‘1

based on different roots from the DRRI curriculum. In general, the pattern of instruction encompassed six major areas: (a) DoD and service

race relations policies and goals, (b) personal racism, Cc) institutional

racism, Cd) communication problems, Ce) the extension of racial problems 4 ,

in the civilian community to the armed forces and discussions of racial

and ethnic cultures, and (f) racial problems in the local environment . 1 -

~

In addition to the 18—hour curriculum given at unit levels, the Army

conducted race relations training in Leadership and Service Schools • in

Basic Comba t Training, and in Discussion Leader Courses.

2

LI _________ _ 4 - ~~~~ -—~~ -

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

- •- - - ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~
- - .-. - - - - -

~

- -- - T ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~::i

~~~

’: 

- - ________ - -- - - 

11

The Navy, in addition to the 18—h our course , conducted race relations training in Technical Basic Schools and in Petty Officer , Chief

Petty Offi cer , and Officer Schools. Discussion Leader Training was also

conducted by the Navy .

The Air Force program , like the Army and Navy , followed the DRRI

curriculum for the major portion of its human relations training. This

training was also conducted in the Basic Airman Training Course , Leader—

ship Schools, and NCO Academies. The Air Force also conducted a Discussion Leader Course.

The Marine Corps did not follow the DRRI curriculum. The basic progr am in the Marine Corps included 20 hours of instruction and individual

action effort. The first phase was a 3—hour orientation designed to promote participation in the subsequent phases: the second phase was 17

hours of small—group discussions, and the third phase was an individual

action effort in which the individual was encouraged to make positive

contributions in human relations. Human relations training was not given

in the Marine Corps in formal military schools.

METHOD

Description of the Instruments

The following instruments were used in this research: the EPI , a

content knowledge , and a subjective reactions questionnaire. The latter

two were administered only to Army samples.

The Racial Perceptions Inventory (RPI) consisted of items to which

subjects were asked to respond on a 5—point scale ranging from “agree

strongly” to “disagree strongly. ” The items were primarily constructed

to provide some indication of the respondents’ attitudes and perceptions

about racial matters. Previous research indicated that these items measured attitudes and perceptions in four conceptual areas:

. Perceived Discrimination Against Blacks (PITh )

. Attitude Toward Racial Interaction (ATI )

• . Feelings of Reverse Racism (FRR)

• Racial Climate CRC )

Previous research showed that the scales were highly reliable and

possessed content validity CHiett et al , 1974). Th. basic instrument

• 

contained 73 RPI items, 13 dmeographic items , and 11 items dealing with

experience in race relations training.

U 

—
____ :- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The content questionnaire had 15 questions to determine knowledge of

equal opportunity goals, stereotypes, personal racism , and others. The

questionnaire was intended to measure gains in knowledge that might occur

as the result of training.

The subjective reactions questionnaire had 13 questions that asked

about the value of training programs, their quality, and their effects.

This instrument was used only among groups that had received race relations

training.

Data Collection Procedures

Prior to the surveys, an ARI representative visited each location and

met with local project officers to provide sample requirements and answer

questions about the purpose of the project.

Project officers were asked to select the samples, to arrange a time

and place for the questionnaires to be administered , and , at Design III

locations, to arrange for half of the sample to receive training.

Biracial survey teams visited the sites, usually within 2 weeks of

the advance party visit , and administered the questionnaires. A standard

introduction was developed that explained the purpose of the project to

the subjects, assured the confidentiality of their responses, and encouraged honesty and frankness. The project officers were responsible for

identifying to the survey team individuals who were in the trained or

experimental groups and individuals in the untrained or control groups.

Retesting procedures were similar, except that the introduction was

changed to explain the reason for the retest. That introduction pointed

out that many individuals change their minds about issues raised in the

questionnaire and they were being asked to indicate their “current”

feelings.

In the designs that included both a pretest and a posttest, it was

necessary to match questionnaires of each respondent. Subjects were

requested , therefore , to indicate their Social Security Account numbers

on the questionnaires. There was acme concern that subjects might be

afraid to answer the questionnaire because it would be possible to iden—

tify them. This problem was discussed in detail in the introduction to

both the pretest and the posttest administrations, and confidentiality

was assured.

In general , the evidence indicated that obtaining the Social Security number was not a factor in the results. It was collected at some

installations and not at others , and the reactions of respondents at all

locations seemed to be similar. Although the effects on the results were

never tested direct ly , the overall comparabilit y from installation to

installation suggested that the req uest for Social Securit y numbers was

not a factor.

4

- •-• 

~

.1. .

Li ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 
I

Several difficulties arose during the data collection phase of the

project. First , project officers did not always provide the numbers of

subjects requested. Second , subjects were sometimes incorrectly assigned

to experimental and control groups, and participants were frequently

notified that they were to participate in the survey only a short time

before the administration. This tended to disrupt work schedules, and

many subjects expressed resentment at the inconvenience.

The short advance notice appeared to occur at all grade levels: however , after an explanation of the problems involved in getting the large

numbers of people together , most people seemed satisfied and continued to

participate in the survey.

The incorrect assignment of individuals to the trained and untrained

groups was dealt with during the analysis of the data. Respondents had

been asked to indicate whether they had any race relations training in the

military , what training they had received , and when they had received it.

Using this information, it was possible to reassign individuals based on

the self—reports of their own race relations training experiences. It

was not possible , however , to know how accurate this procedure was.

Sample

It was determined that the sample would have to include at least 250

participants so that changes as smal l as 5% due to training could be

• detected. This figure was based on findings in the earlier developeent of

the RAPS and the desire to detect as statistically significant differences

in RPI scale scores of at least 5%. In general , therefore , the services - • were requested to provide samples of 125 trained and 125 untrained people • at each location as part of the research design . This number was also

large enough to include a relatively representative sample for each site

across race and rank.

During 1973 , research teams collected data for two types of samples

at each of 36 installations in the continental United States, Europe , and

the Far East ( Table 1), basewide and school. Basewide samples were sam—

pies of permanent party personnel at a given installation. This type of

sample was used primarily to evaluate the impact of the 18—hour curriculum. The r equirement for the basewide sample was 125 at each Installation, with the sample proportionately distributed by rank and reflecting

- 

- a 75% white and 25% black composition.

School samples were samples of students attending formal courses of

instruction within the military. The requirement was for 125 student personnel at a given installation similarly distributed by race and rank.

However , it was necessary to accept an entire class as the sample regard—

less of the race or grade of the subjects.

Table 2 shows, by service , the samples that were r equested and

obtained . The shortfalls were greatest among the basewide samples.

5

- I ~ _____ 

I
Table 1

Sample Locations

Army Navy

Army Base Command , !apsn Subic Bay Naval Station, Philippines

25th laf. Dlv. Support Command , HawaII U.S.S. Inchon

101st Alrmobile DivIsion, Ft. Campbell, Ky. Naval Air Station , Imperial Beach, California

Ft. Richardson , Alaska US.S. Enterprise

Ft. Benning, Georgia Recruit Training Center, San Diego. California

Quartermaster School, Ft. Lee, Virginia Navy Supply School, Athens, Georgia

Engineer School, Ft. Belvoir, Virginia Navy Tech. Training Center, Memphis, Tennessee

-- Basic Combat Training, Ft. Ord, California Navy Postgraduate School, Monterey, California

Ordnance School, Aberdeen Proving Naval Training Center, San Diego. California

Ground, Maryland

— Air Force - Marine Corps

Randolph AFB, Texas 3rd Marine Division, Okinawa

MacDill AFB, Florida 1st Marine Aircraft Wing, Iwakuni, Japan

Basic Military Training, Lackland AFB, Texas Headquarters, USMC

Ellsworth AFB, South Dakota 2nd Marine Division, Camp Lejeune, North Carolina

Bitburg AB, Germany Marine Corps Recruit Depot, San Diego, Calif.

Sembach AR, Germany Marine Corps Recruit Depot, Paths Island, SC.

McClellan AFB, California 3rd Marine Division, Camp Pendleton, California

NCO leadership School, MacDill AFB, Ha.

NCO Academy, Langley AFB, Virginia

Squadron Officer School, Maxwell AFB, Ala.

Experimental Design

The most desirable design was one in which pretests and posttests

were administered to experimental and control groups. However , this was

not always possible because of the difficulty in arranging to survey

each unit twice. Therefore, three designs were selected as models for

examining the effects of training on attitudes and perception. as measured by the RAPS.

Training e Test

Design I

No Training • Test

Where individuals were assigned to two groups randomly , this was a useful

design for evaluating the effects of training (X.rling.r , 1964).

6 

- —~~~~- ---- - - -

~~~~~~~
-~ -- -,-~—-—— -

~~ _.-_,-—____ -—,--~ -—- .— —-?-~~~--

~-—-- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Table 2

Number of Subjects Requested and Obtained

Installation samplesb

Servicea Requested Obtained Percentage —

A 1,2 50 1 ,066 85

B 1 ,265 755 60

• C 948 677 70

0 1 ,125 711 63

School samplesc

~

: Requested Obtained Percentage

A 1,357 1 ,286 95

B 1,314 1,196 91

C 562 455 81

0 794 616 78

aThroughout the report individual services are labeled as Service A , B,

C , and 0 to prevent comparison of the individual service programs,

since such comparisons are not legitimate because of different types

of progr ams and different types of subj ects.

bat installations where pretests and posttests were given , only posttest

results are counted , since that is the maximum number of questionnair es

that can actually be matched and used in the analysis. An analysis was

made of individuals who took the pretest but did not take the posttest ,

to see if they differed in their attitudes from those who did return

for the posttest. The results indicated that there was no difference

between the two groups.

0At some schools , samples were requested by course rather than by spe—

cific number of subjects. In those cases the sample obtained on the

pr etest is listed as the number requested.

7

I , 

— . . 

~ 

--

~ 

- 

-

~~~

- 

—

~~~~~~~

—-- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~ -

~~

--—~~~~~~-

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

-

At some locations everyone was receiving race relations training ,

and it was desirable to know if any changes in attitudes were taking

place. This was measured using the following design :

Design II Test ~ Training Retest

In this case there was no control group. Any change in responses between

the first and second administrations of the questionnaire could not,

therefore, be attributed exclusively to the race relations training.

A third design was also adopted for use:

• Test . Training • Retest

Design III

Test • No Training —~~~ Retest

In this design , individuals were randc*nly assigned to one of two groups.

Both groups were tested. One of the groups received race relations train—

ing, the other group acted as a control group. Both were reteste~

l.

In addition to the samples falling into these designs, some subjects

directly involved in race relations training programs were selected for

inclusion in the study . These included students and instructors at four

race relations training schools and race relations instructors at selected

installations.

The specific statistical techniques used in each of these analyses

included ana lysis of variance and the Sandier’s A—statistic. The analysis of variance was an unweighted cell mean analysis because of the variation in N for each cell and heterogeneity of variance (Edwards , 1968).

Sandier ’s A is a statistic similar to the correlated t that allows calculation of the significance of change scores ( Runyon & Haber , 1971). The

results of the analyses are described by type of design in the following

sections.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The NP! was not specifically developed to measure the effects of

training. However, race relations training is one part of the total race

relations program of the services, and the effects of such training can

be examined. It was recognized at the outset that there were problems

in using the instrument in this way. Training might not affect the variables measured by the RPI but could affect other dimensions; also , the

instrument might not be sufficiently sensitive to measure the changes. — Thus , it would be impossible to draw any conclusion about the utility of

the instrument or the effects of training if no changes in scale scores

were found. However , if changes were detected , then it would be clear

that the instrument was sensitive to such differences and that training

was having some impact in the areas measured. Such a finding would indicate that the instrument would be useful for measuring race relations

training impact on the four attitude and perception scales.

8

___

_ __ 

~~~~~

_________ - . -- —
~~~-—-~~

,---~ .- -.

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

-

~~~~~

, -- ----

~

•---•-

~

--- ,—— -- -- -

~ 

-

~~~~~

Despite this limitation , several expectations were developed about

the potential effects of the race relations training programs. Both

blacks and whites were expected to have higher Perceived Discrimination

Against Blacks scores after training. This would be true if training

created an awareness about specific discriminatory acts that whites may

have seen but have never perceived as being discriminatory . At the same

time , blacks might perceive more discrimination as well, because training would serve to “remind” blacks of discriminatory behaviors that were

occurring. Although this may be interpreted by some as a negative effect,

it would appear to be a positive first step in the ultimate elimination

of discrimination. Unless people recognize discrimination, they cannot

act to eliminate it. Thus, in the short run , perceptions of d.tscrimina—

tiort would increase , but later , as fewer people commit discriminatory

acts, the level of perceived discrimination should drop.

On both the Attitude Toward Racial Interaction and the Racial Cli— ~

mate scales, the expectation was that training would result in more favorable attitudes for both blacks and whites. This would be true on the NC

scale (even though the subjects might also perceive more discrimination),

because RC is essentially a measure of the commitment of the military to

P equal opportunity . In that kind of situation , subjects might report more

favorable NC scores even though they saw more discrimination. The personal experience of race relations training itself in the military may

provide a tangible example of service commitment.

The expectation also was that whites would report fewer reverse

racism feelings as the result of training. No expectation about the

effects of training on this scale for blacks existed because of the ma—

bility to clearly define the meaning of that scale for blacks.

In addition to possible major effects of training on the scale

scores, other questions were raised: Was there evidence that blacka and

whites were getting closer together in attitudes and perceptions as the

result of training? Was there evidence that training was having any

cumulative effect?

Effects of Unit Race Relations Training

Design I. The Design I samples were examined with the intent of

answering two questions: (a) Was there any effect of training? and (b)

Were blacks and whites closer together in attitudes and perceptions after

training? A preliminary analysis conducted by comparing scores on the

four NP! scales for the trained and untrained subjects showed there were

no significant differences (Human Sciences Research , 1973). This suggested two possibilities: Either there were simply no effects of training on this sample, or the definition of training was not sufficiently

sensitive. As a result , the data in this study were analyzed using a

different definition of training. Four categories of training were

defined :

Category I No training

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

- -

~~~ 

- -- - - -- 

______________________ — — r- ______ -~ — ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ —~-
-. - - ‘ ‘ - ‘~~~~ “~~~~~ - -~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Category II Received some training , but not the

18—hour unit training curriculum1

Category III Received only the 18—hour course

Category IV Received the 18—hour course plus

other training.

Using these categories , it was possible to answer another question about

training effects: Is there any cumulative effect of training? That is,

do people with more training have more favorable attitudes and perceptions?

Assignment to trained and untrained categories during this research

was something over which the researchers had no control. Therefore it was

not possible to insure that all groups were equivalent in terms of demographic variables. The analyses were accomplished separately for blacks

and whites to determine differences due to race; but because the sample

sizes were too small , it was impossible to conduct additional analyses

based on other variables that might be related to RPI scale scores.

This analysis indicated that there was no effect of training on the

PDB scale or the FRR scale. There was evidence that training was having

an impact on AT! and RC. It thus appeared that the development of the

four categories of training provided a more sensitive variable across

which to evaluate the effects of training.2 Tables 3 and 4 show these

results.

The effect of training category on the ATI scale was significant at

the .05 level. There was no difference by race, and no significant interaction effect between race and training. These findings were in keeping

with the results noted earlier that indicated that there were no differences in the attitudes of blacks and whites toward racial interactions.

Although there are differences across the four levels of training,

the differences are very small. In addition, the overall pattern is not

clear. Te sts (Du nnett’s For Comparisons with a Control) were made that

compared Categories II , III , and IV with Category I. For white subjects

there were significant differences between Category I and each of the

other three categories (.01 level) (Edwards, 1968). For black respondents the only group that differed from the control group (Category I) w~s

Category IV (.05 level), which included those with the most race relations training.

1For Marine Corps personnel , this was the 20—hour curriculum.

2Time in service was included as part of the analysis , but there were no

interactions between this variable and training; therefore , results are

presented only by category of training and race.

10 

—--——-—~ - —--~~~~~~ __fl_--
________ - — ~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ -

~~~~rr’~ -‘

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

Table 3

Tota l Sample--Category of Training on AT! Scale

Average score for category

___ I II III IV

Whites 73.09 75.12 74.40 75.96

Blacks 73.22 72.63 73.22 76.21

Source 85 df MS F

Race 93.583 1 93.583 1.469

Category 672.970 3 224.323 3.520*

Race x category 170.468 3 56.823 .892

Error 204 ,480.689 3,209 63.721

*Significant at .05.

• Table 4

Tota l Sample—-Category of Training on NC Scale

- - Average score for category

I II III IV

Whites 65.85 67.62 65.28 67.99

Blacks 62.61 63.61 60.99 63.26

Source 85 df MS F

Race 1,443.154 1 1 ,443.154 36.884**

Category 380.804 3 126.935 3.244*

Race x category 25.671 3 8.577 .219

Error 125,577.262 3,209 39.127

*Significant at .05.

**Signj fjcant at .01.

- 1 11

L ___

I I

—---- ——- - - —~~ ~ - - ~~ 1-

~

••. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 
- - ~~~-

~~~~~- r ~~~~~~~fl~~ - - - - - — -- —-----—---- —------- ---- - - - -— - --- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 

Table 4 shows the effects of category of training on the RC scale.

The effect of training was significant at the .05 level. There were significant differences by race, but no interaction effect between category

of training and race.

Although there are statistical differences across training category

on this scale , the differ ences are minor, and the trend is not consistent

from Category I through Category IV. For whites, Categories II and IV are

significantly different from Category I (.01 level) and for blacks, none

of the trained categories differ from Category I.

Service Training Effects. To determine whether the same patterns of

results were occurring for individual services , the analysis was repeated

for two of the services separately. The sample sizes in the other two

services were not sufficient to repeat the analysis in all four services.

For Service A there was a training effect for three scales— PDB, AT!,

and R~ . TableS 5 through 7 show these results.

On the PDB scale, there were large differences by race. Training was

significant at the .05 level. In addition, the interaction between race

and category of training was significant at the .05 level. There were no

significant differences between the untrained category and the trained

Table 5

Service A— —Category of Training on the PDB Scale

Average score for categOry~~

II III IV

Whites 46.02 47.02 45.53

Blacks b5.13 61.13 67.86 67.30

Source SS df MS F

Race 62,181.856 1 62,181.856 449.702**

Category 1,361.201 3 453.734 3.281*

Race x category 1,093.563 3 364.521 2.636*

Error 119 ,744.851 866 138.273

•significant at .05.

**Significant at .01.

12

- ——~~~~~~~~~~~~ -~~~~~~~~~~~~~ -

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

-
.,-. -

~

.,.-~~~~~~~

------—-—-,- ——-- —.- 

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

r— ~ -‘

~~~ 

— — —.,—-‘,,.“~~~~~~~~~~~—~~~—-—.,——,-—~~-.—-— ~~~— ~~~‘“ ~~~~~~~~

Table 6

Service A——Category of Training on the AT! Scale

Average score for category

I II III IV .

Whites 72.30 76.09 74.00 77.38

Blacks 76.14 73.07 75.61 79.88

Source SS df MS F

Race 99.490 1 99.549 1.491

Category 834.563 3 278. 188 4.167**

Race x category 437.934 3 145.978 2.187

Error 57 ,811.023 866 66.756

**Sig1~

ificant at .01.

Table 7

Service A——Category of Training on the Re Scale

Average score for category

I _ II III IV

Whites 68.27 69.12 65.85 69.44

Blacks 66.88 67.17 62.44 63.64

Source SS df MS F

Race 408.954 1 408.954 10.760**

Category 388.750 3 129.583 3.410*

Race x category 120.928 3 40.309 1.061

Error 32 ,912.160 866 38.00

significant at .05.

**Sj gnificant at .01.

13

Li —~~

----

~

.-

~~

--

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

categories for whites; blacks in Category II scored significantly lower -j

than those in the untrained group .

There was also a significant difference on ATI scores across training category (.01 level). Again, there was no consistent pattern acrogs

the four levels of training. White s in Categories II and IV received

significantly higher AT! scores than individuals in Category I. There

was no difference between blacks in the trained categories and blacks in

Category I.

On the RC scale, training effects across the four categories was sig—

nificant at the .05 level. There was no significant difference between

whites in the Category I and the trained groups. There was a difference

for blacks between Category I and Category U! (.05 level).

For Service B, significant findings were obtained only for AT! and

NC. Category of training on the ATI scale was significant at the .05

level (Table 8). Unlike Service A , for this service the overall pattern

is a consistent one. For whites , individuals in Categories III and IV

scored significantly higher on the ATI scale than individuals in Category

I. For blacks, there were no significant differences between the trained

and untrained categories.

Table 8

Service B——Category of Training on API Scale

Average score for category

I II III IV

Whites 73.80 75.00 75.92 77.05

Blacks 75.38 75.34 77.54 77.81

Source 8$ df MS F

Race 107.051 1 107.051 2.199

Category 480.661 3 160.220 3.292

Race x category 27 .192 3 9.064 .186

Error 54 ,856.805 1,127 48.675

*Significant at .05.

14

______________________________________________________________ - - ~~~— ~~~~~~~~~~~~ 

-- 

~~~ -

~~~~~~~~ ‘-—-— 
FT - 

~~~~

On the RC scale (Table 9) differences by t caining category ~~re

also significant at the .05 level. Again, the pattern is consistent from

Category I through Category IV. Black and white individuals in Categories III and IV received significantly higher scores than individuals

in Category I.

Table 9

Service B--Category of Training on Re Scale

Average score for category

I II III IV

Whites 63.91 67.18 68.11 71.45

Blacks 58.26 60.32 64.60 66.50

Source SS df MS F

Race 1 ,375.053 1 1 ,375.053 42.073**

Category 283.870 3 94.623 2.895*

— Race x category 4.983 3 1.661 .051

Error 36 ,833.555 1.127 32.683

*Sj gnificant at .05.

**Significaflt at .01.

In sumeary , results of Design I analyses indicated that there were

differences on the NPI scales as the result of race relations training.

Although dividing the sample into two groups—-trained and untrained—did

not yield significant results, examining the samples by four categories

of training showed significant differences. Scores tended to differ

• - 

across categories of training on the ATI scale and the PC scale. This

was also true for two of the services examined using this design. One

of the services also had a difference across training level on the PDB

scale.

Where significant differences occurred , they tended to be in the

directions expected. People who had received training tended to have

more favorable attitudes on the AT! and RC scales. There was little evi—

dence that blacks and whites were coming closer together in their attitudes. However , it did appear that there was some accumulation effect.

Those in the categories representing the most extensive training received

more favorable scores.

15 

_ - _ I

-Ii

~~~ 

I

’

; 

~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~- - • • - -~~ -• ~~——— ~~~ -- -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ —
Design II. One installation was administered the RAPS in a pretest—

posttest design with no control group. This was done because 4 hours of

the 18—hour block of instruction had been given between the pretest and

posttest. The results were analyzed by calculating the significance

level of the changes from pretest to posttest. The results are shown in

Table 10.

Table 10

Changes from Pretest to Posttest for a Sample Receiving

Only 4 Hours of the 18—Hour Curriculum

Whites (N — 89) Blacks (N 27)

Average Significance Average Significance

change level change level

PDB + .13 n.s. + .26 n.s.

API —1.53 .01 —3.52 .05

FRR —1.91 .01 — .26 n.s.

Re —1.04 n.s. +1.41 n.s.

Prior preliminary research on the HP! had revealed a potential for

testing effects on repeated administrations of the instrument , and showed

• that these effects may be influenced by differences on various demographic

characteristics of the respondents. Therefore , a special analysis was

conducted to determine possible testing effects, because some designs

required retesting. This analysis indicated significant testing effects

for the AT! scale (Appendix). Such an effect causes scores to decline on

the AT ! scale as th. result of testing . Without a control group , there- • fore, changes on the API scale cannot be attributed solely to training

• effect. For whit s, there was a significant decline in the scores on the

FRR scale. This indicated that white respondents were agreeing less with

reveres raci type statements. There were no other significant differences on the scales for sither blacks or whites.

These results suggest that there were significant changes from pretest to posttest for this sample. This change cannot be attributed

directly to the effects of the training because there was no control

group. Changes could be the result of a number of factors other than

race relationa training. In any event , the absolute value of th. change

was quite small.

16

t ~~~~~~~~~~~~~

-— - ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 

- - -
- - - - - - • • -~~ ~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 

- - -

Design III. Design III was the most powerful of the three types of

analyses. It involved two groups of military personnel that participated

in the pretest as well as the posttest. One group , called the trained

group , was given routine race relations training between the pretest and

posttest. The other group , the control group , was not permitted to participate in any race relations training during the time between the pretest and the posttest. Because there were discrepancies in the assignment of individuals to the trained and control groups by local project

officers, it was necessary to make some corrections in group assignment

prior to analysis. Individuals who reported on the poettest that they had

received race relations training during the previous 3 months were placed

in the trained group , and all others were placed in the control group.

After the analysis of the trained and control groups, the two groups

were combined and the total sample divided into two new groups: prior

training, which included only those personnel who had race relations

training prior to the pretest; and no prior training, which included those

who had no race relations training prior to the pretest. These groupings

were made on the basis of responses so as to rule out questions included

in the demographic section.

It was possible to examine several questions using this design:

1. were the individuals assigned to trained and control groups

initially similar in attitudes and perceptions?

2. Did prior training level have any effect on attitudes and

perceptions?

3. Was there any cumulative impact of training?

4. Did people in the trained groups change by a different amount

than people in the control group?

5. Were there an’ interactions between race and training group?

That is, did blacks and whites get closer together or farther

— apart in their perceptions as the result of training?

Because of the large number of cells and the N that was obtained for

this design, it was possible to conduct the analysis only for the total

sample , not for the individual services. The N used in the analysis was

• 792.

Each of the questions listed above could be answered using three

types of information: differences on pretests , differences on posttests,

and analysis of the change scores. The statistical tests were made using

analysis of variance.

• 

17

___ 

I • ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ -

~~~~~~~ ___________________________
P ~~~~~~~~~~ r ...,

~ - •~~~~ -•

Trained versus Control Groups. There were no significant differences either on the pretest or posttest scores for the trained versus the

control groups on any of the four RPI scales. This indicated that there

were no differences between the two groups with respect to the RPI scale

scores.

To determine extent of changes from pretest to posttest, change

scores were calculated on the difference from pretest to posttest for

each person. Analysis of these difference scores for the two groups m di—

• cated that training had a significant effect on only one of the four

scales——AT!. Figure 1 shows this result. The scores for both the trained

and untrained respondents tended to become less favorable from the pretest to the poattest (this effect was primarily attributable to the testing effect). There was also a significant difference in the amount of

change (.01 level); the trained group tended to change less than the control group.

Favorable

ATI 80.

7475 Trained 73.56

70. ~~~1

~~~~~~~~~~~ ntrof 71.77

~~~60

50•

Unfavorable

1

Pretest Poattest

F (differences by group) = 8.156 (df = 1; 784)

•mSig at .01

Figure 1. Change s on the AT! scale for trained and control groups.

There were also significant differences in the amounts of change by

race , indep endent of trainin g group , on two scales——PDB and FRR . Figures

2 and 3 show these results. Blacks tended to see about the same level of

discr imination against black s on both pretest and posttest. Whites , however , tended to rece ive higher PDB scores on the posttest than on the pr etest. On the FRR scale, the tendenc y was for blacks and whites to come

18

_____________________ - •-~~~ -. •• 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~--— ~

;

~

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

— ..•,.•—

~~~~

• —•• .•-—••~

---—•.—•— -•

~~•.•— 1

~ ’~~~’~ — —

-

~ 

- - -

Hi~,b

PDR -

70 

63.49 Slacks 63.62

11 60

H so

Low - _ _ _ _!— -— 46.24

• PDB - 

44.64

—• I

Ptetest P,stlsst

F (d ife, mc a) 6J$3 Cdt

°°S1. at .01

Figure 2. Changes on the PDB scale for blacks and whites.

FRR 70

5930

:1

so .

Low 47 45 48.45

• FRR - •

Po~ttest

F(differencesbyvsce)”8.787(df”1 784)’

‘

SIg st .OI

Figure 3. Changes on the FRR scale for blacks and whites.

19

p

t — —U— —~
closer together from pretest to posttes t. The scores on FRR decrea sed

slightly for whites and incr eased slightly for blacks. There were no

clearcut reasons available to explain such a finding.

Prior Training versus No Prior Training. There were no differen ces

on the pretests by prior trainin g with the exception of the FRR scale.

Table 11 shows the results on that scale. Althoug h there was no signifi

cant difference by prior training level , the interaction between race and

prior training level was significant at the .05 level. It appeared that

whites who had received training prior to the pretest tended to disagree

more with the items on the FRR scale , and blacks who had had prior train—

ing tended to disagree less.

Table 11

Effects of Pr ior Training Level on Pretest Scores on FRR Scale

Category

No prior training Prior training

Whites 58.14 60.88

Blacks 48.84 46.04

Source SB df MS F

• Prior training .103 1 .103 .001

Race 10,519.917 1 10 ,519.917 123.007

Prior training x race 552.552 1 552.552 6.461

Error 67 ,049.854 784 85.523

• *Signj ficant at .05.

**gignjficant at .01.

For the postte$t analysis , there were significant differences by

prior training level on two of the scales——AT! and Re . Table 12 shows

the differences on the posttest scores by prior training level on the FiT!

scale. Both blacks and whites who had prior training scored higher on

the posttest than those who had not had prior training. This finding is

difficult to interpret , however , since there was no difference by prior

training level on the pretest. A possible explanation is that the RAPS

reminded subjects who had prior training about the issues relating to

their attitudes toward racial interactions. This could mean that , for a

person who had been trained , the pretest acted as a catalyst. Thus , when

20

• ~~~~~~~~

-. —--—-~~---—•-—- —a — - 

- 

— ~~~~~~~. .-.. L i-L~~~
‘ ‘r’” , - - , ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ —•-- --?-— .--—• -

~~~ -

Table 12

Effects of Prior Training Level on Posttest Scores on AT ! Scale

Category

No prior training Prior training

Whites 70.44 71.95

Blacks 72.77 75.48

Source SS df MS F

Race 547.712 1 547.712 B.255**

• Prior training 283.356 1 283.356 4.271*

Race x training 22.529 1 22.529 .340

Error 52,015.176 784 66.347

•Significant at .05.

**$ignificant at .01.

he took the survey a second time , the effect of the pretest and prior

training resulted in a higher AT! score.

A similar finding resulted from the analysis of the RC scale (Table

13). Both blacks and whites tended to score higher on the Re scale on

the poettest if they had had some prior training. This is true even

though there was no difference on the pretest by prior training level.

— In sumeary , the results of the Design II! analyses indicated that

individuals assigned to the trained and control groups were initially

similar in attitudes and perceptions. There were no significant differences on the posttest scores attributable to training. There was a significant change from pretest to posttest on only one scale——AT!; attitudes tended to become slightly less favorable, although the scores for

the trained group did not decline as much as scores for the control group.

However , in comparing the prior training versus no prior training groups,

• personnel who had had some race relations training prior to the pretest

scored more favorably on the AT! and Re scales than those who had not had

such training.

Observations on the Effect of Unit Race Relations Training and the

RAPS. Several observations can be drawn about the effects of unit training as the result of these analyses. First, training is having a minimal

impact on all four scales. The absolute differences of scores across

21

t

- ~;

-;
~~~~~~~— -—-——~~~~

———~— - - -~~~ - • ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Table 13

Effects of Prior Training Level on Pretest Scores on the Re Scale

Category

No prior training Prior training

Whites 67.65 70.84

Blacks 63.09 67.18

Source SB df MS F

Prior training 429.760 1 429.760 10.734**

Race 560.966 1 560.966 14.011**

Prior training x race .034 1 .034 .001

Error 31,388.642 748 40.037

**Significant at .01.

training level are very small, although statistical significance on some

-

• scales is frequently attained. In general, it appears that most changes

— - are occurring on the AT! scale and, next, on the RC scale.

In general, the impact of training was in the anticipated directions,

although the evidence is insufficient to establish any clear patterns.

On the sample in which there were significant PDB training effects, there

were no significant differences between individual training categories and

the untrained category for either blacks or whites. On the AT! scale,

however , those in the training categories showed more favorable attitudes

toward racial inter actions than those in the untrained group. The analysis of the experimental design also showed that individuals with prior

training reported more favorable attitudes toward racial interaction than

• those with no prior training. On the FRR scale, there was no significant

training effect. In the one case in which there was evidence of an inter—

action between race and prior training level , the FRR scores for whites

appeared slightly lower for the group that had had prior training. On the

Re scale , it appeared that training increased RC scores for whites, although the evidence was mixed for black respondents.

The only interactions between race and training category occurred in

one case on the FRR scale. This suggested that, in general, there was

little support for the idea that blacks and whites would be closer in

their attitudes and perceptions as the result of training.

22

IL- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

L _________________ ____ ____ 

_________

- —-- - - -- —~~~~- ----• - ~~~ -

~-— 

- 

~~~~~~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~
pr - -y - - -

There was some indication that training had a cunulative effect.

Individuals in the highest categories of training tended to differ more

from untrained individuals than did those in categories representing less

training. On the other hand , in the experimental designs in which prior

training level was a variable , there was no evidence that the accumulation of training had a significant effect.

Effects of Race Relations Training on School Samples

This section includes a report of the analysis of the effects of

race relations training programs other than the 18—hour unit train ing

curriculum. This type of training , given in formal military courses, was

of two types: (a) the 4— to 6—hour blocks of instruction in race relations given during recruit training, technical school courses, and leader—

ship courses; and (b) blocks of instruction given at race relations facilitator training schools. In these courses, students train to become race

relations instructors.

Unlike the basewide sample results, which were presented earlier,

school samples could not be combined into a total sample for the purpose

of comparisons. The schools were primarily directed at specific types

of subjects, such as NCO’s or personnel in a specific career field. !n

general , persons attending the caine types of courses were considered

together , but results from different schools were analyzed separately.

Because it was not possible to control for the number of blacks included

in these samples, in many cases the sample sizes for blacks were too

small for analysis.

The specific statistical tests used varied according to the type of

design. In designs with a trained and a control group, the mean difference scores were calculated by subtracting the pretest results for each — subject and then compared , using a t test. When there was no control

group, the statistic used was the Sandier’s A—statistic (Runyon & Haber,

1971).

Because of the need to analyze school samples separately and because

of i-he small number of blacks, it was not possible to look for any con—

verg~nce of attitudes and perceptions for blacks and whites.

The most intensive , comprehensive type of training in race relations

was given at the race relations facilitator courses, which lasted from

2 to 4 weeks. The purpose of these schools was to train people to teach

race relations courses at the unit level. All students were volunteers.

Table 14 shows the results.

As noted earlier, individuals attending race relations facilitator

courses tended to be a special group of people whose attitudes and perceptions were generally more positive than those of the population at

large. For whites attending these schools, there were significant

changes. The perceptions of discrimination against blacks increased

significantly during the period of the course , and the scores on the FRR

23

I

~

• ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 

-

~~

---

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

- -

~~~ 

—
,— -— —•,—--— _-_—--v 

— — - - --- 

_- ---.- — -- --—--- - 

Table 14

Changes on Scale Scores for Students Attending Race Relations

Instructor Training Courses

Whites (N — 61) Blacks (N = 58)

Pre to post Significance Pre to post Significance

Scale change level change level

PDB +6.41 .01 — .13 n.s.

ATI + .31 n.e. — .48 nB .

FRR —3.39 .01 +.71 n.e.

Re + .08 n e . — .68 n.s.

scale decreased significantly. There were no significant changes for the

black respondents.

It is interesting to note that in nearly all the designs in which

pretests and poettests were given, there was a significant decline in

attitudes toward racial interaction. This result was attributed to a

testing effect. However, in this sample, there was no significant decline

in the AT! score. This finding suggests that there may be sufficient motivation during these intensive training experiences to prevent the decline

in AT! scores that appears to occur as the result of testing.

Another training course included a large sample undergoing leadership training that included approximately 6 hours of race relations training. There was no control group for this sample. The changes in this

sample from pretest to posttest are shown in Table 15. Significant dif—

ferences on all four scales appeared for white subjects. The results on

the PDB , FRR , and RC scales are all in the direction expected. That is,

the subjects perce ived more discrimination against blacks, expressed

fewer backlash feelings, and had higher scores on the RC scale. The

results on the API scale are difficult to interpret because of the test—

ing effect on that scale, which, in general, caused scores to decline

from pretest to posttest. Without a control group, it was not possible

to determine the actual effect of training in this sample, even though

the change was significant.

Table 16 shows the results for two similar samples of white subjects

undergoing leadership training that included 4 hours of race relations

training. FOr one of the samples, the only change was on the’ AT! scale

and was significant at the .05 level. This chan ge was in the direction

24

- -----

~~_~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

----- - 

- —

~~~~
— — ~

—~rK.-•--

~ _ • ,•__,~~ ~~~~ ~~~~~~~~• ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ -w ~~~ ‘ —

Table 15

Changes on Scale Scores from Pretest to Posttest for

White Students Attending Leadership School

(N = 623)

Pre to post Significance

change level

PDB +1. 59 .01

API —4.31 .01

FRR —1.76 .01

Re +1.32 .01

Table 16

Changes on Scale Scores from Pretest to Posttest for Two Samples

of White Students Attending Leadership School

Pretest to posttest Significance

change level

Sample I (N — 19)

PDB + .09 n.s.

API — .34 .05

FRR —1.71 n.s.

Re +1.23 n.s.

S pl e 2 (N — 58)

P08 +1.95 .05

- A’!’! —2.73 .01

FRR —2.91 .01

Re +1.47 n.s.

25

I 

____ —

L - - 

• . 
_____ - - -•

~~

- -

~~

-w---•

~ I

normally expected as part of the testing effect. The other changes were

in the directions expected , even though they were not statistically significant. FOr the other sample , FOB changes were significant at the .05

level. Changes on the API and FRR scales were significant at the .01

level. All changes were in the expected directions.

Another sample tested included white officers undergoing military

and civilian advanced training that included race relations instruction. — Table 17 shows that there were no significant differences in the changes

for the trained groups when compared to the untrained groups.

Tabl e 17

Analysis of changes for Officers With and Without

Race Relations Training

Trained (N — 93) Untrained (N — 83) Significance

Scale mean change mean change level

P08 +1.13 + .24 n.e.

AT ! —1.49 —1.88 n .s.

FRR — .89 —2.73 n.e.

Re —2.66 —2.14 n.e .

• The samples included several technical military courses that contained 4—hour blocks of instruction in race relations. These included

supply, munitions, and similar schools. The research design called for

trained and untrained samples at these locations. The changes from pretest to posttest for these groups are shown in Table 18, which shows the

variation in training effect from sample to sample. There was a signif i—

cant difference in change scores for the trained versus untrained groups

on the PDB for two of the four samples, but in one case the direction was

positive, and in the other it was negative. Thre were no differences on

the AT! scale. There was a significant difference on the FER scale for

one of the samples and a difference on the Re scale on one sample. In - —

these cases , the FRR score declined for the trained group and increased —

for the control group , and became less favorable on the Re scale for the

trained group and more unfavorable for the control group. The finding on

the Re scale was not in the expected direction.

Table 19 shows a similar analysis for recruit samples. Recruits for

three services were surveyed upon entering and upon completion of recruit

training. Half the recruits received 4—hour blocks of race relations

training and half received none. Training for recruits normally consists

of lecture types of courses. The change scores for the trained and

26 

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

1

~~~

Table 18

Analysis of changes for White Students at Technical School Courses

With and Without Race Relations Training

Trained (N 72) Untrained (N = 61) Significance

_____ ______ 

Level

Samplel -

PiTh + .99 +1.66 n.e.

ATI -5.45 - 4.87 n.e.

FRR - 1.46 + .04 n.s.

RC - .85 +2.14- .05

Trained (N 166) Untrained(N 115) Significance

_____ _____ Level 3

Sampk 2

PDB +1.02 - .07 n.e.

All • 

- 3.64 - 3.46 - n.e. —

FRR - 1.03 - 1.88 n.e. -

RC - .00 + .70 n.e.

Trained (N 75) Untrained (N=83) Significance

j Level

4 

U Sample 3

PDB +2.47 - .57 - .05

AT! - 4.04 - 3.27 - 

n.e.

FRR -1.96 -1.53 u.s. —

RC +1.32 + .23 us.

Trained (N = 38) Untrained (N ‘36) Significance

. Level

Sample 4

PDB - 3.43 +1.93 .01 • - ATI -1.93 - 4.51 n.e.

FRR - 4.90 +1.0) .01

RC - .08 +1.15 n.e.

27

- 

~

-

~

- A ~- - -:- ~~- -

~

— -

~ 

— — 

~~~~
--

~ 

- -• ---

~~~

- 

~~~~~~~

--- ---• -- - -•.- - - - - - -

~~~~ 

- 

I

I

Table 19

Analysis of Changes from Pretest to Postteet for

White Recruit Samples With and Without

Race Relations Training

Trained (N 68) Untrained (N 60) Significance

____ _____ 

Level

Service A

PDB - +3.04 +5.00 n.s. - AT! - 4.00 - 8.54 .01

FRR + .75 +6.73 .0)

RC +3.66 +8,55 .01

Trained (N = 53) Untrained (N 56) Significance • 

_________ __________ Level

Service B

PDB + .50 + .19 n.e.

F-- All - 4.28 - 3.39 n.s.

FRR - 1.39 +1.39 u.s.

• RC +2.49 - 

+4.68 ns.

- Trained (N = 117) Untrained (N = 108) Significance

______ _______ Level

Service C

PDB - .69 -3.14 .05

AT! -2.62 - .64 u.s.

FRR + .10 + .54 n.e.

RC - .89 + .32 n.e.

untrained samples were compared by service.3 This was done separately because of the possibility that services were recruiting different types of

people; the groups could not legitimately be combined.

~~~~ 

3The Marine Corps was excluded from the analysis because no race relations training was given to Marine Corps recruits. Also, blacks wer e

eliminated from the analysis because of the enall samples obtained.

- 

- 

28

~~ 

A-

____ ~~~ ~~~~ -- 

. 

- - ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ :::

~ 7~~~~~~~~~~~~-
—~ -.~-—~~ -- ,. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~—~~~~~~- ‘

~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ - “~~

Three of the four scales for Service A showed significant results.

The directions were as expected on the ATI and the FRR scalec , but on

the RC scale the untrained samples increased their scores more than the

trained group. On Service B there were no significant differences, and

on Service C the FOB scale results were significant at the .05 level.

In this case , trained and untrained subjects perceived less discrimina

tion against blacks, but the scores of the untrained group declined the

most.

In summary , the findings indica$;e that there were many more tests

of training effectiveness for which there were no significant findings

than there were for significant findings. Even in those cases where

• differences were significant, the total changes in scale scores were • small. However , in a review of results that showed significant differences, the overall patterns of the effects of training do show up.

Tables 20 through 23 show these results. Only results on ATI scales

are shown where there were control groups because of the testing effect

on that scale. When shown in this way , the patterns become quite

obvious.

On the FOB scale, white subjects received higher scores after they

had received training; that is, they perceived a higher level of discrimination against blacks. There were not enough samples of blacks on

which significant changes could be tested to comment about the effects

of training on those subjects. However , because blacks start out at a

much higher level on the P08 scores than do whites, it appears that the

total ef fect of the training programs would be to bring blacks and whites

closer together in perceptions about discrimination——a desirable result.

Furthermore, if white respondents begin to perceive discriminatory acts

when they occur , as would be reflected by higher PDR scores, then they

can begin to act to eliminate those behaviors • Thus, in the short run ,

higher POE scale scores can be considered positive findings because they

can eventually lead to a reduction in the total level of discrimination.

On the API scale , training appears to be associated with higher

scores for both blacks and whites. !t should be noted that persons of

both races already indicated by their responses to this scale that they

have favorable attitudes toward racial interaction. The changes, therefore , may be part of the tendency for individuals who agree with an

idea to be easily persuaded in a positive direction.

The analysis also indicates that training causes whites to have

lower FRR scale scores. This is a positive finding because it is desirable that whites not feel that blacks are getting better treatment at

their expense or that they have reason to fear blacks.

The results of the effects of training on the RC scale are not as

clear. !n four cases RC scale scores became higher , and in two cases

they became lower. The expectation was that Re scale scores would become higher with training, but this was not consistently the case.

29

________ L

•

-1

_______________ - - •: . ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
---

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

~~~~~~

-- -

~~~~~

- 

~

- -.-

Table 20

Sizaary of Significant Training Effects on the POD Scale

Type and Size Type of Direction of

of Sample Training Type of Effect Race Training Effect

Basewide Sample , 18-Hour Main Effect Blacks and Mixed a

Service A (N 867) Course of Training

Race Relations 2-4 Week Main Effect Whites Higher Scores

School (N~61) - Course of Training

Officer Leadership 6-Hour Main Effect Whites Higher Scores*

School Sampic Course of Training

(N 623)

School Sample, 4-Hour Main Effect Whites Higher Scores

Leadership Course of Training

Training (N 58) -

School Sample 4-Hour Main Effect Whites Higher Scores5

Technical Course of Training -

Training (N=158)

School Sample 4-Hour Main Effect Whites Lower Scores5

Technical Course of Training

Training (N 7l)

School Sample 4-Hour Main Effect Whites Higher Scores5

Service C Recnzits Course of Training

(N 225)

‘Findings marked with an asterisk were significant at the

.01 level. All others were significant at the .05 level.

a In tests across the four categories of training, there were some significant differences that were

in part attributable to differences In sc€ves for the leuels of training rather than differences between the Untrained and trained subjects. When there was no consistent pattern across the trained and untrained subjects,

the results are identified as “mixed.”

U ~~~~ 

30

L- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

- • ~~~~~• - ~~~~~

_-.

~

---—---—---—

~~~~ 

- 

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

,

~~~~~— - ~~ •—-•,• __

~1’~~~

_

~

•S 

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

P. 

- - -

Table 21

Sumeary of Significant Training Effects on the API Scal.*

Type and Size Type of Direction of

of Sample Training Type of Effect Race Training Effect

Basewide Sample 18-Hour Main Effect Blacks and Higher Scores

(N3 ,209) Course of Training Whites

Service A, 18-Hour Main Effect Blacks and Higher Scores’

Basewide Sample Course of Training Whites

(N’

~

867)

Service B, 18-Hour Main Effect Blacks and Higher Scores

Basewide Sample Course of Training Whites

(N=1,128)

Basewide Sample 18-Hour Main Effect of Blacks and Higher Scores

j (N 785) Course Prior Training Whites

on Posttest

Scores -

Basewide Sample 18-Hour Main Effect Blacks and Higher Scores

- (t@785) Course of Training Whites -

Recruit Sample 4-Hour Main Effect Whites Higher Scores’

(t4mEl28) Course

*Flntfttigt marked with an asterisk were significant at the .01 level.

AS others were signifIcant at the .05 level.

a Significant effects on Afl scale on samples without control groups ale not reported because of

testing effects on that scale. Scores cs Afl scale are reported as higher where trained group. tecalved higher

scores than untrained groups, even though both groups have deem ed.

3’

I 

________ ____________ ___________________

~ .

~

f . -• ~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~

- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
- - — - __ -_ -_,__ - - - --~~~~~~ ~~~~~~; - - - -

Table 22

S~~mary of Significant Training Effects on the FRR Scale

Type and Size Type of - Direction of

of Sample Training Type of Effect Race Training Effect

Basewide Sample 4-Hours Main Effect Whites Lower Scores

(N~89) of 18-Hour of Training

Course

Basewide Sample 18-Hour Interaction Blacks and Lower Scores for

(Na785) Course between Prior Whites Whites; Higher

Training Level Scores for Blacks

and Race on

Pretest Scores

Race Relations 2-4 Week Main Effect Whites Lower Scores

School Sample Course of Training

(N=61)

Officer Leadership 6-Hour Main Effect Whites Lower Scores

School Sample Course of Training

(N 623)

School Sample 4-Hour Main Effect Whites Lower Scores’

Technical School Course of Training

(N 74)

Recruit Sample 4-Hour Main Effect Whites Lower Scores’

(N 128) Course of Training

‘Findings marked with an asterisk were significant at the .01 level.

— All others were significant at the .05 level.

32

1⁄4 - - ~ -

______________________ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~ - _____
Table 23

Sunnar y of Significant Training Effe cts on the )

~ Scale

Type and Size Type of Direction of

- of Sample Training Type of Effect Race Training Effect

Basewide Sample 18-Hour Main Effect Blacks and Higher Scores

(N=3 209) Course of Training Whites

Basewide Sample, 18-Hour Main Effect Blacks and Mixed

Service A Course of Training Whites

- (N=1,128)

Basewide Sample 18-Hour Main Effect Blacks and Higher Scores

Service B Course of Training Whites

(N 867) -

Basewide Sample 18-Hour Main Effect of Blacks and Higher Scores

(N=785) Course Prior Training on Whites -

Poettest Scores

Officer Leadership 6-Hour Main Effect Whites Higher Scores’

School Sample Course of Training

(?J=623)

School Sample - 4-Hour Main Effect Whites Lower Scores

Technical School Course of Training -

(N 135) -

Recnslt Sample 4-Hour Main Effect Whites Lower Scores’

(N 128) Course of Training

Vindlngs marked with an asterisk were significant at the .01 level. - AU others were .Iga’fl’-’t at the .05 level.

33 

______

____________ L -

~

— —~.—-—-—~

—-—---—.—

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

In a number of cases, race relations training appeared to be having

a significant effect. Furthermore , in most of those cases , the directions of the changes were those that might be expected from such programs. The magnitude of the changes was small , however , suggesting that changes

as the result of race relations training might be occurring on other

dimensions or might not be occurring at all.

Knowledge of Race Relations Content Items

As noted earlier, several samples of subjects were asked to complete

a content JQ~ -

owledge questionnaire, to determine if race relations train— . ing increased knowledge in the race relations area. The content ques—

tionB were develop ed by reviewing course curriculum materials and select—

ing key areas that appeared to be most likely to be covered by such

courses. The content questionnaire was explorato ry in nature and did not

receive the attention in its developsent that a more full—blown test

might have. It was used to examine another area besides the attitudinal

ones in which training might be effective.

The content questionnaires were given , using two designs, a pretest—

posttest design and a poittest—only design. Because of the small N’s

that were ultimately obtained it was necessary to use only the poattest.

An attempt was made to determine if there was a practice effect. On untrained samples , there was no evidence of testing effect. On the trained

samples, there was evidence of such an effect although the test was ob—

scured by demographic differences. Despite these difficulties, and because of the email sample sizes, the analyses were made using posttest

scores only.

The analyses were conducted , using one—way analyses of variance.

The dependent variable was number of questions marked correctly by the

respondents. Trained subjects were expected to score higher on the test

than untrained subjects. Furthermore , it was expected that subject s who

received greater amounts of training would receive higher scores. Table

24 shows the results for the total sample when the trained and untrained

subjects were compared . It indicates that, although there was no significant difference between the scores of whites and blacks, there was a

significant difference by training statue——those who had received training scored higher.

Because the data were collected for various levels of training, it

was possible to make some comparisons across these levels. Table 25

shows the mean scores across four levels of training: recruit training . technical school , 18—hour curriculum , and race relations instructor

school. The recruit and technical school students received 4 hours of

instruction in race relations.

34

—~~~~

-‘

~ 

-- 

- -

_. 

~

-----__

f 

- 

— ~~~~~~~~ - - - -- - - —-- - - -- -

~~

--

~~~~

~~~~. 

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

.-‘ . ,‘——- - ------- - -

~‘.- ~.--- -,-~ ~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ - - ---

— —-. ~ —- ~~~~ - - -

_____ - -

Table 24

Average Scores for Black and White , Trained end Untrained ,

Respondents on the Content Questionnaire

Trained untrained Average

Blacks (N — 172 ) 7.92 7.17 7.55

• White. (N 701) 7.75 7.40 7.58

Average 7.84 7.29

F (race) u.s.

F (training) — 5.38 (df — 1: 872)’

‘Significant at .05.

Table 25

Average Scores on Content Questionnaire for Student s at

Different Levels of Race Relations Training

Blacks Wh ites

Recruit sample 6.57 5.67

Technical school sample 8.05 7.49

18—hour course 6.64 6.61

Race relation , school 8.57 9.39

F (blacks) 5.31 (df — 3i 103)”

V (whites) 37.35 (df — 3; 242)”

* “Significant at .01. -

~~

- — ______ -- 

35

L
_____ -~ - - __n —--------~- -n~~~~~~~~~-

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

In dividuals completin g the race relations instru ctor training

schools appeared to be at one end of this range of means: the recrui t

samples were the other end. This pattern was not consistent across all

levels, however; subjects who completed the 18—hour unit train ing course

scored slightly lower than did the subjects who completed the 4—hour

course in the technical school. Subjects in the technical schools per—

• haps were more attuned to a training environment and therefore scored

better on the tests.

In suemary , it appeared that training does increase knowledge, as

it is measured on the instrument used. As with the RPI scale scores,

there may be other knowledge areas covered by such training that are not

included in the instrument. But these findings, taken together with

findings about training effects on the RPI scales, support the idea that

training has an effect in the desired directions.

Evaluations of Race Relations Train~~g

To obtain more information about the way military personnel felt

about the race relations training programs , a sample of Army personnel

who received race relations training ranging from the 4—hour blocks to

the 4—week blocks was asked to complete a questionnaire concerning their

subjective reac tions to the trainin g. The questions covered three general areas: the overall value or importance of the trainin g, the qual—

ity of presentation, and the effectiveness of the training.

Value of Training . When asked how valuable discussions were in

increasing awaren ess and understanding of racial problems in several

areas , approximately 75% of the subjects indicat ed they were very valuable or somewhat valuable. There were no significant differences in

the responses of blacks and whites to these questions (Table 26).

Table 26

percentage of Respondents Reporting Aspects of

Training Courses as Valuable

Somewhat valuable

or very valuable

- Personal raciem 78.0%

ZOT policies 76.2%

Concepts of prejudice and discrimination 75.8%

Institutional raciam 70.0%

Minority histor y and culture 71.6%

t 

36 

:.~~~~- -—

-

~~ —~~~~~~ --— —- ~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~ 
When asked about the importance of race relations training for Army

personnel , 63.7% said they felt it was very important , 27.4% said it was

somewhat important, and only 5 • 3% said it was not important. When asked

about the importance of race relations training compared to other Army

training programs , 82.6% said it was important or extr ely importan t ,

8.9% said it was not very important , and 4.2% said it was not importan t

at all.

Quality of Training. Subjects were also asked if the material was

interesting, easy to understand , and relevant . When asked if it was

interesting, 51.3% said it was interesting, 39.7% said it was somewhat

interesting, and only 5.8% said it was not interesting. Most respondents felt the presentations were clear and easy to understand ; 67.4%

said presentations were very clear , 27.4% said the presentations were

somewhat clear , and 2.1% said they were not clear . Subjects who thought

the material was relevant to an understanding of the racial situation

made up 45.8% of the sample. Another 43.2% thought it was somewha t relevant, and 5.8%, not relevant.

Effectiveness of Training . When asked if they saw the racial situ.a—

tion in the Army differently as the result of attending the course, 77.8%

of the subjects said they saw it somewhat differently or very differently; 19% said they did not see the racial situation any differently. :1

When asked if the course resulted in improved interp ersonal relationship s

among students in the course , 24.3% of the subject s felt relationships

were very improved, 49.7% felt relationships were somewhat improved; and

22.1% felt there was either no change or relationships were worse. In

addition, 54.2% of the subjects said they were more motivated to eliminate racial discrimination as a result of the training: 36.8% felt there

was no change in their motivations ; and 4.7% said they were less motivated.

In summary , these results suggest that, in general, Army personnel

had positive attitudes toward the train ing programs. They seemed to feel

that such programs were important and , in addition , that the material

presented was interesting, clear, and relevant. The subjects also m di—

cat ed that they saw the racial situations differentl y and that they were — more motivated to eliminate racial discrimination, as the result of

attending the courses.

Interviews with Instructors

To better understand the race relations training prog ram, interviews

were conducted with 40 race relations instructors in the field as part of

the data collection activities. These instructors taught all types of

race relations courses, including recruit training, NCO nd officer level

race relations courses, and the 18—hour DRRI curriculum.

37 

— - 

- 

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

----- .- 

‘II ’

Most of the instructors had themselves been trained to conduct race

relations courses: 12 had attended DRRI, and 18 had attended some type of

discussion leader or moderator course. However, 10 of the 40 instructors

reported they had received no race relations training at all , not even

the 18-hour curriculum.

These instructors described a broad ran ge of things they were trying

to accomplish: 16 of the 40 said they were trying to “increase aware—

ness ” 11 said they were trying to “provide understanding,” 7 said they

were trying to “change behaviors,” and 3 reported that their goal was to

“change attitudes.” These responses suggested that goals were somewhat

- ill—defined and varied from instructor to instructor. Although their

• goals varied greatly , more than 80% of the instructors felt they were

able to accomplish their own goals to some extent .

Overall, more than half of these instructors indicated the race relations training programs were having positive impact. However , 11 of the

40 instructors felt the results were both positive and negative, and 5

felt the training was having a negative Impact.

When asked the level at which they felt the training should be

directed, the instructors expressed a broad range of ideas. Eleven instructors thought the training should be directed at the company level.

Four thought training should be directed at the battalion level. Eight

instructors chose senior NCO’s as the target for training, and seven

chose senior officers. Pour instructors felt it should be given upon

entry into the service.

- 

In general, instructors were not expressing any clearly defined set

of ideas about the race relations programs. They had had different training experiences themselves, and a large number had received no training

at all. Their goals varied greatly , and many felt their accomplishments

were mixed or were negative. Moreover, the instructors were not certain

who should be the targets of training.

SUMMARY AND 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 treat—

• ment is implemented fully. Without effective feedback from military personnel about their feelings and about the discrimination they see in the

service, these programs may well lose their direction or , at the very

worst, become counterproductive .

The military must develop and implement meaningful programs directed

to the specific needs of the individual——whatever his or her attitudes

and perceptions may be. To do this, the military equal opportunity and

race relations program managers must work in two directions: to eliminate

38

L _______ ___ 

- _____ 

~~~

-

~~~~~~~

-

- --

~

- --- — ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
discriminatory behaviors and to encourage interracial communication and

understanding. The first is the only way to insure that perceptions

of discrimination are not reinforced. It is not possible to convince

people that something does not exist if they see it in daily life. The

second is the means whereby a convergence of the perceptions of blacks

and whites can be attained.

How does training act to help solve these problems and what results

can we expect? Training should , at a minimum, accomplish two purposes.

First , it would make people aware of the discriminatory practices.

Second , it would motivate people to eliminate such behaviors. Thus,

training would in the short run result in heightened perceptions of discrimination, because the trained people would recognize its occurrence.

• In the longer run , however, as more people are trained and stop their discriminatory behaviors, the perceptions would decrease.

It does not appear reasonable to expect a great deal of change in

attitudes and perceptions as the result of training. Although the find—

ings consistently showed that training affected attitudes, these effects were “small,” however statistically significant. In this context , small

means the proportion of variance accounted for. Although no amount of

discussion can change the fact that the effects were small, these effects

should be considered from the standpoint of how difficult it is to change

deeply rooted attitudes at all. In a sense, it is surprising to find

that, as a result of only a few hours’ training, significant changes were

found in attitudes that were a function of total life experiences to that

date. Pitting a few hours’ training against the learnings of a lifetime

appears at the outaet to be an unfair match. This factor should be con—

aidered , as researchers try to interpret the meaning of the “small”

effects of training.

Another factor working against change is the nature of the training

assignment itself. Previous research has shown that training is more

likely to be effective when participation is voluntary , a procedure that

is not followed in the military ( Ainir , 1969) .

Another reason for the failure to find large differences due to

training may be that the people who are trained are not necessarily those

whose behaviors are causing problems. That is, people may be made aware

of the fact that others are discriminating, and thus they may perceive

more discrimination. Nut until the discriminating persons are made aware

of their behavior, total discrimination will remain constant. In any one 4 group of subjects who receiv e training , therefore , the total change may

be small. Nut the accumulation of trained students on any installation

may lead to Large changes.

During the course of the study , the researchers saw training given

in a variety of settings. In some cases subjects were crowded into hot, dusty barracks and given lectures. In other cases the facilities were

excellent. Some training lasted 18 hours; other training took only 4

hours. Some instructors were well prepared for their tasks, and others

39

t: ‘•-

- - - ~~ ---—-— ___ J -

~

-

~ 

—

- 

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

- - - - ~~ - - -

~~~~~ 

- - -

~~~ - --~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ - —-~~~~- —“--

~~-
were not prepared at all. Despite these difficulties, the results m di— -

cated significant effects from training, and with remarkable consistency

of direction. Trained people did see more discrimination than did untrained people, and they did have sore favorable attitudes than did Un—

trained people. Although the research did not indicate why some training

was effective and other training was not, it did indicate that training

programs are having an effect.

In sum , the analyses of the effects of race relations training pro—

gr ams, the review of the race relations knowledge tests, and the inter—

views with race relations instructors, lead to several conclusions:

• • Race relations training is having an impact on attitudes and

perceptions as measured by the RAPS.

• The impact • in general , is very small when defined in terms of

actual change on RAPS scale scores. This is true even though

there were statistically significant results.

k . ~ iere changes occurred as the result of training , they tended

to be in the following directions: higher PDB scores, higher

ATI scores, and lower FRR scores. There was no clearly

defined direction in which BC scale scores would be expected

to go.

• There is evidence that trained subjects scored higher on content—

type questions than did untrained subjects.

• Those who received training generally considered it to be valuable and important. They reported that the quality of training

was good and said that they were more highly motivated to try to

eliminate racial discrimination.

e Instructors who actually taught the courses appeared to have

diverse goals and varied in their opinions about the best targets

for training efforts.

The general conclusion of the analysis of the effects of race relations training programs is that the instrument does detect differences

that result from training in the four attitudinal and perceptual areas

measured by the 1

~~I. This is not to say that the total impact of race

relations training is measured by the RPI. The results of the content

knowledge questionnaire indicated that changes were occurring in areas

other than those measured by the RPI. It is possible that there are other

ways in which training may have an impact but they are not addressed during the course of this project. Nevertheless, the basic goal was met——

that of determining that the RPI can measure some of the changes that

occur as the rssult of training.

~

-

-

~~~~ 

1-

, 40

__ __

~~~

- TI ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 

- -
-

~~~--~~

---

~

-- -

~~~~w---~--,- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 

-

~ 

---—~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 

-

Although this project was concerned primarily with the determination

of the utility of the RAPS and did not assess training in any comprehensive evaluation, considerable information pertinent to training was

obtained. Several recommendations were developed therefore about the

training programs:

— 

1. Training goals should be clarified and communicated to all those

involved in race relations training programs.

2. If a formal RAPS system is implemented , race relations instruc—

tors must regularly learn the results of those surveys and be

informed about the implications of the results for race rela—

tions training programs.

3. RAPS appears to be used primarily as a general measure of

racial climate on a military installation. It was used in

this research to measure training program effects, but that is

not its most useful application. It also appeared, however,

that there is at present no comprehensive measure specifically

designed to assess the effects of race relations training pro—

grams. 9ach measures should be developed because training pro—

grams represent a major investment in time and money and in-

- structors and program managers need feedback about the results

of the effort. The RAPS can clearly be an important part of a

comprehensive set of such measures.

4. Training itself must be investigated more thoroughly. Several

questions arise that should be examined:

• Why do changes in attitudes and perceptions occur in Some

training situations and not in others?

- - • How does the format of a course interact with previous attitudes and perceptions to lead to change?

— • Who is most likely to change as the result of training?

• Who is least likely to change?

• Wha t can be done to maximize changes in attitudes and per—

ceptiona that result from training?

41 

___ 

t

• - 

- - - - - 

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

,----- - -* - - • ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ — - --~

-,- —a-— j— -
~~~--~~~ -~~ ~~~—~ ---~~~~~~~~~~~

—-~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~ -

~~~~~ --~~~~—~~~~~~~ - • -

-~~-

~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~-—~ 

----

~~

-

r ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 

-

REFERENCES

Amir, Y. Contact Hypothesis in Ethnic Relations. Psychological Bulletin,

71 (Winter 1969), 3 19—342.

Borus, 3., Stanton , D., Fiman , G., & Doud, A. F. Racial Perceptions in

the Army: An Approach. American Journal of Psychiatry, X I , 128,

1369—74 . -

Department of Defense . Memorandum, Assistant Secretary of Defense (M&RA) .

- 

Subject: Evaluation of Race Relations Education Programs , 6 May 1972.

Department of Defense. Defense Race Relations Institute Commanders Notebook. Draft. Patrick APB, Florida : Defense Race Relations Insti—

tute, 1 December 1971.

Edwards, Allan L. Experimental Design in Psychological Research (3d Ed.).

New York: Bolt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1968, 264—67.

Hiett, 9., McBride, R., & Fiman, B. Measuring the Impact of Race Relations

Programs in the Military. McLean, Va. : Human Sciences Research ,

Inc., 1974.

Human Sciences Research, Inc. Validation of the Racial Perceptions In-yen—

~

, Interim Report. McLean, Va: July 1973.

Kelly , Francis 3., Beggs, Donald L., & McNeil , Keith A. Research Design

in the Behavioral Sciences: Multiple Regression Approach. Carbondale

and Edwardsville: Southern Illinois University Press, 1969, 224—8.

Kerlinger, Fred N. Foundations of Behavioral Research. New York: Bolt,

Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1964, 290—321.

Runyon, 9. P., & Haber, A. Fundamentals of Behavioral Statistics (2nd

Ed.). Reading, Mess.: Addison Wesley Co., 1971 , 210—11.

43

__________ ____~~~~_ ___~~~~±

~

,_ _ 

~

_ _~~~ y

~~~~

’

_________ _______ - --~~~~~~~ ~~~~~

— - 

~~~~~~~
— 

APPENDIX

EFFECTS OF TESTING ON RAPS SCORES

An important consideration in assessing the impact of race relations

training within the context of the various experimental designs used in

this project was the effect of responding to the RAPS questionnaire. In

other words, did respondents who were otherwise similar but were adminis—

4 tered the questionnaire twice differ in their scores from those adminis—

tered the instrument only once?

This question was examined by comparing two groups of untrained subjects. One group received the instrument once and the other group

received the instrument twice. Scores were then compared for the two

F groups using the posttest scores for the group that received the ques—

t tionnaire twice.

The two groups were compared using a multiple regression analysis

procedure in order to control for the possible biases due to demographic

- variables. This is equivalent to an analysis of covariance procedure

- (Kelly et al., 1969). Table A— i shows the results on each of the four

- scales.

There is a significant testing effect on this untrained sample on

the Attitude Toward Racial Interaction scale. The effect is to cause the

ATI scale scores to decline on the posttest. On these samples , more than

5% of the variance on the ATI scale is apparently attributable to test—

ing effect. This finding has serious implications for interpretations of

findings using the test—retest design. Where there is no control group ,

it does not appear possible on the ATI scale to distinguish between

changes due to testing effectS and other causes of change such as training. Since the effect is to cause scores on the retest to be lower than

scores on the pretest, in test—retest designs that do have an experimental

and control group , the expectation is that both scores may decline, with

the trained group declining less than the control groups.

• 

45 

- __

~~~~~

_________

_________________________________________ - L.J ~~~~~~~~~~ —~~ -~
__ — ~~~~~~~~ ~~~uu- -

.

~~~~.J! 

-

~~~~~~~~~~~~~r~~~~~ - -~~~~~~~~~~’~~~~

Table A—i

Percen t Variance Contribution (112) by Demographic

Variable and Design

Scale scores

Component of variance PDB ATI FRR

Demographic variables 41.56 17.32 16.63 22.35

Off—duty contact

Education

Neighborhood

Race

Active duty time

Testing effects .11 5.21CC .10 .00

Total 41.67 22.53 16.73 22.35

**Signifj cant at .01.

I

‘ 1

46

4

~LI~ - ~1I

~

T1fl

~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ — - - 

~~

- —--- —--—-- - _____
DISIII

SU TION

ARI DIstribution List

4 OASD (M&RA) 2 HOUSACDEC, Ft Ord, ATTN: Librmy

2 HODA (DANI.CSZI I HOUS ACOEC . Ft Ord. ATTh: ATEC-EX-E—Huin Factors

1 HODA 

(DAPE4’SR 2 USAEEC. Ft Benjamin 

Hwrisa

n, ATTN: Library

1 HCOA (DAMA•AR) 1 

USAPACOC. Ft Benjamin Harrison. ATT

N: AT~~—HR

1 HODA (DAPE

.HRE’PO) 1 USA Comm—Elect 5t

h. Ft Monmouth , 

AT1N: ATSN-EA

1 HC

~)A 

(SGRDID) 1 USAEC. Ft Monmoush, ATTN: AMSE

L-CT—HDP

1 HODA 

(DAMs-DOT-C) I USAEC. Ft Mo

nmoudt. ATiN: AMSEL—P*--P

1 HODA IDAPC PMZ-A) 1 

USAEC. Ft 

Monmauth, ATTN: AMSEL—SI—CB

1 HODA (DACH

•PP

Z.A) I USAEC. Ft Monincuth. ATIN: 

C, Fad 0.. Br

I HODA 

(DAPE-HRE) 1 USA Materials Sys Ansi 

Agcy. Aberdeen. 

ATiN: AMXSV-P

1 HQOA 

(DAPE MPO.C) 1 Edgswood Anenal, 

Aberdeen , 

AIIM: SAREA-BL---H

I HODA 

(DAPE.OW) I USA aid Ct, & 5th. Aberde

en, 

A1’l’N: AT$L-TEM--C

1 HODA (DAPE I4RLI 2 USA Hum Engr Lab, Absrdee

n, ATTN: 

Libr y/DIr

I HODA IDAPE

.CPSI I USA Combet Arms Yng Bd, Ft Binning, 

AIiM: Ad Supsreisor

1 I400A (DAFD

-MFA) I USA Infantry Hunt Rich Unit, Ft Binning, 

AnN: Chief

I HODA 

(DARD.ARSP) 1 USA Infantry 

Sd, Ft Binning, 

A liN: S1EBC-TE—T

1 HODA (DAPC-PAS-Al 1 USASMA. Ft 

Bliss, 

AIIM: AISS-LAC

1 1400* (DUSA-OR) 1 USA Air Di 5th, Ft Bliss, 

AIIM: ATSA-CID—ME

I 1400* (DAMO-ROR) 1 USA 

Air Di 5th, Ft Bliss, AT

IN: Tech LIb

I HQDA (DASG) 1 

USAA1r Def Bd, Ft 811.., 

AIIM: FILES

I HODA 

(DAIO.Pl) 1 USA Air 

Dii Sd. Ft Bliss. ATT’N: STEBO—PO

P 1 Citi.f, Consult 

Div (DA

.OTSG), 

Adelpisi, MD I USA Cmd & Gsnerel Stf ColIapt. Ft L,sv.nwo

,th, AIIM: Ub

I Nil Asst. Hum Res, ODOR&E. 0*0 (E&

LS) I USA 

Cmd & Gsnersi Sri CoIl.g., Ft 

L.aysnworth. 

AIIM: ATSW—SE-L

I HO USARAL. APO Seatt

is ATTN: ARAGP-R I USA Cmd S General Sri CoIl.g., Ft 

Leavenworth, 

AIIM: Ed Advisor

I 

HQ 

First Army, AIIM: AFKA

.0I-Tl 1 USA Co

~

thinsd Arms Cmbt 0. Act, Ft Lsuv.nworth. 

AIIM: D.pCdr

2 HO Fifth Army, Ft Sam t4o

uston I USA Combined Arms Cmbt 

Div Act, Ft 

Laav.nworth, ATTN : CCS

1 DIr, Army Sri Studies CU. 

AIIM: OAVCSA 

(DSP) I USA Combined 

Ann. CMI. 0ev Act. Ft Leavenworth. 

*1114: ATCASA

I Ofc Otief of Sri, Studies Ofe I USA Combined Arms 

Cinbi Div Act. Ft Leavenworth, 

AIIM: ATCACO—E

I O(~ PER . ATTN: CPS/OCP I USA Combined Arms Cmbt 0ev Act, Ft Leavenworth, 

AT1’N: ATCACC-Ci

1 Ths Army Lib, Pentagon, ATTN: ASS 

citi.i 1 USAECOM. Night Vision Lab. Ft 

Belvoir, 

AIIM: AMSEL—NV-SD

1 Ths Army Ub. Pentagon, ATIM: ANRAL 3 USA Computer Sys Cmd, Ft 

Belvoir, 

ATTN: Tech Llbray

1 Oft , 

Aiit Sect of the Army 

(R&D) I 

USAMEROC, Ft Belvo

ir, 

ATiN: STSFB—DO

I Tech Support Ofc, 

OJCS I USA Eng 5th, Ft Be

lvolr, AT1’N: Library

1 USASA, 

Arlington, ATTN: lARD-I I USA 

TopogrsplilC Lab. Ft Belvo

lr, 

AIIM: ETL—TD--S

I USA Rids Ofc, 

Oudu.pn, ATTN: Life Sciences DIr 1 USA Topographic Lab. Ft 8.1.01 ,. 

AIIM: STINFO Center

2 USARIEM , Natid

i. ATTN: SGND

.UE-CA I USA Topographic Lab. Ft Belvoir, 

AIIM: ETL —GSL

I USATTC, Ft Clayton, 

AIIM: STETC-MO’A I USA Intelligi

nta Ctr S Sch, Ft Hueclt

uct. 

AIIM: CTD-MS

I USAIMA . Ft Bragg. 

AIIM: ATSUCIDOM I USA 

lntellig.nOe CU & 5th, Ft Ntaachuca. 

ATIN: ATS—CID-MS

I USAIMA , Ft Bragg, AIIM: Mi,q

u.t 

Lib I USA 

Intelligence Ctr & Sth, Ft Huachuca, 

AiiM: AISI-TE

1 US WAC C*r S Salt, Ft 

McClellan, AIIM: LIb 1 USA intel

ligence CU S 5th, Ft Huachuca. 

AIIM: AISI—TEX-GS

I US WAG Ct, & 

Salt, Ft McClellan, ATTM : In, DIV 1 USA Intellig

ence CU & Salt, Ft Iluachuce, ATTN: ATSI—CTS

-OR

1 USA Cenmsrm~~~r Sd., Ft Lae, 

AIIM: *‘IIM-TE I USA 

lntsIllgsncs Ctr 8. Sd.. Ft 54uechucs. 

AIIM: ATSI—CTD-O’T

I 

~~~~~~~~ Meesrial Div Oft. EWL Ft Noleblrd I USA IntellIg

ence CU & 5th, Ft Huach

uca, 

AIIM: ATSI-CTD--CS

I (SA

SS Siptal Salt, Ft Sudan, 

AIM: A1SO’EA 1 USA Inleiligence CU & 

Sd., Ft Huadsuca. 

AIIM: DAS~SRD

I USA Chaplain Ci’ I Sd., Ft Hamilton, ATm: 

AIIC’Th-RD I USA Inte(ligsn~ 

Cit & Sd., Ft Huachuc

s, 

AIIM: *1St-TEN

1 USATSCN, Ft Evesie , 

AIIM: Ethit Advisor I USA Intelligence 

Cs, S 

ScSi, Ft Huechuca. 

AIIM Library

I USA W. Colisge. 

Ceni.la Seiveclis, AIIM: LIb I CDR. HO Ft HuacIw~ 

AIIM: Tacit Ref Div

2 WRAIR. Nsurap.ydhlaey Dlv 2 

COP, 

USA Electronic Prvg Grd, ATIN: STEEP-M

i—S

I DLI, WA, ~~~~~~~~~ I COP Project MASSTE

R. A

’

TTN : Teds Info 

Center

1 USA Concept Anal 

*qsy, Setheeda, ATIM: 

MOCA-WOC I Hq MASS1ER, USATRADOC. 

LMO

1 USA Concept And Ag.y, Seds..ds, 

AIIM: MOCA-MR I 

Retearch Institute, HO MASS’IER, Ft Hood

I USA Concept Anal Agcy, Oalh..d., AIIM: 

MOCA

.JF I USA Reorulting Cmd, Ft Shsrdlan. 

AIiM : USARCPM—P

I USA Attic Test Ctv. APO Seettis, 

AIIM: STEAC-MDASL I 

Senior Army Mv,, USAFAGODfTAC. 

Eight AF Aim FM No.9

1 USA Artic Test Ct

, AFO Seattle, 

AIIM: AMSIE-PLIS 1 HO USARPAC, DCSPE

R. APO SF 

96558, AT1’N: GPPE-S

E

1 USA Armament Cmd. Redstone 

Arsenel, 

AIIM: ATSK’TEN 1 Stlmson Lib, Madsn.y ci 145.4th Sciences, Ft 

S.c Houston

I USA Armament Cmd, Posit Island, 

AIiM: AA

*5AR-TOC I Marine Corps him., 

AIIM: Dean-MCI

I FAA-NAFEC. Atlintic City, 

AIIM: Librery I HOUSMC. Conwn.ndant, AiTh: Cods MIMI 51

I FAA-NAFEC . Atlantic City, 

AIIM: Hum Engr Sr I HOU

SMC. 

Cominendai’

it. 

AiIM: Code MPI—20

1 FAA Airaneutical Cs,, 

Olilahorne City, 

AIIM: 

AAC .440 2 USCG Academy, Paw 

London, 

AIIM: Athnlaslon

2 USA FM Any Sth , Ft Sill, 

AIIM: LIbrary 2 USGS Academy, New London, 

AIIM: Library

1 USA Armor ScSi, Ft Knot. , AIIM: Library I USGS Trul

ning CV. NY. ATTN: CO

1 USA Armor Salt, Ft Knox, 

AIIM: ATS8-0l-E I USCG 

Trslnlng Ct

,, NY , AIIM: Ethic Sec Oft

I USA Armor ScSi. Ft Knpx, AIIM: 

AIS$.OT.TP I U$CG, 

Ps.dtol Res Sr. 

DC, AT

IN: GP l

~~2

1 USA Armor ScSi, Ft Knox, AIIM: ATSSCD-A0 I HO 

MM-Rutge Sr. MC Des, Quentico, 

AIIM: P~~ 04.

-: 47 

. 

—-

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

_- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I US 

Mim e Corps Usislon Oft, ANC. 

Alexandria, 

AIIM: AMCGS—F I 054 1 

CivIl 

lu st .4 InvIte ~~~~~~~~ Cui~~

1 USATRADOC. Ft Monroe. 

AIIM: ATRO-ED I MR CR55

1, ILJi

~~

’

, 

AIIM: lii. lye I,

B USATRAD

OC, Ft Monroe. 

AIIM: 

A1’PR-AD I MlIlteMSSYbalial* Tna,C.Jf.go’

1 USATRADOC, Ft Monroe. 

AIIM: ATTS-EA I MilItoY A*

~~~~. Fronds Imb

y,

ATTI4: Dcc Sec

I USA Forces Cmd, Ft Mcihu.-.aus, 

AIIM: Library 1 Medscln 

Clisi

. C.1.NP.&-Anisial. To

uIoei/NseeI France

2 USA Aviation Test Sd, Ft Rucker, ATTN: 

STEIG-PO I Ann Identif Is Off, AppI Ilu.Engr Reel. Dlv, Min

istry

I USA Agcy for Miation 

SaIsty, Ft 

Ru~

~

r. 

AIIM: Ubrery ciDelasiss. New 

DelhI

I USA Agcy for Aviation 

Salety, Ft luc

ite,, 

AIIM: Ethic Advisor S.5 Reds Oft Library. AKA, 

larasl Dulirm 

Porosa

I USA Aviation Sd., Ft Rucker. 

AiIM: P0 

o,as r 0 1 MI5IISIi515 vWi Defensis, 000PIKL Md Soclae

l

I HOUSA Aviation 

Sys Cmd, St 

Louis, 

AIIM: AM$AV-ZDR Ps oloPadis 

Zeksn, The 

H55st, 

Netherlands

2 USA Avistiosi lye Ted Act., Edwards AFS, 

AIIM: SAVIE—I

I USA AJ’ Del ScSi, Pt SIlas, AIIM: ATSA TEM

I USA Air Mobility Rich & Dee Lab, Moflett FM, 

AIIM: SAVOL-AS

1 USA Aviation Salt. 

lea Tug togs, Ft Readier, 

AiIM: 

AlIT—I-RIM

I USA Aviation Salt. CO. Ft Stacker. 

AIIM: A1ST-0—A

1 HO, DARC

OM, 

Alexandria. 

AIM: AMXCD-T1.

1 HO. DARCOM . Alexandria, 

AIIM: CDI

1 US Military Academy, West Point, 

AIIM: Serials Unit

I US Military Academy. West Point, 

AIIM: Oft of to

ut LdnI~ 1 US Military Academy, West Point, A TIM: MAOR

1 USA 

Standerdization Go. UK, FF0 NY. 

AiIM: MASS-SC

I Oft of Naval Rid

s, Arlington, Aim: Cods 452

3 Oft of Naval 

Rid.. Arlington. 

AIIM: Cod, 

451

1 Oft of Naval 

Rid., Arlington, 

AIIM: Code 450

I Oft of Metal Rid

., Arl

ington. ATTM: Cods 4A1

1 Naval Aa,ospc toed Has Lab. Pensacola. 

AIIM: Mesas Sd. 04.

I Naval Aaroepc Med Rev Lab, Pensa

cola. 

AIIM: Code L5l

I Naval Mroepc Med Has Lab. Pensa

cola. 

AIIM: Code LB

I CIU5lof Mevpsn

,ATTM: Per$.OR

I NAVAIRSTA. Morfolk. 

AIIM: Slisty CV

I Mae Oceanographic, DC, 

AIIM: Code 8261, Cu t. & Tech

I Canter of Neval Anal. 

AIIM: Dcc CU

I NsvAiv$ytCom, 

AIIM: AIR

-

.53

13C

I Mit liMed. AiIM: 71

3

I NsvHallcoptorSubSOua

2

.~

~

PO SF lNOl

I AFHRL 

(Fl) William AFS

I AFHRL (‘Ii’) Lonry AFS

I AFI4RL (AS) ~~AFS, 

014

2 AFHRL (DOJZ) Brooks 

API

I AFHRL (DOJN) Lacklend MS

I HCJSAF (INYSO)

I 54OUSAF (OPXXA)

1 AFYTO (I

D) Handolult AFS

3 AMRL 

(HE) ~~AFI. OH

- 2 AF Inst of Teds, WPAFS. OH. *1714: ENS/SI.

— I ATC (XPTD) Randolph 

API

1 USAF Aerotoed Lila, Sto

cks API (SUL-4), 

AIIM: DOGlEG

1 AFOSA 

(ML), Atllngtssi

I AF Log Cud. McClellan AFS. 

AIIM: AI

C/OPCRS

I Air Force A di 

y,cO. AT 

N: Deptoflal SeSi

I Mesliro I Dee CV, San Diego

2 Navy Med 

Nsurogoydulstrls lad. (Ml.. Ian Dli.

I Na. 

Electronic Lab, Sen 

Diego, 

AIIM: lea Lab

I New TrniCsn, San Diego. 

AIIM: Cods SOCO

-Ub

I MwPcitGr

~~d

i, M,,

nlsrey. 

Aim: Cede MAe

I MasPcatG

,~

~d

s, Monterey, ATTN: Code 2124

I MssT,ngSqulpCV. Orlando. 

AIIM: Teds Lila

I US Dept of Labor, DC. 

AIIM: 

Manpowar Mvsln

4 1 (5 Dept of 

,batolu. DC, AIIM: Onig 

Inlin e Mvii.

I Net Star of Standards, DC, 

AIiM: Computer Info Section

1 Net Clearing Hoius for MW-info, 

Rookells

1 Denver Federal Ctr, 

Labewood, 

AIIM: SLM

12 Defen Documsntatlon DenW

4 DIr 

Ppyds, Army Hg, Russell 01. Canberra

1 ScientifIc Adw, toll 

Id. Army Hg. Ru

.ell OS.. Canberra

I toll and Air Attache, AueVlan Em

beisy

• 

I Centre de 

Rectiercha Des Fecleuan, Pi

usnalne da Is Deisn

ie

Nationals, Broevok

2 CanadIan Jo

int Staff Washington

I C/Air Staff, Royal Canadian 

AF. Aim: Pen Sd 

AnsI St

3 0.1sf, Canadian Del Rash Staff , Aim: 

C~

~RDS(W)

4 BritIsh Del St

ill, 

BrItIsh Embassy, W4i1.. aas

48

¶ 4-

,

Li ,-.

~~~ 

_____

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

a