Armed Forces 2002 

Sexual Harassment Survey

Information and Technology for Better Decision Making
Additional copies of this report may be obtained from:

Defense Technical Information Center

ATTN: DTIC-BRR

8725 John J. Kingman Rd., Suite #0944

Ft. Belvoir, VA 22060-6218

Or from:

http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/order.html

Ask for report by ADA 419 817
Armed Forces 2002

Sexual

Harassment

Survey

Rachel N. Lipari

Anita R. Lancaster

Defense Manpower Data Center

1600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Virginia 22209

DMDC Report No. 2003-026

November 2003
Acknowledgments

The Defense Manpower Data Center (DMDC) is

indebted to numerous people for their assistance

with the 2002 Status of the Armed Forces: Workplace

and Gender Relations Survey (2002 WGR) which was

conducted for the Office of the Under Secretary of

Defense for Personnel and Readiness (OUSD[P&R]).

DMDC’s survey program is conducted under the

leadership of Anita Lancaster, Assistant Director for

Program Management, and Timothy Elig, Chief of

the Survey and Program Evaluation Division. 

DMDC’s Program Evaluation Branch, under the

guidance of Eric Wetzel, Branch Chief, was responsible for the questionnaire. Important contributors

to survey development include James Love

(ODUSD[EO]) and researchers from the University

of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, including Louise

F. Fitzgerald, Fritz Drasgow, and Alayne J.

Ormerod. 

Members of the Inter-Service Survey Coordinating

Committee were very helpful in providing Servicespecific perspectives and obtaining Service-level

reviews and coordinations. For this, DMDC is

indebted to Charlie Hamilton (Air Force Personnel

Center), Capt John America, USMC (Headquarters,

U.S. Marine Corps), Morris Peterson (Army

Research Institute), and Paul Rosenfeld (Bureau of

Naval Personnel).

Representatives from the Services were invaluable

in helping the authors understand recent updates to

the Services’ equal opportunity programs and policies. DMDC is grateful to Darlene Sullivan (Army),

CDR Leanne Braddock (Navy), Robert Cook (Air

Force), and LT Thomas Sullivan (Coast Guard) for

providing information to use.

DMDC’s Survey Technology Branch, under the

guidance of James Caplan, Branch Chief, was

responsible for survey operations. Elizabeth Willis,

from his staff, developed the dataset and documentation, with additional support provided by Sally

Mohamed (Consortium Research Fellow). Data

Recognition Corporation performed data collection

and preparation for this survey. 

DMDC’s Personnel Survey Branch, under the guidance of Barbara Jane George, Branch Chief, was

responsible for statistical methodology. Bob

Hamilton, Chief of the Programming Branch, and

Carole Massey and Susan Reinhold, from his staff,

supported the sampling and weighting tasks.

Nonresponse analyses and calculation of weights

were performed by Westat.

The authors of this report are beholden to the team

of writers, graphic designers, and editors that supported them throughout this project. A special note

of thanks is due to Lee Howell, Regan Klein, and

Amber Beam (Consortium Research Fellows) and

Donna St. Onge-Walls (SRA).
DEFENSE MANPOWER DATA CENTER iii

The Department of Defense (DoD) conducted

sexual harassment surveys of active-duty members

in the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, Air Force, and

Coast Guard in 1988, 1995, and 2002. This report

provides results for the 2002 Status of Armed Forces:

Workplace and Gender Relations Survey (2002 WGR).

The overall purpose of the 2002 WGR is to document the extent to which Service members reported

experiencing unwanted, uninvited sexual attention

in the 12 months prior to filling out the survey, the

details surrounding those events (e.g., where they

occur), and Service members’ perceptions of the

effectiveness of sexual harassment policies, 

training, and programs. 

Background

The 2002 WGR survey items that measure unprofessional, gender-related behaviors are those required

for use in DoD surveys and are generally referred 

to as the “core measure” (Standardized Survey

Measure of Sexual Harassment, 2002; Survey

Method for Counting Incidents of Sexual Harassment, 2002). These items consist of 19 behaviorally

based items, a write-in item where respondents can

describe other behaviors they experienced, and a

question that asks them if what they experienced

constituted sexual harassment. This report contains

results for five behavioral categories: Crude/

Offensive Behavior, Unwanted Sexual Attention,

Sexual Coercion, Sexist Behavior, and Sexual

Assault. Results for three of these categories—

Crude/Offensive Behavior, Unwanted Sexual

Attention and Sexual Coercion—also were

combined to produce the Department’s 2002 Sexual

Harassment findings. A copy of the survey

instrument is in Appendix A.

Because a similar survey was conducted in 1995,

this report contains 1995 and 2002 comparisons.

Although the 1995 behavioral list was somewhat

longer than that used in 2002, it was possible to

recalculate the 1995 behavioral rates to be parallel to

the method used in calculating the 2002 results. As

in 1995, the 19 behaviorally based items represent a

continuum of unprofessional, gender-related

behaviors—not just sexual harassment. 

The 2002 WGR was fielded between December 2001

and April 2002. Respondents could fill out the

survey via either a paper-and-pencil or Web format.

A total of 19,960 eligible Service members returned

usable survey results and the adjusted, weighted

response rate is 36%. 

Major Findings

How do active-duty Service members’ 2002

reports of unprofessional, gender-related

behavior compare to those obtained in 1995?

Overall, unprofessional, gender-related behaviors

declined significantly between 1995 and 2002. For

the category of Crude/Offensive Behavior (e.g.,

repeatedly told sexual stories or jokes that were

offensive to you?), 63% of women in 1995 checked

one or more of these behaviors on the survey, while

45% did so in 2002, an 18 percentage-point decline.

Men’s rates also declined from 31% in 1995 to 23%

in 2002. 

For the category of Unwanted Sexual Attention

(e.g., continued to ask you for dates, drinks, dinner,

etc., even though you said “No”?), women’s rates

declined from 42% in 1995 to 27% in 2002, a 15

percentage-point decline. Men’s rates were statistically unchanged, with 8% reporting in this category

in 1995, and 5% doing so in 2002. 

For the category of Sexual Coercion (e.g., made you

feel threatened with some sort of retaliation for not

being sexually cooperative—for example, by mentioning an upcoming review?), women’s rates

declined from 13% in 1995, to 8% in 2002. Sexual

Coercion reporting rates for men were low—2% in

1995 and 1% in 2002.

For the category of Sexist Behavior (e.g., made

offensive sexist remarks—for example, suggesting

that people of your gender are not suited for the

kind of work you do?), women’s rates declined

from 63% in 1995, to 50% in 2002, a 13 percentagepoint decline. Men’s rates were statistically

unchanged, with 15% reporting in this category in

1995, and 17% doing so in 2002. 

Executive Summary
iv DEFENSE MANPOWER DATA CENTER

Executive Summary

The Sexual Assault category consists of two

behaviorally worded items that represent attempted

and actual rape. Between 1995 and 2002, women’s

Sexual Assault rates declined from 6% to 3%, while

men’s rates were statistically unchanged—1%

reported in this category in both 1995 and 2002. 

How do the 2002 Sexual Harassment rates

compare to those in 1995?

Overall, the reported rate of Sexual Harassment of

active-duty members declined between 1995 and

2002 for both women (46% vs. 24%) and men (8%

vs. 3%). For women, the Sexual Harassment rate

declined by 16 percentage points or more in each of

the Services. The largest decline occurred for

Marine Corps women, whose rate decreased by 30

percentage points between 1995 and 2002 (57% vs.

27%). For men, there was at least a 4 percentagepoint decline between 1995 and 2002 in each of the

Services, excluding the Coast Guard. 

Other 2002 Findings 

Who indicated they experienced

unprofessional, gender-related behaviors 

in 2002?

Women were more likely than men to indicate

having experiences of unprofessional, genderrelated behaviors. For the Military Services, Air

Force women were least likely and Marine Corps

women were the most likely to indicate having

these experiences. By paygrade, junior enlisted

women were more likely than women of other

paygrade groups to report having experienced

unprofessional, gender-related behaviors. 

Similarly, junior enlisted men were more likely 

than men of other paygrade groups to report

having these experiences. 

Across the five categories of behaviors, women

reported experiencing Sexist Behavior (50%) at 

a higher rate than any other category of unprofessional, gender-related behaviors, although women’s

rates for Crude/Offensive Behavior (45%) were

almost as high. Men reported at higher rates for

Crude/Offensive (23%) than any other type of

behavior, although their rates for Sexist Behavior

(17%) were almost as high. 

With regard to Sexual Harassment, more women

than men reported experiencing these incidents

(24% vs. 3%). Air Force women reported at the lowest rates (18%). Junior enlisted women and men

reported experiencing sexual harassment at rates

higher than other paygrade groups. The rate for

junior enlisted women, however, was six times that

of junior enlisted males (31% vs. 5%). 

With regard to Sexist Behavior, women were far

more likely to report having experiences than men

(50 vs. 17%). For women, Air Force members

reported at the lowest rate (40%) and Marine Corps

women at the highest (64%). For women, junior

enlisted members and junior officers reported having these experiences at higher rates than women in

other paygrades (54% for both junior enlisted and

officers vs. 42-26% for other paygrade groups). 

For Sexual Coercion, more women than men reported experiencing incidents of Sexual Coercion (8%

vs. 1%). Air Force women reported the lowest rates

(4%), compared to women in the other Services—

Army (11%), Navy (10%), and Marine Corps (12%).

Junior enlisted women reported at higher rates

(12%) than women in other paygrade groups. 

Women reported at higher rates (3%) for Sexual

Assault than men (1%). There were no statistically

significant differences across the Military Services.

Junior enlisted women reported the highest rate of

Sexual Assault (5%). 

Who were the offenders?

When asked to specify who the offenders were, 84%

of women and 82% of men indicated the offenders

were other military personnel. Over 60% of women

and men indicated they were military coworkers. 

In terms of the gender of the offender, the majority

of women (85%) reported the gender of the offender

as male(s). Many of the behaviors that women indicated they experienced involved, for example,

Crude/Offensive Behaviors and Sexist Behaviors—

which might have occurred in group situations. On

this survey, 14% of women indicated the offenders

were both men and women. Fifty-one percent of

men reported the offender as one or more males;

this is largely because the majority of men’s
DEFENSE MANPOWER DATA CENTER v

Executive Summary

experiences were in the Crude/Offensive Behavior

category. Twenty-seven percent of men reported

the offenders included both men and women. 

When and where did the unprofessional,

gender-related behaviors occur?

The majority of women and men reported some or

all of the behaviors they experienced occurred during duty hours, at work, and at a military installation. The majority of women (84%) and men (76%)

reported that all or at least some of the behaviors

occurred during duty hours. In addition, 81% of

women and 74% of men reported all or at least

some of the behaviors occurred at work. Similarly,

86% of women and 75% of men reported all or at

least some of the behaviors occurred on or at a

military installation. 

Did Service members report their experiences?

The majority of women (76%) and men (83%)

agreed that their Service’s training made them feel

it is safe to complain about unwanted, sex-related

attention. Thirty percent of women and 17% of men

indicated they reported experiences they had in the

12 months prior to filling out the survey. 

To whom did Service members report their

experiences?

Members experiencing these behaviors most

reported the incidents to members in their chain-ofcommand, such as their immediate supervisor

(women 21%; men 12%), or to the supervisor of the

offender (women 16%; men 10%).

What reasons were cited by Service members

who did not report their experiences?

The majority of women (67%) and men (78%) who

did not report behaviors indicated they did not feel

the situation was important enough to report.

Many (63%) also indicated they “took care of it”

themselves. Among Service members who did not

report behaviors, women were more likely than

men to identify retaliatory behaviors as a reason not

to report. For women vs. men, some examples

include being labeled a troublemaker (29% vs. 19%),

fear of retaliation from the offender (18% vs. 10%),

fear of retaliation from friends of the offender (13%

vs. 8%), and fear of retaliation from their supervisor

(12% vs. 8%).

To what extent were members who said they

reported the behaviors satisfied with the outcome of the complaint process?

Of those who said they reported their experiences,

34% of women and 37% of men were satisfied with

the outcome of their complaint, 32% of women and

39% of men were neither satisfied nor dissatisfied,

while the remaining 34% of women and 24% of men

were dissatisfied. Service members were more likely to be satisfied with the complaint process when

the situation was corrected (Women 92%; Men,

91%), the outcome of the complaint was explained

to them (Women 69%; Men 70%), and some action

was taken against the offender (Women 55%; Men

66%). Women and men (both 48%) were most 

likely to be dissatisfied with the outcome of their

complaint when they thought nothing was done

about it.

Did Service members experience problems at

work as a result of their experiences?

Some did. Overall, 29% of women and 23% of men

who had experienced unprofessional, gender-related behaviors reported experiencing some type of

problem at work as a result of the behaviors or how

they responded to them. However, the problems

experienced were far more likely to be social

reprisals, such as being gossiped about by people in

an unkind way, rather than job-related reprisals,

such as being denied a promotion.

Did Service members report experiences that

could be perceived as sex discrimination?

In an effort to research the overall topic of gender

issues in the workplace, new sex discriminationrelated items (e.g., you were rated lower than you

deserved on your last performance evaluation and

your gender was a factor) were fielded in the 2002

WGR. Similar to the other 5 categories of behaviors

measured in the 2002 WGR, these 12 items were

behaviorally stated and members were asked if they

had experienced them in the 12 months prior to taking the survey. The vast majority of women (82%)
vi DEFENSE MANPOWER DATA CENTER

Executive Summary

and men (93%) reported they did not experience

these behaviors. 

Had Service members received training on

topics related to sexual harassment and, if so,

what was their opinion of the effectiveness of

the training?

The majority of women (77%) and men (79%)

reported receiving sexual harassment training at

least once in the 12 months prior to taking the survey. Junior enlisted members reported receiving the

most training. When asked to assess the effectiveness of training, 90% of women and men agreed

their training provided a good understanding of

what words and actions are considered sexual

harassment. Similarly, 92% of women and men

agreed their training identified behaviors that are

offensive to others and should not be tolerated, and

83% of women and 84% of men agreed that the

training they received provided useful tools for

dealing with sexual harassment.

What were Service members’ opinions of the

availability of information on sexual harassment policies and procedures, and the extent to

which complaints were taken seriously? 

At both the unit/work group and installation/ship

level, over 90% of Service members indicated policies forbidding, and complaint procedures related

to sexual harassment were publicized, and that

complaints about sexual harassment were taken

seriously, no matter who files them. In the section

of the survey, however, where those who had experienced behaviors could report on the details of one

experience, only 44% of women and 42% of men

were satisfied with the availability of information

about how to file a complaint. Junior enlisted

women were less satisfied than women in other

paygrades with the availability of information on

how to file a complaint. 

What did Service members think of their leadership’s efforts to stop sexual harassment?

Overall, Service member’s assessments of their

leaders’ efforts have improved since 1995. In 2002,

the majority of Service members agreed that their

immediate leaders (75%), their installation/ship

leaders (75%), and their Service leadership (74%)

were making honest and reasonable efforts to stop

sexual harassment. Similar to findings from 1995,

women’s assessments of their leaders were less

favorable than men; however, in 2002, the difference

between women’s and men’s assessments of their

leaders narrowed. 

Summary

The 2002 WGR survey findings are encouraging.

These results indicate a decline, between 1995 and

2002, in Service members’ experiences of unprofessional, gender-related behaviors. The percentage of

women reporting incidents of Sexual Harassment

decreased from 46% to 24%—a 22 percentage-point

decline. Reports of Sexual Assault by women

declined from 6% to 3%, and reports of perceived

sex discrimination, measured and reported for the

first time, were low. The survey results indicated

Service members were receiving training, they

understood sexual harassment policies and the

behaviors that constitute sexual harassment, and

their ratings of their leaders for making honest and

reasonable efforts to stop sexual harassment were

significantly higher in 2002 than in 1995. 

Large-scale surveys such as the 2002 WGR are

designed to provide periodic benchmarks against

which to measure progress. The 2002 survey results

indicate that Defense officials and military leaders

have taken the issue of sexual harassment seriously

and significant improvements have occurred since

1995. Effective leadership (e.g., effective behaviors

are modeled for others) and organizational climate

(e.g., sexual harassment is not tolerated; offenders

are punished) are the strongest predictors of

whether or not sexual harassment will occur in any

particular location. While the Military Services,

overall, have made great advances in combating

sexual harassment, it is clear that there are still

some locations where it is still occurring. Finding

those locations and taking corrective actions are

logical follow-on actions to this survey effort.
DEFENSE MANPOWER DATA CENTER vii

Executive Summary......................................................................................................................................................iii

Background ..........................................................................................................................................................iii

Major Findings ....................................................................................................................................................iii

Other 2002 Findings............................................................................................................................................iii

Summary ..............................................................................................................................................................vi

Chapter 1 Introduction..............................................................................................................................................1

Chapter 2 Survey Methodology.............................................................................................................................5

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

Sample Design ........................................................................................................................................5

Survey Administration..........................................................................................................................5

Data Weighting.......................................................................................................................................5

Questionnaire Design ............................................................................................................................5

Analytic Procedures .............................................................................................................................................8

Subgroups................................................................................................................................................8

Estimation Procedures...........................................................................................................................8

Presentation of Results ..........................................................................................................................8

Chapter 3 Unprofessional, Gender-Related Behaviors and Sexual Harassment...............................11

Unprofessional, Gender-Related Behavior .....................................................................................................11

By Service ..............................................................................................................................................12

By Paygrade ..........................................................................................................................................14

Sexual Harassment.............................................................................................................................................16

By Service ..............................................................................................................................................16

By Paygrade ..........................................................................................................................................16

Summary..............................................................................................................................................................17

Sexist Behavior .....................................................................................................................................17

Crude/Offensive Behavior .................................................................................................................17

Unwanted Sexual Attention ...............................................................................................................18

Sexual Coercion ....................................................................................................................................18

Sexual Assault.......................................................................................................................................18

Sexual Harassment...............................................................................................................................18

Chapter 4 One Situation .........................................................................................................................................21

Behaviors Experienced in the One Situation..................................................................................................21

Types of Behaviors in One Situation.................................................................................................21

Frequency of Experiences ...................................................................................................................23

Characteristics of the Offenders .......................................................................................................................24

Gender of Offenders ............................................................................................................................24

Table of Contents

Page
viii DEFENSE MANPOWER DATA CENTER

Table of Contents

Organizational Affiliation of Offenders............................................................................................24

Military Status of Offenders in the One Situation ..........................................................................26

Civilian Status of the Offenders in the One Situation....................................................................27

Characteristics of the One Situation ................................................................................................................28

Place and Time One Situation Occurred ..........................................................................................28

Frequency and Duration of Incidents Concerning Sexual Harassment ......................................30

Reporting and Satisfaction With Reporting Process .....................................................................................30

To Whom Behaviors Are Reported....................................................................................................30

Reasons for Not Reporting Behaviors...............................................................................................33

Reasons for Not Reporting Behaviors by Reporting Category.....................................................35

Satisfaction With Reporting Process..................................................................................................37

The Complaint Process ......................................................................................................................................37

Satisfaction With Complaint Outcome .............................................................................................37

Complaint Outcome ............................................................................................................................37

Problems at Work ...............................................................................................................................................38

Summary..............................................................................................................................................................39

Types of Behaviors in One Situation by Year, Service, and Paygrade .........................................39

Gender of Offenders by Year, Service, and Paygrade.....................................................................39

Organizational Affiliation of Offenders by Year, Service, and Paygrade ....................................39

Military Offenders by Service and Paygrade ..................................................................................39

Civilian Offenders by Service and Paygrade...................................................................................39

Place and Time of Occurrence of One Situation..............................................................................40

Frequency and Duration of Incidents Concerning Sexual Harassment ......................................40

Reporting Behaviors for the One Situation......................................................................................40

To Whom Behaviors in the One Situation Are Reported...............................................................40

Reasons for Not Reporting Behaviors in One Situation ................................................................41

Satisfaction With Reporting Process..................................................................................................41

Satisfaction With Complaint Outcome .............................................................................................41

Problems at Work.................................................................................................................................41

Chapter 5 Perceptions of Sex Discrimination.................................................................................................43

Perceptions of Sex Discrimination ...................................................................................................................43

Overall Rate ..........................................................................................................................................43

Summary..............................................................................................................................................................45

Evaluation .............................................................................................................................................45

Assignment ...........................................................................................................................................45

Career.....................................................................................................................................................45

Chapter 6 Personnel Policies, Practices, and Training Related to Gender Relations ......................47

Sexual Harassment Climate..............................................................................................................................47

Proactive Leadership ...........................................................................................................................48

Leadership Objectives .........................................................................................................................52

Sexual Harassment Policies and Practices .......................................................................................53

Sexual Harassment Support and Resources ....................................................................................54
DEFENSE MANPOWER DATA CENTER ix

Table of Contents

Extent of Sexual Harassment Training............................................................................................................55

Organizational Training Requirements.............................................................................................57

Effectiveness of Sexual Harassment Training..................................................................................58

Summary..............................................................................................................................................................63

Sexual Harassment Climate................................................................................................................63

Leadership Objectives .........................................................................................................................63

Sexual Harassment Policies and Practices .......................................................................................64

Sexual Harassment Support and Resources ....................................................................................64

Sexual Harassment Training...............................................................................................................64

Organizational Training Requirements.............................................................................................65

Effectiveness of Sexual Harassment Training..................................................................................65

Chapter 7 Assessment of Progress ......................................................................................................................67

Prevalence of Sexual Harassment in the Military Over Time .....................................................................67

Sexual Harassment as a Problem in the Military ..........................................................................................69

Sexual Harassment as a Problem in the Nation ............................................................................................70

Military/Civilian Comparisons........................................................................................................................71

Summary..............................................................................................................................................................72

Prevalence of Sexual Harassment in the Military Over Time .......................................................72

Sexual Harassment as a Problem in the Military............................................................................73

Sexual Harassment as a Problem in the Nation ..............................................................................73

Military/Civilian Comparisons .........................................................................................................74

References........................................................................................................................................................................75

Appendix A Status of the Armed Forces Surveys - Workplace and Gender Relations 

(Form 2002GB) ..................................................................................................................................77

Appendix B Standardized Survey Measure of Sexual Harassment.......................................................95

Appendix C Survey Method For Counting Incidents of Sexual Harassment ..................................119

DEFENSE MANPOWER DATA CENTER xi

3.1 Percentage of Females Who Reported Experiencing Unprofessional, Gender-Related 

Behaviors in 1995 and 2002, by Service.......................................................................................................13

3.2 Percentage of Males Who Reported Experiencing Unprofessional, Gender-Related 

Behaviors in 1995 and 2002, by Service.......................................................................................................13

3.3 Percentage of Females Who Reported Experiencing Unprofessional, Gender-Related 

Behaviors in 1995 and 2002, by Paygrade ..................................................................................................14

3.4 Percentage of Males Who Reported Experiencing Unprofessional, Gender-Related 

Behaviors in 1995 and 2002, by Paygrade ..................................................................................................15

4.1 Percentage of Females and Males Who Experienced Behavior in One Situation in 2002, 

by Service.........................................................................................................................................................23

4.2 Percentage of Females and Males Who Experienced Behavior in One Situation in 2002, 

by Paygrade.....................................................................................................................................................23

4.3 Percentage of Females and Males Reporting Offenders as Males, Females, or Both in 1995 

and 2002, by Service.......................................................................................................................................25

4.4 Percentage of Females and Males Reporting Offenders as Males, Females, or Both in 1995 and 

2002, by Paygrade...........................................................................................................................................25

4.5 Percentage of Females and Males Reporting All of the Behaviors Occurred at a Particular 

Time or Location, by Service.........................................................................................................................27

4.6 Percentage of Females and Males Indicating Reasons for Not Reporting the Behaviors, 

by Category Reporting ..................................................................................................................................27

4.7 Percentage of Females and Males Reporting Where and When the Situation Occurred 

in 1995...............................................................................................................................................................29

4.8 Percentage of Females and Males Reporting All of the Behaviors Occurred at a Particular 

Time or Location, by Service.........................................................................................................................29

4.9 Percentage of Females and Males Reporting All of the Behaviors Occurred at a Particular 

Time or Location, by Paygrade ....................................................................................................................31

4.10 Percentage of Females and Males Reporting Frequency of Behaviors During One Situation, 

by Paygrade.....................................................................................................................................................32

4.11 Percentage of Females and Males Reporting Duration of the Situation, by Paygrade ...........................32

4.12 Percentage of Females and Males Indicating Reasons for Not Reporting the Behaviors, 

by Reporting Category ..................................................................................................................................34

4.13 Percentage of Females and Males Reporting Satisfaction and Dissatisfaction, by Complaint 

Outcome...........................................................................................................................................................35

4.14 Percentage of Females and Males Who Reported Experiencing Problems at Work, by Service ...........36

4.15 Summary of Characteristics of One Situation................................................................................................38

5.1 Percentage of Females and Males Experiencing Adverse Behaviors, by Service.....................................44

5.2 Percentage of Females and Males Experiencing Adverse Behaviors, by Paygrade.................................45

List of Tables

Page
xii DEFENSE MANPOWER DATA CENTER

List of Tables

6.1 Percentage of Females and Males Indicating Whether Leaders Made Honest and 

Reasonable Efforts to Stop Sexual Harassment in 1995 and 2002, by Service ......................................50

6.2 Percentage of Females and Males Indicating Whether Leaders Made Honest and 

Reasonable Efforts to Stop Sexual Harassment in 1995 and 2002, by Paygrade ..................................51

6.3 Percentage of Gender Perceptions of Leadership Behaviors in Units and on Installations ...................52

6.4 Percentage of Females and Males Indicating Policy and Practices are in Place in Units and 

Installations .....................................................................................................................................................54

6.5 Percentage of Females and Males Indicating Specific Office and Hotline Exist ......................................55

6.6 Percentage of Females and Males Who Received Sexual Harassment Training and 

Average Times Trained in 1995 and 2002, by Service ...............................................................................58

6.7 Percentage of Females and Males Receiving Sexual Harassment Training in Military 

for 1995 and 2002, by Paygrade....................................................................................................................58

6.8 Percentage of Females and Males Indicating Training Required for Enlisted and Officers 

in Units and Installations ..............................................................................................................................59

6.9 Percentage of Females and Males Who Agree That Aspects of Their Service Training 

are Effective .....................................................................................................................................................60

7.1 Percentage of Females and Males Comparing Frequency of Sexual Harassment in the 

Military With a Few Years Ago for 1995 and 2002, by Service................................................................68

7.2 Percentage of Females and Males Comparing Frequency of Sexual Harassment in the 

Military With a Few Years Ago, by Paygrade............................................................................................69

7.3 Percentage of Females and Males Indicating Level of Sexual Harassment in the Military 

Over Last Four Years, by Service .................................................................................................................70

7.4 Percentage of Females and Males Indicating Level of Sexual Harassment in the Military 

Over Last Four Years, by Paygrade .............................................................................................................70

7.5 Percentage of Females and Males Indicating Level of Sexual Harassment in Nation Over 

Last Four Years, by Service ...........................................................................................................................71

7.6 Percentage of Females and Males Indicating Level of Sexual Harassment in Nation Over 

Last Four Years, by Paygrade .......................................................................................................................72

7.7 Percentage of Females and Males Indicating Level of Sexual Harassment More of a Problem 

Inside or Outside Military, by Service.........................................................................................................72

7.8 Percentage of Females and Males Indicating Level of Sexual Harassment More of a Problem 

Inside or Outside Military, by Paygrade.....................................................................................................73
DEFENSE MANPOWER DATA CENTER xiii

3.1 Survey Measure of Sexual Harassment and Unprofessional, Gender-Related Behavior........................11

3.2 Percentage of Females and Males Who Reported Experiencing Unprofessional, 

Gender-Related Behaviors in 1995 and 2002..............................................................................................12

3.3 Percentage of Females and Males Who Reported Experiencing Sexual Harassment 

in 1995 and 2002, by Service .........................................................................................................................16

3.4 Percentage of Females and Males Who Reported Experiencing Sexual Harassment 

in 1995 and 2002, by Paygrade .....................................................................................................................17

4.1 Percentage of Females and Males Filling Out One Situation in 1995 and 2002 .......................................21

4.2 Percentage of Females and Males Reporting Each Type of Behavior in One Situation 

in 1995 and 2002..............................................................................................................................................22

4.3 Percentage of Females and Males Reporting a Single Category of Behavior or Multiple 

Categories of Behaviors in One Situation in 2002 .....................................................................................22

4.4 Percentage of Females and Males Reporting Offenders as Males, Females, or Both 

in 1995 and 2002..............................................................................................................................................24

4.5 Percentage of Females and Males Reporting Offenders as Military, Civilian, or Both 

in 1995 and 2002..............................................................................................................................................26

4.6 Percentage of Females and Males Reporting Where and When the Situation Occurred 

in 2002...............................................................................................................................................................28

4.7 Percentage of Females and Males Reporting Frequency of Behavior During One Situation.................31

4.8 Percentage of Females and Males Reporting Duration of the Situation....................................................32

4.9 Percentage of Females and Males Reporting Behavior in One Situation to Any Supervisor 

or Person Responsible for Follow-up in 1995 and 2002 ...........................................................................33

4.10 Top Five Reasons for Not Reporting Any or All Behaviors in One Situation, by Gender 

(Percent) ...........................................................................................................................................................33

4.11 Percentage of Females and Males Reporting Satisfaction With Complaint Outcome 

in 1995 and 2002..............................................................................................................................................35

4.12 Percentage of Females and Males Who Experienced Any Type of Problems...........................................36

4.13 Percentage of Females and Males Who Experienced Any Type of Problem at Work, 

by Paygrade.....................................................................................................................................................37

5.1 Percentage of Females and Males Experiencing Any Behaviors ................................................................44

6.1 Average Assessment of Sexual Harassment Climate, by Service and Gender .........................................47

6.2 Average Assessment of Sexual Harassment Climate, by Paygrade and Gender .....................................48

6.3 Percentage of Service Members Indicating Whether Leaders Made Honest and 

Reasonable Efforts to Stop Sexual Harassment in 1995 and 2002...........................................................49

6.4 Percentage of Females and Males Who Received Sexual Harassment Training and 

Average Times Trained in 2002, by Service ................................................................................................56

List of Figures

Page
xiv DEFENSE MANPOWER DATA CENTER

List of Figures

6.5 Percentage of Females and Males Who Received Sexual Harassment Training and 

Average Times Trained in 2002, by Paygrade ............................................................................................57

6.6 Percentage of Females and Males Who Agree That Sexual Harassment Training Provides 

a Good Understanding of Sexual Harassment, by Paygrade..................................................................61

6.7 Percentage of Females and Males Who Agree That Sexual Harassment Training Explains 

the Effects of Sexual Harassment on Their Service, by Paygrade...........................................................61

6.8 Percentage of Females and Males Who Agree That Sexual Harassment Training Provides 

the Tools and Policies Necessary for Managing Sexual Harassment, by Paygrade ............................62

6.9 Percentage of Females and Males Who Agree That Sexual Harassment Training Creates 

a Safe Complaint Reporting Climate, by Paygrade ..................................................................................62

7.1 Percentage of Females and Males Comparing Frequency of Sexual Harassment in the 

Military With a Few Years Ago for 1995 and 2002 ....................................................................................67

7.2 Percentage of Females and Males Indicating Level of Sexual Harassment in the Military 

Over Last Four Years......................................................................................................................................69

7.3 Percentage of Females and Males Indicating Level of Sexual Harassment in Nation 

Over Last Four Years......................................................................................................................................71
DEFENSE MANPOWER DATA CENTER 1

This report provides results for the gender issues

section of the 2002 Status of the Armed Forces:

Workplace and Gender Relations Survey (2002 WGR),

also known as the sexual harassment survey. The

Department of Defense (DoD) has conducted three

sexual harassment surveys of active-duty members

in the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, Air Force and

Coast Guard—in 1988, 1995, and 2002. The overall

purpose of these surveys has been to measure the

extent to which Service members report experiencing unwanted, uninvited sexual attention, the

details surrounding those events (e.g., where they

occur), and Service members’ perceptions of the

effectiveness of sexual harassment policies and

training programs. This chapter provides a

historical perspective of DoD’s efforts to measure

sexual harassment. 

Department of Defense Sexual

Harassment Research

In January 1988, a DoD Task Force on Women in the

military recommended that the DoD conduct its

own sexual harassment survey of active-duty

Service members inasmuch as DoD-wide incidence

rates of sexual harassment among active-duty

women had never been examined. The Defense

Manpower Data Center (DMDC) completed this

survey in the 1988-89 timeframe.

The DoD 1988 survey was modeled after the previous surveys conducted by the Merit Systems

Protection Board (MSPB). In one section that was

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

if they had experienced “unwanted, uninvited

whistles, hoots or yells of a sexual nature,”

“unwanted, uninvited pressure for dates,”

“unwanted, uninvited pressure for sexual favors,”

“actual or attempted rape or sexual assault,” and so

on. The label “sexual harassment” was not used,

just behavioral statements. It was from this list that

the overall incidence rates were calculated for the

Department. The DoD survey also asked respondents their opinions of policies, programs, and leaders and, for those who had experienced unwanted

sexual attention in the last 12 months, it asked them

to describe in detail the incident that had the greatest effect on them. It was from these detailed

reports that important information was gleaned

(e.g., who the offenders were, what formal actions

were taken, what effect those actions had)

(Martindale, 1990).

In 1994, the Under Secretary of Defense for

Personnel and Readiness tasked DMDC to update

the survey and re-administer it. Updating the survey accomplished two important objectives:

addressing new policy concerns and incorporating

recent advances in the understanding and measurement of sexual harassment. This new survey was

then administered in 1995.

The 1995 survey, entitled Status of the Armed Forces

Surveys: Gender Issues, incorporated recent psychometric and theoretical advances in sexual harassment research. Survey items measuring sexual

harassment were largely based on work by

Fitzgerald and her colleagues and were modeled

after the Sexual Experiences Questionnaire (SEQ)

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

widely used and is generally considered the best

instrument available for assessing sexual harassment experiences (Arvey & Cavanaugh, 1995).

In addition to providing an estimate of the level of

sexual harassment in the Services, the 1995 survey

also was designed to provide information on a

variety of potential antecedents and consequences

of harassment. These measures were intended to

increase our understanding of the phenomenon so

effective preventative methods could be developed. 

Chapter 1

Introduction
2 DEFENSE MANPOWER DATA CENTER

Introduction

Standardization of Measurement of

Sexual Harassment on DoD Personnel

Surveys

In 1998, the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense

for Equal Opportunity asked DMDC to host a JointService working group to develop a standardized

approach for measuring sexual harassment on personnel surveys. The need for standardized research

approaches surfaced when the Department released

findings from its 1995 sexual harassment survey

and senior DoD officials and members of Congress

became aware that sexual harassment rates on DoDwide surveys were considerably higher than rates

reported from Service-specific surveys. 

Work on this project began in November 1998 and

culminated in the issuance of DoD policy guidance

in 2002 (see Appendix B & C). These two memoranda require the use of a specific sexual harassment survey measurement approach and a specific

method of counting those who report having

experiences. 

The standardized or “core measure” consists of 19

behaviorally based items that represent a continuum of unprofessional, gender-related behaviors—

not just sexual harassment—and an open item for

write-in responses of “other gender-related behaviors.” The continuum of behaviors includes items

that comprise sexual harassment, sexist behavior

(e.g., treated you differently because of your sex?),

and sexual assault (e.g., attempted and actual rape).

The sexual harassment items are divided into three

types and are consistent with what our legal system

has defined as sexual harassment. The three types

are crude and offensive behaviors (e.g., repeatedly told

sexual stories or jokes that were offensive to you?),

unwanted sexual attention (e.g., continued to ask you

for dates, drinks, dinner, etc., even though you said

‘No?’) and sexual coercion (e.g., implied faster promotions or better treatment if you were sexually

cooperative?). In addition to marking items on the

behavioral list, survey respondents are asked if they

considered the behaviors they checked to have been

sexual harassment or not. To be “counted” as sexually harassed, a respondent must have checked one

or more behavioral items in the three sexual harassment categories described above and they must

have indicated that some or all of what they

checked constituted sexual harassment. For more

information, see Appendix C.

Equal Opportunity Surveys 

During the 1990s, there had been interest by

Congress in conducting DoD EO surveys, Section

561 of the National Defense Authorization Act of

2003 requires the Secretary of Defense to “carry out

four quadrennial surveys (each in a separate year)

in accordance with this section to identify and

assess racial and ethnic issues and discrimination,

and to identify and assess gender issues and discrimination, among members of the Armed Forces.” 

These surveys, which will enable the Department of

Defense to track EO trends in future years, will be

fielded and analyzed by DMDC as part of the

Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and

Readiness’ Human Resources Strategic Assessment

Program. In accordance with the 2003 legal requirement, plans call for these surveys to be fielded on

the following schedule: 2004 Sexual Harassment

Survey—Reserves; 2005 Equal Opportunity

Survey—Active Duty; 2006 Equal Opportunity

Survey—Reserves; and 2007 Sexual Harassment

Survey—Active Duty. 

In addition to using personnel surveys to inform

sexual harassment issues, the Department also fielded one Joint-Service survey of racial/ethnic harassment and discrimination from September 1996

through February 1997. This survey was titled

Status of the Forces Survey 1996 Armed Forces Equal

Opportunity Survey (Form D). This survey assessed

Service members’ perception of fair treatment and

equal opportunity. It contained behaviorally

worded items that were used to measure insensitive, discriminatory, harassing and violent

racial/ethnic interactions that occurred to Service

members and their families in the 12 months prior

to filling out the survey. The survey also contained

items that measured satisfaction with equal opportunity policies and practices, the complaint process,

etc. As noted above, plans call for this survey to be

administered to active-duty members in 2005, and

for the first time, to Reservists in 2006.
DEFENSE MANPOWER DATA CENTER 3

Introduction

Department of Defense and

Civilian Sector Sexual

Harassment Research

The last decade has seen a virtual explosion in

research on sexual harassment in both military and

civilian settings. Although in-depth research on

sexual harassment began as early as 1985, over

1,000 articles on sexual harassment were published

between 1992 and 2002, compared to slightly more

than 200 for all previous years combined, according

to an examination of Psychlit, a psychology 

research tool. 

In 1994, the Defense Manpower Data Center chose

to ground its sexual harassment research on the

body of work conducted by scientists at the

University of Illinois-Urbana Champaign

(Fitzgerald, et al., 1988). Their research has shown

that many women experience sexual harassment in

the workplace, those who experience it suffer negative consequences (e.g., health, psychological wellbeing), and that leaders/organizations are responsible for the occurrence of sexual harassment and its

consequences. A thorough discussion of this theoretical model and associated issues can be found in

Fitzgerald, Drasgow, Hulin, Gelfand and Magley

(1997), Lancaster (1999), and Fitzgerald,

Collingsworth & Harned (2001). 

Since the mid-1990s, researchers at DMDC and the

University of Illinois-Urbana Champaign have

applied civilian sector sexual harassment research

methods to research with the active-duty military

population. The earlier cited theoretical model, as

well as other research issues, have now been validated for the military population and there is

empirical evidence that what is known about sexual

harassment in the civilian sector is also true for

active-duty military members—that tolerance of

sexual harassment by military leaders and managers are antecedents or precursors to sexual

harassment and that those who experience harassment suffer negative outcomes (e.g., are more likely

to want to leave the military, experience health and

psychological problems). A discussion of the application of military data to this model can be found in

Williams, Fitzgerald, and Drasgow (1999). 

The Department of Defense’s sexual harassment

research, modeled originally on civilian sector

research, is now providing researchers with robust

datasets to analyze issues (e.g., reprisal, severity of

experiences) that will inform our understanding of

sexual harassment in the workplace. In addition,

other countries, such as Australia, have modeled

their military sexual harassment efforts after those

of DMDC—and research conducted in those countries also are providing insights into this serious

social issue (Holden & Davis, 2001). 

DEFENSE MANPOWER DATA CENTER 5

This chapter describes the methodology used for

the 2002 WGR and the analytic procedures used in

preparing this report. The first section explains the

survey and sample design, survey administration,

and data weighting for the survey. The second

section describes the scales, analytic subgroups, and

estimation procedures used in this report. 

Survey Design and

Administration

Sample Design

A single-stage, stratified random sample of 60,415

Service members was used for 2002 WGR. The

population of interest for the survey consisted of all

active-duty members of the Army, Navy, Marine

Corps, Air Force, and Coast Guard, below the rank

of admiral or general, with at least 6 months of

active-duty service. 

The sampling frame was stratified by Service, gender, paygrade, race/ethnicity, and a measure of

occupational tempo as an indicator of how likely

the member was to be deployed. In addition to

these stratification variables, the sample design also

considered geographic location. Further details of

the sample design are reported by Elig (2003). 

Survey Administration

Data were collected by mail and Web1 with procedures designed to maximize response rates.

Beginning on December 10, 2001, a notification letter explaining the survey and soliciting participation was sent to sample members. The introductory

letter was followed on December 26, 2001, by a

package containing the questionnaire. Approximately 2 weeks later, a third letter was sent to 

thank individuals who had already returned the

questionnaire and to ask those who had not

completed and returned the survey to do so. At

approximately 2 weeks and 6 weeks after the

reminder/thank you letter mailing, second and

third questionnaires, with letters stressing the

importance of the survey, were mailed to individuals who had not responded to previous mailings.

The field closed on April 23, 2002. Details on survey administration are reported by Willis, Lipari,

and Mohamed (2002).

Data Weighting

A total of 19,960 eligible members returned usable

surveys. Data were weighted to reflect the active

duty population as of December 2001. A three-step

process was used to produce final weights. The

first step calculated base weights to compensate for

variable probabilities of selection. The second step

adjusted the base weights for nonresponse due to

inability to determine the eligibility status of the

sampled member and to the sampled member failing to return a survey. Finally, the nonresponseadjusted weights were raked to force estimates to

known population totals as of the start of data collection (December 2001). The responses represent

an adjusted weighted response rate of 36%.

Complete details of weighting and response rates

are reported by Flores-Cervantes, Valliant, Harding,

and Bell (2003) and Willis, Lipari, and Mohamed

(2002).

Questionnaire Design

The 2002 WGR is the third active-duty sexual

harassment study conducted in the Department of

Defense (DoD). The Defense Manpower Data

Center (DMDC) conducted the first Joint-Service,

active-duty sexual harassment survey in 1988-89

(Martindale, 1990). The second survey effort

Chapter 2

Survey Methodology

1Except for the first notification letter, each letter included an invitation to the respondent to take the survey on the Web, rather than

completing the paper version of the survey. Twenty-five percent of female respondents and 32% of male respondents completed the

Web version of the survey.
6 DEFENSE MANPOWER DATA CENTER

Survey Methodology

occurred in 1994-95. At that time, DMDC fielded

three surveys (Forms A, B, and C). One survey, Form

A, replicated the 1988 DoD Survey of Sex Roles in the

Active Duty Military. The second, Form B, represented a complete redesign of the approach to inquiring

about sexual harassment (Department of Defense 1995

Sexual Harassment Survey [CD ROM], 1997). The

third, Form C, was designed as a linking form, to

provide a way of equating the sexual harassment

rate found in Form A with that of Form B. 

The 1995 Form B differed from the 1988 survey (and

the 1995 Form A) in three major ways. It provided:

(1) an expanded list of potential unprofessional,

gender-related behaviors that survey respondents

could report that was based on extensive psychometric work; (2) an opportunity, for the first time, to

report on experiences that occurred outside normal

duty hours, not at work, and off the base, ship, or

installation; and, (3) measures of service members’

perceptions of complaint processing, reprisal, and

training (Bastian, Lancaster, and Reyst, 1996).

Survey items measuring sexual harassment in 1995

Form B were largely based on work by Fitzgerald

and were modeled after the Sexual Experiences

Questionnaire (SEQ) developed by Fitzgerald, et al.

(1988). The SEQ is widely used and is generally

considered the best instrument available for assessing sexual harassment experiences (Arvey and

Cavanaugh, 1995).

The 2002 WGR was based on the 1995 Form B questionnaire and incorporated further psychometric

and theoretical advances in sexual harassment

research. A copy of the 16-page, 90-item questionnaire is provided in Appendix A.

The survey assessed several areas including (1)

types, frequency, and effects of unprofessional,

gender-related behavior and sexual harassment; 

(2) circumstances under which experiences

occurred; and (3) perceptions of discriminatory

behaviors. In addition to the sexual harassment

information, the survey asked for demographics

and information on several outcomes that might be

affected by the military climate. These outcomes

include physiological and psychological well-being

and workplace characteristics and work attitudes.

Multiple item scales were constructed where possible to measure the constructs of interest. For details

of the psychometric analyses used to confirm the

properties of the measures, please see Ormerod et

al. (2003).

Unprofessional, gender-related behaviors. To assess

the prevalence of sexual harassment and other

unprofessional, gender-related behaviors, the

Department used a standard series of questions

referred to as the Department’s Core Measure of

Sexual Harassment, which is derived from two

questions. The first, Question 55, consists of 19

behavioral items, which are intended to represent a

continuum of unprofessional, gender-related behaviors—not just sexual harassment—along with an

open item for write-in responses of “other genderrelated behaviors.” In Question 55, respondents are

asked to indicate how often they have been in situations involving these behaviors. The response scale

is a five-point frequency scale ranging from

“Never” to “Very often.” 

The counting algorithm for reporting incident rates

for any of the individual categories of unprofessional, gender-related behaviors is a single-step process.

More specifically, did the individual indicate experiencing at least one of the behaviors indicative of a

category at least once (response options “Once or

twice” to “Very often”) in the previous 12 months.

The categories and corresponding items are as follows: Sexist Behavior (Q55b,d,g,i), Crude/Offensive

Behavior (Q55a,c,e,f), Unwanted Sexual Attention

(Q55h,j,m,n), Sexual Coercion (Q55k,l,o,p), and

Sexual Assault (Q55q,r). 

The counting algorithm for the DoD Sexual

Harassment Incident Rate is a two-step process.

First, the respondent indicates experiencing any of

122 sexual harassment behaviors at least once in

past 12 months; and second, indicates that at least

some of the behaviors experienced were sexual

harassment. In order to be counted as having

experienced sexual harassment, the respondent

2Two types of unprofessional, gender-related behavior are not included in the calculation of the Sexual Harassment rate: Sexist Behavior

and Sexual Assault. Sexist Behavior is considered a precursor to sexual harassment. In contrast, Sexual Assault is a criminal offense and

exceeds the definition of sexual harassment.
DEFENSE MANPOWER DATA CENTER 7

Survey Methodology

must have experienced one of the following types

of unprofessional, gender-related behavior:

Crude/Offensive Behavior, Unwanted Sexual

Attention, or Sexual Coercion AND indicated in

Question 56 that she/he considered any of the

behaviors experienced as sexual harassment. The

12 sexual harassment behaviors included in

Crude/Offensive Behavior, Unwanted Sexual

Attention, and Sexual Coercion are consistent with

what our legal system has defined as sexual harassment (i.e., behaviors that could lead to a hostile

work environment, others that represent quid pro

quo harassment, etc.). 

The 19 behavioral items were shortened from the 25

items used in the 1995 survey. Over a 2-year developmental process, DMDC staff and Service representatives on the Inter-Service Survey Coordinating

Committee (ISSCC) worked on revising the 1995

survey. A pilot study was conducted to further

improve the measure of unprofessional, genderrelated behaviors by shortening and standardizing

the measure and improving the measure of sexist

behavior (Ormerod et al. 2000). 

Characteristics of unprofessional, gender-related

behaviors. By examining specific occurrences, this

survey sought to identify circumstances that correspond to the most commonly occurring unprofessional, gender-related behaviors in the Services. To

obtain this level of detail, Service members who

experienced unprofessional, gender-related behavior were asked to think about the one situation, 12

months prior to filling out the survey, which had

the greatest effect on them. 

A series of questions pertaining to this event were

then presented in order to gather specific details

about the circumstances that surrounded the experience. These details provide answers to questions

such as: 

• What were the unprofessional, gender-related

experiences Service members reported had

occurred during the situation that had the greatest effect? 

• Who were the offenders? 

• Where did the experiences occur? 

• How often did the situation occur? 

• How long has the situation been going on? 

• Was the situation reported, and if so, to whom? 

• Were there any repercussions from reporting the

incident? 

Perceptions of sex discrimination behaviors. A new

question was incorporated into the 2002 WGR to

address discrimination as a construct separate from

sexual harassment. The 12 items comprising

Question 54 were designed to be indicative of

unprofessional, discriminatory behaviors or situations that could occur in a military environment. To

assess perceptions of discrimination in the workplace, Service members were asked to indicate if

they had recently experienced any of the 12 behaviors or situations. In addition, Service members

were asked to indicate if they thought gender was a

motivating factor. Question 54 used a three-level

response scale, which was designed to give Service

members the opportunity to differentiate between

discrimination in the workplace (non-gender-based)

and gender-based discrimination.

The items form three factors: Evaluation (Q54a-d),

Assignment (Q54e,f,g,lm), and Career (Q54h-k). It is

anticipated that assessing the prevalence of discrimination that the survey participant identifies as

motivated by gender provides insight into the

sexual harassment climate in the military. However,

unlike the DoD Core Measure of Sexual Harassment, the measurement of sex discrimination in the

2002 survey did not include a labeling item. As

such, the survey participants were not required to

specify if they believed the situation or behavior

was discriminatory. Aggregating behavioral items

in Question 54 provided estimates of the upper

bounds of the incident rate of sex discrimination.

However, unless the respondent considered his/her

experiences to be discriminatory, calculating a rate

from responses to behavioral items may overestimate the rate.

Perceptions of organizational climate. Empirical

research has found that organizational tolerance is

related to both the incidence of sexual harassment

and negative outcomes on individuals. Based on

this work, three new items (Q76–78) were incorporated into the 2002 WGR that assess an individual’s

perception of their organization’s tolerance for

Crude/Offensive Behaviors, Unwanted Sexual

Attention, and Sexual Coercion. The 2002 WGR also
8 DEFENSE MANPOWER DATA CENTER

Survey Methodology

assesses Service members’ perceptions of several

additional concepts that directly affect organizational climate, to include personnel policies, leadership

practices, and training. 

Assessment of progress. In addition to changes in

measures of interest (e.g., changes in rates of unprofessional, gender-related behaviors), it is also

important to assess the individual’s perceptions of

organizational improvement. To this end, the 2002

WGR includes measures that assess the Service

members opinions as to whether sexual harassment

occurs more or less frequently in the military today;

whether sexual harassment is more or less of a

problem in the military today than a few years ago;

whether sexual harassment is more or less of a

problem in the nation today than a few years ago;

and finally, whether sexual harassment is more of a

problem inside or outside the military.

Analytic Procedures

Subgroups

Survey results are tabulated in this report as a DoD

total by gender, and for the subgroups Service by

gender, and paygrade group by gender. In cases

where the member’s Service, paygrade, or gender

was missing, data were imputed using information

from the member’s administrative records.

Subgroups were constructed as follows:

• Gender is defined by the response to Question 1,

“Are you...?” Response options were male or

female. 

• Service is defined by Question 6, “In what

Service are you?” The response options were

Army, Navy, Marine Corps, Air Force, and Coast

Guard.

• Paygrade group is based on Question 7, “What is

your current paygrade?” The original 20

response options are collapsed to 5 categories for

analysis: E1-E4, E5-E9, W1-W5, O1-O3, and 

O4-O6. 

Estimation Procedures

The 2002 WGR used a complex sample design that

required weighting to produce population estimates. This design and weighting means that

standard statistical software underestimates

standard errors and variances, which affect tests of

statistical significance. This report uses margins of

error calculated in SAS 8.0, by Taylor’s linearization

variance estimation. These SAS 8.0 procedures

accommodate features of complex designs and

weighting. 

By definition, sample surveys are subject to

sampling error. Standard errors are estimates of the

random variation around population parameters,

such as a percentage or mean. The analysis in this

report used margins of error (95% confidence

intervals) to represent the degree of uncertainty

introduced by the nonresponse and weighting

adjustments.3

In this report, pairs of percentage estimates were

compared to see if they were statistically significant.

When the margin of error of the first percentage

estimate overlapped the margin of error of the

second percentage estimate, the difference between

the two estimates was assumed not statistically

significant. When the two margins of error did 

not overlap, the difference was deemed statistically

significant.

Presentation of Results

The numbers for only differences that are statistically

significant are presented in this report. The use of

the word “significantly” is redundant and not used.

The tables and figures in the report are numbered

sequentially within chapters. The titles describe the

subgroup and dependent variables presented in the

table. Unless otherwise specified, the numbers contained in the tables are percentages with margins of

error at the end of the table.4

3The margin of error represents the degree of certainty that the percentage or mean would fall within the interval in repeated samples of

the population. Therefore, if 55% of individuals selected an answer and the margin of error was ±3, in repeated surveyed samples from

the population, in 95% of the samples, the percentage of individuals selecting the same answer would be between 52% (55 minus 3) and

58% (55 plus 3).

4Tables were simplified in this report by reporting the largest margin of error for all the estimates reported in a column for the specified

subgroup. Exact margins of error for specific estimates can usually be found in Greenlees et al. (2003a and 2003b).
DEFENSE MANPOWER DATA CENTER 9

Survey Methodology

Unstable estimates in table cells were suppressed or

annotated. Estimates may be unstable because of a

small denominator size for that cell or large variance in the data or weights. The following rules

were used:

• A cell estimate was not published if the

unweighted denominator size was less than 30.

These cells are annotated “NR” (Not Reported).

• A cell estimate was published with an asterisk if

the denominator size was 30 to 59.

• A cell estimate was also published with an

asterisk if the relative standard error for that

estimate was greater than 30%.

DEFENSE MANPOWER DATA CENTER 11

This chapter summarizes Service members’

responses to questions about sex/gender-related

issues. The first section provides survey results for

five categories of unprofessional, gender-related

behavior. The second section provides results

specifically for sexual harassment.

Unprofessional, Gender-Related

Behavior

Members’ responses to questions pertaining to

experiences of unprofessional, gender-related

behavior in the 12 months prior to responding to

the survey are examined in this section. Specifically, Question 55 assessed the frequency of Service

members’ reported experiences of unprofessional,

gender-related behavior involving military personnel, on- or off-duty, and on- or off-installation or

ship; and civilian employees/contractors, in 

their workplace, or on- or off- installation/ship.

Question 55 contains 19 behaviorally based items

intended to represent a continuum of unprofessional, gender-related behaviors—not just sexual

harassment—along with an open item for write-in

responses of “other gender-related behaviors” (see

Figure 3.1). 

The 18 question

sub-items can be

grouped into

three primary

types of behaviors 1) sexist

behavior

(Q55b,d,g,i), 

2) sexual

harassment

(Q55a,c,e,f,h,

j,k,l,m,n,o,p), and

3) sexual assault

(Q55q,r). The

sexual harassment behaviors

can be further categorized as crude/offensive

behaviors (Q55a,c,e,f), unwanted sexual attention

(Q55h,j,m,n), and sexual coercion (Q55k,l,o,p). The

12 sexual harassment behaviors are consistent with

the U.S. legal system’s definition of sexual harassment (i.e., behaviors that could lead to a hostile

work environment and others that represent quid

pro quo harassment).

Question 55 asked respondents to indicate how

often they had been in situations involving these

behaviors. The response scale is a 5-point frequency scale ranging from “Never” to “Very often.” The

counting algorithm for reporting incident rates for

each of the individual categories of unprofessional,

gender-related behaviors is a single-step process.

That is, did the individual indicate experiencing at

least one of the behaviors in a category at least once

(response options ranged from “Once or twice” to

“Very often”) in the previous 12 months? Results

are reported for the following five categories of

unprofessional, gender-related behaviors:

• Crude/Offensive Behavior - verbal/nonverbal

behaviors of a sexual nature that were offensive

Chapter 3

Unprofessional, Gender-Related

Behaviors and Sexual Harassment

Any Incident

(19)

Other SexRelated 

(1)

Sexual Assault

(2)

Sexist Behavior

(4)

Sexual 

Harassment 

(12)

Sexual 

Coercion 

(4)

Unwanted Sexual 

Attention 

(4)

Crude/Offensive

Behavior 

(4)

Figure 3.1

Survey Measure of Sexual Harassment and Unprofessional, Gender-Related Behavior
or embarrassing; whistling, staring, leering,

ogling (Q55a,c,e,f),

• Unwanted Sexual Attention - attempts to

establish a sexual relationship; touching, fondling

(Q55h,j,m,n),

• Sexual Coercion - classic quid pro quo instances of

job benefits or losses conditioned on sexual

cooperation (Q55k,l,o,p),

• Sexist Behavior - verbal/nonverbal behaviors

that convey insulting, offensive, or condescending attitudes based on the gender of the member

(Q55b,d,g,i), and 

• Sexual Assault - attempted and/or actual sexual

relations without the member’s consent and

against his or her will (Q55q,r)

Incident rates are reported for each type of behavior. These rates are shown by gender and year in

Figure 3.2. Rates by Service and year are provided

in Table 3.1 for women and Table 3.2 for men. 

By Service

Women reported experiencing Sexist Behavior

(50%) at a higher rate than any other type of

unprofessional, gender-related behavior, although

the category of Crude/Offensive Behavior (45%)

was almost as high. Within-Service comparisons

indicate this trend was present for women in each

of the Services except the Coast Guard. In contrast,

men reported higher rates of Crude/Offensive

Behavior (23%) than any other type of unprofessional, gender-related behavior, although Sexist

Behavior (17%) was almost as high. This trend 

was present for men in each of the Services except

the Marine Corps, where the rates of Sexist

Behavior and Crude/Offensive Behavior were 

not significantly different. 

Sexist Behavior. Fifty percent of women reported

experiencing Sexist Behavior, whereas 17% of 

men reported experiencing incidents of this type.

Women in the Air Force reported the lowest rate of

Sexist Behavior (40%), while Marine Corps women

reported the highest rate (64%). For men, there

were no significant Service differences in the Sexist

Behavior rate.

Comparisons across years indicate that the Sexist

Behavior incident rate for women declined between

1995 and 2002 (63% vs. 50%). It also declined for

women in each of the Services, with the exception

of the Coast Guard. The largest percentage-point

decline between 1995 and 2002 occurred for Air

Force women (59% vs. 40%). There were no

significant Service differences between 1995 and

2002 for men.

Crude/Offensive Behavior. Forty-five percent of

women reported

experiencing

Crude/

Offensive

Behavior.

Nearly twice as

many women

than men reported experiencing

these types of

behaviors (45%

vs. 23%). For

women, Air

Force members

reported experiencing the lowest rate of

Crude/Offensive

Behavior (36%

vs. 48-53%). For

men, there were

12 DEFENSE MANPOWER DATA CENTER

Unprofessional, Gender-Related Behaviors and Sexual Harassment

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Males - 1995

Males - 2002

Females - 1995 

Females - 2002

Unwanted Sexual Sexual Coercion Sexual Assault

Attention

Crude/Offensive 

Behavior

Sexist Behavior

Margin of error does not exceed ±2

15 17

31

23

63

45

8

2 1

13

8

1 1

6 3 5

42

27

63

50

Figure 3.2

Percentage of Females and Males Who Reported Experiencing Unprofessional, Gender-Related

Behaviors in 1995 and 2002
DEFENSE MANPOWER DATA CENTER 13

Unprofessional, Gender-Related Behaviors and Sexual Harassment

no significant

Service differences in the

Crude/

Offensive

Behavior rate. 

The rates of

Crude/Offensive

Behavior for

women and men

declined

between 1995

and 2002. The

rate for women

declined from

63% in 1995 to

45% in 2002.

The rate also

declined in each

of the Services, with the exception of the Coast

Guard. The largest decline in Crude/Offensive

Behavior occurred for Air Force women (57% vs.

36%). Similarly, the incident rate of Crude/

Offensive Behavior for men declined from 31% in

1995 to 23% in 2002, with the greatest declines

occurring for Army and Air Force men.

Unwanted Sexual Attention. Twenty-seven percent

of women reported experiencing Unwanted Sexual

Attention. More

women reported

experiencing

Unwanted

Sexual Attention

compared to

men 

(27% vs. 5%).

Air Force (20%)

and Coast Guard

(23%) women

reported lower

rates of

Unwanted

Sexual Attention

than women in

the other

Services (30-

33%). For men,

there were no significant 2002 Service differences

(see Table 3.2). 

Between 1995 and 2002, incidents of Unwanted

Sexual Attention declined for both women (42% vs.

27%) and men (8% vs. 5%). For each of the Services,

women’s rates of Unwanted Sexual Attention

declined by at least 10 percentage-points. While

Marine Corps women reported the highest rate of

Unwanted Sexual Attention in 2002, the largest

'R'

7RWDO

'R' $UP\ 1DY\ 0DULQH&RUSV $LU)RUFH &RDVW*XDUG

           

6H[LVW%HKDYLRU            

&UXGH2IIHQVLYH%HKDYLRU            

8QZDQWHG6H[XDO$WWHQWLRQ            

6H[XDO&RHUFLRQ            

6H[XDO$VVDXOW            

0DUJLQRI(UURU p  p p  p p  p p  p p p  p p 

Table 3.1 

Percentage of Females Who Reported Experiencing Unprofessional, Gender-Related Behaviors

in 1995 and 2002, by Service

'R'

7RWDO'R' $UP\ 1DY\ 0DULQH

&RUSV $LU)RUFH &RDVW*XDUG

           

6H[LVW%HKDYLRU            

&UXGH2IIHQVLYH%HKDYLRU            

8QZDQWHG6H[XDO$WWHQWLRQ            

6H[XDO&RHUFLRQ            


6H[XDO$VVDXOW    
 
 
 
 
 
  
 


0DUJLQRI(UURU p  p  p p  p  p  p  p  p  p  p p 


/RZSUHFLVLRQDQGRUXQZHLJKWHGGHQRPLQDWRUVL]HEHWZHHQDQG

Table 3.2

Percentage of Males Who Reported Experiencing Unprofessional, Gender-Related Behaviors 

in 1995 and 2002, by Service
14 DEFENSE MANPOWER DATA CENTER

Unprofessional, Gender-Related Behaviors and Sexual Harassment

percentage-point decline between 1995 and 2002

(53% vs. 33%) occurred for Marine Corps women.

For men in each of the Services, the decline was

only significant for men in the Army and Air Force.

Sexual Coercion. Eight percent of women reported

experiencing Sexual Coercion. More women than

men reported experiencing incidents of Sexual

Coercion (8% vs. 1%). Air Force and Coast Guard

women reported the lowest rates (4-6% vs. 10-12%).

For men, there were no significant Service differences in Sexual Coercion rates.

The 2002 rate of Sexual Coercion for women was

significantly lower than the 1995 rate (8% vs. 13%).

For women, the largest declines occurred in the

Army (18% vs. 11%) and in the Marine Corps (17%

vs. 12%). For men, there were no significant Service

differences between 1995 and 2002 in the rate of

Sexual Coercion.

Sexual Assault. Three percent of women and one

percent of men reported experiencing incidents of

Sexual Assault. There were no significant Service

differences for either men or women in the 2002 rate

of Sexual Assault. 

The Sexual Assault rate for women declined by half

between 1995 and 2002 (6% vs. 3%). Excluding the

Coast Guard, this decrease was significant for

women in each of the Services, with the greatest

decline occurring for the Army (9% vs. 3%). For

men, there were no significant Service differences in

the rate of Sexual Assault. 

By Paygrade

Women in paygrades other than junior enlisted

reported higher Sexist Behavior rates than any other

type of unprofessional, gender-related behavior 

(see Table 3.3). Comparisons within paygrades

indicate that men in each of the paygrades experienced Crude/Offensive Behavior at a higher rate

than other type of behavior (see Table 3.4). 

Sexist Behavior. For women, junior enlisted

members and junior officers reported higher rates of

Sexist Behavior (both 54%) than women in the other

paygrades (42-46%). For men, junior enlisted members reported a higher rate of Sexist Behavior than

men in the other paygrades (21% vs. 10-15%). 

Comparisons between 2002 and 1995 indicate that

the rate of Sexist Behavior for women declined by at

least 10 percentage points in each of the paygrades.

The largest decline occurred among female senior

officers, whose rate decreased from 64% in 1995 to

42% in 2002. In 2002, the Sexist Behavior rate for

junior enlisted men was higher than in 1995 (21%

vs. 17%).


/RZSUHFLVLRQDQGRUXQZHLJKWHGGHQRPLQDWRUVL]HEHWZHHQDQG

-XQLRU(QOLVWHG

((

6HQLRU(QOLVWHG

((

-XQLRU2I¿FHU

22

6HQLRU2I¿FHU

22

       

6H[LVW%HKDYLRU        

&UXGH2IIHQVLYH%HKDYLRU        

8QZDQWHG6H[XDO$WWHQWLRQ        

6H[XDO&RHUFLRQ        


6H[XDO$VVDXOW      
  


0DUJLQRI(UURU p  p  p  p p p p p 

Table 3.3 

Percentage of Females Who Reported Experiencing Unprofessional, Gender-Related Behaviors

in 1995 and 2002, by Paygrade
DEFENSE MANPOWER DATA CENTER 15

Unprofessional, Gender-Related Behaviors and Sexual Harassment

Crude/Offensive Behavior. Paygrade comparisons

show that, junior enlisted women (53% vs. 26-42%)

and men (27% vs. 16-21%) reported the highest

rates of Crude/Offensive Behavior—with the rate

reported by women higher than men (53% vs. 27%).

For women, senior officers reported the lowest rate

of Crude/Offensive Behavior (26% vs. 39-53%).

The rate of Crude/Offensive Behavior for women

declined by at least 14 percentage points in each of

the paygrades between 1995 and 2002. For female

enlisted members, there was an 18 percentage-point

decline in the Crude/Offensive Behavior incident

rate. In each paygrade, the rate of Crude/Offensive

Behavior for men declined by at least 5 percentage

points between 1995 and 2002. This decline was not

significant for junior officers.

Unwanted Sexual Attention. Junior enlisted

women (36% vs. 8-22%) and men (8% vs. 2-4%)

reported the highest rates of Unwanted Sexual

Attention—with the rate reported by women higher

than that reported by men (36% vs. 8%). For

women, senior officers reported the lowest rate of

Unwanted Sexual Attention (8% vs. 20-36%). Male

junior (3%) and senior (2%) officers reported lower

rates of Unwanted Sexual Attention than men in the

other paygrades (4-8%). 

Although the Unwanted Sexual Attention rates

declined for women in all paygrades between 1995

and 2002, the largest decline occurred for junior

enlisted women (53% vs. 36%). Male senior enlisted

members reported a lower rate in 2002 than in 1995

(4% vs. 7%).

Sexual Coercion. Paygrade comparisons show that,

regardless of gender, junior enlisted members

reported the highest rate of Sexual Coercion—with

the rate for women higher than for men (12% vs.

3%). The incident rate of Sexual Coercion for

women decreased as paygrade increased—with junior enlisted members reporting the highest rate

(12%) and senior officers reporting the lowest (1%).

Between 1995 and 2002, the rate of Sexual Coercion

declined for junior (19% vs. 12%) and senior (9% vs.

6%) enlisted women. There was also a small but

significant decline in the rate reported by female

senior officers (2% vs. 1%). There were no

significant changes in the rate of Sexual Coercion

for men between 1995 and 2002.

Sexual Assault. Junior enlisted women reported a

higher rate of Sexual Assault than women in the

other paygrades (5% vs. 0-1%), although the rate

declined significantly from 1995 to 2002 for both

junior enlisted (10% vs. 5%) and senior enlisted

women (3% vs. 1%). For men, there were no

significant paygrade differences in the Sexual

Assault rate between 1995 and 2002. 


/RZSUHFLVLRQDQGRUXQZHLJKWHGGHQRPLQDWRUVL]HEHWZHHQDQG

-XQLRU(QOLVWHG

((

6HQLRU(QOLVWHG

((

-XQLRU2I¿FHU

22

6HQLRU2I¿FHU

22

       

6H[LVW%HKDYLRU        

&UXGH2IIHQVLYH%HKDYLRU        

8QZDQWHG6H[XDO $WWHQWLRQ        

6H[XDO&RHUFLRQ     
 
 
 


6H[XDO$VVDXOW     
 
 
 


0DUJLQRI(UURU p p  p p  p  p p  p

Table 3.4

Percentage of Males Who Reported Experiencing Unprofessional, Gender-Related Behaviors in

1995 and 2002, by Paygrade
16 DEFENSE MANPOWER DATA CENTER

Unprofessional, Gender-Related Behaviors and Sexual Harassment

Sexual Harassment

This section includes a summary of findings and

comparisons to results reported in 1995. The 2002

and 1995 rates were calculated according to the

DoD Sexual Harassment Core Measure specifications (for more details, see Chapter 2). To be included in the calculation of the rate, Service members

must have experienced one behavior defined as

Crude/Offensive Behavior, Unwanted Sexual

Attention, or Sexual Coercion AND indicated that

they considered any of the behaviors experienced to

be sexual harassment.5

By Service

Nearly a quarter of women in the military 

reported experiencing at least one incident of

Crude/Offensive Behavior, Unwanted Sexual

Attention, or Sexual Coercion and considered at

least some of what they experienced to be Sexual

Harassment 7 (see Figure 3.3). Air Force women

reported the lowest Sexual Harassment incident

rate (18% vs. 24-29%). For men, there were no

Service differences in the Sexual Harassment

incident rate. 

The Sexual Harassment rate declined between 1995

and 2002 for both women (46% vs. 24%) and men

(8% vs. 3%). For women in each of the Services, the

Sexual Harassment rate declined by at least 16 percentage points. The largest decline occurred for

Marine Corps women, whose rate decreased by 30

percentage points (57% vs. 27%). For men, there

was at least a 4 percentage-point decline in the rate

between 1995 and 2002 in each of the Services,

excluding the Coast Guard. 

By Paygrade

Across paygrades, junior enlisted women (31% vs.

10-20%) and men (5% vs. 1-2%) reported the highest

rates of Sexual Harassment, although the rate for

female junior enlisted members was six times that

of males (31% vs. 5%). Compared to other women,

senior officers reported the lowest Sexual Harassment incident rate (10% vs. 20-31%) (see Figure 3.4).

5When those who experienced at least one of the behaviors in Question 55 were asked about those experiences, 51% of

females and 85% of males reported that none of the behaviors they reported experiencing constituted sexual harassment.

For complete details on these findings, refer to tables 56.1-56.4 in Greenlees et al. (2003b).

Margin of error does not exceed ±5

8

Males - 1995

Males - 2002

Females - 1995 

Females - 2002

3

46

24

53

42

29 26

57

27

40

18

42

24

8

3

9

3

9

3 7

3 5 4

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Coast

Guard

Air

Force

Marine

Corps

Total Army Navy

DoD

Coast

Guard

Air

Force

Marine

Corps

Total Army Navy

DoD

Figure 3.3

Percentage of Females and Males Who Reported Experiencing Sexual Harassment 

in 1995 and 2002, by Service
DEFENSE MANPOWER DATA CENTER 17

Unprofessional, Gender-Related Behaviors and Sexual Harassment

Similar to Service

results, the Sexual

Harassment rate

also declined

between 1995 and

2002 for all gender-by-paygrade

groups. For each

paygrade group,

there was at least

a 19 percentagepoint decline for

women. 

Summary

Chapter 3 presents findings for Service members’

experiences of unprofessional, gender-related

behaviors in the 12 months prior to filling out the

2002 WGR survey. These behaviors are categorized

as Sexist Behavior, Crude/Offensive Behavior,

Unwanted Sexual Attention, Sexual Coercion, and

Sexual Assault.

• Crude/Offensive Behavior (Females 45%; Males

23%) and Sexist Behavior (Females 50%; Males

17%) were the two most frequently reported

types of unprofessional, gender-related behavior

for women and men.

♦ Women reported higher rates of Sexist Behavior

than any other type of behavior (50% vs. 

3-45%); men reported Crude/Offensive Behavior

at a higher rate than any other type of behavior

(23% vs. 1-17%)—these findings remained

consistent across Services and paygrades.

Sexist Behavior

• Fifty percent of women reported experiencing

Sexist Behavior, whereas 17% of men in the military reported experiencing incidents of this type. 

♦ Between 1995 and 2002, the Sexist Behavior

incident rate declined for women (63% vs.

50%)—across all Services, with the exception of

the Coast Guard. 

• Compared to women in the other Services, Air

Force women reported the lowest rate of Sexist

Behavior (40%), while Marine Corps women

reported a higher rate (64%). 

• Female junior enlisted members and junior officers reported higher rates of Sexist Behavior than

women in the other paygrades (both 54% vs. 42-

46%). 

♦ The rate of Sexist Behavior for women declined

by at least 10 percentage points in each of the

paygrades. 

• Junior enlisted men reported a higher rate of

Sexist Behavior than men in the other paygrades

(21% vs. 10-15%).

♦ Between 1995 and 2002, the Sexist Behavior rate

for junior enlisted men increased (17% vs. 21%).

Crude/Offensive Behavior

• Nearly twice as many women than men reported

experiencing incidents of Crude/Offensive

Behavior (45% vs. 23%). 

♦ Between 1995 and 2002, the rates of

Crude/Offensive Behavior for women (63% vs.

45%) and men (31% vs. 23%) declined. 

• Air Force women reported a lower rate of

Crude/Offensive Behavior than women in the

other Services (36% vs. 48-53%). 

♦ The largest decline in Crude/Offensive Behavior

occurred for Air Force women (57% vs. 36%). 

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

E1-E4 E5-E9 01-03 04-06 E1-E4 E5-E9 01-03 04-06

Margin of error does not exceed ±4

Males - 1995

Males - 2002

Females - 1995 

Females - 2002

9 5 8

2 5 1 5 2

54

31

40

20

39

20

30

10

Figure 3.4

Percentage of Females and Males Who Reported Experiencing Sexual Harassment in 1995 

and 2002, by Paygrade
18 DEFENSE MANPOWER DATA CENTER

Unprofessional, Gender-Related Behaviors and Sexual Harassment

♦ The greatest declines for men occurred for the

Army (32% vs. 23%) and Air Force (30% vs.

21%).

• Junior enlisted women (53% vs. 26-42%) and

men (27% vs. 16-21%) reported higher rates of

Crude/Offensive Behavior than women and

men in the other paygrades. 

• Female senior officers reported a lower rate of

Crude/Offensive Behavior than women in the

other paygrades (26% vs. 39-53%).

♦ The rate of Crude/Offensive Behavior for

women declined by at least 14 percentage

points in each of the paygrades between 1995

and 2002. 

♦ Between 1995 and 2002, the rate of

Crude/Offensive Behavior for men declined by

at least 5 percentage points in all paygrade

groups, although this decrease was not significant for junior officers.

Unwanted Sexual Attention

• More women reported experiencing Unwanted

Sexual Attention compared to very few men (27%

vs. 5%). 

♦ Between 1995 and 2002, incidents of Unwanted

Sexual Attention declined for both women

(42% vs. 27%) and men (8% vs. 5%). 

• Air Force and Coast Guard women reported

lower rates of Unwanted Sexual Attention than

women in the other Services (20-23% vs. 30-33%). 

♦ For women, the rate of Unwanted Sexual Attention decreased by at least 10 percentage points

in each of the Services between 1995 and 2002. 

♦ For men, there was a slight but significant

decline in Unwanted Sexual Attention within

each of the Services, with the exception of the

Coast Guard.

• Junior enlisted women (36% vs. 8-22%) and men

(8% vs. 2-4%) reported higher rates of Unwanted

Sexual Attention than women and men in the

other paygrades.

• As paygrade increased for women, the incident

rate of Unwanted Sexual Attention decreased—

with female senior officers reporting the lowest

rate of Unwanted Sexual Attention (8% vs. 

20-36%). 

♦ Between 1995 and 2002, the Unwanted Sexual

Attention rate declined by at least 8 percentage

points for women in all paygrade groups. 

Sexual Coercion

• More women than men reported experiencing

incidents of Sexual Coercion (8% vs. 1%). 

♦ Between 1995 and 2002, the Sexual Coercion

rate declined for women (13% vs. 8%).

• Air Force and Coast Guard women reported

lower rates of Sexual Coercion than women in

the other Services (4-6% vs. 10-12%). 

♦ Between 1995 and 2002, rates of Sexual

Coercion for Army (18% vs. 11%) and in the

Marine Corps (17% vs. 12%) women declined. 

• Junior enlisted women (12% vs. 1-6%) and men

(3% vs. 0-1%) reported higher rates of Sexual

Coercion than women and men in the other

paygrades.

• The incident rate of Sexual Coercion for women

decreased as paygrade increased—with junior

enlisted members reporting the highest rate (12%)

and senior officers reporting the lowest (1%).

♦ Between 1995 and 2002, the rate of Sexual

Coercion declined for both junior (19% vs.

12%) and senior (9% vs. 6%) enlisted women.

Sexual Assault

• Three percent of women and one percent of men

reported experiencing incidents of Sexual Assault.

♦ Between 1995 and 2002, the Sexual Assault rate

for women declined by half (6% vs. 3%).

• In each of the Services, the Sexual Assault rate

was less than 5%.

♦ Excluding the Coast Guard, this decrease was

significant for women in each of the Services—

with the greatest decline occurring in the Army

(9% vs. 3%).

• Junior enlisted women reported a higher rate of

Sexual Assault than women in the other paygrades (5% vs. 0-1%).

♦ The rate of Sexual Assault for women declined

significantly for junior enlisted (10% vs. 5%)

and senior enlisted (3% vs. 1%).

Sexual Harassment

• More women reported experiencing Sexual

Harassment than men (24% vs. 3%).

♦ The Sexual Harassment rate declined between

1995 and 2002 for both women (46% vs. 24%)

and men (8% vs. 3%)—across all paygrades.

• Air Force women reported a lower rate of Sexual

Harassment than women in the other Services

(18% vs. 24-29%).
DEFENSE MANPOWER DATA CENTER 19

Unprofessional, Gender-Related Behaviors and Sexual Harassment

♦ For women, the Sexual Harassment rate

declined by at least 16 percentage points in

each of the Services. 

♦ There was at least a 4 percentage-point decline

for men in the rate between 1995 and 2002 in

each of the Services, excluding the Coast Guard. 

• Junior enlisted women (31% vs. 10-20%) and men

(5% vs. 1-2%) reported higher rates of Sexual

Harassment than women and men in the other

paygrades.

DEFENSE MANPOWER DATA CENTER 21

Chapter 4

One Situation

Chapter 4 provides information on the circumstances in which unprofessional, gender-related

behaviors occur. On the survey, Service members

who indicated they experienced at least one unprofessional, gender-related behavior (Q55) were asked

to consider the “one situation” occurring in the year

prior to taking the survey that had the greatest

effect on them. With that “one situation” in mind,

members then reported on the circumstances surrounding that experience. Information from this

section of the survey helps to answer questions

such as:

• What was the unprofessional, gender-related

experience?

• Who were the offenders?

• Where did the experience occur?

• How often did the situation occur?

• How long did the situation last? Was the

situation reported, and if so, to whom?

• Were there any repercussions due to reporting 

the incident?

Behaviors Experienced in the 

One Situation

All members who reported experiencing any

unwanted or uninvited, unprofessional, genderrelated behavior in the past year (Q55) were asked

to provide details about the situation that had the

greatest effect on them. Not all of them completed

this section of the survey. As Figure 4.1 shows, in

2002 and 1995, four-fifths of women and three-fifths

of men who checked behaviors in Question 55

responded to this section of the survey.

Types of Behaviors in One Situation

Service members who responded to the questions

regarding the one situation with the greatest effect

on them were asked to first specify which behaviors

occurred during the situation. The list of behaviors

for the one situation was the same as the list for

Question 55 that measured unprofessional, genderrelated behavior. Figure 4.2 presents the frequency

distribution of each type of behavior in the one

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Margin of error does not exceed ±3

Males - 1995

Males - 2002

Females - 1995 

Females - 2002

61 59

82 84

Figure 4.1

Percentage of Females and Males Filling Out One Situation in 1995 and 2002
22 DEFENSE MANPOWER DATA CENTER

One Situation

situation reported by women and men in 2002 and

in 1995. 

In 2002, there is a noticeable overall increase in the

numbers of behaviors reported for the one situation

compared to those reported in 1995. This increase

in behaviors reported in the one situation is most

likely at least partially attributable to a change in

question format.

In 1995, respondents were presented with only a

grid of letters that corresponded to the list of

unprofessional, gender-related behaviors. Using

these “lettered bubbles,” respondents were asked to

identify behaviors that had occurred in the one situation by marking the applicable bubbles. In 2002,

respondents were presented the entire list of

behaviors a second time and asked to indicate

individually whether someone in the one situation

“did this” or

“did not do this”

for each behavior. While the

proportion of the

increase attributable to changing

formats cannot

be calculated, it

is understandable that a person’s likelihood

of indicating a

behavior

occurred would

increase when

each behavior is

considered individually vice

selecting 

from a grid 

of letters. 

Despite the format change, the

pattern of findings from 2002

parallel those

from 1995

because they

confirmed that

the situation

with the greatest

effect for women

is typified by

some combination of Sexist

Behavior (64%),

Crude/Offensive

Behavior (56%),

and Unwanted

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Unwanted Sexual Sexual Coercion Sexual Assault

Attention

Crude/Offensive 

Behavior

Sexist Behavior

Males - 1995

Males - 2002

Females - 1995 

Females - 2002

Margin of error does not exceed ±3

16

28

45

64

38

59

27

56

11 13

26

37

2 3 5

9

1 2 5 4

Figure 4.2

Percentage of Females and Males Reporting Each Type of Behavior in One Situation 

in 1995 and 2002

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Male

Female

Sexist Behavior (Single Category)

Unwanted Sexual Attention (Single Category)

Crude/Offensive Behavior (Single Category)

Multiple Catagories of Behaviors

Margin of error does not exceed ±4

26 10 7 57

15 48 4 33

Figure 4.3

Percentage of Females and Males Reporting a Single Category of Behavior or Multiple

Categories of Behaviors in One Situation in 2002
DEFENSE MANPOWER DATA CENTER 23

One Situation

Sexual Attention (37%), while the one situation for

men is typified primarily by Crude/Offensive

Behavior (59%) and, to some extent, Sexist Behavior

(28%) (see Figures 4.2 and 4.3).

Service members can experience 1 or more

behaviors within a single category of behavior (e.g.,

Sexist Behavior), and they can indicate behaviors

that are across multiple categories of behaviors 

(e.g., Sexist Behavior and Crude/Offensive

Behavior). Figure 4.2 shows 56% of the women

reported experiencing Crude/Offensive Behavior.

Figure 4.3 shows 10% of women reported

experiencing

only Crude/

Offensive

Behavior (without indicating

other behaviors).

Figure 4.3 shows

over half of the

women and

approximately

one-third of the

men indicated

that multiple

types of behaviors occurred in

the one situation.

Both women and

men reported

experiencing

Sexual Coercion

and Sexual

Assault only in

combination

with other

behaviors. Sexist

Behavior was the

most commonly

experienced type

of behavior

occurring alone 

for women (26%),

whereas Crude/

Offensive Behavior was most

commonly experienced alone by

men (48%). 

Frequency of Experiences

The frequency of each type of behavior for women

and men is shown by gender/Service in Table 4.1,

and gender/paygrade in Table 4.2. Compared to

women in the other Services, excluding the Coast

Guard, fewer Air Force women reported experiences of Sexist Behavior (59% vs. 64-75%) and

Sexual Coercion (5% vs. 8-12%). For men, there

were no significant Service differences. 

For women, as might be expected, more junior

enlisted members than women in the other paygrades reported experiences of Crude/Offensive

'R'

7RWDO'R' $UP\ 1DY\ 0DULQH

&RUSV $LU)RUFH &RDVW*XDUG

) 0 ) 0 ) 0 ) 0 ) 0 ) 0

6H[LVW%HKDYLRU            

&UXGH2IIHQVLYH%HKDYLRU            

8QZDQWHG6H[XDO$WWHQWLRQ            

6H[XDO&RHUFLRQ            

6H[XDO$VVDXOW    
  
  
  
  


0DUJLQRI(UURU p  p p p p p p p p p  p  p 

Table 4.1 

Percentage of Females and Males Who Experienced Behavior in One Situation in 2002, 

by Service 

-XQLRU(QOLVWHG

((

6HQLRU(QOLVWHG

((

-XQLRU2I¿FHU

22

6HQLRU2I¿FHU

22

) 0 ) 0 ) 0 ) 0

6H[LVW%HKDYLRU        

&UXGH2IIHQVLYH%HKDYLRU        

8QZDQWHG6H[XDO $WWHQWLRQ        

6H[XDO&RHUFLRQ      
 
 


6H[XDO$VVDXOW     
 
 
 


0DUJLQRI(UURU p p  p  p  p  p  p  p 

Table 4.2

Percentage of Females and Males Who Experienced Behavior in One Situation in 2002, 

by Paygrade
24 DEFENSE MANPOWER DATA CENTER

One Situation

Behavior (63% vs. 32-52%), Unwanted Sexual

Attention (45% vs. 12-31%), Sexual Coercion (12%

vs. 0-7%), and Sexual Assault (7% vs. 0-2%) for the

one situation with the greatest effect. For men,

there were no significant paygrade differences. 

Characteristics of the Offenders

To obtain information on the perpetrators of unprofessional, gender-related behavior, Service members

were asked about the identity of the offender(s) in

the situation that had the greatest effect on them. It

should be noted that it was possible for single and

multiple offenders to be involved in the one

situation experience. 

Gender of Offenders

As indicated in Figure 4.4, in 2002, the majority of

women (85%) and men (51%) reported the offenders

were male. Compared to 1995, in 2002, more

women (14% vs. 6%) and men (27% vs. 16%)

reported that the offenders included both males and

females. Between the 1995 and 2002 surveys, there

was no change, for women or men, in the percentage of those who said the offenders were solely of

the same gender. 

Over 80% of women, regardless of Service, reported

the offenders were male. Among men in each of the

Services, roughly half reported the offenders were

male. Except for the Coast Guard, there was at least

a 5 percentage-point decline in 2002 from 1995 for

women in each of the Services who reported that

the offenders in the one situation were male (see

Table 4.3). This change is attributable to an increase

in the percentage of females reporting that the

offenders included both men and women.

Compared to men in the other Services, men in the

Army (22% vs. 38%) and Marine Corps (16% vs.

35%) were less likely to report in 2002, than in 1995,

that the offenders were female. 

With the exception of senior officers, across paygrades, roughly twice as many women and men

reported the offenders included both men and

women in 2002 than in 1995 (see Table 4.4). 

Organizational Affiliation of Offenders

Organizational affiliation is another characteristic of

interest regarding perpetrators of unprofessional,

gender-related behavior. Service members interact

with other military personnel and DoD civilian

employees and/or contractors. On this survey,

Service members were asked to identify whether or 

not the offenders in the situation that had the 

greatest effect on them were military members

and/or civilians. Offenders were categorized as

military personnel, civilians, or both military and

civilian personnel. 

Male(s) Female(s) Both Males and Females

Margin of error does not exceed ±4

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

1995 Male

2002 Male

1995 Female

2002 Female 85 1 14

92 2 6

51 22 27

52 32 16

Figure 4.4

Percentage of Females and Males Reporting Offenders as Males, Females, or Both 

in 1995 and 2002
DEFENSE MANPOWER DATA CENTER 25

One Situation

'R'

7RWDO'R' $UP\ 1DY\ 0DULQH

&RUS $LU)RUFH &RDVW*XDUG

           

)HPDOHV

0DOHV            

)HPDOHV        
   
 


%RWK            

0DOHV

0DOHV            

)HPDOHV            

%RWK            

0DUJLQRI(UURU                      

Table 4.3

Percentage of Females and Males Reporting Offenders as Males, Females, or Both in 1995 

and 2002, by Service

-XQLRU(QOLVWHG

((

6HQLRU(QOLVWHG

((

-XQLRU2I¿FHU

22

6HQLRU2I¿FHU

22

       

)HPDOHV

0DOHV        

)HPDOHV      
  


%RWK        

0DOHV

0DOHV        

)HPDOHV        

%RWK        

0DUJLQRI(UURU                


/RZSUHFLVLRQDQGRUXQZHLJKWHGGHQRPLQDWRUVL]HEHWZHHQDQG

Table 4.4

Percentage of Females and Males Reporting Offenders as Males, Females, or Both in 1995 

and 2002, by Paygrade
26 DEFENSE MANPOWER DATA CENTER

One Situation

The majority of both active-duty women (84%) and

men (82%) reported the offenders in the situation

that had the greatest effect on them were other

Service members (see Figure 4.5). Both women 

(4% vs. 6%) and men (6% vs. 13%) were less likely

in 2002, than in 1995, to report the offenders

included only civilians (see Figure 4.5). 

Among women, Air Force members were least

likely to report the offenders were military

members (79% vs. 85-90%). There were no significant differences by Service for men (see Table 4.5).

Compared to women and men in the other paygrades, female (68% vs. 82-88%) and male (57% vs.

80-87%) senior officers were the least likely to report

the offenders were military members (see Table 4.6).

Similarly, both female (14% vs. 3-6%) and male (23%

vs. 2-7%) senior officers were more likely to report

the offenders were solely civilians than women and

men in the other paygrades. 

Military Status of Offenders in the 

One Situation

Findings regarding the organizational affiliation of

the offenders show that the majority were military

personnel (see Figure 4.5). In addition to identifying

the organizational affiliation of the offender (e.g.,

military, civilian), Service members were also asked to

specify the position and the rank of the offenders in

relation to themselves. For this analysis, the survey

items in 1995 and 2002 were not similar enough to

permit comparisons (2002 Q61, 1995 Q78).

In each of the Services, over 60% of women and

men indicated that military coworkers were the

offenders in the situation that had the greatest

impact on them. Fewer Air Force women (13% vs.

19-21%) and men (9% vs. 17-19%) than women and

men in the other Services reported the offender was

their immediate military supervisor. Also, 

fewer Air Force women reported military subordinates were involved than women in the other

Services (17% vs. 26-30%). For a complete tabulation of Service results, see Tables 61a.2-61n.2 in

Greenlees et al. (2003b). 

Consistent with the Service results and regardless of

paygrade, both female and male members were

most likely to report that their offenders were military coworkers. However, female (47% vs. 60-73%)

and male (53% vs. 66-74%) senior officers were less

likely to report the offenders were one of their military coworkers than women and men in the other

paygrades. Junior enlisted women (66% vs. 35-54%)

and men (49% vs. 18-31%) were more likely than

women and men in the other paygrades to report

that the offenders included military persons of

Military Only Both Military and Civilian Civilian Only

Margin of error does not exceed ±3

1995 Male

2002 Male

1995 Female

2002 Female

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

84 12 4

82 12 6

82 12 6

78 9 13

Figure 4.5

Percentage of Females and Males Reporting Offenders as Military, Civilian, or Both in 1995

and 2002
DEFENSE MANPOWER DATA CENTER 27

One Situation

higher rank. For women, officers were more likely

than enlisted members to report the offender in the

situation was their unit commander (7-8% vs. 2-3%)

and senior officers were the least likely to report

that the offenders were their military subordinates

(16% vs. 24-26%) or military training instructors (2%

vs. 4-8%). Junior enlisted women were more likely

than women in the other paygrades to report that

the offenders were other military persons (51% vs.

31-44%). For men, junior enlisted members were

more likely than men in the other paygrades to

report that their immediate military supervisor was

an offender in the situation that had the greatest

effect on them (20% vs. 10-13%). For specific

details, see Tables 61a.4-61n.4 in Greenlees et al.

(2003b).

Civilian Status of the Offenders in the

One Situation

Although the majority of Service members reported

the offenders were other military personnel, civilians were reported as a source of unprofessional,

gender-related behavior by some Service women

(4%) and men (6%) (see Figure 4.5). In addition to

identifying whether the offenders were military,

Service members were also asked to specify the

position of the offenders in relation to themselves

(e.g., supervisor, coworker, subordinate etc.). Data

'R'

7RWDO'R' $UP\ 1DY\ 0DULQH

&RUSV $LU)RUFH &RDVW*XDUG

) 0 ) 0 ) 0 ) 0 ) 0 ) 0

0LOLWDU\RQO\            

%RWKPLOLWDU\DQG

FLYLOLDQVLQYROYHG            

&LYLOLDQVRQO\            

0DUJLQRI(UURU p  p  p  p  p  p  p  p  p  p  p  p 

Table 4.5

Percentage of Females and Males Reporting All of the Behaviors Occurred at a Particular Time

or Location, by Service

-XQLRU(QOLVWHG

((

6HQLRU(QOLVWHG

((

-XQLRU2I¿FHU

22

6HQLRU2I¿FHU

22

) 0 ) 0 ) 0 ) 0

0LOLWDU\RQO\        

%RWKPLOLWDU\DQG

FLYLOLDQVLQYROYHG        

&LYLOLDQVRQO\        

0DUJLQRI(UURU p  p  p  p  p  p  p  p 

Table 4.6

Percentage of Females and Males Indicating Reasons for Not Reporting the Behaviors, 

by Category Reporting
28 DEFENSE MANPOWER DATA CENTER

One Situation

supporting the

analysis reported here appear

in Tables 61a.1-

61n.4 in

Greenlees et al.

(2003b).

Excluding

Coast Guard,

Air Force

women (11%

vs. 3-8%) and

men (15% vs. 3-

8%) were more

likely to report

their offender

was a civilian

coworker than

women and

men in the other Services (see Tables 61a.3-61n.3 in

Greenlees et al. (2003b)). More Air Force women

reported their offender was another civilian person

than women in the other Services (10% vs. 3-7%). 

More female senior officers reported their offender

was a civilian coworker or another civilian person

than women in the other paygrades (both 15% vs. 

6-9%) (see Tables 61a.4-61n.4 in Greenlees et al.

(2003b)). In addition, more male senior officers

reported the offenders were civilian subordinates

than men in the other paygrades (13% vs. 2-4%).

Characteristics of the One

Situation

Service members were asked about the characteristics of the situation with the greatest effect. 

To understand this section, it is necessary to 

remember that these behaviors can happen in

various locations, during multiple times in one single day, and can occur over long and short periods.

An examination of these characteristics provides a

clearer picture of details surrounding incidents of

unprofessional, gender-related behavior. 

Place and Time One Situation Occurred

The majority of women and men reported some or

all of the behaviors occurred at an installation

(Females 86%; Males 75%); at work (Females 81%;

Males 74%); and during duty hours (Females 84%;

Males 76%) (see Figure 4.6). Although fewer

reported the behaviors occurred on a military installation, approximately twice as many men than

women (24% vs. 13%) reported none of the behaviors

occurred on installation. In 2002, women and men

were less likely than in 1995 to report that all of the

behaviors in the situation occurred during duty

hours (Females 46% vs. 54%; Males 40% vs. 48%) and

on a military installation (Females 51% vs. 73%;

Males 42% vs. 62%) or at work (Females 44% vs.

51%; Males 39% vs. 51%) (see Figure 4.6 and 

Table 4.7). 

There were no significant Service differences for

either men or women in 2002 regarding where and

when behaviors occur. However, trend analyses

indicate that women in each of the Services were at

least 20 percentage points less likely to indicate in

2002, than in 1995, that all of the behaviors occurred

on a military installation. Similarly, excluding

Coast Guard, men in each of the Services were at

least 16 percentage points less likely to indicate in

2002, than in 1995, that all of the behaviors occurred

on a military installation. Women in the Army,

Navy, Air Force, and Coast Guard were at least 6 

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

In local community around installation

During duty hours

At work

MALES At a military installation

In local community around installation

During duty hours

At work

 FEMALES At a military installation

Margin of error does not exceed ±3

All of it Some of it None of it

51 35 13

42 33 24

39 35 25

40

5 26 69

36 24

44 37 19

46 38 16

5 26 69

Figure 4.6

Percentage of Females and Males Reporting Where and When the Situation Occurred in 2002
DEFENSE MANPOWER DATA CENTER 29

One Situation

'R'

7RWDO'R' $UP\ 1DY\ 0DULQH

&RUSV $LU)RUFH &RDVW*XDUG

           

)HPDOHV

,QWKHORFDO

FRPPXQLW\            

$WDPLOLWDU\

LQVWDOODWLRQ            

$WZRUN            

'XULQJGXW\

KRXUV            

0DUJLQRI(UURU                        

0DOHV

,QWKHORFDO

FRPPXQLW\        
    


$WDPLOLWDU\

LQVWDOODWLRQ            

$WZRUN            

'XULQJGXW\

KRXUV            

0DUJLQRI(UURU                        

Table 4.8

Percentage of Females and Males Reporting All of the Behaviors Occurred at a Particular Time

or Location, by Service

$WDPLOLWDU\

LQVWDOODWLRQ $WZRUN 'XULQJGXW\KRXUV

) 0 ) 0 ) 0

1RQHRILW      

6RPHRILW      

$OORILW      

0DUJLQRI(UURU p p p p p p

Table 4.7

Percentage of Females and Males Reporting Where and When the Situation Occurred in 1995
percentage points less likely to indicate in 2002,

than in 1995, that all of the behaviors occurred at

work. Similarly, men in the Army (39% vs. 54%)

and Air Force (40% vs. 52%) were less likely to

report in 2002, than in 1995, that all of the behaviors

occurred at work (see Table 4.8). 

Junior enlisted women (37% vs. 49%-61%) were less

likely to indicate that all of the behaviors occurred

at work than women in the other paygrades (see

Table 4.9). In contrast, female senior officers were

more likely to indicate that all of the behaviors

occurred at work than women in the other paygrades (61% vs. 37-50%). Among women, junior

enlisted members (39%) were the least likely, and

senior officers (63%) were the most likely, to indicate that none of the behaviors occurred during

duty hours. Similarly, among women, junior

enlisted members (62%) were the least likely, and

senior officers (83%) were the most likely, to indicate that none of the behaviors occurred in the 

local community surrounding an installation (see

Tables 59a.4-59d.4 in Greenlees et al. (2003b)). 

For men, there were no significant differences 

by paygrade.

Consistent with the Service results and regardless of

paygrade, women were at least 15 percentage points

less likely to indicate in 2002, than in 1995, that all

of the behaviors occurred on a military installation

(see Table 4.9). For men, senior enlisted members

were less likely to indicate in 2002, than in 1995,

that all of the behaviors occurred at work (39% vs.

56%), or during duty hours (40% vs. 52%). Moreover, junior (43% vs. 57%) and senior (40% vs. 66%)

enlisted men were less likely to indicate in 2002,

than in 1995, that all of the behaviors occurred on a

military installation (see Table 4.9). For more

detailed 2002 results, see Tables 59a.4-59d.4 in

Greenlees et al. (2003b).

Frequency and Duration of Incidents

Concerning Sexual Harassment

Regarding the frequency and duration of incidents

of unprofessional, gender-related behavior, women

were less likely than men to indicate that such incidents had only happened once (22% vs. 32%) and

that the situation lasted for less than a month (45%

vs. 60%) (see Figures 4.7 and 4.8). However, 26% of

women describing behaviors in the one situation

indicated they occurred almost every day/more

than once a day and 28% indicated the behaviors

occurred for more than 6 months. There were no

significant Service differences for either men or

women (see Tables 62.3 and 63.3 in Greenlees et al.

(2003b)).

Among women, junior enlisted members were the

most likely to indicate that the incidents of unprofessional, gender-related behavior occurred almost

every day or more than once a day (11% vs. 4-8%)

(see Table 4.10). Among men, there were no paygrade differences in the frequency of behaviors.

There were no significant paygrade differences for

either men or women in the duration of the situation (see Table 4.11). Tables 62.4 and 63.4, in

Greenlees et al. (2003b), contain the complete details

of the findings reported here.

Reporting and Satisfaction

With Reporting Process

A series of survey questions (Q66 – Q74) asked

Service members to provide information regarding

their reporting behavior. Those Service members

who indicated they reported their experiences were

asked to give a more detailed account of various

aspects of the reporting process. 

Overall, 30% of women and 17% of men reported

the situation to an installation/Service/ DoD individual or organization responsible for follow-up, to

include their supervisor or the supervisor of the

offender (see Figure 4.11). However, in 2002, fewer

women indicated they reported behaviors than in

1995 (38% vs. 30%). For more details, see Tables

66a.3-66e.3 in Greenlees et al. (2003b).

To Whom Behaviors Are Reported

Less than 10% of women and men indicated they

chose to report unprofessional, gender-related

behavior to either a special military office responsible for these types of behaviors or to another 

installation/Service/DoD official. Rather, Service

members tended to report to members in their chain

of command, such as their immediate supervisor

(Females 21%; Males 12%), or to the supervisor of

the offender (Females 16% vs. 10%) (see Tables

66a.1-66e.4 in Greenlees et al. (2003b)). Among

women, enlisted members were more likely than

30 DEFENSE MANPOWER DATA CENTER

One Situation
DEFENSE MANPOWER DATA CENTER 31

One Situation

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Males Females

Margin of error does not exceed ±3

Once Occasionally Frequently Almost every day/More than once a day

32

50

11

6

22

52

17

9

Figure 4.7

Percentage of Females and Males Reporting Frequency of Behavior During One Situation

-XQLRU(QOLVWHG

((

6HQLRU(QOLVWHG

((

-XQLRU2I¿FHU

22

6HQLRU2I¿FHU

22

       

)HPDOHV

,QWKHORFDOFRPPXQLW\        

$WDPLOLWDU\LQVWDOODWLRQ        

$WZRUN        

'XULQJGXW\KRXUV        

0DUJLQRI(UURU                

0DOHV

,QWKHORFDOFRPPXQLW\        

$WDPLOLWDU\LQVWDOODWLRQ        

$WZRUN        

'XULQJGXW\KRXUV        

0DUJLQRI(UURU                

Table 4.9

Percentage of Females and Males Reporting All of the Behaviors Occurred at a Particular 

Time or Location, by Paygrade
32 DEFENSE MANPOWER DATA CENTER

One Situation

Less than 1 month 1 month to less than 6 months More than 6 months

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Males Females

60

17

23

45

27 28

Margin of error does not exceed ±3

Figure 4.8

Percentage of Females and Males Reporting Duration of the Situation

-XQLRU(QOLVWHG

((

6HQLRU(QOLVWHG

((

-XQLRU2I¿FHU

22

6HQLRU2I¿FHU

22

) 0 ) 0 ) 0 ) 0

2QFH        

2FFDVLRQDOO\        

)UHTXHQWO\        

$OPRVWHYHU\GD\

0RUHWKDQRQFHDGD\        

0DUJLQRI(UURU p p p p p p p p

Table 4.10

Percentage of Females and Males Reporting Frequency of Behaviors During One Situation, 

by Paygrade

-XQLRU(QOLVWHG

((

6HQLRU(QOLVWHG

((

-XQLRU2I¿FHU

22

6HQLRU2I¿FHU

22

) 0 ) 0 ) 0 ) 0

/HVVWKDQPRQWK        

PRQWKWROHVVWKDQ

PRQWKV        

0RUHWKDQPRQWKV        

0DUJLQRI(UURU p p p p p p p p

Table 4.11

Percentage of Females and Males Reporting Duration of the Situation, by Paygrade
DEFENSE MANPOWER DATA CENTER 33

One Situation

officers to indicate they reported unprofessional,

gender-related behavior to someone in their chain

of command (15-17% vs. both 10%) or to a special

military office responsible for these types of behaviors (7-8% vs. both 3%) (see Tables 66a.4-66e.4 in

Greenlees et al. (2003b)).

Reasons for Not Reporting Behaviors

The five reasons Service members most frequently

indicated as reasons for not reporting behaviors are

shown in Figure 4.10. Women (67%) and men (78%)

most often indicated that they did not report behaviors because they felt the situation was not important enough to report. There were no significant

Service differences for either men or women in any

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

You took care of the problem yourself

You did not think anything would be done

Was not important enough to report

You felt uncomfortable making a report

You thought you would be labeled a troublemaker

Males Females

Margin of error does not exceed ±3

78

63

26 28

22

67 65

40

33 32

Figure 4.10

Top Five Reasons for Not Reporting Any or All Behaviors in One Situation, 

by Gender (Percent)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Margin of error does not exceed ±3

1995 Males

2002 Males 

1995 Females 

2002 Females 

15 17

38

30

Figure 4.9

Percentage of Females and Males Reporting Behavior in One Situation to Any Supervisor or

Person Responsible for Follow-up in 1995 or 2002
34 DEFENSE MANPOWER DATA CENTER

One Situation

of the reasons for not reporting behaviors. For

detailed information on all 19 items, see Tables

74a.1-74s.4 in Greenless et al. (2003b).

Although there were no Service differences in

Service members’ reasons for not reporting, there

were paygrade differences. Junior enlisted women

were more likely than women in other paygrades to

indicate they did not report behaviors because they

felt uncomfortable (48% vs. 30-36%), thought they

would not be believed (22% vs. 11-16%), thought

coworkers would be angry (31% vs. 16-20%), did

not want to hurt the person (34% vs. 16-26%), or

were afraid of retaliation from the offender (28% vs.

18-19%). In contrast, more junior enlisted men than

men in the other paygrades indicated they did not

report because it would take too much time (29%

vs. 11-17%). For more detailed information, see

Tables 74a.1-74s.4 in Greenlees et al. (2003b). 

5HDVRQV)RU1RW5HSRUWLQJ 5HSRUWHG1R

%HKDYLRUV

5HSRUWHG

6RPH

%HKDYLRUV

) 0 ) 0

:DVQRWLPSRUWDQWHQRXJKWRUHSRUW    

<RXGLGQRWNQRZKRZWRUHSRUW    

<RXIHOWXQFRPIRUWDEOHPDNLQJDUHSRUW    

<RXWRRNFDUHRIWKHSUREOHP\RXUVHOI    

<RXWDONHGWRVRPHRQHLQIRUPDOO\LQ\RXUFKDLQRIFRPPDQG    

<RXGLGQRWWKLQNDQ\WKLQJZRXOGEHGRQHLI\RXUHSRUWHG    

<RXWKRXJKW\RXZRXOGQRWEHEHOLHYHGLI\RXUHSRUWHG    

<RXWKRXJKW\RXUFRZRUNHUVZRXOGEHDQJU\LI\RXUHSRUWHG    

<RXZDQWHGWR¿WLQ    

<RXWKRXJKWUHSRUWLQJZRXOGWDNHWRRPXFKWLPHDQGHIIRUW    

<RXWKRXJKW\RXZRXOGEHODEHOHGDWURXEOHPDNHULI\RXUHSRUWHG    

$SHHUWDONHG\RXRXWRIPDNLQJDIRUPDOFRPSODLQW  
  


$VXSHUYLVRUWDONHG\RXRXWRIPDNLQJDIRUPDOFRPSODLQW  
  

<RXGLGQRWZDQWWRKXUWWKHSHUVRQ¶VIHHOLQJVIDPLO\RUFDUHHU    

<RXWKRXJKW\RXUSHUIRUPDQFHHYDOXDWLRQRUFKDQFHRISURPRWLRQZRXOGVXIIHU    

<RXZHUHDIUDLGRIUHWDOLDWLRQIURPWKHSHUVRQVZKRGLGLW    

<RXZHUHDIUDLGRIUHWDOLDWLRQUHSULVDOVIURPIULHQGVRIWKHSHUVRQVZKRGLGLW    

<RXZHUHDIUDLGRIUHWDOLDWLRQUHSULVDOVIURP\RXUVXSHUYLVRUV    

6RPHRWKHUUHDVRQ    

0DUJLQRI(UURU p p p p

Table 4.12

Percentage of Females and Males Indicating Reasons for Not Reporting the Behaviors, by

Reporting Category
DEFENSE MANPOWER DATA CENTER 35

One Situation

Reasons for Not Reporting Behaviors by

Reporting Category

For those Service members who reported either

none of the behaviors or only some of the behaviors, this section includes an analysis of Service

members’ reasons for not reporting behaviors.

Women were more likely than men to identify

retaliatory behaviors as reasons not to report any of

the behaviors (see Table 4.12). These reasons

included:

Margin of error does not exceed ±4 (Females) and ±10 (Males)

Satisfied/Very Satisfied Neither Satisfied nor Dissatisfied Dissatisfied/Very Dissatisfied

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

1995 Male

2002 Male

1995 Female

2002 Female 34 34 32

36 28 36

37 39 24

36 28 37

Figure 4.11

Percentage of Females and Males Reporting Satisfaction With Complaint Outcome in 1995 

and 2002

2XWFRPHRI&RPSODLQW 6DWLV¿HGZLWK

2XWFRPH

'LVVDWLV¿HG

ZLWK2XWFRPH

) 0 ) 0

7KH\IRXQG\RXUFRPSODLQWWREHWUXH    


7KH\IRXQG\RXUFRPSODLQWWREHXQWUXH 
 
  


7KH\ZHUHXQDEOHWRGHWHUPLQHZKHWKHU\RXUFRPSODLQWZDVWUXHRUQRW  
  


7KHRXWFRPHRI\RXUFRPSODLQWZDVH[SODLQHGWR\RX    


7KHVLWXDWLRQZDVFRUUHFWHG    


6RPHDFWLRQZDVWDNHQDJDLQVWWKHSHUVRQVZKRERWKHUHG\RX    


1RWKLQJZDVGRQHDERXWWKHFRPSODLQW  
  


$FWLRQZDVWDNHQDJDLQVW\RX 
 
  


0DUJLQRI(UURU    

Table 4.13

Percentage of Females and Males Reporting Satisfaction and Dissatisfaction, 

by Complaint Outcome
36 DEFENSE MANPOWER DATA CENTER

One Situation

 Margin of error does not exceed ±8.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

DoD Total Army Navy Marine Corps Air Force Coast Guard

Males

Females

23

29 27

31

22

31 29

38

15

23 19

28

Figure 4.12

Percentage of Females and Males Who Experienced Any Type of Problems

'R'

7RWDO

'R' $UP\ 1DY\ 0DULQH&RUSV

$LU

)RUFH

&RDVW

*XDUG

) 0 ) 0 ) 0 ) 0 ) 0 ) 0

<RXZHUHLJQRUHGVKXQQHGE\RWKHUVDWZRUN        
    

<RXZHUHEODPHGIRUWKHVLWXDWLRQ            


3HRSOHJRVVLSHGDERXW\RXLQDQXQNLQGZD\            

<RXORVWSHUNVRUSULYLOHJHV        
    


<RXZHUHJLYHQOHVVIDYRUDEOHMREGXWLHV            


<RXZHUHGHQLHGDQRSSRUWXQLW\IRUWUDLQLQJ        
    


<RXZHUHJLYHQDQXQIDLUHYDOXDWLRQ            


<RXZHUHXQIDLUO\GLVFLSOLQHG            


<RXZHUHGHQLHGDSURPRWLRQ    
 
 
  
 
 
 
 


<RXZHUHWUDQVIHUUHGWRDOHVVGHVLUDEOH MRE      
  
  
  


<RXZHUHXQIDLUO\GHPRWHG  
  
 
  
 
 
 
 
 


<RXZHUHPLVWUHDWHGLQVRPHRWKHUZD\            

0DUJLQRI(UURU p  p  p  p  p  p  p  p  p  p  p  p


/RZSUHFLVLRQDQGRUXQZHLJKWHGGHQRPLQDWRUVL]HEHWZHHQDQG

Table 4.14

Percentage of Females and Males Who Reported Experiencing Problems at Work, by Service
DEFENSE MANPOWER DATA CENTER 37

One Situation

• being labeled a

troublemaker

(29% vs. 19%), 

• fear of retaliation from the

offender (18%

vs. 10%), 

• fear of retaliation from

friends of the

offender (13%

vs. 8%), and

• fear of retaliation from

supervisor

(12% vs. 8%).

Men were more

likely than

women to report

either none (81%

vs. 71%) or only

some (59% vs. 50%) of the behaviors because they

believed the behaviors were not important enough

to report.

Satisfaction With Reporting Process

Service members were asked to rate satisfaction

with various aspects of the reporting process,

including availability of information, the treatment

they received, the timeliness of the process, being

kept informed of progress, and the preservation of

their privacy. Women and men were equally satisfied with all aspects of the reporting process. Of all

the aspects, women (44%) were most satisfied with

the availability of information about how to file a

complaint. There were no significant differences

among men regarding satisfaction with aspects of

the reporting process. In addition, there were no

Service differences for women or men. For more

details, see Tables 69a.1-69e.3 in Greenlees et al.

(2003b). 

Among women, fewer junior enlisted members

reported satisfaction with the availability of information about how to file a complaint than women

in the other paygrades (38% vs. 50-56%). Across the

paygrades, men were equally satisfied with all

aspects of the reporting process. For a more

detailed account of the results, see Tables 69a.4-

69e.4 in Greenlees et al. (2003b).

The Complaint Process

Satisfaction With Complaint Outcome 

Service members were asked how satisfied they

were with the outcome of their complaint.

Approximately a third of women and men were satisfied with the outcome. In 2002 and 1995, women

(34% vs. 36%) and men (37% vs. 36%) were equally

satisfied with the outcome of the complaint process

(see Figure 4.11). For more detailed 2002 findings

by gender, Service, and paygrade, see Tables 72.1-

72.3 in Greenlees et al. (2003b).

Complaint Outcome 

In addition to asking Service members how satisfied

they were with the outcome of their complaint, they

were also asked to describe the outcome. This section includes an analysis of the complaint outcome

by Service members’ satisfaction with the outcome.

As expected, Service members were most likely to

be satisfied with the outcome of their complaint

when the situation was corrected (Females 92%;

Males 91%), the outcome of complaint was

explained to them (Females 69%; Males 70%), and

Males

Females

Margin of error does not exceed ±5

18

27

11

20

10

21

31 33

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

E1-E4 E5-E9 01-03 04-06

Figure 4.13

Percentage of Females and Males Who Experienced Any Type of Problem at Work, by

Paygrade
38 DEFENSE MANPOWER DATA CENTER

One Situation

some action was taken against the offender

(Females 55%; Males 66%). Women and men (both

48%) were most likely to be dissatisfied with the

outcome of their complaint when nothing was done

about it. For more detailed Service and paygrade

findings regarding complaint outcomes, see Tables

71a.1-71h.4 in Greenlees et al. (2003b).

Problems at Work

Overall, 29% of women and 23% of men who

responded to this survey reported experiencing

some type of problem at work because of unprofessional, gender-related behavior (see Figure 4.12).

Service members were asked what types of

problems occurred. Women and men most often

reported being gossiped about by people in an

unkind way (20% and 15%). Women were more

likely than men to report experiences of being

ignored or shunned by others at work (10% vs. 6%),

blamed for the situation (9% vs. 6%), or mistreated

in some other way (10% vs. 6%) (see Table 4.14).

Excluding Coast Guard women, Air Force women

were less likely than women in the other Services to

report experiencing any type of problem at work

&KDUDFWHULVWLFVRI2QH6LWXDWLRQ

ZLWKWKH*UHDWHVW(IIHFW 0DOHV )HPDOHV

7\SHRI%HKDYLRU &UXGH2IIHQVLYH%HKDYLRU 6H[LVW%HKDYLRU

*HQGHURI+DUDVVHU 0DOH 0DOH

2UJDQL]DWLRQDO$I¿OLDWLRQRI

+DUDVVHU 0LOLWDU\3HUVRQQHO 0LOLWDU\3HUVRQQHO

5HODWLRQVKLSWR+DUDVVHU 0LOLWDU\&RZRUNHU 0LOLWDU\&RZRUNHU

:KHUH:KHQ6RPHRU$OO

%HKDYLRUV2FFXUUHG

2Q%DVH

$W:RUN

'XULQJ'XW\

2Q%DVH

$W:RUN

'XULQJ'XW\

)UHTXHQF\RI%HKDYLRUV 2FFXUUHG2FFDVLRQDOO\ 2FFXUUHG2FFDVLRQDOO\

'XUDWLRQRI6LWXDWLRQ /HVV7KDQ2QH0RQWK /HVV7KDQ2QH0RQWK

5HSRUWHGWKH([SHULHQFH 3HUFHQW:KR5HSRUWHG 3HUFHQW:KR5HSRUWHG

7R:KRPWKH6LWXDWLRQ:DV

5HSRUWHG ,PPHGLDWH6XSHUYLVRU ,PPHGLDWH6XSHUYLVRU

6DWLVIDFWLRQ:LWK2XWFRPHRI

&RPSODLQW 9HU\6DWLV¿HG6DWLV¿HG 9HU\6DWLV¿HG6DWLV¿HG

Table 4.15

Summary of Characteristics of One Situation
DEFENSE MANPOWER DATA CENTER 39

One Situation

(23% vs. 31-38%), specifically being given less

favorable job duties (5% vs. 9-10%) or an unfair performance evaluation (3% vs. 7-10%) as a result of

unprofessional, gender-related behavior (see Table

4.14). For men, there were no significant Service

differences in problems experienced at work.

Both junior enlisted women (33%) and men (31%)

were more likely to report experiencing at least

some kind of problem at work than women and

men in the other paygrades (see Figure 4.13). Junior

enlisted women (25% vs. 9-18%) and men (21% vs.

5-11%) were also the most likely to report being the

brunt of unkind or negative gossip (see Tables

75a.4-75l.4 in Greenlees et al. (2003b)).

Summary

Chapter 4 provides an assessment of the characteristics of situations of unprofessional, gender-related

behavior that had the greatest effect on Service

members. Table 4.13 provides a summary of findings from this chapter.

Types of Behaviors in One Situation by

Year, Service, and Paygrade

• For those who indicated having only one type 

of behavior, Sexist Behavior was the most

commonly experienced by women (26%), whereas Crude/Offensive Behavior was the most commonly experienced alone by men (48%). 

♦ In 2002, over half of the women and onethird of the men indicated that multiple

types of behaviors occurred in the one

situation. 

• More junior enlisted women reported experiences

of Crude/Offensive Behavior (63% vs. 32-52%),

Unwanted Sexual Attention (45% vs. 12-31%),

Sexual Coercion (12% vs. 0-7%), and Sexual

Assault (7% vs. 0-2%) than women in the other

paygrades.

Gender of Offenders by Year, Service, and

Paygrade

• The majority of women (85%) and men (51%)

reported the gender of the offenders as male 

in 2002. 

♦ More women (16% vs. 6%) and men (27% vs.

16%) reported the offenders included both men

and women in 2002 than in 1995.

♦ Men in the Army (22% vs. 38%) and Marine

Corps (16% vs. 35%) were less likely to report

in 2002, than in 1995, that the offender was a

woman. 

Organizational Affiliation of Offenders by

Year, Service, and Paygrade

• The majority of women (84%) and men (82%)

reported the offenders were military personnel.

♦ Both women (4% vs. 6%) and men (6% vs. 13%)

were less likely in 2002, compared to 1995, to

report the offenders in the situation included

only civilians. 

• Air Force women were less likely to report the

offenders were military personnel than women in

the other Services (79% vs. 85-90%)

• Female (68% vs. 82-88%) and male (57% vs. 82-

87%) senior officers were less likely to report the

offenders were military personnel than women

and men in the other 

paygrades. 

• Both female and male senior officers were more

likely to report the offender was a civilian than

women and men in other paygrades (Females

14% vs. 3-6%; Males 23% vs. 2-7%).

Military Offenders by Service and

Paygrade

• Air Force women were less likely to report the

offenders included military supervisors (13% vs.

19-21%) or subordinates (17% vs. 26-30%) than

women in the other Services.

• Regardless of gender, senior officers were the

least likely to report the offenders were their

military coworkers (Females 47% vs. 60-73%;

Males 53% vs. 66-74%).

• Female (66% vs. 35-54%) and male (49% vs. 18-

31%) junior enlisted were more likely to report

that that the offenders were military members of

higher rank than women and men in the other

paygrades.

• Junior enlisted men were more likely than men in

the other paygrades to report that their immediate military supervisor was an offender (20% vs.

10-13%).

Civilian Offenders by Service and

Paygrade

• Air Force women (11% vs. 3-8%) and men (15%

vs. 3-8%) were more likely to report their
40 DEFENSE MANPOWER DATA CENTER

One Situation

offender was a civilian co-worker than women

and men in the other Services.

• Female senior officers were more likely to report

the offender was a civilian coworker or other

civilian person than women in other paygrades

(both 15% vs. 3-7%).

Place and Time of Occurrence of One

Situation

• The majority of women and men reported some

or all of the behaviors occurred at an installation

(Females 86%; Males 75%), at work (Females

81%; Males 74%), during duty hours (Females

84%; Males 76%).

• Women and men were less likely to report in

2002, than in 1995, that all of the behaviors in the

situation occurred:

♦ during duty hours (Females 46% vs. 54%;

Males 40% vs. 48%)

♦ on a military installation (Females 51% vs. 73%;

Males 42% vs. 62%)

♦ at work (Females 44% vs. 51%; Males 39% vs.

51%). 

• In each of the Services, few women and men

(both 5%) reported all the behaviors occurred in

the local community.

♦ Women in the Army, Navy, Air Force, and

Coast Guard were at least 6 percentage points

less likely to report in 2002, than in 1995, that

all of the behaviors occurred at work. 

♦ Men in the Army (39% vs. 54%) and Air Force

(40% vs. 52%) were less likely to report in 2002,

than in 1995, that all of the behaviors occurred

at work. 

♦ Excluding Coast Guard, men in each of the

Services were at least 16 percentage points less

likely to report in 2002, than in 1995, that all of

the behaviors occurred on a military installation. 

• Among women, junior enlisted members were

the least likely, and senior officers were the most

likely, to report that all of the behaviors occurred

during duty hours (39% vs. 63%) and at work

(37% vs. 61%). 

♦ For men, senior enlisted members were less

likely to report in 2002, than in 1995, that all of

the behaviors occurred at work (50% vs. 57%)

or during duty hours (53% vs. 62%). 

♦ Junior (43% vs. 57%) and senior (40% vs. 66%)

enlisted men were less likely to report in 2002,

than in 1995, that all of the behaviors occurred

on a military installation.

Frequency and Duration of Incidents

Concerning Sexual Harassment

• Twenty-six percent of women describing behaviors in the one situation indicated they occurred

almost every day/more than once a day and 28%

indicated the behaviors occurred for more than 6

months. 

• Women were less likely than men to report the

situation had only happened once (22% vs. 32%)

and that the situation lasted for less than a month

(45% vs. 60%). 

♦ Junior enlisted women were more likely than

women in the other paygrades to report that

the incidents of unprofessional, gender-related

behavior in the situation they were describing

occurred almost every day or more than once a

day (9% vs. 1-5%). 

Reporting Behaviors for the One Situation

• Overall, 30% of women and 17% of men reported

the situation to an installation/Service/ DoD

individual or organization responsible for followup, to include their supervisor or the supervisor

of the offender.

♦ In 2002, fewer women reported behaviors than

in 1995 (38% vs. 30%). 

To Whom Behaviors in the One Situation

Are Reported

• Female and male Service members were more

likely to report to members in their chain of

command, such as their immediate supervisor

(Females 21%; Males 12%), or to the supervisor of

the offender (Females 16%; Males 10%), than to

either a special military office (Females 7%; Males

3%) or another installation/Service/DoD official

(Females 4%; Males 2%). 

• For women, enlisted members were more likely

than officers to report unprofessional, genderrelated behavior to someone in their chain of

command (15-17% vs. both 10%) or to a special

military office responsible for these types of

behaviors (7-8% vs. both 3%).
DEFENSE MANPOWER DATA CENTER 41

Unprofessional, Gender-Related Behaviors and Sexual Harassment

Reasons for Not Reporting Behaviors in

One Situation

• Women (67%) and men (78%) most often indicated that they did not report their situation because

they felt it was not important enough to report.

• Men were more likely than women to report

either none (81% vs. 71%) or only some (59% vs.

50%) of their situation because they believed the

behaviors were not important enough to report.

• Junior enlisted women were more likely than

women in other paygrades to indicate they did

not report behaviors because they:

♦ felt uncomfortable (48% vs. 30-36%)

♦ thought they would not be believed (22% vs.

11-16%)

♦ thought coworkers would be angry (31% vs.

16-20%)

♦ did not want to hurt the person (34% vs. 

16-26%), or 

♦ were afraid of retaliation from the offender

(28% vs. 18-19%). 

• Women were more likely than men to identify

retaliatory behaviors as reasons not to report any

of the behaviors:

♦ being labeled a troublemaker (29% vs. 19%), 

♦ fear of retaliation from the offender (18% 

vs. 10%), 

♦ fear of retaliation from friends of the offender

(13% vs. 8%), and

♦ fear of retaliation from their supervisor (12%

vs. 8%).

Satisfaction With Reporting Process

• Women and men were equally satisfied with all

aspects of the reporting process. 

• Of all the aspects of the reporting process,

women (44%) were most satisfied with the

availability of information about how to file a

complaint. 

• Fewer junior enlisted women reported

satisfaction with the availability of information

about how to file a complaint than women in the

other paygrades (38% vs. 50-56%). 

Satisfaction With Complaint Outcome

• One third of women and men were satisfied with

the outcome of their complaint.

• Service members were most likely to be satisfied

with the outcome of their complaint when:

♦ the situation was corrected (Females 92%;

Males 91%)

♦ the outcome of complaint was explained to

them (Females 69%; Males 70%)

♦ some action was taken against the offender

(Females 55%; Males 66%). 

♦ Women and men (both 48%) were most likely

to be dissatisfied with the outcome of their

complaint when nothing was done about it.

Problems at Work

• Overall, 29% of women and 23% men reported

experiencing some type of problem at work

because of unprofessional, gender-related

behavior. 

• Women and men most often reported being gossiped about by people in an unkind way (15%

and 20%). 

• Women were more likely than men to report

experiences of being ignored or shunned by others at work (10% vs. 6%), blamed for the situation

(9% vs. 6%), or mistreated in some other way

(10% vs. 6%).

• Excluding Coast Guard women, Air Force

women were less likely than women in the other

Services to report experiencing any type of problem at work (23% vs. 31-38%), specifically being

given less favorable job duties (5% vs. 9-10%) or

an unfair performance evaluation (3% vs. 7-10%). 

• Both junior enlisted women (33%) and men (31%)

were more likely to report experiencing at least

some kind of problem at work than women and

men in the other paygrades. 

• Compared to women and men in other paygrades, junior enlisted women (25% vs. 9-18%)

and men (21% vs. 5-11%) were the most likely to

report being gossiped about in an unkind way.

DEFENSE MANPOWER DATA CENTER 43

In 1996, the Secretary of the Army commissioned a

“Senior Review on Sexual Harassment” to assess

the Army’s human relations environment. The

results of the Senior Review were released in July

1997. One of four major findings of the Senior

Review (Secretary of the Army, 1997) was that,

although sexual harassment was an Army-wide

problem, sex discrimination was an even greater

one. In developing the 2002 WGR, DMDC

researchers addressed this issue by adding a new

question to the survey. Question 54 consists of 12

items modeled on DMDC’s effort to measure

race/ethnic discrimination on its 1996 Equal

Opportunity Survey.

The behavioral items used in Question 54 are

intended to be indicative of three distinct categories

of discrimination seen in the workplace:

• Evaluation - Service members’ perceptions that

they did not receive ratings or awards they

deserved (Q54a-d),

• Assignment - Service members’ perceptions 

that they do not get assignments they want or

ones that utilize their skills or facilitate career

advancement (Q54e, f, g, l, m), and

• Career - Service members’ perceptions of having

access to resources and mentoring that aid in

career development (Q54h-k).

The 12 items were measured using a three-level

response scale designed to allow Service members

to indicate if their gender was a motivating factor.

Response options for items Question 54a-l6 of were:

• yes, and your gender was a factor,

• yes, but your gender was NOT a factor, and

• no, or does not apply.

The 12 items were scored dichotomously. Incidents

were only counted as occurring if the Service member marked “Yes, and your gender was a factor.” All

other responses were considered “No” responses.

For example, if survey participants indicated, “Yes,

but your gender was NOT a factor,” then they did not

believe their experiences were gender-motivated

and were coded as “No.” For the purpose of this

analysis, a Service member was considered to have

had a gender-motivated experience for item l only if

they indicated “Yes, and your gender was a factor” and

the assignment was legally open to women. For

complete details on the development of measures,

refer to Ormerod et al. (2003).

Perceptions of Sex Discrimination

This section provides an overview of how Service

members responded to the 12 items used to probe

for sex discrimination. Service members were not

asked if they thought the behaviors constituted sex

discrimination—they were only asked if they experienced them and if gender was a motivating factor.

The three incident rate categories (e.g., Evaluation,

Assignment, and Career) are presented by gender

and Service in Table 5.1, and by gender and paygrade group, in Table 5.2.

Overall Rate

The majority of women (82%) and men (93%)

reported they did not experience any of the 12

behaviors because of their gender. Figure 5.1 shows

the percentage of Service members who experienced and did not experience these behaviors. 

Data for the three categories of adverse behaviors,

Evaluation, Assignment, and Career, are presented

in Table 5.1 for women and men, by Service. The

Chapter 5

Perceptions of Sex Discrimination

6Q54m was a follow-on to Q54l and had "Yes" and "No" response options to indicate whether the job assignment (in Q54l) they were

reporting was legally open to women. If the job assignment was not open to women, the Service member’s exclusion from the

assignment was not considered to be motivated by gender.
44 DEFENSE MANPOWER DATA CENTER

Perceptions of Sex Discrimination

rate of adverse Evaluation behaviors was higher for

women than for men (11% vs. 5%). Compared to

women in the other Services, excluding the Coast

Guard, Marine Corps women (17%) reported experiencing the highest rate and Air Force women (8%)

reported experiencing the lowest rate of adverse

Evaluation behaviors. For men, there were no

significant Service differences in Evaluation 

incident rates. 

Women reported experiencing a higher rate of

adverse Assignment behaviors than men (8% vs.

2%). Air Force

women reported

experiencing a

lower Assignment incident

rate than women

in the other

Services (5% vs.

9-12%). In contrast, for men,

there were no

significant

Service differences in the incident rate of

adverse

Assignment

behaviors.

Women also

reported experiencing higher

rates of adverse

Career behaviors (9% vs. 2%) than men. Excluding

the Coast Guard, Air Force (6%) and Navy (8%)

women reported experiencing lower rates of

adverse Career behaviors than women in the 

other Services (11-13%). For men, there were no

significant Service differences in adverse Career

behaviors.

Regardless of paygrade, women reported higher

rates of adverse Evaluation, Assignment and Career

behaviors than men (see Table 5.2). There were no

significant paygrade differences in the Evaluation

incident rates for

women.

Compared to

men in the other

paygrades, junior enlisted

members’

reported the

highest rates of

adverse

Evaluation

behaviors (7%

vs. 3-4%). For

adverse

Assignment

behaviors, there

Did not experience Experienced

Margin of error does not exceed ±2

Females Males

82 18 93 7

Figure 5.1

Percentage of Females and Males Experiencing Any Behaviors

7RWDO'R' $UP\ 1DY\ 0DULQH

&RUSV $LU)RUFH &RDVW*XDUG

) 0 ) 0 ) 0 ) 0 ) 0 ) 0

(YDOXDWLRQ            

$VVLJQPHQW            


&DUHHU            


0DUJLQRI(UURU p  p  p  p  p  p  p p  p  p  p p 


/RZSUHFLVLRQDQGRUXQZHLJKWHGGHQRPLQDWRUVL]HEHWZHHQDQG

Table 5.1

Percentage of Females and Males Experiencing Adverse Behaviors, by Service 

Females Males
DEFENSE MANPOWER DATA CENTER 45

Perceptions of Sex Discrimination

were no significant differences

rates among

paygrade groups

for either women

or men. For

adverse Career

behaviors, however, female senior officers had a

higher rate than

women in the

other paygrades

(13% vs. 7-9%).

There were no

significant differences by paygrade for men in Career rates (see

Table 5.2). 

Summary

DMDC added a new question to the 2002 WGR

containing items that probed for sex discrimination

in the military workplace. Chapter 5 presents findings for Service members’ perceptions of gendermotivated Evaluation, Assignment, and Career

behaviors in the workplace. The results of this

chapter indicate that sex discrimination occurs 

at much lower rates than sexual harassment and

other unprofessional, gender-related behaviors in

the military. 

• Eighteen percent of women and 7% of men indicated they experienced 1 or more of the 12 behaviors where gender was a motivating factor.

• Across all paygrades, women reported higher

rates than men for the three categories of adverse

behaviors: Evaluation (11% vs. 5%), Assignment

(8% vs. 2%), and Career (9% vs. 2%).

Evaluation 

• Excluding the Coast Guard, women in the Marine

Corps reported the highest incident rate of

adverse Evaluation behaviors (17% vs. 8-12%),

whereas Air Force women reported the lowest

rate (8% vs. 12-17%).

♦ Junior enlisted men had a higher rate of

adverse Evaluation behaviors than men in the

other paygrades (7% vs. 3-4%).

Assignment 

• Air Force women reported a lower rate of

adverse Assignment behaviors than women in

the other Services (5% vs. 9-12%). 

Career 

• Air Force women reported a lower rate of

adverse Career behaviors than women in the

other Services (6% vs. 8-13%).

• Female senior officers reported a higher rate of

adverse Career behaviors than women in the

other paygrades (13% vs. 7-9%).

-XQLRU(QOLVWHG

((

6HQLRU(QOLVWHG

((

-XQLRU2I¿FHU

22

6HQLRU2I¿FHU

22

) 0 ) 0 ) 0 ) 0

(YDOXDWLRQ        

$VVLJQPHQW        

&DUHHU        

0DUJLQRI(UURU p  p  p  p  p  p  p  p 

Table 5.2

Percentage of Females and Males Experiencing Adverse Behaviors, by Paygrade

DEFENSE MANPOWER DATA CENTER 47

Recent research on sexual harassment in the workplace (Fitzgerald, Hulin, and Drasgow, 1995) has

identified the importance of organizational

factors—particularly tolerance of harassment by 

its leaders and managers—as antecedents or precursors of sexual harassment. A new measure of

organizational climate (Hulin et al., 1996) was

included on the 2002 WGR and this chapter provides the first findings on organizational tolerance

for sexual harassment for the military. Chapter 6

also provides results for Service members’ views of

sexual harassment policies and practices, the

amount and effectiveness of their sexual harassment

training, and their perceptions of military leaders’

attempts to stop sexual harassment. 

In the first section of this chapter, the member’s

overall perception of the sexual harassment climate

in their duty station is examined. In subsequent

sections, members’ views of sexual harassment

policies and practices, the amount and effectiveness

of their sexual harassment training, and their

leaders’ attempts to stop sexual harassment are

examined.

Sexual Harassment Climate

The behavior of leaders and coworkers plays a

significant role in discouraging sexual harassment

and encouraging members to feel free to report

sexual harassment complaints. Also, how those

who report are treated and how their complaints

are processed shape and determine organizational

climate.

The survey provided several hypothetical situations

representing examples of Crude/Offensive

Behavior, Unwanted Sexual Attention, and Sexual

Coercion. Response options allowed Service

members to indicate how they believed leaders and

Chapter 6

Personnel Policies, Practices, and

Training Related to Gender Relations

Male Female

Margin of error does not exceed ±0.1

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

Total DOD Army Navy Marine Corps Air Force Coast Guard

2.0 2.2 2.1 2.3

2.0 2.2 2.1 2.2

1.9

2.1

1.9

2.1

Figure 6.1

Average Assessment of Sexual Harassment Climate, by Service and Gender
48 DEFENSE MANPOWER DATA CENTER

Personnel Policies, Practices, and Training Related to Gender Relations

coworkers would respond to these hypothetical

scenarios and whether they felt complaints about

such types of behavior would be taken seriously.

This section of the survey assessed Service members’ perceptions of the sexual harassment climate

within their work groups and, consequently, provided an overall measure of the military’s organizational climate. For a complete tabulation of results

from survey Questions 76-78, see Tables 76a.1-78i.4

in Greenlees et al. (2003b).

The Sexual Harassment Climate scale is a psychometrically valid measure used in both civilian and

military research. The mean of the responses to

items that comprise the scale (Q76-78e,f,g) is reported. For more details on scale interpretation, see

Chapter 2; for more information on the history of

the Sexual Harassment Climate scale, refer to

Ormerod et al. (2003). In this chapter’s analysis, a

lower scale score is indicative of a better climate. 

Women’s Sexual Harassment Climate score was

higher than men’s, indicating that women perceived

a less positive climate than men (2.2 vs. 2.0) (see

Figure 6.1). Air Force women’s Sexual Harassment

Climate scale score was slightly lower than women

in the other Services, excluding the Coast Guard

(2.1 vs. 2.2-2.3). Similarly, for men, Air Force and

Coast Guard members’ Sexual Harassment Climate

scale was slightly lower than the scores of men in

the other Services, indicating a more positive sexual

harassment climate for those organizations (both 1.9

vs. 2.0-2.1).

Mean scores for enlisted women were slightly higher than those for female officers (both 2.2 vs. 1.9-

2.1). Mean scores for female and male junior enlisted members were the same (both 2.2). For men, the

Sexual Harassment Climate scale score declined as

paygrade increased (ranging from 2.2 to 1.7), indicating that men in higher paygrades perceived a

more positive climate (see Figure 6.2).

Proactive Leadership

Service members were asked to assess whether

leaders made honest and reasonable efforts to stop

sexual harassment. They provided feedback for

three leadership levels—senior Service, senior

installation, and their immediate supervisor. These

identical leadership items were on both the 2002

and 1995 surveys.

Margin of error does not exceed ±0.1

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

E1-E4 E5-E9 01-03 04-06

Male Female

2.2 2.2 2.2

1.8

2.1

1.7

1.9 2.0

Figure 6.2

Average Assessment of Sexual Harassment Climate, by Paygrade and Gender
DEFENSE MANPOWER DATA CENTER 49

Personnel Policies, Practices, and Training Related to Gender Relations

In 2002, roughly

75% of Service

members agreed

that their immediate leaders,

their installation/ship leaders, and their

Service leadership were making honest and

reasonable

efforts to stop

sexual harassment (see Figure

6.3). However,

for every level of

leadership,

women were at

least 7 percentage points less

positive in their

assessment 

than men (see Table 6.1).

Figure 6.3 shows that the majority of Service

members indicated their leaders were making

efforts to stop sexual harassment and the percent

who agreed increased between 1995 and 2002.

More members indicated in 2002, than in 1995, that

their immediate supervisor (75% vs. 67%), their

installation/ship leaders (75% vs. 65%), and their

Service leaders (74% vs. 65%) were making honest

and reasonable efforts to stop sexual harassment.

Fewer members indicated in 2002 than in 1995 that

they did not know whether their immediate supervisor (19% vs. 25%), their installation/ship leaders

(21% vs. 30%), or Service leaders (21% vs. 29%)

were making honest efforts to stop sexual harassment in 2002 than in 1995. 

Table 6.1 shows that in 2002 men were more likely

than women to indicate their leaders were making

efforts to stop sexual harassment. With regard to

women’s perceptions, Army women were less likely

than women in the other Services to agree that their

senior Service leadership (62% vs. 68-72%) and their

installation/ship leadership (62% vs. 69-75%) were

trying to stop sexual harassment. Air Force women

were less likely than women in the other Services to

indicate that their senior Service leadership (3% vs.

6-8%), their installation/ship leadership (4% vs. 

7-8%), and their immediate leadership (7% vs. 

10-12%) were not making reasonable efforts to stop

sexual harassment.

Table 6.1 indicates that, with regard to men’s perceptions of their leaders in 2002, Coast Guard men

were more likely than men in the other Services to

agree their installation/ship leadership was making

honest and reasonable efforts to stop sexual harassment (84% vs. 74-78%). Across the Services, men

consistently rated all three levels of their leadership

high in trying to stop sexual harassment.

Comparing responses in 2002 to 1995, more women

and men in each of the Services agreed that all categories of leadership were making reasonable efforts

to stop sexual harassment. As Table 6.1 shows, of

all the Services, the smallest increases in agreement

occurred for women (increased 6 to 8 percentage

points) and men (increased 5 to 6 percentage points)

in the Navy. 

With the exception of the Navy, the percentage of

women in each of the Services who agreed that

their installation/ship leadership was making

Margin of error does not exceed ±2

Yes Don’t Know No

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Immediate Supervisor - 1995

Immediate Supervisor - 2002

Senior Installation Leadership - 1995

Senior Installation Leadership - 2002

Senior Service Leadership - 1995

Senior Service Leadership - 2002 74 21 4

65 29 5

75 21 4

65 30 5

75 19 6

67 25 8

Figure 6.3

Percentage of Service Members Indicating Whether Leaders Made Honest and Reasonable

Efforts to Stop Sexual Harassment in 1995 and 2002
50 DEFENSE MANPOWER DATA CENTER

Personnel Policies, Practices, and Training Related to Gender Relations

honest efforts to stop sexual harassment increased

by over 10 percentage points between 1995 and

2002. In 1995, Army women were less likely than

women in the other Services to agree that their

installation/ship leaders (45% vs. 50-62%) were trying to stop sexual harassment. In contrast, in 2002,

the percent of Army women who agreed with this

statement had risen to 62%, which is similar to

women in the other Services (69-75%).

Across all paygrades except junior enlisted, men

were more likely than women to indicate their

leaders were making efforts to stop sexual harassment (see Table 6.2). Overall, female and male

junior enlisted members also were less likely than

women and men in the other paygrades to agree

that their Service leadership (Females 62% vs. 69-

74%; Males 68% vs. 79-84%), their installation/ship

leadership (Females 62% vs. 70-76%; Males 67% vs.

'R'

7RWDO'R' $UP\ 1DY\ 0DULQH

&RUSV $LU)RUFH &RDVW*XDUG

           

)HPDOHV

,PPHGLDWH

6XSHUYLVRU

1R            

<HV            

'RQ¶W.QRZ            

,QVWDOODWLRQ

6KLS

6XSHUYLVRU

1R            

<HV            

'RQ¶W.QRZ            

6HUYLFH

/HDGHUVKLS

1R            

<HV            

'RQ¶W.QRZ            

0DUJLQRI(UURU                        

0DOHV

,PPHGLDWH

6XSHUYLVRU

1R            

<HV            

'RQ¶W .QRZ            

,QVWDOODWLRQ

6KLS

6XSHUYLVRU

1R            

<HV            

'RQ¶W.QRZ            

6HUYLFH

/HDGHUVKLS

1R            

<HV            

'RQ¶W .QRZ            

0DUJLQRI(UURU                        

Table 6.1 

Percentage of Females and Males Indicating Whether Leaders Made Honest and Reasonable

Efforts to Stop Sexual Harassment in 1995 and 2002, by Service
DEFENSE MANPOWER DATA CENTER 51

Personnel Policies, Practices, and Training Related to Gender Relations

80-89%), and their immediate leadership (Females

64% vs. 72-78%; Males 66% vs. 81-90%) were

making honest efforts to stop sexual harassment.

This lower level of agreement can be partially

accounted for by the higher levels of junior enlisted

members who reported that they did not know

whether honest efforts were being made to stop

harassment at each level of leadership.

Table 6.2 provides information on how Service

members’ perceptions of their leaders changed

between 1995 and 2002. For women across all paygrades, there was at least a 6 percentage-point

increase between 1995 and 2002 regarding positive

perceptions of leadership efforts to stop sexual

harassment. Junior and senior enlisted men were

more likely to agree in 2002 than in 1995 that their

-XQLRU

(QOLVWHG

((

6HQLRU

(QOLVWHG

((

-XQLRU

2I¿FHU

22

6HQLRU

2I¿FHU

22

       

)HPDOHV

,PPHGLDWH

6XSHUYLVRU

1R        

<HV        

'RQ¶W.QRZ        

,QVWDOODWLRQ6KLS

6XSHUYLVRU

1R        

<HV        

'RQ¶W.QRZ        

6HUYLFH

/HDGHUVKLS

1R        

<HV        

'RQ¶W.QRZ        

0DUJLQRI(UURU              

0DOHV

,PPHGLDWH

6XSHUYLVRU

1R        

<HV        

'RQ¶W .QRZ        

,QVWDOODWLRQ6KLS

6XSHUYLVRU

1R        

<HV        

'RQ¶W.QRZ        

6HUYLFH

/HDGHUVKLS

1R        

<HV        

'RQ¶W .QRZ        

0DUJLQRI(UURU            

Table 6.2

Percentage of Females and Males Indicating Whether Leaders Made Honest and Reasonable

Efforts to Stop Sexual Harassment in 1995 and 2002, by Paygrade
52 DEFENSE MANPOWER DATA CENTER

Personnel Policies, Practices, and Training Related to Gender Relations

Service leadership, installation/ship leadership, and

immediate supervisors were making honest efforts

to stop sexual harassment. For male officers, whose

ratings of their leaders are exceptionally high, there

were no changes between the 1995 and 2002 surveys in their perceptions of their leaders efforts to

stop sexual harassment (see Table 6.2).

Leadership Objectives

Leadership commitment to preventing sexual

harassment must be visible and unequivocal, since

leaders set the standard for acceptable behavior.

Proactive leadership behaviors create a positive climate include modeling respectful behavior to both

male and female personnel. Question 83 asked

Service members to assess whether or not leaders

consistently model respectful behavior and if leaders handle situations involving female members

appropriately (Q83f, g, n).

Modeling respectful behavior. Table 6.3 shows that

compared to women and men in the other Services,

excluding the Coast Guard, Air Force members

were more likely to rate their leaders higher on

modeling respectful behavior to both male and

female personnel in the unit/work group (Females

62% vs. 49-54%; Males 69% vs. 60-63%), or on their

installation/ship (Females 62% vs. 47-55%; Males

70% vs. 59-64%). More Marine Corps men than

men in the other

Services reported

that their leaders

did not consistently model

respectful behavior to both male

and female personnel on their

installation/ship

(8% vs. 3-5%).

For complete

details on these

findings, refer to

Tables 83f.3 and

83n.3 in

Greenlees et al.

(2003b).

Regardless of

gender, junior

enlisted members were the most likely to report

that in their unit/work groups, or on their installation/ship, their leaders did not consistently model

respectful behavior to both male and female personnel. Regardless of gender, officers were more likely

than enlisted members to report that, to a large

extent, their unit/work group and installation/ship

leaders consistently modeled respectful behavior to

both male and female personnel. For women, as

paygrades increased, the percentage of women

agreeing that, to a large extent, their unit/work

group and installation/ship leaders modeled

respectful behavior also increased. Tables 83f.4 and

83n.4 supporting the analysis reported here appear

in Greenlees et al. (2003b).

“Dealing with” female subordinates. Only 19% of

Service members reported that, to a large extent, in

their unit/work group, male supervisors ask female

officers or NCOs/petty officers from other work

groups to “deal with” problems involving female

subordinates, and 40% reported this does not happen at all (see Table 6.3). Air Force women were

more likely than women in the other Services to

agree that this does not happen at all (47% vs. 26-

35%). There were no significant Service differences

for men (see Table 83g.3 in Greenlees et al. (2003b)). 

5HVSRQVH2SWLRQ 7RWDO'R' 7RWDO'R'

)HPDOH

7RWDO'R'

0DOH

/HDGHUVFRQVLVWHQWO\PRGHOLQJUHVSHFWIXO

EHKDYLRUWRERWKPDOHDQGIHPDOH

SHUVRQQHO,1<28581,7:25.

*5283

1RWDW$OO   

6PDOO0RGHUDWH([WHQW   

/DUJH9HU\/DUJH([WHQW   

/HDGHUVFRQVLVWHQWO\PRGHOLQJUHVSHFWIXO

EHKDYLRUWRERWKPDNHDQGIHPDOH

SHUVRQQHO21<285,167$//$7,21

6+,3

1RWDW$OO   

6PDOO0RGHUDWH([WHQW   

/DUJH9HU\/DUJH ([WHQW   

0DOHVXSHUYLVRUVDVNLQJIHPDOHRI¿FHUV

WR3GHDOZLWK ́SUREOHPVLQYROYLQJIHPDOH

VXERUGLQDWHV,1<28581,7:25.

*5283

1RWDW$OO   

6PDOO0RGHUDWH([WHQW   

/DUJH9HU\/DUJH ([WHQW   

0DUJLQRI(UURU      

Table 6.3

Percentage of Gender Perceptions of Leadership Behaviors in Units and on Installations
Personnel Policies, Practices, and Training Related to Gender Relations

Regardless of gender, enlisted members were more

likely than officers to report that, to a large extent,

female officers or NCOs/petty officers from other

work groups were asked to “deal with” problems

involving female subordinates. Female senior officers (52% vs. 34-41%) were more likely than women

in the other paygrades to report that, in their

unit/work group, male supervisors did not ask

female officers or NCOs/petty officers from other

work groups to “deal with” problems involving

female subordinates (see Table 83g.4 in Greenlees et

al. (2003b)). 

Sexual Harassment Policies and Practices

Other components of proactive leadership are

ensuring information on sexual harassment policies

are widely promulgated, program and practices are

in place and executed, and that sexual harassment

complaints are handled appropriately. Question 83

asked Service members to report the extent to

which, at both the unit/work group and installation/ship levels, sexual harassment policies and

complaint procedures were publicized and whether

complaints were taken seriously (Q83a, b, c, h, i, j).

Policies publicized. At both the unit work group

(93%) and installation/ship (93%) level, the majority

of Service members indicated policies forbidding

sexual harassment were publicized (see Table 6.4).

Compared to women in the other Services, Army

women were the most likely to report that policies

forbidding sexual harassment were publicized, to a

large extent, in their unit/work group (49% vs. 

39-42%) and on their installation/ship (53% vs. 

41-48%). For men, there were no significant Service

differences at any level in policies forbidding the

publication of sexual harassment findings. Tables

83a.3 and 83h.3 in Greenlees et al. (2003b) show

complete details on these Service findings.

For women, there were no significant paygrade differences in reporting that policies forbidding sexual

harassment were not publicized on their installation/ship. However, senior enlisted women were

more likely than women in other paygrades to

report that policies were publicized, to a large

extent, in their unit/work group (49% vs. 39-43%).

Almost twice as many junior enlisted men as men

in other paygrades were unaware that policies forbidding sexual harassment were publicized in their

unit/work group (9% vs. 4-5%) or on their installation/ship (10% vs. 3-4%). Tables 83a.4 and 83h.4 in

Greenlees et al. (2003b) show complete details on

the findings reported here.

Complaint procedures. The majority of Service

members indicated that the complaint procedures

related to sexual harassment were publicized, to

some extent, in their unit/work group (89%) and

installation/ship levels (92%) (see Table 6.4).

Compared to women in the other Services, Army

women were most likely to report that complaint

procedures related to sexual harassment were

publicized, to a large extent, in their unit/work

group (42% vs. 25-35%) and installation/ship (48%

vs. 31-41%). For men, there were no significant

Service differences in perceptions of the extent to

which complaint procedures related to sexual

harassment policies were publicized at either the

unit/work group or installation/ship levels. For

complete details on these Service findings, refer to

Tables 83b.3 and 83i.3 in Greenlees et al. (2003b).

Junior enlisted women were more likely than

women in the other paygrades to report complaint

procedures were not publicized in their unit/work

group (16% vs. 11-12%) or on their installation/ship

(13% vs. 7-9%). More junior enlisted men than men

in the other paygrades indicated that complaint

procedures were not publicized in their unit/work

group (14% vs. 5-8%) or on their installation/ship

(12% vs. 4-6%) (see Tables 83b.4 and 83i.4 in

Greenlees et al. (2003b)).

Complaints taken seriously. The military has been

successful in conveying to Service members that

complaints about sexual harassment will be taken

seriously, no matter who files them, as over 90% of

women and men reported that this was true at the

unit/work group and installation/ship levels (see

Table 6.4). Over half of women in all Services

reported that, to a large extent, complaints about

sexual harassment, at the unit/work group or

installation/ship levels, are taken seriously, no matter who files them. For men, there were no Service

differences regarding whether complaints about

sexual harassment, at the unit/work group or

installation/ship levels, were taken seriously.

Tables 83c.3 and 83j.3 in Greenlees et al. (2003b)

DEFENSE MANPOWER DATA CENTER 53
54 DEFENSE MANPOWER DATA CENTER

Personnel Policies, Practices, and Training Related to Gender Relations

show the complete Service findings reported here.

More junior enlisted women than women in other

paygrades reported that in their unit/work groups,

complaints about sexual harassment were not taken

seriously (7% vs. 3-5%). At the installation/ship

level, junior enlisted women were less likely than

women in the other paygrades to agree that complaints were taken seriously, to a large extent,

regardless of who filed the report (55% vs. 61-69%).

Similarly, compared to men in the other paygrades,

over twice as many junior enlisted men reported

that in their unit/work group (8% vs. 2-3%), or on

their installation/ship (7% vs. 1-3%) complaints

about sexual harassment were not taken seriously,

regardless of who filed them. For complete details

on these findings, refer to Tables 83c.4 and 83j.4 in

Greenlees et al. (2003b). 

Sexual Harassment Support and

Resources

Proactive leaders take steps to ensure those who

experience unprofessional, gender-related behaviors

can easily obtain the help and assistance they need.

Question 83 asked Service members to report the

extent to which their installation provides a specific

office for investigating sexual harassment complaints and the availability of advice/hotlines from

their Service (Q83k, o).

5HVSRQVH2SWLRQ 7RWDO

'R'

7RWDO'R'

)HPDOH

7RWDO

'R'

0DOH

3ROLFLHVIRUELGGLQJVH[XDOKDUDVVPHQW

SXEOLFL]HG,1<28581,7:25.

*5283

1RWDW$OO   

6PDOO0RGHUDWH([WHQW   

/DUJH9HU\/DUJH([WHQW   

3ROLFLHVIRUELGGLQJVH[XDOKDUDVVPHQW

SXEOLFL]HG21<285,167$//$7,21

6+,3

1RWDW$OO   

6PDOO0RGHUDWH([WHQW   

/DUJH9HU\/DUJH([WHQW   

&RPSODLQWSURFHGXUHVUHODWHGWRVH[XDO

KDUDVVPHQWSXEOLFL]HG,1<28581,7

:25.*5283

1RWDW$OO   

6PDOO0RGHUDWH([WHQW   

/DUJH9HU\/DUJH([WHQW   

&RPSODLQWSURFHGXUHVUHODWHGWRVH[XDO

KDUDVVPHQWSXEOLFL]HG21<285

,167$//$7,216+,3

1RWDW$OO   

6PDOO0RGHUDWH([WHQW   

/DUJH9HU\/DUJH([WHQW   

&RPSODLQWVDERXWVH[XDOKDUDVVPHQWWDNHQ

VHULRXVO\QRPDWWHUZKR¿OHVWKHP,1

<28581,7:25.*5283

1RWDW$OO   

6PDOO0RGHUDWH([WHQW   

/DUJH9HU\/DUJH([WHQW   

&RPSODLQWVDERXWVH[XDOKDUDVVPHQWWDNHQ

VHULRXVO\QRPDWWHUZKR¿OHVWKHP21

<285,167$//$7,216+,3

1RWDW$OO   

6PDOO0RGHUDWH([WHQW   

/DUJH9HU\/DUJH ([WHQW   

0DUJLQRI(UURU      

Table 6.4

Percentage of Females and Males Indicating Policy and Practices are in Place in Units 

and Installations
DEFENSE MANPOWER DATA CENTER 55

Personnel Policies, Practices, and Training Related to Gender Relations

Complaint office. The majority (92%) of Service

members reported there is a specific office with the

authority to investigate sexual harassment complaints on their installation/ship (see Table 6.5).

Regardless of gender, Army and Air Force members

were more likely than women and men in the other

Services to agree that, to a large extent, there was a

specific office with the authority to investigate sexual harassment complaints on their installation/ship.

Women and men in the Navy, Marine Corps, and

Coast Guard were more likely than women and

men in the other Services to report that, on their

installation/ship, there was not a specific office

with the authority to investigate sexual harassment

complaints. Table 83k.3 in Greenlees et al. (2003b)

shows complete Service findings. 

More junior enlisted women (10% vs. 6-7%) and

men (11% vs. 3-7%) than women and men in the

other paygrades reported that, on their installation/

ship, there was not a specific office with the authority

to investigate sexual harassment complaints.

Regardless of gender, senior officers were the most

likely to report that, to a large extent, there was a

specific office for sexual harassment. Table 83k.4 in

Greenlees et al. (2003b) supports this analysis.

Advice/hotline availability. Overall, 87% of Service

members reported that their Service provided an

advice/hotline available for reporting sexual

harassment complaints (see Table 6.5). Women

were more likely than men to report their Service

did not provide a hotline (18% vs. 13%). For more

information, see Table 83o.2 in Greenlees et al.

(2003b). Excluding Coast Guard members, Marine

Corps women (25% vs. 15-20%) and men (20% vs. 

9-13%) were more likely than women and men in

the other Services to report that their Service did

not provide an advice/hotline available for reporting sexual harassment complaints. For complete

Service findings, refer to Table 83o.3 in Greenlees et

al. (2003b). 

More junior enlisted women (23% vs. 11-17%) and

men (18% vs. 5-11%) than women and men in the

other paygrades reported that their Service did not

have an advice/hotline available for reporting

sexual harassment complaints than women and

men in the other paygrades. Regardless of gender,

senior officers were the most likely to report that, to

a large extent, their Service provided an advice/hotline (see Table 83o.4 in Greenlees et al. (2003b)). 

Extent of Sexual Harassment

Training

Service members were asked whether or not they

had sexual harassment training in the 12 months

prior to filling out the survey. If they had completed the training, they were asked to indicate the

number of times they received training. The

responses for number of times trained ranged from

0 to 9 and are reported as an average. The percentage of women and men who had received training

5HVSRQVH2SWLRQ 7RWDO'R' 7RWDO'R'

)HPDOH

7RWDO'R'

0DOH

7KHUHLVDVSHFL¿FRI¿FHZLWKWKH

DXWKRULW\WRLQYHVWLJDWHVH[XDOKDUDVVPHQW

FRPSODLQWV21<285,167$//$7,21

6+,3

1RWDW$OO   

6PDOO0RGHUDWH([WHQW   

/DUJH9HU\/DUJH([WHQW   

7KHUHLVDQDGYLFHKRWOLQHDYDLODEOHIRU

UHSRUWLQJVH[XDOKDUDVVPHQWFRPSODLQWV,1

<2856(59,&(

1RWDW$OO   

6PDOO0RGHUDWH([WHQW   

/DUJH9HU\/DUJH ([WHQW   

0DUJLQRI(UURU   

Table 6.5

Percentage of Females and Males Indicating Specific Office and Hotline Exist
56 DEFENSE MANPOWER DATA CENTER

Personnel Policies, Practices, and Training Related to Gender Relations

and the average amount of training received are

reported in Figures 6.4 and 6.5.

Training. Most Service members indicated they

received training on topics related to sexual harassment at least once in the 12 months prior to filling

out the survey. Women were slightly less likely to

have had training related to sexual harassment than

men (77% vs. 79%). Air Force members were less

likely than women in the other Services to report

having had training (65% vs. 79-85%). Excluding

the Coast Guard, Army men (86%) were the most

likely and Air Force men (66%) were the least likely

to have received training.

Amount of training. On average, Service members

received sexual harassment training approximately

twice in the 12 months prior to filling out the survey. Women had, on average, slightly less sexual

harassment training than men (1.9 vs. 2.1).

Compared to women and men in the other Services,

Air Force and Coast Guard members reported

receiving less sexual harassment training (Females

1.2-1.3 vs. 2.1-2.5; Males 1.2-1.3 vs. 2.2-2.5). 

Training. More enlisted women reported having

had sexual

harassment

training in the 12

months prior to

filling out the

survey than

female officers

(both 78% vs. 69-

73%). Senior

enlisted men

were more likely

than men in the

other paygrades

to have completed training related to sexual

harassment in

the 12 months

prior to filling

out the survey

(82% vs. 72-77%)

(see Figure 6.5). 

Amount of training. Junior enlisted women reported receiving more sexual harassment training than

women in the other paygrades (2.2% vs. 1.2-1.8%).

Similarly, junior enlisted men reported receiving

more training than men in the other paygrades

(2.3% vs. 1.3-2.1%). For both women and men, the

average number of times a person reported being

trained on topics related to sexual harassment

decreased with paygrade (see Figure 6.5).

Extent of Training in 2002 Compared to 1995.

Fewer women and men reported receiving sexual

harassment training in 2002 than in 1995. The

decline in training occurred mostly for men. The

difference was smaller for women (77% vs. 79%)

than for men (79% vs. 85%) (see Table 6.6). 

Comparisons indicate fewer Navy and Coast Guard

women received training in 2002 than in 1995. This

decline occurred for women in each of the Services,

except for Army women who reported more training in 2002 (85% vs. 80%) (see Table 6.6). Similarly,

fewer men in each of the Services reported receiving

training in 2002, than in 1995, with the exception of

Army males, who reported more sexual harassment

training in 2002 than in 1995 (86% vs. 82%). 

Male Female

Margin of error does not exceed ±4 and ±0.3

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Coast Guard

Air Force

Marine Corps

Navy

Army

DoD Total

Percent Trained Average Times

Trained

2.1

1.9

 79

77

2.5

2.5

 86

85

2.2

2.1

 82

81

2.4

2.4

79

 81

1.2

1.2

 66

65

1.3

1.3

 83

79

Figure 6.4

Percentage of Females and Males Who Received Sexual Harassment Training and Average

Times Trained in 2002, by Service
DEFENSE MANPOWER DATA CENTER 57

Personnel Policies, Practices, and Training Related to Gender Relations

With regard to the 1995 and 2002 comparisons,

across all paygrades, the largest decline in percentage points between 1995 and 2002 occurred for

female junior officers (79% vs. 73%) (see Table 6.7).

In 2002 (both 78% vs. 69-73%) and 1995 (both 80%

vs. 73-79%), more enlisted women tended to report

receiving training than officers. 

Across all paygrades, fewer men reported receiving

training related to sexual harassment in 2002 than in

1995 (see Table 6.7). The largest percentage decline

between 1995 and 2002 occurred for male officers.

The percentage of male senior officers reporting

they received sexual harassment training declined

from 86% in 1995 to 72% in 2002. Similarly, the percentage of male junior officers reporting they

received training declined from 87% in 1995 to 77%

in 2002. 

Organizational Training Requirements

To assess whether the requirement to attend sexual

harassment training is equally enforced for both

enlisted members and officers at the work group

and installation/ship levels, Question 83 asked the

extent to which Service members agreed with statements that enlisted members and officers at each of

these levels were required to attend such training

(Q83d, e, l, m). 

Enlisted training required. The majority of Service

members agreed, to some extent, that enlisted

members are required to attend training in their

unit/work group or installation/ship (see Table 6.8).

Excluding the Coast Guard, Army women were

more likely than women in the other Services to

report that, to a large extent, in their unit/work

group (65% vs. 49-59%), and on their installation/

ship (65% vs. 50-58%), enlisted members were

required to attend formal sexual harassment training.

In contrast, Marine Corps and Air Force women were

less likely than women in the other Services to report

that, to a large extent, in their unit/work group, and

on their installation/ship, enlisted members were

required to attend formal sexual harassment training.

For men, fewer Marine Corps and Air Force members than men in the other Services reported that, to

a large extent, enlisted members were required to

attend formal sexual harassment training at either

the unit/work group or installation/ship levels.

Tables 83d.3 and 83l.3 in Greenlees et al. (2003b) support the analysis reported here. 

Margin of error does not exceed ±3 and ±0.2

Percent Trained Average Times

Trained

2.3

2.2

2.1

1.8

1.6

1.4

1.3

1.2

 72

 69

 77

 73

 82

 78

 77

 78

Male

Female

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

04-06

01-03

E5-E9

E1-E4

Figure 6.5

Percentage of Females and Males Who Received Sexual Harassment Training and Average

Times Trained in 2002, by Paygrade
58 DEFENSE MANPOWER DATA CENTER

Personnel Policies, Practices, and Training Related to Gender Relations

Junior enlisted

women (10% vs.

all 6%) and men

(10% vs. 3-5%)

were the most

likely to report

that, on their

installations/

ship, enlisted

members were

not required to

attend formal

sexual harassment training.

For women,

there were no

paygrade differences in the

extent of training

for enlisted

members in their

unit/work

group. Junior

enlisted men

were more likely

than men in the

other paygrades

to report that, in

their unit/work group, enlisted members were not

required to attend formal sexual harassment training (10% vs. 4-5%). 

Tables 83d.4 and 83l.4 in Greenlees et al. (2003b)

support this analysis.

Officer training required. The majority of Service

members agreed that, to some extent, officers were

required to attend training in their unit/work group

or installation/ship (see Table 6.8). Regardless of

gender, Coast Guard members were the most likely

to report that, to a large extent, at both the unit/

work group and installation/ship levels, officers

were required to attend formal sexual harassment

training (see Tables 83e.3 and 83m.3 in Greenlees et

al. (2003b)). 

Junior enlisted women (44% vs. 53-58%) and men

(44% vs. 56-64%) were least likely to report that, to a

large extent, in their unit/work group, officers were

required to attend formal sexual harassment training. Similarly, junior enlisted women (45% vs. 53-

58%) and men (45% vs. 59-65%) were also least 

likely to report that, to a large extent, on their

installation/ship, officers were required to attend

formal sexual harassment training. In addition, junior enlisted members, regardless of gender, were

most likely to report that, in their unit/work group,

officers were not required to attend formal sexual

harassment training. Junior enlisted men were

more likely than men in the other paygrades to

report that, on their installation/ship, officers were

not required to attend formal sexual harassment

training (11% vs. 4-6%). For complete details on

paygrade findings, refer to Tables 83e.4 and 83m.4

in Greenlees et al. (2003b).

Effectiveness of Sexual Harassment

Training

The remainder of this chapter discusses the effectiveness of sexual harassment training. Service

members were asked the extent to which they

agreed that their training had provided a foundation for understanding, reporting, and knowing the

7RWDO'R' $UP\ 1DY\ 0DULQH

&RUSV $LU)RUFH &RDVW*XDUG

) 0 ) 0 ) 0 ) 0 ) 0 ) 0

            

            

0DUJLQRI(UURU p  p  p  p  p  p  p  p  p  p  p  p 

Table 6.6

Percentage of Females and Males Who Received Sexual Harassment Training and Average

Times Trained in 1995 and 2002, by Service

-XQLRU(QOLVWHG

((

6HQLRU(QOLVWHG

((

-XQLRU2I¿FHU

22

6HQLRU2I¿FHU

22

) 0 ) 0 ) 0 ) 0

        

        

0DUJLQRI(UURU                

Table 6.7

Percentage of Females and Males Receiving Sexual Harassment Training in Military for 

1995 and 2002, by Paygrade
DEFENSE MANPOWER DATA CENTER 59

Personnel Policies, Practices, and Training Related to Gender Relations

consequences of sexual harassment. The results are

reported by gender and paygrade. There were no

significant Service differences. For details, see

Tables 82a.1-82g.4 in Greenlees et al. (2003b).

Overall results by gender are reported in Table 6.9.

These results are discussed for four broad categories

of training objectives: 

• Intent of Training – assesses knowledge of definitions of sexual harassment (82a, d),

• Training and Military Effectiveness – assesses

knowledge of the consequences of sexual harassment on working conditions (82b, c),

• Tools and Policies Necessary for Managing

Sexual Harassment – evaluates the training’s

focus on availability of tools and knowledge of

policies (82e, g), and

• Complaint Climate – measures the extent to

which one feels safe when raising a complaint

(82f).

Intent of Training. If individuals are to avoid using

offensive words or engaging in disrespectful

behaviors, they must be aware of what is considered inappropriate by others and by their organization. Ninety percent of women and men agreed

that their Service’s sexual harassment training

provided a good understanding of what words and

actions are considered sexual harassment (see Table

6.9). 

In addition to teaching Service members what

words and actions are considered sexual harassment, sexual harassment training also reviews what

behaviors are offensive to others. Ninety-two percent of women and men agreed that their Service

training identified behaviors that are offensive to

others and should not be tolerated (see Table 6.9). 

Although fewer female and male junior enlisted

members than women and men in the other paygrades reported they agree that their Service’s sexual harassment training provided a good understanding of what words and actions are considered

5HVSRQVH2SWLRQ 7RWDO'R' 7RWDO'R'

)HPDOH

7RWDO'R'

0DOH

(QOLVWHGPHPEHUVUHTXLUHGWRDWWHQGIRUPDO

VH[XDOKDUDVVPHQWWUDLQLQJ,1<285

81,7:25.*5283

1RWDW$OO   

6PDOO0RGHUDWH([WHQW   

/DUJH9HU\/DUJH([WHQW   

(QOLVWHGPHPEHUVUHTXLUHGWRDWWHQGIRUPDO

VH[XDOKDUDVVPHQWWUDLQLQJ21<285

,167$//$7,216+,3

1RWDW$OO   

6PDOO0RGHUDWH([WHQW   

/DUJH9HU\/DUJH([WHQW   

2I¿FHUVUHTXLUHGWRDWWHQGIRUPDOVH[XDO

KDUDVVPHQWWUDLQLQJ,1<28581,7

:25.*5283

1RWDW$OO   

6PDOO0RGHUDWH([WHQW   

/DUJH9HU\/DUJH ([WHQW   

2I¿FHUVUHTXLUHGWRDWWHQGIRUPDO

VH[XDOKDUDVVPHQWWUDLQLQJ21<285

,167$//$7,216+,3

1RWDW$OO   

6PDOO0RGHUDWH([WHQW   

/DUJH9HU\/DUJH ([WHQW   

0DUJLQRI(UURU      

Table 6.8

Percentage of Females and Males Indicating Training Required for Enlisted and Officers in

Units and Installations
60 DEFENSE MANPOWER DATA CENTER

Personnel Policies, Practices, and Training Related to Gender Relations

sexual harassment, the variation across paygrades

was only significant for women (88% vs. 92-94%)

(see Figure 6.6). There were no significant paygrade

differences in reporting that training identified

behaviors that are offensive to others and should

not be tolerated. 

Training and Military Effectiveness.

Approximately 90% of Service women and men

agreed that their Service’s training teaches that sexual harassment reduces the cohesion and effectiveness of their Service as a whole and makes it difficult for individual Service members to perform

their duties (see Table 6.9). 

Across all paygrades, the majority of women and

men reported that their Service’s training teaches

that sexual harassment reduces the cohesion and

effectiveness of their Service as a whole (see Figure

6.7). However, junior enlisted women (84% vs. 92-

95%) and men (87% vs. 92-94%) were the least likely

to agree that their Service’s training conveyed that

sexual harassment reduces the effectiveness of their

Service as a whole.

Across paygrades, the majority of women and men

agreed that their Service teaches that sexual harassment is detrimental to the performance of duties

(see Figure 6.7). Junior enlisted women (87% vs. 92-

96%) and men (88% vs. 92-94%) were the least likely

to agree that their Service teaches that sexual

harassment makes it difficult for individual Service

members to perform their duties. 

Tools and Policies Necessary for Managing Sexual

Harassment. The majority of both women (83%)

and men (84%) agreed that the training they

received from their Service provided useful tools for

dealing with sexual harassment (see Table 6.9).

Ninety-one percent of women and men agreed 

that the training they received from their Service

provided information about policies, procedures,

and consequences of sexual harassment (see Table

6.11). There were no significant paygrade differences for either women or men regarding whether

or not their Service’s training provided useful tools

for dealing with sexual harassment (see Figure 6.8).

Paygrade comparisons showed that fewer junior

enlisted women (87% vs. 93-96%) and men (88% vs.

92-95%) agreed that their Service provided information about policies regarding sexual harassment

than women and men in the other paygrades (see

Figure 6.8).

$VSHFWRI7UDLQLQJ 7RWDO'R' 7RWDO'R'

0DOH

7RWDO'R'

)HPDOH

3URYLGHVDJRRGXQGHUVWDQGLQJRIZKDWZRUGVDQGDFWLRQVDUH

FRQVLGHUHGVH[XDOKDUDVVPHQW   

7HDFKHVWKDWVH[XDOKDUDVVPHQWUHGXFHVWKHFRKHVLRQDQG

HIIHFWLYHQHVVRI\RXU6HUYLFHDVDZKROH   

7HDFKHVWKDWVH[XDOKDUDVVPHQWPDNHVLWGLI¿FXOWIRULQGLYLGXDO

6HUYLFHPHPEHUVWRSHUIRUPWKHLUGXWLHV   

,GHQWL¿HVEHKDYLRUVWKDWDUHRIIHQVLYHWRRWKHUVDQGVKRXOGQRWEH

WROHUDWHG   

*LYHVXVHIXOWRROVIRUGHDOLQJZLWKVH[XDOKDUDVVPHQW   

0DNHV\RXIHHOLWLVVDIHWRFRPSODLQDERXWXQZDQWHGVH[UHODWHG

DWWHQWLRQ   

3URYLGHVLQIRUPDWLRQDERXWSROLFLHVSURFHGXUHVDQGFRQVHTXHQFHVRI

VH[XDOKDUDVVPHQW   

0DUJLQRI(UURU      

Table 6.9

Percentage of Females and Males Who Agree That Aspects of Their Service 

Training are Effective
DEFENSE MANPOWER DATA CENTER 61

Personnel Policies, Practices, and Training Related to Gender Relations

Provides a good understanding of what words and actions are considered sexual harassment

Identifies behaviors that are offensive to others and should not be tolerated

Margin of error does not exceed ±3

MALES FEMALES

88 90 91 91 93 93 95 9588 90 92 93 92 92 94 96

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

E1-E4 E5-E9 01-03 04-06 E1-E4 E5-E9 01-03 04-06

Figure 6.6

Percentage of Females and Males Who Agree That Sexual Harassment Training Provides a

Good Understanding of Sexual Harassment, by Paygrade 

Teaches that sexual harassment reduces the cohesion and effectiveness of your Service as a whole

Teaches that sexual harassment makes it difficult for individual Service members to perform their duties

Margin of error does not exceed ±2

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

E1-E4 E5-E9 01-03 04-06 E1-E4 E5-E9 01-03 04-06

MALES FEMALES

87 88

92 92 93 94 94 94

84 87

92 92 93 93 95 96

Figure 6.7

Percentage of Females and Males Who Agree That Sexual Harassment Training Explains the

Effects of Sexual Harassment on Their Service, by Paygrade
62 DEFENSE MANPOWER DATA CENTER

Personnel Policies, Practices, and Training Related to Gender Relations

Figure 6.8

Percentage of Females and Males Who Agree That Sexual Harassment Training Provides the

Tools and Policies Necessary for Managing Sexual Harassment, by Paygrade

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

E1-E4 E5-E-9 01-03 04-06 E1-E4 E5-E9 10-03 04-06

Gives useful tools for dealing with sexual harassment

Provides information about policies, procedures, and consequences of sexual harassment

Margin of error does not exceed ±3

82 84

92 94 95

81

87 86

93

81

94

82

96

88 85 85

MALES FEMALES

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

E1-E4 E5-E9 01-03 04-06 E1-E-4 E5-E-9 01-03 04-06

Margin of error does not exceed ±4

Makes you feel it is safe to complain about unwanted, sex-related attention

80

85 88 88

73 76 79 78

MALES FEMALES

Figure 6.9

Percentage of Females and Males Who Agree That Sexual Harassment Training Creates a Safe

Complaint Reporting Climate, by Paygrade
DEFENSE MANPOWER DATA CENTER 63

Personnel Policies, Practices, and Training Related to Gender Relations

Safe Complaint Climate. Almost a quarter of

women (24%) and 17% of men indicated their

Service’s training made them feel it is not safe to

complain about unwanted, sex-related attention (see

Table 6.9). Women are less likely than men to

indicate their Service creates a safe environment in

which to complain. There were no significant

differences, by paygrade, for women. Compared to

men in the other paygrades, fewer junior enlisted

men reported that their Service’s training made

them feel it is safe to complain about unwanted,

sex-related attention (80% vs. 85-88%) (see Figure

6.9).

Summary

Chapter 6 presents sexual harassment climate

findings and results for members’ views of sexual

harassment policies and practices, the amount and

effectiveness of sexual harassment training, and

their perceptions of leaders’ attempts to stop sexual

harassment. It also provides an overview of Service

members’ evaluations of the behaviors they observe

in their unit/work group, on their installation/ship,

and in their Service. 

Sexual Harassment Climate

• On a scale of 1 to 5, women reported a higher

Sexual Harassment Climate score than men,

which indicates that women perceive a less positive climate than men (2.2% vs. 2.0%).

♦ Air Force women reported a slightly lower

Sexual Harassment Climate scale score than

women in the other Services, excluding the

Coast Guard (2.1% vs. 2.2-2.3%).

♦ Female and male junior enlisted members had

the same perception of the sexual harassment

climate in the military (both 2.2%).

Proactive Leadership

• When asked about their Service leaders, installation/

ship leaders, and immediate supervisors, roughly

75% of women and men agreed that all three

types of leaders were making honest and reasonable efforts to stop sexual harassment, although

women were less likely than men to agree.

• More Service members indicated in 2002, than in

1995, that their immediate supervisor (75% vs.

67%), their installation/ship (75% vs. 65%), and

their Service leaders (74% vs. 65%) were making

honest and reasonable efforts to stop sexual

harassment. 

• Compared to women in the other Services, Army

women were the least likely to agree that their

Service leadership (62% vs. 68-72%) and their

installation/ship leadership (62% vs. 67-75%)

were trying to stop sexual harassment.

• Compared to women in the other paygrades, junior enlisted women were the least likely to agree

that leaders at each level were trying to stop sexual harassment, but they were also the most likely to report not knowing if each level of leadership was making honest efforts to stop harassment.

• Similar to junior enlisted women, junior enlisted

men (68% vs. 79-84%) were the least likely of men

across the paygrades to agree that their Service

leadership was trying to stop sexual harassment,

and the most likely (27% vs. 13-17%) to indicate

they did not know if their Service leadership was

making honest efforts. 

Leadership Objectives 

• Over half of women and men agreed that, at the

unit/work group, or installation/ship levels,

their leaders consistently modeled respectful

behavior.

♦ Excluding Coast Guard members, Air Force

women and men were more likely than women

and men in the other Services to report that, to

a large extent, their leaders consistently modeled respectful behavior at the unit/work

group or installation/ship levels.

♦ Marine Corps men were more likely than men

in the other Services to report that their leaders

did not consistently model respectful behavior

on their installation/ship. 

♦ Regardless of gender, more junior enlisted

members than women and men in the other

paygrades reported that, in their unit/work

groups or on their installation/ship, their leaders did not consistently model respectful

behavior to both male and female personnel. 

♦ Regardless of gender, officers were more likely

than women and men in the other paygrades

to report that, in their unit/work group or

installation/ship, leaders consistently modeled

respectful behavior to both male and female

personnel. 
64 DEFENSE MANPOWER DATA CENTER

Personnel Policies, Practices, and Training Related to Gender Relations

• Forty percent of Service members reported that

their male supervisors did not ask female officers

or NCOs/petty officers from other work groups

to “deal with” problems involving female subordinates. 

♦ For women, Air Force members were most

likely to agree that male supervisors do not ask

female officers or NCOs/petty officers from

other work groups to “deal with” problems

involving female subordinates.

♦ Regardless of gender, enlisted members were

more likely than officers to report, to a large

extent, that female officers or NCOs/petty officers from other work groups were asked to

“deal with” problems involving female subordinates. 

♦ Female senior officers were more likely than

women in the other paygrades to report that,

in their unit/work group, male supervisors did

not ask female officers or NCOs/petty officers

from other work groups to “deal with” problems involving female subordinates. 

Sexual Harassment Policies and Practices 

• At both the unit/work group and

installation/ship level, over 90% of Service members indicated policies forbidding, and complaint

procedures related to, sexual harassment were

publicized, and that complaints about sexual

harassment were taken seriously, no matter who

files them.

♦ Army women were more likely than women in

the other Services to report that policies forbidding, and complaint procedures related to, sexual harassment were publicized, to a large

extent, in their unit/work group and installation/ship. 

♦ Senior enlisted women (49% vs. 39-43%) were

more likely than women in the other paygrades to report that policies forbidding sexual

harassment were publicized, to a large extent,

in their unit/work group.

♦ Junior enlisted men were more likely than men

in the other paygrades to indicate that complaint procedures related to sexual harassment

were not publicized in their unit/work group

(9% vs. 4-5%) or on their installation/ship (10%

vs. 3-4%). 

♦ More junior enlisted women (7% vs. 3-5%) and

men (8% vs. 2-3%) than women and men in the

other paygrades reported that, in their

unit/work group, complaints about sexual

harassment were not taken seriously, regardless of who filed them. 

♦ On the installation/ship level, junior enlisted

women were less likely than women in the

other paygrades to agree that complaints were

taken seriously, to a large extent, regardless of

who filed the report (55% vs. 61-69%).

Sexual Harassment Support and

Resources 

• The majority of Service members reported that

there was a specific office with the authority to

investigate sexual harassment complaints on their

installation/ship and that their Service provided

an advice/hotline available for reporting sexual

harassment complaints.

♦ Regardless of gender, Army and Air Force

members were more likely than women and

men in the other Services to report there was a

specific office with the authority to investigate

sexual harassment complaints on their

installation/ship. 

♦ Excluding Coast Guard members, Marine

Corps women (25% vs. 15-20%) and men (20%

vs. 9-13%) were more likely than women and

men in the other Services to report that their

Service did not provide an advice/hotline

available for reporting sexual harassment complaints. 

♦ Regardless of gender, more junior enlisted

members than women and men in the other

paygrades reported that on their

installation/ship there was not a specific office

with the authority to investigate sexual harassment complaints. 

• Regardless of gender, more junior enlisted members than women and men in the other paygrades reported that their Service did not have an

advice/hotline available for reporting sexual

harassment complaints. 

Sexual Harassment Training

• Over 75% of Service members have received

training related to sexual harassment—on average, training occurred roughly twice in the 12

months prior to filling out the survey. 
Personnel Policies, Practices, and Training Related to Gender Relations

DEFENSE MANPOWER DATA CENTER 65

• Women were slightly less likely than men to

report having had training related to sexual

harassment in the 12 months prior to filling out

the survey (77% vs. 79%) and, on average, had

received training fewer times (1.9 vs. 2.1). 

• Fewer men received sexual harassment training

in 2002 than in 1995 (79% vs. 85%).

• Excluding the Coast Guard, Air Force women

(65% vs. 81-85%) and men (66% vs. 79-86%) were

less likely than women and men in the other

Services to report being trained and, on average,

had received less training.

• Fewer men in each of the Services reported

receiving training in 2002 than in 1995, with the

exception of Army men who reported more

sexual harassment training in 2002 than in 1995

(86% vs. 82%).

• Regardless of gender, across the paygrades, junior enlisted members reported receiving training

most often (Females 2.2% vs. 1.2-1.8%; Males

2.3% vs. 1.3-2.1%). 

• Senior enlisted men were more likely than men in

the other paygrades to have completed training

related to sexual harassment in the 12 months

prior to filling out the survey (82% vs. 72-77%).

Across paygrades, the largest percentage-point

decline for sexual harassment training between 2002

and 1995 occurred for senior officers (79% vs. 85%).

Organizational Training Requirements

• Over 50% of Service members reported that, to a

large extent, both officers and enlisted members

were required to attend formal sexual harassment

training in their unit/work group and their

installation/ship.

• Regardless of gender, fewer Marine Corps and

Air Force members than women and men in the

other Services reported that, to a large extent,

enlisted members were required to attend formal

sexual harassment training (Females 49-51% vs.

59-66%; Males 55-57% vs. 63-72%). 

• Excluding the Coast Guard, Army women were

more likely than women in the other Services to

report that, to a large extent, in their unit/work

group (65% vs. 49-59%), and on their installation/ship (65% vs. 50-58%), enlisted members

were required to attend formal sexual harassment

training.

• Junior enlisted women (10% vs. all 6%) and men

(10% vs. 3-5%) were more likely than women and

men in the other paygrades to report that, on

their installations/ship, enlisted members were

not required to attend formal sexual harassment

training. 

• Junior enlisted men were more likely than men in

the other paygrades to report that, in their

unit/work group, enlisted members were not

required to attend formal sexual harassment

training (10% vs. 4-5%). 

• Regardless of gender, Coast Guard members

were more likely than women and men in the

other Services to report that, to a large/very large

extent, officers were required to attend formal

sexual harassment training in their unit/work

group (Females 60% vs. 43-52%; Males 67% vs.

50-55%) or installation/ship (Females 61% vs. 43-

52%; Males 66% vs. 50-56%).

• Regardless of gender, junior enlisted members

were less likely than women and men in the

other paygrades to report that, to a large extent,

in their unit/work group (Females 44% vs. 

53-58%; Males 44% vs. 57-64%), and on their

installation/ship, officers were required to attend

formal sexual harassment training (Females 45%

vs. 53-58%; Males 45% vs. 59-65%).

Effectiveness of Sexual Harassment

Training 

• At least 75% of Service women and men agreed

that their Service’s sexual harassment training

effectively conveyed the following:

♦ a good understanding of what words and

actions are considered sexual harassment (both

90%)

♦ behaviors that are offensive to others and

should not be tolerated (both 92%)

♦ sexual harassment reduces the cohesion and

effectiveness of their Service as a whole

(Females 89%; Males 90%)

♦ sexual harassment makes it difficult for Service

members to perform their duties (Females 90%;

Males 91%)

♦ useful tools for dealing with sexual harassment

(Females 83%; Males 84%) 

♦ information about policies, procedures, and

consequences of sexual harassment (both 91%)

♦ it is safe to complain about unwanted, sexrelated attention (Females 76%; Males 83%).
66 DEFENSE MANPOWER DATA CENTER

Personnel Policies, Practices, and Training Related to Gender Relations

• Regardless of gender, junior enlisted members

were less likely than women and men in the

other paygrades to report that they agree/

strongly agree that their Service’s training

conveys the following:

♦ sexual harassment reduces the cohesion and

effectiveness of their Service as a whole

(Females 84% vs. 92-95%; Males 87% vs. 92-

94%)

♦ sexual harassment makes it difficult for individual Service members to perform their duties

(Females 87% vs. 92-96%; Males 88% vs. 92-

94%)

♦ information about polices regarding sexual

harassment (Females 87% vs. 93-96%; Males

88% vs. 92-95%).

• Fewer female junior enlisted members than

women in the other paygrades reported they

agree that their Service’s sexual harassment training provides a good understanding of what

words and actions are considered sexual harassment (88% vs. 92-94%).

• Fewer junior enlisted men than men in the other

paygrades reported they agree/strongly agree

that their Service’s training makes them feel it is

safe to complain about unwanted, sex-related

attention (80% vs. 85-88%).
DEFENSE MANPOWER DATA CENTER 67

In this chapter, Service members’ perceptions of the

prevalence of sexual harassment in the military and

our nation in 2002 are reported and compared to

findings from 1995. Service members were asked to

judge the prevalence of sexual harassment in the

military against three standards. First, members

were asked if sexual harassment was more or less of

a problem in the military in 2002 compared to a few

years ago. Second, members were asked if sexual

harassment was more or less of a problem in the

nation today compared to a few years ago. Third,

members were asked if sexual harassment was

more of a problem in the military or outside of 

the military. 

It is always desirable to have standards against

which an organization can judge

its performance

and process.

However, there

are no norms or

standards available from the

private sector.

The items in this

section of the

survey, despite

their shortcomings (e.g., memory can be faulty,

those who stay

in organizations

may have more

favorable views

than those who

leave) provide

valuable information on

Service members’ perception of sexual harassment

in the military and our nation.

Prevalence of Sexual Harassment

in the Military Over Time

Service members8 were asked if sexual harassment

occurs more often today than in the past and their

responses were then compared to the 1995 survey

results. Figure 7.1 shows the majority of Service

members reported that sexual harassment occurs

less often in the military today than a few years

ago. Women were less likely than men to report

that sexual harassment occurs less often in the

military today (56% vs. 70%). It should be noted

that more women reported that the frequency of

Chapter 7

Assessment of Progress

8Service members who responded to Question 86 and Question 87 with the response option “Don’t know, ... have been in the military less

than 4 years” are not included in the analyses.

Much less often/Less often About the same Much often/Much more often

Margin of error does not exceed ±2

73 70

21

5

22 22

8

59

30

11

56

33

8 12 8

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

1995 Male 2002 Male 1995 Female 2002 Female

Figure 7.1

Percentage of Females and Males Comparing Frequency of Sexual Harassment in the Military

With a Few Years Ago for 1995 and 2002
68 DEFENSE MANPOWER DATA CENTER

Assessment of Progress

sexual harassment was about

the same today

than a few years

ago (33% vs.

22%).

Although Sexual

Harassment

rates declined

significantly

between 1995

and 2002 (see

Figure 3.2), there

was little change

in Service members’ perceptions

of the prevalence

of sexual harassment between

1995 and 2002.

In both 2002 and

1995, over half of

Service members

indicated that

sexual harassment happened less frequently than in previous

years. In 2002 compared to 1995, slightly fewer

women (56% vs. 59%) and men (70% vs. 73%)

indicated that sexual harassment occurred less 

often than a few years ago. For men, slightly more

Service members indicated in 2002 than in 1995 (8%

vs. 5%) that sexual harassment occurred more often

than in years past.

Compared to women in the other Services, excluding the Coast Guard, Army women (17%) were the

most likely, and Air Force women (7%) were the

least likely, to report in 2002 that sexual harassment

occurred more often (see Table 7.1). Fewer Air

Force and Coast Guard men than men in the other

Services reported that sexual harassment occurred

more often in 2002 than in the past (3-4% vs. all 9%). 

Consistent with the gender results, perceptions of

female and male Service members in each of the

Services of the prevalence of sexual harassment in

the military in 2002 are similar to the perceptions

reported in 1995. Comparisons of 2002 and 1995

indicate the largest percentage-point decline in

reporting that sexual harassment took place less

often occurred for Navy women (69% vs. 59%) and

men (79% vs. 71%) (see Table 7.1). 

For women, enlisted members were more likely

than officers to report sexual harassment occurred

more often in 2002 than in previous years (11-21%

vs. 3-4%) (see Table 7.2). Female officers were more

likely than women in the other paygrades to report

that, in 2002, sexual harassment occurred less often

(63-70% vs. 43-56%). For men, as paygrades

increased, perceptions that sexual harassment

occurs more often than before decreased (18%-1%).

Only 1% of male senior officers in comparison to

18% of junior enlisted men reported that more sexual harassment occurred in 2002 than in years past. 

Between the 1995 and 2002 surveys, overall perceptions of the prevalence of sexual harassment did not

change; however, Service members in higher paygrades tended to be less positive about the prevalence of sexual harassment in 2002 than they were

in 1995. When asked to reflect on the past four

years, junior enlisted members (Females 21% vs.

'R'

7RWDO'R' $UP\ 1DY\ 0DULQH

&RUSV $LU)RUFH &RDVW*XDUG

           

)HPDOHV

0XFKOHVVRIWHQ

/HVVRIWHQ            

$ERXWWKHVDPH            

0XFKPRUH

RIWHQ0RUHRIWHQ            

0DOHV

0XFKOHVVRIWHQ

/HVVRIWHQ            

$ERXWWKHVDPH            

0XFKPRUH

RIWHQ0RUHRIWHQ            

0DUJLQRI(UURU                        

Table 7.1

Percentage of Females and Males Comparing Frequency of Sexual Harassment in the 

Military With a Few Years Ago for 1995 and 2002, by Service
DEFENSE MANPOWER DATA CENTER 69

Assessment of Progress

16%; Males 18%

vs. 9%) were

more likely in

2002, than in

1995, to report

that sexual

harassment

occurred more

often than in

previous years.

Sexual

Harassment as a

Problem 

in the

Military

In addition to

being asked if

sexual harassment occurs

more often today

than in the past,

Service members

were asked to

evaluate whether

sexual harassment is more of a

problem today

than it had been

previously.

Figure 7.2 shows

that over half of

Service members

thought that sexual harassment is

less of a problem

in the military

today than it was

four years ago.

Slightly more

women (14%)

than men (11%)

believed that sexual harassment is

more of a problem than it was

four years ago. 

-XQLRU(QOLVWHG

((

6HQLRU(QOLVWHG

((

-XQLRU2I¿FHU

22

6HQLRU2I¿FHU

22

       

)HPDOHV

0XFKOHVVRIWHQ

/HVVRIWHQ        

$ERXWWKHVDPH        

0XFKPRUH

RIWHQ0RUHRIWHQ        

0DOHV

0XFKOHVVRIWHQ

/HVVRIWHQ        

$ERXWWKHVDPH        

0XFKPRUH

RIWHQ0RUHRIWHQ     
  
 


0DUJLQRI(UURU                


/RZSUHFLVLRQDQGRUXQZHLJKWHGGHQRPLQDWRUVL]HEHWZHHQDQG

Table 7.2

Percentage of Females and Males Comparing Frequency of Sexual Harassment in the Military

With a Few Years Ago, by Paygrade

Less of a problem today About the same More of a problem

Margin of error does not exceed ±2

24

11

52

34

14

65

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

In the Military In the Military

MALES FEMALES

Figure 7.2

Percentage of Females and Males Indicating Level of Sexual Harassment in the Military 

Over Last Four Years 
70 DEFENSE MANPOWER DATA CENTER

Assessment of Progress

Although across

the Services the

percentage of

women reporting less of a

problem was

consistent, fewer

Air Force men

reported less of a

problem (71% vs.

61-68%) (see

Table 7.3).

Fewer women in

the Air Force

(9%) and the

Coast Guard

(7%) reported

the level of

sexual harassment was more

of a problem in

2002 than

women in the

other Services

(14%-19%).

Roughly half as

many Air Force

and Coast Guard

men (both 6%)

as men in other

Services reported

that the level of

sexual harassment in the

military had

become more of a problem (12-13%). 

Table 7.4 shows that for women, more officers (60-

66% vs. 36-54%) than enlisted members reported

that the level of sexual harassment had become less

of a problem over the past four years. Compared to

women in the other paygrades, junior enlisted

women were the most likely to report that sexual

harassment is currently more of a problem (24% vs.

4-13%) and the least likely to report that it is less of

a problem (36% vs. 54-66%). For men, as paygrades

increased, the percentage reporting sexual harassment in the military had become more of a problem

over the last four years decreased (22%-2%). For

men, 22% of junior enlisted members indicated

sexual harassment in the military today is more of a

problem, whereas 80% of senior officers reported

that it is less of a problem. 

Sexual Harassment as a Problem

in the Nation

Members were also asked to evaluate the extent to

which sexual harassment has been a problem in the

nation, as compared to four years ago. Figure 7.3

shows that 37% of women and 48% of men thought

that sexual harassment is less of a problem in our

nation today than it was four years ago. More

women than men reported that the problem of sexual harassment was about the same as 4 years ago

'R'

7RWDO'R' $UP\ 1DY\ 0DULQH

&RUSV $LU)RUFH &RDVW*XDUG

) 0 ) 0 ) 0 ) 0 ) 0 ) 0

/HVVRIDSUREOHP            

$ERXWWKHVDPHDVIRXU

\HDUVDJR

           

0RUHRIDSUREOHP

WRGD\            

0DUJLQRI(UURU                        

-XQLRU(QOLVWHG

((

6HQLRU(QOLVWHG

((

-XQLRU2I¿FHU

22

6HQLRU2I¿FHU

22

) 0 ) 0 ) 0 ) 0

/HVVRIDSUREOHP        

$ERXWWKHVDPHDVIRXU\HDUV

DJR

       

0RUHRIDSUREOHPWRGD\        

0DUJLQRI(UURU                

Table 7.4

Percentage of Females and Males Indicating Level of Sexual Harassment in the Military 

Over Last Four Years, by Paygrade

Table 7.3

Percentage of Females and Males Indicating Level of Sexual Harassment in the Military 

Over Last Four Years, by Service
DEFENSE MANPOWER DATA CENTER 71

Assessment of Progress

(39% vs. 32%).

Less than a

quarter of

women and men

surveyed stated

that it is more of

a national

problem than it

was four years

ago.

More Army

women than

women in the

other Services

reported that

sexual harassment is more of

a problem in our

nation than it

was four years

ago (29% vs. 17-

24%) (see Table

7.5). Fewer Air

Force and Coast Guard men than men in the other

Services reported that sexual harassment is more of

a national problem today (13-15% vs. 21-22%). 

As Table 7.6 shows, regardless of gender, more

officers than enlisted members reported that sexual

harassment was less of a problem in our nation

today than it was four years ago (Females 47-48%

vs. 31-40%; Males 59-60% vs. 41-50%). For women,

more enlisted

members than

officers reported

that it was currently more of a

problem in 

our nation 

(22-31%vs. 

10-12%). 

Military/Civilian Comparisons

The military has a record of providing equal opportunity that often exceeds the progress in civilian

society (Moskos and Butler, 1996). There are no private-sector or national benchmarks for the military

to empirically compare itself to the civilian sector

on sexual harassment issues. Therefore, in the survey, Service members were asked about their perceptions regarding sexual harassment in the miliLess of a problem today About the same More of a problem today

Margin of error does not exceed ±2

48

32

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

In the Nation In the Nation

MALES FEMALES

20

37 39

24

Figure 7.3

Percentage of Females and Males Indicating Level of Sexual Harassment in Nation 

Over Last Four Years

'R'

7RWDO

'R' $UP\ 1DY\ 0DULQH&RUSV $LU)RUFH &RDVW*XDUG

) 0 ) 0 ) 0 ) 0 ) 0 ) 0

/HVVRIDSUREOHPWRGD\            

$ERXWWKHVDPH            

0RUHRIDSUREOHPWRGD\            

0DUJLQRI(UURU            

Table 7.5

Percentage of Females and Males Indicating Level of Sexual Harassment in Nation 

Over Last Four Years, by Service
72 DEFENSE MANPOWER DATA CENTER

Assessment of Progress

tary and in the nation. In this section, Service

members assessed whether sexual harassment is

more of a problem inside or outside the military. 

Women are more likely than men to indicate there is

no difference in the frequency of sexual harassment

experiences between the military and the civilian

sector (54% vs. 39%). Men are far more likely to

think the military provides a better equal opportunity environment—52% indicate sexual harassment

is more of a problem outside of the military compared to 28% of women. 

Compared to men and women in the other Services,

more Air Force women (39% vs. 22-30%) and men

(63% vs. 46-48%) indicated they believe that sexual

harassment is more of a problem outside the

military (see

Table 7.7). In

contrast, more

Army and

Marine Corps

women reported

that sexual

harassment is

more of a

problem inside

the military than

women in the

other Services

(23-28% vs. 

10-18%).

Across all paygrades, the

majority of

members indicated that sexual

harassment is

either more of a

problem outside

the military or

that there was no

difference (see

Table 7.8). The

perception that

sexual harassment is more of

a problem outside the military

increased with paygrade for women (22%-53%) and

men (42%-74%).

Summary

Chapter 7 presents findings on perceptions of the

prevalence of sexual harassment in the military

compared to a few years ago, and comparisons of

the prevalence of sexual harassment in the military

and the nation. 

Prevalence of Sexual Harassment in the

Military Over Time

• The majority of Service members (68%) reported

that sexual harassment occurs less often in the

military today than a few years ago. 

• Women were less likely than men to report that

-XQLRU(QOLVWHG

((

6HQLRU(QOLVWHG

((

-XQLRU2I¿FHU

22

6HQLRU2I¿FHU

22

) 0 ) 0 ) 0 ) 0

/HVVRIDSUREOHPWRGD\        

$ERXWWKHVDPH        

0RUHRIDSUREOHPWRGD\        

0DUJLQRI(UURU                

Table 7.6

Percentage of Females and Males Indicating Level of Sexual Harassment in Nation 

Over Last Four Years, by Paygrade

'R'

7RWDO

'R' $UP\ 1DY\ 0DULQH&RUSV $LU)RUFH &RDVW*XDUG

) 0 ) 0 ) 0 ) 0 ) 0 ) 0

0RUHRIDSUREOHPRXWVLGH

PLOLWDU\            

6DPH1RGLIIHUHQFH            

0RUHRIDSUREOHPLQVLGHPLOLWDU\            

0DUJLQRI(UURU                        

Table 7.7

Percentage of Females and Males Indicating Sexual Harassment More of a Problem 

Inside or Outside Military, by Service
DEFENSE MANPOWER DATA CENTER 73

Assessment of Progress

sexual harassment occurs

less often in

the military

today (55% vs.

70%). 

• Slightly fewer

women (55%

vs. 59%) and

men (70% vs.

73%) indicated

in 2002, than

in 1995, that

sexual harassment occurred

less often than

a few years

ago. 

• Excluding the Coast Guard, Army women (17%)

were the most likely and Air Force women (7%)

the least likely to report in 2002 that sexual

harassment occurred more often. 

• For men, fewer Air Force and Coast Guard members reported that sexual harassment occurs more

often today than in the past (3-4% vs. 9%).

♦ Comparisons of 2002 and 1995 indicate the

largest percentage-point decline in reporting

that sexual harassment occurred less often was

for Navy women (69% vs. 59%) and men (79%

vs. 71%).

• For women, enlisted members were more likely

than officers to report sexual harassment

occurred more often in 2002 than in previous

years (11-21% vs. 3-4%). 

• For men, as paygrades increased, perceptions

that sexual harassment occurs more often today

than before decreased (18%-1%). 

♦ Paygrade comparisons indicated that junior

enlisted members (Females 21% vs. 16%; Males

18% vs. 9%) were more likely in 2002, than in

1995, to report that sexual harassment occurred

more often than in previous years. 

Sexual Harassment as a Problem in the

Military

• The majority of Service women (52%) and men

(65%) thought that sexual harassment was less of

a problem in the military today than it was four

years ago. 

♦ Slightly more women (14%) than men (11%)

believed that sexual harassment is more of a

problem today than it was four years ago. 

• Compared to women and men in the other

Services, 

fewer Air Force and Coast Guard women (7-9%

vs. 14-19%) and men (both 6% vs. 12-13) reported

the level of sexual harassment is more of a problem today. 

• More junior enlisted women (24% vs. 4-13%) and

men (22% vs. 2-10%) indicated the level of sexual

harassment in the military is more of a problem

today than members in the other paygrades.

♦ For women, more officers than enlisted members reported that the level of sexual harassment has become less of a problem over the

past four years (60-66% vs. 36-54%). 

♦ For men, as paygrades increased, the percentage reporting the level of sexual harassment in

the military has become more of a problem

today over the last four years decreased (22-

2%). 

Sexual Harassment as a Problem in the

Nation

• Fewer women reported that sexual harassment is

currently less of a problem in our nation than

men (37% vs. 48%).

• Women in the Army were the most likely to

report that sexual harassment is more of a problem in our nation today than it was four years

ago (29% vs. 17-24%). 

-XQLRU(QOLVWHG

((

6HQLRU(QOLVWHG

((

-XQLRU2I¿FHU

22

6HQLRU2I¿FHU

22

) 0 ) 0 ) 0 ) 0

0RUHRIDSUREOHPRXWVLGHPLOLWDU\        

6DPH1RGLIIHUHQFH        

0RUHRIDSUREOHPLQVLGHPLOLWDU\        

0DUJLQRI(UURU                

Table 7.8

Percentage of Females and Males Indicating Sexual Harassment More of a Problem 

Inside or Outside Military, by Paygrade 
74 DEFENSE MANPOWER DATA CENTER

Assessment of Progress

• For men, fewer Air Force and Coast Guard members indicated that sexual harassment is more of

a problem in our nation today (13-15% vs. 21-

22%).

• Regardless of gender, more officers than enlisted

members reported that sexual harassment is less

of a problem in our nation today than it was four

years ago (26-7%). 

Military/Civilian Comparisons

• Nearly half of Service members thought that sexual harassment is more of a problem outside the

military than inside the military. 

♦ Fewer women than men reported that sexual

harassment is more of a problem outside the

military (28% vs. 52%).

• Compared to women and men in the other

Services, more Air Force women (39% vs. 22-30%)

and men (63% vs. 46-48%) reported that sexual

harassment is more of a problem outside the military. 

• More Army and Marine Corps women reported

that sexual harassment is more of a problem

inside the military than women in the other

Services (23-28% vs. 10-18%).

• The perception that sexual harassment is more of

a problem outside the military than inside the

military increased with paygrade for women (22-

53%) and men (42-74%).
DEFENSE MANPOWER DATA CENTER 75

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

surveys to assess the prevalence of sexual harassment: Some methodological problems. Journal of

Social Issues, 51(1), 39 – 52.

Bastian, L. D., Lancaster, A. R., & Reyst, H. E.

(1996). Department of Defense 1995 sexual

harassment survey. Arlington, VA: DMDC.

Department of Defense 1995 sexual harassment survey

[Data file and documentation on CD-ROM].

(1997). Arlington, VA: DMDC.

Elig, T. W. (2003). Sampling design for the 2002

Status of the Armed Forces Surveys – Workplace

and Gender Relations (Form 2002GB). In B. J.

George & K. R. Kroeger (Eds.), 2002 Status of the

Armed Forces Surveys -Workplace and Gender

Relations: Statistical methodology report (Report

No. 2003-014). Arlington, VA: DMDC.

Fitzgerald, L. F., Shullman, S. L., Bally, N., Richards,

M., Swecker, J, Gold, Y., Ormerod, M., & Weitzman, L. (1988). The incidence and dimensions of

sexual harassment in academia and the work

place. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 32, 152-175.

Fitzgerald, L.F., Collinsworth, L.L., & Harned, M.E.

(2001). Sexual harassment. In J. Worell (Ed.),

Encyclopedia of women and gender: Sex and similarities and differences and the impact of society on gender (pp. 991-1004). Boston: Academic Press.

Fitzgerald, L.F., Drasgow, F., Hulin, C.L., Gelfand,

M. J. & Magley, V. J. (1997). Antecedents and

consequences of sexual harassment: Test of an

integrated model. Journal of Applied Psychology,

82, 578 – 589.

Fitzgerald, L.F., Hulin, C.L., & Drasgow, F. (1995).

The antecedents and consequences of sexual

harassment in organizations: An integrated

model. In G. Keita & J. Hurrell, Jr. (Eds.), Job

stress in a changing workforce: Investigating gender,

diversity, and family issues (pp. 55-73).

Washington, DC: American Psychological

Association.

Flores-Cervantes, I., Valliant, R., Harding, L., & Bell,

B. (2003). Weighting for the 2002 Status of the

Armed Forces Surveys - Workplace and Gender

Relations (Form 2002GB). In B. J. George & K. R.

Kroeger (Eds.), 2002 Status of the Armed Forces

Surveys - Workplace and Gender Relations:

Statistical methodology report (Report No. 2003-

014). Arlington, VA: DMDC.

Greenlees, J. B., Deak, M. A., Rockwell, D., Lee, K.

S., Perry, S., Willis, E. J., & Mohamed, S. (2003a).

Tabulations of responses from the 2002 Status of the

Armed Forces Surveys-Workplace and Gender

Relations: Vol. 1. Demographics, workplace information, mentoring, readiness, health and well-being

(Report No. 2003-012). Arlington, VA: DMDC. 

Greenlees, J. B., Deak, M. A., Rockwell, D., Lee, K.

S., Perry, S., Willis, E. J., & Mohamed, S. (2003b).

Tabulations of responses from the 2002 Status of the

Armed Forces Surveys-Workplace and Gender

Relations: Vol. 2. Gender related experiences in the

military and gender relations (Report No. 2003-013).

Arlington, VA: DMDC. 

Holden, N. J., & Davis, K. D. (2001). A Comparative

Analysis of Harassment Surveys in TTCP Nations

(TTCP/HUM/01/08). Ottawa, Canada:

Department of National Defense.

Hulin, C. L., Fitzgerald, L. F., & Drasgow, F. (1996).

Organizational influences on sexual harassment.

In M. S. Stockdale (Ed.), Sexual harassment in the

workplace: Perspectives, frontiers, and response

strategies (pp. 127-150). Thousand Oaks, CA:

Sage.

Lancaster, A. R. (1999). Department of Defense sexual harassment research: Historical perspectives

and new initiatives. Military Psychology, 11(3),

219 – 231.

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

Military: 1988. Arlington, VA: DMDC.

Moskos, C. C., & Butler, J. S. (1996). All that we can

be: Black leadership and racial integration the Army

way. New York: Basic Books.

Ormerod, A. J., Lee, W. C., Fitzgerald, L. F., &

Drasgow, F. (2000). The 2000 Armed Forces Sexual

Harassment Survey: Report of scales and measures of

the Y2K Pilot Survey. (Report No. 2001-004).

Arlington, VA: DMDC.

Ormerod, A. J., Lawson,A. K., Sims,C S., Lytell, M.

C., Wadlington, P. L., Yaeger, D. W., Wright, C. V.,

Reed, M. E., Lee, W. C., Drasgow, F., Fitzgerald,

L. F., & Cohorn C. A. (2003). 2002 Status of the

Armed Forces Surveys - Workplace and Gender

References
76 DEFENSE MANPOWER DATA CENTER

References

Relations: Report of Scales and Measures. (Report

No. 2002-031). Arlington, VA: DMDC.

Williams, J. H., Fitzgerald, L. F., & Drasgow, F.

(1999). The effects of organizational practices on

sexual harassment and individual outcomes in

the military. Military Psychology, 11(3), 303 – 328.

Willis, E. J., Mohamed, S. G., & Lipari, R. N. (2002).

2002 Status of the Armed Forces Surveys -Workplace

and Gender Relations: Administration, datasets, and

codebook (Report No. 2002-010). Arlington, VA:

DMDC.
Appendix A

Status of the Armed Forces Surveys

Workplace and Gender Relations

(Form 2002GB)

RCS: DD-P&R(A) 1947

Exp. 12/21/03

DMDC Survey No. 02-0001

DEFENSE MANPOWER DATA CENTER

ATTN: SURVEY PROCESSING ACTIVITY

DATA RECOGNITION CORPORATION

P.O. BOX 5720

MINNETONKA, MN 55343

STATUS OF THE ARMED FORCES SURVEYS

Workplace and Gender Relations (Form 2002GB)
- 2 -

COMPLETION INSTRUCTIONS

• 

•

• 

•

•

•

This is not a test, so take your time.

Select answers you believe are most appropriate.

Use a blue or black pen.

Please PRINT where applicable.

Place an "X" in the appropriate box or boxes.

To change an answer, completely black out the 

wrong answer and put an "X" in the correct box as 

shown below.

RIGHT WRONG

CORRECT ANSWER INCORRECT ANSWER

• Do not make any marks outside of the response 

and write-in boxes.

MAILING INSTRUCTIONS

• PLEASE RETURN YOUR COMPLETED SURVEY IN 

THE BUSINESS REPLY ENVELOPE. (If you 

misplaced the envelope, mail the survey to DMDC, 

c/o Data Recognition Corp., PO Box 5720, 

Minnetonka, MN 55343).

IF YOU ARE RETURNING THE SURVEY FROM 

ANOTHER COUNTRY, BE SURE TO RETURN THE 

BUSINESS REPLY ENVELOPE ONLY THROUGH A 

U.S. GOVERNMENT MAIL ROOM OR POST OFFICE.

•

FOREIGN POSTAL SYSTEMS WILL NOT DELIVER 

BUSINESS REPLY MAIL.

•

BACKGROUND

Male

Female

 1. Are you . . . ?

No, not Spanish/Hispanic/Latino

Yes, Mexican, Mexican-American, Chicano

Yes, Puerto Rican

Yes, Cuban

Yes, other Spanish/Hispanic/Latino

 3. Are you Spanish/Hispanic/Latino? Mark "No" if

 not Spanish/Hispanic/Latino.

Less than 12 years of school (no diploma)

GED or other high school equivalency certificate

High school diploma

Less than 2 years of college credits, but no 

college degree

2-year college degree (AA/AS)

 2. What is the highest degree or level of school that

 you have completed? Mark the one answer that

 describes the highest grade or degree that you

 have completed.

More than 2 years of college credits, but no 

4-year college degree

4-year college degree (BA/BS)

Some graduate school, but no graduate degree

Master's, doctoral or professional school degree 

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

White

Black or African American

American Indian or Alaska Native

Asian (e.g., Asian Indian, Chinese, Filipino, 

Japanese, Korean, Vietnamese)

Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander (e.g., 

Samoan, Guamanian or Chamorro)

Some other race (Please specify below.)

 4. What is your race? Mark one or more races to

 indicate what you consider yourself to be.

Please print.

Never married

Married

Separated

Divorced

Widowed

 5. What is your marital status?

Army

Navy

Marine Corps

 6. In what Service are you?

Air Force

Coast Guard

PRIVACY NOTICE

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

statement informs you of the purpose of the survey and how the 

findings will be used. Please read it carefully.

 

AUTHORITY: 10 USC Sections 136 and 2358. 

PRINCIPAL PURPOSE(S): Information collected in this survey will be 

used to report attitudes and perceptions of members of the Armed 

Forces about programs and policies. Information provided will assist in 

the formulation of policies to improve the working environment.

 

ROUTINE USE(S): None. 

DISCLOSURE: Voluntary. However, maximum participation is 

encouraged so that data will be complete and representative. Ticket 

numbers and serial numbers on your survey are used to determine if 

you have responded and to use record data to properly analyze the 

survey data. Personal identifying information is not used in any 

reports. Only group statistics will be reported.

Items 35.a through 35.p are used by permission of the copyright

holder, The Gallup Organization, 901 F Street N.W., Washington, D.C. 

20004. Items 36.c through 36.i are used by permission of the 

copyright holder, International Survey Research (ISR), 303 East Ohio 

Street, Chicago, IL 60611.

COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL
- 3 -

W-1

W-2

W-3

W-4

W-5

O-1/O1E

O-2/O2E

O-3/O3E

O-4

O-5

O-6 or above

E-6

E-7

E-8

E-9

E-1

E-2

E-3

E-4

E-5

Don't know or does not apply

Very satisfied

Satisfied

Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied

Dissatisfied

Very dissatisfied

Basic Pay

Special and incentive pays 

including bonuses

Basic Allowance for 

Subsistence (BAS)

a.

b.

c.

......................

..............

..............

.........................

...

........

d.

e.

f.

........................

.....................

........................

..........................

...........................

..........

Quality of medical care for your 

family

Out of pocket costs for medical 

care

Availability of childcare

j.

k.

l.

.............

.........

.........

.

g.

h.

i.

Availability of medical care for 

yourself

Availability of medical care for 

your family

Quality of medical care for 

yourself

Basic Allowance for Housing 

(BAH)

Retirement pay you would get

Cost of living adjustments 

(COLA) to retirement pay

Quality of childcare

Affordability of childcare

Family support services

Quality of your current residence

m.

n.

o.

p.

16. Indicate the extent to which you are satisfied with

 each of the following.

q.

r.

.........

......................

Quality of your work environment 

(i.e., space, cleanliness, and 

maintenance and repair)

Opportunities for civilian 

education

...................

. .

............

..........

Opportunities for professional 

development

Level of care and concern shown 

by supervisors for subordinates

Quality of leadership

Your career, in general

s.

t.

u.

v.

 you expected when you first entered the military?

Much better

Somewhat better

About what you expected

Somewhat worse

Much worse

Don't remember

Very likely

Likely

Neither likely nor unlikely

11. Assuming you could stay on active duty, how

 likely is it that you would choose to do so?

Unlikely

Very unlikely

Very likely

Likely

Neither likely nor unlikely

10. How likely is it that you would be allowed to stay

 on active duty at the end of your current term or

 service obligation?

Unlikely

Very unlikely

15. In general, has your work been better or worse than

 you expected when you first entered the military?

Much better

Somewhat better

About what you expected

Somewhat worse

Much worse

Don't remember

You are on indefinite status IF INDEFINITE 

STATUS, GO TO QUESTION 11

You are an officer serving an obligation

1st enlistment

2nd or later enlistment

 9. In which term of service are you serving now?

 Do not count extensions as separate terms of

 enlistment.

Does not apply, you already have 20 or more 

years of service

Very likely

Likely

Neither likely nor unlikely

Unlikely

Very unlikely

12. If you could stay on active duty as long as you

 want, how likely is it that you would choose to

 serve in the military for at least 20 years?

YEARS

 8. How many years of active-duty service have you

 COMPLETED (including enlisted, warrant officer,

 and commissioned officer time)? To indicate less

 than one year, enter "00". To indicate thirty-five or

 more, enter "35".

YEARS

13. When you leave active duty, how many total years

 of service do you expect to have completed? To

 indicate less than one year, enter "00". To

 indicate thirty-five or more, enter "35".
- 4 -

Yes IF YES, CONTINUE WITH QUESTION 26

No IF NO, GO TO QUESTION 29

25. In the past 12 months, have you been away from

 your permanent duty station/homeport overnight

 because of your military duties?

In this survey, the definition of "military duties" 

includes deployments, TDYs/TADs, training, 

military education, time at sea, and field 

exercises/alerts.

Yes

No

21. When you talk with your children about their

 future, do you encourage them to consider the

 military?

Yes IF YES, CONTINUE WITH QUESTION 21

No IF NO, GO TO QUESTION 23

20. Do you have children aged 10 or older with whom

 you talk about careers, jobs, and education?

23. During the last 12 months, where have you served

 most of your active-duty time?

In one of the 50 states, DC, Puerto Rico, a U.S. 

Territory or possession

Please print the two-letter postal 

abbreviation - for example "AK" for Alaska

Europe (e.g., Bosnia-Herzegovina, Germany, Italy, 

Serbia, United Kingdom)

Former Soviet Union (e.g., Russia, Tajikistan, 

Uzbekistan)

East Asia and Pacific (e.g., Australia, Japan, Korea)

North Africa, Near East, or South Asia (e.g., 

Bahrain, Diego Garcia, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia)

Sub-Saharan Africa (e.g., Kenya, South Africa)

Western Hemisphere (e.g., Cuba, Honduras, Peru)

Aboard ship

Barracks/dorm (including BEQ or BOQ)

Military family housing, on base

Military family housing, off base

Civilian housing you own or pay mortgage on

Military or civilian housing you rent, off base

Other

24. During the last 12 months, where have you lived

 most of your active-duty time?

.............................

...................

.................

Yes No

a.

b.

c.

Thought seriously about leaving the 

military

Wondered what life might be like as a 

civilian

Discussed leaving and/or civilian 

opportunities with family or friends

................................

................................

.......

d.

e.

f.

Talked about leaving with your immediate 

supervisor

Gathered information on education 

programs or colleges

Gathered information about civilian job 

options (for example, read newspaper 

ads, attended a job fair)

g.

h.

i.

j.

Attended a program that helps people 

prepare for civilian employment

Prepared a resume

Applied for a job

Interviewed for a job

.........

.....................

........................

....................

18. During the past 6 months, have you done any of

 the following to explore the possibility of leaving

 the military? Mark "Yes" or "No" for each item.

Strongly agree

Agree

Neither agree nor disagree

Disagree

Strongly disagree

..............................

...............

a.

b.

Being a member of your Service 

inspires you to do the best job you 

can

You are willing to make sacrifices 

to help your Service

......................

............

c.

d.

You are glad that you are part of 

your Service

You are NOT willing to put yourself 

out to help your Service

 with the following statements about your Service.

Very positive

Positive

Neither positive nor negative

Negative

Very negative

a.

b.

c.

d.

 possible career choices, how positive or negative

 are you about . . .

............

.

...........................

........

The military, in general?

Career opportunities in the military?

Serving in the military, but not as a 

career?

Part-time (National Guard/Reserve) 

opportunities in the military?

e.

f.

g.

.....

...........................

......

Career opportunities as a civilian 

federal government employee?

Career opportunities in the civilian 

sector?

Seeking a college education?

a. A female friend A male friend b.

Yes

No

Yes

No

19. If you had a friend considering active duty military

 service, would you recommend that he/she join?

 Mark "Yes" or "No" for each item.
- 5 -

YOUR WORKPLACE

•

•

If you have been at your current duty location 

(ship) for one month or more, answer the 

questions on Workplace for your current duty 

location (ship), even if you are not permanently 

stationed at that location.

Otherwise, answer the questions for the last duty 

location where you were located for at least a 

month.

Male

Female

32. What is the gender of your immediate supervisor?

33. What is the paygrade of your immediate

 supervisor?

W-1

W-2

W-3

W-4

W-5

O-1/O1E

O-2/O2E

O-3/O3E

O-4

O-5

O-6 or above

E-4 or below

E-5

E-6

E-7

E-8

E-9

Civilian GS-1 to GS-6 (or equivalent)

Civilian GS-7 to GS-11 (or equivalent)

Civilian GS-12 or above (or equivalent)

1 - 2 times

3 - 4 times

5 - 6 times

7 - 8 times

 times were you away from your permanent duty

 station/homeport for at least one night because

 of your military duties?

9 - 10 times

11 - 12 times

13 - 24 times

25 times or more

27. During the past 12 months, how long were you

 away from your permanent duty station/homeport

 for the following military duties? Assign each of

 your nights away to only one type of military duty.

10 to 12 months

7 months to less than 10 months

5 months to less than 7 months

3 months to less than 5 months

1 month to less than 3 months

Less than 1 month

......

..................

...................

e.

f.

g.

Counter drug operations

Domestic disaster or civil 

emergency

Time at sea for scheduled 

deployments (other than for 

the above)

None

h.

i.

Other time at sea (other than 

for the above)

Joint training/field exercises/

alerts (other than for the 

above)

Operation Enduring Freedom

Peacekeeping or other 

contingency operation

Foreign humanitarian 

assistance mission

Unit training at combat 

training center

. .

........

...........

................

a.

b.

c.

d.

................

......................

j.

k.

Military education (other than 

for the above)

Other TDYs/TADs

................

............

Yes

No, you are TDY/TAD attending training

No, you are TDY/TAD for reasons other than 

training

30. Is this location your permanent duty location/ship?

MONTHS

29. How many months have you completed at your

 duty location/ship during your current tour? To

 indicate ninety-nine or more, enter "99".

Less than 1 month

1 month to less than 3 months

3 months to less than 5 months

5 months to less than 7 months

7 months to less than 10 months

10 to 12 months

28. In the past 12 months, what was the total length of

 time you were away from your permanent duty

 station/homeport because of your military duties?

 Add up all nights away from your permanent duty

 station.

Yes No

31. Are you currently . . . Mark "Yes" or "No" for each

 item.

a.

b.

c.

d.

A student in a military course?

Serving aboard a ship at sea?

In the shore part of a ship/shore rotation?

In a military occupational specialty (e.g., 

MOS/AFSC/Rating) not usually held by 

persons of your gender?

...........

...........

.

................

e.

f.

In a work environment where members 

of your gender are uncommon?

On a deployment that will keep you 

away from home for at least 30 

consecutive days?

..........

......................
- 6 -

All men

Almost entirely men

More men than women

About equal numbers of men and women

More women than men

Almost entirely women

All women

 the gender mix of your current work group, that is,

 the people with whom you work on a day-to-day

 basis? Agree

Tend to agree

?

Tend to disagree

Disagree

a.

b.

 with the following statements.

....

...............

My chain of command keeps me 

informed about important issues

If I make a request through 

channels in my work group, I know 

somebody will listen

c.

.............

My Service has established a 

climate where the truth can be 

taken up the chain of command 

without fear of reprisal

Strongly agree

Agree

Neither agree nor disagree

Disagree

Strongly disagree

.............................

.........

........

a.

b.

c.

I know what is expected of me at 

work

I have the materials and equipment 

I need to do my work right

At work, I have the opportunity to 

do what I do best every day

35. To what extent do you agree or disagree with the

 following statements about your workplace?

........................

...........................

d.

e.

In the last 7 days, I have received 

recognition or praise for doing 

good work

My supervisor, or someone at 

work, seems to care about me as a 

person

.......

............................

. .

f.

g.

h.

There is someone at work who 

encourages my development

At work, my opinions seem to 

count

The mission/purpose of my Service 

makes me feel my job is important

.................

........

.........................

i.

j.

k.

My coworkers are committed to 

doing quality work

I have a best friend at work

In the last 6 months, someone at 

work has talked to me about my 

progress

...........................

....................

l.

m.

This last year, I have had 

opportunities at work to learn and 

to grow

At my workplace, a person's job 

opportunities and promotions are 

based only on work-related 

characteristics

........

.....................

n.

o.

My supervisor helps everyone in 

my work group feel included

I trust my supervisor to deal fairly 

with issues of equal treatment at 

my workplace

.............................

p. At my workplace, all employees 

are kept well informed about 

issues and decisions that affect 

them

d.

e.

. .

.......

I find it very difficult to balance my 

work and personal responsibilities

Priorities or work objectives are 

changed so frequently, I have 

trouble getting my work done

f.

g.

.............

..........................

My supervisor encourages people 

to learn from mistakes

My supervisor has sufficient 

authority

h.

i.

..........................

...

I believe my Service's core values 

are clear

Leadership generally understands 

the problems we face on our jobs

Don't know

Strongly agree

Agree

Neither agree nor disagree

Disagree

...................

37. How much do you agree or disagree with each of

 the following statements about your immediate

 supervisor? The term "work group" refers to the

 people with whom you work on a day-to-day basis.

Strongly disagree

..........

...

a. Handling the technical-skills 

part of the job (fully understands 

the capabilities and limitations of 

equipment in the work group; 

demonstrates knowledge of 

tactical skills)

b.

c.

Handling the people-skills 

part of the job (demonstrates 

effective interpersonal skills, 

listens attentively, demonstrates 

concern for individuals)

Handling the conceptual-skills 

part of the job (thinks through 

decisions, recognizes and 

balances competing 

requirements, uses analytical 

techniques to solve problems)
- 7 -

Strongly agree

Agree

Neither agree nor disagree

Disagree

Strongly disagree

.......

....

.........

e.

d.

Decision making (makes 

sound decisions in a timely 

manner, includes all relevant 

information in decisions and 

can generate innovative 

solutions to unique problems)

f.

Developing (encourages the 

professional growth of subordinates,

is an effective teacher, uses 

counseling to provide feedback, 

provides the opportunity to learn, 

and delegates authority)

g.

Communicating (provides clear 

direction, explains ideas so that 

they are easily understood, 

listens well, keeps others 

informed, and writes well)

Building (builds cohesive teams,

gains the cooperation of all team 

members, encourages and 

participates in organizational

and work group activities, 

focuses the work group on 

mission accomplishment) .......

h.

i.

. .

....

..................

Learning (encourages open 

discussion that improves the 

organization, willingly accepts new

challenges, helps the work group 

adapt to changing circumstances, 

recognizes personal limitations)

j. Planning and organizing 

(develops effective plans to 

achieve organizational goals, 

anticipates how different plans will 

look when executed, sets clear 

priorities, willingly modifies plans 

when circumstances change)

k. Executing (completes assigned 

missions to standard, monitors 

the execution of plans to identify 

problems, is capable of refining 

plans to exploit unforeseen 

opportunities)

.

l. Assessing (accurately assesses 

the work group’s strengths and

weaknesses, conducts effective inprogress reviews and after-action 

reviews, takes time to find out 

what subordinate units are doing)

 following statements about your work group?

Don't know

Strongly agree

Agree

Neither agree nor disagree

Disagree

Strongly disagree

The leaders in your work group 

set high standards for Service 

members in terms of good 

behavior and discipline

a.

b. The leaders in your work group 

are more interested in looking 

good than being good

You are impressed with the quality

of leadership in your work group

You would go for help with a 

personal problem to people in 

your chain of command

c.

d.

.....

The leaders in your work group 

are not concerned with the way 

Service members treat each other 

as long as the job gets done

e.

. .

.........

...........

..........

. .

The leaders in your work group 

are more interested in furthering 

their careers than in the wellbeing of their Service members

f.

...

................

Leaders in your work group treat 

Service members with respect

Leaders most often get willing 

and whole-hearted cooperation 

from the Service members in 

your work group

g.

h.

......................

The NCOs/petty officers in your 

chain of command are a good 

source of support for Service 

members

i.

39. To what extent do you agree or disagree with the

 following statements about . . .

Strongly agree

Agree

Neither agree nor disagree

Disagree

Strongly disagree

There is very little conflict among 

your coworkers

You like your coworkers

Your coworkers put in the effort 

required for their jobs

a.

b.

c.

....................

............

..............

You are satisfied with the 

relationships you have with your 

coworkers

The people in your work group 

tend to get along

The people in your work group are 

willing to help each other

d.

e.

f.

........................

..................

...........

THE PEOPLE YOU WORK WITH

Motivating (creates a supportive 

work environment, inspires people 

to do their best, acknowledges the

good performance of others, and 

disciplines in a firm, fair, and 

consistent manner)..............
- 8 -

Not provided

44. If your current mentor (or if none now, your most

 recent mentor) provides the following assistance,

 how helpful is/was each to you? Please mark one

 answer for each statement.

a.

b.

c.

d.

MENTORING

Please print.

................

......................

.......

.............

e.

f.

g.

h.

Provides support and 

encouragement

Provides personal and social 

guidance

Provides career guidance

Demonstrates trust

Teaches job skills

Gives feedback on your job 

performance

Assigns challenging tasks

Helps develop your skills/ 

competencies for future 

assignments

...............

...................

.......

...................

............

...................

.................

......

i.

j.

k.

l.

Acts as a role model

Protects you

Invites you to observe activities 

at his/her level

Instills Service core values

. .

...........

..........

...................

Provides moral/ethical guidance

Teaches/advises on 

organizational politics

Provides sponsorship/contacts 

to advance your career

Assists in obtaining future 

assignments

m.

n.

o.

p.

43. Is your current mentor (or was your most recent

 mentor) . . . ? Mark one.

Your rater

Your senior rater

A person who is/was higher in rank than you, but 

not your rater or your senior rater

A person who is/was at your same rank

A person who is/was lower in rank than you

A person who is not or was not in the military at 

the time the mentoring was provided

Yes, you have one now. IF YES, CONTINUE 

WITH QUESTION 42

Yes, you had one, but you don't have one now.  IF 

YES, CONTINUE WITH QUESTION 42

No, but you would have liked one. IF NO, GO TO 

QUESTION 45

No, and you never wanted one. IF NO, GO TO 

QUESTION 45

No, you do not know what a mentor is. IF NO, 

GO TO QUESTION 45

41. In your opinion, have you ever had a mentor while

 in the military?

Very often

Often

Sometimes

Once or twice

Never

Using an angry tone of voice

Avoiding you

Making you look bad

Yelling or raising one's voice

Withholding information from you

Swearing directed at you

a.

b.

c.

d.

e.

f.

.......

......................

..............

.......

...

..........

Talking about you behind your back

Insulting, criticizing you (including 

sarcasm)

Saying offensive or crude things 

about you

Flaunting status or power over you

g.

h.

i.

j.

.

.........................

........................

.

40. How often during the past 12 months have you

 been in workplace situations where military

 personnel, civilian employees, and/or contractor

 employees have targeted you with any of the

 following behaviors?

Strongly agree

Agree

Neither agree nor disagree

Disagree

Strongly disagree

Your work provides you with a 

sense of pride

Your work makes good use of 

your skills

Your present assignment is good 

for your military career

g.

h.

i.

....................

........................

.............

You like the kind of work you do

Your job gives you the chance to 

acquire valuable skills

You are satisfied with your job as 

a whole

j.

k.

l.

....

.............

..........................

THE WORK YOU DO

 current mentor, who was your most recent

 mentor)? Mark one.

A commissioned officer

A warrant officer

An NCO/petty officer

A junior enlisted Service member

A DoD civilian

Other (Please specify below.)

Extremely helpful

Very helpful

Moderately helpful

Slightly helpful

Not at all helpful
- 9 -

READINESS, HEALTH, AND 

WELL-BEING

49. How many days in the past 12 months have you

 been unable to do your job because of an injury

 suffered outside of work?

0

1 - 5 days

6 - 10 days

11 - 15 days

16 - 20 days

21 or more days

48. How many days in the past 12 months have you

 been unable to do your job because of an injury

 suffered at work?

0

1 - 5 days

6 - 10 days

11 - 15 days

16 - 20 days

21 or more days

50. How true or false is each of the following

 statements for you? Please mark one answer

 for each statement.

Definitely true

Mostly true

Mostly false

Definitely false

I am as healthy as anybody I know

I seem to get sick a little easier than 

other people

I expect my health to get worse

My health is excellent

a.

b.

c.

d.

....

........................

.......

................

All or most of the time

A good bit of the time

Some of the time

Little or none of the time

Cut down on the amount of time you 

spent on work or other activities

Accomplished less than you would like

a.

b.

.......

.

52. How much of the time during the past 4 weeks

 have you had any of the following problems with

 your work or other regular daily activities as a

 result of emotional problems (such as feeling

 depressed or anxious)? Please mark one answer

 for each statement.

Didn't do work or other activities as 

carefully as usual

c.

....................

All or most of the time

A good bit of the time

Some of the time

Little or none of the time

Cut down on the amount of time you 

spent on work or other activities

Accomplished less than you would like

a.

b.

.......

.

 have you had any of the following problems with

 your work or other regular daily activities as a

 result of your physical health? Please mark one

 answer for each statement.

Were limited in the kind of work or 

other activities you do

Had difficulty performing the work or 

other activities you do (for example, 

it took extra effort)

c.

d.

................

................... Poorly prepared

Very poorly prepared

46. How well prepared are you physically to perform

 your wartime job?

Very well prepared

Well prepared

Neither well nor poorly 

prepared

Poorly prepared

Very poorly prepared

45. Taking into account your training and experience,

 how well prepared are you to perform your wartime

 job?

Very well prepared

Well prepared

Neither well nor poorly 

prepared

47. Not including injuries, how many days in the past

 12 months have you been too sick to do your job?

0

1 - 5 days

6 - 10 days

11 - 15 days

16 - 20 days

21 or more days

All or most of the time

A good bit of the time

Some of the time

Little or none of the time

Felt calm and peaceful?

Been a very nervous person?

Felt so down in the dumps that 

nothing could cheer you up?

Felt downhearted and blue?

Been a happy person?

a.

b.

c.

d.

e.

..............

.........

..........

..........

...............

53. How much of the time during the past 4 weeks

 have you . . . Please mark one answer for each

 statement.
- 10 -

Very often

Often

Sometimes

Once or twice

Never

Yes, and your gender was a factor

Yes, but your gender was NOT a factor

No, or does not apply

You were rated lower than you deserved 

on your last evaluation

Your last evaluation contained unjustified 

negative comments

You were held to a higher performance 

standard than others

a.

b.

c.

..................

....................

...................

GENDER RELATED 

EXPERIENCES IN THE MILITARY 

IN THE PAST 12 MONTHS

54. During the past 12 months, did any of the following

 happen to you? If it did, do you believe your

 gender was a factor? Mark only one answer for

 each statement.

You did not get an award or decoration 

given to others in similar circumstances

Your current assignment has not made 

use of your job skills

d.

e.

. .

...................

Your current assignment is not good 

for your career if you continue in the 

military

You did not receive day-to-day, shortterm tasks that would have helped you 

prepare for advancement

f.

g.

................................

...............

You did not have a professional 

relationship with someone who advised 

(mentored) you on career development 

or advancement

You did not learn-until it was too late-of 

opportunities that would have helped 

your career

h.

i.

.......................

............................

You were unable to get straight answers 

about your promotion possibilities

You were excluded from social events 

important to career development and 

being kept informed

j.

k.

.......

....................

 related talk and/or behavior that was unwanted,

 uninvited, and in which you did not participate

 willingly.

 

 How often during the past 12 months have you

 been in situations involving

• Military Personnel

on- or off-duty

on- or off-installation or ship; and/or

•

•

• Civilian Employees and/or Contractors

• In your workplace or on your installation/ship

a.

b.

c.

Repeatedly told sexual stories or 

jokes that were offensive to you?

Referred to people of your gender 

in insulting or offensive terms?

...

......

Made unwelcome attempts to draw 

you into a discussion of sexual 

matters (for example, attempted to 

discuss or comment on your sex 

life)? .............................

d.

e.

Treated you "differently" because 

of your gender (for example, 

mistreated, slighted, or ignored 

you)?

Made offensive remarks about 

your appearance, body, or sexual 

activities?

............................

........................

f.

g.

Made gestures or used body 

language of a sexual nature that 

embarrassed or offended you?

Made offensive sexist remarks (for 

example, suggesting that people 

of your gender are not suited for 

the kind of work you do)?

.....

..........

h.

i.

Made unwanted attempts to 

establish a romantic sexual 

relationship with you despite your 

efforts to discourage it?

Put you down or was condescending

to you because of your gender?

............

....

j.

k.

Continued to ask you for dates, 

drinks, dinner, etc., even though 

you said "No"?

Made you feel like you were being 

bribed with some sort of reward or 

special treatment to engage in 

sexual behavior?

....................

..................

l. Made you feel threatened with 

some sort of retaliation for not 

being sexually cooperative (for 

example, by mentioning an 

upcoming review)? ................

where one or more of these individuals (of either 

gender) . . .

...............................

You did not get a job assignment that 

you wanted and for which you were 

qualified

l.

No Yes

Have you had any other adverse 

personnel actions in the past 12 months? 

(If "Yes," please specify below.)

n.

..........

Please print.

If you answered "Yes, and your gender 

was a factor" to "l" above, was this 

assignment legally open to women?

m.
- 11 -

Very often

Often

Sometimes

Once or twice

Never

m.

n.

o.

Touched you in a way that made 

you feel uncomfortable?

Made unwanted attempts to 

stroke, fondle, or kiss you?

Treated you badly for refusing to 

have sex?

...........

.........

........................

p.

q.

......................

...

Implied faster promotions or better 

treatment if you were sexually 

cooperative?

Attempted to have sex with you 

without your consent or against 

your will, but was not successful?

r.

s.

.......

....

Had sex with you without your 

consent or against your will?

Other unwanted gender-related 

behavior? (Unless you mark 

"Never," please describe below.)

Please print.

57. Think about the situation(s) you experienced

 during the past 12 months that involved the

 behaviors you marked in Question 55. Now pick

 the SITUATION THAT HAD THE GREATEST

 EFFECT ON YOU.

.....................

................

Repeatedly told sexual stories or jokes that 

were offensive to you

Referred to people of your gender in 

insulting or offensive terms

a.

b.

Did this

Did not do this

.................

c. Made unwelcome attempts to draw you 

into a discussion of sexual matters (for 

example, attempted to discuss or 

comment on your sex life)

d.

e.

Treated you "differently" because of your 

gender (for example, mistreated, slighted, 

or ignored you)

Made offensive remarks about your 

appearance, body, or sexual activities

...........................

......

f.

g.

Made gestures or used body language of 

a sexual nature that embarrassed or 

offended you

Made offensive sexist remarks (for 

example, suggesting that people of your 

gender are not suited for the kind of work 

you do)

.............................

..................................

h.

i.

Made unwanted attempts to establish a 

romantic sexual relationship with you 

despite your efforts to discourage it

Put you down or was condescending to 

you because of your gender

........

...............

j.

k.

Continued to ask you for dates, drinks, 

dinner, etc., even though you said "No"

Made you feel like you were being bribed 

with some sort of reward or special 

treatment to engage in sexual behavior

......

.....

l. Made you feel threatened with some sort 

of retaliation for not being sexually 

cooperative (for example, by mentioning 

an upcoming review) ......................

m.

n.

o.

Touched you in a way that made you feel 

uncomfortable

Made unwanted attempts to stroke, fondle, 

or kiss you

Treated you badly for refusing to have sex

............................

...............................

. .

p.

q.

. .

............................

Implied faster promotions or better 

treatment if you were sexually cooperative

Attempted to have sex with you without 

your consent or against your will, but was 

not successful

r.

s.

..........................

.

Had sex with you without your consent or 

against your will

Other unwanted gender-related behavior (If 

you mark "Did this," please describe below.)

Please print.

56. Do you consider ANY of the behaviors (a through s)

 which YOU MARKED AS HAPPENING TO YOU in

 Question 55 to have been sexual harassment?

None were sexual harassment CONTINUE 

WITH QUESTION 57

Some were sexual harassment; some were not 

sexual harassment CONTINUE WITH 

QUESTION 57

All were sexual harassment CONTINUE WITH 

QUESTION 57

Does not apply–I marked "Never" to every item in 

Question 55 GO TO QUESTION 76

One Situation with the Greatest Effect

 

 What did the person(s) do during this situation?

 Mark one answer for each behavior.
- 12 -

Extremely

Very

Moderately

Slightly

Not at all

a.

b.

c.

d.

e.

f.

Annoying?

Offensive?

Disturbing?

Threatening?

Embarrassing?

Frightening?

........................

........................

.......................

.....................

....................

......................

All of it

Most of it

Some of it

None of it

At a military installation

At work (the place where you 

perform your military duties)

During duty hours

In the local community around an 

installation

...............

..........

...................

..........................

a.

b.

c.

d.

. .

.....................

...

.....................

Assume the person(s) meant well?

Pray about it?

Pretend not to notice, hoping the 

person(s) would leave you alone?

Do something else in response to 

the situation?

Very large extent

Large extent

Moderate extent

a.

b.

c.

Try to avoid the person(s) who 

bothered you?

Try to forget it?

Tell the person(s) you didn't like 

what he or she was doing?

....................

....................

.........

65. To what extent did you . . .

d.

e.

f.

Stay out of the person's or 

persons' way?

Tell yourself it was not really 

important?

Talk to some of your family about 

the situation?

....................

........................

.....................

g.

h.

i.

................

.....................

................

Talk to some of your coworkers 

about the situation?

Talk to some of your friends about 

the situation?

Talk to a chaplain or counselor 

about the situation?

j.

k.

l.

m.

n.

........................

..........

................

...........................

.

Try to avoid being alone with the 

person(s)?

Tell the person(s) to stop?

Just put up with it?

Ask the person(s) to leave you 

alone?

Blame yourself for what happened?

o.

p.

q.

r.

60. What was the gender of the person(s) involved?

Male

Female

Both males and females were involved

Gender unknown

61. Was the person(s) involved . . . Mark "Yes" or 

 "No" for each.

Your military coworker(s)?

Your civilian coworker(s)?

Your military subordinate(s)?

Your civilian subordinate(s)?

Your military training instructor?

Your civilian training instructor?

...............

...............

............

.............

..........

..........

Yes No

a.

b.

c.

d.

e.

Your immediate military supervisor?

Your immediate civilian supervisor?

Your unit commander?

Other military person(s) of higher 

rank/grade than you?

Other civilian employee(s) of higher 

rank/grade than you?

......

......

..................

...................

...................

f.

g.

h.

i.

j.

k.

l.

m.

n.

Other military person(s)?

Other civilian person(s)?

Other or unknown person(s)?

................

................

............

64. Is the situation still going on?

Yes

No

63. How long did this situation last, or if continuing,

 how long has it been going on?

Less than 1 week

1 week to less than 1 month

1 month to less than 3 months

3 months to less than 6 months

6 months to less than 9 months

9 months to less than 12 months

12 months or more

Small extent

Not at all

 mind, how often did the event(s) occur?

Once

Occasionally

Frequently

Almost every day

More than once a day

The remaining questions in this section refer to 

the one situation that had the greatest effect on 

you - Question 57.

59. Where and when did this situation occur?

58. To what degree was this situation . . .
- 13 -

Yes IF YES, CONTINUE WITH QUESTION 68

No IF NO, GO TO QUESTION 74

67. Did you answer "Yes" to at least one item in

 Question 66?

How well you are/were kept 

informed about the progress of 

your complaint

Degree to which your privacy 

is/was being protected

....................

.............

Very satisfied

Satisfied

Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied

Dissatisfied

Very dissatisfied

.............

....................

.............

a.

b.

c.

Availability of information about 

how to file a complaint

Treatment by personnel handling 

your complaint

Amount of time it took/is taking to 

resolve your complaint

69. How satisfied are you with the following aspects

 of the reporting process?

d.

e.

Yes IF YES, GO TO QUESTION 73

No IF NO, GO TO QUESTION 71

70. Is the action still being processed?

Don't know

No

Yes

 "Yes," "No," or "Don't know" for each.

a.

b.

c.

They found your complaint to be true

They found your complaint to be untrue

They were unable to determine whether 

your complaint was true or not

....

. .

..........

d.

e.

f.

The outcome of your complaint was 

explained to you

The situation was corrected

Some action was taken against the 

person(s) who bothered you

.......................

.............

.............

g.

h.

Nothing was done about the complaint

Action was taken against you

...

...........

Yes IF YES, GO TO QUESTION 75

No IF NO, CONTINUE WITH QUESTION 74

73. Did you report all of the behaviors you marked in

 Question 57 to one of the installation/Service/DoD

 individuals or organizations listed in Question 66?

Don't know

No

Yes

68. What actions were taken in response to your

 report? Mark "Yes," "No," or "Don't

 know" for each.

a.

b.

c.

Person(s) who bothered you was/were 

talked to about the behavior

Your complaint was/is being investigated

You were encouraged to drop the 

complaint

.............

.

..............................

d.

e.

Your complaint was discounted or not 

taken seriously (for example, you were 

told that's just the way it is, not to 

overreact, etc.)

No action was taken

.........................

....................

If you were dissatisfied/very dissatisfied with the 

outcome of your complaint, please specify why below.

72. How satisfied were you with the outcome of your

 complaint?

Please print.

Very satisfied

Satisfied

Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied

Dissatisfied

Very dissatisfied

Yes No

 following installation/Service/DoD individuals

 or organizations? Mark "Yes" or "No" for each.

a.

b.

c.

d.

Your immediate supervisor

Someone else in your chain-of-command 

(including your commanding officer)

Supervisor(s) of the person(s) who did it

..............

......

. .

Special military office responsible for 

handling these kinds of complaints (for 

example, Military Equal Opportunity or 

Civil Rights Office) .....................

e. Other installation/Service/DoD person 

or office with responsibility for follow-up . .

Yes No

74. What were your reasons for not reporting

 behaviors to any of the installation/Service/DoD

 individuals or organizations in Question 66?

 Mark "Yes" or "No" for each.

a.

b.

c.

d.

e.

Was not important enough to report

You did not know how to report

You felt uncomfortable making a report

You took care of the problem yourself

You talked to someone informally in your 

chain-of-command

......

..........

...

....

.....................

f.

g.

h.

i.

You did not think anything would be 

done if you reported

You thought you would not be believed 

if you reported

You thought your coworkers would be 

angry if you reported

You wanted to fit in

....................

.........................

...................

.....................
- 14 -

OTHER WORKPLACE EXPERIENCES

The following items describe situations that sometimes

happen in the workplace. What do you think would 

happen at your duty station in situations like these?

Strongly agree

Agree

Neither agree nor disagree

Disagree

Strongly disagree

...

..........

..................

.........

a.

b.

c.

d.

Others in the unit would not care

The coworker would get in trouble 

with his or her supervisor

Others in the unit would tell the 

coworker to stop

Leadership would ignore it

 were to talk a lot at work about sex, trying to get

 others to talk about it, too. Mark if you "agree" or

 "disagree" with each of the following statements.

If a coworker at your duty station 

were to do this . . .

.........................

..............

............................

e.

f.

g.

The complaint would be taken 

seriously

It would be risky for the person 

making the complaint

Some corrective action would be 

taken

If another coworker were to 

complain about this . . .

.............................

....

h.

i.

Other coworkers would treat the 

person who made the complaint 

badly

The complaint would be ignored

77. Suppose that a coworker at your duty station were

 to keep asking others for dates even after they

 have made it clear that they were not interested.

 Mark if you "agree" or "disagree" with each of the

 following statements.

Strongly agree

Agree

Neither agree nor disagree

Disagree

Strongly disagree

...

..........

..................

.........

a.

b.

c.

d.

Others in the unit would not care

The coworker would get in trouble 

with his or her supervisor

Others in the unit would tell the 

coworker to stop

Leadership would ignore it

If a coworker at your duty station 

were to do this . . .

.........................

..............

............................

e.

f.

g.

The complaint would be taken 

seriously

It would be risky for the person 

making the complaint

Some corrective action would be 

taken

If another coworker were to 

complain about this . . .

.............................

....

h.

i.

Other coworkers would treat the 

person who made the complaint 

badly

The complaint would be ignored

Yes No

j.

k.

You thought reporting would take too 

much time and effort

You thought you would be labeled a 

troublemaker if you reported

...................

............

l.

m.

n.

A peer talked you out of making a 

formal complaint

A supervisor talked you out of making 

a formal complaint

You did not want to hurt the person's 

or persons' feelings, family, or career

.......................

.....................

.....

o.

p.

You thought your performance 

evaluation or chance for promotion 

would suffer if you reported

You were afraid of retaliation from the 

person(s) who did it

.............

....................

q.

r.

s.

You were afraid of retaliation or 

reprisals from friends/associates of 

the person(s) who did it

You were afraid of retaliation or 

reprisals from your supervisors or 

chain-of-command

Some other reason

.................

.....................

.....................

Don't know

No

Yes

a.

b.

c.

You were ignored by others at work

You were blamed for the situation

People gossiped about you in an unkind 

or negative way

......

........

........................

75. Sometimes people may have problems at work

 after a situation like the one you experienced. Did

 any of the following things happen as a result of

 the situation or how you responded to it? Mark

 "Yes," "No," or "Don't know" for each.

d.

e.

f.

You lost perks/privileges that you had 

before

You were given less favorable job duties

You were denied an opportunity for 

training

.................................

. .

................................

g.

h.

i.

j.

.............................

............

...........

....................................

You were given an unfair performance 

evaluation

You were unfairly disciplined

You were denied a promotion

You were transferred to a less desirable 

job

k.

l.

You were unfairly demoted

You were mistreated in some other way

..............

. .
- 15 -

PERSONNEL POLICY AND PRACTICES 

Don't know

No

Yes

79. Please give your opinion about whether the persons

 below make honest and reasonable efforts to stop

 sexual harassment, regardless of what is said

 officially. Mark "Yes," "No," or "Don't know" for

 each.

a.

b.

c.

Senior leadership of my Service

Senior leadership of my installation/ship

My immediate supervisor

.........

. .

...............

Yes IF YES, CONTINUE WITH QUESTION 81

No IF NO, GO TO QUESTION 83

80. Have you had any training during the past 12

 months on topics related to sexual harassment?

Very large extent

Large extent

Moderate extent

Small extent

Not at all

83. To what extent is/are . . .

If a coworker were to complain 

about this . . .

Strongly agree

Agree

Neither agree nor disagree

Disagree

Strongly disagree

...

..........

.................

.........

a.

b.

c.

d.

Others in the unit would not care

The supervisor would get in trouble 

with his or her supervisor

Others in the unit would tell the 

supervisor to stop

Leadership would ignore it

 were to suggest that the way to get along and get

 good assignments is to be sexually cooperative

 to him/her. Mark if you "agree" or "disagree" with

 each of the following statements.

If a supervisor at your duty station 

were to do this . . .

.........................

..............

............................

e.

f.

g.

The complaint would be taken 

seriously

It would be risky for the person 

making the complaint

Some corrective action would be 

taken

.............................

....

h.

i.

Other coworkers would treat the 

person who made the complaint 

badly

The complaint would be ignored

Strongly agree

Agree

Neither agree nor disagree

Disagree

Strongly disagree

.....

 "disagree" with each of the following statements.

a. Provides a good understanding of 

what words and actions are 

considered sexual harassment

..........................

b. Teaches that sexual harassment 

reduces the cohesion and 

effectiveness of your Service as 

a whole

............................

c. Teaches that sexual harassment 

makes it difficult for individual 

Service members to perform their 

duties

.......................

d. Identifies behaviors that are 

offensive to others and should not 

be tolerated

................

e. Gives useful tools for dealing with 

sexual harassment

...............

f. Makes you feel it is safe to 

complain about unwanted, 

sex-related attention

................

g. Provides information about policies, 

procedures, and consequences of 

sexual harassment

IN YOUR UNIT/WORK GROUP

............

.....

.............

Policies forbidding sexual 

harassment publicized?

Complaint procedures related to 

sexual harassment publicized?

a.

b.

.

Enlisted members required to attend 

formal sexual harassment training?

d.

e. Officers required to attend formal 

sexual harassment training?

Leaders consistently modeling 

respectful behavior to both male 

and female personnel?

f.

........

.............

Complaints about sexual 

harassment taken seriously no 

matter who files them?

c.

TIMES

81. In the past 12 months, how many times have

 you had training on topics related to sexual

 harassment? To indicate nine or more, enter "9".

Male supervisors asking female 

officers or NCOs/petty officers from 

other work groups to "deal with" 

problems involving female 

subordinates?

g.

.....................
Data Recognition Corp.-G2070-3029-54321

THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND ASSISTANCE

- 16 -

More of a problem inside the military

More of a problem outside the military

Same/no difference

Large extent

Moderate extent

Small extent

Not at all

 problem inside the military or more of a problem

 outside the military?

89. On what date did you complete this survey? Y Y Y YMMDD

90. If you have comments or concerns that you were not able to express in answering this survey, please print

 them in the space provided. Any comments you make on this questionnaire will be kept confidential, and no

 follow-up action will be taken in response to any specifics reported. If you want to report a harassment

 problem, information about how to do so is available through your command Equal Opportunity or Civil

 Rights Office.

88. Would you like to know the results of this survey? If you are interested in being notified when a brief

 summary of the results is available on the Web, please print your e-mail address below. This e-mail address

 will be used for no other purpose than this notification.

Please print

COMMENTS

o.

ON YOUR INSTALLATION/SHIP

IN YOUR SERVICE

.......................

An advice/hotline available for

reporting sexual harassment

complaints?

Less of a problem today

About the same as 4 years ago

More of a problem today

85. In your opinion, has sexual harassment in our

 nation become more or less of a problem over

 the last 4 years?

Don’t know, you have been in the military less than

4 years

Less of a problem today

About the same as 4 years ago

More of a problem today

86. In your opinion, has sexual harassment in the

 military become more or less of a problem over

 the last 4 years?

Don’t know, you have

been in the military less

than 4 years

Much less often

87. In your opinion, how often does sexual harassment

 occur in the military now, as compared with a few

 years ago?

Less often

About the same

More often

Much more often

.............

...........

Complaints about sexual

harassment taken seriously no

matter who files them?

There a specific office with the

authority to investigate sexual

harassment complaints?

j.

k.

. .

........

Enlisted members required to attend

formal sexual harassment training?

Officers required to attend formal

sexual harassment training?

l.

m.

n. Leaders consistently modeling

respectful behavior to both male

and female personnel? ............

............

.....

Policies forbidding sexual

harassment publicized?

Complaint procedures related to

sexual harassment publicized?

h.

i.
Appendix B

Standardized Survey Measure of

Sexual Harassment























Appendix C

Survey Method For Counting

Incidents of Sexual Harassment





	

)RUP$SSURYHG

20%1R

5(3257'$7(''00<<<< 5(32577<3(

7,7/($1'68%7,7/( D&2175$&7180%(5

$87+256

3(5)250,1*25*$1,=$7,211$0(6$1'$''5(66(6

6321625,1*021,725,1*$*(1&<1$0(6$1'$''5(66(6

3(5)250,1*25*$1,=$7,21

5(3257180%(5

6321625021,725
6$&521<06

6833/(0(17$5<127(6

',675,%87,21$9$,/$%,/,7<67$7(0(17

$%675$&7

68%-(&77(506

180%(5

2)

3$*(6

D1$0(2)5(63216,%/(3(5621

D5(3257 E$%675$&7 F7+,63$*(

/,0,7$7,212)

$%675$&7

6WDQGDUG)RUP5HY

3UHVFULEHGE\$16,6WG=

7KHSXEOLF UHSRUWLQJEXUGHQ IRU WKLVFROOHFWLRQRILQIRUPDWLRQLVHVWLPDWHG WRDYHUDJHKRXUSHU UHVSRQVHLQFOXGLQJ WKH WLPH IRU UHYLHZLQJLQVWUXFWLRQV VHDUFKLQJH[LVWLQJGDWD VRXUFH

JDWKHULQJDQGPDLQWDLQLQJWKHGDWDQHHGHGDQGFRPSOHWLQJDQGUHYLHZLQJWKHFROOHFWLRQRILQIRUPDWLRQ6HQGFRPPHQWVUHJDUGLQJWKLVEXUGHQHVWLPDWHRUDQ\RWKHUDVSHFWRIWKLVFROOHFWLR

RI LQIRUPDWLRQ LQFOXGLQJ VXJJHVWLRQV IRU UHGXFLQJ WKH EXUGHQ WR 'HSDUWPHQW RI 'HIHQVH :DVKLQJWRQ +HDGTXDUWHUV 6HUYLFHV 'LUHFWRUDWH IRU ,QIRUPDWLRQ 2SHUDWLRQV DQG 5HSRU

-HIIHUVRQ'DYLV+LJKZD\6XLWH$UOLQJWRQ9$5HVSRQGHQWVVKRXOGEHDZDUHWKDWQRWZLWKVWDQGLQJDQ\RWKHUSURYLVLRQRIODZQRSHUVRQVKDOO

VXEMHFWWRDQ\SHQDOW\IRUIDLOLQJWRFRPSO\ZLWKDFROOHFWLRQRILQIRUPDWLRQLILWGRHVQRWGLVSOD\DFXUUHQWO\YDOLG20%FRQWUROQXPEHU

3/($6('21275(7851<285)250727+($%29($''5(66

'$7(6&29(5(')URP7R

E*5$17180%(5

F352*5$0(/(0(17180%(5

G352-(&7180%(5

H7$6.180%(5

I:25.81,7180%(5

6321625021,725
65(3257

180%(56

6(&85,7<&/$66,),&$7,212)

E7(/(3+21(180%(5,QFOXGHDUHDFRGH

1 November 2003 Final Report December 2001-November 2003

Armed Forces 2002 Sexual Harassment Survey M67004-98-D-002/026

 Lipari, R. N. and Lancaster, A. R.

Defense Manpower Data Center

1600 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 400

Arlington, VA 22209-2593

Defense Manpower Data Center

1600 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 400

Arlington, VA 22209-2593

2003-026

Approved for Public Release; distribution unlimited.

This report provides the results for the 2002 Status of the Armed Forces Survey – Workplace and Gender Relations (2002 WGR). 

The overall purpose of the 2002 WGR is to document the extent to which Service members reported experiencing unwanted, 

uninvited sexual attention in the 12 months prior to filling out the survey, the details surrounding those events, and Service members

perceptions of the effectiveness of sexual harassment policies, training, and programs. Survey results are tabulated in this report as a 

DoD total by gender, and for the subgroups Service by gender, and paygrade group by gender.

Sexual harassment, sexist behavior, sexual assault, sex discrimination, gender relations, leadership, policies and program

U U U UU 138

 Anita Lancaster

(703) 696-5837

	




6WDQGDUG)RUP%DFN5HY

	

	




	
			

	
	

	

	
		
 !!"#

$$ !!"#$$$$ !!"

%
	



	

	
	
	
	
&


'	
		






(
	





)
)*)	
	


)	

)

+ !!,+ !!"#  + !!#

	- !!"#- !!"


.


	


)


	
	
		/	








		


	


	
.
	
	


	
		



 0"10 !

	
.
		
	


		

2/%3" 4


	
.
	

	
	
		



  2

 !	
.
	5


	
		

 0,6 0,#

(7(3

"#	
.
	
	*	


		

0#3 #84 

$%#	
	
.
	)*


	
		

 #

22974" 0

&	'().
	:;:;

)





	


)







8

	
	
	




		
	


	'			

	

%
3	
++

*


+

()

()%$		





+
	


.
	'		
	



	<	
=37 4#

2>783"04 ,? 98


,



()

().

		
	




	<	
:;			




)*

-,

.
().


			=37236.1-261

,

.	
()

.

		

@


				=3783"!# 0



	
,


A

		
	

			

	



	



			




	




(	


	
	
@

	

	*	
	

)		
<	



36@3693/9(-(823
(



	


	.
	





)	B	
	


)
#
		
#

#







2:	$	
)
;

	
		

	
	


	!
C)
	



	5




&	



.



		
	
	)

		


	
A1%
(

	

	
	

			




	



	

*



8*





		



	




	
	
.
AA:A	
A

;%23

:%		3
;2

*