AD/A-004 234 DEVICE FOR IMPROVEMEN OVERSEAS DUTY

AD/A-004 234

THE DEVELOP..ENT OF AN ATTITUDE MEASURE-MENT DEVICE FOR IMPROVEMEN T OF SELEC-TION/SCREENING OF U. S. PERSONNEL FOROVERSEAS DUTY

Thomas Phillip Mozingo

Naval Post. ,aduate SchoolMonterey, 0'alifornia

December 1974

-IDISTRIBUTED BY:

National Technical Information ServiceU. S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

4,

UNCLASSIFIEDSECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF TWIS PAGE (Whmen Date Fr.teted)

REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE RED INSTRUCTTO.iF____________________________________BEFORECOMPt.T;.'L c._FORM

1. REPORT NUMBER 2. GOVT ACCESSION NO 3. RECIPIENT'S CATALOG NUMBER

4. TITLE (and Subtitle) S. TYPE OF REPORT & PERIOO COVEREDThe Development of an Attitude Measure- Master's Thesis;

ment Device for Improvement of Selection December 1974/Screening of U.S. Personnel for Oversea ss. PERFORMINGORG. REPORT NUMBERDuty_

7. AUTHOR(*) S. CONTRACT OR GRANT NUMOER(*)

Thomas Phillip Mozingo

9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS 10. PROGRAM ELEMENT. PROJECT. TASKAREA A WORK UNIT NUMBERS

Naval Postgraduate SchoolMonterey, California 93940

I1. CONTROLLING OFFICE NAME AND ADDRESS II. REPORT DATE

Naval Postgraduate School December 1974Monterey, California 93940 1S. NUMBER OF PAGES

6414. MONITORING AGENCY NAME A ADORESS(lI dliferent from Centrolllng Office) IS. SECURITY CLASS. (of thlit ,"tofrl)

Naval Postgraduate School UnclassifiedMonterey, California 93940 ____________MC. DECL ASSI FICATION/DOWN GRADING

SCHEDULE

IS. DiSTRIBUTION STATEMENT (of this Report)

Approved for public release; distribution unlimited.

I?. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT (of the ebeltoct entted In Block 20, I dll.eflt from Report)

IS. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

leproduced byNATIONAL TECHNICALINFORMATION SERVICE

US Dop.rtment of ComoseceSptingoi*1, VA. 221SI

19. KEY WORDS (Continue on reverese ide It necoeey and Identtly by block number)

Intercultural ResearchCross-cultural ResearchOverseas Training TOForeign Attitude Survey . SUBJECT CHANGE

20. ABSTRACT (Continue an teveres side It neceee y and ldentity by block numb.,)

The selection/screening of U.S. Navy personnel for overseasduty is an important task that. needs greater effort. This studyresearched the ranking of ten qualities or characteristics ofU.S. Navy personnel, by Allied Officers and their wives at theNaval Postgraduate School, Monterey, California. The rankingswere comipared with responses from U.S. Officers and E]3nlistedpersonnel also at the Naval Postgraduate School. Ln addition,

CD 1JAN 73 1473 EDITION OF I UOV 65 IS OBSOLETE |ASIUN(,IASSFI' O Tn l(Pg SIN s/ 102o-014-66011 t, SECURITY CILASS;FICATION OF THIS PAGE (W"en DA) ,Jnitrd)

JfjASS IFI EDUtL!TY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE(When Olet Eenlot0,e

20. Abstract

several questions concerning personal interaction by Americanswith host-country nationals were asked of the Allied Officers.The results indicate that .there is general agreement oa-.the-importance of certain attitudes between Americans and non-Americans buz that there are some countries that vary signifi-cantly. In addition, U.S. Navy personnel and their familiesneed toput greater emphasis in learning the local laiguage andselection of housing.

DD Form 1-173 0!3ACK)iI Jnn 7 0 - , UNCLASSIFJan 7-SIN 0102-014-6601 f SFC URITY CL.A$$IFICATION or TmIS PAGE(When D010 Intoted)

Ii

The Development of an Attitude Measurement DeviceFor Improvement of Selection/Screeningof U.S. Personnel for Overseas Duty

-by

Thomas Phillip MozingoLieutenant, United States Navy

U.S., University of Louisville, 1969

Submitted in partial fulfillment of therequirements for the degree of

MASTER OF SCIENCE IN MANAGEMENT

from the

NAVAL POSTGRADUATE SCHOOLDecember 1974

Author ,4e ,

/ //

Approved by:

Second Reader

ih Dep artment of O ,tions Researchand Adirinlyrative Sciences

/3

" - ', ,,--,-- --" L , = ..... .'"' " ..... ...

ABSTRACT

The selection/screening of U.S. Navy personnel for over-

seas duty is an important task that needs greater effort.

This study researched the ranking of ten qualities orcharac-

teristics of U.S. Navy personnel, by Allied Officers and

their wives at the Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, Cali-

fornia. The rankings were compared with responses from U.S.

Officers and Enlisted personnel also at the Naval Postgraduate

School. In addition, several questions concerning personal

interaction by Americans with host-country nationals were

asked of the Allied Officers. The results indicate that

there is general agreement of the importance of certain

attitudes between Americans and non-Americans but that there

are some countries that vary significantly. In addition,

U.S. Navy personnel and their families need to put greater

emphasis in learning the local language and selection of

housing.

4

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. INTRODUCTION ------------------------------------ 7

A. INTRODUCTION -------------------------------- 7

B. COMMENTS ON CULTURE AND CUSTOMS ----- 8

rII. RELATED STUDIES --------------------------------- 11

III. THESIS INTENT ----------------------------------- 14

A. PURPOSE ------------------------------------- 14

B. HYPOTHESES---------------------------------- 14

IV. METHOD------------------------------------------ 1is

A. SUBJECTS------------------------------------ isI B. INSTRUMENTS--------------------------------- 1is

C. PROCEDURE ----------------------------------- 17'

D. DATA ANALYSIS------------------------------- 19

V. RESULTS --------------------------------------- 20I A. RANKING EXERCISE ---------------------------- 20

B. SPEARMAN CORRELATION ------------------------- 24

C. LIKERT SCALE ITEMS --------------------------- 24

Vti. DISCUSSION OF RESULTS--------------------------- 26

A. DISCUSSION---------------------------------- 26

B. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS --------------------- 30

C. FU11IER Ri:SEAIR'CHi----------------------------31

APPENDIX A ---------------------------------------------- 33

ENDIX B ----------------------------------- 36

,PENDIX C ---------------------------------------------- 37

APPENDIX D--------------------------------------------- 41

APPENDIX E ------------ -------------------------------- 43

APPENDIX F -------------------------------------------- 45

APPENDIX G --------------------------------------------- 3

APPENDIX H ---------------------------------------------5t

BIBLIOGRAPHY ----------------------------------------- 61

INITIAL DIStRI(BUTION LIST ----------------------------- 63

6

I. INTtOUCTf

A. INTRODUCTION

As guests in many countries, the US. Navy has a respon-

sibility to its hosts and itself to ensure that U.S. Navy

personnel are aware and capable of behavior that brings about

improved intercultural relations and a greater understanding

between Americans and our Allies.

In OPNAVOTE S450, the Chief of Naval Operations made

NAVOP 126, Overseas Diplomacy in the U.S. Navy, a command

mission element. Its object is to maximize the positive

image of the United States and the U.S. Navy in the eyes of

host nationals while maximizing overseas job effectiveness

and satisfaction. That task is important to all commands

within the U.S. Navy but it is especially important to iver-

seas shore establishments and ships homeported abroad. Duty

in allied countries, by its very nature, involves interper-

sonal contact between U.S. personnel and host nationals,

both civilian and military.

2Past experience has shown that there are some personnel

who are quite simply unsuited for duty overseas. Interper-

sonal contact between people from different cultures can

cause serious problems. There is generally a language

barrier but that is not insurmountable. The real problem

lies in the differenccs in the two culkures and the relat-

customs and the inability to adju:;t to those differences.

7

Poor adjustment to a host culture is frequently manifested

in less than adequate performance of assigned duties and

socio-political incidents.

If the U.S. Navy is going to carry out its mission

successfully, then the process for screening and selecting

personnel for duty abroad must be done carefully. If a

higher percentage of good adjusters can be predicted before

personnel are sent overseas, then the benefits to the U.S.

Navy would include:

(a) savings of funds(b) more stable personnel rotation schedules(c) improved job effectiveness(d) lower risk of unpleasant incidents(e) increased prestige and respect.

This study is an initial development of a model for

identifying those qualities or characteristics that are

relevant and common to various cultures and therefore

important for adjustment to those cultures.

B. COMMENTS ON CULTURE AND CUSTOMS

There have been literally thousands of books written on

culture and customs. There are almost as many definitions

of the ixord culture itself. Culture is a very broad term

that encompasses all of those things that identify a parti-

cular people at a particular time. Included are art, music,

language, architecture, religion, and social behavior, among

others. Perhaps all of these can be described as the

accepted way a people paints, sings, speaks, builds, prays,

or behaves in public. People develop certain customary

8

4

views of behavior that become so common, that any behavior

contrary to those accepted views is considered foreign or

in poor taste. Certain behavior which is acceptable to one

people might be repugnant to another.

The American culture is perhaps one of the most diffi-

cult to describe. It cannot be described as being white,

Anglo-Saxon because that ignores the influence of the

native Indians and non-white immigrants to the U.S. The

American culture is actually made up from many sub-cultures.

Any particular sub-culture is identifiable by the customary

behavior of the people within that sub-culture.

The American sub-cultures have evolved from the various

groups that have immigrated to the U.S., intermarried, and

spread out across a country with a large geographical area.

These groups then have retained, altered, ar discontinued

the customs they brought with them as they interacted with

other groups in their new environment. The final form of

their sub-culture varies depending upon the dominant group

within their sub-culture, but the existence of differences

even between sub-cultures with a common national origin

cannot be denied. In addition the extensive population

shifts so common in the United States have increased the

probability of a divergence of culture.

It might be easier to divide the American sub-cultures

along racial lines but the division isn't entirely satisfac-

tory because there are sonic extreme differences of customs

between peoples of the :unic race. For example, the differences

9

between whites in the Northeastern United States and those

in the Southeast.

There are in the U.S., as in other countries, many

people who might be classified as being "international"

men. They do not necessarily belong to a particular sub-

culture or class. They have developed attitudes, qualities,

or characteristics that enable them to try to understand

rather than being critical of other cultures. These people

seem to be capable of experiencing the social environment

in much the same manner as any ot'er member of that culture.

This does not mean that they latk loyalty or patriotism

but that they do not confuse differences in culture or cus-

toms with inferiority. These people, if they could be

identified, would be the group most able to go into most

countries and quickly adjust to the culture.

10

I I. RELATIFP QT1D'.t:S

A 1974 study [Ref. 16] of U.S. personnel stationed in

nine different couttries provided some insight into how well

U.S. Navy personne. have adjusted to the various host-

cultures. (See Appendix A) The study shows that while a

majority of the personnel were satisfied with living in a

foreign country, most felt Americans disliked host-nationals

and host-nationals disliked Americans. A majority believed

learning a new language and getting to know host-nationals

was rewarding/interesting. It was disturbing, however, to

note percentages as high as 20-30% of the personnel in some

countries who would not care to be stationed overseas :,gain.

The study suggests that the personnel were improperly

screened or selected for duty in that particular country or

that the personnel were inadequately prepared for dealing

with the host-country culture.

Yellen and Hoover [Ref. 12] in their study of U.S.

Navy personnel stationed in Greece, questioned 82 U.S. Navy

personnel concerning the desirable qualities thought to be

most critical in selecting an individual/family for a home-

porting assignment. They also compiled a list of those

traits or conditions considered undesirable for satisfactory

homeporting. The results arc shown in Tables 1 and 2 of

Appendix B.

11

Yellen and Hoover listed the positive qualities

described by U.S. personnel as attributing to better adjust-

mert to the life in Greece as:

(a) an interest in the language and culture(b) friendliness(c) adaptability(d) family stability(e) maturity(f) even--tempered personality(g) flexibility.

Those qualities associated with poor adjustment were

such that any single one could prevent adjustment:

(a) impatience(b) intolerance(c) maritel instability(d) heavy drinking associated with aggressive behavior.

In July 1974, the Naval Personnel Research and

Dcvelopment Center (NPRDC), San Diego, published a prelim-

inary report by Yellen and Mumford [Ref. 11] dealing with

their analysis of data gathered from U.S. Navy personnel

stationed in Japan. Their study included an analysis of

t data from:

(a) Biographical, Interest and Attitude Survey(b) Strong Vocational Interest Blank for Men(c) Navy Overseas Adjustment Scale.

Their preliminary results seemed to indicate that the

items keyed to attitudes were more useful in differentiating

between good and poor adjusters than were biographical or

interest items. When used as predictor variables, the

attitude items produced a higher correlation when predicting

the criterion variables - good adjuster or poor adjuster.

The biographical and interest items that best described

good and poor adjusters were:

12

Good Adjusters

- 26 years of age or older- married 2-6 years- more patient than others- interested in learning more about

other countries and people.

Poor Adjusters

- 21 years of age or younger- average or less than average patience- didn't know a foreign language and

not interested in learning one.

The attitude items that best differentiated between good

and poor adjusters were keyed to eight undcrlying constructs:

- sociability- empathy- intellectual curiosity- patience- adaptability- acceptance- morality.

13

III. THESS INTENT

A. PURPOSE

The problem which is the major concern of this thesis

is to attempt to develop an instrument for use in selecting/

screening personnel for overseas duty. Since attitudes

seemed to be the most useful in predicting good adjustment,

the intent is to identify those attitudes, qualities, or

characteristics which are most significant in making an

adjustment to a host culture.

In the studies mentioned on the preceding pages, the

subject groups were Americans undergoing the adjustment.

This thesis not only deals with the perceived importance of

attitudes held by Americans but also those held 1'y a large

group of non-Americans. This study specifically considers

some other areas including intercultural dating and selection

of housing overseas.

B. IYPOTIESES

There were two basic Hypotheses this thesis set out to

prove.

Hypothesis 1. That a cultural attitude can be identi-

fied from the responses to specific questions concerning

cross-cultural interaction.

Hypothesis 2. That it is possible to develop a model

to identify, from the host-national's point of view, those

characteristics most important from good adjustment to their

culture. 1.4

IV. METHOD

A. SUBJECTS

The subjects used in this research were students or

staff at the Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, California.

The Allied officers represented 24 countries and were chosen

from the student body. The entire population of 21.4 Allied

officers were used. Also included as a part of the sample

were 108 wives of the Allied officers who were rt,-siding in

Monterey, California. A sample group of 100 U.S. officers

was chosen from all curricula. The U.S. enlisted personnel

were all assigned to the Naval Postgraduate School for

duty. The total sample group was 171 personnel, including

42 Filipino personnel of the Steward (SD) rating.

B. INSTRUMENTS

The following three questionnaires were administered to

the subjects.

1. Allied Officer Questionnaire (Appendix C)

This questionnaire was developed with assistance

from Naval Personnel Research and Development Center, San

Diego; Human Resourse Management Center, San Diego; and

K Human Resourse Management Detachment, Coronado. The ranking

exercise was used as an attempt to keep the questionnaire

simple but meaningful. Sonic of the items ranked were chosen

from the work of Ycllen and Hoover [Ref. 12] and Yellen and

Mumford [Ref. 11]. These items were:

is

knowledge of language (1)married (21sobriety (4)over 25 years old (6)patience (7)friendly (9)understanding of culture and customs (10)

Items 3 and 5 (respect for laws and rpgulations and kindness)

were added from comments provided by Allied Officers during

a trial run of the questionnaiee. Item 8 (technical exper-

tise) was added by the author to explore the question of its

perceived relative importance wher compared with items

related to humanistic characteristics.

The second section of the Allied Officer question-

naire utilizes a Likert response scale. The seven questions

were chosen to further clarify:

- attitudes toward Americans liv.ing on overseasbases separate from host-nationals

- importance of age in adjustment- attitudes toward intercultural dating- attitudes toward learning the Jocal language- attitudes toward interfamily coatact

Each question was followed by a section for open-

ended comments to encourage Allied participants to add

additional information for clarification and to help compen-

sate for the forced choice nature of the rest of the

questionnaire.

2. U.S. Officer Questionnaire (Appendix D)

This questionnaire is basically the same as the

first section of the Allied Officers questiorinaire. The

difference is that the characteristics were not followed by

parenthetical clarifying comments.

16

.11 F 4 '"pip

3. U.S. Enlisted Questionnaire (Appendix E)

The questionnaire is ,s . as the U.S. Officer

questionnaire. The word "assignment" was changed to "job"

to code the questionnaire sample group from whom the ques-

tionnaires were collected.

C. PROCEDURE

The Allied Officer questionnaires were placed in

addressed envelopes and deposited in their student mail

boxes at the school. Two questionnaires were placed in each

envelope. The instructions on the questionnaire requested

the officer complete one questionnaire and if he was married

and his wife was in the area to have her also complete a

questionnaire. The respondents ucre allowed to remain

anonymous, The only biographical data collected on the

questionnaire was the respondent's home country.

To insure as large a sample return from each country

as possible, personal envelopes and mention of thesis

research were used. Table 1 shows the percentage return

for each country and the number returned which wture

incorrectly completed.

17

TABLE i

NUMBER OF ALLIED OFFICER QUESTIONNAIRES RETURNED

COUNTRY U OF OFFICERS 9 RETURNED % # INVALIDAND WIVES

Australia 4 4 100 % 0Brazil 22 14 63.6 % ICambodia 3 1 33.3 % 0Canada 20 12 60.0 % 2Chile 11 3 27.3 % 0Colombia 2 0 0 % 0Germany 44 25 56.6 % 0Greece 15 7 46.7 % 0Indonesia 36 25 69.4 % 2Iran B 0 0 % 0Israel 3 2 66.7 % 0Japan 53 60.0 % 1

Korea 13 5 3.5 % 0Norway 4 2 50.0 % 0Pakistan 5 3 60.0 % 0

Peru e12 3 2S.0 % 0Philippines 8 6 75.0 % 0

Portugal 11 5 45.5 % 0Rep. of China 7 5 71.4 % 0Singapore 3 12 60'.7 % 0

iThailand 25 11.3 50.0 % 0Turkey 39 I15 38.15 % 4

SVenezuela 2 0 % 0SViet Nam is 6 42.1 % 4

TOTALS 322 163 50.6 % 11

18

The U.S. Officer questionnaires were passed out in

several classrooms. In all 100 questionnaires were passed

out and 79 returned for a percentage of 79%. Only one

questionnaire was completed incorrectly.

The U.S. Enlisted questionnaires were delivered to the

division officers who gave each enlisted person one question-

naire. In all, 171 questionnaires were dispensed, 119 were

returned, 5 were completed incorrectly. One enlisted group

of 42 Filipino Stewards returned 25 questionnaires. Ques-

tionnaires from the Filipino members of the U.S. Navy were

coded so that those results could be compared with the

larger enlisted sample. This was done because all the

Filipino personnel were born in the Philippines and had not

entered the U.S. until enlisting in the U.S. Navy. The

return for the entire enlisted sample was 69.6%; the return

for the Filipino sub-group was 59.5%.

D. DATA ANALYSIS

The IBM 360 Computer at the NPS was used to compute the

statistics included in this study. The programs used were

the SPSS (Statistical Package for the Social Sciences) which

were available as packaged programs.

I]i

19

V. ____LTS

A. RANKING EXERCISE

The ranking exercise, which was a part of all three

questionnaires, requested the respondents to rank in

decreasing order of importance ten qualities or character-

istics of the U.S. Navy men who might be stationed in their

countries. (See Appendices C, D, and E)

All of the means or averages were computed using the

Condescriptive sub-program from SPSS. The mean is an

arithmetic mean found by adding together each individual

rank position by characteristic and dividing the totals by

the number of respondents. The rank positions were deter-

mined by assigning the ranking of 1 for the quality with

the lowest mean (most important) and continuing to the

ranking of 10 for the quality with the highest mean (least

important). Table 2 lists the mean value for each quality

by sample group. Table 3 lists the rank position for each

quality by sample group. Table 4 lists the mean value for

each quality for the all U.S. and all foreign samples.

Table 5 lists the rank position for each quality for the all

U.S. and all foreign samples.

20

B.4T1~fl MO OWU0 0 00 CUCUCD0 0 00 ON'] 0 00- v C' 0 ~

t o o .* * 0 0 0* * . . a . . . .* * ** * * * * *

Alpuia ~ -CD MMO flOO0 00C'NfC OOOC3M00 4LVOVq

UmwN wO% wUO m)CowmmOMubObOUOmmm

,~~qo9N"WO.-OMVOVTOOOOCC'OOOOOmwqm

SMB T-WNN WO C'O WOOMO -Df)wC'CU'] -

* a a a .; . a a; a *; a 9 * * a .m ae O

I IQ

CU 7 U) V 0 (1 CD V0 U) 0 0 0*, U] .J) 0 W V.D 0 L6 CDe LU

0

M U)-' v O M O O M O O M O O-3 *4<C -4Az T-~j U (I) %I D 0 - 0 -4 LD I Iq 1) L 0 0 L M~ L 0. L 0 0 M 0 N -- 4

0 MW wDCw)OO M ~ W M~ (Dc0 )( 0( 3C0C.4 ~~I) a U1 DC 24iIr~Z (.0 L.C .)1 -> '

w L tz rzm 21

tr))I ~ q u

(9 U I V~)

(I)

92Tj I CZ)

fq f) d)tn - v tDLa ) i -cuomN -c Dc Na I -4

LO ID

in I

z

(n cID c

U- U)Y SSOUpUT N r q ,D q T I U) L

Z I If) U) CU I I C') qT V (UtI ITJ 0 1 N CU to 4T 0<C n c'3 co I qT C.

1C0)wi 4).J w a, nil U) IW'T t'< H Atg-Jl~ a) c 3 nN fP)N ~r C N ILo %DLoWCD t ) .-

N C9 I I)

wIf) lvif0

M N' C)-I CL

z sm- -U UV D( I )C 1 CJW IL

cr 1 1-Y- -4

<CC

0

N '0

c~Ben~ue-1 LD %Dt )q( )C )i)WMNI N, a VD DLLI)I

Ur) U;03 D

L 'Dl CDL 1) Li ca00 (n ) £-4

-,f -1 4 c uv a4- 4--4 -1 fu *-q-4 L) 'U S -ti-wC C--I r >1 in3- m~ a. QU-oa c (

0 Lw C ( (a C ) > -) 0.U)0 fa-0 Z *L 0 .4 D 0i M- 0 C0 C l0 M W*- :3iJ fo- *

() M) M) Il U E C .4L 41 -U 1. (1 L L X I. -1 L aL r NJ L 0* * J3 L C M C o) L. C. cL U fu o u 0£ u r o -A i 3.-.

:3 D < Ca) L) U L) (D ID '- 4 4 a Z (L (L a. a. (C in I- -> <

22

0m C N

A~pum~.am c cnq,

0C~ . t ~ (mD N) NIIL

SL q D

q- 0 I cn0)t

Lo co m U:)

U) s9u9TN 0 to (U U)U)1 V N in 0

J CD

<C r.

11 >D U) 0 0

i <SUU) U))'N1 U) Lo -Y 1

10 0 0

w U-4

w a

H- m 0 0 im PaL)e u Nu U) CU CU)

CD hiCD1-4C' 0 CU()0

c c aCC

0 CD

U) U) LU)

0 c 0

tz - 4 * 4 1

<. <* <i.

IL.- U) L U.-423

B. SPEARMAN CORRELATION

The responses to the ranking exercise were analyzed

using the Spearman Rank-Difference Correlation Coefticient,

designated as y . This was done because the Spearman /

is best suited for data that is ranked; where the sample

size is small; and where the relationship between variables

is not necessarily linear.

The means from Tables 2 and 4 were punched on cards

to have ten means to compare for each sample group. The

results are shown in Appendix F.

The Allied Officer respondents were also grouped to-

gether and the means for the larger groups were compared

using the Spearman correlation coefficient. The results are

shown in Appendix G.

C. LIKERT SCALE ITEMS

The seven questions which made up the second part of

the Allied Officer Questionnaire were analyzed according to

the mean response which was also calculated using the Con-

descriptive sub-program. The scale was assigned values

ranging from +2 to -2 with an indifferent or no response

answer reccivino a valtuc of 0. Table 6 gives the means for

each question by country and for all countries.

The space marked "comments" after each question was used

by the respondees for clarification, justification, and in

sonic cases for critical incidents. These comments do not

lend themselves to a statistical treatment but some patterns

developed which will be discussed in Section VI.

24

dT48UcT40TDI Ot% OD00M')OM'0000CWND IT

od300w09000 t')0o0o ctu ...

it *0 0 90 00 060 0 DDOD6r.U

OW0'NNWWWD 00 O00rM~~NW C

Ooo'0moo 00 NoooCeNN1f 0* DODMM'WWO 00 0DootONWLfN 0

1~v 00W(UU1m0moo ML) 1~i

beI 0 U 0 0 NW 0 V) D 0 %QD00 00 CD tLDN CdWQT~8 cu l NW t% 0KLf~~00 in0( o oDi nfnc wZ nc qm Ln4 hi A~~~UflWW0J 3 C~F 0 C W fi U W 7f0 ~ V

a) ~ ~ OONoom MNOON w

-JT-

(UU

(D (U L) aI )"-f ( -- 4 LU S -1-4 *d4 >1 Wi -a (mU D nU t'-4 plW - *0 C M M-4 >1 43 0. U) 0fRru > zL -HC)TJC(MU r CCJC(tjC *.n : m -4 0P3 N fl WU '-4 C E U U O rJ :: -4 M- P )-4 -Y 41

I M r-- L GDL fI.;YXL -L C(L W C.-Li(< M U U U,(3 M Z M(L L ( M M > -C

25

VI. DISCUSS1ON "uo RESULTS

A. DISCUSSION

The results of the ranking exercise as listed in Tables

3 and S show several characteristics that are ranked at the

same or nearly the same level by the Allied Officers. Those

having high importance are:

- respect for local laws and regulations- friendly- understanding of culture and customs.

Those having low importance are:

- over the age of 25- married- patience

Although the rankings indicate a tendency for most non-

Americans to agree on the relative importance of certain

characteristics for adjustment to their culture, those

non-Americans who do not agree deserve serious consideration.

For example, the Greek respondents varied significantly

from other non-Americans, ranking as most important:

- respect for local laws and regulations- kindness- sobriety

ranking as least important:

- over the age of 25- knowledge of local language- technical expertise

After interviewing snie of the Greek i±espondents concerning

the differences in thcir responses, the following reasons

became evident:

26

(1) that Greeks felt Americans became too aggressive

whenever they drank.

(2) that it wasn't important for Americans to learn

their language because it was too difficult and

most Greeks could speak a little English.

(3) that it is more important for an American to be

an agreeable person than to be an expert in his

field.

The Turkish respondents also varied somewhat from the

other Allied respondents; ranking as most important are:

technical expertise- respect for local laws and regulations- friendly- understanding of local culture and customs

ranking as least important:

- over the age of 25- married- patience

The Turkish respondents felt that an American's abilities

in his profession are most important. This was in contrast

to the Greek response.

The Turks and the Greeks disagreed considerably on the

ranking exercise. The Spearinan correlation is O = .4134,

compared with an average ,P = .5485 for all other Allied

countries. This indicates a very real difference of opinion

as to the characteristics required for a good adjustment to

their cultures.

Several other variations can be noted from Table 5;

Chile ranked knowledge of language and understanding of

27

culture and customs as most important; Germany ranked know-

ledge of language as most important; and Philippines ranked

understanding of culture and customs as most important. All

of the variations from the rankings of the majority of the

Allied respondents certainly must be considered Rhen the

object is the selection of an American to be sent overseas.

A selectee with an attitude or quality that runs counter to

the host culture is a poor risk.

Appendix F shows a Spearman correlation of / .8061

for all U.S. respondents and all Allied respondents. This

is significantly high and shows fairly close agreement be-

tween the two groups. One of the reasons for the similar-

ity of attitudes might be sample bias due to the composition

of the U.S. Navy groups responding to the questionnaires.

Due to the stringent selection process for assigning U.S.

Officers to the Naval Postgraduate School, the officers are

generally recognized as being highly motivated and success-

ful. These officers are also a part of the larger group

of officers that have had intercultural experience during

their careers. Both the officer and enlisted populations

comprise many personnel who have recently returned from

Viet Nam and who underwent some form of human response train-

ing prior to that assignment. The enlisted sample group

contained a higher divergence of races and backgrounds than

the officer group, which may have been the major contribut-

ing factor to their higher correlation with the all Allied

group.

28

All Allied/U.S. Enlisted o - .8303

All Allied/U.S. Officers - .6970

The group of 25 Filipino enlisted personnel showed very

low correlation when compared with any other group. Their

correlation with the other two American groups are:

U.S. Officers .= 1879U.S. Enlisted = 2485

The group also showed very low correlations with most Allied

countries. An attempt to interview some of the respondents

to discover the reasons for the low correlation was not

successful.

The Likert Scale section of the Allied questionnaire

provided the following generalized results:

(1) That the Allied sample as a whole only slightly

agreed that U.S. Navy personnel sent to their countries

should be -narried. If they were married, it was felt they

should definitely bring their families and live in the local

community to enable them to interact with the host-national

familiesf

(2) That they were unsure of the importance of age or

that it made no difference.

(3) That the dating of host-nationals by U.S. Navy

personnel was somewhat agreeable.

(4) That personnel who attempted to learn the local

language would definitely make a better impression than

those who did not.

The problem with the Likert Scale type instrument is

that unless the respondents are given a means of explalining

29

their answers, the "why" may never be known. The open-ended

comments section of the questionnaire provided additional

remarks dealing with specific areas and helped clarify their

Likert Scale choice. These additional remarks are difficult

to analyze but representative samples are summarized in

Appendix H.

B. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

This study researched the ranking of ten qualities or

characteristics of U.S. Navy personnel who might be

stationed abroad. The responses from Allied Officers and

their wives at the Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey,

California were compared with responses from U.S. Officers

and Enlisted personnel also at the Naval Postgraduate

School. In addition, several questions concerning personal

interaction by Americans with host-country nationals were

asked of the Allied Officers.

The ranking exercise, as an instrument for measuring

host-national attitudes, can provide meaningful results

if the sample groups are large enough to be statistically

valid. The high degree of correlation between responses

among most countries did support the second hypothesis for

those sampled. The results of this type of research may

be used to identify those characteristics considered impor-

tant to host-nationals.

In designing a selection/screening process and evdntual.

training program for overseas duty, the concentration of

30

interest would normally be an overall view rather than

culture specific. This research suggests it is possible to

identify those personnel whose biographical and attitude

patterns will mesh most suitably with a pariicular culture.

The training can then emphasize the areas of disagreement.

The preliminary findings here, as illustrated by the high

correlation between the all U.S. and all Foreign sample

groups, indir-%te that in general U.S. personnel have a

similarity of attitudes with most other cultures.

'- results of the open-ended comments section used in

conjunction with the Likert Scale exercise indicates that:

(1) a greater emphasis should be made to encourage U.S.

personsiel and their families to at least try to learn some

of the local language, (2) if possible, families should

live outside U.S. bases and away from the American enclave,

and (3) the U.S. families should try to establish a friendly

relationship with the local families. There is also a strong

indication that more information is needed concerning dating

customs in Allied countries so that unmarried U.S. personnel

can be better prepared so as not to offend their hosts. The

open-ended comments and Likert Scale exercise were useful in

identifying some culture specific attitudes and therefore

did support the first hypothesis.

C. FURTHER RESEARCH

Further study could be directed toward identifying those

cultures whose ranking of characteristics of military personnel

31

I.stationed in their country may differ appreciably from the

norm. Larger samples are required which will probably

necessitate sampling within each country. This will mean

using an instrument translated to the local language, so that

a larger cross-section of the populace can be sampled.

Triandis [Ref. 15] discusses an excellent procedure for con-

ducting research in this manner.

Other groups of Americans can also be sampled to have

a basis for comparison of responses by military groups.

Control groups within the U.S. Navy can also be established

to validate this type of instrument as a predictive model

for adjustment abroad.

A similar study carried out for the purpose of familiar-

izing Allied Officers and their wives with the U.S. culture

would appear to be useful.

r

3?

APPENDIX A

10 Heyq 1974 Study oF U.S. Personnel Stationed In 9 Cuuntfris5,

Responses to b selected questions,

COUNTRY U IN 5AMPLE GADUP

Greece 1480

Guam 209

Iveland 248

jz"Jon254It'ly 252

Philippines 2bOPortugh1

113

Puerto Rico 11b5

TrLwun 7b

QUeSTION5

i) How do you like being stationed in thn overseas

country where you are now stationed?

COUNTRY SATISFIEO

Gre ce 42.8 %

Guam 61.2 %

Iceland 52,3 %

Japan 33.9 %

Italy 57.1 %

Philippines 81.5 %

Portugal 64.G %

Puerto Rico 49.6 %

Taiwan 96.0%

C2) How do American pe-sonnel feel about host-country

nationals?

COUNTRY LIKE THEm

Greece 13.6 %

Guai 21.1 %

Iceland 13.7 %

Japan 16.4 %

Italy 1e.3 %

Philippines 43.2 %

Portugal 22.1 %

Puerto Rico 12.6 %

Taiwan 51.3 %

33

(3) How do you think host-oountry nationals feel about U.S.

Military personnel?

COUNTRY LIKE THEN

Greece 8.9 %Guam 14.9 %Iceland 10.9 %Japan 8,5 %Italy 5.8 %Philippines 32.0 %

Portugal 19.5Puerto Rico 9.2 %Taiwan 0.53 %

(4) What do you think of having the chance to larn r now

language?

COUNTRY REWARDING/INTERESTING

Greece 49.9 %Guam 42.1 %Iceland 49.4 .Japan 51.4 %Italy b3,5 %Philippines bO.9 %Portugal 69.7 %Pueto Rico S4.3 %Taiwan 70.7 %

E5) What do you think oF getting to know host-country

nationals?

COUN TRY REWARDING/INTERESTING

Greece 59.0%GuBm 73.2 %Iceland 74.6 %Japan bl.3 %Italy 66.7 %Philippines B0.2 %Portugal 73.S %Puerto Rico b3,8BTaiwan 93.3 %

34

(6) How would you like to be stationed or homeported

overseas again?

COUNTRY .RISLIKE

Greece 39.4 %

Guam 9.5 %

Iceland 120 %

Japan 3E?.5 %

Italy 19.6 %

Philippines 20.3 %Portugal 2.

Puerto Rico 26.9 %

Taiwan 3.9 8%

35

APPENDIX B

TABLE i

DESIRABLE QUALITIES

QUALITIES % OF 82 RESPONDENTS*

Friendliness, sincerity, outgoingness 29 %Interest in Greek culture 26 %Adaptability 24 %Maturity 21 %Family stability 20 %Even-tempered personality 17 %Language inte,-est 13 %Flexibility 12 %Financial stability 7%Greek ancestry 6 %Patience 2 %

Adds up to more than 100 percent beoause oF multipleresponses.

TABLE 2

UNDESIRABLE QUALITIES

TRAIT/CONDITION % OF 82 RESPENDENTS*

Impatient/ intolerant 20 %Marital instability is %Heavy drinking 12%Young, recently married 1i1Financial instability 9 %Narrow minded, prejudiced 9 %Lack of maturity 9 %

Inability to adtpt 9 %Families with teenagers 4 %Children needing special attention 6 %Drug users 3 %Loud and Boisterous 5 %Lack of cultural empathy 4 %Negative attitude toward the Navy 4 %Other 4 %

Adds up to more than 100 percent because of multiple

responses*

36

APPENDIX C

This questionnaire is being used in inter-cultural

relations research. I will use the results of this question-

naire as a part of my thesis. The object of the research is

to try to develop a means of selecting and screening U.S.

Navy personnel for duty overseas.

All of the International students at NPS are being asked

to complete the questionnaire to assist in the research.

Each student will find two questionnaires; if you are married

and your wife is with you, please ask her to complete the

second questionnaire. If you are not married or your wife

is not with you, please return the first questionnaire only.

When you have finished the questionnaires, please put

them in the box marked INTERCULTURAL RESEARCH located in the

Student Mail Center (SIC).

Please write your home country on the top of page 2.

You do not need to put your name on the questionnaire.

jIf you have any questions please contact Lt. TOM MOZiNGO

at TELEPHONE 373-2067.

Thank you for your help.

I

37

HOME COUNTRY

Below are 10 qualities or characteristics of U.S. Navy

men who might be stationed in your country. Please rank

them from most important (1) to least important (10).

( ) knowledge of your language

JC ) married

( ) respect for your laws and regulations

( ) sobriety (not drunken)

( ) kindness (thoughtful, polite)

( ) over 25 years old

( ) patience

( ) technical expertise (for his job)

friendly (associate with local people)

(C) understanding of yvur culture and customs

38

Please indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree

with each statement by circling one of the five choices:

SA = I strongly agree with the statement.

A = ! agree with the statement.

N = I have no opinion, am uncertain or indifferent.

D = I disagree with the statement.

SD = I strongly disagree with the statement.

Please answer each statement as it would apply to

a U.S. Navy man stationed in your country.

The space under each statement marked COMENTS is for

any comment you wish to make concerning the statement.

SA A N D SD 1. Personnel who are married adjust

better to the life in my country

than personnel who are not married.

COMMENTS:

SA A N D SD 2. Married personnel should bring

their wives and children with them.

COMMENTS:

39

SA A N D SD 3. Married men and their families should

live in the local community to experience

everyday life rather than live in a

military base.

COMMENTS:

SA A N D SD 4. U.S. Navy men over the age of 25 are

better able to adjust to the life in

my country.

COMMENTS:

SA A N D SD S. It is acceptable for unmarried U.S.

personnel to date local girls in my country.

COMMENTS:

SA A N D SD 6. Personnel who try to learn to speak

my language adjust better than those

who do not.

COMIENTS:

SA A N D SD 7. The best way for a U.S. Navy man and

his family to learn about my country

is by becoming friends with a local

family.

COMIENTS:

40

APPENDIX D

This questionnaire is being used in intercultural


naire as a part of my thesis. The object of the research is

to try to develop a means of selecting and screening U.S.


When you have finished the questionnaire please

drop it in the box marked INTERCULTURAL RESEARCH located

in the Student Mail Center (SMC).


41

Below are 10 qualities or characteristics of U.S. Navy

personnel that might be stationed overseas. Please rank


( ) knowledge of local language

( ) married

( ) respect for local laws and regulations

( ) sobriety

( ) kindness

( ) over 25 years of age

( ) patience

( ) technical expertise (for the assignment)

C ) friendly

( ) understanding of local culture and customs

If you have any questions please contact Lt. Tom Mozingo

at telephone 373-2067.

Thank You.

42

-W" -n P WW

APPENDIX E

This questionaire is being used in intercultural


naire as a part of my thesis. The object of the research

is to try to develop a means of selecting and screening U.S.


When you have finished the questionnaire please drop it

in the box marked INTERCULTURAL RESEARCH located in the

Student Mail Center (SMC).


43

Below are 10 qualities or-cha-p-:4ristics of U.S. Navy

personnel that might be stationed overseas. Please rank


( ) knowledge of local language

( ) married

( ) respect for local laws and regulations

( ) sobriety

( ) kindness

( ) over 25 years of age

( ) patience

( ) technical expertise (for the job)

( ) friendly

( ) understanding of local culture and customs

If you have any questions please contact Lt. Tom Mozingo

at telephone 373-2067.

Thank You.

44

APPENDIX F

Spearman correlation coefficients for ranking exercise.

The countries corresponding to each variable listed in this

appendix are:

OFF - U.S. OFFICERSENL - U.S. NON-FILIPINO ENLISTEDAUS - AUSTRALIABRA - BRAZILCAM - CAMBODIACAN - CANADACiHI - CHILE

GER - GERMANYGRE - GREECEIND - INDONESIAISR - ISRAELJAP - JAPANKOR - KOREANOR - NORWAYPAK - PAKISTANPER - PERUPHI - PHILIPPINESPOR - PORTUGALROC - REPUBLIC OF CHINASING - SINGAPORETHA - THAILANDTUR - TURKEYVNM - VIET NAMPENL - U.S. FILIPINO ENLISTEDUS - ALL U.S.

45

Cal * 0%mM .0;.w P--P- % w %.- fb-M

b%.4 .o 0 _40 * * 0 No 0 Orl ",ot MooON 0 40 i r 0 0 0-a 0.c b%

0 0_0 C 00 00 80 Ct,% 0

A ~ Zen ZVI zen Z Z' Z; Z7. Z;; ZIA

en0A..Z ~

*4 -7.,

LI;

* o- I... U.S-U: to- .- , -A-c .. Z A*-N4 04 W"4X 11.4-C IL* 1.-VS =4-X X.-C .- 0- =""W8 ~e cucix- CM& nzcL wmL1.3 Je 2

40;-4 N-4 0-N P-N N- #-.w N-4 W%-@0 It U #cry 1-0 00 NON0 004 000o IncOdN-.0 .4 ;:-69 a-do

0 F* O f-w W-40 #.dfm

P - W-W WI-7 -- W -Z- L~ -- -ZLU. -C U.d IVS Zen Z Z 4 Z-4 X-C ?VS

-J jL PIC ID . 0 _Cd c rt vcd -o y-- 4r C-1 *.I Wl# 04

at" I C . CU I-c .I-

AZI 00- *-Co c.or NaN P.-4t N84 M%-4wSI. A04 -r-1N tP-c- @00 Ob0 C04C 0200 0120

*I LI 0 D " Y I 0 c 1 0 -Z CC. % 0 j 00 0y0 0 0 cc 00 P 40 0

49 we zn ZI zIA =fin Xen Ze zen z&n 4

w w

z U I .

04- I W &I W I- LI tI..J 34 L - _4A c-l -C

49 1 > I L'X3L L390- L0 XM W:Z1- wm_ UJIC. .J31 I

P.-P t--SI. t M -1

Lic .j V.C 0.c 000r N-or, cod P-04. fd00 NWooU f~~Wc. ~44 6%-4 .- ic -0 -0 ~ .- 0 44

W. I- . 0 6 i 0 t- 0 4 0 .0 . 0 . 0 1 0 0 0 I

CJ Z& ZOA 00 80 o 00 ZVI ZIA CU

I1 UU I4-

4146

-mu

lp. NN O~-. 0;; fpf- C-0 #-4 6;&

e 0 4 0 U 004 0 a 0 N4 0 0- a

* 0 0 0 0 0

- I - W- W. - -g- go..-

61; Mac *rO, T, 80, ;v 14m Z4 yn

-JIC

ftWrI % 0

u l. UIS-.W WI-V S 41-Z 41-4 41-w .91-Z NO-C

0U N~4 N-.4 W--I u. -C W iIL0 40N Woo. C42- MOM NO -too 000 40.4 in

It.N9- .-- 'N-C -. CV-C m-' -- i -M

V- -- -uU 94 Z18 Zen Zen W-4 &~ e ~ n Z

DON N0, Mo 'oNa._ O- 0 .C

x5 w : n t i i II

w

I 0AI 40-O 0 0 0 C 04 - X U.

w 93i a."t am= 0's "O CC 0 06 00 00

U. J

4 A Z 44 U)I~~i~ n V. n- 4'WV

%~~W. inc 30P~CNICi-OM 1MC000 mom?i/I . O..'C f440 ~iO U%4Ei' 0J-00 C-i 0-t0 44

U. .0 0 10 0

w,)-4 IY- w

U) 5 i. U 4 u -% 4/5- en9 - 48-k COX0 '(5-< cc & U

s- 4~~ z- .)- ~w z-~ 1-4 L-47K

000 0 0 0 C 0,0 00

wo -go a Z f Z* Z; a.

ToS t- -" Kb.-U =$-a Z-a 20-a s-n- -- s '-s-a4; 4;4 4. 4 4-2 -w WV~ X.z =;w rs-=

~ CN ta -O oo P-cc-0- 0U W* 4 '. a 4 - a.f w *69 4_0

* 0 c9 0 0 ( 0 0 0*4 en Zan co 00l 0I k4 0 0 0

400- w0

044: 4-W 4;m 4r A.*~ X v-W z- Ia X xW %aa 7. M

tI-6P .0f V -6%- r_.. -N -40A MCC0 tro~0 P_.. 0 - WpI o I

Q C0l 0 0 0 0 0 0

r 0 0

.-4:a 4.--d ...- a- 49-r, <-- 1-aw X-C X_"- -> i AILO .1 U.la t 11.! .J-RV. 0.0 LX ln IL

Us

N- & "; -4W N;s ,V ~rJ. -4 N -Nfyzr U4 00 G-d C . -400 fn IteN ( 0C Ir.;.4 in - It

0-0 P-40' P-d 0-40 M~-0 4-c 0.40o 1-.4c 41W U'% 0 d 0 . 0 1-0 0 . 0 bm

0 ; 0 0 a 0 .8 0

r~~ -- -- 2-4w .- =O- -- t .- g

IL ro zICL a .0 ^4 t.ul N n I In-a c0- Zs- P-EF -s- '-5-

;:4 u. c 4 0 -0 o..- 0 - c - .. -~ .. . e

9L I2- =I-;

4L 4 4 ap0-me -- 1- W-j 1 - -- --

cc to 0N w LYI.-OE0 C-040t 0 0C 0P2

U. 1- Cn -

UO

*j j I- a P jx .0-. fP-a ..-

ntj 17 a u u 0. L 5 4

-f00* 0C N4 .4- f* 0- oleoN I-oo P--o a- P~0 .e uia o 0 140 4-io

ZS Z"I Zi ZI Z64 ZIA Z%4 Zvi

xwel

vs a tBI 3- 020 13 3 I33 03 02 f3a

C424 ('IA C-en IA--. U%0, ZIAC 0-1. Z

cz 4: CL (..X ON- 00 COL 01.) 00 0'

I-. Zen ZV~'a ?--A e e 2% Zn ZI

.4 Zw

.Jg .

ty4u CWO F-- M- yC -v N 4 Ml

w M-40. 0-40 %n-40 P-40 .0"40 .4-iC CO-40 N-40-'*A .0 0

0 00 80 CO 0 0 0'. 00 LO 0 0'Dw et zo f ZIA ZOA z;; Z;; ze

Z~~~~f -- ~d ft-- fL - - UO- I I 9C

4 - 441 UM-44 UA-. Wj-. %g.- Zf bflJ A.-. Z-C Z-.. -.

LU # um= ON=- it. a3 C0 "Mg. *O0 P0

U. co

Mn ~ I (0 2e C, 2 2- 2 In N .4..

Z U. - C;I L2- C;- *. W' Ib 0 Cl-L0t-44 2-I IL. WX..- =V7 Z W =4.A ZI ZO en

U. cr. 0

I wMA. Wlk CAM 0 -Z .03C UZI .Xs* '-7&0

U0-# ?-- 5r t M0f V - 0i - 0A . aWu. 0'.) y "' Mot 00 P00) 000 moo

16 - I 0. *f q.II

4WB X0n ZI ;P. L4 e z Zn= ZIA zin Zen

1 .44 c.d I X- IL

J % -I -- Z CO-CL COi - WI uj- WI-ol cI- 0. cl-a7- -446 2.- W-4 WL-C~ WJ-VI t&-C4 &Li-- jZ-4 Z*.C

w 50I tax> 03-1 (.j U)CL 030 031-Q -321 -X.

w4

4m V%040 NO 400.4 -#Olt 00@CI "cc0 *

p- #..do0 0

00 0 0 00 0 00 0 0c

SZIA Z%" tI ! Z44 ZVI ML4 Zen d

w -. ni so0 &t- &I I0 1#_ go a6..

%.-- k^O - 4"c qqCl 4f-&f 0.-C Co)-en r__-3001 S '.S .- Z *-ZV "IMX -)XW -13D Wa W I tZms

o o. -- 'm- 0-c #.a- -0-40 -.- eft 0-9.00 1000 400-6 Ono!" 0ncE' MOM .400, 000

0 -4 .40 W-dc M%"4M VI-44'1 40-40 8-4t "'-'i.r 0i 0 C 0 0 0 c* 0 00 0 0

I- te %n Ze;"IAn 6 Zn Z

ut 4 1!l 1 3:J T I~ x~ I.-4

IC-I tl- o Get-u &.- BlO-Wf IlI-2X Ga-al 060- of .u :)U4441 VI-CO YI.-0 en-in .4C 4-W C0 co-mi 0"o0 IL

II. OM 4"r #lOWN .0040 %^old -'00 P-00 P-0-64 U04-40 in-'0 "fOf N-'C 0-40 0.'0 N-'0 0-60

* 0 0V00 4c

Ct) 00 j 00 CO C 0 x 0-C v-C 4= -- c- -- r - -- C-0 I

oZ- X:. WO e u e e E> zma ILft U.

WIL

00 000 4W19 W Z; I .. I4

g... in-B B-V ZIAClo. l ~ WI. lP lW

Z A 4 0 ; "

NEI 0 I, 0 n -0 IC I0c M 0 on 0n 0

U~0_ OaV 00 IL0 0 0 C 0 0

ILL

U u W I ~ >

en-. U-w. t- CK -L cc C .- a -b c1. ct>2. Cl- &l I- -ICL- -)X- b e L Y.31" Z39l-

L. -

L. 0. 0 0 0 0 In 0

C V J I

0 5h -a I '1

I -1 r V.~ Ci-4 s u1W C.4 &"CC a 7 a ft cc' 2~- ti- V.-441 Z.-W, en-Ud tA- 4-04. 4-_ C.-O C)-Z 0-W

&L 01 -C .- 30 -XP>- ZC -)3l- ldxz 9.0 *

Ws

*., -nt -n, -.. Vl. -

4; * 00 0- ts C 0 '0 0 0 % 0 a .0 * P

Z ~ VI 251 251 bX I zf VI ZY W. ZO

Amx x

0.4 N .. - m-0 .4.-u as-O V-er 4nio us% 7.-ro

us g 1. s 3 z- az z. as- ;

.- U '.i9 W..N do-Z 0I.'5 * -49 0- N-Nlr

F-% I 0 .004 * te * N-p 40-0 '0 04

co4 * 0 0 Z4 C 0 0

N - -bq f - 39

49 1- * u n z, z. e -szA

I W-ZZfW fI 0- 0- OI U-~ I 0~z L:. 6M- m ~ X. fx VX.

c 46 Mic% c 7 _.. 'VsU2 .. ' C2 W%" 0.c -

a-iC~ ~~~~ ~ ~ ~ %s- 0s4 a- Z -sa £.4 u- 1a4aS a-s 402 W...C Mi-i 2~ o-2 c-z -o.k s XAz zs. 0 s Z A s. 2:%A ZIA s =0 -

usw I I-

j -

x- *' m5- N xd x-- x0- x- a-

IL 10 x 0S c

U c 51l1:0 %e n a-u L en Zen zeC) co n e_% ce ZO 4c

U,

WIW

.. a x x P2 I I cI-a 2 C i L u-.0-ia's = -M-0 2592. 2u2 0

- 46 CIMIV 4'.. iA.24 WZ~c nC 0- .2- -. C.- .-. 2

1: 1 I t Ni .4 %i 0- -0 U' 1 1N 0c a~ c~.' '0 0 0-0 0- s--i C) 40 0 .c

06 - 41 bO 1 ri . t Z -I or -. I 0c - : s-XC V -X < Z W _ X-, :LLU G.-ZIA.1 >06 C_ mm; ;6 rio- >ic 0.i ) C~a .36 02> c

onp-cc .6-#S0CM

ZVI ZVI

j I

Xz II1

o 40.4

.. I- I. r

4i Mtn Otc0

-- w-.s-. 44. MI

'II.

l CC

Cj 0I C-:4 U,

0WICO Z .

44

~~ 4 n-UI- j

W 0L 0n c I.LA

U ~ CO52

APPENDIX G

Spearman correlation coefficients for combined groups on

ranking exercise. The groups corresponding to each

variable listed in this appendix are:

ALLIED - All Allied respondentsUS - All U.S. respondentsOFF - U.S. Officers onlyENL - U.S. Non-Filipino Enlisted onlyPENL - U.S. Filipino Enlisted onlyOFFENL - U.S. Officers and Non-Filipino

EnlistedOFFPENL - U.S. Officers and Filipino

EnlistedENLPENL - All U.S. enlisted

53

woo.* woo WNCO 0~.-

0 % 0t 0 0 a0

zYA. Z64 ZVI Zui

Wi.4 IUl W .-1 hi-U

400 000 -eco oom'

C fi 0 '

-p ZZW.Jr I mw T _x 6ft I :;P- 1-U .1

A"I 4-4 .4 104 Z .,O

AA0 z6 74A ZI? ZVlu S .* w u

Zs iSZ -IUU &u-. i.5 tu

" I~ -X. =a.C=CIV 441 .-- L 4A-61 U.s-W :In L-

.4-- a-*~5 L*-(v 0-4 W*..4 tcoo P5'z I O4 4~C .0 0C Inca

M-0 W-4 P-40 .0I. L 40 OW CO OZ O*

d r. I a a: J ~ --2 -US Lu-.L IL ~ e

S .- I .. J-. I-. UI. -- W LLI.< JI= 44 j-. O-U tL.-L ="4 U.5U vs

AL W . M 001.ccIn 4PC4 .04 IAOO C.)O? f-4O0

qL a- a 7 0 u- O 0 6 N 0 'Ip Li S; 0 C; C a

z~J.

.j u a54

APPENDIX H

AUSTRALIA

Comment on living in the local community:

"Livinp on a military base would be better m the host

military could be more helpful in experiencing local life

and also be more understanding."

BRAZIL

Comments on. learning the local languagd\and getting to know

local families:

"They will get out of the so-called American circle

and participate in local friendships by learning the

language."

"They will have the reel point of view of the day-after-

day common life; they will learn real things."

CANADA

Comments an becoming Friends with a local family:

"Also touring the country and reading about Canada."

"Why not become integrated into the community?"

GERMANY

Comments on married personnel adjusting better than un-

married personnel:

"Married personnol of the U.S. Armed forces stay more

within their own community than single individuals."

"Unmarried peopla tend more to make contact."

"Married people will be more involved in social activities."

"Do not get in contact with our people, get together with

only American Families."55

Comments on trying to learn the language;

"Language is the key."

"ICommunication and social contacts -..j made easier."

"That is the basis for understanding each other."

"Its not what you already know, but what you are trying

to learn, that is appreciated."

"Most don't even try, especially married ones."

Comments an learning about the country by becoming friends with

a local family:

"It was true For us here, and it holds the other way

around in the same way."

"I know that there are many people in Germany who would

like to meet Americans if they get a chance to."

"We made this experience."

GREECE

Comments on dating local girls:

"This is not true for local girls belonging to rewpectable

familios."

"I disagree because the Americans usually laugh at them."

INDONESIA


"Indonesians are not race discriminators to the people

who do not isolate they self From our society."

"I disagree because can create jealousy among young

people."

"As far as agrees with local customs and culture."

56

"It depends on the people. For example, there's

difference between the people in Jakarta and Meden. Bath

mre big towns."

"fUnderstanding of our people Is important and custom

is important here. The people who live in big towns are

different with those who live in small -owns."

"It is dependent on the parents of the girl. In big

cities is more acceptable. Many Foreigners are married

with local girls."

"Except he should marry her."

"As long as he respects her laws and regulations."

"Depends upon the place you are based. IF in big

cities, O.K."

Comments on trying to learn the language:

"You can't communicate if you don't know the language."

"The quickest way to learn to speak our language is by

speaking with our people."

"He'll get more sympathy."

"it shows that he has a great respect For my country."

JAPAN

Comment on living in the local community rather than on

a base:

"Too much different customs."

Comment on dating local girls:

"Young unmarried U.S. enlisted personnel are against

our custom and culture and they look less educated than us,"

57

KOREA

Comment on. living in the local community rather then on a bass:

"It will be very difficult For .erican. to understand

the different culture."


"But must be careful. They should do just as our

young people. Many people don't understand end sometimes

hate the American way of dating."

PAKISTAN


"Dating is not very common in my country."

Comment on trying to learn the language:

."But Pakistaniv are very indulgent to foreigners

unable to speak any of the languages of Pakistan. Moreover,

English is Fairly widely understood."

PHILIPPINES

Comment on living in the local community rather that on a base:

"Quertering in base should not be a hindrance to

associate with the local community."

PORTUGAL


"If they don't think that datcs or parties is drinking."

THAILAND


"Still with fully care of right tradition and culture."

"Host of the girls will cay no, except some that know

each other for a long time, or proFessional girl."

58

"They can exchange language, culture etc."

"If th3y know our customs and don't make any problems-"

"As Far an that man knows our customs or at least try

to know it."

Comments on getting to know a local family:

"With sincerity and respect For their customs and

tradition, because most oF the local family are Friendly to

all of the foreigners in my country."

"Some military personnel that I met try to avoid to

iower themselves to local people and live so differently;

this causes damage to themselves."

"Reel Fact always be found in the kitchen."

TURKEY


"For some- parts, I em disagree."

"It is not acceptable in small towns for both U.S.

personnel and Turks."

"But in small towns it's not acceptable not only for

Foreigners but also For Turks."

VIET NAM


"IF they attract the local with their behaviors."

"The problem is not racial; it is proper For a girl

to date any Foreigner. The problem with Americans is in the

behavior that makes people Feel they're being bought, not

dated."

"Yes, but be nice to the girls, pleasel"

59

Comments on living in local community rather then on a bass:

"This is completely ignored by American Forces in Asia;

result: accumulated misunderstandings between contrasting

cultures and behaviors lead to well-known -'Yankee Go Homn'."

"Yes, if safety permits; that would give them a chance

to see the real world, to understand the local people ...

So on. . .It

"Help them easy to know more about local customs."

Comments on getting to know a local Family:

"Two-way traFfic.'

"There will be no doubt if a true Friendship can be

created."

"Friendly is responsed by friendly."

I

60

- -- '

BIBLIOGRAP"'..,

1. Blalock H., Social Sta.istics, p. 287, McGraw-Hill,1960.

2. Blum, R. ed., Cultural Affairs and Foreign Relations,Prentice-Hall Inc., 1963.

3. Butterfield, C.M., The Training of Cross-Cultural/Human Relations Trainers in the United States Navy,M.A. Thesis, United States International University,1972.

4. Campbell, D.T. and Stanley, J.C., Experimental andQuasi-Experimental Designs for Research, RandMcNally College Publishing Co., 1963.

S. Gordon, M.M., Assimilation in American Life: The Roleof Race, Religion, and National Origins, OxfordUniversity Press, 1964.

6. Homans, G.C., The Human Group, Harcout, Brace, andWorld, inc'., 190

7. Hunt, C.L. and Walker, L., Ethnic Dynamics? Patterns,of Intergroup Relations in Various Societies,- DorseyPress, 1974.

8. McGonigal, R.A., A Model for the Cross-Cultural Inter-action Training of Adults, Ph.D Thesis, MichiganState University, 1071.-

9. McKenna, F.S., Personnel Selection, Educational MethodsInc., 1949.

10. Meyers, L.S. and Grossen, N.E., Behavioral ResearchTheory, Procedure and Design; W.'i Freeman and-Co.,1974.

11. Naval Personnel Research and Development CEnter DraftReport, The Cross-Cultural Interaction Inventory:Development of Overseas Criter.on Measures and Itemsthat Differentiate Betw:een Good and Poor Tjjusters,by T.M.I. Yellen and S.J. mnford, Juf-7974.

12. Naval Personnel Research and Development LaboratorySpecial Rport, In -County :pcricnce: NavalPersonnel Stationedin .rcoe, J M.l. Yellen andKiiHoover, FeFruary 1973.

61

BIBLIOGRAPS"',

1. Blalock H., Social Statistics, p. 287, McGraw-Hill,1960.

2. Blum, R. ed., Cultural Affairs and Foreign Relations,Prentice-Hall Inc., 1963.

3. Butterfield, C.M., The Training of Cross-Cultural/Human Relations Trainers in the United States Navy,M.A. This, United States International University,1972.

4. Campbell, D.T. and Stanley, J.C., xperimental andQuasi-Experimental Designs for Research, RandMcNally College Publishing Co., 1963.

S. Gordon, M.M., Assimilation in American Life: The Roleof Race, Reliion, and National Origins, OxfordUni'versty Press, 1964.

6. Homans, G.C., The Human Group, Harcout, Brace, andWorld, inc., 19M.

7. Hunt, C.L. and Walker, L., Ethnic Dynamics? Patterns,of Intergroup Relations in Various Societies, DorseyPress, 1974.

8. McGonigal, R.A., A Model for the Cross-Cultural Inter-action Training of Adults, Ph.D Thesis, MichiganState University, 1971.

9. McKenna, F.S., Personnel Sclection, Educational MethodsInc., 1949.

10. Meyers, L.S. and Grossen, N.E., Behavioral ResearchTheory, Procedure and Design; VT;.Tl, treeman aiiCo.,1974.

11. Naval Personnel Research and I)evelopmcnt Center DraftReport, The Cross-Cultural Interaction Inventory:Development of Overseas Criterion Measures and Itemsthat Differentiate Betwecn Good and loor Adjusters,by ''.M.I. Yellen and S.J. Mumtord, July 1974.

12. Naval Personnel Research and Development LaboratorySpecial Report, In -Country I::rie0nce: NavalPersonnel StatioTid ' i reece, Yye'l.Y.' len andh. I' loover, l;el u ry 1973.

61

13. Thomson, C.A. and Laves, W.H.C., Cultural Relations andU.S. Foreign Policy, Indiana University Press, 1963.

14. Thorndike, R.L., Personnel Selection, John Wiley andSons, Inc., 1972.

15. Triandis, H.C., The Analysis of Subjective Culture,John Wiley and Sons, 1972.

16. U.S. Navy, Attitudes and Opinions of In-Country Experi-ence, Analysis Type B, 10 May 1974.

6

4

I

62

Documents

AD/A-004 234 DEVICE FOR IMPROVEMEN OVERSEAS DUTY