<%BANNER%>

Role of Work Climate in the Job Satisfaction and Organizational Commitment of Women in a Nontraditional Career Field

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0022128/00001

Material Information

Title: Role of Work Climate in the Job Satisfaction and Organizational Commitment of Women in a Nontraditional Career Field The Case of Women in the Military
Physical Description: 1 online resource (118 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Matteson, Alicia
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2008

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: climate, commitment, discrimination, inclusive, job, minority, nontraditional, racism, satisfaction, sexism, women, work
Psychology -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Counseling Psychology thesis, Ph.D.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: To date there are significant gaps in the literature examining the links between women in nontraditional career field?s perceptions of workplace climate and job-related outcomes. Specifically, racial/ethnic identity of women in nontraditional career fields is often overlooked or is narrowly defined, thus important contextual facets of women?s experiences are unexamined. Additionally, the majority of research that examines women in nontraditional career field?s perceptions of discrimination focuses on sexist discrimination, few studies examine racist discrimination, and none have examined simultaneous links of racist and sexist discrimination with job-related outcomes. Our study examined three aspects of perceptions of workplace climate (perceived racist and sexist discrimination and perceived diversity inclusive climate) with three job-related outcomes (perceived work group effectiveness, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment) with a sample of 1,452 women officers in the military. Path analytic finding indicated that all three types of perceptions of workplace climate had significantly unique direct and indirect links to one or more of the three job-related outcomes. However, there were differences among the racial/ethnic groups in the strengths of the links between the variables of interest. Implications for future research and organization policy and practice are discussed.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Alicia Matteson.
Thesis: Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Florida, 2008.
Local: Adviser: Moradi, Banafsheh.
Electronic Access: RESTRICTED TO UF STUDENTS, STAFF, FACULTY, AND ON-CAMPUS USE UNTIL 2010-08-31

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2008
System ID: UFE0022128:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0022128/00001

Material Information

Title: Role of Work Climate in the Job Satisfaction and Organizational Commitment of Women in a Nontraditional Career Field The Case of Women in the Military
Physical Description: 1 online resource (118 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Matteson, Alicia
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2008

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: climate, commitment, discrimination, inclusive, job, minority, nontraditional, racism, satisfaction, sexism, women, work
Psychology -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Counseling Psychology thesis, Ph.D.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: To date there are significant gaps in the literature examining the links between women in nontraditional career field?s perceptions of workplace climate and job-related outcomes. Specifically, racial/ethnic identity of women in nontraditional career fields is often overlooked or is narrowly defined, thus important contextual facets of women?s experiences are unexamined. Additionally, the majority of research that examines women in nontraditional career field?s perceptions of discrimination focuses on sexist discrimination, few studies examine racist discrimination, and none have examined simultaneous links of racist and sexist discrimination with job-related outcomes. Our study examined three aspects of perceptions of workplace climate (perceived racist and sexist discrimination and perceived diversity inclusive climate) with three job-related outcomes (perceived work group effectiveness, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment) with a sample of 1,452 women officers in the military. Path analytic finding indicated that all three types of perceptions of workplace climate had significantly unique direct and indirect links to one or more of the three job-related outcomes. However, there were differences among the racial/ethnic groups in the strengths of the links between the variables of interest. Implications for future research and organization policy and practice are discussed.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Alicia Matteson.
Thesis: Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Florida, 2008.
Local: Adviser: Moradi, Banafsheh.
Electronic Access: RESTRICTED TO UF STUDENTS, STAFF, FACULTY, AND ON-CAMPUS USE UNTIL 2010-08-31

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2008
System ID: UFE0022128:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text
xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8
REPORT xmlns http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitss xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitssdaitssReport.xsd
INGEST IEID E20101221_AAAABO INGEST_TIME 2010-12-21T19:22:49Z PACKAGE UFE0022128_00001
AGREEMENT_INFO ACCOUNT UF PROJECT UFDC
FILES
FILE SIZE 1051969 DFID F20101221_AABESS ORIGIN DEPOSITOR PATH matteson_a_Page_059.jp2 GLOBAL false PRESERVATION BIT MESSAGE_DIGEST ALGORITHM MD5
31eb0c7e32a4257a2d6f6d990cd7d40f
SHA-1
21df180617c42bffb778f4f1556c89b8b5e74b3e
1051960 F20101221_AABETG matteson_a_Page_073.jp2
f8a6b9b3b33763eb82881b336b67e39c
58566c29c1365ae3f4e427ac64acabbbefb2cca3
F20101221_AABETH matteson_a_Page_074.jp2
aa0564d3e82d382acc74f79c9a031652
52570a6087a95fb7ef29c7e14963a081f96593cd
1051986 F20101221_AABEST matteson_a_Page_060.jp2
783e10da3cbda38c05d1499622b9f8c0
b33b87e60273cf448ba7ed62259c1873a06fdbba
752070 F20101221_AABETI matteson_a_Page_075.jp2
6459125b60abb52608360105bdfad306
f365fa51a87d97ca73fe50fed8aba98e72413247
1051985 F20101221_AABESU matteson_a_Page_061.jp2
d3c3ba150ea44fd70420a64f61d4f434
9185d9af483d4969a5b79e0c60f0fb702588c65d
1051984 F20101221_AABETJ matteson_a_Page_076.jp2
a34685838c0540157610f3adcd6f49b4
3d39ab4a3e57ba0cb7a35aed1a91cfcc97c76f59
1051948 F20101221_AABESV matteson_a_Page_062.jp2
a4d8f235a6b74c3a840be642e68f7c83
1b111b34d053fe7ad8592edd17cafb9ced315821
1051954 F20101221_AABETK matteson_a_Page_077.jp2
2789cf144d41e2a250c0e37c85b8d4ee
7ba224a9e2e7b53af5f4373b1ad0f02903dfc104
808962 F20101221_AABESW matteson_a_Page_063.jp2
5c7547aafdd12a3013b56dd3367333c8
ef8dd26661e99e14a4d1e8864032406a8e64ca9a
1051980 F20101221_AABETL matteson_a_Page_078.jp2
3edf7b9a2c92f9dbffaddfe4ee4ed6eb
cd805331d51a25e12dcc885a8d52dec2e0fb4fe7
1051939 F20101221_AABESX matteson_a_Page_064.jp2
b282ed62c0c205caf9fccec64ee9ef6f
49ca5d6867e92f6ba7a9a3cf78353ab7710ff2c6
255796 F20101221_AABEUA matteson_a_Page_094.jp2
0920477c3d995218e2195ca3de6e7f44
81d3c32a7566044f59617642a54e46c49603969a
1051928 F20101221_AABETM matteson_a_Page_079.jp2
e240175d05cb312cf0c1fe6a5576b042
a9b335a169a2934432610d894d1dec60cadc78ae
1051970 F20101221_AABESY matteson_a_Page_065.jp2
f080cf1ea19a3e0b4f39d4752bf3d4db
6e7bfaa9bfa3ef2ac44e72abfa2dce16a7b5e0fe
255410 F20101221_AABEUB matteson_a_Page_095.jp2
5da47d7b8e92aba32240ccbf25172091
4207e6f3fa5a542973bb39e185ec2f8086580382
1051974 F20101221_AABETN matteson_a_Page_080.jp2
917f6bd1ec7b599a9b0d0f3e75664da0
4f9dd4927a8af0306485537c8c27d478c1a28c46
1051975 F20101221_AABESZ matteson_a_Page_066.jp2
3c653aadca0b1d8541c7e87a7697773d
fdef5f0589361c4d272aed12f4a944854b351185
264044 F20101221_AABEUC matteson_a_Page_096.jp2
cbab0beeaab4a540a60d91befde9e040
d889d2397bcb1a6bd4f7fa64246a416a956bd8f2
1051979 F20101221_AABETO matteson_a_Page_081.jp2
c45587fa1d900190195effb56d43ac4e
6f85418fa6ca917c91e2ea915957f29ff60f111b
266633 F20101221_AABEUD matteson_a_Page_097.jp2
2845c57333ea9bac5a96482944244348
0bb9ffc67660a8d6db262c7a5f5ea31772b04414
F20101221_AABETP matteson_a_Page_082.jp2
1b914f1cf00b0a88299ad5082ba31433
42673e851fc1f29884fadf9bc4d5840891cc4b08
268281 F20101221_AABEUE matteson_a_Page_098.jp2
48b168825b57892e8f12b72ad369cf3f
dfbcebad50090bc25cbf3846c4011b037d59e6a7
1051899 F20101221_AABETQ matteson_a_Page_083.jp2
62bfd28d4d370764afc2eb14c92dfa4f
76fe1ef407239edc011a3733448eae781bb947ba
256579 F20101221_AABEUF matteson_a_Page_099.jp2
be7d31a2daeebd07f21686b9866439df
591b6d09bf709276c666cb033fa2dadf1958d84b
955964 F20101221_AABETR matteson_a_Page_084.jp2
ba34524c9dbc25eb54eecdad1ceea880
7273ff47025b1b8ed6f8ba0896a319148b124814
26669 F20101221_AABEUG matteson_a_Page_100.jp2
06c020b2b3968bf9495d72ac370081ee
a4eb3615a9d16e17b2a5322370c50344b2d3801f
349242 F20101221_AABETS matteson_a_Page_085.jp2
cbf0cd70bdfd2cda5f065787e8050d47
7720c1f16fbfc011ec93cba7e100ba2f1824c119
56541 F20101221_AABFAA matteson_a_Page_020.pro
9654ef3549bc4cde32134c8cb418796f
1ffe8228bb980eb92fb9a019a6e56a2e4a629418
310775 F20101221_AABEUH matteson_a_Page_101.jp2
8f7c42fc0c60bac67a2beeee92d8c6e6
9aad070cfe15c2c5ff7211fccc3d79f2f680756b
F20101221_AABETT matteson_a_Page_086.jp2
b2e101eda2bbf2c0e978552458eb2844
bfb46d8ca7e59c344097fcfe7152f97ac3602877
56172 F20101221_AABFAB matteson_a_Page_021.pro
3872ee78f1126ba6e73911200c303117
ebef61c95abf3946d472fc0cd2ca1119bb067a38
F20101221_AABEUI matteson_a_Page_102.jp2
14aed88fb6e0d25752e9714d24d6f475
bab8f8421dcba37a37f16e81f60c67cff0d8db62
53381 F20101221_AABFAC matteson_a_Page_022.pro
d340d5b20533b032c0e8494318d09d20
d5747289c0dfab3a35b5b6ae24c029f16df36359
500237 F20101221_AABEUJ matteson_a_Page_103.jp2
11946762256b2707e43293978c3cdad8
4b1552e14eeb6e23a2ecf1c517d74382268ce95a
1051949 F20101221_AABETU matteson_a_Page_087.jp2
06babfb3b3b9425fd1e79304b8c4207e
055e45c80765aaa8e2dfa9f178e5e9caa54746e6
53102 F20101221_AABFAD matteson_a_Page_023.pro
f9f0dcd7fa9f6ed526fa3e28c731c391
1e081e209526f659945603d94020fd83ee53ea70
396920 F20101221_AABEUK matteson_a_Page_104.jp2
839b2e4df941eb7620db4e9efd1bb8f7
89aa06dd72926d1c24afe2f4585f32fdc5801637
1051978 F20101221_AABETV matteson_a_Page_088.jp2
59e89428efebb1374ae11babf6980974
33cae7bc6e0a70756a09b3e0c1c8fd14a66fb4e8
56831 F20101221_AABFAE matteson_a_Page_024.pro
8df6684a65dba1125c3981178b8578ed
edf5f4b683f4fccd821324126e7e575ec06b76f2
397874 F20101221_AABEUL matteson_a_Page_105.jp2
25d11e957fb60e67907b0c2bc72d8818
d150cadd292d3af9824c9f1abdbcfca6edf87902
634898 F20101221_AABETW matteson_a_Page_090.jp2
bfbe4cfc06701d35d54f2ec28dc9eeac
ca983b8b84e790ed117def53ea52134db0d9a4e6
54158 F20101221_AABFAF matteson_a_Page_025.pro
a109171525c751e9c84f4d9b872d0a96
f1224add1e44792502ebc4d01e11bc881ba4f7a5
25271604 F20101221_AABEVA matteson_a_Page_002.tif
744357a33afb133cf2982bb95d61db66
a9a35b4d71816702278f53050e6b8254a0af229d
407442 F20101221_AABEUM matteson_a_Page_106.jp2
d1248f6223e2cf82d56b82c9b90ea10b
5eda5576b136bddeb6314253584185a520269136
347702 F20101221_AABETX matteson_a_Page_091.jp2
afc78342e804b558b8a0235bf7f1324a
3ca6b06273ee794d349cb735badb5a0702a93f5b
53690 F20101221_AABFAG matteson_a_Page_026.pro
09ce2706967520318b89b83af60a1c80
1a5025ee2712e3d35f17869a8c45f789c7158bc2
F20101221_AABEVB matteson_a_Page_003.tif
d80d3e7f1568e70236cc2a7090eb7240
b66500acaac6b9689d116fe95065798742d8877d
407845 F20101221_AABEUN matteson_a_Page_107.jp2
4ab8c3b573087427af965477e899b655
bd1939ba63982b300fa6f23e7c742c473ec34647
450750 F20101221_AABETY matteson_a_Page_092.jp2
ecd7980babb9286a14f0aeaa58c9b0cc
323db7753bb4f214587995d2ea91deb024f860f5
54615 F20101221_AABFAH matteson_a_Page_027.pro
77c0abea60d0d9b7191e0cbb66ce8a41
e9ea996b65d8658661c30e40e3c1b6ecf50e9fa7
F20101221_AABEVC matteson_a_Page_004.tif
76017883bdfef154efcacee15df4a80d
a0cdbbd44072470eee4fdcdc1e98b3253bce415b
394730 F20101221_AABEUO matteson_a_Page_108.jp2
d07820f9835489173ee65d0e0fe07e9c
53ae0ccae5f4439d4e37ee62597a7e56f42041d4
449881 F20101221_AABETZ matteson_a_Page_093.jp2
5afdcde079c5bb026b9e0abef16e52b0
e4ad7684311859fd948147abba99e94d2a4f2a45
56692 F20101221_AABFAI matteson_a_Page_028.pro
4056e23c88daab897e0b7ca22899f936
9f15103106d5257fbc98384aef4360262dcecf8b
F20101221_AABEVD matteson_a_Page_005.tif
2a7eaade61e51ae4a1bde9ee065e6c16
2cc4216b820a7f97356c3033465fd1b03394950c
395621 F20101221_AABEUP matteson_a_Page_109.jp2
aced2c7af84896a1516599439e1a60a2
7947cf842d2969c2c36b1a8c056b45ba8c6615fb
51332 F20101221_AABFAJ matteson_a_Page_029.pro
55619b4cf4f013cb34e29a1f223820e6
38ccdd452de5f7ebb149ab0186fb60644b0161c2
F20101221_AABEVE matteson_a_Page_006.tif
dbedc768158f915f7a9e0f2381ffc7a2
3b29b1fe9182969bbc2bad14d9f01044479582a3
F20101221_AABEUQ matteson_a_Page_110.jp2
06a650b215556e68bd50bfa78aa8bb2b
b63895aa397e69d4dc3099d90b458abb677f45cb
54410 F20101221_AABFAK matteson_a_Page_030.pro
917511e3998caeeaabfab785a19603c9
be440c0807ebfb6226c1ca6a4e2b9c8a11ae5282
F20101221_AABEVF matteson_a_Page_007.tif
d5801d5b7bf3de1cd04f19564a99db5b
213b3117f80fc6d383325f1fb3177ad6a430f9e5
F20101221_AABEUR matteson_a_Page_111.jp2
888b92e0fe9a4848f7eba9056e51bce8
bc8a91db3cc44d0947449dfdb008675c0308f5d3
57575 F20101221_AABFBA matteson_a_Page_046.pro
2899c63771386fdcd3a1fe0b11511f9b
5efa25d7127363fe952315ad8a4940c07ef6b918
53549 F20101221_AABFAL matteson_a_Page_031.pro
63ffe0d585723cefed0d70187c4d4099
59655d592564f9444e45e8fb699b2460e838544c
F20101221_AABEVG matteson_a_Page_008.tif
ae4671555638b846ba691868f2b4b1b7
d67ea4d90dda383d347488c2c18fac406ead275a
1051927 F20101221_AABEUS matteson_a_Page_112.jp2
93cbc356fcf475ae6a19746da8dde76b
922335cfd254ceba32650c505a25f4a4f5666ce8
52052 F20101221_AABFAM matteson_a_Page_032.pro
3da5e846e9fe84d6e364d34050660988
8029bb38e102401dee678a77c63597f66936afae
F20101221_AABEVH matteson_a_Page_009.tif
1dc28804b092faaf07d0021f7e9d08f0
80937ca09a1ca51960d6d89f0e8114cd94e00f93
1051956 F20101221_AABEUT matteson_a_Page_113.jp2
49605e4d6f6984653c8eb6803b5b9c9f
a3c9678f30e2ec26d71a28c441304e941f73c5ce
57155 F20101221_AABFBB matteson_a_Page_047.pro
c668168a7976b93eb4fc8ad8352ed58a
2d0e74f0bafe523dbaa3c20f50c421da9f055fab
54584 F20101221_AABFAN matteson_a_Page_033.pro
2c26d70f69e99c9f1b7c6f267c9bfd92
57a56ea98c8ab53e596192347a914d4d41b2f464
F20101221_AABEVI matteson_a_Page_010.tif
3144527fed48f81d0208e346af0c68aa
2d8ba55d2ceddec38a16ea1fd2a1411ed3481523
1051967 F20101221_AABEUU matteson_a_Page_114.jp2
3271bded6d168f8da3b0e689e99654bb
dc4dde27709ad99d3ec302b74bcc56fc2406efac
56511 F20101221_AABFBC matteson_a_Page_048.pro
fb265efa5e21a6f030b3061c207c507e
1cdc4beb83e9331b51fb2b7f1e0cccc0555719e4
54074 F20101221_AABFAO matteson_a_Page_034.pro
a3898cc208f964b73285d845d82f4e42
9e1153d91b2f3e1dc4ea2bf13144ac8bb0eb1597
57932 F20101221_AABFBD matteson_a_Page_049.pro
2beb7fc8452e9e1ade552a7312e93110
069062c6239a7f42fcbc758a5f85d614376b50b3
54524 F20101221_AABFAP matteson_a_Page_035.pro
e1ec7c655fcf19fa6aac0539e989d966
97daf4f24b23d57058a7dd15e11d6f9900d8449c
F20101221_AABEVJ matteson_a_Page_011.tif
ecbdbc9e251efd82fedfcd98ff47e491
1f792308b2f0f04d51c15da3e02360e8defb0ed1
1051904 F20101221_AABEUV matteson_a_Page_115.jp2
116efcbfca3882434ebddebad55be68d
107dcc523f09eb59ea8af8f9f7be39b4e5664216
54720 F20101221_AABFBE matteson_a_Page_050.pro
773c642f4396308fe6dd67985d5c82c7
7c1b7e772a7b11c6eaf7cc5cf8bd35664102e6ce
55366 F20101221_AABFAQ matteson_a_Page_036.pro
6038f74c20daf43272f3d6dae68e5cc3
53a4a7fe31eac02e20ba4393384e6c7d8ca1eb48
F20101221_AABEVK matteson_a_Page_012.tif
521e302c1f4e3c160d640a1fc2bd0174
3898bef1aca0ec35533a14d4587a3643cc055b1a
1051952 F20101221_AABEUW matteson_a_Page_116.jp2
d241b7ed4264ca45cea59e1151fb1f0c
bef4f83d0dbfe0f7853c03dd30c3ee9123bd9ad9
47963 F20101221_AABFBF matteson_a_Page_051.pro
6578c6ba20db9c642011129ea2e6071c
9ed3230a81a2d6bd89fe11e850c4ac1201a83e06
56806 F20101221_AABFAR matteson_a_Page_037.pro
f44a867c63b2e14f9c2c04d1e36cfbf7
fed7de0740c89a39b2fc3c0df16a00cff395f0a1
F20101221_AABEVL matteson_a_Page_013.tif
a412d096ef4726db85d7458ca8dc6fab
ec0c176140509577f22c1f248f743fbb31a1a6f6
1051824 F20101221_AABEUX matteson_a_Page_117.jp2
400f09be211ed88a6d1c8151aa6405fd
51fbcbb986c2b07fd89bc1bc1c559c130f26c347
50606 F20101221_AABFBG matteson_a_Page_052.pro
86858aa84d72f4d729e47c5c07fccfd6
3a22310685a9a1e23c9507571e387f248816ef01
F20101221_AABEWA matteson_a_Page_028.tif
28cb4e0df0c5c8a430ff2fd019da8fd1
c2df7f681546627887bb40ab264c849cce49b31b
54894 F20101221_AABFAS matteson_a_Page_038.pro
9522dc2f31e39d41f8537b63c5577ce5
8d230b9595cba5c1086ecd4e3afc9219c819a2be
F20101221_AABEVM matteson_a_Page_014.tif
3345971ab08399f2aee9dfc198c625f1
bd8cf805a726dd8e427f66ce3c02292ad47eab85
604086 F20101221_AABEUY matteson_a_Page_118.jp2
9213352697c51a71e4376ed96bf99787
bdc738052337369a8ea29c9b84feab42d6ee8805
55315 F20101221_AABFBH matteson_a_Page_053.pro
31d15d4b38434c79bb3b31b9ef8521df
524a49979e3db6825f33f1287663caedd69742ae
F20101221_AABEWB matteson_a_Page_029.tif
2b6c6f7bdd9a7babc2bc3487a94ec18a
de622b6eb0f1e583ff701ac2056dbcaba5b6e5d8
56188 F20101221_AABFAT matteson_a_Page_039.pro
3bba06b5d067832dd6e49e457883bb21
cd5c9dc94e68ec712b399614f2f7952eba7b151b
F20101221_AABEVN matteson_a_Page_015.tif
d22f157ee95454c22b86eaa3ea721660
2a4bcf51636e66987a5b31d5f81311421cf56dcd
F20101221_AABEUZ matteson_a_Page_001.tif
e78d169a69f3b75e7948d76280a34ce0
3541943517279c24bf9f8c7155d4d1fa36d5160d
51192 F20101221_AABFBI matteson_a_Page_054.pro
7c7a3a375453cbf6f622037672d38382
cf82478e9d5ded6bd44b19f15eb6a7d647bdd85a
F20101221_AABEWC matteson_a_Page_030.tif
69ff77b3a83e7a7a68b3ce9a949c914b
53d2c8db421b301304d2e414d0feeb0333f34103
54598 F20101221_AABFAU matteson_a_Page_040.pro
8a8abe02cfe6e460ca8b54d40e2983da
2b7bfb9f8e343f43b406e88e33307ff772dc8b05
F20101221_AABEVO matteson_a_Page_016.tif
bac9b7dc7d07e72a730638d7907f6589
fb3ca8c879bb04349a0413a5a204c43bf61c1b72
55784 F20101221_AABFBJ matteson_a_Page_055.pro
1ca4ffbc4ab7047732a3e3c38385f098
59801181dc74cdd29a3985305c2c7319bb4452ff
F20101221_AABEWD matteson_a_Page_031.tif
39d6054f18ad3770f3dd695d363a0253
fe1b861101985067c338e77422adf38050f83570
56398 F20101221_AABFAV matteson_a_Page_041.pro
4371609e6212c0c932798169d749da0f
dfa033c3529eb257c6cce70d792de9dd66be2267
F20101221_AABEVP matteson_a_Page_017.tif
56512f1001dce267fbddc122bb90404a
ae3465a7e5d96820ebaea1a44c0eef8006066bb6
54085 F20101221_AABFBK matteson_a_Page_056.pro
c99330aa992c60ebbe1d992cf0a582e2
092d6d56c70848b25fdfae48ee33f9f962675887
F20101221_AABEWE matteson_a_Page_033.tif
23bdbf4c6384298808d4b2c06160dd2a
03d3a30ab54bb631cffcfab95776aca306b1c1cb
54179 F20101221_AABFAW matteson_a_Page_042.pro
3bb96a4113a489b5e52370b6191c681e
8a853a1c7c48f7942d5d73510cf74334f4d5d849
F20101221_AABEVQ matteson_a_Page_018.tif
aefd53c9857a5d3ad473e526b81354bd
6bc9b87672478e91e3ae9727e5cd98b3ba7cad26
52915 F20101221_AABFCA matteson_a_Page_072.pro
555de4221364586fd157b22a3e1f3ca0
61ee79e8dd6d0c8cf7b8700ef3822946895d535a
53550 F20101221_AABFBL matteson_a_Page_057.pro
1ba1407105f2f6a65e0c7ca5d6216da5
21627cf8c51c027b6b8a2291ddc557aaca1551cc
F20101221_AABEWF matteson_a_Page_034.tif
7a920000d0928acf6dc021ec2e57ccf7
5eed9925504166aa6aace1154ba9242fbaad373d
54526 F20101221_AABFAX matteson_a_Page_043.pro
cc424ff8c3dc68722de60f873626bfde
55058598db972fa20ae45653a377fdc470f494a2
F20101221_AABEVR matteson_a_Page_019.tif
08b5b8aa00cd2bc2f4be9510fbe21e53
2d16f8fa7f75ff54aa6c668c16da84642659eafa
55138 F20101221_AABFCB matteson_a_Page_073.pro
5e0dc730d7e8e1607fec5010c82a065f
42bfda676958d441ce706dc4ed116c0d1ce3ed96
54367 F20101221_AABFBM matteson_a_Page_058.pro
789ffd8dc1b80228f6d06bc6893a1b96
f4f9d3c445dc97c33dfac614b04be0c2013feca8
F20101221_AABEWG matteson_a_Page_035.tif
0095b28120e28fe86a1f1e2009a45ee6
c98f4cd54fb90f03569e71c39f809e6b5613ef82
56879 F20101221_AABFAY matteson_a_Page_044.pro
ceae96b3db25c8d8fef6537a5908691c
04c7142c34c532a8f4c14e51ab7fca993509050d
F20101221_AABEVS matteson_a_Page_020.tif
9fc3201a494c2f1de695a9a11cf6f3c0
134267333aef6989651aa30b81293647fae1d432
54379 F20101221_AABFBN matteson_a_Page_059.pro
1cd0f5c7f740338bc91bceb5596ae25a
39c631e4bb7e3cf92a327b448212cedc1c3809d8
F20101221_AABEWH matteson_a_Page_036.tif
81489863ee402b4c8a21a9fb8adcd825
fc40f978d14901ee25a513dd5c7f3f5f78d0479d
55515 F20101221_AABFAZ matteson_a_Page_045.pro
0e3b259a7ce217b9994c97eb52f24fa8
f22432753f8b1c53819f676caa1a87e7bd0d69bb
F20101221_AABEVT matteson_a_Page_021.tif
ff276b2345fd9ca1a48f253e77862233
47b18c6e40da50e072ac7c13ff471245d3736833
54098 F20101221_AABFCC matteson_a_Page_074.pro
08f6bc309dec2bfbcbdee20441d9658d
69b11ab734f4a2bed9f5ace61c48f2ba4212dfb6
53468 F20101221_AABFBO matteson_a_Page_060.pro
d26076affc904f5fc09a7966efb2b452
1338c2b387694d69347f1c9f8d207d8f389fa0ee
F20101221_AABEWI matteson_a_Page_037.tif
7a6f59fe495a2ecb31b1e8c41becb23d
1fc912953748b81c43b299ca542eac3e85a2fb21
F20101221_AABEVU matteson_a_Page_022.tif
09532c9a66268e41bb517ccf4e7bbb2f
14cb7409a77a45aae73744faa579a12e1314f2ad
32868 F20101221_AABFCD matteson_a_Page_075.pro
b66b3335de678d418722786add32cebc
294fc768db00a595bada3845a2bc351cb3aaa1dd
52226 F20101221_AABFBP matteson_a_Page_061.pro
806424b184a2a40d87cb3bb8838078db
bc95f6403db913ef2fbebc4c5964f722b3050732
F20101221_AABEWJ matteson_a_Page_038.tif
cbb0367bd36abf950064127166d2a592
871dab70d6f6f21b054ea537e829c9df84988d31
F20101221_AABEVV matteson_a_Page_023.tif
25a268f1e5e03f488ba1b623194c0ae9
8a72b22bcd2d998ee3eda0337c8d363118bd0181
54349 F20101221_AABFCE matteson_a_Page_076.pro
0719c81bfd4be64df4679c4a21c0e201
d9907c63f23af344f0da0935100a4387c44185e3
54192 F20101221_AABFBQ matteson_a_Page_062.pro
6d0e24bb8fe04742f82401e8ec7906ce
8c74f1a9e827261c1828c6186e63bc2d9faa6085
F20101221_AABEWK matteson_a_Page_039.tif
4d036280291d6dad156763734d836db2
d9eebe7af041fda6ef81005a57f8d320696a2557
55293 F20101221_AABFCF matteson_a_Page_077.pro
a7d1e429eb7f1924e9068f93cf370555
42d8bcdd0dd36908deb11cde42b76a54d53f36c1
35816 F20101221_AABFBR matteson_a_Page_063.pro
48ef8309e5d817f7297fb8d58a677ff3
33b0a51bd2e4337675c48e1ad24b26a4a376ea88
F20101221_AABEWL matteson_a_Page_040.tif
97ed039cb4a083d1e7a8a067510a983a
59c3b5d107c66dbc6191fe2954964d31bb7ea677
F20101221_AABEVW matteson_a_Page_024.tif
922b68f7ae1bca8c872d7a456d41af68
02fd20896b7e6e911c5a6c2f567f5d025b939488
F20101221_AABEXA matteson_a_Page_055.tif
5c855d24e6d82e925b23f34f2ae07aa5
d16e4ccff7ae2e0822090b2c847abf62a54159be
52283 F20101221_AABFBS matteson_a_Page_064.pro
282e30cb2bdbc48035d1509e8d282fe0
de97b5b84448fe5ff29dff7108ccb6f8e66bfa51
F20101221_AABEWM matteson_a_Page_041.tif
6f7b31ce9e142211abed13b9896f2b13
fee4883f562fd5b9537f1704d8db50b043a193fb
F20101221_AABEVX matteson_a_Page_025.tif
914784d97c00f0179f60f2d72b7a2761
4a1b15700995088e6dd8234645551e2e8e15b5f0
50308 F20101221_AABFCG matteson_a_Page_078.pro
43d40ebf7cf2ddee8a6384f4ad566de4
e714dcc048612b6d92f5a4a01a3ddeca7ae8d33a
F20101221_AABEXB matteson_a_Page_056.tif
ac8dc423811e22e2e1d30757b297a7f7
3dacfe6f5530ef676605b4b53c61e1c8be09668e
53880 F20101221_AABFBT matteson_a_Page_065.pro
fefe118ad7264133d72cdae32f2f7c40
d35ae573f3a7c106953f9b06a55fec3206ca53c1
F20101221_AABEWN matteson_a_Page_042.tif
2580d3005525c7dccfea384dd40cef38
9d4b766b9c5d959870bb9b26fbea23c3a8ffea47
F20101221_AABEVY matteson_a_Page_026.tif
bc9df80451a02cd0da1ce5d9a5af7f82
ce8dce0e2470ebd81b4894cfb44daebc489b4b45
50759 F20101221_AABFCH matteson_a_Page_079.pro
dc0332ffe3aabd97e7fb787ea939863d
b2c4913610f223830a6ede0c73d23271810d0ea8
F20101221_AABEXC matteson_a_Page_057.tif
d67d510dc09b130ea5ff4027facabe93
f988f3632203691cf5fb961cf8884453dbaa17a1
56650 F20101221_AABFBU matteson_a_Page_066.pro
9f2bec46301495e01757dc06020f20ae
ab7ae50ff9742ebbda1c4ffaf028074b3713c8a2
F20101221_AABEWO matteson_a_Page_043.tif
b7f362615a9a2e1aaad6e43d06b40d1a
7410c49817c86dc121791d54debc2b45aaa48283
F20101221_AABEVZ matteson_a_Page_027.tif
5fc953bf98b3ae51b056cfecda7add66
020306083b151997bc61a6aba32c06f48697bc61
55572 F20101221_AABFCI matteson_a_Page_080.pro
d2b3508b419fba423c06777a94458012
3731a1333ecf6a9e230c7c64d863288e3044b86c
F20101221_AABEXD matteson_a_Page_058.tif
94d6f339a05c864df5f99f3d3307f605
21c307f55678c3ba5f410a9b7456236befe59e05
54425 F20101221_AABFBV matteson_a_Page_067.pro
63780f2eb8856dd02390dafd4bb34305
b461090b6d9cbf12355f2a82dd61cedbab5982ca
F20101221_AABEWP matteson_a_Page_044.tif
b74300e824008214568f23bf2991eb46
011d4547477ef1ccc3815575018d7dc3dfa0ca8f
54110 F20101221_AABFCJ matteson_a_Page_081.pro
93e734922746a09d6a3c215fa2ecc192
0dee271adfde307f75ba42d735229e27022809cd
F20101221_AABEXE matteson_a_Page_059.tif
c3edf920eb021355211e0990177cd0c4
8f665328c4a0dd3819730d7b620d7b8cae015f7e
50012 F20101221_AABFBW matteson_a_Page_068.pro
f1746f29414d7517e1f84c6318dc6467
459f3e3ad7286ed8433b3f2e2920debb0f29ae18
F20101221_AABEWQ matteson_a_Page_045.tif
293136c0b28e9226050173a1868fb528
70c2d53cb70f8ec2ad67847907a827da672df769
56834 F20101221_AABFCK matteson_a_Page_082.pro
9d080a74d78c526521268c34c37e0d31
e9b9508dc88fd9740a3416d60c2012a0367d6215
F20101221_AABEXF matteson_a_Page_060.tif
bf2a0e3fbedf685149cdd7f5a8be46b1
c719c716a6aea650715fb6bd7309d3293854722d
51312 F20101221_AABFBX matteson_a_Page_069.pro
d3f127f76085c772594ca34c97b9ccc2
6c887e999f93ce12294366e3e361469a8513f7e2
F20101221_AABEWR matteson_a_Page_046.tif
07af5c8e16f22840623b3b95fc113583
61ecb7114d90549b164a9a38f64bf3bf8a11c7dc
12112 F20101221_AABFDA matteson_a_Page_099.pro
3c2684603751cf459b67e6b7f346e08f
fb6727dadf6440a2a956e7307f797125d7d10469
55604 F20101221_AABFCL matteson_a_Page_083.pro
00abee0c68ca62ae8b145380a383220f
4a4b2067712e0d741488db3ef239de0f4f509305
F20101221_AABEXG matteson_a_Page_061.tif
cbb3f82ac951190d3761d5f74fda5a24
3ed83b85852c9610d78661ce15b3a7c5b3e2ecf7
53158 F20101221_AABFBY matteson_a_Page_070.pro
6c30e8c68707a802cdd3052165f51b53
0649d8a4d770e2ff05cc65e3e3934fb232fb6e5c
F20101221_AABEWS matteson_a_Page_047.tif
df60504ccfc105679acf3687ef70c582
103ecef461dd6337afe15b640aab9acf78f303d2
769 F20101221_AABFDB matteson_a_Page_100.pro
c3bd0837ff1a0af537f60e9e15d1a73a
72f4ffe8e675cf1ded5388e501a42678c450c72d
42640 F20101221_AABFCM matteson_a_Page_084.pro
f0380487e6d76411b3a3addc27deb33c
ab9a5e29984e0e959f0c62c203fffcb3921ec9b4
F20101221_AABEXH matteson_a_Page_062.tif
1977ccb87f1a754063cbae53fd71f72e
51d82b71871b59fe06b8ad8dd4615ccfdf680ad2
55319 F20101221_AABFBZ matteson_a_Page_071.pro
9bbd543b821c4bf9f6b3c4f475603595
e60bdcad2f3cf9d78392b79d05b5421ab303a39b
F20101221_AABEWT matteson_a_Page_048.tif
b1cafb73a441740475c5d33622503b02
57e4f019f3398e7484e93c91f7e183177649eb20
1560 F20101221_AABFDC matteson_a_Page_101.pro
5d22eda16bcdde2dc8186ddc8b493a1a
2f56bf55d5ce072b9315ba928398cd1aba767b5b
17633 F20101221_AABFCN matteson_a_Page_085.pro
17609d3f40c7126f32394556147adb0c
cca212923ae6635f8420dc62379aee632d278cce
F20101221_AABEXI matteson_a_Page_063.tif
d0a883b9a28ebe415d41b65696900510
be0c12cfb3fde1f32122da0dacbf57517c4ac753
F20101221_AABEWU matteson_a_Page_049.tif
fe20e84eb410cea0dc18244795aaff6f
b5dc7da1ce3013adc35f685d2fbda39c8487be11
64977 F20101221_AABFCO matteson_a_Page_087.pro
700266e954f7a3709ef399e77a4a9019
f8a4fff07cc34f296e64af26e1725cc932a52bf0
F20101221_AABEXJ matteson_a_Page_064.tif
968ee936af33663e20144486b479cb06
52984b259f0162c13b6526f3c974bd0b62bae201
F20101221_AABEWV matteson_a_Page_050.tif
e0f11e7ef3601f3761a71c5e827a0a7b
7138b19ff2cf9eedad1d316f8f2cb0e2256403fd
37510 F20101221_AABFDD matteson_a_Page_102.pro
47c81523325cf2cec24d2b1d3b41ca99
192fa80afb68a0c5bbfa0884e8ae4ad396518bec
69335 F20101221_AABFCP matteson_a_Page_088.pro
f50e81aed2f52065bd337bd38eefefa5
86942603250864bc5ba7eb92b6ac161b413fe4db
F20101221_AABEXK matteson_a_Page_065.tif
8345bb9af884e7675b83dc77ea9f7c5b
8eced0733e5d898d63990ef33898f9a5bb239a20
F20101221_AABEWW matteson_a_Page_051.tif
1709925e748256f181c85916fa7dce13
15bcb2bccaa7e21e9d03d6e505ab818c813d36d1
11824 F20101221_AABFDE matteson_a_Page_103.pro
382203e308b3d5433cae928021b59a1d
f962d20fd1d445777cd45190ee096ba608591e02
50927 F20101221_AABFCQ matteson_a_Page_089.pro
aeb66cd8d058ccd24622e7841135216b
697890950fde32528069d12688952c626b0cbcf7
F20101221_AABEXL matteson_a_Page_066.tif
87730196217437619b883f9d6271a87d
fb3a45e70aaa865e379c81724205d9839b487ccf
3934 F20101221_AABFDF matteson_a_Page_104.pro
639112b868bf349db7689b1beb96f6b0
2ff29f0b8a512504cb850b888a8c1f8ac90fc3ef
35550 F20101221_AABFCR matteson_a_Page_090.pro
705390eaf5855d60deeafcb10e12879d
1312b8d13011399dd65bcfa883453513a773960c
F20101221_AABEXM matteson_a_Page_067.tif
19a997e3f02cba7cf2d0633a7711ad88
291a1e0d3dea62dc4ce45faf2a978fe89ee26380
F20101221_AABEWX matteson_a_Page_052.tif
30cad694d48d8d37b48a0cbfa0be86be
33e9cabecc3f4f62bd2c8a0729f957689833fe2b
9278 F20101221_AABFDG matteson_a_Page_105.pro
013c99c3b9c81a0c561fc6ff2d4c4058
69c34e6ed59da72fcc8d908dd27a6861fe6bcdb5
F20101221_AABEYA matteson_a_Page_081.tif
92f17bd278c691bb01054ef75ce26819
a1fb43537e2fc3f7ba6bd97f8162c3ad151c40f0
16740 F20101221_AABFCS matteson_a_Page_091.pro
8b11c17db7e1e102ac7767129055d84c
d998e03c55e760b3ea703ad0bf06f55185c7096a
F20101221_AABEXN matteson_a_Page_068.tif
11a59964963ab6d741795f7f45b56183
f67798b949626f7d6244d6065f6b7dce5ec9d86c
F20101221_AABEWY matteson_a_Page_053.tif
228abd17bc934f41e554d0b12f0a5a83
fd7d2c6e5cb8da85a51ead99d95e18bb9de13c9b
4536 F20101221_AABFDH matteson_a_Page_106.pro
bfb9f846578bbd30dc1b4fde4112e843
73a7bffd3892cfa6ec8d1cf047167cdf0f7086b3
F20101221_AABEYB matteson_a_Page_082.tif
02fdf4dc62fd55ae6e97db267ae89cbf
0612cc8584ee8abbe8b36c16f4cdd1e17b305ef8
21164 F20101221_AABFCT matteson_a_Page_092.pro
82f21c80bdfa873bd1425fc007388c64
e24ccb7ac7b83ef58c5b0f278b0dbd06f5a21811
F20101221_AABEXO matteson_a_Page_069.tif
aa4affdd7953a0683d6c1475c3014e56
651975bd4720fd294ff3fa3677deeb787e03141d
F20101221_AABEWZ matteson_a_Page_054.tif
646d2cb489d6e462eb102b5ddc44f90e
b649fae35c1deb9aada1a2aff6cc481e063b2f80
9130 F20101221_AABFDI matteson_a_Page_107.pro
b1f6bd7ae22baf2fe970c7329b29aa56
c58382b0997d44c902a7b30c88ff71f37ab93882
F20101221_AABEYC matteson_a_Page_083.tif
e5b358afe81b2f627d3f7d274fc8dab2
7757fa84d4d34ce1caf00784a2e808b15a3ff597
20915 F20101221_AABFCU matteson_a_Page_093.pro
320e43c3f36576f2178eca9629a59c49
22d5fa5c392325578870a24ae0680efe176e6ccb
F20101221_AABEXP matteson_a_Page_070.tif
2c57aed0baaeb99e46b09c85cc9445a8
201bf629f6ec9dfed008774bbecc7ef2c4f640f0
8956 F20101221_AABFDJ matteson_a_Page_108.pro
1d89f35e93aa900422898be5957b5ed4
3a94297edb56aca3c9ddc7773fd38f126b602de1
F20101221_AABEYD matteson_a_Page_084.tif
88306fbccf1c04868104e631897d444f
a0504f21bf7102c2c3876436676b2928a0712235
12017 F20101221_AABFCV matteson_a_Page_094.pro
e9a161076ed4c4062209838a25948ec9
3f5aa5b916197fc674f4ec233ed0848f8f3b291a
F20101221_AABEXQ matteson_a_Page_071.tif
8d274cede8e25852c09a33599bcaffa8
901c57b918e568101d1d1d64b3967d73ea543440
5887 F20101221_AABFDK matteson_a_Page_109.pro
0ac78bfd70c417eb4c75d1d399119a2b
05da7e17f84fb89a3391536a01ab99a0a4403b1d
F20101221_AABEYE matteson_a_Page_085.tif
df93d4404fcb7b9eee108ca4190e44b2
3bc9c13d06cd936ce766a36a2877f7039a709eb7
12147 F20101221_AABFCW matteson_a_Page_095.pro
a372e3ad267ea17be355f4d2bf1a7360
5dd8a6ffcf636b09ad384ff5c666b7d3f8029b84
F20101221_AABEXR matteson_a_Page_072.tif
8cfd0c5fe9d77a12607b9e12a4cba380
680b27e95a9ede49bfb328c7d152886001674d78
1797 F20101221_AABFEA matteson_a_Page_007.txt
a09c57ed6c5d110ac5ef8bc2beb95f87
605b99800f4d4f2e8add11c26211a6f6a5fbc972
60196 F20101221_AABFDL matteson_a_Page_110.pro
0d1f7dd01a3ecd0e144746e87ee66d5e
8b787b00ee56c72ef6d0535c916319e70aa2e85e
F20101221_AABEYF matteson_a_Page_086.tif
48240823ced337fe46ed9d23f6c5823a
cc867403ba3421f6c9433dbac718242066d1cb89
12303 F20101221_AABFCX matteson_a_Page_096.pro
6f20bd0613b5deeff3fef4cd9b23372d
3e650a8ddf22fed5e2bd71362c574cd2522d0f6a
F20101221_AABEXS matteson_a_Page_073.tif
d4fa870603cf6175d1b32b5cee4a2deb
4ce9cf060530b469c141efa2beb123db439d5eaf
966 F20101221_AABFEB matteson_a_Page_008.txt
278d8e1c2530a9614df5504ba4e4914c
54943c704ef4d5b18ed60f3dd9b5a4fdd80cda60
62507 F20101221_AABFDM matteson_a_Page_111.pro
42b21c9138a31e392a3dbf0414e7010d
ab7e7b7b4e38184c10eece5918b215f765c12983
F20101221_AABEYG matteson_a_Page_087.tif
16ce8fae2873b4a96e597636392d799f
5bf1a03f96ef83f35062f730b2fda5191d6177af
12448 F20101221_AABFCY matteson_a_Page_097.pro
73558c2466c905ecfa4b554b428a90e9
3563188703c292a49383a57a583047fa4e938213
F20101221_AABEXT matteson_a_Page_074.tif
a508452124ca04b09ea36a8234042faa
6dc2406f7c154491f55772a147aaedb8ccf8a715
2114 F20101221_AABFEC matteson_a_Page_009.txt
5a82302ed4ebbf312b7a7696e9cff12d
7c2c08ccceb66538fdf409f8f516a3a2782a6c13
67593 F20101221_AABFDN matteson_a_Page_112.pro
98569d44289687bbbfb879455a2c22f4
40ee4064c395b0323854e5f5e8243a63bd667aab
F20101221_AABEYH matteson_a_Page_088.tif
63337d9eea423cfe5b78e374096a5c37
6ed2d7f61cab6bcc798ee3bf447f3f042f795090
12318 F20101221_AABFCZ matteson_a_Page_098.pro
5f5afc737da44b8e18848789887713cd
1d59886305078cb02563a83b8e1a53938b497684
F20101221_AABEXU matteson_a_Page_075.tif
a1a63c3461682b4edabda46cedfb92f2
45367bb252b94294c6fddcc7f5af86e2445c864a
2194 F20101221_AABFED matteson_a_Page_010.txt
538b16d02b2695f05e6d021a1ff461ff
3971624cd8f9493532a5f1cdce3dcee138192bb9
63023 F20101221_AABFDO matteson_a_Page_113.pro
df7400675a84b70f10e1a66d382e5439
0320d168628bcb123a7cdc6c28065a78c7f407ae
F20101221_AABEYI matteson_a_Page_089.tif
aa71431ca1dad68d799cadd94dd0fca3
1ae2831d560d829006a0d7f126af5cccc69ecc6e
F20101221_AABEXV matteson_a_Page_076.tif
71378615fac063189f4cb67f20d988b9
43af3e7960f50fda9b23f3dedf37d21f8221d322
62315 F20101221_AABFDP matteson_a_Page_114.pro
c598afa3c76d1e0237c8edaef898786a
a535f5fec916d93c499814a70a87a11211404dfb
F20101221_AABEYJ matteson_a_Page_090.tif
ec3ded57833c92936a9bb605dab7cc60
a11aefb6a901b42448eb8442eb99619379801548
F20101221_AABEXW matteson_a_Page_077.tif
651c3319c783fde42578ee457141727a
242ec3277fad664031e135c092db121c07a03957
2133 F20101221_AABFEE matteson_a_Page_011.txt
977e6a6880c0ac257c246696bba33d07
a459c0b1226793fa383d1a5f9b78465666b936c0
62984 F20101221_AABFDQ matteson_a_Page_115.pro
32bb85b25070d85318810878f739b250
c123cf7f9a4f884bb95629debeebbfae0706e196
F20101221_AABEYK matteson_a_Page_091.tif
c2eb0cfa9bafc9b27656b3c834db1432
99ce537136b8b37cdea4eb8fe681d4c208834531
F20101221_AABEXX matteson_a_Page_078.tif
18b38ffe3aef049b712557f8ecde4cbd
8344b1ef2abc46be703cac333d298f51fe7d9bc6
2168 F20101221_AABFEF matteson_a_Page_012.txt
8b51f4d140d2d724b72d7671975fba9b
a4b007b9f78274c5fab84a875a8674d3f652fcfa
60652 F20101221_AABFDR matteson_a_Page_116.pro
f8a3cc3dce6615c1d8018779470a4b38
eef890e661c364ee837f8b5ef5317b2688eb1bd8
25265604 F20101221_AABEYL matteson_a_Page_092.tif
25db446b4d76fd7dc3d82b18f0002b0f
3051977e3c8ded102469384b54f073e6c201080d
2165 F20101221_AABFEG matteson_a_Page_013.txt
5ab3ca536e81e6e3952b210a41ffb655
5993a427a6e4fd217156b113659734d4be4fd745
F20101221_AABEZA matteson_a_Page_108.tif
a022ad24f88c38be55102d27298db49c
cd2691068dc4404578073a67c70c0486aac923ea
49709 F20101221_AABFDS matteson_a_Page_117.pro
94c3e36125b35fffaea41e5841a5673e
c606fe5a7b9034d0bc7770e799d97178fcf24c93
F20101221_AABEYM matteson_a_Page_093.tif
da91d7b85150911280ee69997a26d006
d22ceb585556e398a2d97a0c5c38fb6b6cf77f23
F20101221_AABEXY matteson_a_Page_079.tif
1e0fbf0437b3e06dcd11c3ce3a59a933
cb4b281b834b94a3798b0b3bb445cc21b50cb657
2064 F20101221_AABFEH matteson_a_Page_015.txt
dc7b6970070a06b58a77b9c7f8d73cc3
edae543517c9bf5bdf476967be68655a80480945
F20101221_AABEZB matteson_a_Page_109.tif
9f996a99752668468426be77c8790771
c7423125a2926ee49818588a5ccdb2f874fec416
25178 F20101221_AABFDT matteson_a_Page_118.pro
15445033a1936f5aa89fd6ab787552dc
d3da269d43098a785c0ffef28057a6033eddec6a
F20101221_AABEYN matteson_a_Page_094.tif
0a3add3176b599a3da626cd4caa6ffb6
3dcfdb93e661f4389d365647b6fbd56c2655d79e
F20101221_AABEXZ matteson_a_Page_080.tif
48927999f433671f41e98bfbf8f0cc0c
f2a7866eb49ecb5159f50d5401eefc22c41d9a3d
1617 F20101221_AABFEI matteson_a_Page_016.txt
c4744cd2a3f430a78c57d5117969408d
572a226a5d488bb81780b2534612f3add835f0b3
F20101221_AABEZC matteson_a_Page_110.tif
2989af354bcba389e84526f0ce0a673e
3ea7b9cf1492a46f73047cd4b1fdc587b694f9cd
564 F20101221_AABFDU matteson_a_Page_001.txt
8a3af784f8f7e6ecaefef4a439bff6f9
615df4a3b1af70da84e5e67857ffbce437a466af
F20101221_AABEYO matteson_a_Page_095.tif
6aeeeabfa573ff709646ccd327fbedf4
efe6fdc0ba78e1771804b5a53ad7bd652bd1e41d
2021 F20101221_AABFEJ matteson_a_Page_017.txt
a55b27c44fc532eec157056b2e0e7f62
53f56c6f5d227c251a510d9f4d9dcf2513b288b6
F20101221_AABEZD matteson_a_Page_111.tif
a3cda5e298a5df494d5490c48259b232
2e829216300e8296d5927d95aa59d84490a6be18
99 F20101221_AABFDV matteson_a_Page_002.txt
6c30362b178d9371c0e18c07cdbc7a2f
e9133e994f57d2e187b3ff062200db8eef08c440
F20101221_AABEYP matteson_a_Page_096.tif
ce06f1919a2012923749f4391b4a9132
fdb8f323acf169f8f812792d4abeaf254c2e4f92
2306 F20101221_AABFEK matteson_a_Page_018.txt
2c6fc1cd2d1583230177e47053d57164
5fa2426e3859d99457ec2a30ffd908461e575c92
F20101221_AABEZE matteson_a_Page_112.tif
08676d18cd0112e4ae7c91366c8c4569
360448fe0568d0250339e6849f12815b6d38ab75
224 F20101221_AABFDW matteson_a_Page_003.txt
e66c3720b0088cda89c81b333fd6ee3c
fcc015e82170e1fab10dfd91b8fe00a97aa08a94
F20101221_AABEYQ matteson_a_Page_097.tif
e5539902580defeb7528dccda02640d3
d3478c5512bfed95679ae338c227721c24c792de
2136 F20101221_AABFEL matteson_a_Page_019.txt
212078e0c322e08d019b0774c20cca0b
ef6398f55fe333408b011da60614a81d7f8333f2
F20101221_AABEZF matteson_a_Page_114.tif
d9df94b6c9413349589ab6203cced9f3
0feb6d70f8125ec8fb8659fe4237cd2d7f1a35ff
1236 F20101221_AABFDX matteson_a_Page_004.txt
e5e2bf87bb9b91bbf3eba37fa7ac2d7c
78eb6cf329de1fe7521aba2b61673650d39079fc
F20101221_AABEYR matteson_a_Page_099.tif
d643c3cf360289ffb25c13e3d53b5fe1
1f522679f10bcd87c6773db9b823040f0abb3ad8
2123 F20101221_AABFFA matteson_a_Page_034.txt
0c86f436403c6b445cd6197245f7a0d0
ec26556573abe911076fcd95ebbf06186ad6b9ac
2241 F20101221_AABFEM matteson_a_Page_020.txt
a82057fd4a07085b996fd22316ee2e75
9a8ade5d460ef551cb340e03729c36e894fce573
F20101221_AABEZG matteson_a_Page_115.tif
282d3ffcbc399bc8e30c31f2ef1525bf
59b98855c9b6ea48da20a3eba445d1f393962161
2825 F20101221_AABFDY matteson_a_Page_005.txt
f89e749cbd0b24d490efe50a84f28870
466e32442373bfb96986877212f361021f69c200
F20101221_AABEYS matteson_a_Page_100.tif
4cda3ca2da9e8cdee4e5f57337e8a902
951f6ca8497efd271a3cca1262c9efc20aabcc17
F20101221_AABFFB matteson_a_Page_035.txt
6015a4029ede92103aced3bf5011ad90
bd6ca2b5d34209b19bf75c449a5cbd6d33f54e80
2209 F20101221_AABFEN matteson_a_Page_021.txt
74ad78e49d4ef8d2608aa492c8d52144
aa06e87d16586cd18d79a50636b8956941ec832c
F20101221_AABEZH matteson_a_Page_116.tif
db37e2577d0882cf2f9a25b185d46939
4238973799c70f24b5689f016729a36f79e547cf
388 F20101221_AABFDZ matteson_a_Page_006.txt
201a23e31ce759c0c8834cb6a0955fd6
69c02cf953b1c0f9ea1a379a8b8885d5bb43450a
F20101221_AABEYT matteson_a_Page_101.tif
2187eb032a55ae12d816dffe0ec0dca8
44744244e77da506f2bf30150a44f45a89d08ea9
F20101221_AABFFC matteson_a_Page_036.txt
fa9e26919e7f7b6bd188b5240d004050
b776ed4d68d4e309b11011c941ae5564037d2aaa
2129 F20101221_AABFEO matteson_a_Page_022.txt
978ab28bf0c3291e48f17a1217251344
9594824dc944f01fa294d356d518520bda4361d0
F20101221_AABEZI matteson_a_Page_117.tif
388bef70d9a329597abed782b25474ed
54b0ce8723e3c581ffb219d5355234c0efd33de6
F20101221_AABEYU matteson_a_Page_102.tif
37fa107727007a98f3a7fcc5e47750f0
afeff79492d0d90868638c777939377a05b3dbc4
2220 F20101221_AABFFD matteson_a_Page_037.txt
74c9c03364041582bd6c1d56867473e9
afe929b6f597d51573d5881967fa2b311e78420a
2099 F20101221_AABFEP matteson_a_Page_023.txt
65785193fc5c90154594bac79fe4e12c
7c11cc0811b977c74dc4b8089f85dc8283dca404
F20101221_AABEZJ matteson_a_Page_118.tif
37df379c2f82be8ee45186904bad5f27
172ec910ee391e232707992c23218dadfc69c6de
F20101221_AABEYV matteson_a_Page_103.tif
57990de3bf6e19727f014658e0dd7b8c
87d2cb6ce002b2077c1c25a6c2c37626286224d7
2201 F20101221_AABFFE matteson_a_Page_039.txt
96bae866fc29547ba0ed011c2e0d6f95
c67d37561f9824570630960adb10d3aa05c1f230
2254 F20101221_AABFEQ matteson_a_Page_024.txt
2cb1fd305255e6fc41dc0e75a9003483
11439dc67c4bca078addb8d7c30778ded97e558a
10231 F20101221_AABEZK matteson_a_Page_001.pro
884f678265d53ef8ee3b14df0d8eeff7
9f90e865a9801227a1c6393c2fd5eb9214b80964
F20101221_AABEYW matteson_a_Page_104.tif
9ba5304cd1a541dc4e9aa677a427a507
8e231de613be2bbe5c6dd4533dc2fea237e7da63
2132 F20101221_AABFER matteson_a_Page_025.txt
e34d7bb2e12d1d430aca47f7c1e6f439
41c0048308124a1fc118797637c9c25455d9d6d6
1066 F20101221_AABEZL matteson_a_Page_002.pro
571391c245a6a19aaa598805ea0511cf
f31715638fed4ed7e5d8f213bd715d62883f6946
F20101221_AABEYX matteson_a_Page_105.tif
06d7a5968e6e40debf3d2f6647a4a547
30775a285e51b19db962daaa73965220cf46c8ba
2139 F20101221_AABFFF matteson_a_Page_040.txt
4f5ac3b6348fcb4fa626bd242b9eee66
be64d5e85d9f144a1a6ee50d02a2276a2456cfc6
2162 F20101221_AABFES matteson_a_Page_026.txt
c6bad32182d43ddcf6ed0500091e47ef
3c488188afcb33c997d59f55fc554bc725e90523
3317 F20101221_AABEZM matteson_a_Page_003.pro
dd57f031fc290e76e8a51796581192a2
e73ca7ecad8ff29bc193d921023f066ae33a526d
F20101221_AABEYY matteson_a_Page_106.tif
b5506249bff6bcc4c710af6df3e0f36b
646ccf1aad01698f8dabe6dfb20c8552fbd67f8c
2204 F20101221_AABFFG matteson_a_Page_041.txt
d21d7f6964714960b2aed3febe31c0ba
f29b6eba5eb3f8cf8a96e4e8e43012866e016861
F20101221_AABFET matteson_a_Page_027.txt
3a0378dd8094633af258489ea38e0f2c
34750acb2fea85ea25aa1419d1e9019bf12d258e
30043 F20101221_AABEZN matteson_a_Page_004.pro
c4f942893c93b6f55c69dcbe932822d9
f11b6ea3700a56f2e1385ac9727ce8d6364c0de9
2121 F20101221_AABFFH matteson_a_Page_042.txt
c9ff3af98c1edf2ab3b9ea22a92a5692
5333e9073b09dd23eefc91829abb5ee954661091
2218 F20101221_AABFEU matteson_a_Page_028.txt
160375990667cb08d3aec198f3ee7ea2
fb11d1b16b3c89fc3c4932c4df8e68a47276a3be
62296 F20101221_AABEZO matteson_a_Page_005.pro
5a91f1c510dea36ef5a17ef35e88d578
fb82abd2993b8215bebc1f49216ccb31892f6c90
F20101221_AABEYZ matteson_a_Page_107.tif
1d9937640e508f93d38749757f5fc672
d4953594b64485d130035c8e0294f3de26c6f6a8
2140 F20101221_AABFFI matteson_a_Page_043.txt
270d01e3b163e623623b9021054a0d08
5c812bb0e4347484e314cf949e412d67daebd4ff
2013 F20101221_AABFEV matteson_a_Page_029.txt
c5c7301b0df4976a4fd5b0a883ea5e29
8f683a597d84d5a935e8948b20649a40a33c54b0
9985 F20101221_AABEZP matteson_a_Page_006.pro
5b3a0e2699fcb4f947185ec7f5ff4197
e0021e32ce3d44418f2c75040897cd55b72555a2
2226 F20101221_AABFFJ matteson_a_Page_044.txt
3a77abf782f9a4d07e31bb89c0ad534b
63dd1a4534b5c2836f41da206e0b581bb8559ba1
F20101221_AABFEW matteson_a_Page_030.txt
68957d153fd14489bc3041097d1f97a4
1a1db3897e623327b208746b71805a75117451cd
42465 F20101221_AABEZQ matteson_a_Page_007.pro
bb09b6c2167f38b52a3b68b34ecacc23
fd86c6c8808ce08b478cb813e71bd97da24cfd91
2171 F20101221_AABFFK matteson_a_Page_045.txt
23dc675a8223293ba49f83678ac57366
8414c691a95bdc25b483a3e39fd951f8ed79275c
2103 F20101221_AABFEX matteson_a_Page_031.txt
f4b705dbdd84682022695aeb4c6c8f1e
dbd17fd85278fb5da14d0f038faad2235104c148
48776 F20101221_AABEZR matteson_a_Page_009.pro
0123376f7d3006c76a51d39eb600f8c9
9e61c6ed7295b9c333da9f546933c0c975f7a673
2125 F20101221_AABFGA matteson_a_Page_062.txt
5a134301649a5ba3842b4ab23835cc44
5a623262d4c467f5d814506909c0656bd1bcf952
2248 F20101221_AABFFL matteson_a_Page_046.txt
566f04780497f155f1077a0f7849b64a
d56fe6a9bfe284d085b83d6a0b617c374cd88f91
2045 F20101221_AABFEY matteson_a_Page_032.txt
84f7f28840314fd0bf36efc7cbc19830
3253c4db78cd71eeee4ad02747e20221829e8e2f
54187 F20101221_AABEZS matteson_a_Page_010.pro
6de9e6bad2881083abceb3955485388c
41c0f7adcca133dffe752c8f83db5a6b243f72f4
1426 F20101221_AABFGB matteson_a_Page_063.txt
97031fe4fcd049bf26babc567bb6579f
f177fa43b67f4165d2ae1fcd0fec8b892859cbb5
2236 F20101221_AABFFM matteson_a_Page_047.txt
cbb82480ade70083b56b5abfbdebecae
b958bd25b6af1c3db87946334ecdd4c403621ed2
2138 F20101221_AABFEZ matteson_a_Page_033.txt
2823b91c94f441d09da15d4d269a3f2f
3d6e09486ff2ca607ae4c5073a21497e4c9ae209
54354 F20101221_AABEZT matteson_a_Page_011.pro
16b90a257ec82ffca80cb692087382d1
1e40147b7c9ddcd22af227e6ef2147cb3a5379d9
2169 F20101221_AABFGC matteson_a_Page_064.txt
dbc6e958ad303ab1c5dc6bace03c5bc4
a2732956e06a7d931c278420d0b854c5f8131200
F20101221_AABFFN matteson_a_Page_048.txt
fa64902a7c5af6dcabe19317e9a76477
d28af1b80737e9b08ea4889dd2ce6854f07af7ea
55194 F20101221_AABEZU matteson_a_Page_012.pro
23a3e7c07648fc0b0d7f0385f95478c2
91f3abd5abfd3140b3ce2ed608443f81c21297b4
2111 F20101221_AABFGD matteson_a_Page_065.txt
682af82830486aa58ba974e9fb989388
2bc03b3a93773e2d4bf812748d1df93ff933f298
2263 F20101221_AABFFO matteson_a_Page_049.txt
613eb1a936166c4f59af4762c3e4e248
3d24667548436fc679b15ff9b6ad832b9f164109
55151 F20101221_AABEZV matteson_a_Page_013.pro
9a6e960bd63ba62615fc938dccf48d5d
2b9a1e8156886ddb2063bc869d03021fe169a836
2255 F20101221_AABFGE matteson_a_Page_066.txt
4181e2ffda34f89c5982335018245667
5003ef990f363f9a50f72838cc7ce3e01835363e
2180 F20101221_AABFFP matteson_a_Page_050.txt
def753fa5d47947ccf631464bb5ce1bf
c3a87bcc33da155786c4b5531ce4333f0bf4ed7d
51130 F20101221_AABEZW matteson_a_Page_014.pro
de2e06415aab2682960dd6ffab0108a9
e817a3432ae7490ca078cdedcf0ff1c97b186ebd
2146 F20101221_AABFGF matteson_a_Page_067.txt
edad51bc4fde7f1d9e38efca5980155e
868a7c3bd46c76ff80cf0a2949b4f2911b517652
1936 F20101221_AABFFQ matteson_a_Page_051.txt
84f760b204e1c8ddd0eb57618eb3e3dd
ea04a88ecba896e5829a2338d4aa118e400d5fee
49312 F20101221_AABEZX matteson_a_Page_017.pro
1730947c5381db4d7ebb6707a179fb4d
8bbd45490dedefd48b5596f598a2b1dbd903eac8
2102 F20101221_AABFFR matteson_a_Page_052.txt
7ab6ae25084afcf7cd4862e10024af6f
7174684f5c831f01a0b6ee3483ea34cff594532b
58084 F20101221_AABEZY matteson_a_Page_018.pro
fd98c91d1002cbd560a7f4375597fbd8
8f2d3f3be989ab420d7f92c1a372666413a0a83e
1976 F20101221_AABFGG matteson_a_Page_068.txt
175e166f65786ebbd9e9c344c49ca42d
6d5d12d4a2913d41eee284f292473fc095a22fdf
2207 F20101221_AABFFS matteson_a_Page_053.txt
8ebc72c53cebbebce4e08aeb642067c8
182628d43d838edd0e532929c630fe2991675937
54262 F20101221_AABEZZ matteson_a_Page_019.pro
8cce4cc860bb95b9e4b98fcf608f6e85
f7920a6362842f31b880e2d1ea086e05abcb0b02
2028 F20101221_AABFGH matteson_a_Page_069.txt
d61240671ee36b7241064be3b488e908
b56d8a8d1374a546a7e076643a80239027701b09
2031 F20101221_AABFFT matteson_a_Page_054.txt
f45484d50eeb7213d95ca772517e9f8a
69f71b6ba7c3258e20a2aa47bfda85cd664ffa28
2090 F20101221_AABFGI matteson_a_Page_070.txt
ab5b342e873df948ee02d17dcf84604e
e31cdb07210b35ae56111b7c00f3e737a5f861f9
2229 F20101221_AABFFU matteson_a_Page_055.txt
38f4d35a3970d816d731db0770113347
b3877546d7a457a037edcf216cf0b2d48a4994f9
2175 F20101221_AABFGJ matteson_a_Page_071.txt
f8892e9c51510406885a279971ca0e49
bbbf8ffae5876b2537bcbcb9f43dd3da04e9d75b
2127 F20101221_AABFFV matteson_a_Page_056.txt
4de9cfbd9af579af88e24b1b04dcb033
8b97542b1cb40e515f6f7ad9d886b3898955dc22
2086 F20101221_AABFGK matteson_a_Page_072.txt
17833b4ec94012543173ccc91f9872e2
352318106b036da04ab27be02f14f8f563dfd659
2106 F20101221_AABFFW matteson_a_Page_057.txt
f07e1abbd067d9fd84d1e70f9f2c8afe
7e5628b8b8fd284def86cfbc65bea1c4f84348dc
1753 F20101221_AABFHA matteson_a_Page_090.txt
761db6452e11cba9c42e3fa139c0f26d
84759610485fd7d79ea0d57b011c55ed4e5a817c
F20101221_AABFGL matteson_a_Page_073.txt
0c2b2c746f494b0b53f10716daaf7423
d572c76b3e676f17f20f1aeb5ec65c603171795f
2137 F20101221_AABFFX matteson_a_Page_058.txt
dbad86b74924d212c732f2b832a9a1d0
4f83d0f30fba5bfda6f9cbd884ab1a0a1ba0cd7b
659 F20101221_AABFHB matteson_a_Page_091.txt
99152ef9e5124f46b9943ae0f0baafa6
107f66ae77ba27f59d44dd4ac02616c24d100f28
F20101221_AABFGM matteson_a_Page_076.txt
710173416bbbae53537cf7ac4dbea199
c9d5e1bdf581a4172b6e4c9e8680249adb78c48f
2105 F20101221_AABFFY matteson_a_Page_060.txt
00c1ef75ac21be9baa7f792e10d972f3
618d996a9daeda6a5f200f338d1e58701467ddfa
1003 F20101221_AABFHC matteson_a_Page_092.txt
79e305ffed65615cee9c84b03059651d
e44ab7e4e7bab9a10c4cb46ff4c6c01781132eed
2170 F20101221_AABFGN matteson_a_Page_077.txt
9c0094ed9334e265fe0b1133d42498bc
aea9914e3ce2ec49702115650bb4e4c5c4804628
2051 F20101221_AABFFZ matteson_a_Page_061.txt
596e0d2671ad3a8ac1e0c801fc12878f
7ddc0bba8829e2629f98cd7de5a72419b430566b
1099 F20101221_AABFHD matteson_a_Page_093.txt
cf61a40e6b5f339b21353e6334183c5e
8b5f8ac64dea2df6c7ca098201414f3261b82900
1989 F20101221_AABFGO matteson_a_Page_078.txt
4441a463ae3b327bf641dee1185d2703
782b2f75d540ea0e80723f86d5b933679f99bb02
2007 F20101221_AABFGP matteson_a_Page_079.txt
72a2c945a7a1bd85614c20a86bae0ba3
c28c25b5073dbdd08e0f5c6507cc5dcd24f8da36
476 F20101221_AABFHE matteson_a_Page_094.txt
7411d08c624f1191733018d79e19112a
8da7f0aaadc46e738532a9c244abf0ad4b32f64a
2181 F20101221_AABFGQ matteson_a_Page_080.txt
43ca1a741fa0527f97ad2caf7e502e02
dfd22e1a9bfce2b94d0acbf5e30fd426ec9f71f9
481 F20101221_AABFHF matteson_a_Page_095.txt
3b21435ef12823950e945c3da9662c4f
0010c286c27e107b7257a2f1a27e30dfeabbc430
F20101221_AABFGR matteson_a_Page_081.txt
80d00751f08320605c34ad79327fef62
dc4eb5b7e5c867f5afe17a39851c0b6031cc9a17
494 F20101221_AABFHG matteson_a_Page_096.txt
a8c43e262f977711b76f5ab7045a2137
09254a1d92f4101a5bcc35ede0805c8607695f55
2232 F20101221_AABFGS matteson_a_Page_082.txt
90e013b77c804357589462daddf4b790
627feb6425638a2b34f81ccf4cbc12517320e784
2185 F20101221_AABFGT matteson_a_Page_083.txt
6bbb701ce7c08daaababe43ae5728f79
0652f64101f6c77eb6dd0c04baac886f79e5afd5
511 F20101221_AABFHH matteson_a_Page_097.txt
c9032d0ae57cb51bab9cb53d3ccf42a7
38a1e176aa533356e60943ff646b6523f9990e7a
1698 F20101221_AABFGU matteson_a_Page_084.txt
54fb3067fcdc37dd17e9588b81c35411
9806eb6ca411a30f387e3bb481dd8dffa241973f
506 F20101221_AABFHI matteson_a_Page_098.txt
4fd175f253f202678f2d2a563f971da7
8b01a6b6659896b2c13714592344587c554c7da9
796 F20101221_AABFGV matteson_a_Page_085.txt
d701fd9272bd8276d2bf9b2aaaee5738
0120b7802dede48f99e6b63285cdc934ff6d7ed2
486 F20101221_AABFHJ matteson_a_Page_099.txt
5fde03782f43e22a1114187e532a1435
19c26054520f9d76721062ae6b9b68a9e7aaf582
2741 F20101221_AABFGW matteson_a_Page_086.txt
439b0749a038b8046881e7311826a37f
8ec30965e3ad0bd9196a0ed03c4c83ca64154a2a
36 F20101221_AABFHK matteson_a_Page_100.txt
ce4d610b73dab665faa3abcc065ec693
3e027ad2b9fe178723a38677767c5a67f390aff0
2846 F20101221_AABFGX matteson_a_Page_087.txt
22c03e2607d8b170a73138d1903a1338
9610eefddf3aa21952c32c98decbb2cdf81f1436
2450 F20101221_AABFIA matteson_a_Page_116.txt
cbc7890ab2573d793bdda96bef6df0de
f332888cab3a8975f33cc171b76523bec9790e6f
128 F20101221_AABFHL matteson_a_Page_101.txt
a65c23df2705a50a77ff7702e4dcf91f
0df4cf8be7335ee240349fcc2a6e586d0e78d7c6
3042 F20101221_AABFGY matteson_a_Page_088.txt
d5e4556ae2bc5d60a26374bc822ce82e
017d7b90793c838ea4becf5c72012a01cde5bf87
F20101221_AABFIB matteson_a_Page_117.txt
1bdce2f3297ffeac3d7d4df0599c600a
c9060d3ccb8ccdcf3c879ee6decb229f829b84ba
F20101221_AABFHM matteson_a_Page_102.txt
6a07f6f8a0a2aa7d8bb9689ee5013aae
69a611d5484f928e84b28983c6798fde55a2659f
2329 F20101221_AABFGZ matteson_a_Page_089.txt
94a3364ea80ba92bf6e02a798e1b4c88
08194fd1eb5d8ece266ec96b1529a07f4c53c1a8
1036 F20101221_AABFIC matteson_a_Page_118.txt
11b5040cc3a54eb4dbe8f7c6d1c55ccc
bf7d7f2c703c13aec6ca855d5929e006a179d668
846 F20101221_AABFHN matteson_a_Page_103.txt
811d9779dd413aea0770a2d415effac8
0e809800f5935bf2033efc3e5ea259c05cc9f267
2402 F20101221_AABFID matteson_a_Page_001thm.jpg
5a198cff1458ced340d0ced91e7d033c
7c1e47eaf6266e0f45f88c453cda47ae4195771c
234 F20101221_AABFHO matteson_a_Page_104.txt
15c3dd260f692d66132a7c2855412ce8
75e25155c177af6dfd6ae83d23d61bb0bed43b9b
705528 F20101221_AABFIE matteson_a.pdf
c644237ea397971e887f541845ff08d8
8cc49f8d5913e6fe74e4ac1871b07eba151434ab
985 F20101221_AABFHP matteson_a_Page_105.txt
9fcff2aae557824bc78e0a2625a8f863
60fc0117fef9eb515009dece244e16de438528db
2808 F20101221_AABFIF matteson_a_Page_108thm.jpg
d57c2ed26caf62414171b5e2dcff9647
71c01ca63ce725c823b2b853586757d17e931d7d
253 F20101221_AABFHQ matteson_a_Page_106.txt
516e8975827805ab514fe7e2aa610942
75b5a5fc8e20283875449be008ce45d57a97f52e
36258 F20101221_AABFIG matteson_a_Page_050.QC.jpg
1396f6fe5a909b4063ca053ba5d50601
744a20f488b2c7fd6498879bed575dd28eaef7c8
832 F20101221_AABFHR matteson_a_Page_107.txt
365c22413add26719773d5e5057c19b2
f941bc97da8b7f43427e64def65725a4fcdff668
8183 F20101221_AABFIH matteson_a_Page_014thm.jpg
77773e20d84cab0d5c0ad091c9b1e7cc
f84bcc7da471964bc89989a106049905a7b68fad
774 F20101221_AABFHS matteson_a_Page_108.txt
62c7db2c3fdf6a5ba68cff1cfd7bc80c
ea0a73d9fb1452294f50e249ac3f90903ad28a50
630 F20101221_AABFHT matteson_a_Page_109.txt
f4f51282afe91703d7afdfa9a4f82d1f
84291df95d91a0ae61abbc8543784f9e634ec6bb
34839 F20101221_AABFII matteson_a_Page_015.QC.jpg
26c3ec87d4a2bf2002d5f46e27798c21
0db22fa053188c332cf403f7350c36594d486cf4
2449 F20101221_AABFHU matteson_a_Page_110.txt
d005636808d06d4caa314333481ec944
4d05d9fcca4b327a145b66a5cc9f7c24a984e626
7783 F20101221_AABFIJ matteson_a_Page_009thm.jpg
970057d30412e8dc61550d39726a6e24
5c096fbf140a939835a8a66ab3a47e3bb675299a
2522 F20101221_AABFHV matteson_a_Page_111.txt
f3b6c5dbb255c1a0355037b5723c0698
644657a9caff2cb6750afdbebb91d88c9999935a
10217 F20101221_AABFIK matteson_a_Page_104.QC.jpg
fd1048f9fb350bb0385d8d1ae76830cc
f5819394ce596b45491c421e8a18a3b2289681c3
2720 F20101221_AABFHW matteson_a_Page_112.txt
cfd9593e964be787e520e7b41ed96d5a
58d1742d54ed7e980061838ce777938e15417995
27545 F20101221_AABFJA matteson_a_Page_088.QC.jpg
25e778fdbcf8d0d6f71cd633d05e9bec
6eb20740935fbf78691225ab22f3be4968c46107
37039 F20101221_AABFIL matteson_a_Page_036.QC.jpg
1e904694b5b849cc3efa369662a125b2
01799f0463e0e50e3a352b53f3814d6ffd107eab
2541 F20101221_AABFHX matteson_a_Page_113.txt
e0cedf97ee4fde281d70705b84000da8
a829ccfe5723649d9c67329c725825618a333e86
179259 F20101221_AABFJB UFE0022128_00001.xml FULL
82c2932885b2fb1a51d2eb4122431e8c
ff373731659309e3fc55b55a40fa90a35c35c5fb
8609 F20101221_AABFIM matteson_a_Page_043thm.jpg
8c22410491a4c511206a336c202b8c81
6cb0ed3420e70dddfddd698656c1011794f9f2c1
2511 F20101221_AABFHY matteson_a_Page_114.txt
2d54cdeda51aaf8a00369ab0531280c4
051b9c7e66ad61863ed9550eedd17e8fcb8e0395
9654 F20101221_AABFJC matteson_a_Page_001.QC.jpg
2097070839c37df81f28294ee405fce7
fadd45bc533009df150045568ed42df84d5befd8
3963 F20101221_AABFIN matteson_a_Page_008thm.jpg
74aca9e0098afac42e18d78a7b321fe8
5ff55499563e5ec10c7fa0bdf50b081086cdebc2
2551 F20101221_AABFHZ matteson_a_Page_115.txt
6c0ce14e4abb74ef37a5279c6711360a
c33a9fa0de78995e562043bce1b35a02ba0da37d
1466 F20101221_AABFJD matteson_a_Page_002.QC.jpg
620701803f9a7f83740aacda48a96376
8a739fddf5251ef6124f9097c973f0c034015505
36229 F20101221_AABFIO matteson_a_Page_111.QC.jpg
c99fa3bb6719b28c18a12b9385c3ebb9
4d8537188d5e6ebc9d257396557b4a48d774c994
549 F20101221_AABFJE matteson_a_Page_002thm.jpg
4b45bec4aaca3836c39a6f0ee812744f
ba4003bd78fe2796e6b51f981bdb2d5b4475b916
8939 F20101221_AABFIP matteson_a_Page_050thm.jpg
35096f824ba676da6ed008173456a938
6d164473b5a0f81e34a0562d24f16166f851b88c
2977 F20101221_AABFJF matteson_a_Page_003.QC.jpg
373ca93eab564be7ebf4137066feac9b
f468ece11cc76e28fc2e4ea58463156a6c63ba6d
2290 F20101221_AABFIQ matteson_a_Page_094thm.jpg
5cf74940f3f2d3adeb6fe00fea51579e
38d85cac268238c6c578a9f9edd169ebabdcc604
907 F20101221_AABFJG matteson_a_Page_003thm.jpg
e24aca958864395f30c4891d9fe6e121
86e7dd77d611434949ec6d669b9b35e09ac32160
9077 F20101221_AABFIR matteson_a_Page_044thm.jpg
70c761a7efc8bbdd794b34b1dfc1d0ef
0874df9152b9b02f4f7b0226c6edf498f8ccd753
20341 F20101221_AABFJH matteson_a_Page_004.QC.jpg
aec51857828b0bac76a124ce6bbbe717
3ff0086b680f541f4eb4248c4fc95648d67e5a97
9141 F20101221_AABFIS matteson_a_Page_024thm.jpg
c9aa5c215e7866a6c77d0394ed695862
43a02e6f856b4789739922a56f6899eadc103499
5166 F20101221_AABFJI matteson_a_Page_004thm.jpg
1d2b4ba8f56f26870005628264e0325f
3da9a138a7fadebe4216a34d74d4ff187a938f95
30642 F20101221_AABFIT matteson_a_Page_117.QC.jpg
8ff606e584f6149beb2d4844d75558f0
b18f5beaa67786732e1cb6f2a2f14531223c277b
8964 F20101221_AABFIU matteson_a_Page_096.QC.jpg
74164ab77296e1dc7d92ca08047565d9
1d564a57c7d5639bb9028413e7d249f3bc591c8a
24322 F20101221_AABFJJ matteson_a_Page_005.QC.jpg
52d1766b8358ec2717ffbabb22b01471
62f76e70c7e721ae87bfa79d4cda9314e5bd8690
9131 F20101221_AABFIV matteson_a_Page_049thm.jpg
8d5a6c91538bc000750530317e5b3b6d
b4c1b7b5a8ba316bec678a4b7ddad25b622872ee
6274 F20101221_AABFJK matteson_a_Page_005thm.jpg
e85942ea2adea0a3df234dc56b639046
8053fd67a82f3b2d2b67b8b6daad2d08d0b06372
8859 F20101221_AABFIW matteson_a_Page_072thm.jpg
50046fc4ae2df2239b6e536ee44ed7cc
be6ac486822bdc367f24ea97753d1ab58e798fa1
5708 F20101221_AABFJL matteson_a_Page_006.QC.jpg
32bc7c43f592c291570fd13dfe99c2f0
4c29aa9be4e9913da7eb4fe44113c13773810594
9151 F20101221_AABFIX matteson_a_Page_116thm.jpg
6724f7e500e92760aad704b5711bf599
3cef0076674afc4ff8193fe72f2811e5dd69932e
27911 F20101221_AABFKA matteson_a_Page_016.QC.jpg
40db46d6d58864e79de734ebda237e0b
3a512d9a25b822a721e9eaef2d55b7dda84ae1ed
1526 F20101221_AABFJM matteson_a_Page_006thm.jpg
352abd139b86ecb174e7e432ab668731
d87be95d169b591dc67d20fd1116ff83893d1d75
37343 F20101221_AABFIY matteson_a_Page_048.QC.jpg
789bf02c94819114043750c64c47889b
6e9bc0ab690853fc0315751bcda9613ff567b53b
6699 F20101221_AABFKB matteson_a_Page_016thm.jpg
f92d5369f0a90b09c3b8778dd788c4a0
5bc86cd6c04e39dc0e7dde99b065851649c0cabb
24542 F20101221_AABFJN matteson_a_Page_007.QC.jpg
82a73fbda189f088f61d32c4578c1836
696a008a2004a3693d2c7fe6899d4401ef877f7b
32586 F20101221_AABFIZ matteson_a_Page_078.QC.jpg
8f454ebbb7e17c049f344ed2dd38aafc
de7fa8924e1afbf19309c24c14a93ece37e5b723
38396 F20101221_AABFKC matteson_a_Page_018.QC.jpg
48f33563bc8164171b3a201796cc4993
8cc4df9178b58cdd3440f3371e02e40355ce1f7c
6336 F20101221_AABFJO matteson_a_Page_007thm.jpg
178446011a66355464c91e2451d1c394
66a1c003384f943647856fbef9058b35ec179e00
9281 F20101221_AABFKD matteson_a_Page_018thm.jpg
47aa00eaa0bc10b92176f9f5f2e0605f
4fd5952decc76d9af805b37e044fb79764f53171
16084 F20101221_AABFJP matteson_a_Page_008.QC.jpg
8b7515937842cf95d97bcbaf5c026129
96bbe384088b741439b008be7211da2fae772906
35499 F20101221_AABFKE matteson_a_Page_019.QC.jpg
af9dac71cf4d68e36f4e911ccbc8e8f9
beef0b3d65273a2428119de9a78b9cd9fd407b77
31714 F20101221_AABFJQ matteson_a_Page_009.QC.jpg
4786c7bb2aa12c1357f0f8cdab35c474
5defbb90311fc700753e088bbb118eb84e2d2dd2
8998 F20101221_AABFKF matteson_a_Page_019thm.jpg
966e8fb5f5c212107d01f48dde448d06
aef3ce9385ebfd54da92954833bb7c9f80becec0
36128 F20101221_AABFJR matteson_a_Page_010.QC.jpg
fc4e8f80dcfd92e9776092bff9829809
a5ef703af203a76bf8b2624e911b34cdfec795ca
37042 F20101221_AABFKG matteson_a_Page_020.QC.jpg
c8fa6a505c11651832d1e97fc74c4eec
fd83be3b1f4a6a49398ab4a88a031128bc8f82c2
8940 F20101221_AABFJS matteson_a_Page_010thm.jpg
d19ab296ed3683dd3786ccc0a2378ba2
26e23fce4a44d67a9a28c5886fbeab8518d457e0
8908 F20101221_AABFKH matteson_a_Page_020thm.jpg
2c98d52d6aacffe55e07673f0be43658
0eb3d454c024194e905beb796f74a0e509a995af
35968 F20101221_AABFJT matteson_a_Page_011.QC.jpg
b6af4ff78078e56b8fe4afc2084441ef
b1ada9348bfcc7c7ce0ea4fd746a0480059da24a
36190 F20101221_AABFKI matteson_a_Page_021.QC.jpg
5e5516587fe6808f740da076f0ed68c9
18ee2c9955eaae2da31dfaf3f4fd5102ba917c91
8750 F20101221_AABFJU matteson_a_Page_011thm.jpg
e2e758244ea97983de1ac18fc10844a7
6c5dc00fbe25493b5fefd07d7f21cf0b1acd07d1
8996 F20101221_AABFKJ matteson_a_Page_021thm.jpg
163a75239ca3f26b2b61668627a14772
a09ad554187c357a4cfc2c94f605b287804dc470
36515 F20101221_AABFJV matteson_a_Page_012.QC.jpg
36047dec0b23abeb86349d0ab3792de7
8b173c25554162c8d760287987331c0be09f6a79
9012 F20101221_AABFJW matteson_a_Page_012thm.jpg
4326f2c6f58ea9c96d383c9793ed771b
1ba55acd9a924ba685a663db0010d34a228cb225
35466 F20101221_AABFKK matteson_a_Page_022.QC.jpg
b894371b8a506b875ea2d250d14e1196
0760aeca785dea381447642ce101bc3f27c64fb8
36071 F20101221_AABFJX matteson_a_Page_013.QC.jpg
5f1a30e0ff9a0a4f5056e04c476c533e
02a0f2383c8778a4366e679dd6ef389a313ea3cb
9070 F20101221_AABFLA matteson_a_Page_030thm.jpg
c4706f5a5815327ee31d3611d8628dbd
a29c66bc7774b64981e507cca34ffd108249cad8
8551 F20101221_AABFKL matteson_a_Page_022thm.jpg
19741e939045ad47a47330c35e874a9e
cb4d995aa64fea5254303065049fcc07e6d8b1fc
8937 F20101221_AABFJY matteson_a_Page_013thm.jpg
71b661693dc3d77d424daa9eac3d5716
5e8c73213e4ea87401ab2424da8cf2f609b57a21
35391 F20101221_AABFLB matteson_a_Page_031.QC.jpg
29d4c4a042f353235b3c1d71b72ea6d9
cfe064d5dbc617c11f2cc220bb48b516fabe8789
34815 F20101221_AABFKM matteson_a_Page_023.QC.jpg
6c12aaac899cfd8a2f26d0cc20334d29
16bf0f82385134f14988a3765fcb011fbbf74c5f
33522 F20101221_AABFJZ matteson_a_Page_014.QC.jpg
b672416c62f90da095630e22aaaa2883
9bee679e4723ec5d304f002c1f576d344eae9bdb
8608 F20101221_AABFLC matteson_a_Page_031thm.jpg
5a7dce1f41502f6af023d8eca964e849
1a53e6ef9652f841e0caf2490be8c7aaf14daa4a
8581 F20101221_AABFKN matteson_a_Page_023thm.jpg
7c2dfc838387fb775f0cd08f921c4189
f81ab4e4b56c636b4dc1d4f6600286520a9d087c
34340 F20101221_AABFLD matteson_a_Page_032.QC.jpg
adb79cb8aee0ce4a2751467b2473f8bb
ce0bc1c9f6efcdeff11a44232551ab97cc94dfbf
37883 F20101221_AABFKO matteson_a_Page_024.QC.jpg
f40bd7e2e88636152c8b287a8b00ea80
0827cb259e560c4e103281ae499c409ac189d057
8694 F20101221_AABFLE matteson_a_Page_032thm.jpg
7f458a974c46374003713c53bf2b4eb1
81cca8e494ba7c7ff17690f83bec06a05d40cbf0
35808 F20101221_AABFKP matteson_a_Page_025.QC.jpg
8aee339bf0c44bee659d4f87fa806932
c3c985e246722155baf41b2745b460b38784bbda
35698 F20101221_AABFLF matteson_a_Page_033.QC.jpg
0a8baec13edec18156dbc5ec796159ef
d35383dbc408a3105966b84f0992040d812ac0a9
8748 F20101221_AABFKQ matteson_a_Page_025thm.jpg
56429223cc52f90fb0928d8fc3b6a7a7
028f4be8d84475ca125bce9e13ebcc7549a70699
9063 F20101221_AABFLG matteson_a_Page_033thm.jpg
b90d7c083e7afba2666218b3cefa3cb4
9cbc4e2c3c2d040b21f49835479c21c971ebfca0
36252 F20101221_AABFKR matteson_a_Page_026.QC.jpg
6db33217738815108763e69c6eb84935
ea12e9a3f059a694ff2dd1cf329f24d95436a3ca
35536 F20101221_AABFLH matteson_a_Page_034.QC.jpg
0ca0aeeca0af9b12fba72980aa1a04dc
847f8930bcff78cb5b4b8102fdafe892088dffb3
8779 F20101221_AABFKS matteson_a_Page_026thm.jpg
c82f0e8eaf43ce9617e99697a2c11572
f72b495bae1890174cf12401807b05eb7e99a985
8784 F20101221_AABFLI matteson_a_Page_034thm.jpg
8793be78ba83801d0a0a93ce82c0da9f
38ee1973836bf3cb72a22ba3fa24b9dfd48702b0
35512 F20101221_AABFKT matteson_a_Page_027.QC.jpg
efd0e7a413e925b997b33cf2f1786356
9e56b0ead8e928ce512c8836df8a0db14dbb66f4
35600 F20101221_AABFLJ matteson_a_Page_035.QC.jpg
8c3555377334f4b6c2bfb1fadea85451
aabcf42ed6f94de65eb62e1e6428ce425525a985
8878 F20101221_AABFKU matteson_a_Page_027thm.jpg
6511a0a9734aae4992ce3342c0443c5e
f102b5daeccd5ad9d037fa5143f98c4ccd57f94c
8639 F20101221_AABFLK matteson_a_Page_035thm.jpg
c7e5eb6d7085504bef5f875756d94170
d6c8ab09f5dabfb8b22a20fc81b40c2bb33c29b0
37077 F20101221_AABFKV matteson_a_Page_028.QC.jpg
9c5db363430a094e2c1ab79e5e7cf179
1f9d31912dbe17b5c3a48fc5b8dc98261a7b227b
9116 F20101221_AABFKW matteson_a_Page_028thm.jpg
21b74b12737bb6186cc72b03cab63fe9
805aae356a764a09353cb684f756f3cb985952f1
8994 F20101221_AABFMA matteson_a_Page_045thm.jpg
78d90b4505f75f2ae6d6519ab5684ac0
09e60db0c592c133be82d1acdd8c644f48c17ccc
9186 F20101221_AABFLL matteson_a_Page_036thm.jpg
c07986e3342492bc52d1daa7db38ba9a
8acb126efdc68de12c0dce0552e38502c76c064f
34824 F20101221_AABFKX matteson_a_Page_029.QC.jpg
9522163f591581ed45ee3cfe09f82727
0e8b5e6705fbb93d266456c90a8aa8e1baa6cefa
36763 F20101221_AABFLM matteson_a_Page_037.QC.jpg
55bb5900a78f55837cad1b9a99d68a8a
b25f5da4aed37c9426ae3e20b9cf2f2867442449
8684 F20101221_AABFKY matteson_a_Page_029thm.jpg
1c4f0bfc658d648114edf27b9125d101
3726b3305d07b8f9e9f8b2d172e1b62a6ecdeb5b
37972 F20101221_AABFMB matteson_a_Page_046.QC.jpg
dc52c55269e20b6217301ff337760910
58962231778ed31196cb3879f957de506dc16283
9135 F20101221_AABFLN matteson_a_Page_037thm.jpg
0ca6e5219cff1f810dab8d59af0644cc
3ad740c567a2251af2e26f2502aa9577c6d1cc88
35541 F20101221_AABFKZ matteson_a_Page_030.QC.jpg
f3b686d1b89614723eb16b243e2ab95b
706cca0a92dd27ec55a1a808a8b198d977bd084e
9027 F20101221_AABFMC matteson_a_Page_046thm.jpg
d80b644b0b59cb6a110f998f1c3e250b
eecf5be2ca7ac23b8f01cc8069380227d40116ae
36512 F20101221_AABFLO matteson_a_Page_038.QC.jpg
620da913d86b8567debbc2725179ba02
9e448d6471c63eb6ae0c43ad47016239285590e9
36609 F20101221_AABFMD matteson_a_Page_047.QC.jpg
a8a2b212d21202e2bbb0b93da3a0febc
f6f18c778188db4f507dbcb3c18c5e196de6dce8
9121 F20101221_AABFLP matteson_a_Page_038thm.jpg
2940e31758dc6d5095d4ccf02ac22fef
cae4e8db474bb2fcc56f5593c1beeb7da81d4ca8
9066 F20101221_AABFME matteson_a_Page_047thm.jpg
2f440f649651568d10ffe07a2e3b39b9
996b1857015f32c00be4380c468882669bfe9de8
36824 F20101221_AABFLQ matteson_a_Page_039.QC.jpg
5c2712d665efe7e7b965253f91cc24c2
2003e4b65dd1be37217c5cd7cd117275349f47af
9208 F20101221_AABFMF matteson_a_Page_048thm.jpg
df02b407f8c0d14ebcc29b4660b4225a
5eb4a0048d0071b3d38722d60f7b9fd82cd69d1b
9015 F20101221_AABFLR matteson_a_Page_039thm.jpg
ab4122498031ca43833da8e18735fbe8
6dbf24cca228b18331a33d1a9e39432908f6d5e5
37198 F20101221_AABFMG matteson_a_Page_049.QC.jpg
03d487ec86db2a064e663eeb3adf51bd
1bad42b4233f45569461cdba2eeb6ee54368a13e
36312 F20101221_AABFLS matteson_a_Page_040.QC.jpg
28b528576da81507d38e6bd7b19c01b4
d1be269925c7d345d5509d9febbd7372737561bf
28940 F20101221_AABFMH matteson_a_Page_051.QC.jpg
2a68b49e7a9ad7368f0e13143c1ca5aa
4f767b539c21e37eab2d3fa7fab9960a02365e84
8863 F20101221_AABFLT matteson_a_Page_040thm.jpg
7b15b5d1387aad5835eaa378d9f15fe4
6f373ee06f80e4692c842d56777bdda513353ea8
6878 F20101221_AABFMI matteson_a_Page_051thm.jpg
0972a1dca8a844c48e90c15c43447c83
526563e3e7ce7c9c66ddb2d42e23f917385ba756
37019 F20101221_AABFLU matteson_a_Page_041.QC.jpg
4898f76e4af14068e81b0e8e994279fb
27a881d3253cc9d355a1538f275f269ce45c9044
35125 F20101221_AABFMJ matteson_a_Page_052.QC.jpg
cf3e01749878158fe8726725b2edde04
e04305be038fa39d0c6f0e23281cb60cb854b291
8855 F20101221_AABFLV matteson_a_Page_041thm.jpg
61ed762fa8aa8bdff9867a71f632e790
ed31c884ea2f9c43ee2af47573be6b9ad77ca8af
8410 F20101221_AABFMK matteson_a_Page_052thm.jpg
4994d63513e88ae8008fea2debd4f5c5
25e10f50eba2c8e563c932ec0cb8542dc9e945f3
35871 F20101221_AABFLW matteson_a_Page_042.QC.jpg
063610aeb6c423b640b33725e53d1313
df4369e4a961701a0db65806112f6b1d1907670d
36755 F20101221_AABFML matteson_a_Page_053.QC.jpg
382047aeab377ef25739dbb17cfdb86b
325b76466b6fb5eb844770dd0e3e2687a8f50264
8613 F20101221_AABFLX matteson_a_Page_042thm.jpg
0dc7559c4f685d453c9971a1eae5bd56
32d0b5241eaa5af10312e0278f625540ec2fb686
34963 F20101221_AABFNA matteson_a_Page_061.QC.jpg
c8cc29ecbc1cb4bf837dd25dcccec268
e4d779fb2cade814adbc1adefed266434155c0d2
35570 F20101221_AABFLY matteson_a_Page_043.QC.jpg
8136bf51609351ffe93d60c68e62dd97
06e8225f43bb7d442dd8f8ae388b359ad27cd72e
8646 F20101221_AABFNB matteson_a_Page_061thm.jpg
e24ea57da8f5c4c14b6ee9eed8d7f202
bf07024ebbbc832e54d458b4ff5d8208fe656f32
9021 F20101221_AABFMM matteson_a_Page_053thm.jpg
74fd2033e81458c32d8b42d32b03014c
fb85ead98965a3f31bb6d87a82910bbb66be7aa6
36877 F20101221_AABFLZ matteson_a_Page_044.QC.jpg
34bb92a017c6726c8c46ac832fda2723
cbc7b0ce32dfee7c862d1aa1238f1d14c3821e3a
36233 F20101221_AABFNC matteson_a_Page_062.QC.jpg
31e2182e9c146355b665358602d904db
a3445c78866e89ee97cf14134d6c0cdf99e059d6
34443 F20101221_AABFMN matteson_a_Page_054.QC.jpg
5ec1bdd95713463ade0828d6f08acc76
db15c5945781ce15906e9d4a7b888e9aee2fbf02
8675 F20101221_AABFND matteson_a_Page_062thm.jpg
23ebeab48f42673cf63babffb67e1eb0
d06c13fa65806b54646fe1876b507db54273992a
8747 F20101221_AABFMO matteson_a_Page_054thm.jpg
2ae05550a33cb3b1916812b46d6a0c3b
68fa38053ec3e6fc12976cb88e02da6f1267286c
24381 F20101221_AABFNE matteson_a_Page_063.QC.jpg
295f12a84de8ee77d8cb5d2a1a1b080e
d938d8d9351192527fff224908ed1b37655cabd6
36976 F20101221_AABFMP matteson_a_Page_055.QC.jpg
148a42e71077f3844f2edeb348679ba8
ce5b19f989e42aa003be6d4e917a507b5a42c428
5873 F20101221_AABFNF matteson_a_Page_063thm.jpg
ba6ece9b18887d35d981a2d9bea549be
e63be666f21a41057968b8ecf4dbb2612171cc69
8952 F20101221_AABFMQ matteson_a_Page_055thm.jpg
66c3b89a68fc7e99517918fe75fae13a
e85d709c58e28821ec885772b4f2e67f8d855ae1
35252 F20101221_AABFNG matteson_a_Page_064.QC.jpg
ab9ed22a175b5ee99264d54d22ad7a00
1c66915049ee6724a5c1f25ce3cf9f2cc3b69370
35189 F20101221_AABFMR matteson_a_Page_056.QC.jpg
fbb5a7585cacf3bf30b4bf5da7ef7762
2a0b9bc87bab97e08ec194bd0fc717ecc2bc74f1
8471 F20101221_AABFNH matteson_a_Page_064thm.jpg
03e6420a18e345ae0a52b1ce1ccd9da3
f5c5ace97e0c5c081f605b1979c0b07fe186de40
8886 F20101221_AABFMS matteson_a_Page_056thm.jpg
c0f383d3c426a1ec70125dc90618dedd
8baa74282e89f16d1c2f69b79d8d50ccdd395902
35700 F20101221_AABFNI matteson_a_Page_065.QC.jpg
19c99ca071602cc89df207aea41d7620
cdf85672dbbe38ed163e81da1fba14f213870089
35559 F20101221_AABFMT matteson_a_Page_057.QC.jpg
b6723f99d838020784fb904881cd2b11
a415a476c2de93c0ddffad2d1dcde22506169008
8549 F20101221_AABFNJ matteson_a_Page_065thm.jpg
d64fa24fc27b11ad1d4c32938d1b03a1
2149b1f430ee88f9aa3165b1ee39108cd5042cf1
F20101221_AABFMU matteson_a_Page_057thm.jpg
6860a12070242a32b8b70cae951116d6
7223ae994b08be3daf85ee7f6b17452be8854062
38691 F20101221_AABFNK matteson_a_Page_066.QC.jpg
bcc275073993b09b767dc3149d9315dd
0362c8e6e1e18b8d319693bd8ed5e2855411e900
35713 F20101221_AABFMV matteson_a_Page_058.QC.jpg
8fa89956bc6af54d39a4a465f6c13aca
ba39229f80cb53990f2dfd0dcefbc3ac8ce75254
9064 F20101221_AABFNL matteson_a_Page_066thm.jpg
ad2d2e474ec59aac04c3c302d1a8a305
d394c4e4870a2c7b1063d607eb5389b0895b6e67
36859 F20101221_AABFMW matteson_a_Page_059.QC.jpg
3522c35a650b3278e4733317228a8643
f45adb169f52d8de05b1feb2f82b58fe11481d32
9056 F20101221_AABFOA matteson_a_Page_074thm.jpg
7bb350babe62d1d9eb315b6d05fa2245
a4c2749de8baae9f2dfe24547e6c49c3d850be34
35694 F20101221_AABFNM matteson_a_Page_067.QC.jpg
55abba77be35df725b96699dde00a6ed
73f4e5fabe4d7b05a5cacf496b19996a7ecd2b59
9189 F20101221_AABFMX matteson_a_Page_059thm.jpg
8c26181d2f953e3020beb53ba86bc915
267e27873c25edf8946da606a532862553afecda
23021 F20101221_AABFOB matteson_a_Page_075.QC.jpg
0af835d96732014b2a0062a1b8646c57
421a97351e6247350d309533115a7dc4dd741cb4
35130 F20101221_AABFMY matteson_a_Page_060.QC.jpg
c955d6d779768708ea302e6816ec1247
46d731745b0229999deb8ef66eacfbb32980db01
5595 F20101221_AABFOC matteson_a_Page_075thm.jpg
c7d7beac4e202ef38098c239662a41bc
eb6d4db48a2f2025a1726a4cba0acfb9b438e5bf
F20101221_AABFNN matteson_a_Page_067thm.jpg
c25c4f932633d385052df05938569097
51ec4dced624483148a7b68ba3b20754c28b5971
8907 F20101221_AABFMZ matteson_a_Page_060thm.jpg
d9f9dca4b325f252d8626fe89ba01b97
971a790a4d69b6d1fc852fb1af546293b48efdba
34919 F20101221_AABFOD matteson_a_Page_076.QC.jpg
6c4abc8757aa294f143628a84fcf865d
d107c879f88fdb9a765db9f6d12375c1ba776a9b
32830 F20101221_AABFNO matteson_a_Page_068.QC.jpg
f7dfb704a624522ef40fecc60a624f43
d261e49e2153651963f1da453e8e05de3bda4521
2124 F20101221_AABELC matteson_a_Page_074.txt
d872217e29d53635440943c7023d7286
eaeda7d2297153d081a04475067093c41ad0dfa2
8591 F20101221_AABFOE matteson_a_Page_076thm.jpg
f6cac609f54c87bfa1bb835302dfaa6c
6a0635dd04ed29a865db79b4e7200ba5ef65f1c4
8544 F20101221_AABFNP matteson_a_Page_068thm.jpg
77c1a96728422ceda6bf895dbff36318
db983a45e4bb3ec0823e3247e107a1e7a8c68a51
F20101221_AABELD matteson_a_Page_007.jp2
4d524b046046622df56ef2dd94c0e267
b1893fa577c5ecaba413e48cbf5a5934ed40de19
35135 F20101221_AABFOF matteson_a_Page_077.QC.jpg
0eaae7a6e704a5497a647bf7624a2c7f
945e920954e35d0271e9a88026f3396919f0a615
34799 F20101221_AABFNQ matteson_a_Page_069.QC.jpg
8dade3e95e9e28563e8c53d49c6b0c73
8755bd0f25e3d3194f41345ea7cfe94b24312d43
52291 F20101221_AABELE matteson_a_Page_015.pro
1b5c9ab10393ea03bfdf9719c86cc721
b6a876ef97596365bd6de36b56a60219611c71de
8630 F20101221_AABFOG matteson_a_Page_077thm.jpg
c414b83147dd83852fdcb04cb6d59473
3dcc29093bf90141bc1552fb539a9f7be173f2a6
8900 F20101221_AABFNR matteson_a_Page_069thm.jpg
39f7bb921e059e92420b186f168f3bed
6cf61e6adffac8948e5e381f8191e2cafa042ea7
1308 F20101221_AABELF matteson_a_Page_075.txt
c42248e9ac2e354cac540bad0725f36c
37f6aa0c6c9206cd28c7c7388db3f477bdec6f22
8088 F20101221_AABFOH matteson_a_Page_078thm.jpg
d36d9b99af482595cde7c5e458b8c41a
c43f740d03806bb22b95d0cde555c479809a1d29
37590 F20101221_AABFNS matteson_a_Page_070.QC.jpg
753b174ca3347ef710bc70e3c134cb43
4d6bfb42cb63685b774b2bc71df3eebd8b31b52c
33194 F20101221_AABELG matteson_a_Page_091.jpg
5dc35ef3a354af95919c1727e331216b
3f61695963ad64d00edf1dc3adedc85a3e801c8c
34195 F20101221_AABFOI matteson_a_Page_079.QC.jpg
dbbf8c1283bd4cb0a1fbd2a428c21d0b
94fe684e60274513d1e5de0ac00f926e53ec6513
9347 F20101221_AABFNT matteson_a_Page_070thm.jpg
b27b58e651a19fafa2f033e5d582b124
8aa41463d08bc1468dc81c426aab964a8190e85d
F20101221_AABELH matteson_a_Page_058thm.jpg
26ef15b967522d3527be4528e7b26858
e6c63e363a87c097518fb58a9661e0c4ba89adc1
8179 F20101221_AABFOJ matteson_a_Page_079thm.jpg
056c1b2125a69c38dc827c5a1effb486
110fb2aeba5b1c455465f23bffae904497d4609d
36853 F20101221_AABFNU matteson_a_Page_071.QC.jpg
dfd955a8af42eb6ce13bf46af47f59b4
354d107c449e52552e31b99fd8ffb427be3b8c31
1051972 F20101221_AABELI matteson_a_Page_017.jp2
b2d8c891a871ad78fb38c370bfba3864
8e329ce797f3f69e742aa4b7f49ecc02bf4cc2da
36058 F20101221_AABFOK matteson_a_Page_080.QC.jpg
d69483b37aadec85f63bd568734d7034
e5f00908d4aff6095326921eed492d5684a71cb1
9122 F20101221_AABFNV matteson_a_Page_071thm.jpg
97e8d6285c3d0ae4c1f5bdc6f9eb4121
0710c9fb0ddbba01e7a4e97efe30e653f9a89759
F20101221_AABELJ matteson_a_Page_032.tif
a7cf218d86936b025aaa53afb7fdc0ef
b9d9df71223c93cd8a8d9b367cd999b0472e8eb1
8915 F20101221_AABFOL matteson_a_Page_080thm.jpg
4cc4fe69cd126365ceb202db4678aaa0
e50067d8ab661076c441e2eb7809a7d8fbc9d8f6
35308 F20101221_AABFNW matteson_a_Page_072.QC.jpg
f5d04d3ac45477e038dc392b1cd6da43
40ff533badca7b9455e54b5fc79ccb68754de0a8
23600 F20101221_AABELK matteson_a_Page_008.pro
616508ceb9dc0b34a531511960d17648
03f8728c24e477b0087f20c89f3305ead7e170f4
35312 F20101221_AABFOM matteson_a_Page_081.QC.jpg
17a6de81357d107643948f850de2fe0b
b8124ff101beb4263efa8f7d428cff180ad94d41
37076 F20101221_AABFNX matteson_a_Page_073.QC.jpg
686c5d030e428b95428751387484a4cd
58cfcc405ca2f20a050a6140bb420412df0fd966
6736 F20101221_AABFPA matteson_a_Page_088thm.jpg
4233e1fb4bcbd97ca917f0d7abcde0cd
a8ec0dca52f735c9a55fe39df51e057f32ee0f81
F20101221_AABELL matteson_a_Page_098.tif
e9f59bd1867be1812617bc535cd46cb2
2b897e6d411d4367a3a6c8e4a7f647860f0e06b7
8729 F20101221_AABFON matteson_a_Page_081thm.jpg
97f38e582567a2758d6bf5b547c07a48
07c50e6a60b5dd27f11260254ea9db5ba56d3389
9076 F20101221_AABFNY matteson_a_Page_073thm.jpg
66c381911f4391f2c1d3516e1edde7f0
825a573220d05292298858d997e7904c88cdf46d
21495 F20101221_AABFPB matteson_a_Page_089.QC.jpg
f71750ad07ed16e1b5d6389a9ff1577c
40e00cdece19a3b63028332015fe7142db743c62
36735 F20101221_AABFNZ matteson_a_Page_074.QC.jpg
bbc1f610a639f647eea0121092312d10
7001ee3a0f14cc5b9d19c1ff6a6d0b7c2b963741
138510 F20101221_AABEMA UFE0022128_00001.mets
b36fdff869ad2eb7b33efed2df4dbc25
da513f9a5ac5cb48b2516437f6c21b781c2174f7
5553 F20101221_AABFPC matteson_a_Page_089thm.jpg
dad3b494f85e12fad51add8eae5d01d5
8464a5615b4452fa8a3e41333aa517e8eefcafbf
110198 F20101221_AABELM matteson_a_Page_033.jpg
8eaf415af986aceb560e0d73474300b1
a151c940ca0714eb8f5a895fcde12e34e1db1966
36808 F20101221_AABFOO matteson_a_Page_082.QC.jpg
f935d9079eb2c150588093cebd8f8e19
d2176707959549dd1c9396ac6d873fa63ef69a55
15253 F20101221_AABFPD matteson_a_Page_090.QC.jpg
d6fbc441ddb097807593c9ac7c7be40b
26b0eb56066f16b92388f12ef688b4b0e8c9790f
36041 F20101221_AABELN matteson_a_Page_045.QC.jpg
6545b28ceb01baa6b7a888fe945f1f08
c3a7cf7c2ad7b2b1b858c283c579314a1f06e9cb
9098 F20101221_AABFOP matteson_a_Page_082thm.jpg
f561e6922973fc12af6610400e7ff041
43f706ba3c0fdc6df09bf454a809c786eab3a309
4236 F20101221_AABFPE matteson_a_Page_090thm.jpg
0f5554662262529b42cd8e8bb836234d
0d5cda5a730c8d185528c4cf9446ed0af961539d
35779 F20101221_AABFOQ matteson_a_Page_083.QC.jpg
d1052dd1883bafc2716426a5ab7bbaf6
59cdc4504edfbf5cf6ca413e845b2581a1e30cf8
32530 F20101221_AABEMD matteson_a_Page_001.jpg
f84cb173aca7a198e0f444dd9639adeb
ca61d343492b9264de835cdb4e647f1bbbdce175
9336 F20101221_AABFPF matteson_a_Page_091.QC.jpg
7f42ab91338dc0a143559d56c63da6f3
34884c41af76146e80dba5fd2128b24394b50db5
F20101221_AABELO matteson_a_Page_113.tif
17db8a905673b748f443d20ff8b71841
12663f5809534b2169d2152c9373898023b5a9ff
8961 F20101221_AABFOR matteson_a_Page_083thm.jpg
07083290ab83475b8b6b0fd78a5b2589
4efc685fccdb97eeaf5472eb1852b60a5f34b484
4122 F20101221_AABEME matteson_a_Page_002.jpg
a77195b115d2fac4278ed816a6310a82
f90d010c3198e4931aca6e9c6dc8e7f94b67dcaf
2584 F20101221_AABFPG matteson_a_Page_091thm.jpg
b981dda9eb0df16ba2d4d3760e3e9187
4b28b4e067024f107ee2d12f9e01fd38c7e708a4
907966 F20101221_AABELP matteson_a_Page_089.jp2
4e20912318c0e4cb62ddc17f9f9c8d8f
413776feb988a5761038de501a723cdcb6f0427e
27988 F20101221_AABFOS matteson_a_Page_084.QC.jpg
52c7432d85fdc916a5cbe1d3969ad796
490e318e41c79331256381fcd13c4af8113faebb
7713 F20101221_AABEMF matteson_a_Page_003.jpg
408db5d441551803c53a38aba3783437
107d365cbdd96ff985a5deb6412d273f6273be6c
9441 F20101221_AABFPH matteson_a_Page_092.QC.jpg
a650b764b23906e3f57d22ec4fc6d926
65494cece553af3d93b44baa04e864775b264f92
61947 F20101221_AABELQ matteson_a_Page_086.pro
e48c9e0d98021eb7fe28124cab2f49f5
fbb6e94d4cda315f291d824b090b948dd6c31a0f
2948 F20101221_AABFPI matteson_a_Page_092thm.jpg
ddb2ea99f8132c58567e380521a3e8bc
c9229c52f5445e2683fcc726c6d0dace302a5cad
6915 F20101221_AABFOT matteson_a_Page_084thm.jpg
df823a07895b8b2744369cd7abb0d16a
dd69a17a49a458ed73380553b4ed7358a2122b3e
63616 F20101221_AABEMG matteson_a_Page_004.jpg
9b000f5dd7df315a94b9dbd824828af3
55c7e01c75fe38b299ecf21e72f88bc1d714b102
F20101221_AABELR matteson_a_Page_100thm.jpg
41a1e7cf7b555eb57fd26ccf8c62be81
5fac274cbe52735cdd50798f621c9a74eb31bf91
9276 F20101221_AABFPJ matteson_a_Page_093.QC.jpg
83e8c3fa02a6fcf8e1f3ae5b78f9fd29
57b8cc76e83b11dfe26073491ca7c0786bcba724
10335 F20101221_AABFOU matteson_a_Page_085.QC.jpg
1f3f40f62ceba56549bc294f31ca397f
c7b2047a1bcab48928b4ceec105be140c450636e
105011 F20101221_AABEMH matteson_a_Page_005.jpg
6b8a5ea5be9b5418dfa7078e4aedabab
b2ca27f6a7ff475be361db4c06182f832925235d
79954 F20101221_AABELS matteson_a_Page_003.jp2
db248dca7f0976b12db3d4939081f505
35561ee463660048f603e4c4770525e03a2d7edf
2967 F20101221_AABFPK matteson_a_Page_093thm.jpg
8f0a305d8f973411b88f990b08401928
94faa70654381cb06fe357e470684748550ed3c1
2957 F20101221_AABFOV matteson_a_Page_085thm.jpg
c4f49e48f97edfc876b63e9dbdcc1152
421b292799baf86671ce83d43c965a7c032e611c
20645 F20101221_AABEMI matteson_a_Page_006.jpg
dfbf65b2418d9653b1c08c1d9c2e5892
b3e468440375333b05b108f416ac19de05480fd7
7788 F20101221_AABELT matteson_a_Page_017thm.jpg
2ac92fac00d036f0594e47e56380a863
0d879a50b4c44f2d12302cc9f9cab930b293e3d5
8539 F20101221_AABFPL matteson_a_Page_094.QC.jpg
97b1ca0256218511c69ab83d70a0c2eb
5a09de7ba56f9d1d8ebf7798a36e7877090d8624
26714 F20101221_AABFOW matteson_a_Page_086.QC.jpg
c518dd5764706eac33207856ac453f98
f7a7ff081c26a3d6773ece7b205e5bf2abb42e1b
87851 F20101221_AABEMJ matteson_a_Page_007.jpg
92b94d9707bc8b2e2a0715b1623ba0b0
07d6f062cf656ae0071dce635e338baeeae57280
F20101221_AABELU matteson_a_Page_059.txt
32217b404fb5b291db9b237be727103c
2035d36a3aea8134e7712240f86d5a977709e127
16598 F20101221_AABFQA matteson_a_Page_103.QC.jpg
bb1367962e209e393d5aeb4486d156e9
25eb3892286f192d805f33820a91f4b8be09901c
8610 F20101221_AABFPM matteson_a_Page_095.QC.jpg
8f029e5a3a27f3deec9ae6c45c810ee4
77dba51eede8bd3d0fbdf4e46161e449ef4291d2
6555 F20101221_AABFOX matteson_a_Page_086thm.jpg
3290b108c16beb378d1b77333370c710
b0c190733004e85825167f909823ac7dd20f07d6
52202 F20101221_AABEMK matteson_a_Page_008.jpg
ce262a6edbb39ba5cec1151f2f2ec4dd
15258a4837d45657fa7072d25187a6a001f1d4d7
2150 F20101221_AABELV matteson_a_Page_038.txt
78ef9d467f494bb9dec9126f2ab8bd0a
5ae94b13cb639de04ce5f6aae07c3f8f7892c29c
4585 F20101221_AABFQB matteson_a_Page_103thm.jpg
aa7ba53abf6dbbe29f8695aee9d119a1
668944509393d7466d4320d750f400b0bf74b97a
2326 F20101221_AABFPN matteson_a_Page_095thm.jpg
88b264abb281f8da8e7da925e17e840b
66620b5bb16811bb92b89065c51d389ba4e10c4d
25830 F20101221_AABFOY matteson_a_Page_087.QC.jpg
3fa414faba3441b2b1154bea72518e19
07012d68d10b5f2f55363e5b3d0ef6865cb48aae
103321 F20101221_AABEML matteson_a_Page_009.jpg
76e516b0af685c6f283351bf6032d68d
1b611b66eb3388fe66cac651c939a36d8d7b276a
2014 F20101221_AABELW matteson_a_Page_014.txt
b75d4a494fb9f8a058a8f09737bd9822
84df02096b11605838dd457b0f7a40065e83585c
2993 F20101221_AABFQC matteson_a_Page_104thm.jpg
de979556860be015c034ff598ab6babb
681b3f02b5064d798516b789625a7dceed0ad5a0
2298 F20101221_AABFPO matteson_a_Page_096thm.jpg
df0925854c2bc76107c3a3457984b79d
4f6a6d439bfd3a2e11c8400647255349e8a483f1
116349 F20101221_AABENA matteson_a_Page_024.jpg
292428e19c6261cf2d075dd83daf26e6
0548782eda9d7db9e6ef2bc6c349ebd559811ead
111606 F20101221_AABEMM matteson_a_Page_010.jpg
5299911304dffa7b4754638f752979ee
cb243e6272ab43f273b02dc98fc87238bebd4a24
31816 F20101221_AABELX matteson_a_Page_017.QC.jpg
63202974915936bc0d5e58f2a2c5218f
68eaf4ca557d7fbc2154a0ee939206203453c34f
6454 F20101221_AABFOZ matteson_a_Page_087thm.jpg
2a2eef4fa55e0d601f9eb7f6d84ae354
75ccf0cf12787d8c82785bf58cac9021cb95f8f8
9265 F20101221_AABFQD matteson_a_Page_105.QC.jpg
eef3190f132bfb5b9723d0ff2784b0ff
beca4670a3a132a1aecfa27cc85a38092b3d2f08
109326 F20101221_AABENB matteson_a_Page_025.jpg
769ff344b7a6de5f06e48acbf1a09851
494b7b0b1178f7c296614921f581409e9f167677
40557 F20101221_AABELY matteson_a_Page_016.pro
15de3dad2b43cd52900c1947d4a9c775
8c4355703ebd7f9b6552befe6aa0117b5a8cc170
2768 F20101221_AABFQE matteson_a_Page_105thm.jpg
81e430b63adcf66aca4dec1f2d63ee08
f7d7b674d42ff1ae40596597344763489d6c0c37
9369 F20101221_AABFPP matteson_a_Page_097.QC.jpg
5980e717b6aa0d4bd0ebd44de5587487
21a0b9700086eae9733b9f4b22ef3727e136581f
109140 F20101221_AABENC matteson_a_Page_026.jpg
c64183efe6ec6ef3784bb7cd0d827da4
8b461bd0cfab8e31c42ce889bd20330c8acb40e1
110512 F20101221_AABEMN matteson_a_Page_011.jpg
e92520aa50758f151c8c4fc89be75d16
13ad17982308a1ab1de6f80d822dab78b7b18a47
8441 F20101221_AABELZ matteson_a_Page_015thm.jpg
0939b8d3f4c3a1306e3d0827bd3ac924
aa3f32bdcd5b7ac4cbfc35cba44f438057a228dd
10261 F20101221_AABFQF matteson_a_Page_106.QC.jpg
53b6b725b864c931a3ff992b571f7c61
a0b79244a3a4d862222b4a1c5d118547094b275f
2320 F20101221_AABFPQ matteson_a_Page_097thm.jpg
915bd7ef74548a591db2175996589d0c
5b119c3d193999a2322254c6132095ac3a477ef4
111533 F20101221_AABEND matteson_a_Page_027.jpg
7b8f0246c6bbf3ecfaeb1e850504a4e8
8529e86f89b62ca988fc2218882ee6c965e97e9f
113227 F20101221_AABEMO matteson_a_Page_012.jpg
0109f5222c3425d1b18a4c02e2075a1b
97e4be007e3c2998d397d6c2db1f1adb59e64600
2995 F20101221_AABFQG matteson_a_Page_106thm.jpg
4b66e91d3e34d677d3005440cabf38a1
d354ae998f39bbed3520e8d80c1d1cf99f185311
9323 F20101221_AABFPR matteson_a_Page_098.QC.jpg
b261cf831067203f8a8092104fbcb969
95424acb685423328330887f0bd6cc3ed0aaec81
115768 F20101221_AABENE matteson_a_Page_028.jpg
cbd5acbdc140ee62b0647722f8c47ad9
7c39b5dbd1eb083a8726cc35d8cb3981be953e0a
110806 F20101221_AABEMP matteson_a_Page_013.jpg
15d050d09cd1bcc32e96fb9dcbbda59b
7baf84713ab8911f19be5bb9ef083ccb22d721cb
10225 F20101221_AABFQH matteson_a_Page_107.QC.jpg
3aa1f1f26d06ac174c0b5c32227259cd
0f478338c724be16ae7a486b4e1a3ca87404003a
2376 F20101221_AABFPS matteson_a_Page_098thm.jpg
04be63dd32805dc993afa4644e9ac3d1
39944c0f5db98e14fec3c2254c64fa9fb147578e
106446 F20101221_AABENF matteson_a_Page_029.jpg
758cf1b827db88b8f46556b64a9fff7e
d62d49a8bfe9802a31a78f7a5eefb2f80536e813
104690 F20101221_AABEMQ matteson_a_Page_014.jpg
f98bc1c3687cd3cf9c99ce6f6446fcb1
2dc9507056a331b04c5d0c65192ed44698911cfa
3010 F20101221_AABFQI matteson_a_Page_107thm.jpg
107b6b1898fe87e75830e51dcb618df9
e3ea1913c676c156d67ecea1029824a9da7fc1e4
8848 F20101221_AABFPT matteson_a_Page_099.QC.jpg
e32b80eae99835ca12368f76e18a3104
777c05e7a8c5e5006b9b361a8f4aa1f1268f6de0
110189 F20101221_AABENG matteson_a_Page_030.jpg
5a254658c613be37a8930d47b7c147d1
e239a263ee8d394ac8e91f969dbfaab745d08799
107103 F20101221_AABEMR matteson_a_Page_015.jpg
14caec2d96294a318b3675409db79b49
0d03edc3e99b5dcad4d65c89738d534f92a12f49
9213 F20101221_AABFQJ matteson_a_Page_108.QC.jpg
6cbba0c19d9319a9a9e1cb7329059494
34ba81867a74b9d66c2ce4a78f10228de4daeabf
2294 F20101221_AABFPU matteson_a_Page_099thm.jpg
ce7ff3b8c853317ade6ff93ef36b3241
4386df38447ad4925bc8200d8ae3f7a27b8eb9cc
109242 F20101221_AABENH matteson_a_Page_031.jpg
c5656e8c0c1d5f2ea8784ee3d6967138
bb76ee70c05e7ccb55e641d4fac4ebe4e87fbb0f
82701 F20101221_AABEMS matteson_a_Page_016.jpg
388ab0792104925e8404c1c84b8f2c0d
b9bf463e81a7a7359b00da3d7a15fd6a7e62f8a0
9205 F20101221_AABFQK matteson_a_Page_109.QC.jpg
3a4b5c7dfc94cc1afe6852502f251c07
985ca0eab6a1701495f904903985e73cc684fe97
1487 F20101221_AABFPV matteson_a_Page_100.QC.jpg
9ec2beb61dd77ec921dfed6b45996b3f
e04b3185280f6d6fbda4b46bac8b6f393c5bb0be
107276 F20101221_AABENI matteson_a_Page_032.jpg
a8981a48c5958616263ad4c970ff5459
bd26d57e985f61506376350c5df257eb817b3a35
99948 F20101221_AABEMT matteson_a_Page_017.jpg
8edb2fcff95851b97687c3367875fddb
54eac5ba0ee94aec84596d0254b04978c898516c
2804 F20101221_AABFQL matteson_a_Page_109thm.jpg
0327b4db413f259e09b3f4765b8fe581
9edc80e7f386f5beb6cf358d13c27304bda5a704
8364 F20101221_AABFPW matteson_a_Page_101.QC.jpg
5490ec37baaccfcc3a79107873e110f1
df35468e62ee565f70db9c616be8b6e61016a650
110090 F20101221_AABENJ matteson_a_Page_034.jpg
59f04557c0ebf14ae0b3f90d8ae40c8e
01dc11cabafd5e935eb4dec180a84439f6ac8ef7
118088 F20101221_AABEMU matteson_a_Page_018.jpg
eb40b5c75c2ebc915186b41dae90853c
a606dd23e56bdca37e9746808330d7b88e460754
4505 F20101221_AABFRA matteson_a_Page_118thm.jpg
d395fbb816acd18dd2c41556949d1710
d5f160e45c3496a41fa26af37b954fd39bc1cc33
34700 F20101221_AABFQM matteson_a_Page_110.QC.jpg
4ae6e7b9000e01f987627d71c5362c68
cfe247812df20399bd971544a692c227e27b20b9
2553 F20101221_AABFPX matteson_a_Page_101thm.jpg
cb8a74cd10cb18f99e34ba9834dfe5de
ac17fe3a2d9f7c2cde22e331dc86bd1aa5e3dbd9
108869 F20101221_AABENK matteson_a_Page_035.jpg
0e0a0cb84c54437e4392b20e55ebb97e
f02108beb1d69f35f689eab67c904785bb0f06cb
108758 F20101221_AABEMV matteson_a_Page_019.jpg
6b710cbc29903380e60a0244ee857133
4aac731b11959324681df3bb20370d88048e0bdc
8926 F20101221_AABFQN matteson_a_Page_110thm.jpg
3db33a4959ff819a531fa2fccba20ee9
aeee1d49b7009a0ce9fed0f9f17986fd0bb37b43
31822 F20101221_AABFPY matteson_a_Page_102.QC.jpg
d99b6fab3baf8d6e416086a6e7d05303
033481635d427e585b23d57d43917c222451120c
113689 F20101221_AABENL matteson_a_Page_036.jpg
49f3e7e90656f5d9c09211d226727d00
9b2028976d1e749f5e45268d4c7ec917d7fddebd
112583 F20101221_AABEMW matteson_a_Page_020.jpg
64b8fa61f6422e6e173995d99e14755e
53ae304e62f2687ac12565b6f82e15d735fbe1ab
9129 F20101221_AABFQO matteson_a_Page_111thm.jpg
dbd9f063e817c4b73ebf72c3e9ed7e43
3b16d3084c2dc8e14b82e2930c4308bae1ae391e
8021 F20101221_AABFPZ matteson_a_Page_102thm.jpg
4a97d2f3e4eb5ceabd25ee9a4cfc9ff6
f691695944ae5b2a2aeb8ae2a0026ea6d16ea8ae
113392 F20101221_AABENM matteson_a_Page_037.jpg
9ab52c5091e30350a8067557097c9e70
6540f25547b4464ab8cc8a265ba95bbba127133a
112328 F20101221_AABEMX matteson_a_Page_021.jpg
4bdecf716490dd4a194955d61551a53d
752e1d34bdacee63b3a6d1caf53dbe877e15907a
95933 F20101221_AABEOA matteson_a_Page_051.jpg
5d774210f3541b7a429c7e0fd5b2ffcf
5b185cf40fd3cb66431efb26d5a9aa5db1982c15
39099 F20101221_AABFQP matteson_a_Page_112.QC.jpg
b2dd26536c76f95fb842af3bad5e28ec
0f81be0ccfdb83cca2dfb5bc5b3ab379a3598e8a
112057 F20101221_AABENN matteson_a_Page_038.jpg
5121f0185b906405f4e27b0913f4c34a
ea784a27443b2f75c0dd6828ab9ddfd6c26af8b1
107608 F20101221_AABEMY matteson_a_Page_022.jpg
5442c0077bcb37dbf839e7094e96064b
ee544715effb151cb89df01cb502a65a5be3c970
106493 F20101221_AABEOB matteson_a_Page_052.jpg
86e4b45357258198e4f4305dd8d46703
8e4dd90f3964accccacca7e6667bfd86aa343a16
108166 F20101221_AABEMZ matteson_a_Page_023.jpg
5b4b0ce7a7ea212544fc6d16a964f3c1
179fcb9ad64a847c6308302009465a73ffdc078c
113976 F20101221_AABEOC matteson_a_Page_053.jpg
e6d9df03a47b73c7e476053023245a51
1a539f0f0dad32815508994ab69f31e9738f677a
9500 F20101221_AABFQQ matteson_a_Page_112thm.jpg
ee60361b6c376e021696de041007ce6f
a8898372ec71fbccfe4f5710cbcfd022d6c6384e
114607 F20101221_AABENO matteson_a_Page_039.jpg
8e4a78869871973c7afcc2e62927eefd
9291feb6e1f98e8706a74316c3fd8e1b8c52801b
106509 F20101221_AABEOD matteson_a_Page_054.jpg
25186989b4f08e4a4fb98db67840f8ad
c7cfcc4667a838f3f6371d3ad0a14e0b829faf29
36832 F20101221_AABFQR matteson_a_Page_113.QC.jpg
70a7bac4505f2955810eda03b9a22737
aa23f19f2315d0709f8c2824b90d696404dc76e6
111595 F20101221_AABENP matteson_a_Page_040.jpg
d8533f819cc1b0930900fde4394c30f3
d297975f755aeb387a58c4ee4efc098eeae2586b
113147 F20101221_AABEOE matteson_a_Page_055.jpg
d64e6d209ee44543e6982d39e838d4b0
1db1f2f6d5ab0ae8e9122bf6341b8e7b01d7d837
9023 F20101221_AABFQS matteson_a_Page_113thm.jpg
8c48af733caff1b3ef51442ab25cb264
975ea9feccfdd8103e14071a37eb4d47b63b3322
114835 F20101221_AABENQ matteson_a_Page_041.jpg
3675c0d0709f1c887d2e81d8083bbb08
8cdf0603ae5b042f9cdd563c737427ad9189c784
108652 F20101221_AABEOF matteson_a_Page_056.jpg
ed19f52502b2f3de99087e4543b10869
0fcdc0d3e85bc2bb3fa815d036a1b19694d5e79e
36251 F20101221_AABFQT matteson_a_Page_114.QC.jpg
5a0a14c2ae6dd9b09783e8f99270aca7
d56f28dbe0a44a87139f681bddca9069b9908266
108918 F20101221_AABENR matteson_a_Page_042.jpg
b454cd2b81af19bf4f23b4b716069d55
1445707d40178f4615ed567e1e2c922596a4107d
108945 F20101221_AABEOG matteson_a_Page_057.jpg
2c63a48098e1620544e33d757d49107e
91beff4988903581780b5e49599c7a568a52734d
8808 F20101221_AABFQU matteson_a_Page_114thm.jpg
64843ea159ee2dc58c9b9df0ac4ba863
1c2c109d1863bcc9dc8fdc6f940bed23ad999d9f
110554 F20101221_AABENS matteson_a_Page_043.jpg
6928516ce1e01d7436e0b91cced99e0c
52e94832cb67edf57afad7aa28f058ef361c7b12
109101 F20101221_AABEOH matteson_a_Page_058.jpg
59c41e56d6d69b43ffd691f2e7804b5a
ea98adcf706c09643386d63730c5a80926d112c7
36606 F20101221_AABFQV matteson_a_Page_115.QC.jpg
a26bef15ccb6eea4be5c0286de4a64dc
96f956f1a412152873d978d460cbd59cc8e5c424
113978 F20101221_AABENT matteson_a_Page_044.jpg
1d5ed5cd870a9277e2bb1e9b2381ea6b
4541cb180b6c0df869b22d751844c0c564e41550
111872 F20101221_AABEOI matteson_a_Page_059.jpg
9c32a6f3c185ee8cd6e5bc72239af5bc
bfbe7419507c15fe25c71b0e6984607fb27e6ba3
9329 F20101221_AABFQW matteson_a_Page_115thm.jpg
ef95e4dac3b2a523b9c81bd5c6762f6f
2a443900c18df7c0d1b8c4b9fad80ef6791a27c0
111143 F20101221_AABENU matteson_a_Page_045.jpg
a8fdebf48e2978994cde419906a74b11
f7fea8a8a4ae1848aa0f24fa4a6155215b71c8bc
109391 F20101221_AABEOJ matteson_a_Page_060.jpg
8d496e807abfde5bb48bf8272f207095
5b4a64a94df0dc202cb5dc9e944d28c866f39612
36145 F20101221_AABFQX matteson_a_Page_116.QC.jpg
6360f804d2011e26d33577a7431a6ab4
63c22d0a835e6fdd7d9ef75cc807467216d178d7
115643 F20101221_AABENV matteson_a_Page_046.jpg
0c6f353cc6395c2027d7e3f5f644e5dd
7593d57b32a6334782d7b7ba7414e8953f159490
106223 F20101221_AABEOK matteson_a_Page_061.jpg
ec326b9c1097c7895b595d973d05c9a7
d1e63b92f0a29328bf50de1ad2cc004ca7e52388
7569 F20101221_AABFQY matteson_a_Page_117thm.jpg
b3d9bf74710d54da99b09b5ec72114ae
4b69d022b3816f03b2372e3a53ebabf8d07e62d3
114805 F20101221_AABENW matteson_a_Page_047.jpg
dc393875810eb42e0b45dcf38e618d1e
c542991fc11dcc2a2ed1ae2ac35827711bd7c279
109552 F20101221_AABEOL matteson_a_Page_062.jpg
8d22fcf8dfe0a8fd2bfe24d1b7b2da8e
89c5830f55d688843600cd4f4e4c787e07a4e400
18973 F20101221_AABFQZ matteson_a_Page_118.QC.jpg
38384c5ab236a52c03163934452586e9
e72426d5d1259f96f195ae6240b959dc83baf59b
115189 F20101221_AABENX matteson_a_Page_048.jpg
065da0ecc7065318e846de37ab432173
3c4d8338ee156ed330f19712fdf496fb9d120e64
109591 F20101221_AABEPA matteson_a_Page_077.jpg
862fe1ee08535cd297e3da09084dc5d2
d49a4d4596c63d66ddc73f6ca33c7260177839b5
73412 F20101221_AABEOM matteson_a_Page_063.jpg
71a4cbe998df0ee3d4b03e8f1d89e2f7
2c33b2109e8fc6f89e1b0b91590b6e55a4abfb80
113918 F20101221_AABENY matteson_a_Page_049.jpg
45e13d04430abd8e5aceb1099f9e50c1
1aeec23cf2a9b814de66f30fdc0489773c6bea35
100834 F20101221_AABEPB matteson_a_Page_078.jpg
ef0d9500ad5204223952589946a65ce5
085cf1db66561b723fb896468a3dbd257a6a8b24
106868 F20101221_AABEON matteson_a_Page_064.jpg
554319bd0f1b44db608d9d78170c360e
ae0c65c09d20651a80c4d2b52216cae3484159ca
109961 F20101221_AABENZ matteson_a_Page_050.jpg
1943e9b823077446e1278a71a4001032
1409cbed90bc784fb070a72abb2b47c40f4f8207
103820 F20101221_AABEPC matteson_a_Page_079.jpg
47df548bf0a409e133a08bfd2d07a862
a34e55efb386cef86503b031c44fd4a9b5d055a6
109340 F20101221_AABEOO matteson_a_Page_065.jpg
1100e8c449d39920ccdd1fccbf70207b
172bcdaf53992aad1324096a87259971bb331683
112643 F20101221_AABEPD matteson_a_Page_080.jpg
8ba33c0874091b25a3b293efe0d62a44
31b4c2d2f349a84c031761286dee1ef0d097f1db
107587 F20101221_AABEPE matteson_a_Page_081.jpg
aaaacb5921b6593c6e1bb106159a142c
90bede7445ba3ab0a1ea85af149313cc19ea6480
115774 F20101221_AABEOP matteson_a_Page_066.jpg
d82f8efa69f119fb6425b5d9f9d2dc62
f4ad57dcf2eb303bceac8782431d89e800ddb100
113253 F20101221_AABEPF matteson_a_Page_082.jpg
718a621227437062557d6ef3831dd8a2
f0785a4dfdd0c3b6622c1817215559547621ae4c
109163 F20101221_AABEOQ matteson_a_Page_067.jpg
fb6c21955068828a3c42dd1063b06ec8
3d334cbb0401ec27915f8f70215c78121080fb58
110584 F20101221_AABEPG matteson_a_Page_083.jpg
5a90a04008331b237a450e2750b11ede
39434cfae2f76c54a443c97ea6e7e2469b2dcb54
101237 F20101221_AABEOR matteson_a_Page_068.jpg
930f03c64f8fc12b9eff0e981f427448
238f078a30c70e46933888dae7e2e844cf889b60
87795 F20101221_AABEPH matteson_a_Page_084.jpg
d9fd59fc2bc55ed04cf9c85c99dc0a74
56cd8624f8431276c8005f51f82256bef2281127
106028 F20101221_AABEOS matteson_a_Page_069.jpg
8506191b7b0f67a792353ae899e9a6f3
56cd9e20ffbd11e592adaa56b53cbd5f4f605dd6
34630 F20101221_AABEPI matteson_a_Page_085.jpg
942bf603c06fefe2de6c9a976e3fe95c
8e63c25e1dd308df53b459952ac5b798a9574baf
110481 F20101221_AABEOT matteson_a_Page_070.jpg
cab4714aa54c824ffb98072e701836ec
1b5b029d52ca05e6c8e1e568d3a560c7982bf2b8
95747 F20101221_AABEPJ matteson_a_Page_086.jpg
6292219fcd2accea2bd32aa8eb50ab28
78a5bdab42b84e0770f11babf45e8a8567655052
113380 F20101221_AABEOU matteson_a_Page_071.jpg
94b64ff7ceed769e694ea9fe5c187c1d
ac71584d56635b35b24cf8b5ee2330d2dd162b06
98047 F20101221_AABEPK matteson_a_Page_087.jpg
3e7817806d2b4645a8a381567f8f8e26
5196ab9c6d54828e54ee0c893c2ccb7974948f4e
108056 F20101221_AABEOV matteson_a_Page_072.jpg
45a4b3e598983c914311cece7d3d13e0
44c288f452d3f707baf8d1577acef1af98c3a132
102189 F20101221_AABEPL matteson_a_Page_088.jpg
39a1d0d3c322b1180fc73a009fdd2572
794fcfcfea1505fd410b77c5fe035f9b19e9cc44
112517 F20101221_AABEOW matteson_a_Page_073.jpg
a2c5dd2076927d2e29b5a02727eb152f
e2c1d2d0c8f8d39b2801669a8a273ba3532d3cdf
29378 F20101221_AABEQA matteson_a_Page_104.jpg
16e605bf7f7db2048f5c7b51eee72186
0052664a513061c060dcb399d829552ca46543e1
78691 F20101221_AABEPM matteson_a_Page_089.jpg
7e888a033d5097e9aa869257515a9f6d
0627bfdcd4bbf30e7db277697eec30de48ba7b1a
111450 F20101221_AABEOX matteson_a_Page_074.jpg
7223debe4b66df4516fd2526010a2455
28525c0593014e5f3736a4f218ae1a5cb5775208
28440 F20101221_AABEQB matteson_a_Page_105.jpg
fa3fa159c42be9058427b0e6eca5905f
192209a311d22f7cfeee5685df3341752bab041a
56218 F20101221_AABEPN matteson_a_Page_090.jpg
fd45974cc393da50ee8d5e36332fb651
46bc13a83bbc2508ea76e486a2a2729aa9c8a94c
70066 F20101221_AABEOY matteson_a_Page_075.jpg
a9efa4d9512b6a885ee9619e709db4d0
a2e9720be2381b2ba158f2a42b9bfa6b9dfba11c
30365 F20101221_AABEQC matteson_a_Page_106.jpg
7977658160af983760c21ddc3f609b34
48e966b84a42d8d897b6130f29402f3dabfe23b3
28240 F20101221_AABEPO matteson_a_Page_092.jpg
b433bd713be6e2335cc0f569de417e86
3390a70d400101608c66588313fd4e04abf602f4
109733 F20101221_AABEOZ matteson_a_Page_076.jpg
6ea99e5c8fa94d3047f77ed5122dbb72
dd10eebc935fa0d7c7e5fc74b4a784f717743d87
30357 F20101221_AABEQD matteson_a_Page_107.jpg
98d122a4af6649a4c4002faa9bcdb055
1030465112c8d6174580de26257bd0193e3bafc6
28294 F20101221_AABEPP matteson_a_Page_093.jpg
6bc453906df24b97569473e610d06837
221ba4bc03d3cec9b02a69a416ff5777c53ba4e3
29318 F20101221_AABEQE matteson_a_Page_108.jpg
a8d36927804127f299d8579feb26e091
507c557fd4c1b8db77b617cadd6664416735cd2e
29341 F20101221_AABEQF matteson_a_Page_109.jpg
bf024e34234726dd0744ef3217a3509c
8e7c96fbfe3dfd3b01f30b46ff3ce3ae6c836790
27177 F20101221_AABEPQ matteson_a_Page_094.jpg
95503e9610971b69d3238d047a6daaf4
b4fa35529b67e8682e9a5b0f278af644eb73ad0f
116984 F20101221_AABEQG matteson_a_Page_110.jpg
72af1f141d33391657e64e3b86c52b3d
87f5a93dffd6cecf09f215e15a5d7637d7c8dedd
27454 F20101221_AABEPR matteson_a_Page_095.jpg
d09f87cc8cca61d3ab2b3afa628d84e7
ad5361d07c04c7e2397d31aef75804d6c6ac1455
123362 F20101221_AABEQH matteson_a_Page_111.jpg
55e3cf8dcae53d1a03b873e97d39a6ac
4951b9b81cf2098c5652125cb8689421af432138
28126 F20101221_AABEPS matteson_a_Page_096.jpg
fbe1dbc956b3155aceeb373741154b80
9462dfae3211ea0e09c9714e80b2b4837eb38114
138841 F20101221_AABEQI matteson_a_Page_112.jpg
388496b7c09b0402d7184575bd4c0498
3c867aa3a2ee4129902b1af988e1a8785677150d
28301 F20101221_AABEPT matteson_a_Page_097.jpg
882ce307249c3efb9380e12b5ce959e3
7e5915c215358628f29237b35490265bd530b7c7
129130 F20101221_AABEQJ matteson_a_Page_113.jpg
1dd3fcae852814e7e73ba92f6fcf1102
e9639cd13095a01fb33d27d1560a8e502b166d59
28438 F20101221_AABEPU matteson_a_Page_098.jpg
bf64842de4494f1a1354ef342feea11f
6607518197d94a8a70417d6266535318832f7a07
122213 F20101221_AABEQK matteson_a_Page_114.jpg
1a5a1f7d4243a782b8d1d82b44a27301
93071696c4a1042f84e9456e8f118cfa19cc092e
27647 F20101221_AABEPV matteson_a_Page_099.jpg
7ad0178b196cb87ee3958d21a3de0370
6fa57f7d4dea9d9085367f79741891680a73263f
125919 F20101221_AABEQL matteson_a_Page_115.jpg
b76a44a4e09daadf54a378ac88316f9c
7a0b60e98d87e6c13dcf08d1725eafc75731ff41
4254 F20101221_AABEPW matteson_a_Page_100.jpg
3ccd6d2485f68bfd6ed13964f24e46c0
f5da81feb960fe9cee6f176e3ca30a539aebdafb
24045 F20101221_AABEPX matteson_a_Page_101.jpg
45fefb260de9b1112cb9e755b016b3ac
be571c7c113a8d1b625434b24a69c30dd5766f8f
1051920 F20101221_AABERA matteson_a_Page_014.jp2
cb98e801203c13b560fd6fd57fbf205c
911c4997ccad13de1263951332e806adc4cd718f
121322 F20101221_AABEQM matteson_a_Page_116.jpg
7b4a849a526f4d6e9d555037b6e2a7cf
13a9ed8d41b471aab5763312ca1f4f3ce3eb7280
99859 F20101221_AABEPY matteson_a_Page_102.jpg
6ab7646fab78dc0a73e9c4d2217e60b9
1cfc66544dbd845565707570126d6570f5e06a84
F20101221_AABERB matteson_a_Page_015.jp2
c857b971c816867fe0378d2a0cb86497
32c0c047004531c78f410b2b3f19a0c6641cd918
105745 F20101221_AABEQN matteson_a_Page_117.jpg
19737c6d957c308af43588ae12de606a
5d6e65c54547eebebbfbb6738ca80d85d2e82f51
50565 F20101221_AABEPZ matteson_a_Page_103.jpg
84e9270cc48a5bfd249c6025de5515fa
e2b0be9f9d0d8cbb748013e37f7ec64c329258da
912151 F20101221_AABERC matteson_a_Page_016.jp2
0fde2e03b94253267e6e1441e3d7fac5
9df1300a18ad7dc897b9e894315c8aa451ecc501
57260 F20101221_AABEQO matteson_a_Page_118.jpg
f8ffc1d45b4cda7049745f2ead6c9cca
23806a5428ede5bb863ce3eeb35cdce8dbe73890
1051962 F20101221_AABERD matteson_a_Page_018.jp2
7e078e79ae9ce84f06d1976d169a1d2e
1498112781897161359c2849702988aec05ab646
307862 F20101221_AABEQP matteson_a_Page_001.jp2
ea3bbfa3fee04e637f119374d841bdd9
21e6eddde9a375e42c3acb88c3cbdc38fbe8c928
F20101221_AABERE matteson_a_Page_019.jp2
2eca7070546eae7ec5bfb3b07bcfe2bd
9d592ea143c444a2265cc59b5951297602ce6571
31717 F20101221_AABEQQ matteson_a_Page_002.jp2
4a2302475f1ff9dd98d9b219ab1c2d9d
71addea85145e5f8785fb1f875f8ac1366dc551f
1051983 F20101221_AABERF matteson_a_Page_020.jp2
503175903935365900b2ead0ffdde0e0
11fa7d01539fd129fc9056458328c7de80c3af32
F20101221_AABERG matteson_a_Page_021.jp2
e8bb0f7affbf8f883a6fa210a9d8579b
a37b15a069be907d510a6b14e67ca835ff7818d6
671872 F20101221_AABEQR matteson_a_Page_004.jp2
64cba1b0221f4a39c716c70072fe2283
8dbeeb2d5ef249aca3fb0d38c2020ab49e0d7faf
1051916 F20101221_AABERH matteson_a_Page_022.jp2
e12e8798e31b1f6fcf82b5139842e36a
6091a7e1ac7349315040419b427ff2df73a65ba2
1051872 F20101221_AABEQS matteson_a_Page_005.jp2
2170c6c93433cd371f1a344fef225081
1f9cc2e23f03cb61816e88bfbb1315f8162d29ec
1051955 F20101221_AABERI matteson_a_Page_023.jp2
b270cf022c6142e8bc0f474729b79aee
a1d5cda1838ae5cefaf7597d99211cf56672b476
306643 F20101221_AABEQT matteson_a_Page_006.jp2
7074b29414e71d6741a5381439eec151
5fde92917d2eb2cf89b4a7ed6af083398013ff4f
1051965 F20101221_AABERJ matteson_a_Page_024.jp2
9688a517bcc02e642c9f0e9d78500d12
20b00cac7b9236a383ce1247b81249d4e9f20782
931379 F20101221_AABEQU matteson_a_Page_008.jp2
bfff5b307a61002b7589bb5afa4e9d37
379236d241530808e39749cd2dc9466b734017d8
1051982 F20101221_AABERK matteson_a_Page_025.jp2
2f274b69737f16ac95d9eafc4f190ba2
413f0b2f30b548dde55dad28a577a55a37304773
F20101221_AABEQV matteson_a_Page_009.jp2
494210475eef0ec0b04cda6daf46549c
9ca54ac84848cd9c2c90b7c37a227d7fbdc522dc
F20101221_AABERL matteson_a_Page_026.jp2
d74757c2a092cbc5d81938fa995d7ac1
2389f4eb37d367ada803cb0e3e80d67383b16b8f
1051977 F20101221_AABEQW matteson_a_Page_010.jp2
595fda47d33c6d1d25fc1e3ee34b0bab
d1573c122d77bc34543472b872e88a8ac3e1fa13
1051958 F20101221_AABESA matteson_a_Page_041.jp2
72cfcc4bf8f710818942718e83923e76
ef138f2dbcc01c095601824e0ff3bdb6018b3139
1051922 F20101221_AABERM matteson_a_Page_027.jp2
8e0f2b7c6d7b4b105eca1169d7fbf76a
c3b316204cf5c2b25745256d488299974af26ee4
1051968 F20101221_AABEQX matteson_a_Page_011.jp2
c187df289b9ebb71ffa4e90ecd6dcee0
05fce803946a868f120284165f03c91a9bfd14db
F20101221_AABESB matteson_a_Page_042.jp2
52e9df788248cf06b84180ee1a1389e2
a4f59df758f33d2509b977f8b3a49550838d0c67
F20101221_AABERN matteson_a_Page_028.jp2
07cac74e3264568276fae320120f358e
f5c2fc797a0bbe12620c5806b401eb83b2e071e5
F20101221_AABEQY matteson_a_Page_012.jp2
c56297a442fc5bf52b6a44a9a6dec86c
bd70db034b5f9af9b488f617ae118057935733c9
1051963 F20101221_AABESC matteson_a_Page_043.jp2
5b986e92994a0828dc66856907adea2e
448ef1a60bd3a8d1ef714bb2d877250d20ddba6a
F20101221_AABERO matteson_a_Page_029.jp2
b6e64bf726258acfb52de34aa45d41e0
eb1c1c8d0d1223d0a787f8b0293f30b0de5dd7a2
F20101221_AABEQZ matteson_a_Page_013.jp2
71e2535f5a1fac9746bafce27ba75976
154a2a345ba5b82d20ed3d61a3b82f627eb5c17d
1051941 F20101221_AABESD matteson_a_Page_044.jp2
07287792fbfcea7b84f4a54e257a5838
8af67c6810e079b9799430bb4bd9ad59120f1905
1051937 F20101221_AABERP matteson_a_Page_030.jp2
2bea615daaad6d5935feece953015f81
4c4b8e7ce563f9a868b2256e303dd5f5f963603d
1051919 F20101221_AABESE matteson_a_Page_045.jp2
a27cd3130e28e6743672013ea69891f3
9bee265eaaee88c5bad63d78ba1ef1e24b3077f7
F20101221_AABERQ matteson_a_Page_031.jp2
2eba5721139d4ca3664d0cdfd13389ea
636ef703cc3eb0405d29847c222c9b6b2577f63e
F20101221_AABESF matteson_a_Page_046.jp2
ee54944bd319d7ba2c63ba6451982c33
1d73d5a1392e31f1310848123cc21a0107cbf608
F20101221_AABERR matteson_a_Page_032.jp2
cdc08ddc076563226501df72aec7573d
2010e00fb5f3bc3eaa97604a51f7526a4d9f7b63
F20101221_AABESG matteson_a_Page_047.jp2
05ec0acb173e37f231887ff3ddfb9a41
40d9874ecf9a0366192d146db1fc36ad5aa3959a
F20101221_AABESH matteson_a_Page_048.jp2
7b178cfcdde95e7c4d142630a542b45c
097307d56c80a38fd860ec78e53c3323a3b93e02
1051942 F20101221_AABERS matteson_a_Page_033.jp2
c7d062aaad0758136ee029ee4a3f41e3
d894e3f0ed3ccdff62cd1ed74d060074a6415dc7
F20101221_AABESI matteson_a_Page_049.jp2
a4c15af1f319d8bd0c4ed32589c55de9
a8ebf206ddfc2723a29b33d20924f8519d3ddb99
F20101221_AABERT matteson_a_Page_034.jp2
0f502e80966bc9a09359f926abd1e665
2fdcad4e6f9521df13c0a9155dc79be45a353b18
1051907 F20101221_AABESJ matteson_a_Page_050.jp2
141578b91ff94d4cda7d8ef66fc9563d
e840907203d42f0186da38b0362097f4d462f844
1051897 F20101221_AABERU matteson_a_Page_035.jp2
ff89ffa07fd3479a9f700b9431c98c58
82fb78c085edced0f57b5d2a10282e0ba5b0bcce
1051869 F20101221_AABESK matteson_a_Page_051.jp2
8c57cf548d6902cc083054787809207c
0f20532b24801d9e133589fdf67a26ed2e793bd9
1051953 F20101221_AABERV matteson_a_Page_036.jp2
cf14e494b56bb613490f7ca909cfff43
ef5582d41be20d164600db2488dc66c5ebc4cddd
1051933 F20101221_AABESL matteson_a_Page_052.jp2
034dba9eb42ad24e6e55cd3b23c42836
9049c54456cd8f821923fdb8e2702a3227bf50fa
F20101221_AABERW matteson_a_Page_037.jp2
f5b8a1700c0fa5a4c3000ecbefb1d270
7c84090b2a07710cf77180edc3753582e4ea15af
F20101221_AABESM matteson_a_Page_053.jp2
deb060ac663a6d94805b1a9dcb9c8be3
af458289d76d29edfe4e42c028da4d97b20cf690
F20101221_AABERX matteson_a_Page_038.jp2
99fe6ab852efa980c9e3fe047fbeafe1
a57f689cd61ee0e66558c001d95e6e20bdc01c02
F20101221_AABETA matteson_a_Page_067.jp2
8f8ab3523f0483dad060575f936da7de
903e9fdb6f9670a6642e95a0eb1db5e0095f34cf
F20101221_AABESN matteson_a_Page_054.jp2
aa7be776c8ae4e80cfbbe47e0610e54c
47f8a6230ab8d0dfdfc7926aaec6804b2dc59205
F20101221_AABERY matteson_a_Page_039.jp2
8bf802513086a592a6f2224c8289a82b
03becc1552bac1d3bedbaefaaf172efb58cf19b0
F20101221_AABETB matteson_a_Page_068.jp2
5d112d64871197a88a18b34753a6dcea
8abb021ba69bef958c8abd74669dbe6e7c5e5983
F20101221_AABESO matteson_a_Page_055.jp2
ed9bfa7bbefc602f8d58d863f188531b
8e9c84381108267557060521e7375f46eed41eb8
1051940 F20101221_AABERZ matteson_a_Page_040.jp2
d59a4bfa68eb43599c03d36ef02063a2
796ba25e770b7f3b7e697f6a24b2b9921dbb1b7f
1051971 F20101221_AABETC matteson_a_Page_069.jp2
6140a2587be5b09c01626bfe3aa44f21
3b71d8026170222580cadce96523d4e05a59519a
1051902 F20101221_AABESP matteson_a_Page_056.jp2
f44d1b524f5e8ad00b5cf8279cb552be
db7248273c3767ea63c423006c5a8a38c72c3be9
F20101221_AABETD matteson_a_Page_070.jp2
0008347b43262816a1f3043d787a2878
687ae3e5553c79a1011e73c35a90d39727b145df
F20101221_AABESQ matteson_a_Page_057.jp2
339107effc7ff4912ae8c61fc3033040
a5d839b611e4856356c8f820cfa5e772b19be3b0
1051943 F20101221_AABETE matteson_a_Page_071.jp2
0b3a57eaef10fbb2c8f8331e04ee188f
906bf22e4152daa85f683bcdf0901405d6876cdc
1051935 F20101221_AABESR matteson_a_Page_058.jp2
b5657c9ce604fe604dffa7f789e9da18
118d27c9e7a621cfa99c20665a7ad30b4e2f58bc
F20101221_AABETF matteson_a_Page_072.jp2
ca73aecbd357c6fb0d6d46906d0bd1ee
e5dce3b9224c723bb63475547880f28f759b3a32







ROLE OF WORK CLIMATE IN JOB SATISFACTION AND ORGANIZATIONAL
COMMITMENT OF WOMEN IN A NONTRADITIONAL CAREER FIELD: THE CASE OF
WOMEN IN THE MILITARY




















By

ALICIA VALLENI MATTESON


A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA

2008



































O 2008 Alicia Valleni Matteson




































To those who serve others, whether they have been called to military service, or serve quietly in
their communities.









ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I thank the United States Air Force for the opportunity to return to graduate school and

pursue this degree; to the Defense Equal Opportunity Military Institution for allowing me to

critically analyze their data; to all of my supervisors, both in the military and in academia, who

have guided me, especially my doctoral committee, Dr. Kwoleck-Folland, Dr. Bluck, Dr. Rice,

and my chair, Dr. Moradi, who is an inspiration both personally and professionally. Her valued

input, encouragement, and tireless efforts were instrumental in the creation of the present study. I

thank my mother, who not only gave her daughters the priceless gift of empowerment, but also

spent countless hours as my editor. Most of all, I thank my spouse, Adam, for agreeing to go on

this journey with me; for his reassurance; for taking care of our sons, Warren, Conrad, and Noah;

for being true to himself; and for allowing me to be true to myself.

NOTE: The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not reflect the

official policy or position of the United States Air Force, Department of Defense, or the U. S.

Government.












TABLE OF CONTENTS


page

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .............. ...............4.....


LIST OF TABLES ................. ...............7.__. .....


LIST OF FIGURES .............. ...............8.....


AB S TRAC T ......_ ................. ............_........9


CHAPTER


1 STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM ................. ...............10......... ....


2 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ................. ...............17....._.._ ....


An Opportunity to Study Women's Experiences in a Nontraditional Career Field: The
Case of Women who are Military Officers ...._.._.._ ........__. ...._.._ ..........1
Social Cognitive Career Theory .............. ...............20....
Theory of Work Adjustment. ........._.._... ...... ..._........... .._._._ .. .... ............2
Retention-Related Criterion Variables: Job Satisfaction, Organizational Commitment,
and Work Group Effectiveness ........._...... .. ... ...__ .... __.. .... ...........2
Contextual Experiences: Sexist Discrimination, Racist Discrimination, and Diversity
Inclusive Climate .............. ...............26....
Sexist Discrimination. ............. ...............26.....
Racist Discrimination. ............. ...............41.....
Diversity Inclusive Climate ........._..... ...._... ...............46....
Summary and Hypotheses .............. ...............50....

3 M ETHOD .............. ...............52....


Participants .............. ...............52....
Proc edure s........._..... ...._... ...............53....
Instruments .................... ...............55.

Independent Variables: ...61................
Dependent Variables: ...62.................

4 RE SULT S .............. ...............64....


Descriptive Results ........._._ ...... .__ ...............64....
Tests of Hypotheses ........._._ ...... .... ...............66...

5 SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION .............. ...............76....












APPENDIX


A T ABLE DATA .............. ...............8 5....


B FIGURE S ................. ...............100......... .....


LIST OF REFERENCES ................. ...............110................


BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ................. ...............118......... ......











LIST OF TABLES


Table page

A-1 Air Force Gender Proportions of Rank .................._.._._ ...............85...

A-2 Three-Factor Solution with Promax Rotation for 2001 MEOCS Items 1-50 (51.00%
of Total Variance) ................. ...............86................

A-3 Four-Factor Solution with Promax Rotation for 2001 MEOCS Items 51-73 (53.81%
of Total Variance) ................. ...............89................

A-4 Assessment of Fit Indices for CFAs of 2002 Data ................. ...............91.............

A-5 Descriptive Statistics and Mean Differences for Predictor Variables by Racial/Ethnic
G roup .............. ...............92....

A-6 Descriptive Statistics and Mean Differences for Criterion Variables by Racial/Ethnic
G roup .............. ...............93....

A-7 Entire Smple's Intercorrelations among Variables of Interest ................. ............... ....94

A-8 Hispanic Sample's Intercorrelations among Variables of Interest .............. ..................95

A-9 African American Sample's Intercorrelations among Variables oflInterest..........._.........96

A-10 Asian American/Pacific Islander Sample's Intercorrelations among Variables of
Intere st. ................. ...............97........ .....

A-11 American Indian/Alaskan Native Sample's Intercorrelations among Variables of
Interest............... ...............98

A-12 White Sample's Intercorrelations among Variables of Interest ............... ... ........._ ...99










LIST OF FIGURES


FiMr IM Le

B-1 Proposed Model (fully saturated)............... ..............10

B-2 Confirmatory Factor Analysis of Predictor Variables .......... ................ ...............102

B-3 Confirmatory Factor Analysis of Dependent Variables ................. ................ ...._.103

B-4 Entire Sample's Fully Saturated Path Model .............. ...............104....

B-5 African American Sample's Fully Saturated Path Model .............. ....................10

B-6 American Indian/Alaskan Native Sample's Fully Saturated Path Model .......................106

B-7 Asian American/PacificIslander Sample's Fully Saturated Path Model ........................107

B-8 Hispanic Sample's Fully Saturated Path Model ............. ...............108....

B-9 White Sample's Fully Saturated Path Model .............. ...............109....









Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy

ROLE OF WORK CLIMATE INT JOB SATISFACTION AND ORGANIZATIONAL
COMMITMENT OF WOMEN IN A NONTRADITIONAL CAREER FIELD:
THE CASE OF WOMEN INT THE MILITARY

By

Alicia Valleni Matteson

August 2008

Chair: Bonnie Moradi
Major: Counseling Psychology

To date there are significant gaps in the literature examining the links between women in

nontraditional career Hield' s perceptions of workplace climate and j ob-related outcomes.

Specifically, racial/ethnic identity of women in nontraditional career Hields is often overlooked or

is narrowly defined, thus important contextual facets of women' s experiences are unexamined.

Additionally, the majority of research that examines women in nontraditional career field' s

perceptions of discrimination focuses on sexist discrimination, few studies examine racist

discrimination, and none have examined simultaneous links of racist and sexist discrimination

with j ob-related outcomes. Our study examined three aspects of perceptions of workplace

climate (perceived racist and sexist discrimination and perceived diversity inclusive climate)

with three job-related outcomes (perceived work group effectiveness, job satisfaction, and

organizational commitment) with a sample of 1,452 women officers in the military. Path analytic

Ending indicated that all three types of perceptions of workplace climate had significantly unique

direct and indirect links to one or more of the three j ob-related outcomes. However, there were

differences among the racial/ethnic groups in the strengths of the links between the variables of

interest. Implications for future research and organization policy and practice are discussed.









CHAPTER 1
STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

The Hield of counseling psychology has widely recognized the need to attend to contextual

variables that impact persons' life experiences, mental health, and well-being (Commission for

the Recognition of Specialties and Profieiencies in Professional Psychology, 1999). Furthermore,

counseling psychologists are expected to Imow and integrate contextual factors along with

intrapersonal factors that might influence persons' mental health and well-being into their

practice. Such integration has been deemed particularly important in conceptualizing women's

experiences, as is reflected in the Society of Counseling Psychology's principles concerning

counseling/psychotherapy with women which state that "Counselors/therapi sts should be

knowledgeable about women, particularly with regard to biological, psychological, and social

issues which have impact on women in general or on particular groups of women in our society"

(Fitzgerald & Nutt, 1986, p. 181).

Additionally, the Hield of counseling psychology traditionally attends to the role of career

and vocation on individual development and functioning (American Psychological Association,

1999). Theory and research generated from the Hield of counseling psychology are particularly

appropriate to apply to understanding the experiences of women in nontraditional career Hields in

American society. Such attention is important in light of the widely publicized disproportionate

number of women in top positions in nontraditional career Hields. For example, Benokraitis

(1997) reported that although men who are Caucasian comprise 33% of the U. S. population, they

comprise 85% of tenured professors, 85% of law firm partners, 95% of Fortune 500 CEOs, 97%

of school superintendents, and 96% of military generals. There is speculation that higher attrition

rates for women in nontraditional career fields contribute to this existing disproportion. The

concern about women' s attrition rates transcends numerous domains such as math and science









fields (Kuck, Marzabadi, & Buckner, 2007; Settles, Cortina, Stewart, & Malley, 2007), the legal

profession (Ninth Circuit Gender Bias Task Force, 1994), academia (Betz, 1994; MacDonald,

2007), and military service (Harris & Firestone, 1997). Thus, numerous professions stand to gain

by the exploration of factors that contribute to the attrition of women in nontraditional career

fields. The military career field in the United States is a particularly fertile focus for examining

the attrition of women in nontraditional career fields because the government' s efforts to assess

military women's work-related experiences has lead to the accruement of rich databases. This

study utilizes such data; consequently, the literature reviewed to develop hypotheses focuses

primarily on military women's experiences in the workplace.

Examination of the retention of women in nontraditional career fields is informed by the

vast amount of occupational and organizational literature. Specifically, a large body of research,

including meta-analyses, points to job satisfaction and organizational commitment as important

predictors of job retention (e.g., Mathieu & Zajac, 1990; Cooper-Hakim & Viswesvaran, 2005).

Indeed, there is robust evidence of the links between j ob satisfaction, organizational

commitment, turnover intention, and ultimately, actual turnover (e.g., Bluedorn, 1982; Koch &

Steers, 1978; McIntyre, Bartle, Landis, & Dansby, 2002; Williams & Hazer, 1986). Consistent

with this research, within the military arena, the Calreer Progression of2~inority and Women

Officers report (Office of the Under Secretary of Defense Personnel and Readiness, 2003) stated

that a central contributing factor to the retention of minority and women officers is commitment

to the organization and deficit in such commitment will reduce sufficient retention to maintain an

effective force. Thus, to understand and improve retention of military women, it is important to

identify correlates of military women' s job satisfaction and organizational commitment.









Perceptions of discrimination in the workplace are widely accepted to have negative

psychological and physical health consequences for individuals (e.g., Baker-Fletcher, 1994; West

& Fenstermaker, 1995; Yoder & Aniakudo, 1996), and also are linked with negative job

outcomes such as lower j ob satisfaction and organizational commitment, and greater absenteeism

(e.g., Culbertson & Rodgers, 1997; McIntyre et al., 2002; Munson, Hulin, & Drasgow, 2000;

Fitgerald, Drasgow, Hulin, Gelfand, & Magley, 1997). Furthermore, workplace discrimination

can have negative organizational impacts. For example, sexual harassment, which is one form of

sexist discrimination, has been estimated to cost a company of about 24,000 employees $67.7

million per year (Crawford, 1993). Sexual harassment has been estimated to cost the military as

much as $40 to $500 million per year due to nonretention of personnel, absenteeism, lowered

productivity, and sick leave (Faley, Knapp, Kustis, & Dubois, 1994; Maze, 1992). Thus,

women' s perceptions of workplace sexist discrimination are important to explore when

examining the retention of women in nontraditional career fields.

Evidence regarding sexism in the workplace suggests that (a) sexism exists in numerous

forms and (b) it can have negative, and sometimes devastating, effects on women, especially for

women in nontraditional career fields. In a national survey, Martin (1989) found that 50% of

women in a variety of career fields reported currently being sexually discriminated against and

harassed at work and 80%-90% reported having been sexually discriminated against or harassed

at some point in their careers. Sexist discrimination also has been found to be highest in

companies in which more than 75% of the personnel are men (Kramarae, 1992). This gender

imbalanced composition characterizes nontraditional career fields for women, including the

military career field. Indeed, Harris and Firestone (1997) found that 73% of military active duty

women and 18% of active duty men reported experiencing blatant and/or subtle sexual









discrimination in the past 12 months. Due to the pervasiveness of sexist discrimination,

especially in workplaces where women are a minority, it is reasonable to explore sexism as a

possible factor contributing to the j ob satisfaction and organizational commitment of women in

such career fields, including in the military.

Much of the existing research on sexist discrimination in the military tends to be

descriptive in nature and suggests that racial/ethnic minority women officers report the highest

rates of experiences of sexist discrimination and the least favorable perception of work climate

(Rosenfeld, Newell, & Le, 1998). Specifically, American Indian/Alaskan Native women in the

military report the highest levels of sexual discrimination, followed by Hispanic women, African

American women, White women, and Asian American/Pacific Islander women who report the

lowest levels of sexist discrimination (Bastian, Lancaster, & Reyst 1996).

Beyond descriptive data about the prevalence of perceived sexist discrimination, a few

studies provide evidence of a link between perceived equal opportunity (EO) climate and job-

related outcomes for women in the military. EO climate reflects "the perceptions that military

service members have about the issues of racial and gender discrimination" (U. S. General

Accounting Office, 1995, p. 3). Particularly, McIntyre et al. (2002) tested and found empirical

support for a model indicating a direct relationship from perceptions of EO climate to perceived

work group effectiveness, organizational commitment, and job satisfaction; with greater

perceptions of discrimination related to lower levels of perceived work group effectiveness,

organizational commitment, and job satisfaction. Furthermore, McIntyre et al. (2002) found that

(a) perceived work group effectiveness partially mediated the link of EO climate to j ob

satisfaction and (b) job satisfaction fully mediated the link of perceived work group effectiveness

to organizational commitment. These findings point to the importance of considering the role of










perceived workplace discrimination in shaping important j ob-related outcomes. In addition,

Williams, Fitzgerald, and Drasgow (1999) found that diversity affirming organizational practices

that serve to counter discrimination and foster diversity inclusive workplace climate, were linked

to lower reports of discrimination in the workplace. The present study integrates Williams et al.'s

(1999) findings with McIntyre et al.'s (2002) model by examining perceptions of diversity

inclusive workplace climate, along with perceptions of discrimination, as predictors of job-

related outcomes.

An important gap in the literature is that the existing research on women's experiences of

sexist discrimination in nontraditional career fields generally fails to attend to within group

diversity, such as racial/ethnic variability, and instead, tends only to focus on gender. A complete

women-centered psychology must attend to the experiences of all women and attend to the

intersections of gender with other dimensions of identity, such as race/ethnicity (Reid & Comas-

Diaz, 1990; Yoder & Kahn, 1993; Yoder, 2003). Furthermore, it has been suggested that

racial/ethnic minority women would be more likely to experience sexist discrimination than

nonminority women (MacKinnon, 1979) and numerous studies have demonstrated that

racial/ethnic minority women do indeed report higher rates of experiences of sexist

discrimination than do White women (Dansby, 1994; Dansby & Landis, 1998). Generally,

however, sexist discrimination research has not examined racial/ethnic matters beyond reporting

the racial/ethnic compositions of samples and corresponding rates of reported experiences of

sexist discrimination (Bergman & Drasgow, 2003). It seems time to build upon existing research

by further examining minority women's experiences of sexist discrimination while also attending

to other salient variables, such as racist discrimination.









Another limitation is that much of the extant literature that explores the role of

discrimination experiences in the workplace tends to be theoretical in nature. Two counseling

psychology vocational theories that could serve to ground investigations of factors that impact

women in nontraditional career fields are Social Cognitive Career Theory (SCCT; Lent, Brown,

& Hackett, 1994) and Theory of Work Adjustment (Dawis, England, & Lofquist, 1964; Dawis,

1996; Dawis & Lofquist, 1984; Lofquist & Dawis, 1991). SCCT asserts that the complex,

reciprocal relations between person, environment, and behavior variables proposed by Bandura

(1986) affect one another throughout a person' s career process (Lent et al., 1994). Furthermore,

SCCT posits that environmental or contextual influences, such as collegial support and

experiences of discrimination have a direct affect on career goals and career choice actions

(Lent, Hackett, & Brown, 2000). Much of the SCCT research on women in nontraditional career

fields, however, has focused on contextual influences that impact the earlier stages of career

(e.g., career choice) as opposed to later stages of career (e.g., career satisfaction or commitment)

development. In fact, the authors of SCCT noted that researchers must expand beyond early

career processes and make SCCT relevant across the career lifespan (Lent et al., 1994).

Another maj or vocational psychology theory, the Theory of Work Adjustment (TWA;

Dawis et al., 1964), attends to processes that occur after persons enter their chosen vocation. This

theory centralizes the importance of the interaction between individuals and their chosen work

environment, and has generated a large body of research that examines the construct of job

satisfaction, its predictors, and its consequences. However, researchers have generally failed to

integrate persons' contextual experiences, such as perceptions of sexism and racism, into

empirical examinations of this theory.









Thus, while the tenants of SCCT and TWA promise to guide the examination of the impact

of discrimination on women in nontraditional career fields, the research generated by both

theories has critical gaps. The tenants of SCCT are generally not applied to career processes that

occur after entry into chosen career fields and research on TWA typically fails to incorporate

contextual influences. The present study will begin to address the gaps of both of these bodies of

literature by examining contextual influences (as proposed by SCCT) on women's job-related

outcomes (as proposed by TWA). Such theoretical integration is consistent with recent calls that

conceptual and empirical bridges between career theories must be explored in order to further

evolve the field of vocational psychology (Swanson & Gore, 2000).

Building on prior theoretical and empirical literature, the present study aims to contribute

to vocational psychology literature by (a) examining empirically a theoretical bridge between

SCCT and TWA and expanding the literature on career processes that occur later in the career

lifespan of women, and (b) examining concomitantly the roles of perceived sexist and racist

discrimination, as well as diversity inclusive workplace social climate on work-related outcomes

for women in a nontraditional career field (i.e., military). As such, the present study has the

potential to inform future research, intervention, and policy aimed to understand and improve the

work experiences of women in nontraditional career fields.









CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

The Hield of counseling psychology attends to the role of career and vocation on

individual development and functioning (American Psychological Association, 1999) as well as

contextual and background variables that influence individual's lives, mental health, and well-

being (Commission for the Recognition of Specialties and Profieiencies in Professional

Psychology, 1999). In fact, research on the roles of contextual factors (e.g., perceptions of

barriers, support, work environment) and background variables (e.g., gender, race/ethnicity) in

career development is an important scholarly and clinical focus of the Hield of counseling

psychology (American Psychological Association, 1999).

Attention to contextual factors can be particularly useful in understanding women's

vocational experiences, especially women's experiences as minorities in nontraditional career

Shields (Yoder, 2003). Specifically, there is a pervasive concern in the organizational literature

about the disproportionately small number of women in top positions in nontraditional career

Shields and there is speculation that higher attrition rates for women in nontraditional career fields

contribute to maintaining the observed gender disproportions (Benokraitis, 1997; Betz, 1994;

Kuck et al., 2007; Settles, et al., 2007; MacDonald, 2007; Harris & Firestone, 1997).

Understanding the roles of contextual factors in job satisfaction and organizational commitment

can inform theory, research, and policy aiming to reduce women's attrition in non-traditional

career fields. To this end, the present study investigates the links of contextual factors,

specifically perceptions of workplace sexism, racism, and diversity inclusive climate with j ob-

related outcomes for women in the military, an exemplar of a nontraditional career field for

women.









An Opportunity to Study Women's Experiences in a Nontraditional Career Field: The
Case of Women who are Military Officers

There are a number of reasons that studying the experiences of military women can be a

fruitful starting point for advancing the literature on the links of perceived workplace racism and

sexism with job-related outcomes for women in nontraditional career fields. First, women

comprise only 14.9% of the total active duty force in the military (Defense Equal Opportunity

Management Institute (DEOMI), 2003), making the military a clearly nontraditional career field

for women. Second, as in other nontraditional career fields, in the military, women are promoted

to a disproportionately small number of top positions. For example, the 2003 Demographic

Profile of the Department of Defense and U. S. Coast Guard (DEOM, 2003) illustrated that the

percentage of active duty Air Force women military officers steadily decreases as rank increases

(see Table A-1). While 21.9% of all active duty Air Force Second Lieutenants (the lowest officer

rank: O-1) are women, only 1 1.5% of all Air Force Colonels (O-6) are women, and there are zero

Air Force women in the highest peacetime officer rank. A similar but less dramatic trend is

found for Air Force women enlisted personnel. While women comprise 21.9% of the lowest

enlisted rank (E-1), they comprise only 12. 1% of the highest enlisted rank (E-9).

Third, there are subgroups of military women with multiple levels of minority status that

can be studied to explore the possible roles of multiple types of discrimination (e.g., racist and

sexist discrimination). For example, racial/ethnic minority women officers bear three identities

that are proportional minorities in the military: in the military population, officers are a minority

(16.0% of the total active duty force); women are a minority (14.9% of the total active duty

force); and racial or ethnic groups other than White are a minority (3 5.4% of the total active duty

force). Women officers comprise only 2.4% of the total active duty force, and racial/ethnic

minority women officers comprise only 0.61% of the total active duty force (DEOMI, 2003).










Women officers also reflect minority groups in terms of the social power and privilege ascribed

to their gender and, in the case of racial/ethnic minority women officers, to their racial/ethnic

status.

Fourth, there are several large-scale research proj ects that provide potentially rich data

sets about military women's experiences of discrimination. These data sets offer access to

populations (such as Native American women officers) that are typically difficult to recruit and

obtain large enough samples of to allow meaningful statistical analyses. Despite the availability

of data about military women's perceptions of sexist and racist discrimination, however, extant

research has focused almost exclusively on military women's perceptions of sexist

discrimination. The present study will address this gap in the literature by using available data to

examine the roles of perceived sexist and racist discrimination in women military officer' s j ob-

related experiences. Finally, according to the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for

Personnel and Readiness (2003), "Black and White women leave military service earlier on

average than White men" (p. viii). This has been a focus of concern at the organizational level

for the military for many years. Thus, studies that examine women's experiences in the military

can inform important retention policies. For these reasons, the present study builds on the

existing research on sexist and racist discrimination and women in the military, and utilizes the

rich data offered by extant large-scale research efforts, to examine multiple types of

discrimination that women officers may experience in the military.

To provide the groundwork for the present investigation, the remainder of this chapter

describes two maj or counseling psychology vocational theories, namely Social Cognitive Career

Theory (SCCT; Lent et al., 1994) and Theory of Work Adjustment (Dawis et al., 1964; Dawis,

1996; Dawis & Lofquist, 1984; Lofquist & Dawis, 1991), that can inform examination of the









links between women' s perception of the work environment and j ob-related outcomes. The

discussion of these theories is followed by a review of relevant literature on j ob satisfaction,

organization commitment, and perceived work group effectiveness as the retention-related

variables that are the focus of the present study. Next, this chapter provides a review of the

empirical literature on workplace sexist discrimination, racist discrimination, and diversity

inclusive climate as contextual factors that are important for understanding women's experiences

in nontraditional career fields, paying particular attention to literature that addresses racial/ethnic

variability among women. Finally, this chapter provides an overview of the aims and hypotheses

of the present study.

Social Cognitive Career Theory

One theory that can inform investigation of factors that influence women in

nontraditional career fields is Social Cognitive Career Theory (SCCT; Lent et al., 1994). SCCT

applied Bandura' s (1986) general social cognitive theory to the academic and career domains.

General social cognitive theory proposes that self-efficacy, or individuals' beliefs about their

abilities to act in ways to reach specific goals, determines whether individuals will pursue certain

actions, the extent to which individuals' will persist in the face of obstacles, and how well

individuals' will perform in a given domain. Consistent with this conceptualization of the

importance of self-efficacy to career development, a meta-analysis of 114 studies conducted by

Stajkovic and Luthans (1998) supported a reliable and significant correlation (r = .3 8, p<.01)

between Bandura's construct of self-efficacy and work-related performance. Recently, Bandura

(2000) expanded the construct of self-efficacy to incorporate the notion of collective efficacy.

More specifically, he proposed that a group's perceived efficacy acts to increase motivational

commitment to the group's mission and performance accomplishments. Bandura (1986) posited

that behavior is also influenced by individuals' perceptions of possible response outcomes










(outcome expectations) and goal intentions. The authors of SCCT asserted that the complex,

reciprocal relationships between person, environment, and behavior variables proposed by

Bandura (1986) affect each other throughout a person's career (Lent et al., 1994).

Particularly relevant for the present study is that the SCCT framework highlights that

environmental or contextual influences have important roles in individuals' career development

(Lent et al., 2000). The authors of SCCT distinguished between two temporal periods of

individuals' career process when contextual influences occur. Distal, or background contextual

affordances, (e.g., types of career role models one is exposed to as a child) can affect learning

experiences at the beginning of a person's career process. The second temporal period occurs

later in the active phases of career process when proximal contextual variables affect career goals

and career choice actions. Proximal contextual experiences include such things as collegial

support and experiences of discrimination. SCCT proposes that proximal contextual experiences

have a direct affect on career goals and career choice actions and can also moderate the

relationship between interests and goals and the relationship between goals and actions. As such,

either anticipated or experienced contextual factors, such as perceived discrimination, can have a

strong influence on career behaviors (Lent et al., 2000).

While a large volume of research focuses on the construct of self-efficacy in relation to

interests and choice goals and actions, there is little research that focuses on contextual factors'

relations to career process variables (Swanson & Gore, 2000). Lent, Hackett, and Brown (2000)

indicated that it is vital to examine contextual factors in order to expand the applicability of

SCCT to diverse populations. In addition, Lent et al. (1994) described the need for SCCT

research to expand beyond processes that occur prior to, during, and just after career entry in

order to attend to processes that occur later during career development. More specifically, the









authors called for the inclusion of research on work adjustment themes, thus making SCCT

relevant across the career lifespan. The present study responds to this call by examining

empirically the relations of proximal contextual variables, namely perceptions of workplace

sexism, racism, and diversity affirming organizational practices, to work adjustment of women in

a nontraditional career field.

Theory of Work Adjustment

In contrast to SCCT research, which has focused primarily on the processes leading up to

career choice, the Theory of Work Adjustment (Dawis et al., 1964; Dawis, 1996; Dawis &

Lofquist, 1984; Lofquist & Dawis, 1991) attends to the latter part of the career life span in that it

attempts to account for the interaction between individuals and their chosen work environment.

Because of this temporal focus, TWA can be a useful framework for exploring women' s

experiences in nontraditional career fields, as well as retention-related factors for women in

nontraditional career fields.

TWA posits that individuals and their work environment engage in a dynamic

relationship that shapes work adjustment. Within the framework of TWA, four critical variables

shape the dynamic process of work adjustment. These variables are individuals' expectations and

requirements for their work environments (work needs), the skills or abilities that individuals

bring to their work environments (abilities), the requirements work environments have of their

employees (ability requirements), and the ways in which work environments meet workers'

needs (reinforcement system). Satisfaction from the perspective of employers occurs when there

is a match between employees' skills and the required skills of the j ob (termed satisfactoriness),

while congruency between employees' needs and employers' reinforcement systems predict

employees' satisfaction (termed satisfaction). An interaction between satisfactoriness and

satisfaction determines employees' tenure in specific work environments.









When employees' and employers' needs both are met, the TWA framework posits that a

state of equilibrium exists and the employee can expect to remain at that j ob. However, when

there is a discrepancy between needs and needs met, for either the employers or employees,

adjustment behaviors take place. The adjustment behaviors are described as the following:

flexibility (tolerance of the incongruency), activeness (attempts to change the other), reactiveness

(attempts to change self), and perseverance (tolerance of the incongruency until terminating

empl oyment).

Unlike SCCT, TWA has not generated a large body of research (Swanson & Gore, 2000),

perhaps because it fails to integrate personality concepts (e.g., coping style) and social or

contextual factors (e.g., experiences of discrimination) that could enrich the understanding of the

dynamic relationship between employee and the work environment (Hackett et al., 1991;

Tinsley, 1993). While most of the tenants of TWA suffer from "empirical neglect" (Swanson &

Gore, 2000, p. 239), the hypothesis that j ob satisfaction is related negatively to j ob turnover has

received solid empirical support and focused interest from the fields of counseling psychology

and organizational psychology. For example, Hesketh, McLachlan, and Gardner (1992) found

that employee satisfaction was correlated positively with intentions to stay on the j ob (. 35, p<

.01) and tenure (. 17, p< .01). These findings have been replicated in numerous studies and

recently through a large-scale meta-analysis (Cooper-Hakim & Viswesvaran, 2005). Thus,

research based on the framework of TWA has shown a consistent link between job satisfaction

and tenure or intentions to stay on the j ob.

When integrated, SCCT and TWA together provide theoretical underpinnings for the

present study. Specifically, SCCT posits that proximal contextual variables, such as perceptions

of discrimination, will be related to job-related actions and work adjustment. SCCT's body of









literature, however, continues to lack emphasis on job-related actions once persons have entered

career fields; this is the case despite explicit calls from SCCT's founding authors to examine

persons' experiences throughout their careers (Lent et al., 1994). TWA, on the other hand,

focuses on the point of time in the career process when persons are engaged in a work

environment and are faced with work adjustment. TWA' s body of literature, however, fails to

investigate contextual factors' roles in work adjustment and choice behaviors. Indeed, the two

theories have complimentary strengths and gaps in their foci and associated bodies of literature.

TWA literature can inform SCCT literature' s lack of work adjustment focus, and SCCT literature

can inform TWA literature' s lack of focus on contextual influences. Thus, the present study

utilizes and integrates the two frameworks in investigating the relations of proximal contextual

experiences (as posited by SCCT) with work adjustment variables (as posited by TWA) for

women in a nontraditional career Hield.

Retention-Related Criterion Variables:
Job Satisfaction, Organizational Commitment, and Work Group Effectiveness

The centrality of job satisfaction and organizational commitment as important predictors

of job retention is supported by a large body of research generated primarily by the Hield of

industrial/organizational psychology (e.g., Bluedorn, 1982; Koch & Steers, 1978; McIntyre et al.,

2002; Williams & Hazer, 1986). Organizational commitment is generally defined as the strength

of an individual's identification with and involvement in a particular organization. Individuals

who have high organizational commitment tend to stay with their organizations, work towards

the goals of the organization, and adhere to the values of the organization (Mowday, Steers, &

Porter, 1979). Job satisfaction is defined as an affective response to the job as a whole as well as

to a variety of characteristics of the j ob (Morrow, 1983; Porter, Steers, Mowday, & Boulian,

1974). Mathieu and Zaj ac (1990) conducted a review and meta-analysis of predictors, correlates,










and consequences of organizational commitment. They found that organizational commitment

and overall job satisfaction yielded a significant corrected sample size-weighted mean observed

correlation (k = 43; N= 15,531; 2M= .53, p < .01). In addition, organizational commitment was

found to be correlated significantly with intentions to search for a different j ob (k = 5; N = 1,5 13;

IMr= -.60, p < .01), intentions to leave current j ob (k = 36 ; N = 14,080; 2M= -.46, p < .01), and

actual turnover (k = 26; N = 8,197; 2M = -.28, p < .05), all of which are conceptualized as

consequences of low organizational commitment.

In a more recently published meta-analysis, Cooper-Hakim and Viswesvaran (2005)

examined the extant organizational commitment literature. After correcting for sampling error

and measurement error, the following sample-size-weighted mean observed correlations emerged

between organizational commitment and various j ob-related outcomes: j ob satisfaction (k = 879;

N = 490,624; 2M= .59, p < .01); j ob performance (k = 185; N = 42,3 54; 2M= .17, p < .05);

turnover intentions (k = 351; N = 136,270; 2M= -.57, p < .01); and actual turnover (k = 105; N =

39,508; 2M= -.23, p < .05). Thus, empirical research indicates that when individuals experience

high organizational commitment, they also tend to experience higher j ob satisfaction and may

even perform their j obs better. Furthermore, individuals who experience lower organizational

commitment not only tend to have higher levels of turnover intentions, but also have higher

levels of actual turnover.

The links between j ob satisfaction, organizational commitment, and turnover intentions

also have been supported in military samples. For example, utilizing a large data base gathered

from members of the military, McIntyre et al. (2002) explored the relations between j ob

satisfaction, organizational commitment, and perceived work group effectiveness. Perceived

work group effectiveness (PWGE) is defined as the degree to which individuals perceive their










primary work group as productive and effective in accomplishing its mission. As such, PWGE is

akin to Bandura' s (2000) construct of collective efficacy (a sense of perceived group

competence). Similar to the role posited for individual self-efficacy in SCCT (Lent et al., 1994),

PWGE may relate to individuals' work-related choices, motivation, actions, and performance.

McIntyre et al. (2002) used structural equation modeling to test a model that posited a

chain of relations from perceived work group effectiveness to j ob satisfaction and from j ob

satisfaction to organizational commitment. The results supported the significance of both paths

as follows: perceived work group effectiveness to job satisfaction (P =.61, p < .01) and job

satisfaction to organizational commitment (P =.72, p < .03). These findings with a military

sample are consistent with the previously reviewed results with non-military employees, and

suggest that perceived work group effectiveness is significantly related to j ob satisfaction, which

is in turn is significantly related to organizational commitment.

Clearly, from an organizational perspective, it is important to study and understand the

factors that may either enhance or hinder individual's job satisfaction and organizational

commitment because of these variables' demonstrated associations with employee avoidance or

escape behaviors, such as seeking new j obs, intending to leave, or actually leaving the j ob. As

such, the present study examines perceived work group effectiveness, job satisfaction, and

organizational commitment as work-related criterion variables.

Contextual Experiences: Sexist Discrimination, Racist Discrimination, and Diversity
Inclusive Climate

Sexist Discrimination

Sexism is a broad construct that includes "a vast network of everyday practices, attitudes,

assumption, behaviors, and institutional rules" (Young, 1992, p.180) that serve to oppress or

inhibit women. Sexism is comprised of three interrelated aspects: prejudice (attitudes and









feelings towards women), stereotyping (beliefs and cognitions about women), and discrimination

(negative and patronizing acts or behaviors that oppress women) (Yoder, 2003). In addition,

Benokraitis (1997) described three forms of sexist discrimination: blatant (intentional, highly

visible, and relatively easy to document, such as sexual harassment, sexist language and j okes,

physical violence), covert (intentional and hidden, such as intentional sabotage of women's work

to ensure their failure in a male dominated workplace), and subtle (may be intentional or

unintentional, less visible, difficult to document, such as social or professional isolation of

women). While sexual harassment is only one particular manifestation of sexist discrimination, it

is often the focus of empirical studies on workplace experiences of sexism. The present study

aims to incorporate literature on a broad range of manifestations of sexist discrimination to

include subtle, covert, and blatant forms.

In researching sexist discrimination, Harris and Firestone (1997) found that 73% of military

active duty women and 18% of active duty men reported experiencing blatant and/or subtle

sexist discrimination in the past 12 months. Nationally, Martin (1989) found that 50% of women

reported currently being sexually discriminated against or harassed at work and 80%-90%

reported having been sexually discriminated or harassed at some point in their careers.

Discrimination also has been found to be highest in companies in which more than 75% of

employees are men (Kramarae, 1992); this gender imbalanced composition exists in the military

and in other nontraditional career fields for women.

Women's perceived experiences of sexist discrimination and the more specific manifestation

of sexual harassment have been shown to be related to negative psychological and physical

health indicators, such as depression, lower sense of well-being, eating disorder symptomatology

(Baker-Fletcher, 1994; Klonoff, Landrine, & Campbell, 2000; Moradi, Dirks, & Matteson, 2005;










Moradi & Subich, 2003; West & Fenstermaker, 1995; Yoder & Aniakudo, 1996), as well as job-

related outcomes such as lower job satisfaction and organizational commitment, and greater

absenteeism (e.g., Culbertson & Rodgers, 1997; McIntyre et al., 2002; Munson et al., 2000;

Fitzgerald et al., 1997). At the organizational level, sexual harassment has been estimated to have

large negative consequences. For example, it has been estimated that sexual harassment cost the

U. S. Army over $500 million in 1988 alone due to nonretention of personnel, absenteeism,

lowered productivity, and sick leave (Faley et al., 1994). Due to the pervasiveness of sexist

discrimination, especially in workplaces where women are a minority, it is reasonable to explore

sexism as a possible factor contributing to retention-related variables, such as job satisfaction and

organization commitment of women in nontraditional career fields, especially in the military.

Fitzgerald and colleagues have generated a substantial Department of Defense (DoD)

sponsored line of research through the Defense Manpower Data Center which examines the

predictors and consequences of one form of sexist discrimination, specifically, sexual harassment

in the military, utilizing the Sexual Experiences Questionnaire (SEQ-DOD; Fitzgerald, Gelfand,

& Drasgow, 1995; Fitzgerald, Shullman, Bailey, Richards, Swecker, Gold, Ormerod, &

Weizman, 1988). The SEQ-DOD measures three dimensions of sexual harassment: sexual

coercion, unwanted sexual attention, and gender harassment. The sexual coercion dimension

captures behaviors that meet the legal definition of "quid pro quo" harassment (i.e., perpetrator

rewards or punishes the target for either accepting sexual advances or refusing) (Yoder, 2003).

Unwanted sexual attention and gender harassment constitute the behavioral components of a

hostile environment, which is an environment that condones, encourages, or incites sexual

harassment behaviors. Participants are asked to respond to SEQ-DOD items on a 5-point scale (0

= never and 4 = very often) using their experiences in the military over the past 12 months as a









reference. Reported internal consistencies for SEQ-DOD items are in the acceptable range (.83 to

.95).

The SEQ-DOD was used in the 1995 Status of the Armed Forces-Gender Issues Study which

involved 28,296 service members (22,372 women and 5,924 men- women were purposefully

over-sampled). The sample demographics were: 79% women, 69% enlisted personnel, 29%

commissioned officers, and 2% warrant officers, 33% Army, 28% Air Force, 21% Navy, 10%

Marine Corps, and 8% Coast Guard, 63% non-Hispanic White personnel, 24% non-Hispanic

African American personnel, 8% Hispanic personnel, and 5% Asian, Pacific Islander, American

Indian, or Native Alaskan personnel, 83% had taken some college courses, 6% attained

associate' s degree, 14% a bachelor' s degree, and 14% a professional or graduate degree, 56%

were married, 27% single, and 13% divorced. The mean age of the sample was 32 years and the

mean tenure in the military was approximately 10 years (Fitgerald, Magley, Drasgow, & Waldo,

1999; Hay & Elig, 1999).

Data from this sample has been used in numerous studies. Bastian et al. (1996) reported that

78% of the women from this sample reported experiencing one or more sexual harassment

behaviors. Women's reported rates of sexual harassment varied across services, with highest

rates reported in the Marine Corps (86%) and lowest in the Air Force (74%). The most

frequently reported behaviors were hostile environment behaviors, such as crude and offensive

j okes, remarks, or gestures (70% of women), while the least reported behaviors were rape or

attempted rape (6% of women). Fitzgerald et al. (1999) reported that 69% of women in this

sample reported some form of sexist hostility, 42% reported unwanted sexual attention, and 13%

experienced some form of sexual coercion. Furthermore, their data indicated a pattern of

differences in reported rates of experiences of sexual harassment across racial or ethnic groups










for women. Native American women reported the highest levels of every type of sexual

harassment, followed by Hispanic women, African American women, White women, and Asian

American women who reported the lowest levels of sexual harassment. While sexual harassment

mean scores for the different racial or ethnic groups' were reported, the authors did not report

statistical significance of differences between the various groups' mean scores.

Bergman and Drasgow (2003) attempted to expand the literature on racial/ethnic minority

women's experiences of sexual harassment beyond the findings that there is a main effect for

race on women' s reports of the frequency of sexual harassment (Fitzgerald et al., 1997;

Fitzgerald, Drasgow, & Magley, 1999; Fitzgerald et al., 1999). The authors hypothesized that

race is a moderator in the relations of sexual harassment to job, psychological, and health related

outcomes for women.

Bergman and Drasgow (2003) used the same database as Fitzgerald et al. (1999), based on the

1995 Status of the Armed Forces-Gender Issues Study (see above for demographic information),

and utilized the SEQ-DOD. Items from the SEQ-DOD were averaged for each respondent and

entered simultaneously into the overall path analysis proposed by Fitzgerald et al. (1995), and

also into five separate path analyses, one for each racial/ethnic group. The model depicted sexual

harassment as an organizational stressor, with organizational antecedents (job grade,

organizational tolerance for harassment, and job-gender context) related directly to reports of

sexual harassment experiences, which, in turn, related directly to work satisfaction, supervisor

satisfaction, co-worker satisfaction, psychological well-being, and perceptions of health. The

model additionally depicted direct relations between work, supervisor, and co-worker

satisfaction to workgroup cohesion, organizational commitment, and psychological well-being.

Psychological well-being was also hypothesized to have a direct link to perceptions of health. All










paths reached significance and were in the hypothesized directions. The organizational

antecedents were negatively related to reports of sexual harassment experiences, sexual

harassment experiences were negatively related to work, supervisor, and co-worker satisfaction,

psychological well-being, and perceptions of health. Work, supervisor, and co-worker

satisfaction were positively linked to workgroup cohesion, organizational commitment, and

psychological well-being. Psychological well-being was positively linked to perceptions of

health. The overall samples' data-model fit was acceptable (chi-square/degree of freedom =

11.64, RMSEA = .023, SRMR = .035, GFI = .98, NNFI = .95).

The authors tested the model separately with each racial/ethnic group. Sample sizes for the

five racial/ethnic groups were as follows: White (N = 13,531), African American (N = 6, 158),

Asian/Pacific Islanders (N = 720), Hispanic (N = 1,790), Native American (N = 270); women

who did not report their race were excluded (N = 377). Results of these analyses suggested that

the model fit data from each group reasonably well. The chi-square/degrees of freedom values

ranged from 50.41 to 2.07 (with the larger values corresponding to the larger sample sizes as

expected), the root-mean-square errors of approximation (RMSEAs) ranged from .062 to .073,

the standardized root-mean square residuals (SRMRs) ranged from .033 to .047, the goodness-

of-fit indices (GFI) ranged from .96 to .98, the adjusted goodness-of-fit indices (AGFIs) ranged

from .90 to .95, and the nonnormed fit indices (NNFIs) ranged from .89 to .93. Thus, the authors

concluded that the correlates of sexual harassment can be considered similar across racial/ethnic

groups. Because this model focused only on a specific form of sexist discrimination (sexual

harassment), it is unknown if reports of racist and sexist discrimination (defined broadly) would

yield similar results across racial/ethnic groups of women. The present study aims to explore this

issue.









In addition to the research efforts that focus on sexual harassment in the military, and in

response to Executive Order No. 9981 (1948), which President Harry Truman issued to establish

equal treatment of military personnel regardless of race, color, religion, or national origin, the

Department of Defense (DoD) established several large-scale research efforts that focus on

assessing and tracking equal opportunity (EO) in the military. The original executive order

specified the need to establish greater opportunities for African American persons, and

subsequent legislation included language to expand opportunities for other racial/ethnic minority

groups and for women (Thomas, 1995). The current definition that provides the basis for

instruments used by the DoD to assess EO climate is "the perceptions that military service

members have about the issues of racial and gender discrimination" (U. S. General Accounting

Office, 1995, p. 3).

Using this definition of EO climate, the Navy developed the Navy Equal Opportunity/Sexual

Harassment (NEOSH) Survey and has administered the survey on a biennial bases since 1989

(Newell, Rosenfeld, & Culbertson, 1995). The NEOSH contains 11 demographic questions and

104 EO items to assess perceptions of racist and sexist discrimination and fairness that comprise

10 modules (assignments, training, leadership, communication, interpersonal relations,

grievances, discipline, performance evaluation, promotions, and navy satisfaction). Respondents

rate their agreement or disagreement with EO items using a 6-point scale (1=strongly disagree,

5=strongly agree, 6=don 't Imow not applicable). Negatively worded items are reversed scored,

thus high scores indicate more favorable perceptions and low scores indicate more negative

perceptions of the work environment. In addition, the 1993 NEOSH Survey contained two new

sections that assessed the degree to which respondents may have experienced racist and sexist









discrimination in the past 12 months (e.g., negative comments, not asked to socialize, physically

threatened). Responses to these items are dichotomous (Yes/No).

The NEOSH Survey was mailed to a random sample of 9,537 Navy personnel, stratified by

maj or racial/ethnic groups, gender, and onfcer or enlisted status, resulting in the following 12

groups: 3 (African American, Hispanic, White/Other) x 2 (male, female) x 2 (officer, enlisted).

Each group was then distributed proportionally across military paygrades to reflect the actual

population of military personnel. The usable response rate was 41% (N=3,801) and the internal

consistency reliabilities for items on the 10 EO modules were generally acceptable, ranging from

.67 to .88 for the enlisted sample, from .70 to .91 for the officer sample, and from .68 to .89 for

the total sample.

Rosenfeld et al. (1998) reported results from the 1993 NEOSH Survey. Averages of each of

the 10 EP modules were not reported; instead, the authors summed and averaged all 10 modules

to provide an overall EO climate score that reflected respondents' global perceptions of

discrimination. Analysis of variance with perceived discrimination as the dependent variable

yielded significant main effects of race/ethnicity and gender for the officer group; but no

significant race/ethnicity by gender interaction emerged. More specifically, women officers

reported significantly greater levels of perceived discrimination than did men officers. Similarly,

African American officers reported significantly greater levels of perceived discrimination than

did White officers, while Hispanic officers' levels fell between White officers' levels and

African American officers' levels. Parallel analyses with the enlisted group yielded significant

main effects for race/ethnicity and gender; again no significant race/ethnicity by gender

interaction emerged. Similar to the officer group, women enlisted personnel reported

significantly higher levels of perceived discrimination than did men enlisted personnel. Also,









White enlisted personnel reported significantly lower rates of perceived discrimination than both

African American and Hispanic enlisted personnel. One limitation of these analyses was that

Rosenfeld et al. (1998) blended all racial/ethnic groups other than African American and

Hispanic into the White category. This blending of Asian American/Pacific Islander, Native

American/Native Alaskan, Other, and White participants may have introduced a confound that

masked some group differences and race/ethnicity by gender interaction effects.

The authors then compared EO climate data from the 1991 NEOSH with data from the 1993

NEOSH and found evidence that the size of the race/ethnicity and gender effects among officers

increased from small to medium in six of the EO modules (leadership, communication,

interpersonal relations, grievances, discipline, performance evaluation), suggesting the

possibility of widening gender and racial/ethnic gaps in officer' s perceptions of the EO climate.

This trend was not seen in the enlisted ranks.

While the above results attended to global perceptions of discrimination, Rosenfeld et al.

(1998) also reported results about participants' endorsement of experiences of eight types of

racist (see Racist Discrimination section) and sexist discrimination within the last 12 months.

Percentages were reported separately for officers and enlisted personnel as well as separately for

men and women. Not surprisingly, both women officers and enlisted women reported

significantly higher levels of sexist discrimination than did men. Unfortunately, however,

Rosenfeld et al.'s (1998) findings did not address potential variability in rates of perceived sexist

discrimination across women of various racial/ethnic groups.

Rosenfeld et al. (1998) then used the above reports of experiencing discrimination to separate

respondents who reported experiencing any form of discrimination from those who did not

endorse such experiences. Using this dichotomization of the sample, the authors examined the









link between reporting discrimination experiences and three job-related outcomes (intentions to

leave the Navy due to dissatisfaction; intention to stay in the Navy for 20 years; general

satisfaction with the Navy). Results indicated that women officers, women enlisted members,

and men enlisted members who reported at least one form of sexist discrimination were

significantly less satisfied with the Navy, less likely to stay in for 20 years, and more likely to

leave the Navy due to their dissatisfaction than were women officers and women and men

enlisted members who did not report experiencing sexist discrimination. These links did not

emerge for men officers.

Overall, Rosenfeld et al.'s (1998) findings suggest that racial/ethnic minority military

personnel and women in the military report higher rates of racist and sexist discrimination than

do White personnel and men, respectively. Furthermore, Rosenfeld et al.'s (1998) findings

suggest that perceptions of racist and sexist discrimination in the work environment are linked

with indicators of job satisfaction and organizational commitment. Finally, the authors' findings

indicate that women' s satisfaction with the Navy decreased from 1991 to 1993, especially for

women who were officers. A critical limitation of Rosenfeld et al.'s findings, however, is that

they treated race/ethnicity and gender and racist and sexist discrimination as mutually exclusive

identities and experiences; thus, rendering invisible the experiences of racial/ethnic minority

women who might experience both racist and sexist discrimination and for whom both factors

might play a role in job satisfaction and organizational commitment.

In fact, a review of the literature yields pervasive findings that racial/ethnic minority woman

officer' s perception of the EO climate in military organizations is the least favorable when

compared with other demographic subgroups. Dansby and Landis (1998) explored several

hypotheses in an attempt to explain this phenomenon. The researchers argued that minority









women officers bear a "triple" burden based on population demographics: in the military, there

are fewer officers than enlisted, fewer racial/ethnic minority persons than maj ority persons, and

fewer women than men. Tokenism literature (see Izraeli, 1983; Kanter, 1977; Yoder, 1991)

suggests that subgroups representing less than 15% of populations (racial/ethnic minority women

officers comprised less than 1% of the military population) are often perceived as "different" and

are patronized or mistreated by others. Furthermore, women who are pioneers in nontraditional

career fields are more likely to experience sexist discrimination in their work environments

(Sadroff, 1992), which could lead to unfavorable perceptions of the EO climate at work. Dansby

and Landis (1998) also pointed out that officers must have at least a bachelor' s degree to be

commissioned, thus women officers would be expected to be better educated than their enlisted

counterparts and perhaps more aware of EO concerns. A study by Terpstra and Cook (1985), as

well as studies conducted by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board (1981, 1988), revealed

that women with higher levels of education tended to report higher levels of experiences of sexist

discrimination. Based on the above literature, Dansby and Landis (1998) hypothesized that (a)

racial/ethnic minority woman officers would have more favorable views of EO climate as their

proportions in the organization increased and (b) racial/ethnic minority women with greater

levels of education would report less favorable perceptions of EO climate than those with lower

levels of education.

Dansby and Landis (1998) used data from the Military Equal Opportunity Climate Survey

(MEOCS) developed by researchers at the Defense Equal Opportunity Management Institute

(DEOMI). The MEOCS is similar to the Navy's NEOSH, but it is administered to all military

services within the DoD. The MEOCS assesses EO climate and organizational effectiveness and

was administered over 5,000 times in military units and accrued a database of over 600,000 cases









between 1990 and 1997. Dansby and Landis (1991) suggested that the IVEOCS measures nine

EO climate factors and three organizational effectiveness factors. EO scales 1 to 5 (sexual

harassment and sex discrimination; differential command behaviors towards minorities; positive

equal opportunity behaviors; racist/sexist behaviors; "reverse" discrimination- I) focus on

perceptions of EO behaviors within the context of the respondent' s unit. Respondents are asked

to rate the likelihood that certain EO behaviors occurred in their units during the last 30 days on

a 5-point scale (1= there is a very high chance that the action occurred to 5=there is almost no

chance that the action occurred). Scales 6 to 8 measure j ob-related outcomes (organizational

commitment, perceived work group effectiveness, and job satisfaction) and are rated on a 5-point

scale (1=totally agree 11 ith statement to 5=totally disagree 11 ith statement). Scales 9 to 11 use the

same anchors as Scales 6 to 8 but are designed to measure perceptions of EO climate across a

broader service context (discrimination against minorities and women; "reverse" discrimination-

II; desire for racial separation). Scale 12 allows respondents to rate their overall impression of

the EO climate in their unit (1=very poor to 5=very good). The scale items have acceptable

reliabilities (average Cronbach's a = .84, range = .75-.91) and construct validity (Dansby &

Landis, 1991; Landis, Dansby, & Faley, 1993).

To test the hypothesis that racial/ethnic minority women officers would have more favorable

views of EO climate as their proportions in the organization increase, representation indexes (RI;

proportion of a subgroup in the total unit population) were calculated (N=883). The RI and each

of the 12 MEOCS scales (all items coded so that higher scores represented more positive

perceptions of the EO climate) were correlated separately for each demographic group. The

results indicated that as the RIs increased for racial/ethnic minority female officers, minority

male officers, and White male officers, their positive perceptions of the EO climate in their units









increased significantly. These findings support the tenets of the tokenism hypothesis that as their

representation increases in populations, minority subgroups will perceive less discrimination in

their environments.

Dansby and Landis (1998) did not find support for their second hypothesis that more educated

racial/ethnic minority women would report less favorable perceptions of EO climate; in fact, they

found support for the opposite. They sampled 3,102 racial/ethnic minority military women. In

this sample, 11.4% were officers, 6% warrant officers, 82.5 % enlisted; 56.9% were African

American, 12.6% were Hispanic, 10.3% were Asian American; 59.5% were relatively low

ranked (E5 and below), and only 3.2% held the rank of maj or or above; 22% listed their

education level as high school or general equivalency, 49% had some college work, 24% were

college graduate, and 7.2% had completed advanced college work or received advanced degrees.

Scores from MEOCS scales (excluding the three j ob-related outcome scales) were averaged and

entered into a multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) with education level as the

independent variable and personnel category (officers highest, warrant officers second, enlisted

lowest) and age as covariates. There was a significant effect for education level on perceptions of

EO climate above and beyond the effects of age and personnel category, but the effect was the

opposite of the predicted direction. Specifically, as education level increased, the positive

perception of EO climate also increased. The restricted range of educational level represented by

Dansby and Landis's sample (78% had college or above) may have contributed to findings that

differ from other studies and were opposite to what the authors expected to find.

Overall, Dansby and Landis' s (1998) findings suggest that positive perceptions of EO

environment appear to decrease as proportional representation of minority groups decreases, with

greater minority status related to lower levels of positive perceptions. Furthermore, level of









education may be related positively to perceptions of the work environment; however, this

finding is tentative based on the restricted nature of the educational level of their sample. This

study, however, failed to examine separately the perceptions of sexist discrimination and racist

discrimination and instead averaged such items together, thus not exploring the possible unique

relations of sexist and racist discrimination with representation in a unit and level of education of

respondents. Additionally, the items measuring diversity inclusive climate were also averaged

with the sexist and racist discrimination items and this construct's possible unique relations were

unexplored. Furthermore, although these authors explored perceptions of the work environment,

they did not examine links between such perceptions and j ob-related outcomes. Clearly, further

studies are needed to examine perceptions of the EO climate and the link between such

perceptions and j ob-related outcomes for women officers of various racial/ethnic backgrounds.

This final limitation was addressed in a study by McIntyre et al. (2002). These authors utilized

data from the MEOCS database to examine the relationship between EO climate and three

important j ob-related outcomes: j ob satisfaction, organizational commitment, and perceived

work group effectiveness (these constructs were defined earlier in this chapter). The construct of

EO climate was comprised of 21 items chosen by McIntyre et al. (2002) from the MEOCS scales

1-5 and 9-11 that tapped organizational and work group fairness, such as "A supervisor gave a

minority subordinate a severe punishment for a minor infraction" and "A maj ority member who

committed the same offense was given a less severe penalty."

McIntyre et al. (2002) drew three random samples from the MEOCS database, each

containing 5,000 observations. The demographics were as follows: Measurement Model Sample

(3,038 Caucasian personnel, 944 African American personnel, 124 Native American personnel,

255 Asian American personnel, 329 Latino American personnel, and 310 "other"; 4,001 men,









821 women, 178 did not identify sex); Sample 1 (3,044 Caucasian personnel, 830 African

American personnel, 142 Native American personnel, 231 Asian American personnel, 441

Latino American personnel, and 312 "other"; 3,939 men, 854 women, and 207 who did not

indicate sex); Sample 2 (3,027 Caucasian personnel, 863 African American personnel, 138

Native American personnel, 448 Latino American personnel, and 323 "other"; 3,965 men, 858

women, and 177 who did not indicate gender). For unaddressed reasons, the number of Asian

American personnel represented in Sample 2 was not reported.

The Measurement Model Sample was used to test the measurement model via confirmatory

factor analysis and goodness-of-fit indexes. The measurement model was deemed adequate and

the theoretical model was examined by testing its fit with Sample 1 and then replicating the

results with Sample 2. The results suggested the following significant paths: EO climate to

perceived work group effectiveness (P = .36, p < .01), EO climate to organizational commitment

(p =.3 6, p < .01), EO climate to j ob satisfaction (P =. 13, p < .01); perceived work group

effectiveness to organizational commitment (P =.04, p < .02), perceived work group

effectiveness to job satisfaction (p =.61, p < .01); job satisfaction to organizational commitment

(p =.72, p < .03). All effects were moderate except for the link between perceived work group

effectiveness and organizational commitment, which had a small effect and most likely would

not reach statistical significance in a smaller sample. Overall, these findings suggest that EO

climate is related positively to perceived work group effectiveness, job satisfaction, and

organizational commitment; perceived work group effectiveness is related positively to job

satisfaction; and job satisfaction is related positively to organizational commitment.

Overall, research generated by DEOMI' s use of the MEOCS suggests that racial/ethnic

minority women officers report the least favorable views of EO climate. In addition, as level of










representation increases for racial/ethnic minority women officers, so does their positive

perception of the EO climate. Research utilizing the MEOCS also has highlighted the important

links of perceptions of EO climate with j ob-related outcomes. Specifically, this research suggests

positive relations between positive perceptions of EO climate and perceived work group

effectiveness, organizational commitment, and job satisfaction. Unfortunately, like studies

utilizing the NEOSH, the MEOCS literature does not explore the potential unique roles of

perceived racist and sexist discrimination, or diversity inclusive climate in the work experiences

of racial/ethnic minority women in the military. It seems time to build upon existing research by

further examining minority women's experiences of sexist discrimination while also attending to

racist discrimination.

Racist Discrimination

Broadly, racism is defined as beliefs, attitudes, and actions that tend to oppress or denigrate

people based on characteristics such as skin color and ethnic affiliation (Clark, Anderson, Clark,

and Williams, 1999). Similar to sexism, racism is comprised of three interrelated aspects:

prejudice (attitudes and feelings towards racial/ethnic minority people), stereotyping (beliefs and

cognitions about racial/ethnic minority people), and discrimination (negative and patronizing

acts or behaviors that oppress racial/ethnic minority people) (Aronson, 1992). Racial/ethnic

discrimination has been conceptualized by Williams and Williams-Morris (2000) as occurring at

an institutional level (differential access to jobs, hiring practices, and pay) as well as at the

interpersonal level (rude or dismissive behavior and character assaults). Perceptions of

racial/ethnic discrimination have been linked to a variety of negative outcomes such as elevated

blood pressure, compromised immune systems (Krieger, 1990; Jackson, Williams, & Torres,

1997), increased paranoia, depression, anxiety, substance abuse, lowered self-esteem (Armstead,

Lawler, Gordon, Cross, & Gibbons, 1989; Browman, 1996; Cooper, 1993), and negative job-









related outcomes such as lower job satisfaction and organizational commitment (Roberts,

Swanson, & Murphy, 2004; Rosenfeld et al., 1998).

Roberts et al. (2004) reported results from a 2002 national survey titled the General Social

Survey (GSS) that contained 76 items assessing the quality of work life (QWL), including

perceived racist discrimination and j ob satisfaction. The demographic characteristics of this

national sample (n = 1,796; all participants were employed at least part-time) were as follows:

73.1% (n = 1263) identified as White/European American; 12.9% (n = 223) identified as

Black/African American; 8.2% (n = 142) identified as Hispanic American; 5.8% (n = 100)

identified as Multiracial/Multiethnic; 51% (n = 881) identified as female; and 49% (n = 847)

identified as male. Perceived racist discrimination was assessed by a single dichotomous item

"Do you feel in any way discriminated against on your j ob because of race or ethnic origin" (1=

yes, 2 = no) and job satisfaction was measured on a 4-point scale (1 = very satisfied, 4 = not at

all satisfied).

Results indicated that 19.4% of participants who identified as Black, 13.4% of participants

who identified as Hispanic, 8.0% of participants who identified as Multiracial/Multiethnic, and

2. 1% of participants who identified as White indicated that they felt discriminated against at

work because of their race or ethnic origin. Additionally, the group of White participants

reported the highest levels of job satisfaction (M = 1.59, SD = 0.74) while the group of

Multiracial/Multiethnic participants reported the lowest job satisfaction (M = 1.88, SD = 0.87).

Within racial/ethnic groups, those who perceived racial/ethnic discrimination at work reported

significantly lower levels of job satisfaction compared to those who did not perceive racial/ethnic

discrimination at work. Specifically, White participants who reported racial/ethnic discrimination

reported lower levels of job satisfaction (M = 1.96, SD = 0.06) than did White participants who









did not report such discrimination (M = 1.58, SD = 0.07) and the difference was found to be

significant (p < 0.01); Black participants who reported racist discrimination reported

significantly (p < 0.001) lower j ob satisfaction (M = 2.33, SD = 0.08) than did Black participants

who did not report such discrimination (M = 1.64, SD = 0.08); Hispanic participants who

reported racist discrimination reported significantly (p < 0.01) lower j ob satisfaction (M = 2.22,

SD = 0.05 ) than did Hispanic participants who did not report such discrimination (M = 1.64, SD

= 0.08); no significant differences were found on the job satisfaction item between the group of

Multiracial/Multiethnic respondents who perceived discrimination and those who did not.

Despite several apparent limitations to this study (e.g., single-item measurement of perceived

racist discrimination and job satisfaction, inclusion of limited racial/ethnic groups), its findings

indicate a significant negative relation between global perceptions of racial/ethnic discrimination

and j ob satisfaction. It is interesting to note that while 51% of the participants in this study

identified as female, gender was not explored in relation to racial/ethnic identification or

experiences of discrimination.

Deitch, Barsky, Butz, Chan, Brief, and Bradley (2003) examined the prevalence of everyday

mistreatment on the j ob ('Gave others privileges you did not get,' 'Treated you as if you did not

exist,' and 'Made insulting j okes or comments') reported by a sample of 3 14 participants from a

non-military corporation. The authors only included participants who identified as either White

or Black (76% identified as White; 58% identified as male; average age was 37 years; 40%

completed a college degree; and average job tenure was 1 1.92 years). The authors found that

compared to White individuals, those who identified as Black perceived significantly more

mistreatment on the j ob (r = .21, p < .01) and reported significantly lower perceptions of job

satisfaction (r = -. 15, p < .10).









The authors then attempted to replicate their findings with two different samples and a

different instrument. The authors utilized data from the Department of Defense 1995 Sexual

Harassment Survey (Bastian et al., 1996) to examine everyday mistreatment on the job for a

sample of 5483 individuals from the Navy (23% identified as Black; 80% identified as female;

average age of 31.6 years) and a sample of 831 1 Army personnel (40% identified as Black; 82%

identified as female; average age 32.7 years). The authors again excluded respondents who

identified as other than White or Black and included items such as 'Is your work performance

evaluated fairly' and 'Do you get the assignments you need to be competitive for promotions?'

They found that race was associated significantly with mistreatment for both military samples

(Navy, r = .12, p < .01; Army, r = .08, p < .01) and race was significantly negatively related to

job satisfaction (Navy, r = -. 13, p < .01; Army, r = -. 11, p < .01)with individuals who identified

as Black reporting significantly higher levels of mistreatment and significantly lower levels of

job satisfaction. Interestingly, Bastian et al.'s (1996) study was specifically designed to assess for

sexual harassment, a form of sexist discrimination, yet Deitch et al. (2003) did not explore

gender groups disproportionately represented in the military data they used for their second and

third sample, nor did they discuss the topic of sexist discrimination in their article. This lack of

consideration of gender status in relationship to racial/ethnic status and the perceptions of

mistreatment in the workplace is a limitation of this study.

While most of the empirical literature utilizing military participants blends assessment and

analysis of racism and sexism into global "discrimination" scales, an exception exists. As

mentioned previously, the 1993 NEOSH Survey contained two sections that assessed the degree

to which respondents may have experienced racist and sexist discrimination in the past 12

months (8 items for both types of discrimination; e.g., negative comments, not asked to socialize,










physically threatened). Responses to these items are dichotomous (Yes/No). As reported by

Rosenfeld et al. (1998), African American personnel reported experiencing more racist

discrimination than White personnel, and Hispanic personnel's rates generally fell between the

rates for White and African American personnel. Furthermore, the data indicated that among

officers, experiencing racist discrimination was associated with higher intentions to leave the

Navy for African American officers and lower satisfaction with the Navy for both White and

African American officers. For enlisted personnel, the effects of racist discrimination were

significant for all three racial and ethnic groups and enlisted personnel who reported

experiencing at least one form of racial discrimination were significantly less satisfied with the

Navy, more likely to plan to leave the Navy due to dissatisfaction, and were less likely to stay in

the Navy for 20 years.

Overall, Rosenfeld et al.'s (1998) findings suggest that racial/ethnic minority military

members report higher rates of racist discrimination than do White members and that perceptions

of racist discrimination in the work environment are linked with indicators of job satisfaction and

organizational commitment for military personnel. There are several limitations to this study,

however. Rosenfeld et al.'s (1998) decision to combine women and men and racial/ethnic

categories of Asian American/Pacific Islander, Native American/Native Alaskan, and Other into

the White category may have masked some important subgroup differences in experiences of

racist discrimination. Unfortunately, other research with military populations exhibits a similar

trend of collapsing subgroups into larger grouping, such as minority and nonminority (e.g., Hay

& Elig, 1999). More specific examination of gender by racial/ethnic groups would provide richer

information about military personnel's perceptions of discrimination and its correlates. Finally,

the data used in Rosenfeld et al.'s (1998) study is now 12 years old. Thus, Rosenfeld et al.'s










(1998) study needs to be replicated with more recent data to discover if their findings persist in

today's military force. Thus, examining with more recent data, the unique relations of military

women' s perceptions of racist and sexist discrimination with retention-related variables such as

job satisfaction and organization commitment seems warranted.

Diversity Inclusive Climate

Whereas the literature regarding perceptions of workplace sexist and racist discrimination

links these perceptions with negative j ob-related outcomes, diversity inclusive work-related

climate has been linked to desirable job-related outcomes. The unique link of diversity

inclusiveness in the work climate to job-related outcomes is widely supported in the literature

(e.g., Bond, Punnett, Pyle, Cazeca, & Cooperman 2004; de Jonge, Dormann, Janssen, Dollard,

Landeweerd, Nijhuis, 2001). For example, Bond et al. (2004) explored the relations of job

satisfaction, psychological distress, and physical health with the following predictor variables:

gendered condition of work (perceptions of discrimination, personal experiences of

discrimination, organizational responsiveness to discrimination), job demands (physical work

demands, hours spent at a video display terminal), and a supportive and diversity inclusive social

work climate (defined as a combination of coworker and supervisor support, to include support

for minority members, and sense of community). The participants of this study (N = 208) were

non-faculty university employees (51% of participants identified as women, 2% identified as

African American, 6% identified as Asian, 1% identified as Hispanic, 5% identified as "other",

and 88% identified as White). While job satisfaction was associated significantly with low

gendered conditions of work and j ob demands, it had the strongest correlation with supportive

and diversity inclusive social work climate (r = .72, p < .05). When entered into regression

analyses, supportive and diversity inclusive social work climate emerged as the strongest single

predictor of job satisfaction, solely explaining over 50% of the variance in j ob satisfaction. The









authors concluded that the supportive and inclusive social climate at work is an important

variable for organizations to attend to because of its strong relation to j ob satisfaction.

In another study, Williams et al. (1999) used the sample from the 1995 Status of the Armed

Forces-Gender Issues Study (described earlier in the Sexist Discrimination section) to examine

the links between organizational practices, sexual harassment, and individual job, health, and

psychological outcomes. Specifically, the authors tested Hulin, Fitzgerald, and Brasgow' s (1996)

and Culbertson and Rodgers' (1997) findings that individual's perceptions of organizational

tolerance intolerance of sexual harassment was a stronger predictor of employee outcomes than

direct experiences of sexual harassment. Three organizational practices were tested in relation to

the incidence of sexual harassment and individual job-related, health-related, and psychological

outcomes of service members: implementation practices (formal and informal actions taken to

prevent sexual harassment and to enforce company policies against it, to include promoting a

diversity inclusive climate), education (efforts to teach employees the definition of harassment

and to communicate organizational policies regarding harassment), and resources (organizational

offerings of information, advice, or support for targets of harassment).

Findings indicated that implementation practices, which are similar to Pryor, Geidd, and

William's (1995) construct of organizational tolerance or intolerance of sexual harassment and

include the promotion of a diversity inclusive climate, were the only organizational practices

uniquely associated with reports of sexual harassment experienced by women service members

(accounting for 14% of the variance in sexual harassment for women). Specifically, higher levels

of implementation practices were related to lower reports of sexual harassment. There were no

significant interactions between implementation practices and demographic variables in the

prediction of reports of sexual harassment in the military. Furthermore, implementation practices









were the best predictor of job satisfaction (accounting for 12% of the variance for women),

workgroup productivity (5% of the variance for women), and organizational commitment (12%

of the variance for women). For women, there was an interaction effect for race/ethnicity in

predicting organizational commitment such that for racial/ethic minority women, there was a

stronger relationship between implementation practices and organizational commitment than

there was for White women. Furthermore, there was a personnel category interaction effect for

work satisfaction such that a stronger relationship between implementation practices and work

satisfaction existed for the higher ranks of women than the lower ranks. These Eindings indicate

that it is important to attend to the additional role of positive organizational practices, such as

promoting a diversity inclusive climate, when examining the link of perceived discrimination

with j ob-related outcomes, especially for higher ranked racial/ethnic minority women.

A separate study was conducted by Fitzgerald et al. (1997) which used data from the 1995

Status of the Armed Forces Gender Issues Study. Data from the same sample analyzed by

Williams et al. (1999) was entered into a path analysis with organizational tolerance, job gender

context, and job level as exogenous variables and sexual harassment, health satisfaction,

psychological well-being, organizational commitment, self-reported workgroup productivity, and

job satisfaction as endogenous variables. The only reported indicators of data-model fit

suggested mixed information. While the authors' concluded that the reported fit indices

suggested generally acceptable fit for women (GFI of .96, AGFI of .90, and SRMR of .097) and

for men (GFI of .95, AGFI of .88, and SRMR of .12), current guidance (Kline, 1998) defines

acceptable values of GFI and AGFI as values of .90 or greater and SRMR values of .08.or less as

acceptable. The lack of consistency of fit may be accounted for by the authors' choice of fit

indices. Hu and Bentler (1995), Martens (2005), and Weston and Gore (2006) warn that GFI and









AGFI can be substantially influenced by factors other than model misspecification, such as large

sample size. Furthermore, other fit indices not reported by Fitzgerald et al. (1999) are less

influenced by sample size, such as CFI and IFI. Given the questionable fit of the proposed

model, the results of Fitzgerald et al.'s (1999) are cautiously interpreted. All specified paths in

the model were statistically significant, which was not surprising given the extremely large

sample size. Specifically, estimates of the paths from organizational tolerance (climate) to sexual

harassment were p =.39, p < .01 for women and P =.24, p < .01 for men, again suggesting that

organizational tolerance for harassment is related directly and positively to the reported

frequency of experiences of sexual harassment. The estimates of the paths from job gender

context (either stereotypically feminine or masculine jobs) to sexual harassment were P = -. 11, p

< .01 and p = -.07, p < .01 for women and men, respectively, suggesting that individuals (women

and men) who worked in jobs that were nontraditional for their gender reported higher levels of

sexual harassment. As expected, sexual harassment had significant negative direct links to job

satisfaction (p = -. 16, p < .01 for women and p = -.10o, p < .01 for men). Job satisfaction had

significant positive direct links to organizational commitment (P =.51, p < .01 for women and P

=.55, p < .01 for men) and self-reported work productivity (P =.21, p < .01 for women and P

=.25, p < .01 for men). Organizational tolerance (climate) had significant negative direct links to

job satisfaction (p = -.34, p < .01 for women and P = -.29, p < .01 for men).

These findings are similar to McIntyre et al.'s (2002) findings that experiences of harassment

and perceptions of organizational tolerance (climate) of harassment are related negatively to j ob

satisfaction, which in turn, is related positively to organizational commitment and perceived

productivity. As stated previously, the present study will examine a similar chain of relations

among perceptions of sexist discrimination, racist discrimination, diversity inclusive climate,










perceived work group effectiveness, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment, using both

McIntyre et al.'s (2002) and Williams et al.'s (1999) findings to guide examination of the nature

of the relations among variables.

Summary and Hypotheses

The body of literature focusing on racial/ethnic minority women's experiences of

discrimination in the military suggests that minority women officers report the highest rates of

discrimination, perhaps due to their status of belonging to three minority groups within the

military organization (officer, women, and racial/ethnic minorities) (Bastian et al., 1996; Dansby,

1994; Dansby & Landis, 1998; Drasgow et al., 1998; Rosenfeld et al., 1998). The literature also

establishes that reports of discrimination, whether direct experiences of discrimination or

perceptions that discrimination is tolerated in one' s workplace, are linked with negative job-

related outcomes (Bergman & Drasgow, 2003; Fitzgerald et al., 1999; McIntyre et al., 2002;

Williams et al., 1999). In considering the roles of race/ethnicity along with gender, however,

existing research has not moved beyond descriptive studies that suggest a main effect of race on

women' s reports of discrimination and negative j ob-related outcomes. Indeed, prior studies

typically collapse racial/ethnic groups, combine sexist and racist discrimination items on scales,

or ignore racist discrimination completely and only examine sexist discrimination. The maj ority

of studies also fail to incorporate the link of diversity inclusive climate to job-related outcomes.

These limitations may mask or distort important nuances that can add to the understanding of

women's experiences in nontraditional career fields. Thus, the present study addresses these gaps

in the literature by examining concomitantly the potentially unique relations of perceived racist

and sexist discrimination and diversity inclusive work climate with women officers' reports of

job-related outcomes. As such, this study also aims to expand the tenants of SCCT into later










stages of women' s career lifespan and inform the body of literature generated by TWA by

examining the links of contextual factors to job-related outcomes.

Specifically, the model proposed by McIntyre et al. (2002) to explain the relationships

between EO climate and j ob-related outcomes is utilized and expanded in the present study to

examine concomitantly the relations of workplace racist and sexist discrimination, as well as

perceptions of diversity inclusive work climate with perceived work group effectiveness, job

satisfaction, and organizational commitment. The model tested in the current study is portrayed

in Figure 1 and examines the following hypotheses:

1. Perceived workplace racist and sexist discrimination will be significantly and negatively
related, whereas perceived diversity inclusive work climate will be significantly and
positively related to perceived work group effectiveness, job satisfaction, and organizational
commitment.

2. Perceived work group effectiveness will mediate the relations of racist discrimination, sexist
discrimination, and diversity inclusive climate to job satisfaction. Full and partial mediation
will be explored.

3. Job satisfaction will (a) mediate the relations of racist discrimination, sexist discrimination,
and diversity inclusive climate to organizational commitment and (b) mediate the relation of
perceived work group effectiveness to organizational commitment. Full and partial mediation
will be explored.

4. The strength of the proposed relations will be explored across racial/ethnic groups. It is
expected that the link between racist discrimination and outcomes will be stronger for
racial/ethnic minority women that for White women.

Methodological and statistical procedures for examining the above hypotheses are described in

the following chapter.









CHAPTER 3
METHOD

Participants

The MEOCS database contains over 1,000,000 observations that have been gathered since

1991. Data from 2002 were selected because they represented the most expansive and recent data

set available for the present study. The respondents included in the analyses for the present study

were filtered by year, by gender, and by personnel status, thus the participants of interest are

1,465 active duty women officers or warrant officers (a special category of officers in the Army

that do not necessarily hold a college-level degree) who responded to the MEOCS during 2002.

Given the focus of the present study on officers, enlisted personnel were not included in

analyses.

Of the 1,465 participants, 14.4% identified as American Indian or Alaskan Native, 13.2%

identified as Asian or Pacific Islander, 13.0% identified as African American, 5.8% identified as

Hispanic, 48.2% identified as White, and 5.4% identified as Other. With regard to age, 10.6% of

the sample was under 20, 27.9% was 20-25, 24.3% was 26-30, 23.9% was 31-40, 10. 1% was 41-

50, 3.1% was 5 1 or older. In terms of education, 8.6% of the sample reported having less than

high school, 11.0% reported high school or equivalent, 8.2% reported some college, 36.6%

reported a college degree, and 33.7% reported advanced college work. With regard to branch of

military, 9.5% of the sample was in the Air Force, 30.6% was in the Army, 3 8.3% was in the

Navy, 17.5% was in the Marine Corps, and 2.4% was in the Coast Guard. In order of lowest

officer rank to highest officer rank, the military ranks of the sample were: 9% W1, 7.4% W2,

3.6% W3, 1.5% W4, 1.3% W5 (Warrant Officer Level 1-5), 34.2% 01-02 (Second and First

Lieutenant), 33.3% 03 (Captain), 13.8% 04 (Major), 7.7% 05 (Lieutenant Colonel), 5.2% 06 or

above Colonel through General Officer). Due to the fact that they had large amounts of missing









data, 13 participants were excluded from the analyses, thus, the final number of participants used

for the current study is 1,452.

The above 2002 demographic information was compared to data from women military

officers who responded to the MEOCS in 2001 (N = 2, 182) to examine whether the composition

of the 2002 sample was representative of previous years. The comparative percentages of

racial/ethnic groups were as follows: 14.3% (2001) and 14.4% (2002) identified as American

Indian/Native Alaskan; 15.9% (2001) and 13.2% (2002) identified as Asian/Pacific Islander;

15.1% (2001) and 13.0% identified as African American; 5.8% (2001) and 5.8% (2002)

identified as Hispanic; 43.3% (2001) and 48.0% (2002) identified as White; and 4.8% (2001) and

5.4% (2002) identified as Other. Overall, demographics across the two years were similar.

Procedures

The MEOCS (Dansby & Landis, 1991) database, maintained by DEOMI at Patrick Air

Force Base, FL, served as the source of data for the present study. The MEOCS is administered

to individual unit members at the request of the unit' s commander. Commanders are encouraged

to assess the EO climate soon after assuming responsibility of a unit and to use the feedback

from the MEOCS and corresponding corrective actions from DEOMI to take appropriate steps to

improve the EO climate if indicated. Commanders are additionally encouraged to reassess their

unit' s EO climate after two to three years, which usually corresponds to the end of their tenure as

commanders. Individuals are notified on the front cover of the MEOCS that their participation is

voluntary and their individual identities are untraceable to their responses. They are further

informed that unit averages will be provided to the requesting commander and their responses

will be accumulated in a database for research and development purposes. However, to protect

the anonymity of respondents, results are not reported for gender, rank, or racial/ethnic groups if

fewer than five respondents are represented in a particular subgroup. There is no prescribed










length of time for individuals to complete the survey and responses are coded on scannable

answer sheets and returned to DEOMI for analysis.

There is no tangible incentive offered for completing the MEOCS survey and the average

return rate of the MEOCS in 2002 was 40% (Knouse, 2002). It is traditionally accepted that a

50% return rate is considered adequate, 60% is considered good, and 70% is very good (Babbie,

1979). Meta-analyses of published survey research; however, show average return rates between

46% and 49% and the average return rate for surveys without incentives is 28% (Church, 1993;

Heberlein & Baumgartner, 1978). Published research involving the MEOCS from 1996 to 2002

show a range of return rates from 37% to 45%, thus, the return rate of 40% for the present study

is deemed acceptable (Knouse, 2002).

Because the MEOCS is sent, upon request, to a variety of unit commanders, who then

distribute the paper-and-pen formatted MEOCS to their subordinates, the context in which

individuals complete the survey is not controlled. It is unknown if individuals are instructed to

complete the survey in the work environment, or if they are instructed to complete the survey at

home. Additionally, the MEOCS can be given in a group or individual format. While DEOMI

publishes recommended methods for administering and collecting the MEOCS, it is unknown if

the recommended methods were consistently followed. This lack of standardization in the

administration of the paper-and-pen format of the MEOCS leads to uncertainty about the extent

to which the environment in which individuals completed the MEOCS was free (as much as

possible) of external influences. Thus, MEOCS data must be interpreted with this limitation in

mind.

Furthermore, it must be noted that it is impossible to determine whether there are repeat

participants in the MEOCS database due to the anonymity of the participants. The likelihood of










repeat participation, however, can be estimated to be very low. For an individual to complete two

MEOCS in one calendar year, one of two situations must occur. The individual's unit

commander must request the MEOCS twice within a calendar year (which is against the

recommended two to three year time lapse for commanders to re-administer the MEOCS to their

units), or the individual must change units and have an old and new unit commander who

requests the MEOCS during the time the individual was assigned to their units. These two

scenarios are possible but highly improbable. In fact, DEOMI recommends restricting datasets to

one year in order to maximize odds that datasets do not include repeat participants (Lt Hubert

Coard, personal communication, February 15, 2004).

Instruments

The MEOCS was based on the following definition of EO climate: The expectation by

individuals that opportunities, responsibilities, and rewards will be accorded on the basis of a

person's abilities, efforts, and contributions, and not on race, color, sex, religion, or national

origin. It is to be emphasized that this definition involves the individual's perceptions and may or

may not be based on the actual witnessing of behavior. (Dansby & Landis, 1991, p. 392)

There are 100 items on the MEOCS designed to measure equal opportunity (EO) climate

and organizational effectiveness. Through factor analysis, Dansby and Landis (1991) suggested

that the MEOCS measures nine EO climate factors and three organizational effectiveness factors.

EO scales 1 to 5 focus on perceptions of EO behaviors within the context of the respondent' s

unit (1=sexual harassment and sex discrimination; 2=differential command behaviors towards

minorities; 3=positive equal opportunity behaviors; 4=racist/sexist behaviors; 5="reverse"

discrimination-I). Respondents are asked to rate the likelihood that certain EO behaviors

occurred in their units during the last 30 days on a 5-point scale (1= there is a very high chance

that the action occurred to 5=there is almost no chance that the action occurred). Scales 6 to 8









measure job-related outcomes (organizational commitment; perceived work group effectiveness;

job satisfaction) and are rated on a 5-point scale (1=totally agree 11 irll statement to 5=totally

disagree 11 irll .\riaisinent).rj Scales 9 to 11 use the same anchors as Scales 6 to 8 but are designed to

measure general attitudes towards EO issues across a broader service context (discrimination

against minorities and women; "reverse" discrimination-II; desire for racial separation). Scale 12

allows respondents to rate their overall impression of the EO climate in their unit (1=vely poor to

5=vely good). The scale items have yielded acceptable reliabilities (average Cronbach's a = .84,

range = .75-.91) (Landis et al., 1993). Support for construct validity is evidenced by discriminate

and convergent validity (Dansby & Landis, 1991).

The MEOCS scales of interest for the present study were scales 1-5 (EO behaviors in the

respondent' s workplace) and scales 6-8 (j ob-related outcomes). When the MEOCS was

developed, it was factor analyzed using a general sample of military personnel, of which women

only comprised 14% (Dansby & Landis, 1991). An extensive literature review resulted in no

publications that examined the structure of the MEOCS for gender or racial/ethnic minority

groups.

Due to the lack of published a priori factor structure for the MEOCS with minority

samples, it was unknown if the factor structure for scales 1-8 reported by Dansby and Landis

(1991) were appropriate for respondents used in the present study. Scholars often discuss the

importance of using relevant minority samples when examining the structure of measures that

are used to study minority experiences, especially experiences of sexist and racist discrimination

(Klonoff & Landrine, 1995; Mobley, Slaney, & Rice, 2005; Moradi & Subich, 2002; Ponterotto

& Casas, 1991). In light of such calls, one contribution of the present study is to examine the

structure of the MEOCS based on samples of women officers. Thus, in preparation for the









proposed study, the recommended two-step procedure (an exploratory factor analysis followed

by a confirmatory factor analysis) with two separate samples (2001 and 2002) was followed to

develop indicators of the variables of interest (Bryant & Yarnold, 2001; Tabachnick & Fidell,

2001).

The first step to explore the structure of the MEOCS for women officers involved

subj ecting data from the 2001 women officer sample to Principle Components Analysis (PCA)

and item-level reliability analyses to identify the most optimal set of items to be used as

indicators of the variables of interest. The set of items comprising scales 1-5 (MEOCS items 1-

50; EO behaviors in the respondent' s workplace) and scales 6-8 (MEOCS items 51-73; job-

related outcomes) established by Dansby and Landis (1991) were examined separately as the

independent and dependent variables of interest for the present study. The number of factors

retained was determined by (a) Cattell's scree test (Field, 2000), (b) eigenvalues greater than 1.0,

(c) percentage of total variance accounted for by each factor, (d) the interpretability of the

solution and (e) factors having a minimum of four items loadings greater than .40 (Tabachnick &

Fidell, 2001; Guadagnoli & Velicer, 1988). A minimum factor loading cutoff of +.30 was used

and items that cross-loaded were retained on the factor that had the highest loading and were

clearly conceptually related to their assigned factor (Byrant & Yarnold, 2001). The distribution

and normality of these data were examined and indicated the appropriateness of conducting

factor analyses with these data (Weston & Gore, 2006).

PCA results for MEOCS items 1-50 (Table A-2) suggested a three factor solution that

accounted for 5 1.00% of the total variance. In addition, item-level reliability analyses indicated

high levels of homogeneity among items from each factor. The three factors that emerged

reflected Perceived Racist Discrimination (25 items; a = .96; range of factor loadings = .86 .37;










range of corrected item-total correlation = .76 .57), Perceived Sexist Discrimination (13 items;

a = .92; range of factor loadings = .88 .43; range of corrected item-total correlation = .73 .58),

and Perceived Diversity Inclusive Climate (11 items; a = .88; range of factor loadings = .72 -

.54; range of corrected item-total correlation = .68 .51).

Similarly, PCA and item-level analyses results for 1VEOCS items 51-73 (Table A-3)

pointed to a four-factor solution that accounted for 53.81% of the total variance. The first factor

that emerged reflected positively worded Organizational Commitment items (6 items; a = .83;

range of factor loadings = .79 .60; range of corrected item-total correlation = .70- .42). The

second factor reflected Perceived Work Group Effectiveness (5 items; a = .84; range of factor

loadings = .80 .75; range of corrected item-total correlation = .68 .59). The third factor

reflected Job Satisfaction (6 items; a = .79; range of factor loadings = .75 .55; range of

corrected item-total correlation = .57 48). The fourth factor that emerged reflected negatively

worded Organizational Commitment items and proved to be somewhat problematic. The 6 items

yielded an alpha of .71 with a range of factor loadings from .76 to .53. The range of corrected

item-total correlation was .50 to .36. Two of the items ("I could just as well be working in

another organization as long as the type of work was similar" and "It would take very little

change in my present circumstances to cause me to leave this organization") reduced alpha, and

were eliminated from that scale. Next, items from both factors that emerged for Organizational

Commitment (one factor comprised of positively stated items and the other factor comprised of

negatively stated items) were entered simultaneously into a reliability analyses. The combination

of the ten items that reflected Organizational Commitment yielded an alpha of .83. For purposes

of the present study, the negatively worded organizational commitment items were reversed









scored and merged with the positively worded items to create a single Organizational

Commitment scale. Thus, high scores consistently indicated high levels of all variable of interest.

Based on the factor structures and item-level reliability analyses that emerged from the

2001 women officer sample, the data from the 2002 women officer sample were subj ected to

Confirmatory Factor Analyses (CFA) using AMOS 7.0 (Arbuckle, 2006). Tabachnick and

Fidell's (2001) recommendations were followed to perform mean score substitutions (using

individual participant' s means) of missing data within each factor that emerged from the PCA to

prepare the data set for the CFA. Maximum likelihood was used as the estimation method in the

CFAs.

Appropriate indicators of model fit were chosen based on recommendations from Hu and

Bentler (1995), Martens (2005), and Weston and Gore (2006). These authors warn that several fit

indices (e.g., goodness-of-fit index (GFI), adjusted goodness-of-fit index (AGFI), normed fit

index (NFI), chi-square fit index (X2), and X2/df) can be substantially influenced by factors other

than model misspecification, such as sample size and the number of indicators per factor, and do

not tend to generalize consistently across samples. Thus, the following recommended indicators

were examined to determine the adequacy of data-model fit in the present study: Root-mean-

square-error of approximation (RMSEA; Steiger & Lind, 1980), standardized root mean square

residual (SRMR; Bentler, 1995), comparative fit index (CFI; Bentler, 1990), incremental fit

index (IFI; Bollen, 1989), and the Tucker-Lewis index (also known as the non-normed fit index;

TLI; Tucker & Lewis, 1973). The generally accepted guidelines for indicators of a well-fitting

model are CFI, IFI, and TLI values of .90 or greater, RMSEA values of .08 or less, and SRMR

values of .05 or less (Kline, 1998). The three-factor model that emerged from the first PCA

(independent variables: Perceived Racist Discrimination, Perceived Sexist Discrimination, and









Perceived Diversity Inclusive Climate) was entered into a CFA and is presented in Figure B-2.

The three-factor model that emerged from the second PCA (dependent variables: Job

Satisfaction, Perceived Work Group Effectiveness, and Organizational Commitment) was

entered into a second CFA and is presented in Figure B-3. The fit indicators for both CFAs are

presented in Table A-4.

Indicators of model fit for the independent variable model yielded mixed support for the

model. The CFI, IFI, and TLI were slightly below the acceptable cut-off of .90 (.89, .89, and .88,

respectively); however, the RMSEA and SRMR met the acceptable guidelines (.06 and .05,

respectively). Nasser and Wisenbaker (2003) contend that while researchers report that CFI, IFI,

and TLI are not as susceptible to being impacted by the number of items or indicators in a model

( e.g., Hu & Bentler, 1995; Martens, 2005; Weston & Gore, 2006), large sample sizes and

numerous items may still influence these fit indexes. The present study has a large sample size

(N = 1,452) and the independent variables are defined by a high number of items (perceived

racist discrimination was measured with 25 items, perceived sexist discrimination was measured

with 13 items, and perceived diversity inclusive climate was measured with 11 items, for a total

of 49 items in the entire model). Based on the model's yield of acceptable values of RMSEA and

SRMR and the mixed evidence in the literature of the utility of CFI, IFI, and TLI as fit indicators

for models involving high numbers of indicators, the independent variable model was deemed an

acceptable fit for the data.

The dependent variable model yielded acceptable fit indicators (CFI = .91, IFI = .91, TLI

=.90, RMSEA = .06, SRMR = .05). This was not surprising given that the dependent variable

model contained only 21 measured items, less than half of the measured items in the independent

variable model. Both CFA models seem to suggest that the data support the three-factor structure









for the independent variable model and the three-factor structure for the dependent variable

model obtained from the 2001 sample. Thus, these models served as the basis for computing

observed indicator scores for the path analyses in the present study.

Specifically, based on the findings from the PCA and CFA conducted with data from 2001

and 2002 women officer samples, the following scale scores were computed and used as

indicators of the variables of interest for the present study: Perceived Racist Discrimination,

Perceived Sexist Discrimination, Perceived Inclusive Social Climate, Perceived Work Group

Effectiveness, Job Satisfaction, and Organizational Commitment. Sample items and reliability

evidence for each of these scales are described below.

Independent Variables

Respondents were asked to rate the likelihood that behaviors described in the items

comprising all three independent variable scales (Perceived Racist Discrimination, Perceived

Sexist Discrimination, Perceived Diversity Inclusive Climate) occurred in their duty location

during the last 30 duty days on a 5-point scale (1 = there is almost no chance that the action

occurred to 5 = there is a very high chance that the action occurred). Thus, higher scores

indicated higher levels of perceived racist discrimination, perceived sexist discrimination, and

perceived diversity inclusive climate.

PerceivedRacist Discrimination was assessed using 25 items that emerged from the

previously described factor analyses of 1VEOCS items as measuring perceptions of racist

discrimination within the organizational climate. Sample items include: "Offensive racial/ethnic

names were frequently heard" and "A majority member complained that there was too much

interracial dating among other people in the organization." With the present sample, perceived

racist discrimination items yielded an alpha internal consistency of .96 and corrected item-total

correlations ranged from .57 to .76.









Perceived Sexist Discrimination was assessed using 13 MEOCS items that have similar

content and loaded together in the aforementioned factor analyses. Sample items include: "A

woman was asked to take notes and provide refreshments at staff meetings, such duties were not

part of her j ob assignment" and "A woman who complained about sexual harassment was not

recommended for promotion." With the present sample, Perceived Sexist Discrimination items

yielded an alpha internal consistency of .92, and the range of corrected item-total correlations

was .57 to .73.

Perceived Diversity Inclusive Climate was assessed with 11 items that emerged from the

factor analyses of MEOCS items as measuring perceptions of positive equal opportunity

behaviors. Perceived Diversity Inclusive Climate items describe positive elements of the

organizational climate that support diversity among members, such as "Majority and minority

members were seen socializing together" and "When the Commander/CO held staff meetings,

women and minorities, as well as maj ority men, were asked to contribute suggestions to solve

problems." With the present sample, Perceived Diversity Inclusive Climate items yielded an

alpha internal consistency of .88 and the corrected item-total correlations ranged from .51 to .68.

Dependent Variables

Perceived Work Group Effectiveness was assessed with 5 items including "The quality of

output of my work group is very high" and "My work group's performance in comparison to

similar work groups is high." Respondents were asked to rate their perception of the

effectiveness of their work group (all persons who report to the same supervisor as they do)

using a 5-point scale (1 = totally disagree 11 ithr the statement to 5 = totally agree 11 ithr the

statement). Higher scores indicated higher levels of perceived work group effectiveness. With

the present sample, Perceived Work Group Effectiveness items yielded an acceptable alpha

internal consistency of .84 and corrected item-total correlations from .59 to .67.









Job Satisfaction was measured with 6 items that assessed respondents' level of satisfaction

with their current j ob. Respondents rated their level of satisfaction on items such as "My j ob as a

whole" and "My job security" using a 5-point scale (1 = very dissatisfied to 5 = very satisfied),

with higher scores indicating higher levels of job satisfaction. With the present sample, Job

Satisfaction items yielded an acceptable alpha internal consistency of .79 and corrected alpha

item-total correlations ranged from .48 to .58.

Organ2izational Commitment was measured with 10 items that emerged from the

aforementioned factor analyses of MEOCS items as measuring both positively (6 items) and

negatively (4 items) worded statements about one's commitment to their organization. The

negatively worded statements were reversed scored so that higher ratings on the following 5-

point scale (1 = totally disagree with the statement to 5 = totally agree with the statement)

indicated higher levels of organizational commitment. Sample items include: "I am proud to tell

others that I am apart of this organization" and "I feel very little loyalty to this organization"

(reversed scored). With the present sample, Organizational Commitment items yielded an

acceptable alpha internal consistency of .83 and corrected item-total correlations ranged from .42

to .65.









CHAPTER 4
RESULTS

Descriptive Results

Descriptive statistics are reported in Table 5. The full matrix of correlation coefficients was

examined for bivariate associations and for collinearity among all variables and is reported in

Table 6. The Perceived Racist and Sexist Discrimination scales developed by exploratory and

confirmatory factor analyses in the present study have not been published previously, thus it is

not possible to directly compare the scale means obtained in the present study to means obtained

in other studies. The Perceived Diversity Inclusive Climate scale; however, was used by Dansby

and Landis (1998). The Perceived Diversity Inclusive scale mean and standard deviation

obtained in the present study for the entire sample (M = 3.90, SD = .86) were similar to those

reported by Dansby and Landis (1998) for a sample of 3,102 racial/ethnic minority military

women (M = 3.82, SD = .76). Means and standard deviations obtained in the present sample for

Perceived Work Group Effectiveness(M = 4.02, SD = .83), Job Satisfaction (M = 3.96, SD =

.77), and Organizational Commitment (M = 3.27, SD = .81 ) also were similar to those reported

by Dansby and Landis (1998) for Perceived Work Group Effectiveness (M = 4.06, SD = .68),

Job Satisfaction (M = 3.96, SD = .48), and Organizational Commitment (M = 3.18, SD = .58)

with their sample of 3,102 racial/ethnic minority military women.

To examine the bivariate relations between the variables of interest, a correlation matrix

for the entire sample (N = 1,452) was computed and is reported in Table 6. Perceived Racist

Discrimination and Perceived Sexist Discrimination were strongly positively correlated (r = .86,

p < .01)with each other, while Perceived Diversity Inclusive Climate was negatively correlated

with both Perceived Racist Discrimination (r = -.39, p < .01) and Perceived Sexist

Discrimination (r = -.29, p < .01). Conceptually, the negative correlations of the two Perceived










Discrimination scores (negative perceptions of the work climate) with Perceived Diversity

Inclusive Climate scores (positive perceptions of the work climate) are consistent with

expectation. Consistent with previous research Eindings (e.g., McIntyre & et. al., 2002;

Fitzgerald, et. al., 1997; Roberts, Swanson, & Murphy, 2004; Rosenfeld et al., 1998), both

Perceived Racist Discrimination and Perceived Sexist Discrimination scores were related

significantly and negatively with all three criterion variables. Specifically, Perceived Racist

Discrimination was correlated negatively with Perceived Work Group Effectiveness (r = -.31, p

< .01), Job Satisfaction (r = -.33, p < .01), and Organizational Commitment (r = -.39, p < .01)

and Perceived Sexist Discrimination was correlated negatively with Perceived Work Group

Effectiveness (r = -.29, p < .01), Job Satisfaction (r = -.30, p < .01), and Organizational

Commitment (r = -.3 8, p < .01). Perceived Diversity Inclusive Climate was related significantly

and positively with Perceived Work Group Effectiveness (r = .39, p < .01), Job Satisfaction (r =

.42, p < .01), and Organizational Commitment (r = .40, p < .01), which is consistent with Bond

et al.'s (2004) and Williams et al.'s (1999) findings. Also consistent with previous findings (e.g.,

Cooper-Hakim & Viswesvaran, 2005; Mathieu & Zajac, 1990; McIntyre et al., 2002), Perceived

Work Group Effectiveness and Job Satisfaction (r = .56, p < .01), Perceived Work Group

Effectiveness and Organizational Commitment (r = .3 8, p < .01), and Job Satisfaction and

Organizational Commitment (r = .54, p < .01) were related positively and significantly. To

evaluate whether multicollinearity was problematic, Tabachnick and Fidell's (2001)

recommended cut-off of .90 was considered. None of the correlations between the variables of

interested exceeded this cut-off, although the correlation between perceived racist and sexist

discrimination approached this cut-off (r = .86, p < .01). Furthermore, the variables of interest









emerged as separate and reliable factors in the exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses

reported earlier in the present study, thus, multicollinearity was not deemed to be problematic.

Tests of Hypotheses

Hypothesis 1. The bivariate correlation coefficients reported above support the

hypothesized relations between the three predictors and the three outcome variables, such that

Perceived Racist and Sexist Discrimination were related significantly and negatively whereas

Perceived Diversity Inclusive Climate was related significantly and positively with Perceived

Work Group Effectiveness, Job Satisfaction, and Organizational Commitment. AMOS 7.0

(Arbuckle, 2006) was used to test the path model depicted in Figure 1. The path model allowed

the examination of the unique direct, as well as indirect relations between the predictor and

criterion variables. The hypothesized path model contained 21 free parameters, and, according to

Kline (1998), 5-10 observations per parameter are recommended. Thus, 105-210 observations

are recommended for inclusion in the present study's path model. The total sample size was

1,452, which exceeded the minimum observations recommended by Kline (1998).

Results of the path analysis of the entire sample' s data are reported in Figure B-4. The path

model was fully saturated, thus the model produced perfect fit to the data. Perceived Racist

Discrimination was linked uniquely and negatively only with Perceived Work Group

Effectiveness (P = -. 11, p < .05), and Perceived Sexist Discrimination was linked uniquely and

negatively with Perceived Work Group Effectiveness (P = -. 10, p < .05) and Organizational

Commitment (p = -. 18, p < .001). Neither discrimination variables was linked uniquely with Job

Satisfaction. Furthermore, perceived Diversity Inclusive Climate was linked uniquely and

positively with all three criterion variables; Perceived Work Group Effectiveness (P = .35, p <

.001), Job Satisfaction (P = .16, p < .001) and Organizational Commitment (P = .16, p < .001).

Finally, Perceived Work Group Effectiveness was linked uniquely and positively with both Job









Satisfaction (p = .47, p < .001) and Organizational Commitment (P = .3 8, p < .001). Job

Satisfaction was not linked uniquely with Organizational Commitment. The model accounted for

36% of the variance in Perceived Work Group Effectiveness, 21% of the variance in Job

Satisfaction, and 37% of the variance in Organizational Commitment.

Hypotheses 2 & 3. Baron and Kenny's (1986) procedures were followed to test the

hypotheses involving mediation. For a variable to qualify as a mediator 1) there must be a link

between the predictor and mediator, 2) there must be a link between the mediator and criterion,

and 3) a previously significant link between the predictor and criterion must be reduced

significantly when the role of the mediator is accounted for. Zero-order correlations reported in

Table A-7 revealed that all variables were significantly related to each other (pre-conditions 1

and 2), and significance of unique direct links in the path model for the entire sample were used

to assess pre-condition 3. In cases that met all three pre-conditions, Sobel's formula (Baron &

Kenny, 1986) was used to determine if indirect effects were significantly different from zero

(i.e., there was significant mediation).

Perceived Work Group Effectiveness was hypothesized to mediate the relations of all three

predictor variables to Job Satisfaction. Consistent with these hypotheses, through Perceived

Work Group Effectiveness, the indirect relation of Perceived Racist Discrimination with Job

Satisfaction was significant (P = -. 11 x .47 = -.05; z = -9.37, p < .000), the indirect relation of

Perceived Sexist Discrimination with Job satisfaction was significant (P = -. 10 x .47 = -.05; z = -

1 1.09, p < .000), and the indirect relation of Perceived Diversity Inclusive Climate with Job

Satisfaction was significant (P = .3 5 x .47 = .16; z = 14.3 8, p < .000).

Job Satisfaction was hypothesized to mediate the relations of all three predictor variables

to Organizational Commitment and to mediate the relation between Perceived Work Group










Effectiveness and Organizational Commitment. These hypotheses were not supported as there

was no significant unique direct relation between Job Satisfaction and Organizational

Commitment.

While there were no original hypotheses involving Perceived Work Group Effectiveness as

a mediator between the three predictor variables and Organizational Commitment, these

relationships were explored after examining the results of the path analysis. Through Perceived

Work Group Effectiveness, the indirect relation of Perceived Racist Discrimination with

Organizational Commitment was significant (P = -. 11 x .38 = .04; z = -10.25, p < .000), as were

the indirect relations of Perceived Sexist Discrimination (P = -. 10 x .3 8 = -.04; z = -9.47, p <

.000) and Perceived Diversity Inclusive Climate (P = .35 x .38 = .13; z = 7.89, p < .000) with

Organizational Commitment.

Hypothesis 4. To explore how racial/ethnic groups compared on mean levels of the

variables of interest, participants' predictor and criterion data were entered into two separate

MANOVAs, one for predictor variables and one for criterion variables, with racial/ethnic group

entered as the independent variable. Three respondents had missing racial/ethnic demographics

and were excluded from these analyses. The results indicated that the levels of the three predictor

variables (Wilks' Lambda = .04; p = .00) and the three criterion variables (Wilks' Lambda = .04;

p = .00) differed across groups. Furthermore, Box's Test of covariance indicated that the

observed covariances of the predictor and criterion variables were not equal across groups

(Box's M (17.4) = 526.80, p = .00 and Box's M (9.46) = 286.49, p = .00, respectively).

Hochberg's post-hoc tests were used to determine which racial/ethnic groups exhibited

significant differences in levels of the three predictor and criterion variables. The subsample that









identified as "Other" was not reported separately due to the ambiguous meaning of that

racial/ethnic group.

The post-hoc tests indicted that for Perceived Sexist Discrimination, the American

Indian/Native Alaskan group (M = 2.92, SD = 1.10) and the Asian/Pacific Islander group (M =

2.83, SD = .97) scored similarly and both groups scored significantly higher than the African

American group (M = 2.10, SD = .87), the Hispanic group (M = 2.02, SD = .81), and the White

group (M = 1.84, SD = .76). Additionally, the African American group (M = 2.10, SD = .87),

scored significantly higher than the White group (M = 1.84, SD = .76), while there were no

significant differences in the level of Perceived Sexist Discrimination between the Hispanic

group (M = 2.02, SD = .81) and the African American group (M = 2.10, SD = .87) or the White

group (M = 1.84, SD = .76).

Post-hoc testing indicated significant differences in the level of Perceived Racist

Discrimination between all racial/ethnic groups except between the American Indian/Native

Alaskan group (M = 2.77, SD = 1.00) and Asian/Pacific Islander group (M = 2.67, SD = .96) and

the African American group (M = 2.00, SD = .79) and the Hispanic group (M = 1.83, SD = .72).

Specifically, for Perceived Racist Discrimination, both the American Indian/Native Alaskan

group (M = 2.77, SD = 1.00) and the Asian/Pacific Islander group (M = 2.67, SD = .96) scored

significantly higher than the African American group (M = 2.00, SD = .79), the Hispanic group

(M = 1.83, SD = .72), and the White group (M = 1.48, SD = .52), while both the African

American group (M = 2.00, SD = .79) and the Hispanic group (M = 1.83, SD = .72) scored

significantly higher than the White group (M = 1.48, SD = .52).

Significant differences in levels of Perceived Diversity Inclusive Climate were indicated

between the White group and all other racial/ethnic groups, such that the White group (M = 4.27,









SD = .72) scored significantly higher than the Hispanic group (M = 3.81, SD = 85), the African

American group (M = 3.70, SD = .76), the Asian American/Pacific Islander group (M = 3.54, SD

=.78), and the American Indian/Native Alaskan group (M = 3.35, SD = .85). Additionally, both

the African American group (M = 3.70, SD = .76) and the Hispanic group (M = 3.81, SD = 85)

scored significantly higher than the American Indian/Native Alaskan group (M = 3.35, SD = 85)

There were no significant differences in Perceived Diversity Inclusive Climate between the

Asian American/Pacific Islander group (M = 3.54, SD = .78), the Hispanic group (M = 3.81, SD

= 85), or the African American group (M = 3.70, SD = .76).

Significant differences in levels of job-related criterion variables emerged as well. For

Perceived Work Group Effectiveness, the White group (M = 4.24, SD = .66) scored significantly

higher than the African American group (M = 4.00, SD = .79), the Asian American/Pacific

Islander group (M = 3.79, SD = .83), and the American Indian/Native Alaskan group (M = 3.64,

SD = 1.06), but not the Hispanic group (M = 4.23, SD = .73). The American Indian/Native

Alaskan group (M = 3.64, SD = 1.06) scored significantly lower than the African American

group (M = 4.00, SD = .79) and the Hispanic group (M = 4.23, SD = .73), while the Hispanic

group scored significantly higher than the Asian American/Pacific Islander group (M = 3.79, SD

=.83).

For Job Satisfaction, the White group (M = 4.17, SD = 63) scored significantly higher than

the African American group (M = 3.96, SD = .73), the Asian American/Pacific Islander group

(M = 3.70, SD = .73), and the American Indian/Native Alaskan group (M = 3.58, SD = .96), but

not the Hispanic group (M = 4.08, SD = .64). The Hispanic group (M = 4.08, SD = .64) scored

significantly higher than the Asian American/Pacific Islander group (M = 3.70, SD = .73), and

the American Indian/Native Alaskan group (M = 3.58, SD = .96), but not the African American










group (M = 3.96, SD = .73), while the African American group (M = 3.96, SD = .73) did score

significantly higher than the Asian American/Pacific Islander group (M = 3.70, SD = .73), and

the American Indian/Native Alaskan group (M = 3.58, SD = .96).

The only significant difference between levels of Organizational Commitment was that the

White group (M = 3.49, SD = .82) scored significantly higher than the African American group

(M = 3.10, SD = .75), the Asian American/Pacific Islander group (M = 3.05, SD = .65), and the

American Indian/Native Alaskan group (M = 3.00, SD = .73). No other differences in the levels

of Organizational Commitment were significant between the groups. Statistical results of the

mean differences for predictor and criterion variables are found in Table A-5 and Table A-6.

To examine whether the links among predictor and criterion variables differed across

racial/ethnic groups, several multiple group comparisons were conducted using AMOS 7.0. First,

participants were split along racial/ethnic minority status into groups of White women (N = 700)

and racial/ethnic Minority women (N = 749) to evaluate whether there was an overall

racial/ethnic minority status difference. Three sets of multiple group comparisons were

conducted, one constraining covariances among predictor variables to be equal across groups

(i.e., White and racial/ethnic Minority), another constraining the paths between criterion

variables to be equal across groups, and a third constraining all paths in the model (Figure B-1)

to be equal across groups. This iterative approach was used to evaluate whether there were

differences across groups, and if so reveal where those differences were in the model (e.g.,

covariances among predictor variables, links among criterion variables). The multiple group

comparison of covariances among the predictor variables (Perceived Sexist Discrimination,

Perceived Racist Discrimination, and Perceived Diversity Inclusive Climate) yielded a

significant chi-square change (AX2 [3, N= 700] = 207.41, p = .00), indicating that imposing









cross-group equality constraints resulted in a statistically worsening of model fit. This suggests

differences between racial/ethnic Minority and White women in the relations among the

predictor variables (Grimm & Yarnold, 2001).

The same steps were taken focusing on links among the criterion variables (Job

Satisfaction, Perceived Work Group Effectiveness, and Organizational Commitment) between

Minority and White women. The chi-square change again was significant, (Ay2 [3, N= 700] =

100.86, p = .00), indicating that imposing cross-group equality constraints resulted in a

statistically worsening of model fit. This suggests differences between racial/ethnic Minority and

White women in the relations among criterion variables.

Finally, relations among all predictor and criterion variables, to include the relations

among predictors with each other and relations among criterion variables with each other, were

entered into a multiple group comparison. Again, the chi-square change was significant (Ay2 [9,

N = 700] = 23.10, p = .01), indicating differences in the magnitude of the relations among

predictor and criterion variables between racial/ethnic Minority and White women. Descriptive

statistics for the subgroups are reported in Tables A-5-6 and correlations among the variables of

interest for the subgroups are reported in Tables A-7-12.

Based on the indications that there were significant differences in the relations among

variables of interest for White women and racial/ethnic Minority women, exploratory path

analyses were conducted to test the hypothesized model separately with data from each of the

racial/ethnic groups represented in the present sample. As mentioned earlier, the hypothesized

path model contained 21free parameters, and, according to Kline (1998), 5-10 observations per

parameter are recommended. Thus, 105-210 observations are recommended for the subgroup

path models. The racial/ethnic group subsamples contained the following sample sizes:









American Indian/Native Alaskan (n = 207); Asian/Pacific Islander (n = 191); African American

(n = 188), Hispanic (n = 84); White (n = 700). Sample sizes for the subgroups met or exceeded

the minimum recommended by Kline (1998), with the exception of the sample of Hispanic

women officers (n = 84), thus the results of the path analysis with Hispanic women was

considered tentative at best. Of particular interest was the magnitude of the relations among

variables for each racial/ethnic group, thus, full models are reported (see Figures B-5-9).

The path model for African American women officers (Figure B-5) revealed that for this

sample (n= 188), Perceived Racist Discrimination had a significant unique relation with

Perceived Work Group Effectiveness (P = -.31, p < .05), while Perceived Sexist Discrimination

did not have a unique link with any criterion variable. However, Perceived Diversity Inclusive

Climate had unique links with all three criterion variables; Perceived Work Group Effectiveness

(p = .34, p < .001), Job Satisfaction (P = .12, p < .05) and Organizational Commitment (P = .19,

p < .05). Perceived Work Group Effectiveness was linked uniquely to both Job Satisfaction (P =

.58, p < .001) and Organizational Commitment (P = .50, p < .001), while Job Satisfaction was

not linked uniquely to Organizational Commitment. The model accounted for 46% of the

variance in Perceived Work Group Effectiveness, 25% of the variance in Job Satisfaction, and

3 5% of the variance in Organizational Commitment.

The path model for American Indian/Alaskan Native women officers (Figure B-6)

indicated that for this sample (n = 207) the unique relations of Perceived Racist and Sexist

Discrimination with the three criterion variables did not reach statistical significance. However,

Perceived Diversity Inclusive Climate had significant unique links with Perceived Work Group

Effectiveness (P = .23, p < .05) and Job Satisfaction (P = .20, p < .05). Furthermore, Perceived

Work Group Effectiveness was linked uniquely with Job Satisfaction (P = .58, p < .001) and









Organizational Commitment (P = .28, p < .001). Job Satisfaction was not linked significantly to

Organizational Commitment. The model accounted for 42% of the variance in Perceived Work

Group Effectiveness, 5% of the variance in Job Satisfaction, and 19% of the variance in

Organizational Commitment.

The Asian American/Pacific Islander women officer group's (n = 191) path analysis results

(Figure B-7) indicated that Perceived Racist Discrimination linked uniquely with Organizational

Commitment (p = -.22, p < .05), while Perceived Sexist Discrimination was not linked uniquely

with any criterion variable. However, Perceived Diversity Inclusive Climate was related

uniquely with all three criterion variables; Perceived Work Group Effectiveness (P = .35, p <

.001), Job Satisfaction (P = .22, p < .0001) and Organizational Commitment (P = .20, p < .05).

Furthermore, Perceived Work Group Effectiveness was linked uniquely with both Job

Satisfaction (p = .53, p < .001) and Organizational Commitment (P = .20, p < .05). Job

Satisfaction was not linked uniquely to Organizational Commitment. For this subsample, the

model accounted for 43% of the variance in Perceived Work Group Effectiveness, 14% of the

variance in Job Satisfaction, and 26% of the variance in Organizational Commitment.

Figure B-8 depicts Hispanic women officers' path analysis. For this sample (n = 84),

Perceived Racist Discrimination was linked uniquely with Perceived Work Group Effectiveness

(p = -.37, p < .05), while Perceived Sexist Discrimination was not linked uniquely with any

criterion variable. Perceived Diversity Inclusive Climate was linked uniquely with Perceived

Work Group Effectiveness (P = .26, p < .05) and Organizational Commitment (P = .27, p < .05),

but not with Job Satisfaction. Perceived Work Group Effectiveness was related significantly with

Job Satisfaction (P = .43, p < .001) and Organizational Commitment (P = .38, p < .001). Job

Satisfaction was not significantly linked to Organizational Commitment. The model for Hispanic









women officers accounted for 25% of the variance in Perceived Work Group Effectiveness, 32%

of the variance in Job Satisfaction, and 42% of the variance in Organizational Commitment.

The path model for the White women officer's sample (n = 700) is depicted in Figure B-9.

The results indicated Perceived Racist Discrimination was linked uniquely with Perceived Work

Group Effectiveness (P = -. 15, p < .05) and Perceived Sexist Discrimination was linked uniquely

with Organizational Commitment (P = -. 18, p < .05). Perceived Diversity Inclusive Climate was

related uniquely with all three criterion variables; Perceived Work Group Effectiveness (P = .24,

p < .001), Job Satisfaction (P = .08, p < .05), and Organizational Commitment (P = .14, p <

.001). Perceived Work Group Effectiveness was linked uniquely with Job Satisfaction (P = .28, p

< .001) and Organizational Commitment (P = .48, p < .001). Interestingly, this model was the

only one in which Job Satisfaction was related uniquely with Organizational Commitment (P =

.12, p < .05). The model for White women officers accounted for 18% of the variance in

Perceived Work Group Effectiveness, 16% of the variance in Job Satisfaction, and 45% of the

variance in Organizational Commitment.









CHAPTER 5
SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION

Our study was designed to address calls in the literature to attend to contextual issues

when conceptualizing women's experiences (e.g., Moradi & Subich, 2002), particularly when

investigating experiences that may influence career-related experiences of women in

nontraditional career fields. Such investigations can be enriched by attending to the role of

outside factors that are rooted in the contexts of women' s lives, including various forms of

discrimination (Yoder, 2003). Indeed, the body of literature focusing on women' s experiences of

discrimination in the military suggests that racial/ethnic minority women officers report the

highest rates of discrimination, perhaps due to their status of belonging to three minority groups

within the military organization (officer, women, and racial/ethnic minorities) (Bastian et al.,

1996; Dansby, 1994; Dansby & Landis, 1998; Drasgow et al., 1998; Rosenfeld et al., 1998). The

literature also establishes that reports of discrimination, whether direct experiences of

discrimination or perceptions that discrimination is tolerated in one's workplace, are linked with

negative job-related outcomes (Bergman & Drasgow, 2003; Fitzgerald et al., 1999; McIntyre et

al., 2002; Williams et al., 1999).

In considering the roles of race/ethnicity along with gender, however, existing research

has not moved beyond descriptive studies that suggest a main effect of race on women' s reports

of discrimination and negative j ob-related outcomes. Also, prior studies typically collapse

racial/ethnic groups, combine sexist and racist discrimination items on scales, or ignore racist

discrimination completely and only examine sexist discrimination. The maj ority of studies also

fail to incorporate the link of diversity inclusive climate to job-related outcomes. These

limitations may mask or distort important nuances that can add to the understanding of women' s

experiences in nontraditional career fields. The present study addressed these limitations in the









literature by examining concomitantly the unique relations of perceived workplace racist and

sexist discrimination and diversity inclusive climate with women officers' reports of perceived

work group effectiveness, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment. Furthermore, the

present study is unique in having substantial representation of various racial/ethnic groups, and

as such, it provides a more inclusive picture of the experiences of women in nontraditional career

fields.

Results of path analyses for the entire sample (N = 1,452) indicated a number of significant

relations of perceived racist, sexist, and diversity inclusive climate with perceived work group

effectiveness, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment. Specifically, findings for the

entire sample suggest that higher levels of perceived diversity inclusive climate are linked

uniquely to higher levels of all three criterion variables, higher levels of perceived sexist

discrimination are linked uniquely to lower levels of perceived work group effectiveness and

organizational commitment, and higher levels of perceived racist discrimination are linked

uniquely to lower levels of perceived work group effectiveness. Thus, all three aspects of the

workplace climate were linked uniquely with one or more criterion variables.

An inspection of the hypothesized relations for subsamples of racial/ethnic groups,

however, indicates that different variables emerged as unique correlates of criterion variables for

different racial/ethnic groups. Specifically, perceptions of diversity inclusive climate were

related positively and uniquely to at least two of the three criterion variables for all racial/ethnic

groups while .perceived racist discrimination in the workplace climate was related uniquely and

negatively with at least one job-related criterion variables for all racial/ethnic groups except

American Indian/Alaskan Native group. Perceived sexist discrimination in the workplace climate

was related uniquely to negative job-related criterion variables only for White women. These










Endings may indicate that for racial/ethnic minority women, racism is more salient in work

contexts than sexism.

Additionally, there was a consistent high correlation between sexism and racism across

groups (range: r = .80 to .89) which suggests that the two types of discrimination are highly

overlapping. The overlap between perceived racist and sexist discrimination is consistent with

prior research (Moradi & Subich, 2003) and an emerging conceptualization that experiences of

racism and sexism intersect or are fi~sed for racial/ethnic minority women, such that experiences

of discrimination are not attributed to being a women or a racial/ethnic minority, but are

attributed to being a racial/ethnic minority women. Research that examines this fusion of

experiences of discrimination have focused on African American women, yet the present

Endings indicate that this fusion may describe other racial/ethnic minority women's experiences

as well as African American women's experiences.

Differences found in the links between the perceptions of workplace climate and criterion

variables for the various racial/ethnic groups of women officers, as well as the consistency of the

overlap between racist and sexist discrimination, illustrates the importance of attending to

multiple layers of discrimination, as well as diversity inclusive climate in understanding

women' s job-related experiences. The totality of the Eindings in the present study can serve to

encourage researchers, leaders, and policy makers to avoid assuming that women officers in the

military have unidimensional experiences or perceptions based solely on their gender. Rather, the

present findings suggest that racial/ethnic diversity among women is important to attend to and

can influence the links of perceptions of the climate with perceived work group effectiveness,

job satisfaction, and organizational commitment.









Our study also responds to calls in vocational psychology literature to explore conceptual

and empirical bridges between career theories (Swanson & Gore, 2000) by integrating aspects of

two maj or career theories, namely Social Cognitive Career Theory (SCCT; Lent, Brown, &

Hackett, 1994) and the Theory of Work Adjustment (TWA; Dawis, et al., 1964). Specifically, the

present study expands the body of research that focuses on aspects of the career lifespan beyond

the initial stages of the process as well as expands the literature that focuses on the impact

contextual influences have on job-related outcomes, thus addressing gaps in SCCT's and TWA' s

corresponding bodies of literature.

Indeed, proximal contextual experiences (as posited by SCCT), defined in the present

study as perceived workplace climate (i.e., Perceived Racist and Sexist Discrimination and

Perceived Diversity Inclusive Climate) had significant relations with j ob-related outcomes (as

posited by TWA). Specifically, the present findings indicate that diversity inclusive climate is

related uniquely and positively with perceived work group effectiveness, job satisfaction, and

organizational commitment for all racial/ethnic groups of women military officers, while racist

and/or sexist discrimination related uniquely and negatively with perceived work group

effectiveness, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment across most racial/ethnic groups

(all groups except American Indian/Alaskan Native group). The present findings indicate that

indeed, as suggested by SCCT, contextual factors are important in the understanding of the type

of job-related outcomes that are the focus of TWA. This study serves as an example of the

fruitfulness of integrating various career theories when investigating complex psychosocial

phenomena, such as women's contextual work-related experiences and outcomes in non-

traditional career fields.









The steps taken in the present study to operationalize the constructs used to test the

hypotheses serve to inform the literature on constructing instruments to measure vocational

experiences. Specifically, the data used for the present study came from DEOMIs' database and

were gathered via the MEOCS. The MEOCS was originally standardized using a large military

population that reflected the entire military population. The construction of the MEOCS,

however, did not include testing whether the same constructs emerge across gender and/or

racial/ethnic group subsamples of the population. Scholars have raised concern that instruments

developed with maj ority samples may not be relevant for minority samples (Klonoff & Landrine,

1995; Mobley et al., 2005; Moradi & Subich, 2002; Ponterotto & Casas, 1991) and may, in fact,

yield misleading findings if results are used to make comparisons between minority and maj ority

samples. While the present study contributes to vocational literature by offering a measurement

model based on MEOCS items developed specifically for women officers, it is only a "first

step". It is recommended that future studies examine the structure of the MEOCS across

racial/ethnic groups as well as officer and enlisted groups to further ensure the MEOCS is

constructed and validated with relevant samples.

The present study indicates that when developing organizational policies and practices to

improve organizational effectiveness and retention, the potential impact of perceived sexist and

racist discrimination should be considered. The significant negative zero-order correlations of

perceived racist and sexist discrimination with perceived work group effectiveness, job

satisfaction, and organizational commitment indicate that perceived discrimination is related to

negative job-related outcomes. Furthermore, when entered concomitantly, both perceived racist

and sexist discrimination were related uniquely to perceived work group effectiveness, job

satisfaction, and organizational commitment for the entire sample, and this finding varied across









the subsamples. Thus, organizational policies and practices that focus on reducing both racist and

sexist discrimination in the workplace are recommended.

Perhaps even more importantly, the inclusion of positive perceptions of diversity inclusive

aspects of the work climate in the present study provides organizational leadership with specific

behaviors they can engage in to enhance organizational effectiveness and retention. When

entered concomitantly with perceived racist and sexist discrimination, perceptions of diversity

inclusive climate emerged as a unique predictor of perceived work group effectiveness, j ob

satisfaction, and/or organizational commitment across racial/ethnic groups. Because the relations

between perceptions of diversity inclusive climate and positive job-related outcomes were

consistent across groups, organizational leadership may increase positive j ob-related outcomes

more readily by focusing on policy and practices that increase diversity inclusiveness in the

workplace climate. While the prevention of racism and sexism is important and necessary,

implementing diversity inclusive practices is probably easier than trying to prevent racist and

sexist behaviors. Thus, the items from the MEOCS used to comprise the Perceived Diversity

Inclusive Climate scale can be used to target specific behaviors (e.g., "When the Commander/CO

held staff meetings, women and minorities, as well as maj ority men, were asked to contribute

suggestions to solve problems") that are supported by the present study to enhance j ob-related

outcomes

A final implication of the present study is that it informs the work of counselors with

individual women in nontraditional career fields by increasing counselors' awareness of the

potential experiences of such clients, especially regarding the links between experiences of

discrimination and work-related outcomes. Such information can better equip counselors to

attend to contextual issues that might be pertinent to the career lifespan of their clients. Sesan










(1988) and Hackett and Lonborg (1994) have documented the dangers that arise for clients when

counselors are not attentive or sensitive to relevant diversity issues. These authors reported that

counselors often inadvertently promoted acceptance of the status quo, missed issues of

victimization, and reinforced gender and racial-role stereotyping. Such practices will only serve

to continue the disproportionate representation of women in high level nontraditional careers.

Despite the strengths of the current study, a number of limitations are important to

consider. A maj or limitation to the current study was the reliance on a preexisting survey with a

restricted set of items and an existing data base. The current study offers the first factor analysis

of MEOCS items for a sample of women officers, but, the current study did not examine

specifically the factor structure and applicability of the MEOCS subscales for women officers

from a variety of racial/ethnic backgrounds. The research efforts aimed at designing instruments

to measure important variables such as sexism, racism, work climate and their implications can

become more meaningful and generalizable if test construction efforts include factor analyses for

diverse populations (e.g., racial/ethnic groups, gender, rank, sexual orientation, etc.). It is may be

inaccurate to assume that instruments normed on predominantly White men measure the same

constructs for non-white men or for women of various racial/ethnic backgrounds.

Furthermore, the current study was limited by the inability to guarantee consistent

methodology with administration of the pen-and-paper version of the MEOCS. While there was

consistency in the instructions given to commanders on how to administer the MEOCS, there

were no controls to ensure the instructions were followed. DEOMI has recently improved the

methodology of the MEOCS by replacing the pen-and-paper version with a computer-based

version. While respondents no longer have to turn in their surveys to a central location within

their organization because they can now submit their surveys over the internet, the environment










they take the survey in is still not controlled. For instance, it is not controlled whether someone

else is in the room with respondents when they take the survey, or if they are alone. It is also not

known if respondents are given additional verbal instructions by their unit beyond the

instructions attached to the email they now receive inviting them to respond to the survey. While

a computer-based survey is an improvement, there remain concerns over the possible variations

in the MEOCS' respondents' environments that may confound their results.

In addition, the current study was cross-sectional in nature, which only provides a snap-

shot of correlational data. When examining factors that may be related to workplace outcomes,

including retention, longitudinal data would provide stronger evidence of the antecedents of

retention of women in nontraditional career fields.

A final point worth highlighting about the current study and about the larger body of

literature on reports of discrimination experiences is assessment of individual's perceived

discrimination and perceived diversity inclusive climate, which could be affected by various

attributions of respondents and their response-styles. In fact, it is the current mode of operation

to assess experiences of a variety of discrimination experiences (e.g., sexism, racism, ageism,

heterosexi sm/homophobia) through self-reports of perceived experiences of discrimination or

prejudice (e.g., Landrine & Klonoff, 1996; Moradi & Subich, 2003; Swim, Cohen, & Hyers,

1998; Waldo, 1999). Most instruments that assess the frequency of stressful events use self-

report data. One concern regarding self-reported data is the possibility of respondents' tendencies

to over-report incidents. However, this concern is brought into question by existing data. In

particular, studies have demonstrated the phenomena of women failing to perceive and report

discrimination they face, even when exposed to blatant discrimination in a controlled setting

(e.g., Crosby, 1984; Taylor, Wright, Moghaddam, & Lalonde, 1990). Such studies show a










tendency to blame poor outcomes on internal individual attributes as opposed to external

discrimination (Major et al., 2002). Several studies demonstrate that specific moderators, such as

a person' s belief in individual mobility, belief in a just world, as well as other beliefs that

endorse ideologies that legitimize the status quo, shape the relationship between experiencing

discrimination and reporting it as such (Crocker & Major, 1994; Major, et al., 2002).

Furthermore, emotional barriers, such as the desire to protect oneself from the emotional

discomfort in confronting one's own victimization, have been shown to disrupt the

acknowledgement of personal experiences of discrimination (Crosby, 1984). The totality of

extant literature suggests that women do not over-report experiences of discrimination; on the

contrary, they may underreport discrimination.

Our study addressed several gaps in the literature examining the links between women in

nontraditional career field' s perceptions of workplace climate and j ob-related outcomes.

Specifically, our study examined concomitantly racist and sexist discrimination and inclusive

diversity climate for a sample of women military officers. The results indicate that while

organizations may increase the job satisfaction and organizational commitment for women

officers by fostering a inclusive diversity climate in the workplace, future longitudinal studies are

needed to explore the fusion of racial and gendered experiences for women in nontraditional

career fields and the impact those experiences may have on work-related outcomes, to include

retention.















Table A-1. Air Force Gender Proportions of Rank
Enlisted Officer
Rank % Men %Women Rank % Men % Women
(total =80%/) (total =20%) (total = 82%) (total = 18%)
E-1 78.1 21.9 O-1 78.1 21.9
E-2 69.0 31.0 O-2 78.3 21.7
E-3 77.2 22.8 O-3 79.3 20.7
E-4 76.3 23.7 O-4 85.0 15.0
E-5 78.4 21.6 O-5 87.2 12.8
E-6 86.2 13.8 O-6 88.5 11.5
E-7 89.3 10.7 O-7 95.0 5.0
E-8 88.6 11.4 O-8 95.3 4.7
E-9 87.9 12.1 O-9 97.4 2.6
O-10 100 0
Note. From the 2003 Demographic Profile of the Department of Defense and U.S. Coast Guard (DEOM, 2003).
Ranks increase in level as rank number increases (i.e., E-1 is the lowest enlisted rank and E-9 is the highest).


APPENDIX A
TABLE DATA











Table A-2. Three-Factor Solution with Promax Rotation for 2001 MEOCS Items 1-50 (51.00%
of Total Variance)
Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3
Perceived Perceived Perceived
Racist Sexist Diversity
Discrimination Discrimination Inclusive Climate
M = 2.00 M = 2.20 M = 3.90
SD = .91 SD = .96 SD = .86
Abbreviated items a = .96 a = .92 a = .88
11. The supervisor had lunch with a new minority .86
member (to make him/her feel welcome), but did not
have lunch with a majority member who had joined the
organization a few weeks earlier. (R)
8. A race relations survey was taken, but no groups other .81
than blacks and whites were used. (R)
16. A supervisor discouraged cross-racial dating among .79
personnel who would otherwise be free to date within the
organization. (R)
4. The Conunander/CO did not appoint a qualified .61
majority in a key position, but instead appointed a less
qualified minority. (R)
9. A majority member in your organization directed a .86
racial slur at a member of another organization. (R)
17. A minority man was selected for a prestigious .62
assigmnent over a majority man who was equally, if not
slightly better, qualified. (R)
10. A majority supervisor frequently reprimanded a .74
minority subordinate but rarely reprimanded a majority
subordinate. (R)
20. A majority member complained that there was too .70
much interracial dating among other people in the
organization. (R)
12. A group of majority and minority personnel made .84
reference to an ethnic group other than their own using
insulting ethnic names. (R)
6. A majority first-level supervisor made demeaning .79
comments about minority subordinates. (R)
21. A supervisor always gave the less desirable .60
additional duties to men. (S)
18. A majority supervisor did not select a qualified .60
minority subordinate for promotion. (R)
25. The Commander/CO changed the duty assigmnents .50
when it was discovered that two persons of the same
minority were assigned to the same sensitive area on the
same shift. (R)
30. When reprimanding a minority man, the majority .54
supervisor used terms such as "boy." (R)
28. A Commander/CO giving a lecture took more time to .52
answer questions from majority members than from
minority members. (R)
23. A minority member was assigned less desirable .52
office space than a majority member. (R)











Table A-2. Continued
Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3
Perceived Perceived Perceived
Racist Sexist Diversity
Discrimination Discrimination Inclusive Climate
M = 2.00 M = 2.20 M = 3.90
SD = .91 SD = .96 SD = .86
Abbreviated items a = .96 a = .92 a = .88
13. Graffiti written on the organization's rest room or .79
latrine walls "put down" minorities or women. (R)
3. A majority person told several jokes about minorities. .74
(R)
33. A majority and a minority person turned in similar .56
pieces of equipment with similar problems. The minority
person was given a new issue: the majority member's
equipment was sent to maintenance for repair. (R)
22. A minority woman was selected to receive an award .31 .43
for an outstanding act even though she was not perceived
by her peers as being as qualified as her nearest
competitor, a majority man. (S)
15. A minority man made off-color remarks about a .66
minority woman. (R)
34. A motivational speech to a minority subordinate .39 .38
focused on the lack of opportunity elsewhere: to a
majority subordinate, it focused on promotion. (R)
38. A qualified minority first-level supervisor was denied .38 .36
the opportunity for professional education by his/her
supervisor. A majority first-level supervisor with the
same qualifications was given the opportunity. (R)
26. Minorities and majorities members sat at separate .37 .35
tables in the cafeteria or designated eating area during
lunch hour. (R)
49. A man stated, "Our unit worked together better .88
before we had women in the organization." (S)
41. The only woman in a work group was expected to .70
provide housekeeping supplies, such as needle and
thread, aspirin, etc., in her desk. (S)
43. A woman was asked to take notes and provide .75
refreshments at staff meetings (such duties were not part
of her job assignment). (S)
47. The Commander/CO assigned an attractive woman to .81
escort visiting male officials around because, "We need
someone nice looking to show them around." (S)
39. When a woman complained of sexual harassment to .66
her superior, he told her, "You're being too sensitive."
(S)
36. When a female subordinate was promoted, a male .69
peer made the comment, "I wonder who she slept with to
get promoted so fast." (S)
48. A woman who complained of sexual harassment was .72
not recommended for promotion. (S)
32. A male supervisor touched a female peer in friendly .69
manner, but never touched male neers. (S)











Table A-2. Continued
Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3
Perceived Perceived Perceived
Racist Sexist Diversity
Discrimination Discrimination Inclusive Climate
M = 2.00 M = 2.20 M = 3.90
SD = .91 SD = .96 SD = .86
Abbreviated items a = .96 a = .92 a = .88
46. A supervisor referred to female subordinates by their .72
first names in public, while using titles for the male
subordinates. (S)
24. The term "dyke" (meaning lesbian), referring to a .43
particular woman, was overheard in a conversation
between unit personnel. (S)
42. Racial/ethnic jokes were frequently heard. (R) .41 .39
40. Offensive racial/ethnic names were frequently heard. .47 .33
(R)
45. A better qualified man was not picked for a good .66
additional duty assignment because the Commander/CO
said it would look better for equal opportunity to have a
woman take this duty. (S)
44. A supervisor gave a minority subordinate a severe .50 .35
punishment for a minor infraction. A majority member
who committed the same offense was given a less severe
penalty. (R)
7. Majority and minority personnel were seen having .69
lunch together. (I)
29. Majority and minority members were seen .72
socializing together. (I)
5. Majority and minority supervisors were seen having .70
lunch together. (I)
35. Majority personnel joined minority friends at the .72
same table in the cafeteria or designated eating area. (I)
50. At non-official social activities, minorities and .66
majority members were seen socializing in the same
group. (I)
14. A new minority person joined the organization and .68
quickly developed close majority friends from within the
organization. (I)
31. Second level female supervisors had both men and .66
women as subordinates. (I)
19. When the Commander/CO held staff meetings, .65
women and minorities, as well as majority men, were
asked to contribute suggestions to solve problems. (I)
37. A supervisor gave the same punishment to minority .61
and majority subordinates for the same offense. (I)
2. The spouses of majority and minority personnel mixed .63
and mingled during special events. (I)
1. Organization parties, picnics, award ceremonies and .54
other special events were attended by both majority and
minority personnel. (I)
Note. Factor Loadings 1|.30| have been omitted from this table. (R) indicates the item was included in the present
study's Perceived Racist Discrimination scale; (S) indicates the item was included in the present study's Perceived
Sexist Discrimination scale; (I) indicates the item was included in the present study's Perceived Diversity Inclusive
Climate scale.











Table A-3. Four-Factor Solution with Promax Rotation for 2001 IVEOCS Items 51-73 (53.81%
of Total Variance
Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4
Organizational Perceived Job Organizational
Commitment: Work Group Satisfaction Commitment:
Positive Effectiveness Negative
M = 3.57 M = 4.03 M = 3.96 M = 2.9
SD = .81 SD = .83 SD = .77 SD = .79
Abbreviated items a = .83 a = .84 a=-.79 a = .71
51. I would accept almost any type of .79
assignment in order to stay in this
organization. (OC)
52. I find that my values and the .78
organization's values are very similar. (OC)
53. I am proud to tell others that I am part .73
of this organization. (OC)
56. This organization really inspires me to .73
perform my job in the very best manner
possible. (OC)
58. I am extremely glad to be part of this .72
organization compared to other, similar
organizations that I could be in. (OC)
61. For me, this organization is the best of .60
all possible ways to serve my country.
(OC)
65. When high priority work arises, such as .80
short suspenses, crash programs, and
schedule changes, the people in my work
group do an outstanding job in handling
these situations. (PWGE)
64. The quality of output of my work group .80
is very high. (PWGE)
66. My work group always gets maximum .77
output form available resources (e.g.,
personnel and materials). (PWGE)
67. My work group's performance in .76
comparison to similar work groups is very
high. (PWGE)
63. The amount of output of my work group .75
is very high. (PWGE)
Level of satisfaction with: .75
71. My job security. (JS)
70. The recognition and pride my family .74
has in the work I do. (JS)
69. My amount of effort compared to the .73
effort of my co-workers. (JS)
72. The chance to acquire valuable skills .71
in my job that prepare me for future
opportunities. (JS)
68. The chance to help people and .59
improve their welfare through the
performance of a job. (JS)











Table A-3 Continued
Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4
Organizational Perceived Job Organizational
Commitment: Work Group Satisfaction Commitment:
Positive Effectiveness Negative
M = 3.57 M = 4.03 M = 3.96 M = 2.9
SD = .81 SD = .83 SD = .77 SD = .79
Abbreviated items a = .83 a = .84 a=-.79 a = .71
73. My job as a whole. (JS) .55
The following items were reverse scored: .76
57. It would take very little change in
my present circumstances to cause me to
leave this organization.
59. Assuming I could stay, there's not .72
too much to be gained by sticking with
this organization to retirement. (OC)
60. Often, I find it difficult to agree with .66
the policies of this organization on
important matters relating to its
people. (OC)
54. I could just as well be working in -.36 .53
another organization as long as the type of
work was similar.
55. I feel very little loyalty to this .64
organization. (OC)
62. Becoming part of this organization .56
was definitely not a good move for me.
(O C)
Note. Factor Loadings 1|.30| have been omitted from this table. (OC) indicates the item was included in the present
study's Organizational Commitment scale; (PWGE) indicates the item was included in the present study's Perceived
Work Group Effectiveness scale; (JS) indicates the item was included in the present study's Job Satisfaction scale.










Table A-4. Assessment of Fit Indices for CFAs of 2002 Data
Variable X2 SRMR RMSEA CFI IFI TLI


Indep Variables 6071.82** .05 .06 .89 .89 .88
(RD, SD, DIC)
Dep Variables 1122.35** .05 .06 .91 .91 .90
(JS, PWGE,OC)
Note. N = 1452 for both models. RMSEA = Root-Mean-Square Error of Approximation; SRMR =
Standardized Root Mean Square Residual; CFI = Comparative Fit Index; IFI = Incremental Fit Index; TLI = Tucker-
Lewis Index; RD = Racist Discrimination; SD = Sexist Discrimination; DIC = Diversity Inclusive Climate; PWGE
= Perceived Work Group Effectiveness; JS = Job Satisfaction; OC = Organizational Commitment. **p <.01.





Variable


Table A-5.


Descriptive Statistics and Mean Differences for Predictor Variables by Racial/Ethnic Group
Racist Discrimination Sexist Discrimination Div. Inclusive Climate
Effect Effect Effect
Size Size Size
M SD LY F (q, ) M SD df F (q,2) M ~SD Jf F (11 2)
1.96 .91 5 147.55* .34 2.21 .96 5 76.54* .21 3.90 .86 5 67.94* .19


Overall
(N =
1452)
Hispanic
(n 8 4)
African
American
(n 1 88)
Asian/
Pacific
Islander
(n 191)
SAmerican
Indian/
Native


1.83beh .72

2.00adg .79


2.67def .96


2.02be .81

2.10adg .87


2.83def .97


3.81bf .85

3.70ae .76


3.54d .78



3.35abc .85





4.27cdef .72


2.77abc 1.00


2.92abc 1.01


Alaskan
(n 207)
White 1.48cfgh .52 1.84cfg .76
(n = 700)
Note. = p < .001. Means with the same superscripts are significantly different at p < .05.

































Alaskan
(n 207)
White 4.24cer .66 4.17cfg .68
(n = 700)
Note. = p < .001. Means with the same superscripts are significantly different at p < .05.


Variable



Overall


Table A-6.


Descriptive Statistics and Mean Differences for Criterion Variables by Racial/Ethnic Group
Work Group Effectiveness Job Satisfaction Organizational Commitment
Effect Effect Effect
Size Size Size
M SD Jf F (q, ) M SD df F (q,2) M ~SD Jf F (11 2)
4.03 .83 5 27.38* .09 3.97 .77 5 31.27* .10 3.27 .81 5 23.25* .08


(N =
1452)
Hispanic
(n 8 4)
African
American
(n 1 88)
Asian/
Pacific
Islander
(n 191)
W American
Indian/
Native


4.23bd .73

4.00ar .79


3.79de .83


4.08be .64

3.96adg .73


3.70def .73


3.23 .84

3.100 .75


3.05b .65



3.00a .73





3.49abc .82


3.64abc 1.06


3.58abc .96











Table A-7. Entire Sample's Intercorrelations among Variables of Interest (N = 1452)
Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6
1. RD .86** -.39** -.31** -.33** -.39**
2. SD -.29** -.29** -.30** -.38**
3. DIC .39** .42** .40**
4. PWGE .56** .38**
5. JS .54**
6. OC
Note. RD. = Racist Discrimination. SD = Sexist Discrimination. DIC = Diversity Inclusive Climate. PWGE
Perceived Work Group Effectiveness. JS = Job Satisfaction. OC = Organizational Commitment. **p < .01.











Table A-8. Hispanic Sample's Intercorrelations among Variables of Interest (n = 84)
Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6
1. RD .83** -.46** -.15 -.34** -.46**
2. SD -.32** -.05 -.22* -.34**
3. DIC .30** .37** .58**
4. PWGE .47** .23*
5. JS .54**
6. OC
Note. RD = Racist Discrimination. SD = Sexist Discrimination. DIC = Diversity Inclusive Climate. PWGE =
Perceived Work Group Effectiveness. JS = Job Satisfaction. OC = Organizational Commitment. *p < .05. **p < .01.













Table A-9. African American Sample' s Intercorrelations among Variables of Interest (n = 188)
Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6
1. RD .85** -.38** -.35** -.38** -.30**
2. SD -.30** -.30** -.30** -.25**
3. DIC .40** .43** .40**
4. PWGE .66** .35**
5. JS .55**
6. OC
Note. RD = Racist Discrimination. SD. = Sexist Discrimination. DIC =Diversity Inclusive Climate. PWGE =
Perceived Work Group Effectiveness. JS = Job Satisfaction. OC = Organizational Commitment. **p < .01.













Table A-10. Asian American/Pacific Islander Sample's Intercorrelations among Variables of
Interest (n = 191)
Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6
1. RD .81** -.05 -.18* -.13 -.36**
2. SD .08 -.15* -.11 -.31**
3 .DIC .40** .34** .28**
4. PWGE .62** .34**
5. JS .36**
6. OC
Note. RD = Racist Discrimination. SD. = Sexist Discrimination. DIC = Diversity Inclusive Climate. PWGE =
Perceived Work Group Effectiveness. JS = Job Satisfaction. OC = Organizational Commitment. **p < .01.













Table A-11. American Indian/Alaskan Native Sample's Intercorrelations among Variables of
Interest (n = 207)
Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6
1. RD .89** .34** -.02 .02 -.19**
2. SD .37** -.03 .01 -.21**
3. DIC .28** .20** .09
4. PWGE .62** .30**
5. JS .35**
6. OC
Note. RD = Racist Discrimination. SD = Sexist Discrimination. DIC = Diversity Inclusive Climate. PWGE =
Perceived Work Group Effectiveness. JS = Job Satisfaction. OC = Organizational Commitment. **p < .01.













Table A-12. White Sample's Intercorrelations among Variables of Interest (n = 700)


Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6
1. RD .80** -.45** -.31** -.34** -.37**
2. SD -.32** -.29** -.30** -.38**
3. DIC .25** .34** .37**
4. PWGE .37** .37**
5. JS .62**
6. OC
Note. RD = Racist Discrimination. SD. = Sexist Discrimination. DIC = Diversity Inclusive Climate. PWGE
Perceived Work Group Effectiveness. JS = Job Satisfaction. OC = Organizational Commitment. **p < .01.









APPENDIX B
FIGURES








































Figure B-1. Proposed Path Model (fully saturated)












.63 R1 3- ~ .42
.40 --+1 S 21 h;.65

.67 4 R 4 .37
.45 -- S 22 (

.62 / R 6 t- .52
.39 -4-* S 24 .

.64 I66 R .44
.41 --* S 32

Per. Sexist / n51 R 9 +- .56
.47 -+- S 36 ivDiscrimination
.72
.74l Rl 10 .55
.50 -+ S 39

.7 .73 RII r .54
.52 -+r S 41
.72
.91M / .741r R 12 +-- .55
.51 -+-* S 43 ."74

.6~ Rt 13+- .46
.55 4c S 45 ."74

.54 -+ S 46 ."75.68 R5.4
.76
R I6 4-- .57
.56 --+1 S 47.7

.67/ .67I R 17 +-.45
.59 -H S 48
.75
Per. Racist Ri 18 e .56
.45 -Y S 49 Discrimination
-32 .711
--+R 20 4-- .58
.76
,29 ---1 DI 1 54R 23 le.58
.72

.32 --* DI 2 .rt57 \ ~ \I R 25 c-- .52

.43 -+~ DI 5 \\\-.42 R1 7 26 4- .34

.43 --+ DI 7 hr \ \ \ \\lh \ .76 R 28 I .60

.32 -+--* DI 14 1.62\`~ .75 R 30 +-- .59

.39) -+-* DI 19 .56 \\ \73 R 33 +- .56
Per.
.73 Diversity
.544 D 29Inclusive .741 R 34 Ic.53

.37 -+ DI 31 1.6 Climate- \ 73 R 36 k-- .55
.70
.49 -+~ DI 35 Ir c- 73" R 40 +-- .54
.62
.38 -- DI 37 ) R 42 +- 54
.66
.44 --+ DI 50 Jr1R 44 +- .56

Figure B-2. Confirmatory Factor Analysis of Predictor Variables (N = 1452)


































.23 -- OC 51

.70
.43 -- OC 52

.77
.58 -+lc OC 53


.19 + OC55 Organizational
.68 Commitment
.69)
.45 --+ OC 56


.57 --+ OC 58
.36
,14 -+ OC 59 1.37

.15 -+Y OC 60 r.63
.50

.40 -+ OC 61 t.54

.30 -+~ OC 62





.73
.53 -H WG 63

.75 Perceived
,58 r, WG 64 Work Group
.761 Effectiveness
.56 --1 WOc~ 65
.65
,42 --4 WG 66
.70
.49 -+~c WG 67



Figure B-3. Confirmatory Factor Analysis of Dependent Variables (N = 1452)










































Figure B-4. Entire Sample's Fully Saturated Path Model (N
path.


1452). Note. *p < .05. **p < .001. Dashed line indicates nonsignificant




























-.38 '
.07 's. -.08 -
,-.05
-.30**
Perceived Job Organizational
Work Group .8* Satisfaction Cmien
Effectiveness



.50**
.34**/ .12*

Diversity .19*
Inclusive
Climate



Figure B-5. African American Sample's Fully Saturated Path Model (n = 188). Note. *p < .05. **p < .001. Dashed line indicates
nonsignificant path.









































Figure B-6. American Indian/Alaskan Native Sample's Fully Saturated Path Model (n = 207). Note. *p < .05. **p < .001. .Dashed line
indicates nonsignificant path.


























-.0 .8 .14 b-.10 '--- 11


Perceived Job Organizational
Work Group .53** Satisfaction .9. Commitment
Effectiveness



.20*
.35**/ .22**
Diversity .17*
Inclusive
Climate


Figure B-7. Asian American/ Pacific Islander Sample's Fully Saturated Path Model (n = 191). Note. *p < .05. **p < .001. Dashed line
indicates nonsignificant path.

































Perceived Job Urgamizational
WokGop .43** Satisfaction .. 4 Commitment
Effectiveness



.38**
.26*/ .16 -

Diversity ,-**.27*
Inclusive
Climate



Figure B-8. Hispanic Sample's Fully Saturated Path Model (n = 84). Note. *p < .05. **p < .001. .Dashed line indicates nonsignificant
path.





























-.44 '


-.32**
Pe r<
WorE
Effec-





.24**/ .08

Diversity
Inclusive
Climate



Figure B-9. White Sample's Fully Saturated Path Model (n
path.


700). Note. *p < .05. **p < .001. .Dashed line indicates nonsignificant









LIST OF REFERENCES

American Psychological Association. (APA-1999). Archival description of counseling
psychology. The Counseling Psychologist, 27, 589-592.

American Psychological Association. (APA-2002). Ethical principles of psychologists and code
of conduct. American Psychologist, 57, 1060-1073.

Arbuckle, J. L. (2006). Amos (Version 7.0) [Computer software]. Spring House, PA: Amos
Development Corporation.

Armstead, C., Lawler, K.A., Gordon, G., Cross, J., & Gibbons, J. (1989). Relationship of racial
stressors to blood pressure responses and anger expressions in black college students.
Health Psychology, 8, 541-556.

Baker-Fletcher, K. (1994). The difference race makes: Sexual harassment and the law in the
Thomas/Hill hearings. Journal of Fentinist Studies in Religion, 10, 7-15.

Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory.
Englewood Chiffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Bandura, A. (1986). The explanatory and predictive scope of self-efficacy theory. Journal of
Social and Clinical Psychology, 4, 359-373.

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York, NY: Freeman.

Bandura, A. (2000). Exercise of human agency through collective efficacy. Current Directions in
Psychological Science, 9(3), 75-78.

Baron, M.R., & Kenny, D.A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social
psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1 173-1 182.

Bastian, L.D., Lancaster, A.R., & Reyst, H.E. (1996). 1995 Sexual Harassnzent Survey.
Arlington VA: Defense Manpower Data Center.

Bateman, T.S., & Strasser, S. (1984). A longitudinal analysis of the antecedents of organizational
commitment. Academy of2anagentent Journal, 27, 95-1 12.

Benokraitis, N. V. (Ed.). (1997). Subtle sexism: Current practice and prospects for change.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Bergman, M.E., & Drasgow, F. (2003). Race as a moderator in a model of sexual harassment:
An empirical test. Journal of Organiza~tional Health Psychology, 8(2), 13 1-145.

Betz, N.E. (1994). Basic issues and concepts in career counseling for women. In W.B. Walsh &
S.H. Osipow (Eds.), Career counseling for women. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.


110










Bluedorn, A.C. (1982). A unified model of turnover form organizations. Human Relations, 35,
135- 153.

Bond, M.A., Punnett, J. L., Pyle, D.C., Cazeca, D., & Cooperman, M. (2004). Gendered work
conditions, health, and work outcomes. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 9, 28-
45.

Browman, C.L. (1996). The health consequences of racial discrimination: A study of African
Americans. Ethnicity and Disease, 6, 148-153.

Clark, R, Anderson, N.B., Clark, V.R., & Williams, D.R. (1999). Racism as a stressor for
African Americans: A biopsychosocial model. American Psychologist, 54(10), 805-816.

Commission for the Recognition of Specialties and Proficiences in Professional Psychology
(February, 1999). Archival description of counseling psychology. [On-line]. Available:
//www.apa. org/crsppp/counseling.html .

Cooper, R. S. (1993). Health and the social status of Blacks in the United States. Annals of
Epidemiology, 3, 137-144.

Cooper-Hakim, A., & Viswesvaran, C. (2005). The construct of work commitment: Testing an
integrative framework. Psychological Bulletin, 131(2), 241-259.

Crawford, S. (1993, March 28). A wink here, a leer there: It' s costly. New York Times, p. Fl7.

Culbertson, A., & Rodgers, W. (1997). Improving managerial effectiveness in the workplace:
The case of sexual harassment of navy women. Journal ofApplied Social Psychology,
27(22), 1953-1971.

Dansby, M.R. (1994, December). The M~ilitazy Equal Opportunity Climate Survey (MEOCS).
Paper presented at the WorldWide Equal Opportunity Conference, Cocoa Beach, FL.

Dansby, M.R., & Landis, D. (1991). Measuring equal opportunity in the military environment.
International Journal ofhitercultural Relations, 15, 389-405.

Dansby, M.R., & Landis, D. (1998). Race, gender, and representation index as predictors of an
equal opportunity climate in military organizations. M~ilitazy Psychology, 10(2), 87-105.

Dawis, R.V. (1996). The theory of work adjustment and person-environment-correspondence
counseling. In D. Brown & L. Brooks (Eds.), Career choice and development (3rd ed., pp.
75-120). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Dawis, R.V., England, G.W., & Lofquist, L.H. (1964). A theory of work adjustment. M~innesota
Studies in Vocational Rehabilitation, 15.

Dawis, R.V., & Lofquist, L.H. (1984). A psychological theory of work adjustment. Minneapolis:
University of Minnesota Press.










Defense Equal Opportunity Management Institute (2003, March). Sentiannual Dentographic
Profile of the Department of Defense and' U.S. Coast Guard'.

Deitch, E.A., Barsky, A., Butz, R.M., Chan, S., Brief, A.P., & Bradley, J.C. (2003). Subtle yet
significant: The existence and impact of everyday racial discrimination in the workplace.
Human Relations, 56, 1299-1324

de Jonge, J., Dormann, C. Janssen, P.P.M., Dollard, M.F., Landeweerd, J.A., & Nijhuis, F.J.N.
(2001). Testing reciprocal relationships between job characteristics and psychological
well-being: A cross-lagged structural equation model. Journal of Occupational and'
Organizational Psychology, 74, 29-46.

Enlisted and officer demographic data (n.d.). 2002 air force demographic data. Retrieved
November 19, 2002, from
http://www.afpc.randolph.af.mil/demographisdmga/ECT~tl

Exec. Order No. 9981, 13 C.F.R. 4313 (1948).

Faley, R.H., Knapp, D.E., Kustis, G.A., & Dubois, C.L. (1994, April). Organizational cost of
sexual harassment in the workplace. Paper presented at the annual conference of the
Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Nashville, TN.

Fitzgerald, L.F., Drasgow, F., & Magley, V.J. (1999). Sexual harassment in the armed forces: A
test of an integrated model. M~ilitazy Psychology, 11(3), 329-344.

Fitzgerald, L.F., Drasgow, F., Hulin, C.L., Gelfand, M.J., & Magley, V.J. (1997).Antecedents
and consequences of sexual harassment in organizations: A test of an integrated model.
Journal ofApplied Psychology, 82, 578-589.

Fitgerald, L.F., Gelfand, M.J., & Drasgow, F. (1995). Measuring sexual harassment: Theoretical
and psychometric advances. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 1 7, 425-427.

Fitzgerald, L.H., Magley, V.J., Drasgow, F., & Waldo, C.R. (1999). Measuring sexual
harassment in the military: The Sexual Experiences Questionnaire (SEQ-DoD). M~ilitaly
Psychology, 11, 243-263.

Fitzgerald, L.F., & Nutt, R. (1986). The Division 17 principles concerning
counseling/psychotherapy of women: Rationale and implementation. The Counseling
Psychologist, 14, 180-216.

Fitzgerald, L.F., Shullman, S., Bailey, N., Richards, M., Swecker, J., Gold, A., Ormerod, A.J., &
Weitzman, L. (1988). The incidence and dimensions of sexual harassment in academia and
the workplace. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 32, 152-175.

Hackett, G., Betz, N.E., Casas, J.M., & Romac-Singh, I.A. (1992). Gender, ethnicity, and social
cognitive factors in predicting the academic achievement of students in engineering.
Journal of Counseling Psychology, 39, 527-538.










Hackett, G., & Byars, A.M. (1996). Social cognitive theory and the career development of
African American women. Career Development Quarterly, 44, 322-340.

Hackett, G. & Lonborg, S.D. (1994). Career assessment and counseling for women. In W.B.
Walsh, & S.H. Osipow (Eds.), Career counseling for women. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.

Harris, R.J. & Firestones, J.M. (1997). Subtle sexism in the U.S. military: Individual responses to
sexual harassment. In N.V. Benokraitis (Ed.), Subtle sexism: Current practice and
prospects for change. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Hay, M.S., & Elig, T.W. (1999). The 1995 Department of defense sexual harassment survey:
Overview and methodology. M~ilitazy Psychology, 11(3), 233-243.

Hesketh, B., McLachlan, K., & Gardner D. (1992). Work adjustment theory: An empirical test
using a fuzzy rating scale. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 40 (3), 3 18-337.

Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1995). Evaluating model fit. In R. H. Hoyle (Ed.), Structural equation
modeling: Concepts, issues, and applications (pp. 76-99). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Hulin, C.L., Fitzgerald, L.H., & Drasgow, F. (1996). Organizational influences on sexual
harassment. In M. Stockdale (Eds.), Sexual harassment in the workplace (Vol. 5, pp. 127-
150). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Izaeli, D.N. (1983). Sex effects or structural effects? An empirical test of Kanter' s theory of
proportions. Social Forces, 62, 153-165.

Jackson, J.S., Williams, D.R., & Torres, M. (1997). Perceptions ofdiscrintination: The stress
process and physical and psychological health. A. Maney (Ed.), Washington, DC:
National Institute for Mental Health.

Kanter, R.M. (1977). Some effects of proportions on group life: Skewed sex ratios and responses
to token women. American Journal of Sociology, 82, 965-994.

Kline, R.B. (1998). Principals and practices of structural equation modeling. New York:
Guilford Press.

Klonoff, E.A., Landrine, H., & Campbell, R. (2000). Sexist discrimination may account for well-
known gender differences in psychiatric symptoms. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 24,
93-99.

Knouse, Stephen. (2002). Improving return rates on equal opportunity surveys.

Krieger, N. (1990). Racial and gender discrimination: Risk factors for high blood pressure.
Social Science M~edicine, 30, 1273-1281.

DEOMIRSP 02-02. Patrick AFB, FL: Defense Equal Opportunity Management Institute.










Koch, J.T., & Steers, R.M. (1978). Job attachment, satisfaction, and turnover among public
sector employees. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 12, 199-128.

Kramarae, C. (1992). Harassment and everyday life. In L.F. Rakow (Ed.), Women making
meaning. NY: Routledge.

Kuck, V.P., Marzabadi, C.H., & Buckner, J.P. (2007). A review and study on graduate training
and academic hiring of chemists. Journal of Chentical Education, 84, 277-284.

Landis, D., Dansby, M.R., & Faley, R.H. (1993). The military equal opportunity climate survey:
An example of surveying in organizations. In D. Landis, M.R. Dansby., & R.H. Faley,
(Eds.), improving organizational surveys: New directions, methods, and applications.
London: SAGE Publications.

Lent, R.W., Hackett, G., & Brown, S.D. (2000). Contextual supports and barriers to career
choice: A social cognitive analysis. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 47 (1, 36-49.

Lent, R.W., Brown, S.D., & Hackett, G. (1994). Toward a unifying social cognitive theory of
career and academic interest, choice, and performance. Journal of Vocational Behavior,
45, 79-122.

Lofquist, L.H., & Dawis, R.V. (1991). Essentials ofperson-environment correspondence
counseling. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

MacDonald, P.M. (2007). Reforming academia: Turning the ivory tower into a family-friendly
workplace. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 31(3), 218-219.

MacKinnon, C. (1979). Sexual harassment of working women. New Haven, CT: Yale University
Press.

Martens, M. P. (2005). The use of structural equation modeling in counseling psychology
research. The Counseling Psychologist, 33, 269-298

Martin, S.E. (1989). Sexual harassment: The link joining gender stratification, sexuality, and
women's economic status. In J. Freeman (Ed.), Women: A feminist perspective (3rd ed., pp.
54-69). Palo Alto, CA: Mayfield.

Mathieu, J.E., & Zajac, D.M. (1990). A review and meta-analysis of the antecedents, correlates,
and consequences of organizational commitment. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 171-194.

Maze, R. (1992, April 27). Sexual harassment squanders millions. Navy Times, p. 23.

McIntyre, R.M., Bartle, S.A., Landis, D., & Dansby, M.R. (2002). The effects of equal
opportunity fairness attitudes on job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and
perceived work group efficacy. M~ilitazy Psychology, 14(4), 299-319.


114










Military Equal Opportunity Climate Survey (MEOCS) Background Paper. (n.d.). Directorate of
research directory of services. Retrieved December 2, 2002, from
http ://www.patrick.af.mil/deomi/research%20man2pgsmohmet.

Mobley, M, Slaney, R.B., & Rice, K.G. (2005). Cultural Validity of the Almost Perfect Scale-
Revised for African American College Students. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52(4),
629-639.

Morrow, S.L., Gore, Jr., P.A. & Campbell, B.W. (1996). The application of a sociocognitive
framework to the career development of lesbian woman and gay men. Journal of
Vocational Behavior, 48, 136-148.

Moradi, B., Dirks, D.A., Matteson, A.V. (2005). An examination of obj ectification theory: Roles
of reported sexual obj ectification experiences and internalization of sociocultural standards
of beauty. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52(3), 420-428.

Moradi, B., & Subich, L.M. (2002). Perceived sexist events and feminist identity development
attitudes: Links to women' s psychological distress. The Counseling Psychologist, 30, 44-
65.

Moradi, B., & Subich, L.M. (2003). A concomitant examination of the relations of perceived
racist and sexist events to psychological distress for African American women. The
Counseling Psychologist, 31(4), 45 1-469.

Morrow, P.C. (1983). Concept redundancy in organizational research: The case of work
commitment. Academy of2anagement Review, 8, 486-500.

Mowday, R.T., Steers, R.M., & Porter, L.W. (1979). The measurement of organizational
commitment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 14, 224-247.

Munson, L.J., Hulin, C., & Drasgow, F. (2000). Longitudinal analyses of dispositional influences
and sexual harassment: Effects on job and psychological outcomes. Personnel Psychology,
53, 21-46.

Murrell, A.J. (1996). Sexual harassment and women of color: Issues, challenges, and future
directions. In M.S. Stockdale (Eds.), Sexual harassment in the workplace (Vol. 5, pp. 51-
66). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Newell, C.E., Rosenfield, P., & Culbertson, A.L. (1995). Sexual harassment experiences and
equal opportunity perceptions of Navy women. Sex Roles, 32, 159-168.

Ninth Circuit Gender Bias Task Force. (1944, May). Final report. Sonlrlhein Cahifornia Law
Review, 67, 727-1106.

Office of the Under Secretary of Defense Personnel and Readiness (2003). Career progression of
minority and women officers. Washington, DC: Author.










Ponterotto, J.G., Casas, J.M. (1991). Handbook of racial/ethnic minority counseling research.
Springfield, IL: Thomas.

Porter, L.W., Steers, R.M., Mowday, R.T., & Boulian, P.V. (1974). Organizational commitment,
job satisfaction, and turnover among psychiatric technicians. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 59, 603-609.

Pryor, J.B., Geidd, J.L., & Williams, K.B. (1995). A social psychological model for predicting
sexual harassment. Journal of Social Issues, 51, 69-84.

Reid, P.T., & Comas-Diaz, L. (1990). Gender and ethnicity: Perspectives on dual status. Sex
Roles, 22, 397-408.

Roberts, R.K., Swanson, N.G., & Murphy, L.R. (2004). Discrimination and occupational mental
health. Journal of2~ent~al Hath, 13(2), 129-142.

Rosenfield, P., Newell, C.E., & Le, S. (1998). Equal Opportunity Climate of Women and
Minorities in the Navy: Results From the Navy Equal Opportunity/Sexual Harassment
(NEOSH) Survey. Military Psychology, 10(2), 69-85.

Sadroff, R. (1992). Sexual harassment: The inside story. Working Women, June, pp. 47-51.

Sesan, R. (1988). Sex bias and sex-role stereotyping in psychotherapy with women: Survey
results. Psychotherapy, 25, 107-116.

Settles, I.H., Cortina, L.M., Stewart, A.J., & Malley, J. (2007). Voice matters: Buffering the
impact of a negative climate for women in science. Psychology of Women Quarterly,
31(3), 270-281.

Stajkovic, A.D., & Luthans, F. (1998). Self-efficacy and work-related performance: A meta-
analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 124 (2), 240-261.

Swanson, J.L., & Gore, Jr., P.A. (2000). Advances in vocational psychology theory and research
.Handbook of Counseling Psychology 3rd Ed, 233-269.

Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L.S. (2001). Using Multivariate Statistics. Allyn & Bacon, MA.

Terpstra, D.E., & Cook, S.E. (1985). Complainant characteristics and reported behaviors and
consequences associated with formal sexual harassment charges. Personnel Psychology,
38, 559-574.

Thomas, J.A. (1988). Race relations research in the U.S. Army in the 1970s: A collection of
selected readings. Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and
Social Sciences.

Tinsley, D.J. (1993). Extensions, elaborations, and construct validation of the Theory of Work
Adjustment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 43(1), 67-74.


116










U.S. General Accounting Office. (1995). Equal Opportunity: DOD studies on discrimination in
the military (Rep. No. GAO/NSIAD-95-103). Washington, DC: Author.

U. S. Merit Systems Protection Board. (1981). Sexual harassment in the federal workplace: Is it a
problem? Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

U. S. Merit Systems Protection Board. (1988). Sexual harassment in the federal workplace: An
update. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

West, C., & Fenstermaker, S. (1995). Doing difference. Gender and Society, 9, 8-37.

Weston, R., & Gore, P. A. (2006). A brief guide to structural equation modeling. The Counseling
Psychologist, 34, 719-751.

Williams, D.R., & Williams-Morris, R. (2000). Racism and mental health: The African
American experience. Ethnicity and Health, 6, 243-269.

Williams, J.H., Fitzgerald, L.F., & Drasgow, F. (1999). The effects of organizational practices in
sexual harassment and individual outcomes in the military. M~ilitazy Psychology, 11(3),
303-329.

Williams, L.J., & Hazer, J.T. (1986). Antecedents and consequences of satisfactions and
commitment in turnover models: A reanalysis using latent variable structural equation
methods. Journal ofAppliedPsychology, 71, 219-231.

Yoder, J.D. (1991). Rethinking tokenism: Looking beyond numbers. Gender and Society, 5, 178-
191.

Yoder, J.D. (2003). Women and Gender: Transforming Psychology. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

Yoder, J.D., & Aniakudo, P. (1997). "Outsider within" the Girehouse: Subordination and
differences in the social interactions of African American women Girefighters. Gender &
Society, 11, 324-341.

Yoder, J.D., & Kahn, A.S. (1993). Working toward an inclusive psychology of women.
American Psychologist, 48, 846-850.

Young, I.M. (1992). Five faces of oppression. In T.E. Wartenburg (Ed.), Rethinking Power (pp.
174-195). Albany, NW: State University of New York Press.









BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

Alicia Valleni Matteson was born in Redondo Beach, CA and was commissioned as an

Active Duty officer in the United States Air Force from the USAF Academy in 1995 where she

received her BS in Behavioral Sciences. She received an Air Force Institute of Technology

(AFIT) scholarship to earn her MA in Community Counseling from the University of Colorado,

Colorado Springs in 1998 and upon graduation, served as a counselor and instructor at the USAF

Academy from 2000-2002. She received another AFIT scholarship to pursue her doctorate in

Counseling Psychology from the University of Florida beginning in 2002. She graduated from

the Clinical Psychology Residency program at Malcolm Grow Medical Center, Andrews AFB,

MD in 2005 and has served as the Commander of the Mental Health Flight at Dover AFB since

then. She is the proud spouse of Adam, an AF retired veteran, and the tremendously blessed

mother of Warren, Conrad, and Noah.





PAGE 1

1 ROLE OF WORK CLIMATE IN JOB SATISFACTION AND ORGANIZATIONAL COMMITMENT OF WOMEN IN A NONTRADITI ONAL CAREER FIELD: THE CASE OF WOMEN IN THE MILITARY By ALICIA VALLENI MATTESON A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLOR IDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2008

PAGE 2

2 2008 Alicia Valleni Matteson

PAGE 3

3 To those who serve others, whether they have been called to military service, or serve quietly in their communities.

PAGE 4

4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I thank the United States Air Force f or the oppor tunity to return to graduate school and pursue this degree; to the Defense Equal Opportu nity Military Institut ion for allowing me to critically analyze their data; to all of my supervisors, both in the military and in academia, who have guided me, especially my doctoral committ ee, Dr. Kwoleck-Folland, Dr. Bluck, Dr. Rice, and my chair, Dr. Moradi, who is an inspirati on both personally and professionally. Her valued input, encouragement, and tireless efforts were in strumental in the creatio n of the present study. I thank my mother, who not only gave her daughters the priceless gift of empowerment, but also spent countless hours as my editor. Most of all, I thank my spouse, Adam, for agreeing to go on this journey with me; for his reassurance; for taking care of our sons, Warren, Conrad, and Noah; for being true to himself; and for allowing me to be true to myself. NOTE: The views expressed in this article ar e those of the author and do not reflect the official policy or position of the United States Air Force, Department of Defense, or the U.S. Government.

PAGE 5

5 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS...............................................................................................................4 LIST OF TABLES................................................................................................................. ..........7 LIST OF FIGURES.........................................................................................................................8 ABSTRACT.....................................................................................................................................9 CHAP TER 1 STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM......................................................................................10 2 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE........................................................................................ 17 An Opportunity to Study Womens Experience s in a Nontraditional Career Field: The Case of Women who ar e Military Officers.........................................................................18 Social Cognitive Career Theory............................................................................................. 20 Theory of Work Adjustment...................................................................................................22 Retention-Related Criterion Variables: Job Satisfaction, Organizational C ommitment, and Work Group Effectiveness........................................................................................... 24 Contextual Experiences: Sexist Discrimi nation, Racist Discrim i nation, and Diversity Inclusive Climate.............................................................................................................. ..26 Sexist Discrimination...................................................................................................... 26 Racist Discrimination...................................................................................................... 41 Diversity Inclusive Climate............................................................................................. 46 Summary and Hypotheses......................................................................................................50 3 METHOD......................................................................................................................... ......52 Participants.............................................................................................................................52 Procedures..................................................................................................................... ..........53 Instruments.................................................................................................................... .........55 Independent Variables:....................................................................................................61 Dependent Variables:...................................................................................................... 62 4 RESULTS...............................................................................................................................64 Descriptive Results............................................................................................................ .....64 Tests of Hypotheses................................................................................................................66 5 SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION.........................................................................................76

PAGE 6

6 APPENDIX A TABLE DATA..................................................................................................................... ..85 B FIGURES........................................................................................................................ ......100 LIST OF REFERENCES.............................................................................................................110 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH.......................................................................................................118

PAGE 7

7 LIST OF TABLES Table page A-1 Air Force Gender Proportions of Rank.............................................................................. 85 A-2 Three-Factor Solution with Promax Rotation for 2001 MEOCS Item s 1-50 (51.00% of Total Variance)..............................................................................................................86 A-3 Four-Factor Solution with Promax Rotation for 2001 MEOCS Item s 51-73 (53.81% of Total Variance)..............................................................................................................89 A-4 Assessment of Fit Indices for CFAs of 2002 Data............................................................ 91 A-5 Descriptive Statistics and Mean Differen ce s for Predictor Variables by Racial/Ethnic Group.................................................................................................................................92 A-6 Descriptive Statistics and Mean Differ ence s for Criterion Variables by Racial/Ethnic Group.................................................................................................................................93 A-7 Entire Smples Intercorrelati ons am ong Variables of Interest........................................... 94 A-8 Hispanic Samples Intercorrela tions am ong Variables of Interest.................................... 95 A-9 African American Samples Intercor relations among Variables of Interest ...................... 96 A-10 Asian American/Pacific Islander Sample s Intercorrelations am ong Variables of Interest................................................................................................................................97 A-11 American Indian/Alaskan Native Sample s Intercorrelations am ong Variables of Interest................................................................................................................................98 A-12 White Samples Intercorrelati ons among Variables of Interest ......................................... 99

PAGE 8

8 LIST OF FIGURES Figure page B-1 Proposed Model (fully saturated)..................................................................................... 101 B-2 Confirmatory Factor Analys is of Predictor Variables ..................................................... 102 B-3 Confirmatory Factor Analys is of Dependent Variables ...................................................103 B-4 Entire Samples Fully Saturated Path Model .................................................................. 104 B-5 African American Samples Fully Saturated Path Model ............................................... 105 B-6 American Indian/Alaskan Native Sa mples Fully Saturated P ath Model ....................... 106 B-7 Asian American/PacificIslander Samples Fully Saturated Path Model ........................ 107 B-8 Hispanic Samples Fully Saturated Path Model ............................................................. 108 B-9 White Samples Fully Saturated Path Model .................................................................. 109

PAGE 9

9 Abstract of Dissertation Pres ented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy ROLE OF WORK CLIMATE IN JOB SATISFACTION AND ORGANIZATIONAL COMMITMENT OF WOMEN IN A NONT RADITIONAL CAREER FIELD: THE CASE OF WOME N IN THE MILITARY By Alicia Valleni Matteson August 2008 Chair: Bonnie Moradi Major: Counseling Psychology To date there are significant gaps in the lite rature examining the links between women in nontraditional career fields perceptions of workplace climate and job-related outcomes. Specifically, racial/ethnic identity of women in nontraditional career fields is often overlooked or is narrowly defined, thus important contextual facets of womens experiences are unexamined. Additionally, the majority of research that ex amines women in nontraditional career fields perceptions of discrimination focuses on sexist discriminatio n, few studies examine racist discrimination, and none have examined simultaneous links of racist and sexist discrimination with job-related outcomes. Our study examined three aspects of perceptions of workplace climate (perceived racist and sexist discrimina tion and perceived divers ity inclusive climate) with three job-related outcomes (perceived wo rk group effectiveness, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment) with a sample of 1,4 52 women officers in the military. Path analytic finding indicated that all three t ypes of perceptions of workplace cl imate had significantly unique direct and indirect links to one or more of the three job-related outcomes. However, there were differences among the racial/ethnic groups in the strengths of the links between the variables of interest. Implications for future research and organization policy and practice are discussed.

PAGE 10

10 CHAPTER 1 STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM The field of counseling psychology has widely re cognized the need to attend to contextual variables that im pact persons life experiences mental health, and well-being (Commission for the Recognition of Specialties and Proficiencies in Professional Psychology, 1999). Furthermore, counseling psychologists are expected to know and integrate contextual factors along with intrapersonal factors that might influence persons mental health and well-being into their practice. Such integration has been deemed part icularly important in conceptualizing womens experiences, as is reflected in the Society of Counseling Psychologys principles concerning counseling/psychotherapy with women which state that Couns elors/therapists should be knowledgeable about women, particularly with re gard to biological, psychological, and social issues which have impact on women in general or on particular groups of women in our society (Fitzgerald & Nutt, 1986, p. 181). Additionally, the field of counseling psychology tr aditionally attends to the role of career and vocation on individual development and fu nctioning (American Psychological Association, 1999). Theory and research generated from the field of counseling psychology are particularly appropriate to apply to understa nding the experiences of women in nontraditional career fields in American society. Such attention is important in light of the wi dely publicized disproportionate number of women in top positions in nontraditional career fields. For example, Benokraitis (1997) reported that although men who are Caucasian comprise 33% of the U.S. population, they comprise 85% of tenured professors, 85% of la w firm partners, 95% of Fortune 500 CEOs, 97% of school superintendents, and 96% of military ge nerals. There is speculation that higher attrition rates for women in nontraditional career fields contribute to this ex isting disproportion. The concern about womens attrition rates transcends numerous domains such as math and science

PAGE 11

11 fields (Kuck, Marzabadi, & Buc kner, 2007; Settles, Cortina, Stewart, & Malley, 2007), the legal profession (Ninth Circuit Gender Bias Task Force, 1994), academia (Betz, 1994; MacDonald, 2007), and military service (Harris & Firestone, 1997). Thus, numerous professions stand to gain by the exploration of factors that contribute to the attrition of women in nontraditional career fields. The military career field in the United Stat es is a particularly fertile focus for examining the attrition of women in nontrad itional career fields because the governments efforts to assess military womens work-related experiences has lead to the accruement of rich databases. This study utilizes such data; consequently, the lite rature reviewed to develop hypotheses focuses primarily on military womens experiences in the workplace. Examination of the retention of women in nontraditional career fields is informed by the vast amount of occupational and organizational literature. Specif ically, a large body of research, including meta-analyses, points to job satisfac tion and organizational commitment as important predictors of job retention (e.g., Mathieu & Zajac, 1990; Cooper-Hakim & Viswesvaran, 2005). Indeed, there is robust evidence of the li nks between job satisfaction, organizational commitment, turnover intention, and ultimately, actual turnover (e.g., Bluedorn, 1982; Koch & Steers, 1978; McIntyre, Bartle, Landis, & Dansby, 2002; Williams & Hazer, 1986). Consistent with this research, within the military arena, the Career Progression of Minority and Women Officers report (Office of the Under Secretary of De fense Personnel and Readiness, 2003) stated that a central contributing factor to the retention of minority a nd women officers is commitment to the organization and deficit in such commitment will reduce sufficient retention to maintain an effective force. Thus, to understand and improve retention of military women, it is important to identify correlates of military womens j ob satisfaction and organizational commitment.

PAGE 12

12 Perceptions of discrimination in the workpl ace are widely accepted to have negative psychological and physical health consequences for individuals (e.g., Baker-Fletcher, 1994; West & Fenstermaker, 1995; Yoder & Aniakudo, 1996), and also are linked with negative job outcomes such as lower job satisfaction and orga nizational commitment, and greater absenteeism (e.g., Culbertson & Rodgers, 1997; McIntyre et al., 2002; Munson, Hulin, & Drasgow, 2000; Fitgerald, Drasgow, Hulin, Gelfand, & Magley, 1997). Furthermore, workplace discrimination can have negative organizational impacts. For exam ple, sexual harassment, which is one form of sexist discrimination, has been estimated to cost a company of about 24,000 employees $67.7 million per year (Crawford, 1993). Sexual harassment has been estimated to cost the military as much as $40 to $500 million per year due to nonr etention of personnel, absenteeism, lowered productivity, and sick leave (Faley, Kna pp, Kustis, & Dubois, 1994; Maze, 1992). Thus, womens perceptions of workplace sexist disc rimination are important to explore when examining the retention of women in nontraditional career fields. Evidence regarding sexism in the workplace su ggests that (a) sexism exists in numerous forms and (b) it can have negativ e, and sometimes devastating, effects on women, especially for women in nontraditional career fields. In a national survey, Martin (1989) found that 50% of women in a variety of career fields reported currently being sexually discriminated against and harassed at work and 80%-90% re ported having been sexually disc riminated against or harassed at some point in their careers. Sexist discrimination also ha s been found to be highest in companies in which more than 75% of the pe rsonnel are men (Kramarae, 1992). This gender imbalanced composition characterizes nontraditional career fields for women, including the military career field. Indeed, Ha rris and Firestone (1997) found th at 73% of military active duty women and 18% of active duty men reported ex periencing blatant and/or subtle sexual

PAGE 13

13 discrimination in the past 12 months. Due to the pervasiveness of sexist discrimination, especially in workplaces where women are a minor ity, it is reasonable to explore sexism as a possible factor contributing to the job satisfaction and organiza tional commitment of women in such career fields, including in the military. Much of the existing research on sexist discrimination in the military tends to be descriptive in nature and suggest s that racial/ethnic minority wo men officers report the highest rates of experiences of sexist discrimination a nd the least favorable perception of work climate (Rosenfeld, Newell, & Le, 1998). Specifically, Am erican Indian/Alaskan Native women in the military report the highest levels of sexual di scrimination, followed by Hispanic women, African American women, White women, and Asian Americ an/Pacific Islander women who report the lowest levels of sexist discriminatio n (Bastian, Lancaster, & Reyst 1996). Beyond descriptive data about the prevalence of perceived sexist discrimination, a few studies provide evidence of a link between perceived equal opportunity (EO) climate and jobrelated outcomes for women in the military. EO climate reflects the perceptions that military service members have about the issues of racial and gender discrimination (U.S. General Accounting Office, 1995, p. 3). Particularly, McIntyre et al. ( 2002) tested and found empirical support for a model indicating a dir ect relationship from perceptions of EO climate to perceived work group effectiveness, organizational comm itment, and job satisfaction; with greater perceptions of discrimination re lated to lower levels of perceived work group effectiveness, organizational commitment, and j ob satisfaction. Furthermore, McIn tyre et al. (2002) found that (a) perceived work group effec tiveness partially mediated the link of EO climate to job satisfaction and (b) job satisfacti on fully mediated the link of perceived work group effectiveness to organizational commitment. These findings point to the importance of considering the role of

PAGE 14

14 perceived workplace discrimination in shaping important job-related outcomes. In addition, Williams, Fitzgerald, and Drasgow (1999) found that diversity affirming organizational practices that serve to counter discrimina tion and foster diversity inclusiv e workplace climate, were linked to lower reports of discrimination in the workplac e. The present study integrates Williams et al.s (1999) findings with McIntyre et al.s (2002) model by examining perceptions of diversity inclusive workplace climate, al ong with perceptions of discrimination, as predictors of jobrelated outcomes. An important gap in the literature is that the existing research on womens experiences of sexist discrimination in nontraditional career fiel ds generally fails to attend to within group diversity, such as racial/ethnic variability, and instead, tends only to focu s on gender. A complete women-centered psychology must attend to the experiences of all women and attend to the intersections of gender with othe r dimensions of identity, such as race/ethnicity (Reid & ComasDiaz, 1990; Yoder & Kahn, 1993; Yoder, 2003). Fu rthermore, it has been suggested that racial/ethnic minority women would be more lik ely to experience sexist discrimination than nonminority women (MacKinnon, 1979) and numerous studies have demonstrated that racial/ethnic minority women do indeed report higher rates of experiences of sexist discrimination than do White women (Dan sby, 1994; Dansby & Landis, 1998). Generally, however, sexist discrimination re search has not examined racial /ethnic matters beyond reporting the racial/ethnic compositions of samples and corresponding rate s of reported experiences of sexist discrimination (Bergman & Drasgow, 2003). It seems time to build upon existing research by further examining minority womens experiences of sexist discrimination while also attending to other salient variables, su ch as racist discrimination.

PAGE 15

15 Another limitation is that much of the exta nt literature that explores the role of discrimination experiences in the workplace tends to be atheoretical in nature. Two counseling psychology vocational theories that could serve to ground investiga tions of factors that impact women in nontraditional career fields are Social Cognitive Career Theory (SCCT; Lent, Brown, & Hackett, 1994) and Theory of Work Adjustment (Dawis, England, & Lofquist, 1964; Dawis, 1996; Dawis & Lofquist, 1984; Lofquist & Dawi s, 1991). SCCT asserts that the complex, reciprocal relations between person, environmen t, and behavior variables proposed by Bandura (1986) affect one another throughout a persons care er process (Lent et al., 1994). Furthermore, SCCT posits that environmental or contextual influences, such as collegial support and experiences of discrimination have a direct affect on career go als and career choice actions (Lent, Hackett, & Brown, 2000). Much of the S CCT research on women in nontraditional career fields, however, has focused on contextual influen ces that impact the earlier stages of career (e.g., career choice) as opposed to later stages of career (e.g., car eer satisfaction or commitment) development. In fact, the authors of SCCT noted that researchers must expand beyond early career processes and make SCCT relevant acro ss the career lifespan (Lent et al., 1994). Another major vocational psychology theory, the Theory of Work Adjustment (TWA; Dawis et al., 1964), attends to processes that occu r after persons enter thei r chosen vocation. This theory centralizes the importance of the interac tion between individuals and their chosen work environment, and has generated a large body of re search that examines the construct of job satisfaction, its predictors, and its consequences. However, resear chers have generally failed to integrate persons contextual experiences, such as perceptions of sexism and racism, into empirical examinations of this theory.

PAGE 16

16 Thus, while the tenants of SCCT and TWA prom ise to guide the examination of the impact of discrimination on women in nontraditional ca reer fields, the rese arch generated by both theories has critical gaps. The tenants of SCCT are generally not a pplied to career processes that occur after entry into chosen career fields and research on TWA typically fails to incorporate contextual influences. The present study will begin to address the gaps of both of these bodies of literature by examining contextual influences (as proposed by SCCT) on womens job-related outcomes (as proposed by TWA). Such theoretical inte gration is consistent w ith recent calls that conceptual and empirical bridges between career theories must be explored in order to further evolve the field of vocational psychology (Swanson & Gore, 2000). Building on prior theoretical and empirical liter ature, the present study aims to contribute to vocational psychology literatur e by (a) examining empirically a theoretical bridge between SCCT and TWA and expanding the li terature on career processes that occur later in the career lifespan of women, and (b) examining concomitantly the roles of perceive d sexist and racist discrimination, as well as diversity inclusive wo rkplace social climate on work-related outcomes for women in a nontraditional care er field (i.e., military). As such, the present study has the potential to inform future research, interven tion, and policy aimed to understand and improve the work experiences of women in nontraditional career fields.

PAGE 17

17 CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE The field of counseling psychology attends to the role of career and vocation on individual developm ent and functioning (American Psychological Association, 1999) as well as contextual and background variab les that influence individuals lives, mental health, and wellbeing (Commission for the Recognition of Speci alties and Proficiencies in Professional Psychology, 1999). In fact, research on the roles of contextual factors (e.g., perceptions of barriers, support, work environment) and bac kground variables (e.g., gender, race/ethnicity) in career development is an important scholarly an d clinical focus of the field of counseling psychology (American Psychological Association, 1999). Attention to contextual fact ors can be particularly usef ul in understanding womens vocational experiences, especially womens experiences as minorities in nontraditional career fields (Yoder, 2003). Specifically, there is a pervasive concern in the organi zational literature about the disproportionately small number of women in top positions in nontraditional career fields and there is speculation that higher attritio n rates for women in nontraditional career fields contribute to maintaining the observed gende r disproportions (Benokr aitis, 1997; Betz, 1994; Kuck et al., 2007; Settles, et al., 2007; MacDonald, 2007; Harris & Firestone, 1997). Understanding the roles of contex tual factors in job satisfacti on and organizational commitment can inform theory, research, and policy aiming to reduce womens attrition in non-traditional career fields. To this end, th e present study investigates the links of contextual factors, specifically perceptions of workplace sexism, raci sm, and diversity inclusive climate with jobrelated outcomes for women in the military, an ex emplar of a nontraditional career field for women.

PAGE 18

18 An Opportunity to Study Womens Experiences in a Nontraditiona l Career Field: The Case of Women who are Military Officers There are a number of reasons that studying the experiences of military women can be a fruitful starting point for advanc ing the literature on the links of perceived workplace racism and sexism with job-related outcomes for women in nontraditional career fields. First, women comprise only 14.9% of the total active duty force in the military (Defense Equal Opportunity Management Institute (DEOMI), 2003), making the military a clearly nontraditional career field for women. Second, as in other nontraditional car eer fields, in the military, women are promoted to a disproportionately small number of t op positions. For example, the 2003 Demographic Profile of the Department of Defense and U.S. Coast Guard (DEOM, 2003) illustrated that the percentage of active duty Air Force women military officers steadily decreases as rank increases (see Table A-1). While 21.9% of all active duty Ai r Force Second Lieutenants (the lowest officer rank: O-1) are women, only 11.5% of all Air Force Colonels (O-6) are women, and there are zero Air Force women in the highest peacetime office r rank. A similar but less dramatic trend is found for Air Force women enlisted personnel. While women comprise 21.9% of the lowest enlisted rank (E-1), they comprise only 12.1% of the highest enlisted rank (E-9). Third, there are subgroups of military women with multiple levels of minority status that can be studied to explore the possible roles of multiple types of discrimination (e.g., racist and sexist discrimination). For example, racial/ethni c minority women officers bear three identities that are proportional minorities in the military: in the military population, officers are a minority (16.0% of the total active duty force); women are a minority (14.9% of the total active duty force); and racial or ethnic gr oups other than White are a minority (35.4% of the total active duty force). Women officers comprise only 2.4% of th e total active duty force, and racial/ethnic minority women officers comprise only 0.61% of the total active duty force (DEOMI, 2003).

PAGE 19

19 Women officers also reflect minority groups in terms of the social power and privilege ascribed to their gender and, in the case of racial/ethnic minority women o fficers, to their racial/ethnic status. Fourth, there are several large-scale research projects that provide potentially rich data sets about military womens experiences of discrimination. These data sets offer access to populations (such as Native Ameri can women officers) that are t ypically difficult to recruit and obtain large enough samples of to allow meaningful statistical anal yses. Despite the availability of data about military womens perceptions of se xist and racist discrimination, however, extant research has focused almost exclusively on military womens perceptions of sexist discrimination. The present study will address this ga p in the literatu re by using available data to examine the roles of perceived sexist and racist discrimination in women military officers jobrelated experiences. Finally, according to the Office of the U nder Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness (2003), Black and Wh ite women leave military service earlier on average than White men (p. viii). This has been a focus of concern at the organizational level for the military for many years. Thus, studies that examine womens experiences in the military can inform important retention policies. For these reasons, the present study builds on the existing research on sexist and ra cist discrimination a nd women in the military, and utilizes the rich data offered by extant large-scale research efforts, to examine multiple types of discrimination that women officers may experience in the military. To provide the groundwork for the present inve stigation, the remainde r of this chapter describes two major counseling psychology vocationa l theories, namely Social Cognitive Career Theory (SCCT; Lent et al., 1994) and Theory of Work Adjustment (Dawis et al., 1964; Dawis, 1996; Dawis & Lofquist, 1984; Lofquist & Dawis, 1991), that can inform examination of the

PAGE 20

20 links between womens perception of the work environment and job-related outcomes. The discussion of these theories is followed by a re view of relevant literature on job satisfaction, organization commitment, and perceived work group effectiveness as the retention-related variables that are the focus of the present study. Next, this chapter pr ovides a review of the empirical literature on workplace sexist disc rimination, racist discri mination, and diversity inclusive climate as contextual factors that ar e important for understand ing womens experiences in nontraditional career fields, paying particular at tention to literature that addresses racial/ethnic variability among women. Finally, th is chapter provides an overvi ew of the aims and hypotheses of the present study. Social Cognitive Career Theory One theory that can inform investigati on of factors that influence wom en in nontraditional career fields is Social Cognitive Career Theory (SCCT; Lent et al., 1994). SCCT applied Banduras (1986) general social cognitiv e theory to the academic and career domains. General social cognitive theory proposes that self-efficacy, or individuals beliefs about their abilities to act in ways to reach specific goals, determines whether indivi duals will pursue certain actions, the extent to which individuals will persist in the face of obstacles, and how well individuals will perform in a given domain. C onsistent with this conceptualization of the importance of self-efficacy to career developmen t, a meta-analysis of 114 studies conducted by Stajkovic and Luthans (1998) supported a re liable and significant correlation ( r = .38, p<.01) between Banduras construct of self-efficacy a nd work-related performance. Recently, Bandura (2000) expanded the construct of self-efficacy to incorporate the notion of collective efficacy. More specifically, he proposed that a groups perceived efficacy acts to increase motivational commitment to the groups mission and performance accomplishments. Bandura (1986) posited that behavior is also influenced by indivi duals perceptions of possible response outcomes

PAGE 21

21 (outcome expectations) and goal intentions. The authors of SCCT asserted that the complex, reciprocal relationships betw een person, environment, and behavior variables proposed by Bandura (1986) affect each other throughout a persons ca reer (Lent et al., 1994). Particularly relevant for th e present study is that the S CCT framework highlights that environmental or contextual influences have im portant roles in individuals career development (Lent et al., 2000). The authors of SCCT dis tinguished between two temporal periods of individuals career process when contextual influences occur. Distal, or background contextual affordances, (e.g., types of career role models one is exposed to as a ch ild) can affect learning experiences at the beginning of a persons car eer process. The second temporal period occurs later in the active phases of career process when proximal contextual variables affect career goals and career choice actions. Proximal contextual e xperiences include such things as collegial support and experiences of discrimination. SCCT pr oposes that proximal c ontextual experiences have a direct affect on career goals and caree r choice actions and ca n also moderate the relationship between interests a nd goals and the relationship betw een goals and actions. As such, either anticipated or experienced contextual factors, such as pe rceived discrimination, can have a strong influence on career behaviors (Lent et al., 2000). While a large volume of research focuses on th e construct of self-efficacy in relation to interests and choice goals and actio ns, there is little research that focuses on contextual factors relations to career process va riables (Swanson & Gore, 2000). Le nt, Hackett, and Brown (2000) indicated that it is vital to examine contextual factors in order to expand the applicability of SCCT to diverse populations. In addition, Lent et al. (1994) describe d the need for SCCT research to expand beyond processes that occur pr ior to, during, and just after career entry in order to attend to processes that occur later during career development. More specifically, the

PAGE 22

22 authors called for the inclusion of research on work adjustment themes, thus making SCCT relevant across the career lifespan. The pres ent study responds to th is call by examining empirically the relations of proximal contextual variables, namely perceptions of workplace sexism, racism, and diversity affi rming organizational practices, to work adjustment of women in a nontraditional career field. Theory of Work Adjustment In contrast to SCCT researc h, which has focused prim arily on the processes leading up to career choice, the Theory of Work Adjustment (Dawis et al., 1964; Dawis, 1996; Dawis & Lofquist, 1984; Lofquist & Dawis, 1991) attends to the latter part of the career life span in that it attempts to account for the inte raction between individuals and th eir chosen work environment. Because of this temporal focus, TWA can be a useful framework for exploring womens experiences in nontraditional career fields, as well as retention-related factors for women in nontraditional career fields. TWA posits that individuals and their work environment engage in a dynamic relationship that shapes work adjustment. Within the framework of TWA, four critical variables shape the dynamic process of work adjustment. Th ese variables are indivi duals expectations and requirements for their work environments (work n eeds), the skills or abilities that individuals bring to their work environments (abilities), th e requirements work environments have of their employees (ability requirements), and the ways in which work environments meet workers needs (reinforcement system). Satisfaction from th e perspective of employers occurs when there is a match between employees skills and the requir ed skills of the job (t ermed satisfactoriness), while congruency between employees needs and employers reinforcement systems predict employees satisfaction (termed satisfaction). An interaction between satisfactoriness and satisfaction determines employees tenur e in specific work environments.

PAGE 23

23 When employees and employers needs both ar e met, the TWA framework posits that a state of equilibrium exists and the employee can expect to remain at th at job. However, when there is a discrepancy between needs and needs met, for either the employers or employees, adjustment behaviors take place. The adjustme nt behaviors are described as the following: flexibility (tolerance of the incongruency), activen ess (attempts to change the other), reactiveness (attempts to change self), and perseverance (tolerance of the incongruency until terminating employment). Unlike SCCT, TWA has not generated a large body of research (Swanson & Gore, 2000), perhaps because it fails to integrate personality concepts (e.g., coping style) and social or contextual factors (e.g., experiences of discrimination) that could enrich the understanding of the dynamic relationship between employee and the work environment (Hackett et al., 1991; Tinsley, 1993). While most of th e tenants of TWA suffer from e mpirical neglect (Swanson & Gore, 2000, p. 239), the hypothesis that job satisfacti on is related negatively to job turnover has received solid empirical support and focused inte rest from the fields of counseling psychology and organizational psychology. For example, He sketh, McLachlan, and Gardner (1992) found that employee satisfaction was correlated positively with intentions to stay on the job (.35, p< .01) and tenure (.17, p< .01). These findings have been re plicated in numerous studies and recently through a large-scale meta-analysi s (Cooper-Hakim & Viswesvaran, 2005). Thus, research based on the framework of TWA has sh own a consistent link between job satisfaction and tenure or intentions to stay on the job. When integrated, SCCT and TWA together provide theoretical underpinnings for the present study. Specifically, SCCT posits that proximal contextual variables, such as perceptions of discrimination, will be related to job-relate d actions and work adjustment. SCCTs body of

PAGE 24

24 literature, however, continues to lack emphasis on job-related actions once persons have entered career fields; this is the case despite explicit calls from SC CTs founding authors to examine persons experiences throughout their careers (Lent et al., 199 4). TWA, on the other hand, focuses on the point of time in the career pr ocess when persons are engaged in a work environment and are faced with work adjustment. TWAs body of literature, however, fails to investigate contextual factors roles in work adjustment and choice behaviors. Indeed, the two theories have complimentary strengths and gaps in their foci and associated bodies of literature. TWA literature can inform SCCT literatures lack of work adjustment focus, and SCCT literature can inform TWA literatures lack of focus on contextual influences. Thus, the present study utilizes and integrates the two frameworks in investigating the relations of proximal contextual experiences (as posited by SCCT) with work adjustment variables (as posited by TWA) for women in a nontraditional career field. Retention-Related Criterion Variables: Job Satisfaction, Organi zational Commi tment, and Work Group Effectiveness The centrality of job satisfaction and organizational commitment as important predictors of job retention is supported by a large body of research generated primarily by the field of industrial/organizational psychology (e.g., Bluedor n, 1982; Koch & Steers, 1978; McIntyre et al., 2002; Williams & Hazer, 1986). Organizational commitme nt is generally defined as the strength of an individuals identificati on with and involvement in a part icular organization. Individuals who have high organizational commitment tend to stay with their organizations, work towards the goals of the organization, and adhere to the values of the organization (Mowday, Steers, & Porter, 1979). Job satisfaction is defined as an aff ective response to the job as a whole as well as to a variety of characteristics of the job (M orrow, 1983; Porter, Steers, Mowday, & Boulian, 1974). Mathieu and Zajac (1990) con ducted a review and meta-analysi s of predictors, correlates,

PAGE 25

25 and consequences of organizational commitment They found that organizational commitment and overall job satisfaction yielde d a significant corrected sample size-weighted mean observed correlation ( k = 43; N = 15,531; Mr = .53, p < .01). In addition, organizational commitment was found to be correlated significantly with inte ntions to search for a different job ( k = 5; N = 1,513; Mr = -.60, p < .01), intentions to leave current job ( k = 36 ; N = 14,080; Mr = -.46, p < .01), and actual turnover ( k = 26; N = 8,197; Mr = -.28, p < .05), all of which are conceptualized as consequences of low organizational commitment. In a more recently published meta-analysis, Cooper-Hakim and Viswesvaran (2005) examined the extant organizational commitment literature. After correcting for sampling error and measurement error, the following sample-siz e-weighted mean observed correlations emerged between organizational commitment and various job-related outcomes: job satisfaction ( k = 879; N = 490,624; Mr = .59, p < .01); job performance ( k = 185; N = 42,354; Mr = .17, p < .05); turnover intentions ( k = 351; N = 136,270; Mr = -.57, p < .01); and actual turnover ( k = 105; N = 39,508; Mr = -.23, p < .05). Thus, empirical research indicat es that when indi viduals experience high organizational commitment, they also tend to experience higher job satisfaction and may even perform their jobs better. Furthermore, individuals who experience lower organizational commitment not only tend to have higher levels of turnover intentions, but also have higher levels of actual turnover. The links between job satisfact ion, organizational commitment and turnover intentions also have been supported in military samples. For example, utilizing a larg e data base gathered from members of the military, McIntyre et al. (2002) explored the relations between job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and pe rceived work group effectiveness. Perceived work group effectiveness (PWGE) is defined as the degree to which individuals perceive their

PAGE 26

26 primary work group as productive and effective in accomplishing its mission. As such, PWGE is akin to Banduras (2000) construct of colle ctive efficacy (a sense of perceived group competence). Similar to the role posited for indi vidual self-efficacy in SCCT (Lent et al., 1994), PWGE may relate to individua ls work-related choices, motiva tion, actions, and performance. McIntyre et al. (2002) used st ructural equation modeling to test a model that posited a chain of relations from perceived work group effectiveness to job sati sfaction and from job satisfaction to organizational commitment. The re sults supported the significance of both paths as follows: perceived work group e ffectiveness to job satisfaction ( =.61, p < .01) and job satisfaction to organizational commitment ( =.72, p < .03). These findings with a military sample are consistent with the previously reviewed results with non-military employees, and suggest that perceived work group effectiveness is significantly related to job satisfaction, which is in turn is significantly relate d to organizational commitment. Clearly, from an organizational perspective, it is important to study and understand the factors that may either enhan ce or hinder individuals job satisfaction and organizational commitment because of these variables demonstr ated associations with employee avoidance or escape behaviors, such as seeking new jobs, inte nding to leave, or actually leaving the job. As such, the present study examines perceived wo rk group effectiveness, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment as work -related criterion variables. Contextual Experiences: Sexist Discrimina tion Racist Discrimination, and Diversity Inclusive Climate Sexist Discrimination Sexism is a broad construct that includes a va st network of everyday practices, attitudes, assumption, behaviors, and inst itutional rules (Young, 1992, p.180) that serve to oppress or inhibit women. Sexism is comprised of three interrelated aspects: prejudice (attitudes and

PAGE 27

27 feelings towards women), stereotyping (beliefs and cognitions about women), and discrimination (negative and patronizing acts or behaviors th at oppress women) (Yoder, 2003). In addition, Benokraitis (1997) described three forms of sexist discrimination: blatant (intentional, highly visible, and relatively easy to document, such as sexual harassme nt, sexist language and jokes, physical violence), covert (inten tional and hidden, such as intentional sabotage of womens work to ensure their failure in a male dominated workplace), and subtle (m ay be intentional or unintentional, less visible, difficult to document, such as social or professional isolation of women). While sexual harassment is only one partic ular manifestation of sexist discrimination, it is often the focus of empirical studies on workplace experiences of sexism. The present study aims to incorporate literature on a broad range of manifestations of sexist discrimination to include subtle, covert and blatant forms. In researching sexist discrimination, Harris and Firestone (1997) found that 73% of military active duty women and 18% of active duty men re ported experiencing blatant and/or subtle sexist discrimination in the past 12 months. Na tionally, Martin (1989) f ound that 50% of women reported currently being sexuall y discriminated against or harassed at work and 80%-90% reported having been sexually discriminated or harassed at some point in their careers. Discrimination also has been found to be highest in companies in which more than 75% of employees are men (Kramarae, 1992); this gender imbalanced composition exists in the military and in other nontraditional career fields for women. Womens perceived experiences of sexist discrimination and the more specific manifestation of sexual harassment have been shown to be re lated to negative psychological and physical health indicators, such as depression, lower se nse of well-being, eating disorder symptomatology (Baker-Fletcher, 1994; Klonoff, Landrine, & Ca mpbell, 2000; Moradi, Dirks, & Matteson, 2005;

PAGE 28

28 Moradi & Subich, 2003; West & Fenstermaker, 1995; Yoder & Aniakudo, 1996), as well as jobrelated outcomes such as lower job satisfacti on and organizational commitment, and greater absenteeism (e.g., Culbertson & Rodgers, 1997; McIntyre et al., 2002; Munson et al., 2000; Fitzgerald et al., 1997). At the organizational level, sexual harassment has been estimated to have large negative consequences. For example, it has b een estimated that sexual harassment cost the U.S. Army over $500 million in 1988 alone due to nonretention of personnel, absenteeism, lowered productivity, and sick l eave (Faley et al., 1994). Due to the pervasiveness of sexist discrimination, especially in workplaces where women are a minority, it is reasonable to explore sexism as a possible factor contributing to retenti on-related variables, such as job satisfaction and organization commitment of women in nontraditiona l career fields, especially in the military. Fitzgerald and colleagues have generated a substantial De partment of Defense (DoD) sponsored line of research through the Defens e Manpower Data Center which examines the predictors and consequences of one form of sexist discrimination, specifically, sexual harassment in the military, utilizing the Sexual Experiences Questionnaire (SEQ-DOD; Fitzgerald, Gelfand, & Drasgow, 1995; Fitzgerald, Shullman, Baile y, Richards, Swecker, Gold, Ormerod, & Weizman, 1988). The SEQ-DOD measures three dimensions of sexual harassment: sexual coercion, unwanted sexual atte ntion, and gender harassment. The sexual coercion dimension captures behaviors that meet the legal definition of quid pro quo harassment (i.e., perpetrator rewards or punishes the target for either acc epting sexual advances or refusing) (Yoder, 2003). Unwanted sexual attention and gender harassment constitute the behavioral components of a hostile environment, which is an environment that condones, encourages, or incites sexual harassment behaviors. Participants are asked to respond to SEQ-DOD items on a 5-point scale (0 = never and 4 = very often ) using their experiences in the military over the past 12 months as a

PAGE 29

29 reference. Reported internal consistencies for SEQ-DOD items are in the acceptable range (.83 to .95). The SEQ-DOD was used in the 1995 Status of the Armed Forces-Gender Issues Study which involved 28,296 service members (22,372 women and 5,924 menwomen were purposefully over-sampled). The sample demographics we re: 79% women, 69% enlisted personnel, 29% commissioned officers, and 2% warrant officers, 33% Army, 28% Air Force, 21% Navy, 10% Marine Corps, and 8% Coast Guard, 63% nonHispanic White personnel, 24% non-Hispanic African American personnel, 8% Hispanic personnel, and 5% As ian, Pacific Islander, American Indian, or Native Alaskan personnel, 83% had taken some college c ourses, 6% attained associates degree, 14% a bachelors degree, a nd 14% a professional or graduate degree, 56% were married, 27% single, and 13% divorced. The mean age of the sample was 32 years and the mean tenure in the military was approximately 10 years (Fitgerald, Magley, Drasgow, & Waldo, 1999; Hay & Elig, 1999). Data from this sample has been used in numer ous studies. Bastian et al. (1996) reported that 78% of the women from this sample reported experiencing one or more sexual harassment behaviors. Womens reported rate s of sexual harassment varied across services, with highest rates reported in the Marine Corps (86%) a nd lowest in the Air Force (74%). The most frequently reported behaviors we re hostile environment behaviors, such as crude and offensive jokes, remarks, or gestures ( 70% of women), while the least reported behaviors were rape or attempted rape (6% of women). Fitzgerald et al. (1999) reported that 69% of women in this sample reported some form of sexist hostilit y, 42% reported unwanted se xual attention, and 13% experienced some form of sexual coercion. Furt hermore, their data in dicated a pattern of differences in reported rates of experiences of sexual harassment across racial or ethnic groups

PAGE 30

30 for women. Native American women reported the highest levels of every type of sexual harassment, followed by Hispanic women, Afri can American women, Wh ite women, and Asian American women who reported the lowest levels of sexual harassment. While sexual harassment mean scores for the different racial or ethnic groups were reported, th e authors did not report statistical significance of differences be tween the various groups mean scores. Bergman and Drasgow (2003) attempted to expa nd the literature on racial/ethnic minority womens experiences of sexual harassment beyond th e findings that there is a main effect for race on womens reports of the frequency of sexual harassment (Fitzgerald et al., 1997; Fitzgerald, Drasgow, & Magley, 1999; Fitzgerald et al., 1999). The authors hypothesized that race is a moderator in the relations of sexual ha rassment to job, psychological, and health related outcomes for women. Bergman and Drasgow (2003) used the same databa se as Fitzgerald et al. (1999), based on the 1995 Status of the Armed Forces-Gender Issues Study (see above for demographic information), and utilized the SEQ-DOD. Items from the SEQ-DOD were averaged for each respondent and entered simultaneously into the overall path analysis proposed by Fitzgerald et al. (1995), and also into five separate path analyses, one fo r each racial/ethnic group. The model depicted sexual harassment as an organizational stressor, w ith organizational ante cedents (job grade, organizational tolerance for harassm ent, and job-gender context) re lated directly to reports of sexual harassment experiences, which, in turn, rela ted directly to work satisfaction, supervisor satisfaction, co-worker satisfaction, psychological well-being, and perceptions of health. The model additionally depicted di rect relations between wor k, supervisor, and co-worker satisfaction to workgroup cohesion, organizational commitment and psychological well-being. Psychological well-being was also hypothesized to have a direct li nk to perceptions of health. All

PAGE 31

31 paths reached significance and were in the hypothesized directions. The organizational antecedents were negatively related to reports of sexual harassment experiences, sexual harassment experiences were negatively related to work, supervisor, and co-worker satisfaction, psychological well-being, and perceptions of health. Work, supervisor, and co-worker satisfaction were positively linked to workgroup cohesion, organizational commitment, and psychological well-being. Psychological well-be ing was positively linked to perceptions of health. The overall samples data-model fit was acceptable (chi -square/degree of freedom = 11.64, RMSEA = .023, SRMR = .035, GFI = .98, NNFI = .95). The authors tested the model separately with each racial/ethnic group. Sample sizes for the five racial/ethnic groups were as follows: White (N = 13,531), African American (N = 6,158), Asian/Pacific Islanders (N = 720), Hispanic (N = 1,790), Native American (N = 270); women who did not report their race were excluded (N = 377). Results of these analyses suggested that the model fit data from each group reasonably well. The chi-square/degre es of freedom values ranged from 50.41 to 2.07 (with the larger values corresponding to the larger sample sizes as expected), the root-mean-square errors of a pproximation (RMSEAs) ranged from .062 to .073, the standardized root-mean square residua ls (SRMRs) ranged from .033 to .047, the goodnessof-fit indices (GFI) rang ed from .96 to .98, the adjusted goo dness-of-fit indices (AGFIs) ranged from .90 to .95, and the nonnormed fit indices (NNF Is) ranged from .89 to .93. Thus, the authors concluded that the correlates of sexual harassmen t can be considered sim ilar across racial/ethnic groups. Because this model focused only on a speci fic form of sexist discrimination (sexual harassment), it is unknown if reports of racist and sexist discrimination (defined broadly) would yield similar results across racial/ethnic groups of women. The present study aims to explore this issue.

PAGE 32

32 In addition to the research efforts that focus on sexual harassment in the military, and in response to Executive Order No. 9981 (1948), which President Harry Truman issued to establish equal treatment of military personnel regardless of race, color, religion, or national origin, the Department of Defense (DoD) established severa l large-scale research efforts that focus on assessing and tracking equal opportunity (EO) in the military. The original executive order specified the need to estab lish greater opportunities for Af rican American persons, and subsequent legislation included language to expand opportunities for other racial/ethnic minority groups and for women (Thomas, 1995). The curr ent definition that provides the basis for instruments used by the DoD to assess EO climat e is the perceptions that military service members have about the issues of racial and gender discrimi nation (U.S. General Accounting Office, 1995, p. 3). Using this definition of EO climate, the Na vy developed the Navy E qual Opportunity/Sexual Harassment (NEOSH) Survey and has administered the survey on a bi ennial bases since 1989 (Newell, Rosenfeld, & Culbertson, 1995). The NEOSH contains 11 demographic questions and 104 EO items to assess perceptions of racist and sexist discrimination and fairness that comprise 10 modules (assignments, training, leadershi p, communication, interp ersonal relations, grievances, discipline, perfor mance evaluation, promotions, a nd navy satisfaction). Respondents rate their agreement or disagreement w ith EO items using a 6-point scale (1=strongly disagree 5= strongly agree, 6= dont know/not applicable ). Negatively worded items are reversed scored, thus high scores indicate more favorable per ceptions and low scores indicate more negative perceptions of the work environment. In a ddition, the 1993 NEOSH Survey contained two new sections that assessed the degree to which respon dents may have experien ced racist and sexist

PAGE 33

33 discrimination in the past 12 months (e.g., negative comments, not asked to socialize, physically threatened). Responses to these items are dichotomous (Yes/No). The NEOSH Survey was mailed to a random sa mple of 9,537 Navy personnel, stratified by major racial/ethnic groups, gender, and officer or enlisted status, resulting in the following 12 groups: 3 (African American, Hispanic, White/Other) x 2 (male, female) x 2 (officer, enlisted). Each group was then distributed proportionally ac ross military paygrades to reflect the actual population of military personnel. The usable resp onse rate was 41% (N=3,801) and the internal consistency reliabilities for items on the 10 EO m odules were generally acceptable, ranging from .67 to .88 for the enlisted sample, from .70 to .91 for the officer sample, and from .68 to .89 for the total sample. Rosenfeld et al. (1998) reporte d results from the 1993 NEOSH Su rvey. Averages of each of the 10 EP modules were not reported; instead, the authors summed and averaged all 10 modules to provide an overall EO climate score that reflected respondents gl obal perceptions of discrimination. Analysis of vari ance with perceived discriminati on as the dependent variable yielded significant main effects of race/ethni city and gender for the officer group; but no significant race/ethnicity by gender interaction emerged. More specifically, women officers reported significantly greater leve ls of perceived discrimination th an did men officers. Similarly, African American officers reported significantly greater levels of perceived discrimination than did White officers, while Hispan ic officers levels fell between White officers levels and African American officers levels. Parallel anal yses with the enlisted group yielded significant main effects for race/ethnicity and gender; ag ain no significant race/ethnicity by gender interaction emerged. Similar to the offi cer group, women enlisted personnel reported significantly higher levels of pe rceived discrimination than did men enlisted personnel. Also,

PAGE 34

34 White enlisted personnel reported significantly lo wer rates of perceived discrimination than both African American and Hispanic enlisted personn el. One limitation of these analyses was that Rosenfeld et al. (1998) blended all racial/eth nic groups other than African American and Hispanic into the White category. This blending of Asian American/Pacific Islander, Native American/Native Alaskan, Other, and White part icipants may have introduced a confound that masked some group differences and race/eth nicity by gender interaction effects. The authors then compared EO climate data from the 1991 NEOSH with data from the 1993 NEOSH and found evidence that the size of the r ace/ethnicity and gender e ffects among officers increased from small to medium in six of the EO modules (lea dership, communication, interpersonal relations, grievances, discip line, performance evaluation), suggesting the possibility of widening gender and racial/ethnic gaps in officers perceptions of the EO climate. This trend was not seen in the enlisted ranks. While the above results attended to global per ceptions of discrimination, Rosenfeld et al. (1998) also reported results abou t participants endorse ment of experiences of eight types of racist (see Racist Discrimination section) and sexist discrimina tion within the last 12 months. Percentages were reported separate ly for officers and enlisted pers onnel as well as separately for men and women. Not surprisingly, both wo men officers and enlisted women reported significantly higher levels of sexist discrimination than did men. Unfortunately, however, Rosenfeld et al.s (1998) findings did not address pot ential variability in ra tes of perceived sexist discrimination across women of various racial/ethnic groups. Rosenfeld et al. (1998) then used the above repo rts of experiencing discrimination to separate respondents who reported experiencing any form of discrimination from those who did not endorse such experiences. Using this dichotomi zation of the sample, the authors examined the

PAGE 35

35 link between reporting discriminati on experiences and three job-re lated outcomes (intentions to leave the Navy due to dissatisfaction; intention to stay in the Navy for 20 years; general satisfaction with the Navy). Results indicated th at women officers, women enlisted members, and men enlisted members who reported at leas t one form of sexist discrimination were significantly less satisfied with the Navy, less likely to stay in for 20 years, and more likely to leave the Navy due to their dissatisfaction th an were women officer s and women and men enlisted members who did not re port experiencing sexist disc rimination. These links did not emerge for men officers. Overall, Rosenfeld et al.s (1998) findings suggest that racial/ethnic minority military personnel and women in the military report higher ra tes of racist and sexist discrimination than do White personnel and men, respectively. Furthe rmore, Rosenfeld et al.s (1998) findings suggest that perceptions of raci st and sexist discrimination in the work environment are linked with indicators of job satisfact ion and organizational commitment. Finally, the authors findings indicate that womens satisf action with the Navy decreased from 1991 to 1993, especially for women who were officers. A critical limitation of Rosenfeld et al.s findings, however, is that they treated race/ethnicity and gender and racist and sexist disc rimination as mutually exclusive identities and experiences; thus rendering invisible the experi ences of racial/ethnic minority women who might experience both racist and se xist discrimination and for whom both factors might play a role in job satisfac tion and organizational commitment. In fact, a review of the literature yields pe rvasive findings that raci al/ethnic minority woman officers perception of the EO climate in military organizations is the least favorable when compared with other demographic subgroups. Dansby and Landis (1998) explored several hypotheses in an attempt to explain this phe nomenon. The researchers argued that minority

PAGE 36

36 women officers bear a triple burden based on p opulation demographics: in the military, there are fewer officers than enlisted, fewer racial/eth nic minority persons than majority persons, and fewer women than men. Tokenism literature (s ee Izraeli, 1983; Kanter, 1977; Yoder, 1991) suggests that subgroups representi ng less than 15% of populations (racial/ethnic minority women officers comprised less than 1% of the military p opulation) are often percei ved as different and are patronized or mistreated by others. Furthe rmore, women who are pioneers in nontraditional career fields are more likely to experience sexist discrimination in their work environments (Sadroff, 1992), which could lead to unfavorable perceptions of the EO climate at work. Dansby and Landis (1998) also pointed out that officers mu st have at least a bachelors degree to be commissioned, thus women officers would be expect ed to be better educated than their enlisted counterparts and perhaps more aw are of EO concerns. A study by Terpstra and Cook (1985), as well as studies conducted by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board (1981, 1988), revealed that women with higher levels of education tended to repor t higher levels of experiences of sexist discrimination. Based on the above literature, Dansby and Landis (1998) hypothesized that (a) racial/ethnic minority woman offi cers would have more favorable views of EO climate as their proportions in the organization increased and (b) racial/ethni c minority women with greater levels of education would report less favorable pe rceptions of EO climate than those with lower levels of education. Dansby and Landis (1998) used data from the Military Equal Opport unity Climate Survey (MEOCS) developed by researchers at the Defe nse Equal Opportunity Management Institute (DEOMI). The MEOCS is similar to the Navys NEOSH, but it is administered to all military services within the DoD. The MEOCS assesses EO climate and organizational effectiveness and was administered over 5,000 times in military units and accrued a database of over 600,000 cases

PAGE 37

37 between 1990 and 1997. Dansby and Landis (1991) suggested that the MEOCS measures nine EO climate factors and three organizational eff ectiveness factors. EO scales 1 to 5 (sexual harassment and sex discrimination; differentia l command behaviors towa rds minorities; positive equal opportunity behaviors; racist/sexist behaviors; reverse disc riminationI) focus on perceptions of EO behaviors within the context of the responde nts unit. Respondents are asked to rate the likelihood that certain EO behaviors occurred in their units during the last 30 days on a 5-point scale (1= there is a very high chance that the action occurred to 5=there is almost no chance that the action occurred ). Scales 6 to 8 measure job-related outcomes (organizational commitment, perceived work group effectiveness, and job satisfaction) and are rated on a 5-point scale (1= totally agree with statement to 5= totally disagree with statement ). Scales 9 to 11 use the same anchors as Scales 6 to 8 but are designed to measure perceptions of EO climate across a broader service context (discrimination against minorities and women; r everse discriminationII; desire for racial separation) Scale 12 allows respondents to ra te their overall impression of the EO climate in their unit (1= very poor to 5= very good). The scale items have acceptable reliabilities (average Cronbachs = .84, range = .75-.91) and construct validity (Dansby & Landis, 1991; Landis, Dansby, & Faley, 1993). To test the hypothesis that ra cial/ethnic minority women officers would have more favorable views of EO climate as their proportions in the organization increase, repr esentation indexes (RI; proportion of a subgroup in the tota l unit population) were calculat ed (N=883). The RI and each of the 12 MEOCS scales (all items code d so that higher scores represented more positive perceptions of the EO climate) were correla ted separately for each demographic group. The results indicated that as the RIs increased for racial/ethnic minority female officers, minority male officers, and White male officers, their positi ve perceptions of the EO climate in their units

PAGE 38

38 increased significantly. These findi ngs support the tenets of the t okenism hypothesis that as their representation increases in populations, minority subgroups will perceive less discrimination in their environments. Dansby and Landis (1998) did not find support fo r their second hypothesis that more educated racial/ethnic minority women would report less favorab le perceptions of EO climate; in fact, they found support for the opposite. They sampled 3,102 racial/ethnic minority military women. In this sample, 11.4% were officers, 6% warrant officers, 82.5 % enlisted; 56.9% were African American, 12.6% were Hispanic, 10.3% were Asian American; 59.5% were relatively low ranked (E5 and below), and only 3.2% held th e rank of major or a bove; 22% listed their education level as high school or general equi valency, 49% had some college work, 24% were college graduate, and 7.2% had completed advanced college work or received advanced degrees. Scores from MEOCS scales (excluding the three job-related outcome scales) were averaged and entered into a multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) with education level as the independent variable and personne l category (officers highest, wa rrant officers second, enlisted lowest) and age as covariates. Th ere was a significant effect for e ducation level on perceptions of EO climate above and beyond the effects of age and personnel category, but the effect was the opposite of the predicted direction. Specificall y, as education level increased, the positive perception of EO climate also increased. The rest ricted range of educational level represented by Dansby and Landiss sample (78% had college or above) may have contributed to findings that differ from other studies and were opposite to what the authors expected to find. Overall, Dansby and Landiss (1998) findings suggest that positive perceptions of EO environment appear to decrease as proportional representation of minority groups decreases, with greater minority status related to lower levels of positive perceptions. Furthermore, level of

PAGE 39

39 education may be related positively to perceptions of the work environment; however, this finding is tentative based on the re stricted nature of the educati onal level of their sample. This study, however, failed to examine separately the perceptions of se xist discrimination and racist discrimination and instead averaged such items together, thus not exploring the possible unique relations of sexist and ra cist discrimination with representation in a unit and level of education of respondents. Additionally, the items measuring dive rsity inclusive climate were also averaged with the sexist and racist discrimination items a nd this constructs possible unique relations were unexplored. Furthermore, although these authors expl ored perceptions of the work environment, they did not examine links between such percep tions and job-related outcomes. Clearly, further studies are needed to examine perceptions of the EO climate and the link between such perceptions and job-related outcomes for women officers of vari ous racial/ethnic backgrounds. This final limitation was addressed in a study by Mc Intyre et al. (2002). These authors utilized data from the MEOCS database to examine the relationship between EO climate and three important job-related outcomes: job satisfac tion, organizational commitment, and perceived work group effectiveness (these cons tructs were defined earlier in this chapter). The construct of EO climate was comprised of 21 items chosen by McIntyre et al. (2002) from the MEOCS scales 1-5 and 9-11 that tapped organizational and work group fairness, such as A supervisor gave a minority subordinate a severe punishment for a mi nor infraction and A majority member who committed the same offense was given a less severe penalty. McIntyre et al. (2002) drew three random samples from the MEOCS database, each containing 5,000 observations. The demographics were as follows: Measurement Model Sample (3,038 Caucasian personnel, 944 African American personnel, 124 Native American personnel, 255 Asian American personnel, 329 Latino Ameri can personnel, and 310 other; 4,001 men,

PAGE 40

40 821 women, 178 did not identify sex); Sample 1 (3,044 Caucasian personnel, 830 African American personnel, 142 Native American personnel, 231 Asian American personnel, 441 Latino American personnel, and 312 oth er; 3,939 men, 854 women, and 207 who did not indicate sex); Sample 2 (3,027 Caucasian pe rsonnel, 863 African American personnel, 138 Native American personnel, 448 Latino Amer ican personnel, and 323 other; 3,965 men, 858 women, and 177 who did not indicate gender). Fo r unaddressed reasons, the number of Asian American personnel represented in Sample 2 was not reported. The Measurement Model Sample was used to test the measurement model via confirmatory factor analysis and goodness-of-fit indexes. Th e measurement model was deemed adequate and the theoretical model was examined by testing its fit with Sample 1 and then replicating the results with Sample 2. The results suggested th e following significant paths: EO climate to perceived work group effectiveness ( = .36, p < .01), EO climate to or ganizational commitment ( =.36, p < .01), EO climate to job satisfaction ( =.13, p < .01); perceived work group effectiveness to organizational commitment ( =.04, p < .02), perceived work group effectiveness to job satisfaction ( =.61, p < .01); job satisfaction to organizational commitment ( =.72, p < .03). All effects were moderate except for the link between perceived work group effectiveness and organizational commitment, wh ich had a small effect and most likely would not reach statistical significance in a smaller sample. Overall, these findings suggest that EO climate is related positively to perceived work group effectiveness, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment; perceived work gro up effectiveness is related positively to job satisfaction; and job satisfaction is rela ted positively to organizational commitment. Overall, research generated by DEOMIs use of the MEOCS suggests that racial/ethnic minority women officers report the least favorable views of EO climate. In addition, as level of

PAGE 41

41 representation increases for r acial/ethnic minority women offi cers, so does their positive perception of the EO climate. Research utilizi ng the MEOCS also has highlighted the important links of perceptions of EO climate with job-related outcomes. Sp ecifically, this research suggests positive relations between positiv e perceptions of EO climate and perceived work group effectiveness, organizational commitment, a nd job satisfaction. Unfortunately, like studies utilizing the NEOSH, the MEOCS literature doe s not explore the potential unique roles of perceived racist and sexist discrimination, or diversity inclusive climate in the work experiences of racial/ethnic minority women in the military. It seems time to build upon existing research by further examining minority womens experiences of sexist discrimination wh ile also attending to racist discrimination. Racist Discrimination Broadly, racism is defined as beliefs, attitude s, and actions that tend to oppress or denigrate people based on characteristics such as skin co lor and ethnic affiliation (Clark, Anderson, Clark, and Williams, 1999). Similar to sexism, racism is comprised of three interrelated aspects: prejudice (attitudes and feelings towards racial/ethnic minority people), stereotyping (beliefs and cognitions about racial/ethnic minority people), and discrimina tion (negative and patronizing acts or behaviors that oppre ss racial/ethnic minority people ) (Aronson, 1992). Racial/ethnic discrimination has been conceptu alized by Williams and Williams-M orris (2000) as occurring at an institutional level (differential access to jobs hiring practices, and pa y) as well as at the interpersonal level (rude or dismissive behavi or and character assaults). Perceptions of racial/ethnic discrimination have been linked to a variety of nega tive outcomes such as elevated blood pressure, compromised immune systems (Krieger, 1990; Jackson, Williams, & Torres, 1997), increased paranoia, depressi on, anxiety, substance abuse, lowered self-esteem (Armstead, Lawler, Gordon, Cross, & Gibbons, 1989; Brow man, 1996; Cooper, 1993), and negative job-

PAGE 42

42 related outcomes such as lower job satisfac tion and organizational commitment (Roberts, Swanson, & Murphy, 2004; Rosenfeld et al., 1998). Roberts et al. (2004) reported results from a 2002 national survey titl ed the General Social Survey (GSS) that contained 76 items assessi ng the quality of work life (QWL), including perceived racist discrimination and job satisfaction. The demogra phic characteristics of this national sample ( n = 1,796; all participants were employed at least part-time) were as follows: 73.1% ( n = 1263) identified as White /European American; 12.9% ( n = 223) identified as Black/African American; 8.2% ( n = 142) identified as Hispanic American; 5.8% ( n = 100) identified as Multiracial/Multiethnic; 51% ( n = 881) identified as female; and 49% ( n = 847) identified as male. Perceived racist discrimi nation was assessed by a single dichotomous item Do you feel in any way discriminated against on your job because of race or ethnic origin (1= yes, 2 = no) and job satisfaction was measured on a 4-point scale (1 = very satisfied, 4 = not at all satisfied). Results indicated that 19.4% of participants who identified as Black, 13.4% of participants who identified as Hispanic, 8.0% of participants who identified as Multiracial/Multiethnic, and 2.1% of participants who identified as White i ndicated that they felt discriminated against at work because of their race or ethnic origin. Additionally, the group of White participants reported the highest levels of job satisfaction (M = 1.59, SD = 0.74) while the group of Multiracial/Multiethnic participants reported the lowest job satisfaction (M = 1.88, SD = 0.87). Within racial/ethnic groups, those who perceive d racial/ethnic discrimi nation at work reported significantly lower levels of job satisfaction compar ed to those who did not perceive racial/ethnic discrimination at work. Specifical ly, White participants who repor ted racial/ethnic discrimination reported lower levels of job satisfaction (M = 1.96, SD = 0.06) than did White participants who

PAGE 43

43 did not report such discrimination (M = 1.58, SD = 0.07) and the difference was found to be significant ( p < 0.01); Black participants who report ed racist discrimination reported significantly (p < 0.001) lower job satisfaction (M = 2.33, SD = 0.08) than did Bl ack participants who did not report such discrimination (M = 1.64, SD = 0.08); Hispanic participants who reported racist discrimina tion reported significantly ( p < 0.01) lower job satisfaction (M = 2.22, SD = 0.05 ) than did Hispanic participants who did not report such discrimination (M = 1.64, SD = 0.08); no significant differences were found on th e job satisfaction item between the group of Multiracial/Multiethnic responde nts who perceived discrimina tion and those who did not. Despite several apparent limitations to this study (e.g., single-item measurement of perceived racist discrimination and job sa tisfaction, inclusion of limited racial/ethnic groups), its findings indicate a significant negative re lation between global perceptions of racial/ethnic discrimination and job satisfaction. It is intere sting to note that while 51% of the participants in this study identified as female, gender was not explored in relation to racial/ethnic identification or experiences of discrimination. Deitch, Barsky, Butz, Chan, Brief, and Bradley (2003) examined the prevalence of everyday mistreatment on the job (Gave ot hers privileges you did not get, Treated you as if you did not exist, and Made insulting jokes or comments) reported by a sample of 314 participants from a non-military corporation. The authors only included participants who identified as either White or Black (76% identified as White; 58% identif ied as male; average age was 37 years; 40% completed a college degree; and average job te nure was 11.92 years). Th e authors found that compared to White individuals, those who iden tified as Black perceive d significantly more mistreatment on the job ( r = .21, p < .01) and reported significa ntly lower perceptions of job satisfaction (r = -.15, p < .10).

PAGE 44

44 The authors then attempted to replicate thei r findings with two different samples and a different instrument. The authors utilized data from the Department of Defense 1995 Sexual Harassment Survey (Bastian et al., 1996) to examine everyday mistreatment on the job for a sample of 5483 individuals from the Navy (23% identified as Black; 80% identified as female; average age of 31.6 years) and a sample of 8311 Army personnel (40% identified as Black; 82% identified as female; average age 32.7 year s). The authors again excluded respondents who identified as other than White or Black and in cluded items such as Is your work performance evaluated fairly and Do you get the assignments you need to be competitive for promotions? They found that race was associat ed significantly with mistreatment for both military samples (Navy, r = .12, p < .01; Army, r = .08, p < .01) and race was significantly negatively related to job satisfaction (Navy, r = -.13, p < .01; Army, r = -.11, p < .01) with individuals who identified as Black reporting significantly higher levels of mistreatment a nd significantly lower levels of job satisfaction. Interestingly, Bast ian et al.s (1996) study was specifically designed to assess for sexual harassment, a form of sexist discrimina tion, yet Deitch et al. (2003) did not explore gender groups disproportionately represented in the military data they used for their second and third sample, nor did they discuss the topic of sexist discrimination in their article. This lack of consideration of gender status in relationship to racial/ethnic status and the perceptions of mistreatment in the workplace is a limitation of this study. While most of the empirical literature utilizi ng military participants blends assessment and analysis of racism and sexism into global dis crimination scales, an exception exists. As mentioned previously, the 1993 NEOSH Survey cont ained two sections that assessed the degree to which respondents may have experienced raci st and sexist discrimination in the past 12 months (8 items for both types of discrimination; e.g., negative comments, not asked to socialize,

PAGE 45

45 physically threatened). Responses to these items are dichotomous (Yes/No). As reported by Rosenfeld et al. (1998), African American personnel reported experiencing more racist discrimination than White personnel, and Hispanic personnels rates generally fell between the rates for White and African American personnel. Furthermore, the data indicated that among officers, experiencing racist discrimination was associated with higher intentions to leave the Navy for African American officers and lower satisfaction with the Navy for both White and African American officers. For enlisted personne l, the effects of raci st discrimination were significant for all three racial and ethnic groups and enlisted personnel who reported experiencing at least one form of racial discri mination were significantly less satisfied with the Navy, more likely to plan to leave the Navy due to dissatisfaction, and were le ss likely to stay in the Navy for 20 years. Overall, Rosenfeld et al.s (1998) findings suggest that racial/ethnic minority military members report higher rates of racist discrimina tion than do White member s and that perceptions of racist discrimination in the work environment are linked with indicators of job satisfaction and organizational commitment for military personnel There are several limitations to this study, however. Rosenfeld et al.s ( 1998) decision to combine wome n and men and racial/ethnic categories of Asian American/Pacific Islander, Native American/Native Alaskan, and Other into the White category may have masked some important subgroup differences in experiences of racist discrimination. Unfortunately, other resear ch with military populations exhibits a similar trend of collapsing subgroups into larger groupi ng, such as minority and nonminority (e.g., Hay & Elig, 1999). More specific examination of gender by racial/ethnic groups would provide richer information about military personnels perceptions of discrimination and its correlates. Finally, the data used in Rosenfeld et al.s (1998) st udy is now 12 years old. Thus, Rosenfeld et al.s

PAGE 46

46 (1998) study needs to be replicated with more rece nt data to discover if their findings persist in todays military force. Thus, examining with mo re recent data, the unique relations of military womens perceptions of racist and sexist discrimination with rete ntion-related variables such as job satisfaction and organizati on commitment seems warranted. Diversity Inclusive Climate Whereas the literature regarding perceptions of workplace sexist and racist discrim ination links these perceptions with negative job-relate d outcomes, diversity inclusive work-related climate has been linked to desirable job-related outcomes. The unique link of diversity inclusiveness in the work climate to job-related outcomes is widely supported in the literature (e.g., Bond, Punnett, Pyle, Cazeca, & Cooperman 2004; de Jonge, Dormann, Janssen, Dollard, Landeweerd, Nijhuis, 2001). For example, Bond et al. (2004) explored the relations of job satisfaction, psychological distress, and physical health with the following predictor variables: gendered condition of work (perceptions of discrimination, personal experiences of discrimination, organizational re sponsiveness to discrimination) job demands (physical work demands, hours spent at a video display terminal), and a supportive and diversity inclusive social work climate (defined as a combination of cowo rker and supervisor s upport, to include support for minority members, and sense of community). Th e participants of this study (N = 208) were non-faculty university employees (5 1% of participants identified as women, 2% identified as African American, 6% identified as Asian, 1% identified as Hispanic, 5% identified as other, and 88% identified as White). While job satisf action was associated significantly with low gendered conditions of work and job demands, it had the strongest corr elation with supportive and diversity inclusive social work climate ( r = .72, p < .05). When entered into regression analyses, supportive and diversity in clusive social work climate em erged as the strongest single predictor of job satisfaction, solely explaining over 50% of the variance in job satisfaction. The

PAGE 47

47 authors concluded that the supportive and inclus ive social climate at work is an important variable for organizations to attend to because of its strong relation to job satisfaction. In another study, Williams et al. (1999) used th e sample from the 1995 Status of the Armed Forces-Gender Issues Study (descr ibed earlier in the Sexist Disc rimination section) to examine the links between organizational practices, sexual harassment, and individual job, health, and psychological outcomes. Specifically, the authors tested Hulin, Fitzgeral d, and Brasgows (1996) and Culbertson and Rodgers (1997) findings that indi viduals perceptions of organizational tolerance intolerance of sexua l harassment was a stronger predic tor of employee outcomes than direct experiences of sexual harassment. Three or ganizational practices were tested in relation to the incidence of sexual harassment and individual job-related, health-re lated, and psychological outcomes of service members: implementation pract ices (formal and informal actions taken to prevent sexual harassment and to enforce compa ny policies against it, to include promoting a diversity inclusive climate), education (efforts to teach employees the definition of harassment and to communicate organizational policies regarding harassment), and resources (organizational offerings of information, advice, or support for targets of harassment). Findings indicated that implementation practi ces, which are similar to Pryor, Geidd, and Williams (1995) construct of organizational tolera nce or intolerance of sexual harassment and include the promotion of a diversity inclusive climate, were the only organizational practices uniquely associated with reports of sexual ha rassment experienced by women service members (accounting for 14% of the variance in sexual ha rassment for women). Speci fically, higher levels of implementation practices were related to lower reports of sexual harassment. There were no significant interactions between implementation practices and demographic variables in the prediction of reports of sexual harassment in the military. Furthermore, implementation practices

PAGE 48

48 were the best predictor of j ob satisfaction (accounting for 12% of the variance for women), workgroup productivity (5% of th e variance for women), and or ganizational commitment (12% of the variance for women). For women, there was an interaction effect for race/ethnicity in predicting organizational commitment such that for racial/ethic minority women, there was a stronger relationship between implementation pr actices and organizational commitment than there was for White women. Furthermore, there wa s a personnel category interaction effect for work satisfaction such that a stronger relationship between impl ementation practices and work satisfaction existed for the highe r ranks of women than the lowe r ranks. These findings indicate that it is important to attend to the additional role of positive organizational practices, such as promoting a diversity inclusive climate, when examining the link of perceived discrimination with job-related outcomes, especially for higher ranked racial/ethnic minority women. A separate study was conducted by Fitzgerald et al. (1997) which used data from the 1995 Status of the Armed Forces Gender Issues St udy. Data from the same sample analyzed by Williams et al. (1999) was entered into a path an alysis with organizationa l tolerance, job gender context, and job level as e xogenous variables and sexual hara ssment, health satisfaction, psychological well-being, organizational commitm ent, self-reported work group productivity, and job satisfaction as endogenous variables. The only reported indicato rs of data-model fit suggested mixed information. While the author s concluded that th e reported fit indices suggested generally acceptable fit for women (GFI of .96, AGFI of .90, and SRMR of .097) and for men (GFI of .95, AGFI of .88, and SRMR of .12), current guidan ce (Kline, 1998) defines acceptable values of GFI and AGFI as values of .90 or greater and SRMR values of .08.or less as acceptable. The lack of consistency of fit may be accounted for by the authors choice of fit indices. Hu and Bentler (1995), Martens (2005), and Weston and Go re (2006) warn that GFI and

PAGE 49

49 AGFI can be substantially influenced by factors other than model misspecification, such as large sample size. Furthermore, other fit indices no t reported by Fitzgerald et al. (1999) are less influenced by sample size, such as CFI and IF I. Given the questionable fit of the proposed model, the results of Fitzgerald et al.s (1999) are cautiously interpreted. All specified paths in the model were statistically significant, whic h was not surprising given the extremely large sample size. Specifically, estimates of the paths from organizational tolera nce (climate) to sexual harassment were =.39, p < .01 for women and =.24, p < .01 for men, agai n suggesting that organizational tolerance for harassment is rela ted directly and positively to the reported frequency of experiences of sexual harassment. The estimates of the paths from job gender context (either stereotypically feminine or masculine jobs) to sexual harassment were = -.11, p < .01 and = -.07, p < .01 for women and men, respectively, suggesting that individuals (women and men) who worked in jobs that were nontraditio nal for their gender reported higher levels of sexual harassment. As expected, sexual harassmen t had significant negative direct links to job satisfaction ( = -.16, p < .01 for women and = -.10, p < .01 for men). Job satisfaction had significant positive direct links to organizational commitment ( =.51, p < .01 for women and =.55, p < .01 for men) and self-repo rted work productivity ( =.21, p < .01 for women and =.25, p < .01 for men). Organizational to lerance (climate) had significan t negative direct links to job satisfaction ( = -.34, p < .01 for women and = -.29, p < .01 for men). These findings are similar to McIntyre et al.s (2002) findings that experiences of harassment and perceptions of organizational tolerance (climate) of harassment are related negatively to job satisfaction, which in turn, is related positivel y to organizational commitment and perceived productivity. As stated previously, the present study will examine a similar chain of relations among perceptions of sexist disc rimination, racist discrimination, diversity inclusive climate,

PAGE 50

50 perceived work group effectiveness, job satisf action, and organizational commitment, using both McIntyre et al.s (2002) and Willia ms et al.s (1999) findings to guide examination of the nature of the relations among variables. Summary and Hypotheses The body of literature focusing on racial/e thnic m inority womens experiences of discrimination in the military suggests that minority women officers report the highest rates of discrimination, perhaps due to their status of belonging to three minority groups within the military organization (officer, women, and racial/e thnic minorities) (Bastian et al., 1996; Dansby, 1994; Dansby & Landis, 1998; Drasgow et al., 1998; Rosenfeld et al ., 1998). The literature also establishes that reports of discrimination, whet her direct experiences of discrimination or perceptions that discrimination is tolerated in ones workplace, are linked with negative jobrelated outcomes (Bergman & Drasgow, 2003; Fitz gerald et al., 1999; Mc Intyre et al., 2002; Williams et al., 1999). In considering the roles of race/ethnicity along with gender, however, existing research has not moved be yond descriptive studies that suggest a main effect of race on womens reports of discrimination and negative job-related outcomes. Indeed, prior studies typically collapse racial/ethnic groups, combine sexist and racist discri mination items on scales, or ignore racist discrimination co mpletely and only examine sexi st discrimination. The majority of studies also fail to incorporat e the link of diversity inclusive climate to job-related outcomes. These limitations may mask or distort important nuances that can add to the understanding of womens experiences in nontraditional career fields Thus, the present study addresses these gaps in the literature by examining concomitantly the pot entially unique relations of perceived racist and sexist discrimination and diversity inclusive work climate with women officers reports of job-related outcomes. As such, this study also ai ms to expand the tenants of SCCT into later

PAGE 51

51 stages of womens career lifespan and inform the body of literature generated by TWA by examining the links of contextual factors to job-related outcomes. Specifically, the model proposed by McIntyre et al. (2002) to explai n the relationships between EO climate and job-related outcomes is utilized and expanded in the present study to examine concomitantly the relations of workplace racist and sexist discrimination, as well as perceptions of diversity inclus ive work climate with perceive d work group effectiveness, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment. The m odel tested in the curr ent study is portrayed in Figure 1 and examines the following hypotheses: 1. Perceived workplace racist and sexist discri mination will be significantly and negatively related, whereas perceived diversity inclusive work climate will be significantly and positively related to perceived work group effectiveness, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment. 2. Perceived work group effectiveness will mediate th e relations of racist discrimination, sexist discrimination, and diversity inclusive climate to job satisfaction. Full and partial mediation will be explored. 3. Job satisfaction will (a) mediate the relations of racist discri mination, sexist discrimination, and diversity inclusive climate to organizational commitment a nd (b) mediate the relation of perceived work group effectiveness to organizational commitment. Full and partial mediation will be explored. 4. The strength of the proposed relations will be explored across racial/ethnic groups. It is expected that the link between racist discrimination and outcomes will be stronger for racial/ethnic minority women that for White women. Methodological and statistical pr ocedures for examining the above hypotheses are described in the following chapter.

PAGE 52

52 CHAPTER 3 METHOD Participants The MEOCS database contains over 1,000,000 obser vations that have been gathered since 1991. Data from 2002 were selected because they represented the most expansive and recent data set available for the present study. The respondents included in the analyses for the present study were filtered by year, by gender, and by personnel status, thus the participants of interest are 1,465 active duty women officers or warrant officers (a special category of officers in the Army that do not necessarily hold a college-leve l degree) who responded to the MEOCS during 2002. Given the focus of the present study on officer s, enlisted personnel were not included in analyses. Of the 1,465 participants, 14.4% id entified as American Indian or Alaskan Native, 13.2% identified as Asian or Pacific Islander, 13.0% identified as African American, 5.8% identified as Hispanic, 48.2% identified as White and 5.4% identified as Other. With regard to age, 10.6% of the sample was under 20, 27.9% was 20-25, 24. 3% was 26-30, 23.9% was 31-40, 10.1% was 4150, 3.1% was 51 or older. In terms of educati on, 8.6% of the sample reported having less than high school, 11.0% reported high school or eq uivalent, 8.2% reported some college, 36.6% reported a college degree, and 33.7% reported advan ced college work. With regard to branch of military, 9.5% of the sample was in the Air Fo rce, 30.6% was in the Army, 38.3% was in the Navy, 17.5% was in the Marine Corps, and 2.4% wa s in the Coast Guard. In order of lowest officer rank to highest officer rank, the military ranks of the sample were: 9% W1, 7.4% W2, 3.6% W3, 1.5% W4, 1.3% W5 (Warrant Officer Level 1-5), 34.2% O1-O2 (Second and First Lieutenant), 33.3% O3 (Captain), 13.8% O4 (Majo r), 7.7% O5 (Lieutenant Colonel), 5.2% O6 or above Colonel through General Officer). Due to th e fact that they had large amounts of missing

PAGE 53

53 data, 13 participants were excluded from the analyses, thus, the final number of participants used for the current study is 1,452. The above 2002 demographic information was compared to data from women military officers who responded to the MEOCS in 2001 (N = 2,182) to examine whether the composition of the 2002 sample was representa tive of previous years. Th e comparative percentages of racial/ethnic groups were as follows: 14.3% ( 2001) and 14.4% (2002) id entified as American Indian/Native Alaskan; 15.9% (2001) and 13.2% (2002) identified as Asian/Pacific Islander; 15.1% (2001) and 13.0% identif ied as African American; 5.8% (2001) and 5.8% (2002) identified as Hispanic; 43.3% (2001) and 48.0% (2002) identified as White; and 4.8% (2001) and 5.4% (2002) identified as Other. Overall, demogr aphics across the two years were similar. Procedures The MEOCS (Dansby & Landis, 1991) databa se, m aintained by DEOMI at Patrick Air Force Base, FL, served as the source of data for the present study. The MEOCS is administered to individual unit members at the request of th e units commander. Commanders are encouraged to assess the EO climate soon after assuming re sponsibility of a unit a nd to use the feedback from the MEOCS and corresponding corrective actions from DEOMI to take appropriate steps to improve the EO climate if indicated. Commanders are additionally encouraged to reassess their units EO climate after two to three years, which usually corresponds to the end of their tenure as commanders. Individuals are notified on the front cover of the MEOC S that their participation is voluntary and their individual iden tities are untraceable to their responses. They are further informed that unit averages will be provided to the requesting commander and their responses will be accumulated in a database for research and development purposes. However, to protect the anonymity of respondents, results are not repo rted for gender, rank, or racial/ethnic groups if fewer than five respondents are represented in a particular subgroup. There is no prescribed

PAGE 54

54 length of time for individuals to complete th e survey and responses are coded on scannable answer sheets and returned to DEOMI for analysis. There is no tangible incentive offered for co mpleting the MEOCS survey and the average return rate of the MEOCS in 2002 was 40% (Knous e, 2002). It is traditio nally accepted that a 50% return rate is considered adequate, 60% is considered good, and 70% is very good (Babbie, 1979). Meta-analyses of published survey research ; however, show average return rates between 46% and 49% and the average retu rn rate for surveys without incentives is 28% (Church, 1993; Heberlein & Baumgartner, 1978). Published research involving the MEOCS from 1996 to 2002 show a range of return rates fr om 37% to 45%, thus, the return rate of 40% for the present study is deemed acceptable (Knouse, 2002). Because the MEOCS is sent, upon request, to a variety of unit commanders, who then distribute the paper-and-pen formatted MEOCS to their subordinates, the context in which individuals complete the survey is not controlled It is unknown if individuals are instructed to complete the survey in the work environment, or if they are instructed to complete the survey at home. Additionally, the MEOCS can be given in a group or individual format. While DEOMI publishes recommended methods for administeri ng and collecting the MEOCS, it is unknown if the recommended methods were consistently followed. This lack of standardization in the administration of the paper-and-pen format of th e MEOCS leads to uncertainty about the extent to which the environment in which individuals completed the MEOCS was free (as much as possible) of external influences. Thus, MEOCS data must be interpreted with this limitation in mind. Furthermore, it must be noted that it is im possible to determine whether there are repeat participants in the MEOCS databa se due to the anonymity of th e participants. The likelihood of

PAGE 55

55 repeat participation, however, can be estimated to be very low. For an i ndividual to complete two MEOCS in one calendar year, one of two situ ations must occur. The individuals unit commander must request the MEOCS twice within a calendar year (which is against the recommended two to three year time lapse for co mmanders to re-administer the MEOCS to their units), or the individual must change units and have an old and new unit commander who requests the MEOCS during the time the individu al was assigned to their units. These two scenarios are possible but highly im probable. In fact, DEOMI recomm ends restricting datasets to one year in order to maximize odds that datasets do not include repeat participants (Lt Hubert Coard, personal communication, February 15, 2004). Instruments The MEOCS was based on the following definiti on of EO clim ate: The expectation by individuals that opportunities, re sponsibilities, and rewards will be accorded on the basis of a persons abilities, efforts, and contributions, and not on race, color, sex, religion, or national origin. It is to be emphasized th at this definition involves the individuals pe rceptions and may or may not be based on the actual witnessing of behavior. (Dansby & Landis, 1991, p. 392) There are 100 items on the MEOCS designed to measure equal opportunity (EO) climate and organizational effectivene ss. Through factor analysis, Da nsby and Landis (1991) suggested that the MEOCS measures nine EO climate factor s and three organizational effectiveness factors. EO scales 1 to 5 focus on perceptions of EO behaviors within the cont ext of the respondents unit (1=sexual harassment and sex discriminatio n; 2=differential comm and behaviors towards minorities; 3=positive equal opportunity behavior s; 4=racist/sexist behaviors; 5=reverse discrimination-I). Respondents are asked to ra te the likelihood that certain EO behaviors occurred in their units during the last 30 days on a 5-point scale (1= there is a very high chance that the action occurred to 5= there is almost no chance that the action occurred ). Scales 6 to 8

PAGE 56

56 measure job-related outcomes (o rganizational commitment; percei ved work group effectiveness; job satisfaction) and are rated on a 5-point scale (1= totally agree with statement to 5= totally disagree with statement). Scales 9 to 11 use the same anchors as Scales 6 to 8 but are designed to measure general attitudes towards EO issues ac ross a broader service context (discrimination against minorities and women; reverse discrimina tion-II; desire for racial separation). Scale 12 allows respondents to rate their overall impression of the EO climate in their unit (1= very poor to 5= very good ). The scale items have yielded accepta ble reliabilities (average Cronbachs = .84, range = .75-.91) (Landis et al., 1993). Support for construct validit y is evidenced by discriminate and convergent validity (Dansby & Landis, 1991). The MEOCS scales of interest for the present study were scales 1-5 (EO behaviors in the respondents workplace) and scales 6-8 (j ob-related outcomes). When the MEOCS was developed, it was factor analyzed using a genera l sample of military personnel, of which women only comprised 14% (Dansby & Landis, 1991). An ex tensive literature re view resulted in no publications that examined the structure of the MEOCS for ge nder or racial/ethnic minority groups. Due to the lack of published a priori fact or structure for the MEOCS with minority samples, it was unknown if the factor structur e for scales 1-8 reported by Dansby and Landis (1991) were appropriate for re spondents used in the present study. Scholars often discuss the importance of using relevant minority samples wh en examining the structure of measures that are used to study minority experien ces, especially experi ences of sexist and racist discrimination (Klonoff & Landrine, 1995; Mobley, Slaney, & Rice, 2005; Moradi & S ubich, 2002; Ponterotto & Casas, 1991). In light of such calls, one cont ribution of the present st udy is to examine the structure of the MEOCS based on samples of wo men officers. Thus, in preparation for the

PAGE 57

57 proposed study, the recommended tw o-step procedure (an explorat ory factor analysis followed by a confirmatory factor analysis) with two se parate samples (2001 and 2002) was followed to develop indicators of the variab les of interest (Bryant & Yarn old, 2001; Tabachnick & Fidell, 2001). The first step to explore the structure of the MEOCS for women officers involved subjecting data from the 2001 women officer samp le to Principle Components Analysis (PCA) and item-level reliability analyses to identify th e most optimal set of items to be used as indicators of the variables of interest. The set of items comprising scales 1-5 (MEOCS items 150; EO behaviors in the res pondents workplace) and scales 6-8 (MEOCS items 51-73; jobrelated outcomes) established by Dansby and Landi s (1991) were examined separately as the independent and dependent variables of intere st for the present study. The number of factors retained was determined by (a) Cattells scree te st (Field, 2000), (b) eigenvalues greater than 1.0, (c) percentage of total variance accounted for by each factor, (d) the interpretability of the solution and (e) factors having a minimum of four items loadings greater than .40 (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2001; Guadagnoli & Velicer, 1988). A minimu m factor loading cutoff of .30 was used and items that cross-loaded were retained on the factor that ha d the highest loading and were clearly conceptually re lated to their assigned factor (Byrant & Yarnol d, 2001). The distribution and normality of these data were examined and indicated the appropriateness of conducting factor analyses with thes e data (Weston & Gore, 2006). PCA results for MEOCS items 1-50 (Table A-2) suggested a three factor solution that accounted for 51.00% of the total variance. In add ition, item-level reliability analyses indicated high levels of homogeneity among items from each factor. The three factors that emerged reflected Perceived Racist Discrimination (25 items; = .96; range of factor loadings = .86 .37;

PAGE 58

58 range of corrected item-total co rrelation = .76 .57), Perceived Se xist Discrimination (13 items; = .92; range of factor loadings = .88 .43; ra nge of corrected item-total correlation = .73 .58), and Perceived Diversity Inclusive Climate (11 items; = .88; range of factor loadings = .72 .54; range of corrected item-t otal correlation = .68 .51). Similarly, PCA and item-level analyses re sults for MEOCS items 51-73 (Table A-3) pointed to a four-factor solution that accounted for 53.81% of the to tal variance. The first factor that emerged reflected positively worded Organizational Commitment items (6 items; = .83; range of factor loadings = .79 .60; range of corrected item-to tal correlation = .70.42). The second factor reflected Perceived Work Group Effectiveness (5 items; = .84; range of factor loadings = .80 .75; range of corrected itemtotal correlation = .68 .59). The third factor reflected Job Satisfaction (6 items; = .79; range of factor load ings = .75 .55; range of corrected item-total correl ation = .57 48). The fourth factor that emerged reflected negatively worded Organizational Commitment items and pr oved to be somewhat problematic. The 6 items yielded an alpha of .71 with a ra nge of factor loadings from .76 to .53. The range of corrected item-total correlation was .50 to .36. Two of the items (I could just as well be working in another organization as long as the type of work was similar and It would take very little change in my present circumstances to cause me to leave this organization) reduced alpha, and were eliminated from that scale. Next, items from both factors that emerged for Organizational Commitment (one factor comprised of positively st ated items and the other factor comprised of negatively stated items) were entered simultaneous ly into a reliability analyses. The combination of the ten items that reflected Organizational Commitment yielded an al pha of .83. For purposes of the present study, the negatively worded orga nizational commitment items were reversed

PAGE 59

59 scored and merged with the positively word ed items to create a single Organizational Commitment scale. Thus, high scores consistently i ndicated high levels of all variable of interest. Based on the factor structures and item-level reliability analyses that emerged from the 2001 women officer sample, the data from the 2002 women officer sample were subjected to Confirmatory Factor Analys es (CFA) using AMOS 7.0 (Ar buckle, 2006). Tabachnick and Fidells (2001) recommendations were followed to perform mean score substitutions (using individual participants means) of missing data within each factor that emerged from the PCA to prepare the data set for the CFA. Maximum likel ihood was used as the estimation method in the CFAs. Appropriate indicators of model fit were chosen based on recommendations from Hu and Bentler (1995), Martens (2005), a nd Weston and Gore (2006). These authors warn that several fit indices (e.g., goodness-of-fit index (GFI), adjusted goodness-of-fit inde x (AGFI), normed fit index (NFI), chi-square fit index ( 2), and 2 / df ) can be substantially influenced by factors other than model misspecification, such as sample size and the number of indicators per factor, and do not tend to generalize consistently across sample s. Thus, the following recommended indicators were examined to determine the adequacy of data-model fit in the present study: Root-meansquare-error of approximation (RMSEA; Steiger & Lind, 1980), standardized root mean square residual (SRMR; Bentler, 1995), comparative fit index (CFI; Bentler, 1990), incremental fit index (IFI; Bollen, 1989), and the Tucker-Lewis index (also known as the non-normed fit index; TLI; Tucker & Lewis, 1973). The generally accepte d guidelines for indicators of a well-fitting model are CFI, IFI, and TLI values of .90 or greater, RMSEA values of .08 or less, and SRMR values of .05 or less (Kline, 1998). The three-f actor model that emerged from the first PCA (independent variables: Perceive d Racist Discrimination, Percei ved Sexist Discrimination, and

PAGE 60

60 Perceived Diversity Inclusive Climate) was ente red into a CFA and is presented in Figure B-2. The three-factor model that emerged from the second PCA (dependent variables: Job Satisfaction, Perceived Work Group Effectiv eness, and Organizational Commitment) was entered into a second CFA and is presented in Figure B-3. The fit indicators for both CFAs are presented in Table A-4. Indicators of model fit for the independent variable model yielded mixed support for the model. The CFI, IFI, and TLI were slightly below the acceptable cut-off of .90 (.89, .89, and .88, respectively); however, the RMSEA and SRMR met the acceptable guidelines (.06 and .05, respectively). Nasser and Wisenbaker (2003) contend that wh ile researchers report that CFI, IFI, and TLI are not as susceptible to being impacted by the number of items or indicators in a model ( e.g., Hu & Bentler, 1995; Martens, 2005; Weston & Gore, 2006), large sample sizes and numerous items may still influence these fit inde xes. The present study has a large sample size (N = 1,452) and the independent variables are defined by a high number of items (perceived racist discrimination was measured with 25 items, perceived sexist discrimination was measured with 13 items, and perceived dive rsity inclusive climate was measur ed with 11 items, for a total of 49 items in the entire model). Based on the models yield of acceptabl e values of RMSEA and SRMR and the mixed evidence in the literature of the utility of CFI, IFI, and TLI as fit indicators for models involving high numbers of indicators, the independent variable model was deemed an acceptable fit for the data. The dependent variable model yielded accepta ble fit indicators (CFI = .91, IFI = .91, TLI = .90, RMSEA = .06, SRMR = .05). This was not surprising given that the dependent variable model contained only 21 measured items, less than half of the measured items in the independent variable model. Both CFA models seem to suggest that the data support th e three-factor structure

PAGE 61

61 for the independent variable model and the three-factor structure for the dependent variable model obtained from the 2001 sample. Thus, these models served as the basis for computing observed indicator scores for the path analyses in the present study. Specifically, based on the findings from the PCA and CFA conducted with data from 2001 and 2002 women officer samples, the following scale scores were computed and used as indicators of the variables of interest for th e present study: Perceive d Racist Discrimination, Perceived Sexist Discriminati on, Perceived Inclusive Social Climate, Perceived Work Group Effectiveness, Job Satisfaction, and Organizatio nal Commitment. Sample items and reliability evidence for each of these scal es are described below. Independent Variables Respondents were asked to rate the likeli hood that behaviors desc ribed in the item s comprising all three independent variable scales (Perceived Racist Di scrimination, Perceived Sexist Discrimination, Perceived Diversity Inclusive Climate) occurred in their duty location during the last 30 duty days on a 5-point scale (1 = there is almost no chance that the action occurred to 5 = there is a very high chance that the action occurred ). Thus, higher scores indicated higher levels of per ceived racist discrimination, perc eived sexist discrimination, and perceived diversity inclusive climate. Perceived Racist Discrimination was assessed using 25 item s that emerged from the previously described factor an alyses of MEOCS items as meas uring perceptions of racist discrimination within the organi zational climate. Sample items include: Offensive racial/ethnic names were frequently heard and A majority member complained that there was too much interracial dating among other people in the organization. With the present sample, perceived racist discrimination items yielded an alpha inte rnal consistency of .96 and corrected item-total correlations ranged from .57 to .76.

PAGE 62

62 Perceived Sexist Discrimination was assessed using 13 MEOCS items that have similar content and loaded together in the aforementione d factor analyses. Sample items include: A woman was asked to take notes a nd provide refreshments at staff meetings, such duties were not part of her job assignment and A woman who complained about sexual harassment was not recommended for promotion. With the present sample, Perceived Sexist Discrimination items yielded an alpha internal consis tency of .92, and the range of co rrected item-total correlations was .57 to .73. Perceived Diversity Inclusive Climate was assessed with 11 items that emerged from the factor analyses of MEOCS items as measuring perceptions of positive equal opportunity behaviors. Perceived Diversity Inclusive Climate items describe positive elements of the organizational climate that support diversity am ong members, such as Majority and minority members were seen socializing together and When the Commander/CO held staff meetings, women and minorities, as well as majority men, we re asked to contribute suggestions to solve problems. With the present sample, Perceived Diversity Inclusive Climate items yielded an alpha internal consistency of .88 and the correc ted item-total correlations ranged from .51 to .68. Dependent Variables Perceived Work Group Effectiveness was assessed with 5 item s including The quality of output of my work group is very high and M y work groups performance in comparison to similar work groups is high. Respondents were asked to rate thei r perception of the effectiveness of their work group (all persons who report to the same supervisor as they do) using a 5-point scale (1 = totally disagree with the statement to 5 = totally agree with the statement ). Higher scores indicated hi gher levels of perceived work group effectiveness. With the present sample, Perceived Work Group Effectiveness items yielded an acceptable alpha internal consistency of .84 and corrected item-total correlations from .59 to .67.

PAGE 63

63 Job Satisfaction was measured with 6 items that asse ssed respondents leve l of satisfaction with their current job. Respondents rated their level of satisfaction on items such as My job as a whole and My job security using a 5-point scale (1 = very dissati sfied to 5 = very satisfied), with higher scores indicating hi gher levels of job satisfaction. With the present sample, Job Satisfaction items yielded an accep table alpha internal consistency of .79 and corrected alpha item-total correlations ranged from .48 to .58. Organizational Commitment was measured with 10 items that emerged from the aforementioned factor analyses of MEOCS items as measuring both positively (6 items) and negatively (4 items) worded statements about ones commitment to their organization. The negatively worded statements were reversed sc ored so that higher ratings on the following 5point scale (1 = totally disagree with the stat ement to 5 = totally agree with the statement) indicated higher levels of organizational commitmen t. Sample items include: I am proud to tell others that I am apart of this organization and I f eel very little loyalty to this organization (reversed scored). With the present sample, Organizational Commitment items yielded an acceptable alpha internal consistency of .83 and corre cted item-total correlations ranged from .42 to .65.

PAGE 64

64 CHAPTER 4 RESULTS Descriptive Results Descriptive statistics are repor ted in Table 5. The full matrix of correlation coefficients was examined for bivariate associations and for collin earity among all variables and is reported in Table 6. The Perceived Racist and Sexist Discrimination scales developed by exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses in the present study have not been published previously, thus it is not possible to directly compare the scale mean s obtained in the present study to means obtained in other studies. The Perceive d Diversity Inclusive Climate s cale; however, was used by Dansby and Landis (1998). The Perceived Diversity Inclusive scale mean and standard deviation obtained in the present study for the entire samp le (M = 3.90, SD = .86) were similar to those reported by Dansby and Landis (1998) for a sa mple of 3,102 racial/ethnic minority military women (M = 3.82, SD = .76). Means and standard de viations obtained in the present sample for Perceived Work Group Effectiveness(M = 4.02, SD = .83), Job Satisfaction (M = 3.96, SD = .77), and Organizational Commitment (M = 3.27, SD = .81 ) also were similar to those reported by Dansby and Landis (1998) for Perceived Wo rk Group Effectiveness (M = 4.06, SD = .68), Job Satisfaction (M = 3.96, SD = .48), and Or ganizational Commitment (M = 3.18, SD = .58) with their sample of 3,102 racial /ethnic minority military women. To examine the bivariate relations between th e variables of interest, a correlation matrix for the entire sample (N = 1,452) was computed and is reported in Table 6. Perceived Racist Discrimination and Perceived Se xist Discrimination were stro ngly positively correlated ( r = .86, p < .01) with each other, while Perceived Divers ity Inclusive Climate was negatively correlated with both Perceived R acist Discrimination (r = -.39, p < .01) and Perceived Sexist Discrimination ( r = -.29, p < .01). Conceptually, the negative co rrelations of the two Perceived

PAGE 65

65 Discrimination scores (negative perceptions of the work climat e) with Perceived Diversity Inclusive Climate scores (positive perceptions of the work climate) are consistent with expectation. Consistent with previous rese arch findings (e.g., McIntyre & et. al., 2002; Fitzgerald, et. al., 1997; Roberts, Swanson, & Murphy, 2004; Rosenfeld et al., 1998), both Perceived Racist Discriminati on and Perceived Sexist Discri mination scores were related significantly and negatively with all three criterion variables. Specifically, Perceived Racist Discrimination was correlated negatively w ith Perceived Work Group Effectiveness (r = -.31, p < .01), Job Satisfaction ( r = -.33, p < .01), and Organizational Commitment ( r = -.39, p < .01) and Perceived Sexist Discrimination was corre lated negatively with Perceived Work Group Effectiveness (r = -.29, p < .01), Job Satisfaction ( r = -.30, p < .01), and Organizational Commitment ( r = -.38, p < .01). Perceived Divers ity Inclusive Climate was related significantly and positively with Perceived Work Group Effectiveness ( r = .39, p < .01), Job Satisfaction ( r = .42, p < .01), and Organizational Commitment ( r = .40, p < .01), which is consistent with Bond et al.s (2004) and Williams et al.s (1999) finding s. Also consistent with previous findings (e.g., Cooper-Hakim & Viswesvaran, 2005; Mathieu & Zaj ac, 1990; McIntyre et al., 2002), Perceived Work Group Effectiveness and Job Satisfaction ( r = .56, p < .01), Perceived Work Group Effectiveness and Organizational Commitment ( r = .38, p < .01), and Job Satisfaction and Organizational Commitment ( r = .54, p < .01) were related positively and significantly. To evaluate whether multicollinearity was probl ematic, Tabachnick and Fidells (2001) recommended cut-off of .90 was considered. None of the correlations be tween the variables of interested exceeded this cut-off, although the co rrelation between perceived racist and sexist discrimination approached this cut-off ( r = .86, p < .01). Furthermore, the variables of interest

PAGE 66

66 emerged as separate and reliable factors in th e exploratory and confirma tory factor analyses reported earlier in the present study, thus, multicollinearity was not deemed to be problematic. Tests of Hypotheses Hypothesis 1. The bivariate correlation coeffici ents reported above support the hypothesized relations between the three predictors and the three outcome variables, such that Perceived Racist and Sexist Discrim ination were related signif icantly and negatively whereas Perceived Diversity Inclusive Climate was rela ted significantly and posit ively with Perceived Work Group Effectiveness, Job Satisfaction, and Organizational Commitment. AMOS 7.0 (Arbuckle, 2006) was used to test the path m odel depicted in Figure 1. The path model allowed the examination of the unique direct, as well as indirect relations be tween the predictor and criterion variables. The hypothesized path model contained 21 free parameters, and, according to Kline (1998), 5-10 observations per paramete r are recommended. Thus, 105-210 observations are recommended for inclusion in the present st udys path model. The total sample size was 1,452, which exceeded the minimum observations recommended by Kline (1998). Results of the path analysis of the entire samp les data are reported in Figure B-4. The path model was fully saturated, thus the model produced perfect fit to the data. Perceived Racist Discrimination was linked uniquely and ne gatively only with Perceived Work Group Effectiveness ( = -.11, p < .05), and Perceived Sexist Disc rimination was linked uniquely and negatively with Perceived Work Group Effectiveness ( = -.10, p < .05) and Organizational Commitment ( = -.18, p < .001). Neither discrimination variables was linked uniquely with Job Satisfaction. Furthermore, perceived Diversity Inclusive Climate wa s linked uniquely and positively with all three criterion variable s; Perceived Work Group Effectiveness ( = .35, p < .001), Job Satisfaction ( = .16, p < .001) and Organizational Commitment ( = .16, p < .001). Finally, Perceived Work Group Effectiveness wa s linked uniquely and positively with both Job

PAGE 67

67 Satisfaction ( = .47, p < .001) and Organizational Commitment ( = .38, p < .001). Job Satisfaction was not linked uniquely with Organi zational Commitment. The model accounted for 36% of the variance in Perceived Work Group Effectiveness, 21% of the variance in Job Satisfaction, and 37% of the varian ce in Organizational Commitment. Hypotheses 2 & 3. Baron and Kennys (1986) procedur es were followed to test the hypotheses involving mediation. For a variable to qualify as a mediat or 1) there must be a link between the predictor and mediator, 2) there must be a link between the mediator and criterion, and 3) a previously significant link between the predictor and criter ion must be reduced significantly when the role of the mediator is ac counted for. Zero-order correlations reported in Table A-7 revealed that all variables were signi ficantly related to each other (pre-conditions 1 and 2), and significance of unique direct links in the path model for the entire sample were used to assess pre-condition 3. In cases that met all three pre-conditions, Sobels formula (Baron & Kenny, 1986) was used to determine if indirect effects were significantly different from zero (i.e., there was significant mediation). Perceived Work Group Effectiveness was hypothesi zed to mediate the relations of all three predictor variables to Job Satisfaction. Consistent with these hypotheses, through Perceived Work Group Effectiveness, the indirect relation of Perceived Racist Discrimination with Job Satisfaction was significant ( = -.11 x .47 = -.05; z = -9.37, p < .000), the indirect relation of Perceived Sexist Discrimination with Job satisfaction was significant ( = -.10 x .47 = -.05; z = 11.09, p < .000), and the indirect rela tion of Perceived Diversity Inclusive Climate with Job Satisfaction was significant ( = .35 x .47 = .16; z = 14.38, p < .000). Job Satisfaction was hypothesized to mediate the relations of all thre e predictor variables to Organizational Commitment and to mediat e the relation between Perceived Work Group

PAGE 68

68 Effectiveness and Organizational Commitment. These hypotheses were not supported as there was no significant unique direct relation be tween Job Satisfaction and Organizational Commitment. While there were no original hypotheses involving Perceived Work Group Effectiveness as a mediator between the three predictor vari ables and Organizational Commitment, these relationships were explored after examining the results of the path analysis. Through Perceived Work Group Effectiveness, the indirect relati on of Perceived Racist Discrimination with Organizational Commitment was significant ( = -.11 x .38 = .04; z = -10.25, p < .000), as were the indirect relations of Perc eived Sexist Discrimination ( = -.10 x .38 = -.04; z = -9.47, p < .000) and Perceived Diversity Inclusive Climate ( = .35 x .38 = .13; z = 7.89, p < .000) with Organizational Commitment. Hypothesis 4. To explore how racial/ethnic groups compared on mean levels of the variables of interest, participants predictor a nd criterion data were ente red into two separate MANOVAs, one for predictor variables and one for criterion variables, wi th racial/ethnic group entered as the independent variable. Three resp ondents had missing racia l/ethnic demographics and were excluded from these analyses. The results indicated that the levels of the three predictor variables (Wilks Lambda = .04; p = .00) and the three criterion variables (Wilks Lambda = .04; p = .00) differed across groups. Furthermore, Bo xs Test of covarian ce indicated that the observed covariances of the pr edictor and criterio n variables were not equal across groups (Boxs M (17.4) = 526.80, p = .00 and Boxs M (9.46) = 286.49, p = .00, respectively). Hochbergs post-hoc tests were used to dete rmine which racial/ethnic groups exhibited significant differences in levels of the three pred ictor and criterion variables. The subsample that

PAGE 69

69 identified as Other was not reported sepa rately due to the ambi guous meaning of that racial/ethnic group. The post-hoc tests indicted that for Perc eived Sexist Discrimination, the American Indian/Native Alaskan group (M = 2.92, SD = 1.10) and the Asian/ Pacific Islander group (M = 2.83, SD = .97) scored similarly and both groups scored significantly higher than the African American group (M = 2.10, SD = .87), the Hispanic group (M = 2.02, SD = .81), and the White group (M = 1.84, SD = .76). Additionally, the Af rican American group (M = 2.10, SD = .87), scored significantly higher than the White group (M = 1.84, SD = .76), while there were no significant differences in the level of Perceive d Sexist Discrimination between the Hispanic group (M = 2.02, SD = .81) and the African Americ an group (M = 2.10, SD = .87) or the White group (M = 1.84, SD = .76). Post-hoc testing indicated significant differences in the level of Perceived Racist Discrimination between all raci al/ethnic groups except between the American Indian/Native Alaskan group (M = 2.77, SD = 1.00) and Asian/ Pacific Islander group (M = 2.67, SD = .96) and the African American group (M = 2.00, SD = .79) and the Hispanic group (M = 1.83, SD = .72). Specifically, for Perceived Racist Discrimina tion, both the American Indian/Native Alaskan group (M = 2.77, SD = 1.00) and the Asian/Pacific Islander group (M = 2.67, SD = .96) scored significantly higher than the African American group (M = 2.00, SD = .79), the Hispanic group (M = 1.83, SD = .72), and the White group (M = 1.48, SD = .52), while both the African American group (M = 2.00, SD = .79) and the Hi spanic group (M = 1.83, SD = .72) scored significantly higher than the White group (M = 1.48, SD = .52). Significant differences in levels of Perceive d Diversity Inclusive Climate were indicated between the White group and all other racial/ethnic groups, such that the White group (M = 4.27,

PAGE 70

70 SD = .72) scored significantly higher than the Hispanic group (M = 3.81, SD = 85), the African American group (M = 3.70, SD = .76), the Asian American/Pacific Islander group (M = 3.54, SD = .78), and the American Indian/Native Alaska n group (M = 3.35, SD = .85). Additionally, both the African American group (M = 3.70, SD = .76) and the Hispanic group (M = 3.81, SD = 85) scored significantly higher than the American Indian/Native Alaskan gr oup (M = 3.35, SD = 85) There were no significant differe nces in Perceived Diversity Inclusive Climate between the Asian American/Pacific Islander group (M = 3.54, SD = .78), the Hispanic group (M = 3.81, SD = 85), or the African Americ an group (M = 3.70, SD = .76). Significant differences in levels of job-rela ted criterion variables emerged as well. For Perceived Work Group Effectiveness, the White group (M = 4.24, SD = .66) scored significantly higher than the African American group (M = 4.00, SD = .79), the Asian American/Pacific Islander group (M = 3.79, SD = .83), and the American Indian/Native Al askan group (M = 3.64, SD = 1.06), but not the Hispanic group (M = 4.23, SD = .73). The American Indian/Native Alaskan group (M = 3.64, SD = 1.06) scored sign ificantly lower than the African American group (M = 4.00, SD = .79) and the Hispanic gr oup (M = 4.23, SD = .73), while the Hispanic group scored significantly higher than the Asia n American/Pacific Islander group (M = 3.79, SD = .83). For Job Satisfaction, the White group (M = 4.17, SD = 63) scored significantly higher than the African American group (M = 3.96, SD = .73) the Asian American/Pacific Islander group (M = 3.70, SD = .73), and the American Indian/Native Alaskan group (M = 3.58, SD = .96), but not the Hispanic group (M = 4.08, SD = .64). The Hispanic group (M = 4.08, SD = .64) scored significantly higher than the Asian American/P acific Islander group (M = 3.70, SD = .73), and the American Indian/Native Alaskan group (M = 3.58, SD = .96), but not the African American

PAGE 71

71 group (M = 3.96, SD = .73), while the African Am erican group (M = 3.96, SD = .73) did score significantly higher than the Asian American/P acific Islander group (M = 3.70, SD = .73), and the American Indian/Native Al askan group (M = 3.58, SD = .96). The only significant difference between levels of Organizational Commitment was that the White group (M = 3.49, SD = .82) scored significantly higher th an the African American group (M = 3.10, SD = .75), the Asian American/Pacific Islander group (M = 3.05, SD = .65), and the American Indian/Native Alaskan group (M = 3.00, SD = .73). No ot her differences in the levels of Organizational Commitment were significant be tween the groups. Statis tical results of the mean differences for predictor and criterion va riables are found in Table A-5 and Table A-6. To examine whether the links among predicto r and criterion variables differed across racial/ethnic groups, several multiple group comp arisons were conducted using AMOS 7.0. First, participants were split along raci al/ethnic minority status into groups of White women (N = 700) and racial/ethnic Minority women (N = 749) to evaluate whether there was an overall racial/ethnic minority status difference. Th ree sets of multiple group comparisons were conducted, one constraining covariances among pred ictor variables to be equal across groups (i.e., White and racial/ethnic Minority), anot her constraining the pa ths between criterion variables to be equal across groups and a third constraining all pa ths in the model (Figure B-1) to be equal across groups. This iterative appro ach was used to evalua te whether there were differences across groups, and if so reveal wh ere those differences were in the model (e.g., covariances among predictor variables, links among criterion variables). The multiple group comparison of covariances among the predictor variables (Perceived Sexist Discrimination, Perceived Racist Discriminati on, and Perceived Diversity In clusive Climate) yielded a significant chi-square change ( [3, N = 700] = 207.41, p = .00), indicating that imposing

PAGE 72

72 cross-group equality constraints re sulted in a statistically worsen ing of model fit. This suggests differences between racial/et hnic Minority and White women in the relations among the predictor variables (Grimm & Yarnold, 2001). The same steps were taken focusing on links among the criterion variables (Job Satisfaction, Perceived Work Group Effectiven ess, and Organizational Commitment) between Minority and White women. The chi-squa re change again was significant, ( [3, N = 700] = 100.86, p = .00), indicating that impo sing cross-group equality c onstraints resulted in a statistically worsening of model fit. This suggests differences between racial/ethnic Minority and White women in the relations among criterion variables. Finally, relations among all pred ictor and criterion variables, to include the relations among predictors with each other and relations among criterion variables w ith each other, were entered into a multiple group comparison. Again, the chi-square change was significant ( [9, N = 700] = 23.10, p = .01), indicating differences in th e magnitude of the relations among predictor and criterion variables between racial /ethnic Minority and White women. Descriptive statistics for the subgroups are reported in Tabl es A-5-6 and correlations among the variables of interest for the subgroups are reported in Tables A-7-12. Based on the indications that there were si gnificant differences in the relations among variables of interest for White women and racial/ethnic Mino rity women, exploratory path analyses were conducted to test the hypothesized model separately with data from each of the racial/ethnic groups represented in the present sample. As men tioned earlier, the hypothesized path model contained 21free parameters, and, a ccording to Kline (1998), 5-10 observations per parameter are recommended. Thus, 105-210 obser vations are recommended for the subgroup path models. The racial/ethnic group subsam ples contained the following sample sizes:

PAGE 73

73 American Indian/Native Alaskan ( n = 207); Asian/Pacific Islander ( n = 191); African American ( n = 188), Hispanic ( n = 84); White ( n = 700). Sample sizes for the subgroups met or exceeded the minimum recommended by Kline (1998), with the exception of the sa mple of Hispanic women officers (n = 84), thus the results of the path analysis with Hispanic women was considered tentative at best. Of particular interest was the magnitude of the relations among variables for each racial/ethnic group, thus, fu ll models are reported (see Figures B-5-9). The path model for African American women o fficers (Figure B-5) revealed that for this sample ( n= 188), Perceived Racist Discrimination ha d a significant uniq ue relation with Perceived Work Group Effectiveness ( = -.31, p < .05), while Perceived Sexist Discrimination did not have a unique link with any criterion variable. However, Perceived Diversity Inclusive Climate had unique links with al l three criterion variables; Pe rceived Work Group Effectiveness ( = .34, p < .001), Job Satisfaction ( = .12, p < .05) and Organiza tional Commitment ( = .19, p < .05). Perceived Work Group Effectiveness was linked uniquely to both Job Satisfaction ( = .58, p < .001) and Organizational Commitment ( = .50, p < .001), while Job Satisfaction was not linked uniquely to Orga nizational Commitment. The model accounted for 46% of the variance in Perceived Work Group Effectiveness, 25% of the variance in Job Satisfaction, and 35% of the variance in Or ganizational Commitment. The path model for American Indian/Alask an Native women officers (Figure B-6) indicated that for this sample (n = 207) the unique relations of Perceived Racist and Sexist Discrimination with the three criterion variables did not reach statistical significance. However, Perceived Diversity Inclusive Climate had sign ificant unique links with Perceived Work Group Effectiveness ( = .23, p < .05) and Job Satisfaction ( = .20, p < .05). Furthermore, Perceived Work Group Effectiveness was linked uniquely with Job Satisfaction ( = .58, p < .001) and

PAGE 74

74 Organizational Commitment ( = .28, p < .001). Job Satisfaction was not linked significantly to Organizational Commitment. The model accounted for 42% of the variance in Perceived Work Group Effectiveness, 5% of the variance in Job Satisfaction, and 19% of the variance in Organizational Commitment. The Asian American/Pacific Is lander women officer groups ( n = 191) path analysis results (Figure B-7) indicated that Pe rceived Racist Discrimination li nked uniquely with Organizational Commitment ( = -.22, p < .05), while Perceived Sexist Di scrimination was not linked uniquely with any criterion variable. However, Percei ved Diversity Inclusive Climate was related uniquely with all three crite rion variables; Perceived Work Group Effectiveness ( = .35, p < .001), Job Satisfaction ( = .22, p < .0001) and Organizational Commitment ( = .20, p < .05). Furthermore, Perceived Work Group Effec tiveness was linked uniquely with both Job Satisfaction ( = .53, p < .001) and Organizational Commitment ( = .20, p < .05). Job Satisfaction was not linked unique ly to Organizational Commitment. For this subsample, the model accounted for 43% of the variance in Per ceived Work Group Effectiveness, 14% of the variance in Job Satisfaction, and 26% of the variance in Organizational Commitment. Figure B-8 depicts Hispanic women officer s path analysis. For this sample ( n = 84), Perceived Racist Discrimination was linked uniquely with Perceived Work Group Effectiveness ( = -.37, p < .05), while Perceived Se xist Discrimination was not linked uniquely with any criterion variable. Perceived Diversity Inclusiv e Climate was linked uniq uely with Perceived Work Group Effectiveness ( = .26, p < .05) and Organizational Commitment ( = .27, p < .05), but not with Job Satisfaction. Pe rceived Work Group Effectiveness was related significantly with Job Satisfaction ( = .43, p < .001) and Organizational Commitment ( = .38, p < .001). Job Satisfaction was not significantl y linked to Organizational Commitment. The model for Hispanic

PAGE 75

75 women officers accounted for 25% of the variance in Perceived Work Group Effectiveness, 32% of the variance in Job Satisf action, and 42% of the variance in Organizational Commitment. The path model for the White women officers sample ( n = 700) is depicted in Figure B-9. The results indicated Perceived Racist Discrimination was linked uniquely with Perceived Work Group Effectiveness ( = -.15, p < .05) and Perceived Sexist Discrimination was linked uniquely with Organizational Commitment ( = -.18, p < .05). Perceived Diversity Inclusive Climate was related uniquely with all three criterion vari ables; Perceived Work Group Effectiveness ( = .24, p < .001), Job Satisfaction ( = .08, p < .05), and Organizational Commitment ( = .14, p < .001). Perceived Work Group Effectiveness was linked uniquely with Job Satisfaction ( = .28, p < .001) and Organizational Commitment ( = .48, p < .001). Interestingly, this model was the only one in which Job Satisfaction was relate d uniquely with Organizational Commitment ( = .12, p < .05). The model for White women officer s accounted for 18% of the variance in Perceived Work Group Effectiveness, 16% of th e variance in Job Satisfaction, and 45% of the variance in Organizational Commitment.

PAGE 76

76 CHAPTER 5 SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION Our study was designed to address calls in the literature to attend to contextual issues when conceptualizing w omens experiences (e.g., Moradi & Subich, 2002), particularly when investigating experiences that may influen ce career-related experiences of women in nontraditional career fields. Such investigations can be enriched by attending to the role of outside factors that are rooted in the contexts of womens liv es, including various forms of discrimination (Yoder, 2003). Indeed, the body of literature focusing on womens experiences of discrimination in the military suggests that ra cial/ethnic minority women officers report the highest rates of discrimination, pe rhaps due to their status of belonging to three minority groups within the military organization (officer, women, and racial/ethnic minor ities) (Bastian et al., 1996; Dansby, 1994; Dansby & Landis, 1998; Drasgow et al., 1998; Rosenfeld et al., 1998). The literature also establishes that reports of discrimination, wh ether direct experiences of discrimination or perceptions that discrimination is tolerated in ones workplace, are linked with negative job-related outc omes (Bergman & Drasgow, 2003; Fitz gerald et al., 1999; McIntyre et al., 2002; Williams et al., 1999). In considering the roles of race/ethnicity along with gender, however, existing research has not moved beyond descriptive studies that suggest a main effect of race on womens reports of discrimination and negative job-related outcomes. Also, pr ior studies typically collapse racial/ethnic groups, combine sexist and racist discrimination items on scales, or ignore racist discrimination completely and only examine sexist discrimination. The majority of studies also fail to incorporate the link of diversity inclusive climate to job-related outcomes. These limitations may mask or distort important nuances that can add to the un derstanding of womens experiences in nontraditional career fields. The present study addressed th ese limitations in the

PAGE 77

77 literature by examining concomitantly the unique relations of perceived workplace racist and sexist discrimination and diversity inclusive climate with women officers reports of perceived work group effectiveness, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment. Furthermore, the present study is unique in having substantial re presentation of various racial/ethnic groups, and as such, it provides a more inclusive picture of the experiences of women in nontraditional career fields. Results of path analyses for the entire samp le (N = 1,452) indicated a number of significant relations of perceived racist, se xist, and diversity inclusive cl imate with perceived work group effectiveness, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment. Specifically, findings for the entire sample suggest that hi gher levels of perceived divers ity inclusive c limate are linked uniquely to higher levels of all three criterion variables, higher levels of perceived sexist discrimination are linked uniquely to lower levels of perceived work group effectiveness and organizational commitment, and higher levels of perceived racist discrimination are linked uniquely to lower levels of per ceived work group effectiveness. Thus, all three aspects of the workplace climate were linked uniquely w ith one or more criterion variables. An inspection of the hypothesized relations for subsamples of racial/ethnic groups, however, indicates that different variables emerged as unique corre lates of criterion variables for different racial/ethnic groups. Sp ecifically, perceptions of dive rsity inclusive climate were related positively and uniquely to at least two of the three criterion variab les for all racial/ethnic groups while .perceived racist discrimination in the workplace climate was related uniquely and negatively with at least one j ob-related criterion variables for all racial/ethnic groups except American Indian/Alaskan Native group. Perceived sexist discrimi nation in the workplace climate was related uniquely to negative job-related cr iterion variables only for White women. These

PAGE 78

78 findings may indicate that for racial/ethnic mi nority women, racism is more salient in work contexts than sexism. Additionally, there was a consistent high corr elation between sexism and racism across groups (range: r = .80 to .89) which suggests that the two types of discrimination are highly overlapping. The overlap between pe rceived racist and sexist disc rimination is consistent with prior research (Moradi & Subich, 2003) and an em erging conceptualization that experiences of racism and sexism intersect or are fused for racial/ethnic minority women, such that experiences of discrimination are not attributed to bei ng a women or a racial/ethnic minority, but are attributed to being a racial/ethnic minority wo men. Research that examines this fusion of experiences of discrimination have focused on African American women, yet the present findings indicate that this fusi on may describe other racial/eth nic minority womens experiences as well as African American womens experiences. Differences found in the links between the pe rceptions of workplace climate and criterion variables for the various racial/ethnic groups of women officers, as well as the consistency of the overlap between racist and sexist discriminatio n, illustrates the importance of attending to multiple layers of discrimination, as well as diversity inclusive climate in understanding womens job-related experiences. The totality of the findings in the present study can serve to encourage researchers, leaders, and policy makers to avoid assuming that women officers in the military have unidimensional experiences or perceptions based solely on their gender. Rather, the present findings suggest that r acial/ethnic diversity among women is important to attend to and can influence the links of perceptions of the c limate with perceived work group effectiveness, job satisfaction, and orga nizational commitment.

PAGE 79

79 Our study also responds to calls in vocational psychology literature to explore conceptual and empirical bridges between career theories (S wanson & Gore, 2000) by integrating aspects of two major career theories, namely Social C ognitive Career Theory (SCCT; Lent, Brown, & Hackett, 1994) and the Theory of Work Adjust ment (TWA; Dawis, et al., 1964). Specifically, the present study expands the body of research that focuses on aspect s of the career lifespan beyond the initial stages of the process as well as e xpands the literature that focuses on the impact contextual influences have on job-related outcomes, thus addressing gaps in SCCTs and TWAs corresponding bodies of literature. Indeed, proximal contextual experiences (a s posited by SCCT), defined in the present study as perceived workplace climate (i.e., Perc eived Racist and Sexist Discrimination and Perceived Diversity Inclusive Climate) had sign ificant relations with job-related outcomes (as posited by TWA). Specifically, the present findings i ndicate that diversity inclusive climate is related uniquely and positively with perceived wo rk group effectiveness, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment for all racial/ethnic groups of women military officers, while racist and/or sexist discrimination related uniquely and negatively with perceived work group effectiveness, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment across most racial/ethnic groups (all groups except American Indian/Alaskan Nati ve group). The present fi ndings indicate that indeed, as suggested by SCCT, contextual factors are important in the unde rstanding of the type of job-related outcomes that are the focus of TW A. This study serves as an example of the fruitfulness of integra ting various career theories when i nvestigating complex psychosocial phenomena, such as womens contextual wo rk-related experiences and outcomes in nontraditional career fields.

PAGE 80

80 The steps taken in the present study to opera tionalize the constructs used to test the hypotheses serve to inform the literature on c onstructing instruments to measure vocational experiences. Specifically, the data used for th e present study came from DEOMIs database and were gathered via the MEOCS. The MEOCS was or iginally standardized using a large military population that reflected the entire military population. The construc tion of the MEOCS, however, did not include testi ng whether the same constructs emerge across gender and/or racial/ethnic group subsamples of the population. Scholars have rais ed concern that instruments developed with majority samples may not be rele vant for minority samples (Klonoff & Landrine, 1995; Mobley et al., 2005; Moradi & Subich, 2002; Ponterotto & Casas, 1991) and may, in fact, yield misleading findings if results are used to make comparisons between minority and majority samples. While the present study contributes to vocational literature by offering a measurement model based on MEOCS items developed specifically for women officers, it is only a first step. It is recommended that future studies examine the structure of the MEOCS across racial/ethnic groups as well as officer and enli sted groups to further ensure the MEOCS is constructed and validated with relevant samples. The present study indicate s that when developing organiza tional policies and practices to improve organizational effectivene ss and retention, the potential im pact of perceived sexist and racist discrimination should be considered. The significant negative zero-or der correlations of perceived racist and sexist discrimination with perceived work group effectiveness, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment indicat e that perceived discrimination is related to negative job-related outc omes. Furthermore, when entered concomitantly, both perceived racist and sexist discrimination were related uniquely to perceived work group effectiveness, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment for th e entire sample, and this finding varied across

PAGE 81

81 the subsamples. Thus, organizational policies and practices that focus on reducing both racist and sexist discrimination in the workplace are recommended. Perhaps even more importantly, the inclusion of positive perceptions of diversity inclusive aspects of the work climate in the present study provides organizational lead ership with specific behaviors they can engage in to enhance or ganizational effectiveness and retention. When entered concomitantly with perceived racist and sexist discrimination, perceptions of diversity inclusive climate emerged as a unique predicto r of perceived work group effectiveness, job satisfaction, and/or organizationa l commitment across racial/ethnic groups. Because the relations between perceptions of divers ity inclusive climate and positi ve job-related outcomes were consistent across groups, organizational leadership may increase positive job-related outcomes more readily by focusing on policy and practices th at increase diversity inclusiveness in the workplace climate. While the prevention of raci sm and sexism is important and necessary, implementing diversity inclusive pr actices is probably easier than trying to prevent racist and sexist behaviors. Thus, the items from the ME OCS used to comprise the Perceived Diversity Inclusive Climate scale can be us ed to target specific behavi ors (e.g., When the Commander/CO held staff meetings, women and mi norities, as well as majority men, were asked to contribute suggestions to solve problems) that are suppor ted by the present study to enhance job-related outcomes A final implication of the pres ent study is that it informs the work of counselors with individual women in nontraditional career fields by increasing counselors awareness of the potential experiences of such clients, especia lly regarding the links between experiences of discrimination and work-related outcomes. Such information can better equip counselors to attend to contextual issues that might be pertinent to the career lifespan of their clients. Sesan

PAGE 82

82 (1988) and Hackett and Lonborg (19 94) have documented the dangers that arise for clients when counselors are not attentive or sensitive to relevant diversity issues. These authors reported that counselors often inadvertently promoted acceptance of the status quo, missed issues of victimization, and reinforced gende r and racial-role ster eotyping. Such practices will only serve to continue the disproportionate representation of women in high level nontraditional careers. Despite the strengths of the current study, a number of limitations are important to consider. A major limitation to the current study wa s the reliance on a preexisting survey with a restricted set of items and an existing data base. The current study offers the first factor analysis of MEOCS items for a sample of women offi cers, but, the current study did not examine specifically the factor structur e and applicability of the MEOC S subscales for women officers from a variety of racial/ethnic backgrounds. The research efforts aimed at designing instruments to measure important variables such as sexism, racism, work climate and their implications can become more meaningful and genera lizable if test construction effo rts include factor analyses for diverse populations (e.g., racial/ethnic groups, gende r, rank, sexual orientation, etc.). It is may be inaccurate to assume that instruments normed on predomintantly White men measure the same constructs for non-white men or for wome n of various racial/ethnic backgrounds. Furthermore, the current study was limited by the inability to guarantee consistent methodology with administration of the pen-and-paper version of the ME OCS. While there was consistency in the instructions given to comm anders on how to administer the MEOCS, there were no controls to ensure the instructions were followed. DEOMI has recently improved the methodology of the MEOCS by replacing the pen-a nd-paper version with a computer-based version. While respondents no longer have to turn in their surveys to a central location within their organization because they can now submit th eir surveys over the inte rnet, the environment

PAGE 83

83 they take the survey in is stil l not controlled. For instance, it is not controlled whether someone else is in the room with respondent s when they take the survey, or if they are alone. It is also not known if respondents are given additional ve rbal instructions by their unit beyond the instructions attached to the em ail they now receive inviting them to respond to the survey. While a computer-based survey is an improvement, there remain concerns over the possible variations in the MEOCS respondents environmen ts that may confound their results. In addition, the current study wa s cross-sectional in nature, which only provides a snapshot of correlational data. When examining factors that may be related to workplace outcomes, including retention, longitudinal data would provide stronger evidence of the antecedents of retention of women in nontraditional career fields. A final point worth highlighting about the current study and about the larger body of literature on reports of discrimination expe riences is assessment of individuals perceived discrimination and perceived diversity inclusive climate, wh ich could be affected by various attributions of respondents and th eir response-styles. In fact, it is the current mode of operation to assess experiences of a variety of discrimination experiences (e.g., sexism, racism, ageism, heterosexism/homophobia) through self-reports of perceived experiences of discrimination or prejudice (e.g., Landrine & Klonoff, 1996; Mora di & Subich, 2003; Swim, Cohen, & Hyers, 1998; Waldo, 1999). Most instruments that assess th e frequency of stressful events use selfreport data. One concern regarding self-reported data is the possibi lity of respondents tendencies to over-report incidents. However, this concer n is brought into question by existing data. In particular, studies have demonstrated the phe nomena of women failing to perceive and report discrimination they face, even when exposed to blatant discrimination in a controlled setting (e.g., Crosby, 1984; Taylor, Wright, Moghaddam, & Lalonde, 1990). Such studies show a

PAGE 84

84 tendency to blame poor outcomes on internal i ndividual attributes as opposed to external discrimination (Major et al., 2002). Several studies demonstrate that specific moderators, such as a persons belief in individual mobility, belief in a just world, as well as other beliefs that endorse ideologies that legitimize the status quo, shape the relationship between experiencing discrimination and reporting it as such (Cro cker & Major, 1994; Major, et al., 2002). Furthermore, emotional barriers, such as the desire to protect oneself from the emotional discomfort in confronting ones own victim ization, have been shown to disrupt the acknowledgement of personal expe riences of discrimination (Cro sby, 1984). The totality of extant literature suggests that women do not ove r-report experiences of discrimination; on the contrary, they may underreport discrimination. Our study addressed several gaps in the lite rature examining the links between women in nontraditional career fields perceptions of workplace climate and job-related outcomes. Specifically, our study examined concomitantly r acist and sexist discri mination and inclusive diversity climate for a sample of women milita ry officers. The results indicate that while organizations may increase the job satisfact ion and organizational commitment for women officers by fostering a inclusive diversity climate in the workplace, future longitudinal studies are needed to explore the fusion of racial and gendered experiences for women in nontraditional career fields and the impact those experiences may have on work-related outcomes, to include retention.

PAGE 85

85 APPENDIX A TABLE DATA Table A-1. Air Force G ender Proportions of Rank Enlisted Officer Rank % Men %Women Rank % Men % Women (total = 80%) (total = 20%) (total = 82%) (tot al = 18%) E-1 78.1 21.9 O-1 78.1 21.9 E-2 69.0 31.0 O-2 78.3 21.7 E-3 77.2 22.8 O-3 79.3 20.7 E-4 76.3 23.7 O-4 85.0 15.0 E-5 78.4 21.6 O-5 87.2 12.8 E-6 86.2 13.8 O-6 88.5 11.5 E-7 89.3 10.7 O-7 95.0 5.0 E-8 88.6 11.4 O-8 95.3 4.7 E-9 87.9 12.1 O-9 97.4 2.6 O-10 100 0 Note From the 2003 Demographic Profile of the Department of Defense and U.S. Coast Guard (DEOM, 2003). Ranks increase in level as rank number increases (i.e., E-1 is the lowest enlisted rank and E-9 is the highest).

PAGE 86

86 Table A-2. Three-Factor So lution with Promax Rotation for 2001 MEOCS Items 1-50 (51.00% of Total Variance) Abbreviated items Factor 1 Perceived Racist Discrimination M = 2.00 SD = .91 = .96 Factor 2 Perceived Sexist Discrimination M = 2.20 SD = .96 = .92 Factor 3 Perceived Diversity Inclusive Climate M = 3.90 SD = .86 = .88 11. The supervisor had lunch with a new minority member (to make him/her feel welcome), but did not have lunch with a majority member who had joined the organization a few weeks earlier. (R) .86 8. A race relations survey was taken, but no groups other than blacks and whites were used. (R) .81 16. A supervisor discouraged cross-racial dating among personnel who would otherwise be free to date within the organization. (R) .79 4. The Commander/CO did not appoint a qualified majority in a key position, but instead appointed a less qualified minority. (R) .61 9. A majority member in your organization directed a racial slur at a member of another organization. (R) .86 17. A minority man was selected for a prestigious assignment over a majority man who was equally, if not slightly better, qualified. (R) .62 10. A majority supervisor frequently reprimanded a minority subordinate but rarely reprimanded a majority subordinate. (R) .74 20. A majority member complained that there was too much interracial dating among other people in the organization. (R) .70 12. A group of majority and minority personnel made reference to an ethnic group other than their own using insulting ethnic names. (R) .84 6. A majority first-level supervisor made demeaning comments about minority subordinates. (R) .79 21. A supervisor always gave the less desirable additional duties to men. (S) .60 18. A majority supervisor did not select a qualified minority subordinate for promotion. (R) .60 25. The Commander/CO changed the duty assignments when it was discovered that two persons of the same minority were assigned to the same sensitive area on the same shift. (R) .50 30. When reprimanding a minority man, the majority supervisor used terms such as "boy." (R) .54 28. A Commander/CO giving a lecture took more time to answer questions from majo rity members than from minority members. (R) .52 23. A minority member was assigned less desirable office space than a majority member. (R) .52

PAGE 87

87 Table A-2. Continued Abbreviated items Factor 1 Perceived Racist Discrimination M = 2.00 SD = .91 = .96 Factor 2 Perceived Sexist Discrimination M = 2.20 SD = .96 = .92 Factor 3 Perceived Diversity Inclusive Climate M = 3.90 SD = .86 = .88 13. Graffiti written on the organizations rest room or latrine walls put down minorities or women. (R) .79 3. A majority person told several jokes about minorities. (R) .74 33. A majority and a minority person turned in similar pieces of equipment with simi lar problems. The minority person was given a new issue; the majority members equipment was sent to maintenance for repair. (R) .56 22. A minority woman was selected to receive an award for an outstanding act even though she was not perceived by her peers as being as qualified as her nearest competitor, a majority man. (S) .31 .43 15. A minority man made off-color remarks about a minority woman. (R) .66 34. A motivational speech to a minority subordinate focused on the lack of op portunity elsewhere; to a majority subordinate, it focused on promotion. (R) .39 .38 38. A qualified minority first-level supervisor was denied the opportunity for professional education by his/her supervisor. A majority first-level supervisor with the same qualifications was given the opportunity. (R) .38 .36 26. Minorities and majorities members sat at separate tables in the cafeteria or designated eating area during lunch hour. (R) .37 .35 49. A man stated, Our unit worked together better before we had women in the organization. (S) .88 41. The only woman in a work group was expected to provide housekeeping supplies, such as needle and thread, aspirin, etc., in her desk. (S) .70 43. A woman was asked to take notes and provide refreshments at staff meetings (such duties were not part of her job assignment). (S) .75 47. The Commander/CO assigned an attractive woman to escort visiting male officials around because, We need someone nice looking to show them around. (S) .81 39. When a woman complained of sexual harassment to her superior, he told her, Youre being too sensitive. (S) .66 36. When a female subordinate was promoted, a male peer made the comment, I wo nder who she slept with to get promoted so fast. (S) .69 48. A woman who complained of sexual harassment was not recommended for promotion. (S) .72 32. A male supervisor touched a female peer in friendly manner, but never touched male peers. (S) .69

PAGE 88

88 Table A-2. Continued Abbreviated items Factor 1 Perceived Racist Discrimination M = 2.00 SD = .91 = .96 Factor 2 Perceived Sexist Discrimination M = 2.20 SD = .96 = .92 Factor 3 Perceived Diversity Inclusive Climate M = 3.90 SD = .86 = .88 46. A supervisor referred to female subordinates by their first names in public, while using titles for the male subordinates. (S) .72 24. The term "dyke" (meaning lesbian), referring to a particular woman, was overheard in a conversation between unit personnel. (S) .43 42. Racial/ethnic jokes were frequently heard. (R) .41 .39 40. Offensive racial/ethnic names were frequently heard. (R) .47 .33 45. A better qualified man was not picked for a good additional duty assignment because the Commander/CO said it would look better for equal opportunity to have a woman take this duty. (S) .66 44. A supervisor gave a minority subordinate a severe punishment for a minor infraction. A majority member who committed the same offense was given a less severe penalty. (R) .50 .35 7. Majority and minority personnel were seen having lunch together. (I) .69 29. Majority and minority members were seen socializing together. (I) .72 5. Majority and minority supervisors were seen having lunch together. (I) .70 35. Majority personnel joined minority friends at the same table in the cafeteria or designated eating area. (I) .72 50. At non-official social activities, minorities and majority members were seen socializing in the same group. (I) .66 14. A new minority person joined the organization and quickly developed close majority friends from within the organization. (I) .68 31. Second level female supervisors had both men and women as subordinates. (I) .66 19. When the Commander/CO held staff meetings, women and minorities, as well as majority men, were asked to contribute suggestions to solve problems. (I) .65 37. A supervisor gave the same punishment to minority and majority subordinates for the same offense. (I) .61 2. The spouses of majority and minority personnel mixed and mingled during special events. (I) .63 1. Organization parties, picnics, award ceremonies and other special events were attended by both majority and minority personnel. (I) .54 Note. Factor Loadings < |.30| have been omitted from this table. (R) indicates the item was included in the present studys Perceived Racist Discrimination scale; (S) indicates the item was incl uded in the present studys Perceived Sexist Discrimination scale; (I) indicat es the item was included in the presen t studys Perceived Diversity Inclusive Climate scale.

PAGE 89

89 Table A-3. Four-Factor Solu tion with Promax Rotation for 2001 MEOCS Items 51-73 (53.81% of Total Variance Abbreviated items Factor 1 Organizational Commitment: Positive M = 3.57 SD = .81 = .83 Factor 2 Perceived Work Group Effectiveness M = 4.03 SD = .83 = .84 Factor 3 Job Satisfaction M = 3.96 SD = .77 =.79 Factor 4 Organizational Commitment: Negative M = 2.9 SD = .79 = .71 51. I would accept almost any type of assignment in order to stay in this organization. (OC) .79 52. I find that my values and the organizations values are very similar. (OC) .78 53. I am proud to tell others that I am part of this organization. (OC) .73 56. This organization really inspires me to perform my job in the very best manner possible. (OC) .73 58. I am extremely glad to be part of this organization compared to other, similar organizations that I could be in. (OC) .72 61. For me, this organization is the best of all possible ways to serve my country. (OC) .60 65. When high priority work arises, such as short suspenses, crash programs, and schedule changes, the people in my work group do an outstanding job in handling these situations. (PWGE) .80 64. The quality of output of my work group is very high. (PWGE) .80 66. My work group always gets maximum output form available resources (e.g., personnel and materials). (PWGE) .77 67. My work groups performance in comparison to similar work groups is very high. (PWGE) .76 63. The amount of output of my work group is very high. (PWGE) .75 Level of satisfaction with: 71. My job security. (JS) .75 70. The recognition and pride my family has in the work I do. (JS) .74 69. My amount of effort compared to the effort of my co-workers. (JS) .73 72. The chance to acquire valuable skills in my job that prepare me for future opportunities. (JS) .71 68. The chance to help people and improve their welfare through the performance of my job. (JS) .59

PAGE 90

90 Table A-3 Continued Abbreviated items Factor 1 Organizational Commitment: Positive M = 3.57 SD = .81 = .83 Factor 2 Perceived Work Group Effectiveness M = 4.03 SD = .83 = .84 Factor 3 Job Satisfaction M = 3.96 SD = .77 =.79 Factor 4 Organizational Commitment: Negative M = 2.9 SD = .79 = .71 73. My job as a whole. (JS) .55 The following items were reverse scored: 57. It would take very little change in my present circumstances to cause me to leave this organization. .76 59. Assuming I could stay, theres not too much to be gained by sticking with this organization to retirement. (OC) .72 60. Often, I find it difficult to agree with the policies of this organization on important matters relating to its people. (OC) .66 54. I could just as well be working in another organization as long as the type of work was similar. -.36 .53 55. I feel very little loyalty to this organization. (OC) .64 62. Becoming part of this organization was definitely not a good move for me. (OC) .56 Note. Factor Loadings < |.30| have been omitted from this table. (OC) indicates the item was included in the present studys Organizational Commitment scale; (PWGE) indicates the item was includ ed in the present studys Perceived Work Group Effectiveness scale; (JS) in dicates the item was included in the pres ent studys Job Satisfaction scale.

PAGE 91

91 Table A-4. Assessment of Fit I ndices for CFAs of 2002 Data Variable 2 SRMR RMSEA CFI IFI TLI Indep Variables (RD, SD, DIC) 6071.82** .05 .06 .89 .89 .88 Dep Variables (JS, PWGE,OC) 1122.35** .05 .06 .91 .91 .90 Note N = 1452 for both models. RMSEA = Root-Mean-Square Error of Approximation; SRMR = Standardized Root Mean Square Residual; CFI = Comparativ e Fit Index; IFI = Incremental Fit Index; TLI = TuckerLewis Index; RD = Racist Discrimination; SD = Sexist Discrimination; DIC = Diversity Inclusive Climate; PWGE = Perceived Work Group Effectiveness; JS = Job Satisfaction; OC = Organizational Commitment. ** p <.01.

PAGE 92

92Table A-5. Descriptive Statistics and Mean Differences for Predicto r Variables by Racial/Ethnic Group Variable Racist Discrimination Effect Size M SD df F ( p 2) Sexist Discrimination Effect Size M SD df F ( p 2) Div. Inclusive Climate Effect Size M SD df F ( p 2) Overall (N = 1452) 1.96 .91 5 147.55* .34 2.21 .96 5 76.54* .21 3.90 .86 5 67.94* .19 Hispanic (n = 84) 1.83beh .72 2.02be .81 3.81bf .85 African American (n = 188) 2.00adg .79 2.10adg .87 3.70ae .76 Asian/ Pacific Islander (n = 191) 2.67def .96 2.83def .97 3.54d .78 American Indian/ Native Alaskan (n = 207) 2.77abc 1.00 2.92abc 1.01 3.35abc .85 White (n = 700) 1.48cfgh .52 1.84cfg .76 4.27cdef .72 Note = p < .001. Means with the same superscripts are significantly different at p < .05.

PAGE 93

93Table A-6. Descriptive Statistics and Mean Differences for Criteri on Variables by Racial/Ethnic Group Variable Work Group Effectiveness Effect Size M SD df F ( p 2) Job Satisfaction Effect Size M SD df F ( p 2) Organizational Commitment Effect Size M SD df F ( p 2) Overall (N = 1452) 4.03 .83 5 27.38* .09 3.97 .77 5 31.27* .10 3.27 .81 5 23.25* .08 Hispanic (n = 84) 4.23bd .73 4.08be .64 3.23 .84 African American (n = 188) 4.00af .79 3.96adg .73 3.10c .75 Asian/ Pacific Islander (n = 191) 3.79de .83 3.70def .73 3.05b .65 American Indian/ Native Alaskan (n = 207) 3.64abc 1.06 3.58abc .96 3.00a .73 White (n = 700) 4.24cef .66 4.17cfg .68 3.49abc .82 Note = p < .001. Means with the same superscripts are significantly different at p < .05.

PAGE 94

94 Table A-7. Entire Samples Intercorrelati ons among Variables of Interest (N = 1452) Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 1. RD __ .86** -.39** -.31** -.33** -.39** 2. SD __ -.29** -.29** -.30** -.38** 3. DIC __ .39** .42** .40** 4. PWGE __ .56** .38** 5. JS __ .54** 6. OC __ Note RD. = Racist Discrimination. SD = Sexist Discrimination. DIC = Diversity Inclusive Climate. PWGE = Perceived Work Group Effectiveness. JS = Job Satisfaction. OC = Organizational Commitment. ** p < .01.

PAGE 95

95 Table A-8. Hispanic Samples Intercorrelations among Variables of Interest (n = 84) Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 1. RD __ .83** -.46** -.15 -.34** -.46** 2. SD __ -.32** -.05 -.22* -.34** 3. DIC __ .30** .37** .58** 4. PWGE __ .47** .23* 5. JS __ .54** 6. OC __ Note RD = Racist Discrimination. SD = Sexist Discrimination. DIC = Diversity Inclusive Climate. PWGE = Perceived Work Group Effectiveness. JS = Job Satisfaction. OC = Organizational Commitment. p < .05. ** p < .01.

PAGE 96

96 Table A-9. African American Samp les Intercorrelations among Vari ables of Interest (n = 188) Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 1. RD __ .85** -.38** -.35** -.38** -.30** 2. SD __ -.30** -.30** -.30** -.25** 3. DIC __ .40** .43** .40** 4. PWGE __ .66** .35** 5. JS __ .55** 6. OC __ Note RD = Racist Discrimination. SD. = Sexist Discrimination. DIC =Diversity Inclusive Climate. PWGE = Perceived Work Group Effectiveness. JS = Job Satisfaction. OC = Organizational Commitment. ** p < .01.

PAGE 97

97 Table A-10. Asian American/Pacific Islander Sa mples Intercorrelations among Variables of Interest (n = 191) Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 1. RD __ .81**-.05 -.18* -.13 -.36** 2. SD __ .08 -.15* -.11 -.31** 3.DIC __ .40** .34** .28** 4. PWGE __ .62** .34** 5. JS __ .36** 6. OC __ Note RD = Racist Discrimination. SD. = Sexist Discrimination. DIC = Diversity Inclusive Climate. PWGE = Perceived Work Group Effectiveness. JS = Job Satisfaction. OC = Organizational Commitment. ** p < .01.

PAGE 98

98 Table A-11. American Indian/Alaskan Native Sa mples Intercorrelations among Variables of Interest (n = 207) Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 1. RD __ .89** .34** -.02 .02 -.19** 2. SD __ .37** -.03 .01 -.21** 3. DIC __ .28** .20** .09 4. PWGE __ .62** .30** 5. JS __ .35** 6. OC __ Note RD = Racist Discrimination. SD = Sexist Discrimination. DIC = Diversity Inclusive Climate. PWGE = Perceived Work Group Effectiveness. JS = Job Satisfaction. OC = Organizational Commitment. ** p < .01.

PAGE 99

99 Table A-12. White Samples Intercorrelations among Variables of Interest (n = 700) Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 1. RD __ .80** -.45** -.31** -.34** -.37** 2. SD __ -.32** -.29** -.30** -.38** 3. DIC __ .25** .34** .37** 4. PWGE __ .37** .37** 5. JS __ .62** 6. OC __ Note RD = Racist Discrimination. SD. = Sexist Discrimination. DIC = Diversity Inclusive Climate. PWGE = Perceived Work Group Effectiveness. JS = Job Satisfaction. OC = Organizational Commitment. ** p < .01.

PAGE 100

100 APPENDIX B FIGURES

PAGE 101

101 Figure B-1. Proposed Path Model (fully saturated) Sexist Discrimination Diversity Inclusive Climate Job Satisfaction Organizational Commitment Perceived Work Group Effectiveness Racist Discrimination

PAGE 102

102 Figure B-2. Confirmatory Factor Analysis of Predictor Variables (N = 1452)

PAGE 103

103 Figure B-3. Confirmatory Factor Analys is of Dependent Variables (N = 1452)

PAGE 104

104 Figure B-4. Entire Samples Fully Saturated Path Model (N = 1452). Note p < .05. **p < .001. Dashed line indicates nonsignificant path. Sexist Discrimination Diversity Inclusive Climate Job Satisfaction Organizational Commitment Perceived Work Group Effectiveness Racist Discrimination .16** .16** -.10* -.04 .35** .38** -.05 -.11* -.06 .47** -.18** .04 -.30** .86** -.39**

PAGE 105

105 Figure B-5. African American Sample s Fully Saturated Path Model ( n = 188). Note *p < .05. **p < .001. Dashed line indicates nonsignificant path. Sexist Discrimination Diversity Inclusive Climate Job Satisfaction Organizational Commitment Perceived Work Group Effectiveness Racist Discrimination .12* .19* .07 -.03 .34** .50** -.02 -.31* -.08 .58** -.05 -.08 -.30** .85** -.38**

PAGE 106

106 Figure B-6. American Indian/Alaskan Native Samples Fully Saturated Path Model ( n = 207). Note *p < .05. **p < .001. .Dashed line indicates nonsignificant path. Sexist Discrimination Diversity Inclusive Climate Job Satisfaction Organizational Commitment Perceived Work Group Effectiveness Racist Discrimination .20** .10 -.14 -.04 .23* .28** -.03 .07 -.08 .58** -.21 .09 -.37** .89** -.34**

PAGE 107

107 Figure B-7. Asian American/ Pacific Islander Samples Fully Saturated Path Model ( n = 191). Note *p < .05. **p < .001. Dashed line indicates nonsignificant path. Sexist Discrimination Diversity Inclusive Climate Job Satisfaction Organizational Commitment Perceived Work Group Effectiveness Racist Discrimination .22** .17* -.14 -.22* .35** .20* -.02 .00 -.10 .53** -.11 .09 .08 .81** -.05

PAGE 108

108 Figure B-8. Hispanic Samples Fully Saturated Path Model ( n = 84). Note *p < .05. **p < .001. .Dashed line indicates nonsignificant path. Sexist Discrimination Diversity Inclusive Climate Job Satisfaction Organizational Commitment Perceived Work Group Effectiveness Racist Discrimination .16 .27* .17 -.24 .26* .38** -.04 -.37* .13 .43** .02 -.07 -.32* .83** -.45**

PAGE 109

109 Figure B-9. White Samples Fully Saturated Path Model (n = 700). Note *p < .05. **p < .001. .Dashed line indicates nonsignificant path. Sexist Discrimination Diversity Inclusive Climate Job Satisfaction Organizational Commitment Perceived Work Group Effectiveness Racist Discrimination .08* .14** -.10 .03 .24** .48** -.10 -.15* -.10 .28** -.18* .12** -.32** .80** -.44**

PAGE 110

110 LIST OF REFERENCES Am erican Psychological Association. (APA1999). Archival description of counseling psychology. The Counseling Psychologist, 27 589-592. American Psychological Association. (APA-2002). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct. American Psychologist, 57 1060-1073. Arbuckle, J. L. (2006). Amos (Version 7.0) [Computer softwa re]. Spring House, PA: Amos Development Corporation. Armstead, C., Lawler, K.A., Gordon, G., Cross, J., & Gibbons, J. (1989). Relationship of racial stressors to blood pressure re sponses and anger expressions in black college students. Health Psychology, 8 541-556. Baker-Fletcher, K. (1994). The difference race makes: Sexual harassment and the law in the Thomas/Hill hearings. Journal of Feminist St udies in Religion, 10 7-15. Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and acti on: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs NJ: Prentice-Hall. Bandura, A. (1986). The explan atory and predictive scope of self-efficacy theory. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 4 359-373. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York, NY: Freeman. Bandura, A. (2000). Exercise of human agency through collective efficacy. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 9(3), 75-78. Baron, M.R., & Kenny, D.A. (1986). The moderator-m ediator variable dis tinction in social psychological research: Con ceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51 1173-1182. Bastian, L.D., Lancaster, A.R., & Reyst, H.E. (1996). 1995 Sexual Harassment Survey Arlington VA: Defense Ma npower Data Center. Bateman, T.S., & Strasser, S. (1984). A longitudinal analysis of the antece dents of organizational commitment. Academy of Management Journal, 27 95-112. Benokraitis, N. V. (Ed.). (1997). Subtle sexism: Current prac tice and prospects for change Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Bergman, M.E., & Drasgow, F. (2003). Race as a moderator in a mode l of sexual harassment: An empirical test. Journal of Organizational Health Psychology, 8(2), 131-145. Betz, N.E. (1994). Basic issues and concepts in career counse ling for women. In W.B. Walsh & S.H. Osipow (Eds.), Career counseling for women Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

PAGE 111

111 Bluedorn, A.C. (1982). A unified model of turnover form organizations. Human Relations, 35, 135153. Bond, M.A., Punnett, J. L., Pyle, D.C., Cazeca, D., & Cooperman, M. (2004). Gendered work conditions, health, and work outcomes. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 9 2845. Browman, C.L. (1996). The health consequences of racial discrimination: A study of African Americans. Ethnicity and Disease, 6 148-153. Clark, R, Anderson, N.B., Clark, V.R., & Williams, D.R. (1999). Racism as a stressor for African Americans: A biopsychosocial model. American Psychologist, 54(10), 805-816. Commission for the Recognition of Specialties a nd Proficiences in Professional Psychology (February, 1999). Archival description of counseling psychology. [On-line]. Available: //www.apa.org/crsppp/counseling.html. Cooper, R.S. (1993). Health and the social status of Blacks in the United States. Annals of Epidemiology, 3 137-144. Cooper-Hakim, A., & Viswesvaran, C. (2005). The construct of work commitment: Testing an integrative framework. Psychological Bulletin, 131(2), 241-259. Crawford, S. (1993, March 28). A wink he re, a leer there: Its costly. New York Times, p. F17. Culbertson, A., & Rodgers, W. (1997). Improving managerial effectiveness in the workplace: The case of sexual harassment of navy women. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 27(22), 1953-1971. Dansby, M.R. (1994, December). The Military Equal Opportuni ty Climate Survey (MEOCS) Paper presented at the WorldWide Equal Opportunity Conference, Cocoa Beach, FL. Dansby, M.R., & Landis, D. (1991). Measuring e qual opportunity in the military environment. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 15 389-405. Dansby, M.R., & Landis, D. (1998). Race, gender, and representation index as predictors of an equal opportunity climate in military organizations. Military Psychology, 10(2), 87-105. Dawis, R.V. (1996). The theory of work ad justment and person-environment-correspondence counseling. In D. Brown & L. Brooks (Eds.), Career choice and development (3rd ed., pp. 75-120). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Dawis, R.V., England, G.W., & Lofquist, L.H. (1964). A theory of work adjustment. Minnesota Studies in Vocati onal Rehabilitation, 15. Dawis, R.V., & Lofquist, L.H. (1984). A psychological theory of work adjustment. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

PAGE 112

112 Defense Equal Opportunity Management Institute (2003, March). Semiannual Demographic Profile of the Department of Defense and U.S. Coast Guard Deitch, E.A., Barsky, A., Butz, R.M., Chan, S., Brief, A.P., & Bradley, J.C. (2003). Subtle yet significant: The existence and impact of ever yday racial discrimination in the workplace. Human Relations, 56, 1299-1324 de Jonge, J., Dormann, C. Janssen, P.P.M., Dolla rd, M.F., Landeweerd, J.A., & Nijhuis, F.J.N. (2001). Testing reciprocal relationships be tween job characteristi cs and psychological well-being: A cross-lagged structural equation model. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 74, 29-46. Enlisted and officer demographic data (n.d.). 2002 air force demographic data. Retrieved November 19, 2002, from http://www.afpc.randolph.af.mil/d emographics/demograf/PERCNTS.ht ml. Exec. Order No. 9981, 13 C.F.R. 4313 (1948). Faley, R.H., Knapp, D.E., Kustis, G.A., & Dubois, C.L. (1994, April). Organizational cost of sexual harassment in the workplace Paper presented at the annual conference of the Society for Industrial and Organi zational Psychology, Nashville, TN. Fitzgerald, L.F., Drasgow, F., & Magley, V.J. (1999). Sexual harassment in the armed forces: A test of an integrated model. Military Psychology, 11(3), 329-344. Fitzgerald, L.F., Drasgow, F., Hulin, C.L., Ge lfand, M.J., & Magley, V.J. (1997).Antecedents and consequences of sexual harassment in orga nizations: A test of an integrated model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 578-589. Fitgerald, L.F., Gelfand, M.J., & Drasgow, F. (1995). Measuring sexual harassment: Theoretical and psychometric advances. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 17 425-427. Fitzgerald, L.H., Magley, V.J., Drasgow, F ., & Waldo, C.R. (1999). Measuring sexual harassment in the military: The Sexual Experiences Questionnaire (SEQ-DoD). Military Psychology, 11, 243-263. Fitzgerald, L.F., & Nutt, R. (1986). Th e Division 17 principles concerning counseling/psychotherapy of wome n: Rationale and implementation. The Counseling Psychologist, 14 180-216. Fitzgerald, L.F., Shullman, S., Bailey, N., Richards, M., Swecker, J., Gold, A., Ormerod, A.J., & Weitzman, L. (1988). The incidence and dimensi ons of sexual harassment in academia and the workplace. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 32, 152-175. Hackett, G., Betz, N.E., Casas, J.M., & RomacSingh, I.A. (1992). Gender, ethnicity, and social cognitive factors in predicting the academic achievement of students in engineering. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 39 527-538.

PAGE 113

113 Hackett, G., & Byars, A.M. (1996). Social c ognitive theory and the career development of African American women. Career Development Quarterly, 44 322-340. Hackett, G. & Lonborg, S.D. (1994). Career assessment and counseling for women. In W.B. Walsh, & S.H. Osipow (Eds.), Career counseling for women NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Harris, R.J. & Firestones, J.M. (1997). Subtle se xism in the U.S. military: Individual responses to sexual harassment. In N.V. Benokraitis (Ed.), Subtle sexism: Cu rrent practice and prospects for change Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Hay, M.S., & Elig, T.W. (1999). The 1995 Department of defense sexual harassment survey: Overview and methodology. Military Psychology, 11(3), 233-243. Hesketh, B., McLachlan, K., & Gardner D. (1992). Work adjustment theory: An empirical test using a fuzzy rating scale. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 40 (3), 318-337. Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1995). Evalua ting model fit. In R. H. Hoyle (Ed.), Structural equation modeling: Concepts, issues, and applications (pp. 76-99). Thousand Oaks: Sage. Hulin, C.L., Fitzgerald, L.H., & Drasgow, F. (1996). Organizational influences on sexual harassment. In M. Stockdale (Eds .), Sexual harassment in the workplace (Vol. 5, pp.127150). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Izaeli, D.N. (1983). Sex effects or structural effects? An empirica l test of Kanters theory of proportions. Social Forces, 62 153-165. Jackson, J.S., Williams, D.R., & Torres, M. (1997). Perceptions of discrimination: The stress process and physical and psychological health A. Maney (Ed.), Washington, DC: National Institute for Mental Health. Kanter, R.M. (1977). Some effects of proportions on group life: Skewed sex ratios and responses to token women. American Journal of Sociology, 82, 965-994. Kline, R.B. (1998 ). Principals and practices of structural equation modeling New York: Guilford Press. Klonoff, E.A., Landrine, H., & Campbell, R. (20 00). Sexist discrimination may account for wellknown gender differences in psychiatric symptoms. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 24, 93-99. Knouse, Stephen. (2002 ). Improving return rates on equal opportunity surveys Krieger, N. (1990). Racial and gender discrimi nation: Risk factors for high blood pressure. Social Science Medicine, 30, 1273-1281. DEOMIRSP 02-02. Patrick AFB, FL: Defense Equal Opportunity Management Institute.

PAGE 114

114 Koch, J.T., & Steers, R.M. (1978). Job atta chment, satisfaction, and turnover among public sector employees. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 12 199-128. Kramarae, C. (1992). Harassment and ev eryday life. In L.F. Rakow (Ed.), Women making meaning. NY: Routledge. Kuck, V.P., Marzabadi, C.H., & Buckner, J.P. (2007). A review and study on graduate training and academic hiring of chemists. Journal of Chemical Education, 84 277-284. Landis, D., Dansby, M.R., & Faley, R.H. (1993). The military equal opportunity climate survey: An example of surveying in organizations. In D. Landis, M.R. Dansby., & R.H. Faley, (Eds.), Improving organizational surveys: Ne w directions, methods, and applications. London: SAGE Publications. Lent, R.W., Hackett, G., & Brown, S.D. (2000). Contextual supports a nd barriers to career choice: A social cognitive analysis. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 47 (1), 36-49. Lent, R.W., Brown, S.D., & Hacket t, G. (1994). Toward a unifying social cognitive theory of career and academic interest choice, and performance. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 45, 79-122. Lofquist, L.H., & Dawis, R.V. (1991). Essentials of person-en vironment correspondence counseling. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. MacDonald, P.M. (2007). Reforming academia: Turn ing the ivory tower into a family-friendly workplace. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 31(3) 218-219. MacKinnon, C. (1979). Sexual harassment of working women. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Martens, M. P. (2005). The use of structur al equation modeling in counseling psychology research. The Counseling Psychologist, 33 269-298 Martin, S.E. (1989). Sexual harassment: The link joining gender stratification, sexuality, and womens economic status. In J. Freeman (Ed.), Women: A feminist perspective (3rd ed., pp. 54-69). Palo Alto, CA: Mayfield. Mathieu, J.E., & Zajac, D.M. (1990). A review and meta-analysis of the antecedents, correlates, and consequences of organizational commitment. Psychological Bulletin, 108 171-194. Maze, R. (1992, April 27). Sexual harassment squanders millions. Navy Times p. 23. McIntyre, R.M., Bartle, S.A., Landis, D., & Dansby, M.R. (2002). The effects of equal opportunity fairness attitude s on job satisfaction, organi zational commitment, and perceived work group efficacy. Military Psychology, 14(4), 299-319.

PAGE 115

115 Military Equal Opportunity C limate Survey (MEOCS) Background Paper. (n.d.). Directorate of research directory of services Retrieved December 2, 2002, from http://www.patrick.af.mil/deomi/research%20main%20pages/meocshome.htm Mobley, M, Slaney, R.B., & Rice, K.G. (2005). Cu ltural Validity of the Almost Perfect ScaleRevised for African American College Students. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52(4) 629-639. Morrow, S.L., Gore, Jr., P.A. & Campbell, B. W. (1996). The application of a sociocognitive fra mework to the career developm ent of lesbian woman and gay men. Journal of Vocational Behavior 48, 136-148. Moradi, B., Dirks, D.A., Matteson, A.V. (2005). An examination of objectif ication theory: Roles of reported sexual objectification experiences and internalizati on of sociocultural standards of beauty. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52(3), 420-428. Moradi, B., & Subich, L.M. (2002) Perceived sexist events and feminist identity development attitudes: Links to womens psychological distress. The Counseling Psychologist, 30 4465. Moradi, B., & Subich, L.M. (2003). A concomitant examination of the relations of perceived racist and sexist events to psychological distress fo r African American women. The Counseling Psychologist, 31(4), 451-469. Morrow, P.C. (1983). Concept redundancy in organizational research: The case of work commitment. Academy of Management Review, 8 486-500. Mowday, R.T., Steers, R.M., & Porter, L.W. (1979). The measurement of organizational commitment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 14, 224-247. Munson, L.J., Hulin, C., & Drasgow, F. (2000). Longit udinal analyses of dis positional influences and sexual harassment: Effects on job and psychological outcomes. Personnel Psychology, 53, 21-46. Murrell, A.J. (1996). Sexual harassment and wome n of color: Issues, challenges, and future directions. In M.S. Stockdale (Eds.), Sexual harassment in the workplace (Vol. 5, pp. 5166). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Newell, C.E., Rosenfield, P., & Culbertson, A. L. (1995). Sexual harassment experiences and equal opportunity perceptions of Navy women. Sex Roles, 32, 159-168. Ninth Circuit Gender Bias Task Force. (1944, May). Final report. Southern California Law Review, 67 727-1106. Office of the Under Secretary of Defe nse Personnel and Readiness (2003). Career progression of minority and women officers. Washington, DC: Author.

PAGE 116

116 Ponterotto, J.G., Casas, J.M. (1991). Handbook of racial/ethnic minority counseling research Springfield, IL: Thomas. Porter, L.W., Steers, R.M., Mowday, R.T., & B oulian, P.V. (1974). Organizational commitment, job satisfaction, and turnover among psychiat ric technicians. Journal of Applied Psychology, 59, 603-609. Pryor, J.B., Geidd, J.L., & Williams, K.B. (1995) A social psychological model for predicting sexual harassment. Journal of Social Issues, 51 69-84. Reid, P.T., & Comas-Diaz, L. (1990). Gender and ethnicity: Perspect ives on dual status. Sex Roles, 22, 397-408. Roberts, R.K., Swanson, N.G., & Murphy, L.R. (2004). Discrimination and occupational mental health. Journal of Mental Health, 13(2 ), 129-142. Rosenfield, P., Newell, C.E., & Le, S. (1998) Equal Opportunity C limate of Women and Minorities in the Navy: Results From the Navy Equal Opportunity/Sexual Harassment (NEOSH) Survey. Military Psychology 10(2), 69-85. Sadroff, R. (1992). Sexual harassment: The inside story. Working Women, June pp. 47-51. Sesan, R. (1988). Sex bias and sex-role stereo typing in psychotherapy with women: Survey results. Psychotherapy, 25 107-116. Settles, I.H., Cortina, L.M., Stewart, A.J., & Malley, J. (2007). Voice matters: Buffering the impact of a negative climate for women in science. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 31(3) 270-281. Stajkovic, A.D., & Luthans, F. (1998). Self-efficacy and work-related performance: A metaanalysis Psychological Bulletin, 124 (2), 240-261. Swanson, J.L., & Gore, Jr., P.A. (2000). Advances in vocational psychology theory and research Handbook of Counseling Psychology 3rd Ed, 233-269. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L.S. (2001). Using Multivariate Statistics Allyn & Bacon, MA. Terpstra, D.E., & Cook, S.E. (1985). Complainan t characteristics and reported behaviors and consequences associated with formal sexual harassment charges. Personnel Psychology, 38, 559-574. Thomas, J.A. (1988). Race relations research in the U.S. Army in the 1970s: A collection of selected readings Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences. Tinsley, D.J. (1993). Extensions, elaborations, and construct valid ation of the Theory of Work Adjustment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 43(1 ), 67-74.

PAGE 117

117 U.S. General Accounting Office. (1995). Equal Opportunity: DOD studies on discrimination in the military (Rep. No. GAO/NSIAD95-103). Washington, DC: Author. U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board. (1981). Sexual harassment in the fe deral workplace: Is it a problem? Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board. (1988). Sexual harassment in the federal workplace: An update Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. West, C., & Fenstermaker, S. (1995). Doing difference. Gender and Society, 9 8-37. Weston, R., & Gore, P. A. (2006). A brief guide to structural equation modeling. The Counseling Psychologist, 34, 719-751. Williams, D.R., & Williams-Morris, R. (2000). Racism and mental health: The African American experience. Ethnicity and Health, 6 243-269. Williams, J.H., Fitzgerald, L.F., & Drasgow, F. ( 1999). The effects of orga nizational practices in sexual harassment and individual outcomes in the military. Military Psychology, 11(3), 303-329. Williams, L.J., & Hazer, J.T. (1986). Antecedents and consequences of satisfactions and commitment in turnover models: A reanalysis using latent variable structural equation methods. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71 219-231. Yoder, J.D. (1991). Rethinking tokenism: Looking beyond numbers. Gender and Society, 5, 178191. Yoder, J.D. (2003). Women and Gender: Transforming Psychology New Jersey: Prentice Hall. Yoder, J.D., & Aniakudo, P. (1997). Outside r within the firehouse: Subordination and differences in the social interactions of African American women firefighters. Gender & Society, 11 324-341. Yoder, J.D., & Kahn, A.S. (1993). Working to ward an inclusive psychology of women. American Psychologist, 48 846-850. Young, I.M. (1992). Five faces of oppr ession. In T.E. Wartenburg (Ed.), Rethinking Power (pp. 174-195). Albany, NW: State University of New York Press.

PAGE 118

118 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Alicia Valleni Matteson was born in Redondo Beach, CA and was comm issioned as an Active Duty officer in the United States Air Force from the USAF Academy in 1995 where she received her BS in Behavioral Sciences. She received an Air Force Institute of Technology (AFIT) scholarship to earn her MA in Community Counseling from the University of Colorado, Colorado Springs in 1998 and upon graduation, served as a counselor and inst ructor at the USAF Academy from 2000-2002. She received another AFIT scholarship to pursue her doctorate in Counseling Psychology from the University of Fl orida beginning in 2002. She graduated from the Clinical Psychology Residenc y program at Malcolm Grow Me dical Center, Andrews AFB, MD in 2005 and has served as the Commander of the Mental Health Flig ht at Dover AFB since then. She is the proud spouse of Adam, an AF retired veteran, and the tremendously blessed mother of Warren, Conrad, and Noah.