Perceptions of hazing among young male United States military service members: A qualitative analysis

Abstract

This study examines hazing among a sample of young male service members in the United States (US) military. Individual semi-structured interviews were conducted with active duty service members (N = 10) aged 18 to 24 at a large Southeastern US Army post to examine their conceptualization of hazing. Thematic analysis revealed three emergent themes: (1) the definition of hazing and hazing behaviors; (2) the ritualistic nature of hazing; and (3) the sexual nature of hazing. Most participants provided their own definition of hazing. One participant had difficulty in differentiating between hazing and bullying, the others had distinct definitions as they relate to motives. Results are consistent with prior research indicating that service members lack a full understanding of what constitutes hazing attributes and demonstrate an inability to accurately define hazing in line with current US military policy. Investigation into understanding hazing in the US military is warranted, including the intersection between sexual victimization and hazing. Thus, prevention programming is needed to reduce hazing, and ameliorate negative mental, emotional, and physical outcomes that result from these acts in the military.

Keywords:

• Hazing
• military
• service members

1. Introduction

Hazing is often used to enforce a particular set of standards or codes of conduct or to initiate new members into a group, and often uses power to humiliate, degrade, abuse or endanger victims (Allan & Madden, 2008, 2012). The Department of Defense (DoD) defines hazing as, “a form of harassment that includes conduct through which Service members … physically or psychologically injures or creates a risk of physical or psychological injury to Service members for the purpose of: initiation into, admission into, affiliation with, change in status or position within, or a condition for continued membership in any military or DoD civilian organization (U.S. Department of Defense, 2020b, p.10).” Hazing has long been prohibited within the US military. In fact, as early as 1874, Congress passed a statute to prevent hazing at the US Naval Academy (Parks & Burgess, 2019). Hazing is also collectively prohibited by the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ; U.S. Government Accountability Office, 2016). In recent years, military leadership have emphasized hazing as cruel, unnecessary, and inconsistent with core institutional values, and has accordingly become intolerant of these behaviors (U.S. Department of the Army & Center for the Army Profession and Leadership, 2019; U.S. Deputy Secretary of Defense, 2015; U.S. Government Accountability Office, 2016). Given increasing attention to the importance of preventing hazing in the military, the current study provides qualitative information on the context of hazing among young service members.

1.1. Prevalence of hazing among service members

According to the 2020 Annual Report for Hazing Prevention and Response in the Armed Forces, 183 complaints of hazing were reported (U.S. Department of Defense, 2020c). However, these formal complaints likely underestimate the true prevalence of hazing, as it is believed to be underreported due in part to the ambiguity of its definition, its acceptability, and an informal code of silence that exists among service members (Pershing, 2006; U.S. Department of Defense, 2020c). Moreover, the Department of Defense (DoD) and the uniformed services use inconsistent methods for identifying cases (U.S. Government Accountability Office, 2016). A 2016 report from the Government Accountability Office (GAO) found that 12% of active duty service members reported that hazing occurred in their branch (U.S. Government Accountability Office, 2016). Focus group research conducted by the GAO revealed that nearly half of servicewomen in the Marine Corps reported experiencing hazing (compared to more than a third of the branches servicemen), and approximately a fourth of both male and female service members in the Navy reported experiencing hazing (U.S. Government Accountability Office, 2016). In 2021 the DoD launched an effort to better assess the prevalence of hazing and bullying among active duty service members, however, data is not yet available (Matthews et al., 2021).

1.2. Characteristics and consequences of hazing

Hazing manifests in several ways. Hazing not only involves physical contact among or between military members or employees; it can also be verbal or psychological in nature (Keller et al., 2015; U.S. Department of Defense, 2020b). In a survey of midshipmen at the Naval Academy, 77.2% of cadets reported that they had experienced an upperclassman screaming in their face; 46.8% experienced verbal harassment, insult, or ridicule; and 2.3% were tied up, taped, and/or restrained (U.S. General Accounting Office, 1992). Hazing can also include sexual violence. This includes forcing service members to simulate sexual acts, attaching objects to member’s genitalia, being forced to have unwanted sexual interactions with another person, and sexual assault (Finkel, 2002; U.S. Department of Defense, 2019). In 2018, the DoD found that over a fourth of men who were sexually assaulted identified their assault as having occurred during hazing; comparatively, approximately 10% of female service members identified their assault as hazing (U.S. Department of Defense, 2019). Furthermore, male service members are twice as likely to label the worst assault they experienced as hazing (U.S. Department of Defense, 2017). New or lower ranking service members may also feel obligated to partake in unwanted sexual activity as a result of pressure or coercion from unit members (Matthews et al., 2015).

Problematically, there is limited general knowledge on hazing across the services (Keller et al., 2017, 2015). Multiple studies suggest that service members are generally unable to identify or label hazing (Hernandez, 2015; Stiller & Harris, 2016). For example, a study at the Naval Academy found that one-third of its cadets were unable to correctly identify hazing incidents, even when provided a definition and a study guide on hazing (Pershing, 2006). Further, the US Army implemented an antibullying policy in 2011 due to some Army leaders confusing the difference between bullying and hazing (Hernandez, 2015). These findings are concerning because without a clear understanding of what constitutes as hazing, service members may be more likely to participate in hazing or fail to report it as a violation of UCMJ.

Military culture and norms may, in part, play a role in why service members have difficulty identifying incidents of hazing. First, military culture has historically prioritized the expression of traditional masculine norms, such as strength and power over others (Britt et al., 2006). Numerous researchers examining hazing in the context of college fraternities and athletic teams describe the role of sexist masculinity as a part of many hazing practices (Allan & DeAngelis, 2004). Second, the United States (US) military has a proud heritage of traditions, rituals, and values, passed down for generations (Halvorson, 2010; Matthews, 1998). Although the intent may not always be deleterious, some rituals within the US military may result in hazing (Hernandez, 2015; Manzanedo, 2013; U.S. General Accounting Office, 1992). This includes initiation rites of passage and congratulatory acts that involve inflicting pain; piercing another’s skin in any manner; forcing or requiring the consumption of excessive amounts of food, alcohol, drugs, or other substances; or encouraging another to engage in illegal, harmful, demeaning, or dangerous acts. If these acts are believed to foster unit cohesion, service members may fail to label them as problematic, and constituting hazing.

Hazing may also be enacted as nonjudicial punishment for service members who fail at a task. Service members undergo rigorous physical and mental training, particularly as new recruits. During training, the line between acceptable behavior and reportable behavior can quickly blur (Parks & Burgess, 2019). For example, in the case of Marine Lance Corporal Harry Lew, while deployed to Afghanistan in 2011, his peers were allowed abuse him for falling asleep while on duty (Keller et al., 2015); subsequently Lew died by suicide. Within the military, new recruits are more loyal to their immediate social group than to the military or the mission, that can provide an atmosphere in which groups act together to haze and/or those hazed do not report it as they perceive it as positively becoming included in the group (Siebold, 2007).

Despite early tendencies to dismiss hazing as a harmless rite of passage, there is increasing recognition of the deleterious nature of hazing. Hazing is associated with numerous psychological and physical consequences for victims, including severe pain, and in extreme circumstances, death (Finkel, 2002; Parks & Burgess, 2019; U.S. Department of the Army & Center for the Army Profession and Leadership, 2019). Furthermore, studies show that victims of hazing are at a higher risk of developing mental health disorders (Hillberg et al., 2011; Johnson, 2011). Numerous studies show that hazing can lead to symptoms of depression and anxiety (including posttraumatic stress disorder). For example, Private Danny Chen was racially harassed, teased, bullied, and mercilessly beaten by his fellow service members, and died by suicide in October 2011 while deployed to Afghanistan (Schuman et al., 2021).

1.3. Existing research on hazing in university settings

While military environments differ from college environments in obvious ways due to their overarching missions and day-to-day activities, they also share some key similarities. Both provide education and/or workforce training for recent high school graduates and often in a residential context that includes formal and informal group activities, a sense of comradery, and traditions. For these reasons, a closer look at the literature on college hazing is warranted as background for this investigation.

Two national studies provided groundwork for documenting the nature and extent of hazing among civilian college students (Allan & Madden, 2008; Hoover, 1999). Hoover (1999) surveyed collegiate athletes from over 200 NCAA member institutions and found that 79% of varsity athletes experienced hazing. Based on responses from more than 11,000 students at 53 colleges and universities, Allan and Madden (2008) found that 55% of college students involved in a range of clubs, organizations, and teams were hazed, with a higher percentage of men (61%) experiencing hazing than women (52%). Members of varsity athletics teams (74%), fraternities and sororities (73%), and club sports teams (64%) experienced hazing most frequently. Other examinations have noted similar patterns in postsecondary contexts (Allan et al., 2019; Campo et al., 2005; Owen et al., 2008).

In a study of emergency room visits, Finkel (2002) documented hazing practices such as beating, branding, forced consumption of nonfood substances, excessive exercise, psychological abuse, and sexual assault, while Hoover (1999) found two-thirds of varsity athletes reported participating in behaviors that were abusive or humiliating, half reported engaging in high-risk drinking, and one-fifth reported experiencing activities that were dangerous or potentially illegal. Allan and Madden (2008) found the most common hazing activities for postsecondary students included high-risk alcohol consumption, sleep deprivation, and being screamed, yelled, or cursed at by other members of the group.

Researchers studying collegiate hazing have found that hazing persists due to perceptions that: (a) hazing is an effective way to create group cohesion (Campo et al., 2005; Keating et al., 2005), (b) hazing aids in the establishment and maintenance of group identity and hierarchy (Waldron & Kowalski, 2009), (c) challenging initiations featuring hazing help to make group membership worthwhile (Kimbrough, 2007), and (d) hazing helps grow the group with others that share the values of current members and fosters social dependency within the group (Kirby & Wintrup, 2002). In an empirical test of the hazing and group cohesion hypothesis, Van Raalte found hazing had an inverse relationship to group cohesion and Lafferty and colleagues found no significant relationship between college athlete experiences of hazing and increased team cohesion (Lafferty et al., 2017; Van Raalte et al., 2007).

A gap between college student experiences of hazing and their likeliness to label it as such is also well documented. Congruent with earlier studies (Allan & Madden, 2008; Hoover, 1999), Allan et al. (2019) found 26% of students belonging to groups, teams, and organizations experienced at least one behavior that met the definition of hazing. However, when asked directly, only 4% reported they were hazed. Explanations for the reported gap suggest that students ascribe to a narrow definition that emphasizes extreme forms of hazing (e.g., being tied up, beaten, or physically forced) and behaviors falling outside this narrow view tend to be accepted as part of group traditions, team building, and bonding (Allan & Madden, 2008; Campo et al., 2005). Furthermore, when students identified their experiences as hazing, they were unlikely to report it. Ninety-four percent of students who identified they were hazed when asked directly did not report the hazing (Allan et al., 2019).

Given the range and complexity of hazing behaviors, scholars have suggested that hazing can be considered along a continuum that non-exclusively categorizes hazing behaviors as intimidation, harassment, and violence. Adapting from the continuum of sexual violence proposed by Kelly and the bystander intervention program Bringing in the Bystander (Edwards et al., 2019; Soteria Solutions, 2019), Allan and Madden (2012) and Allan et al. (2019) outlined the spectrum of hazing to depict the low recognition of hazing behaviors that occur most frequently (e.g., humiliation and harassment) while behaviors that occur less frequently (e.g., physical and sexual assault) as part of a group initiation or tradition are more readily recognized as hazing (Allan et al., 2019; Edwards et al., 2019; Kelly, 1987; Orchowski et al., 2020).

1.4. The current study

Whereas there is significant research examining the context of collegiate hazing (Allan & Madden, 2008; Campo et al., 2005; Nuwer, 2000), research is needed to better understand the context of hazing among service members. For example, understanding if service members perceptions of hazing are aligned with current military definitions allows us to better understand if policy is correctly being interpreted and applied to hazing practices unique to each branch (Pershing, 2006). The potential for hazing to include unwanted sexual contact further underscores the need for an enhanced understanding of these experiences (U.S. Department of Defense, 2019). Given that current efforts to prevent hazing in the military are largely limited to educational sessions for leadership (Keller et al., 2017; Matthews et al., 2015), documenting perceptions of hazing among young male service members using a qualitative research methodology is a critical step in the development of a more robust prevention approach. While quantitative data is ideal for testing a theory or hypothesis, exploratory qualitative methodologies are ideal for garnering nuanced descriptions of concepts, thoughts, and experiences (Mills & Birks, 2014). Accordingly, the present study utilized a qualitative, exploratory methodology to explore perceptions of hazing among military service members. Given the exploratory nature of this qualitative study, no specific hypotheses were proposed.

2. Methods

Data were collected as a part of a larger study examining sexual assault among active duty service members who engage in at-risk drinking. Participants were recruited in autumn 2017 and spring 2018 at a military post in the Southeastern US. Inclusion criteria for the larger study restricted the sample to men between the ages of 18 and 24 who reported having engaged in at-risk drinking, and who reported sexual activity—oral, anal, or vaginal sex—with a “female partner” in the past four months. At-risk drinking was defined as the consumption of five or more alcoholic beverages on more than one occasion in the past month, and a score greater than four on the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test–Consumption Scale (AUDIT-C). One drink was based on the AUDIT-C equivalents: one 12 oz. beer, one 5 oz. glass of wine, or one 1.5 oz. shot of 80° spirits (Bush et al., 1998). Sixty-three participants completed the study screening; 15 (24%) were found to be eligible. To protect the confidentiality of participants enrolled in the study, identifying information (i.e., demographic characteristics including race and ethnicity) were only assessed at screening. The mean age was 21.5 (SD = 1.55), with 60% self-identified as white, 6.7% as black, and 33.3% participants as Hispanic. Service branch was not asked; however, most service members stationed on this post are active duty Army personnel.

Eligible service members participated in a second in-person screening process prior to enrollment to assess alcohol withdrawal symptoms—as determined by a score of 23 or higher on the Alcohol Use Withdrawal Symptom Checklist (Pittman et al., 2007)—and suicidal ideation (i.e., “I have thoughts of killing myself, but would not carry it out; I would like to kill myself; I would kill myself if I have the chance; I do not have any thoughts of killing myself”) or homicidal ideation (i.e., “Do you have any thoughts of harming or killing others?”). Participants that scored above a 23 on the AWSC or that reported suicidal or homicidal ideation were to be excluded from the study—which had the potential to assess sensitive topics—and put in contact with an on-call provider and escorted to the hospital emergency department. No participants were excluded from the research due to these concerns. Of those who completed the study screening process, 10 completed an informed consent form and were enrolled in the research.

The research was approved by the Womack Army Medical Center, Institutional Review Board. Participation in the study was voluntary and confidential, as were answers to interview questions. Participants were recruited from various locations across the military installation including dining facilities, fitness centers, bowling alleys, and coffee shops. Individual semi-structured interviews were conducted by trained male research assistants in a private office. Each semi-structured interview utilized open-ended questions and non-specific probes to obtain clarification on various topics for approximately 60–90 minutes. The interview prompts explored a wide range of topics relating to social and sexual experiences, with three questions specifically relating to hazing (see Table 1). Given prior research suggesting an intersection of sexual victimization and hazing in the military (Lofgreen et al., 2017; Pershing, 2006; Wadham, 2017), participants were asked to comment on the nature of sexual consent in hazing. At the conclusion of each session, participants were compensated with a gift card for their participation.

Table 1. Interview questions

Questions
Can you tell me a bit of what things come up at [this military installation] that constitute hazing?
What is your definition of hazing?
How does sexual consent come up in hazing among male Soldiers at [this military installation]?

Audio recordings of each interview were transcribed by the research team. Analysis was conducted using the software package NVIVO 10 (Melbourne, Australia). A codebook was generated and adapted upon ongoing review of each transcript using the constant comparison method (Taylor et al., 2015). Transcripts were initially independently coded by two research assistants. To establish rigor in the analysis, the codes were then discussed and verified by a third coder. Regular meetings allowed coders to come to a greater common understandings of the codes, develop an understanding of themes, while also fostering relexivity among the study team. At each meeting, the three research team members then analyzed the emergent themes based on discussion and consensus. Following the delineation of themes in the data, a fourth team member verified these themes to limit bias and enhance the credibility of the data analyses. It was determined that saturation of themes was established in the sample of 10 interviews, and data collection was ceased. As listed in Table 2, three themes emerged from content pertaining to hazing in the interviews: (1) defining hazing and behaviors that constitute hazing, (2) the ritualistic nature of hazing, and (3) the sexual nature of hazing. No subthemes were established. Cohen’s Kappa was calculated within NVIVO for the most frequently coded items as an index of inter-rater agreement: 0.7 or above reflected adequate agreement among coders. Cohen’s Kappa for content examined in the present study was greater than 0.9.

Table 2. Themes/focus area

Themes	# Men Describing the Theme	# Times Discussed	Example
Definition of Hazing	9	14	“Hazing is making someone do something that makes them look stupid or makes them feel degraded because of a situation they’re in.”
(2) The Ritualistic Nature of Hazing	6	9	“I think it’s just unit specific I mean each unit does … something to usually haze the new guy in a way. So, it varies from unit to unit”
(3) Sexual Nature of Hazing	6	9	“Like telling a male friend you know, ‘hey, you have to like sleep with a girl to be cool.’”

3. Results

3.1. Theme #1: Defining hazing as a deliberate action designed to do something degrading against their will

Participants were asked to define hazing and to provide examples of hazing. When asked to specifically define hazing, most service members stated they were unsure. Despite lacking a clear definition of hazing, participants were nonetheless able give examples of hazing and describe how hazing occurs. Six participants discussed hazing as an act intended to personally humiliate, degrade, or otherwise make somebody “feel bad.” For example, one participant stated, “anything to personally attack someone I would consider hazing.” Another participant stated, “it would be … humiliating someone or making them do something they don’t want to do.” In addition, three participants stated hazing involved making a person perform a task that they did not want to do. One participant stated, “my definition … of hazing would be where somebody that outranks you makes you do something that you don’t have to do.” It was notable that only two participants equated hazing with bullying. One participant stated that hazing was “bullying so to speak.” However, another participant stated it was different from bullying, as it’s “ultimately inclusive,” specifically stating, hazing is done as “the introduction to the group.” Reasons hazing occurs also emerged when participants attempted to define it. One participant mentioned that hazing was done for the hazer’s “own pleasure.” Similarly, another commented that it was done because someone had the “rank/power authority” to do so.

In attempting to define hazing, some participants supplied specific behaviors that they believed constituted hazing. Two participants referred to “koala-fying” that is “where you hang upside down on a tree like a koala until … [you] fall off.” Participants also stated that “pink-bellying” them (i.e., “smacking them in the stomach until it turns red”) or forcing someone to excessively drink also qualified as hazing. One participant suggested, “probably some things with drinking, of trying to get new people to drink more, or if you were to show up to a party late or something and you hadn’t been drinking yet, but everyone in there already has and then trying to get you onto the same level as them.” Three participants stated that they have not seen anything that they considered hazing

3.2. Theme #2: Ritualistic nature of hazing

Some participants stated that hazing occurred at a set time—when someone was new to the unit or received a promotion/qualification—and was a set of behaviors typically experienced or witnessed previously by those now perpetrating the acts. Nearly half of the participants said hazing occurs to “new” service members as a “rite of passage” for joining a group. One participant compared hazing to an initiation, stating: “you [are] the new guy … we accept you but you [have to] do this and this.” Similarly, two participants stated that hazing behaviors varied by unit; a participant stated: “they’re new to, not new to the Army but new to a company … they may get hazed.” A few participants also noted that hazing is often targeted towards lower enlisted personnel. Four participants specifically described hazing as a “rite of passage.” One participant said, “I think it’s … difficult to distinguish hazing from rites of passage because I think hazing is when a rite of passage … has been taken too far. For example, you know, blood wings: when you get your Airborne wings and their supposed to punch it into your chest, so it pricks through, and you bleed a little bit. So … that is considered hazing now, whereas it was just a rite of passage before … and so, I think hazing … originates as a rite of passage and then gets taken a little too far.” When discussing the nature of hazing, some participants reported that hazing occurs in order to make someone “look stupid”, or that it was simply done “for … no real reason other than just because like they’ve done it before, or they had it happen to them.”

3.3. Theme #3: Sexual nature of hazing

Most participants commented that hazing included unwanted sexual acts or experiences. For example, one participant said that a higher-ranking person would often haze lower enlisted service members to get “sexual interactions.” Three participants discussed hazing and consent in terms of pressuring fellow service members to sleep with someone or teasing someone if they were suspected or known to be a virgin. One participant said a new person could be told “you’re going, you’re [going to] get this chick tonight, you have to,” or “you have to sleep with this guy tonight” and that this pressuring could occur even if the “new guy” was not interested. Likewise, another participant stated, “if the person standing next to them at a certain age hasn’t had sex yet and you know it, they probably kind of give them some shit about it.” One participant also discussed the use of force to perpetrate unwanted sexual activity against another service member as an act of hazing, commenting: “there’s those hazing stories where guys are held down and, you know, their buddies are hazing them sexually.” Overall, sexual coercion was described as another avenue by which hazing occurs within units as hazers target a victim’s lack of sexual experience or disinterest as a potential component of hazing activities. It was notable, however, that when asked how sexual consent relates to hazing, two participants stated that they did not see a connection: “hazing is [not] … anything sexual, sexually related … so I mean there shouldn’t really be any consent involved with hazing.”

4. Discussion

Three themes were addressed from the resulting interviews: (1) defining hazing and hazing behaviors, (2) the ritualistic nature of hazing, and (3) the sexual nature of hazing. Consistent with previous research, participants did not have a clear definition of hazing (Hernandez, 2015; Keller et al., 2015). While most participants were unsure on how to specifically define hazing, most were able to describe behaviors they considered hazing. Additionally, participants had mixed ability to map onto the Army specific definition; albeit most participants understood that hazing could be mental or physical in nature, which generally aligns with the definition utilized by the DoD (Farmer, 2016; Keller et al., 2015; Manzanedo, 2013).

As seen in Theme # 1, participants emphasized select parts of the Army’s hazing definition. Namely, six participants provided definitions of hazing that aligned with the portion of the definition that states hazing is “any activity that is cruel, abusive, humiliating, oppressive, demeaning, or harmful.” Likewise, participants understood that “hazing need not involve physical contact among or between military members or employees; it can be verbal or psychological in nature” as participants stated the acts were intended to humiliate the victim and may be conducted verbally. Most participants also seemed to understand that “hazing conduct typically stops at an identified end-point,” as they discussed that hazing was done as initiation or a “rite of passage” (Manzanedo, 2013; Stiller & Harris, 2016; Winslow, 1999).

Participants seemed less aware of other portions of the Army definition of hazing. For example, participants did not discuss that hazing need not be committed with the victim physically present, and that it can occur through written, telephone calls or text messages, email, social media, or any other virtual or electronic media: components clearly outlined in the Army definition of hazing. Likewise, participants failed to discuss the role of consent in hazing (i.e., that actual or implied consent does not take away the responsibility of the perpetrator, that is another vital component of the Army specific definition; U.S. Department of the Army, 2020). Similarly, most definitions offered by participants focused on the idea that hazing was done intentionally; the Army definition specifically states that it may be done “recklessly or intentionally.”

When examining behaviors that service members defined as hazing, some described situations that are unique to a military setting, such as being made to carry out acts at the direction of a higher-ranking service members. Although these instances could be lawful orders, clear definitions of acts of hazing need to exist for service members to distinguish between lawful orders and hazing. Generally, without regard to rank, participants described acts of hazing that were clear examples such as “koala-fying,” forced excessive drinking, and “pink-bellying.” Also, one participant stated that “even if you’re not the one saying the names if you’re laughing at the person due to what someone else says would be considered hazing as well.” It is not clear, if the other participants shared this understanding. These findings align with prior research highlighting a misunderstanding of what constitutes hazing (Gilberd, 2017; Hernandez, 2015; Svec et al., 2012).

Although not a consistent finding, it was nonetheless notable that one participant used the terms bullying and hazing interchangeably, a misconception discussed in prior research (Bourke, 2016). Hazing, contrary to bullying, is generally done towards newcomers, and hazing ends once the person is accepted into the group. In contrast, bullying does not have such a well-defined start and end point. Without properly defining and labeling the acts appropriately, it may be difficult for individuals to intervene to address the issue. Lacking a proper hazing definition also adds to the inability to understand the extent of the problem, namely incidence and prevalence that is currently not well documented. Moreover, a distinction between hazing and bullying is important in the development of effective prevention and intervention practices, as these actions differ in etiology and implementation (Keller et al., 2015).

Whereas the current study did not assess the reasons why various definitions for hazing exist among service members, Keller et al. (2015) suggest that the DoD definition has limitations, and is not well-publicized, thus contributing to the overall misunderstanding of what constitutes hazing. Further complicating the understanding of hazing is that while the DoD defines hazing and provides specific legal prohibitions, different service branches have varying definitions of hazing, reporting systems, and prevention practices (Keller et al., 2015; U.S. Government Accountability Office, 2016).

Six participants described the ritualistic nature of hazing (Theme # 2). Consistent with the literature, some men described hazing as a “rite of passage,” while others described it as an “initiation” for new members entering the group. It was notable that hazing was also described as a cultural norm within the workplace, resulting in the subsequent dismissal of these behaviors, and the potential confusion of hazing with acceptable job duties. These statements indicated that hazing may be culturally ingrained into the military institution and perceived as “normal” and/or even “helpful.” These cultural views of hazing, and lack of recognition of hazing behaviors, and/or those behaviors as problematic indicate a need for hazing prevention and policy that addresses military culture, rather than only focusing on areas where one may consider hazing common (e.g., initiation into new groups and/or trainings).

Inability to recognize and label hazing, as well as understand its effects, is prevalent in the civilian sector as well (Ellsworth, 2004). Cultural acceptance of hazing in the military may be explained by current theories around hazing in the civilian sector. In a structured environment such as the military, hazing may be a result of conformity to obedience and authority, or perceived lack of alternatives, as is seen in some sports teams (Allan & Madden, 2008). As the services are often labeled as brother/sisterhoods, hazing acceptance might be due to a desire for a common element via shared coping (of those hazed), group think (of aggressors), or identification with the aggressor (i.e., s/he is also a service member), which are motivations for hazing also theorized in research among civilians. As the military is mainly compromised of men (83%; (U.S. Department of Defense, 2020a), beliefs about masculinity (e.g., “a man” does not whine and accepts pain) may also influence the acceptance of hazing.

Hazing manifested under the guise of military tradition as a critical component of the resocialization process into military culture, stripping the individual (“the new guy”) of their civilian mindset and rebuilding them into a service member whose ideals align with military values. As noted by other researchers, hazing may also be justified by some as a strategy to eliminate those that are not committed or able to complete the necessary tasks to ensure mission success (Pershing, 2006; Rayfield, 1999). Given that hazing often occurs when individuals join a new group or rank, individuals may also normalize acts of hazing that mark rites of passage and typically occur during pivotal points in a service member’s career, such as promotions, professional military trainings, or entry into specific military occupations such as Special Forces (Svec et al., 2012). In this sense, hazing may be viewed as a way of proving to the group that not only does a person belong, but they are prepared for the challenges that come with their new role. As such, defining the difference between acceptable military traditions, rigorous acts needed to ensure proper fit for specific military positions, and acts of hazing is therefore a critical component of hazing prevention in the military. Research in the civilian sector shows that hazing does not increase sport team cohesion (Lafferty et al., 2017). Given hazing does not increase cohesion, and the potential for it to hurt camaraderie, alternatives for unit building should be presented to military leadership to encourage alternative acts and discourage hazing.

As described by Theme # 3, participants were also asked to discuss the putative intersection between sexual consent and hazing. It was notable that not all participants recognized an absence of consent in hazing, which may present as sexual violence as a result. Research examining the intersection of sexual assault and hazing is recent in the civilian sector (Allan & Madden, 2012; Jeckell et al., 2018). In a web-based survey of over 11,000 undergraduate students and more than 300 interviews, Allan and Madden (2012) found that although alcohol use and sex acts are common hazing practices within student groups, these experiences are not commonly labeled as hazing. Jeckell et al. (2018) describe how hazing within sports often includes institutional protection of the abuser, as well as the allocation of blame towards those who experience hazing and come forward to report the abuse. These findings may be of grave concern to the military as 26% to 34% of sexual assaults committed against men in the military were categorized as hazing (U.S. Department of Defense, 2020c; U.S. Deputy Secretary of Defense, 2015). Several participants acknowledged that hazing may occur as acts of sexual violence, including pressuring fellow service members to participate in sexual acts with others, even when the service member may not want to do so. Of note, service members did not refute that often consent cannot be garnered in acts of violence, such as hazing, identifying a need for further education in this area.

Educating service members on the possible overlap of hazing and sexual assault may help reduce the possibility of both types of violence. Notably, research among survivors of sexual victimization suggests that individuals often label the experience as a “serious miscommunication;” potentially to cope with the psychological impact of an assault (Orchowski et al., 2013). While speculative, it is possible that some service members may frame experiences of sexual victimization as hazing—an experience which some individuals may find to be more normative, albeit problematic—within a military context.

Notably, participants did not specifically label these experiences as occurrences of sexual assault. Furthermore, although the question prompt directly asked participants to comment on the role of sexual consent in hazing, participants did not discuss that sexual activity that occurs in the context of hazing would not be consensual because of the power dynamics involved. Instead, most participants described how hazing could include peer pressure to engage in unwanted sexual activity or pursue sexual partners, sexual teasing, and sexual activity perpetrated by force. Future research is needed to examine the reasons why service members may fail to label acts of hazing and sexual victimization when they occur, and the results may be able to bolster existing interventions within the military.

There are several limitations to the study. Data were collected in the context of a larger study that sought to develop an integrated alcohol and sexual assault prevention program for young adult male active duty service members. As such, the sample only included active duty men between the ages of 18 and 24. As such, the characteristics of the sample may limit the transferability of the findings. The sample for the study was also restricted to men, and future research should seek to be inclusive of all service members. Future research should also be completed on a larger scale to include a larger sample size, multiple service branches, including service members and leadership across an array of career fields to examine the perception and permeation of hazing throughout the military and the unique practices within military subgroups. Of note, it was unclear whether the participants in the study sample were officers or enlisted men. Given the proportion of enlisted men between the ages of 18 and 24 at the study site, it is likely, however, that most participants were enlisted.

The present research raises several potential future directions for research. First, the present study was limited to Army personnel. Definitions of hazing differ by service branch, and future research should ask participants about their understanding of the current DoD and branch-specific definitions. It is also notable that hazing was also explored as a part of a larger interview focusing on social issues related to sexual assault. Given the limited scope of the interview, themes largely reflect the questions posed to the participants. Further research with a larger sample size, using a longer interview protocol specific to the context of hazing is warranted. Furthermore, despite efforts to foster flexibility, rigor and trustworthiness in the data analyses, there is always a potential for bias in qualitative research. Future qualitative and quantitative research on hazing in the military is strongly needed.

In sum, hazing is a public health concern that is not unique to the military. Military culture is unique, however, and an effort to understand service members viewpoints on hazing could help in improving policies and interventions to decrease its acceptability and occurrence in the military. Hazing prevention and response efforts are growing among college populations (Allan & Madden, 2008; Campo et al., 2005; Hoover, 1999), and these efforts may be drawn upon to help inform the development of efforts that address the specific risk and protective factors that undergird hazing in a military setting. Hazing prevention may be especially important at pivotal points of a service members career that have an increased vulnerability to exposure to hazing, such as upon entry into the military, during promotions, and prior to joining career fields where there is a higher potential for the occurrence of hazing. Minimizing the occurrence of hazing could increase healthy methods of team cohesion and minimize long lasting negative impacts of hazing on service members. Working to prevent hazing requires additional research to determine how often hazing occurs, why it thrives, and methods to address this phenomenon in every aspect of the military community.

Disclaimers

The views expressed herein are those of the authors and do not reflect the official policy of the Department of the Army, Defense Health Agency, Department of Defense, or the U.S. Government.

Acknowledgements

Grateful acknowledgements to Kara Prisock, Michele Wimsatt, Amber Lane, Adam Roby, and Tremaine L. Winstead for their involvement in study administration and data collection.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Funding

This study is supported by a grant from the Congressionally Directed Medical Research Programs [W81XWH-15-2-0055].