Nine Undergraduate Biology Instructors Revealing their LGBTQ+ Identities in Class Resulted in Benefits for their LGBTQ+ Students and Students with Other Marginalized Identities

Abstract

Few LGBTQ+ biology instructors reveal their identities to undergraduates, often without considering the potential student benefits. Although instructors who have revealed their LGBTQ+ identity perceive positive impacts for students and a pilot study demonstrated this positive impact, we know of no multi-institution studies exploring how instructor LGBTQ+ disclosure affects students. We recruited a nationwide sample of nine LGBTQ+ biology instructors to disclose their identities and assessed the impact of disclosure on students via surveys (n = 2045). Few student participants in our study reported that instructor LGBTQ+ disclosure negatively impacted their course experience, and most students agreed that instructor LGBTQ+ disclosure is appropriate. Counter to our expectations, state LGBTQ+ acceptance did not have a significant effect on participants’ responses to the instructor's LGBTQ+ disclosure. Additionally, students in our study with marginalized identities—including LGBTQ+, women or nonbinary, persons excluded due to ethnicity or race, or having anxiety or depression—benefited disproportionately compared with their peers. Although this multi-institution work is promising in that it corroborates previous findings of benefits to students following instructor LGBTQ+ disclosure and provides evidence that contradicts assumed regional differences in US students’ responses to instructor LGBTQ+ disclosure, we encourage caution in generalizing the results to the students of all LGBTQ+ instructors.

INTRODUCTION

Undergraduate students can benefit from having instructors with similar identities to them. An instructor having an identity or background that is marginalized or minoritized can be a role model of someone with those characteristics who has been successful, giving students a concrete example of an individual with that identity. Although this representation in the classroom can be achieved by using examples of scientists who have that identity who are not the instructor (Schinske et al., 2016; Cooper et al., 2020a; Costello et al., 2024; Schultheis et al., 2024), the positionality of the instructor means that students will have greater exposure to the instructor rather than the featured scientist. For example, students could have opportunities to develop more of a relationship with the instructor, and the instructor could become a mentor who can provide guidance relevant to one's identity.

Prior research has demonstrated the impact that similar identity instructor role models can have on undergraduate students. Specifically, women with a college science instructor of the same gender have reported increased class engagement (Crombie et al., 2003; Solanki and Xu, 2018), sense of belonging (Harmsen, 2018), and self-efficacy (Cotner et al., 2011; Stout et al., 2011). Additionally, having an instructor of the same race/ethnicity has been associated with increased persistence (Rask and Bailey, 2002) and self-efficacy (Shin et al., 2016) for persons excluded due to ethnicity or race (PEER; Asai, 2020) students. These examples position instructors as role models with similar identities along gender and racial lines, which tend to be visible and do not require explicit disclosure for students to know (or assume) the instructor's identity (Quinn, 2006; Chaudoir and Quinn, 2010; Le Forestier et al., 2023).

However, instructors also hold hidden or concealable identities, which typically require explicit disclosure, but could also benefit students in providing them with a role model with those identities, particularly if the identities are marginalized or minoritized. These types of hidden identities can include socioeconomic status, religious affiliation, disability, mental health condition, and lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans, and queer (LGBTQ+) identities (Quinn, 2006; Arena and Jones, 2017). Although there have been studies that have examined student perceptions of the instructor or course evaluations following instructor disclosure (Jennings, 2010; Boren and McPherson, 2018; Moreira-Bouchard et al., 2024; Busch et al., 2025; Edwards et al., 2025), there have only been a few studies that have explored the impact on students of an instructor revealing a concealable identity to their students. In an exploratory pilot study where a single biology instructor disclosed that she had depression, students with depression reported disproportionate benefits compared with students without depression from having an instructor role model in science who also struggles with depression (Mohammed et al., 2024). Interestingly, most undergraduates in her class, regardless of whether they had depression, reported that it had a positive impact on their experience in the course and described that the instructor revealing her depression humanized her and helped them build connections with her, as well as worked to destigmatize depression (Mohammed et al., 2024). A similar study of one LGBTQ+ biology instructor revealing her identity to students on the first day of class in less than 3 seconds found that instructor disclosure positively affected LGBTQ+ students (Busch et al., 2022). Specifically, LGBTQ+ students in this instructor's class reported that the instructor's LGBTQ+ disclosure disproportionately increased their feelings of belonging, confidence in pursuing science, and perceptions of the instructor's approachability and how connected they felt to the instructor compared with non-LGBTQ+ students (Busch et al., 2022). Finally, a study that examined the impact of three LGBTQ+ instructors in health sciences at the same institution who revealed their identity in class showed that the majority of students had positive comments related to the classrooms being inclusive and welcoming, with LGBTQ+ students feeling as though the instructors were role models and that they themselves could be “out” (Moreira-Bouchard et al., 2024). Although these three studies demonstrate positive impacts on students of an instructor revealing a concealable identity, each sampled from only a single institution, with two of them focusing on only one instructor, limiting generalizations and indicating the need to do further studies focused on specific concealable identities.

LGBTQ+ Identities

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans, and queer (LGBTQ+) identities are typically considered concealable identities because this identity often needs to be revealed, or else individuals are assumed to be straight and cisgender. At the undergraduate level, LGBTQ+ students have lower retention rates in science majors compared with their straight and cisgender peers (Hughes, 2018; Maloy et al., 2022). Even though sense of belonging has been shown to be particularly important for bolstering retention of LGBTQ+ students (Hughes and Kothari, 2023), LGBTQ+ undergraduates have described feeling worried about coming out (Cooper and Brownell, 2016), experiencing microaggressions in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) contexts (Campbell-Montalvo et al., 2022; Fitzgerald-Russell and Kowalske, 2023), and having a lack of belonging in their fields (Kersey and Voigt, 2021; Yang et al., 2021) and courses (Cooper and Brownell, 2016; Casper et al., 2022). Together, these forces may be working to dissuade LGBTQ+ undergraduates from pursuing STEM majors and make them feel as though a STEM career is not for them. LGBTQ+ STEM professionals have described that having an LGBTQ+ role model encouraging them to pursue a career in STEM was an important driver in their professional development (Ferguson and Seery, 2022). One way to bolster LGBTQ+ undergraduate persistence in STEM is to provide students with role models of successful LGBTQ+ scientists in the form of their instructors.

Instructors’ Decisions to Disclose LGBTQ+ Identities

An instructor revealing an LGBTQ+ identity has the potential for both consequences and benefits, and the majority of LGBTQ+ science instructors do not reveal their identities to all students in their classes (Busch et al., 2024b). An interview study conducted in 2016 of biology instructors who chose to keep their LGBTQ+ identities concealed from undergraduates reported concerns about wasting class time, potentially losing their job, and students viewing them negatively as a result of revealing their LGBTQ+ identities in undergraduate classes (Cooper et al., 2019). However, a survey conducted 6 years later in 2022 of science and engineering instructors recruited from all research-intensive universities in the United States demonstrated that instructors who kept their LGBTQ+ identities concealed from undergraduates most commonly cited that they perceived that their identities were not relevant to either course content or to students as the primary reasons they did not disclose their identities to undergraduates. Additionally, most did not cite potential negative consequences to themselves as a reason to conceal their identity (Busch et al., 2024b). Interestingly, many LGBTQ+ instructors who kept their identity hidden from their students did not consider any possible benefit to students if they were to reveal their LGBTQ+ identity (Cooper et al., 2019) and instead indicated that they were not revealing their LGBTQ+ identity in class because it is not typically done, they do not know other colleagues who have disclosed their LGBTQ+ identity, or they felt as though students might think it is inappropriate (Busch et al., 2024b). In contrast, science instructors who disclosed their LGBTQ+ identities when teaching undergraduates most commonly cited that not only did they want to live authentically, but that they shared their identity with students intentionally to be an example to students and demonstrate their support for the LGBTQ+ community (Busch et al., 2024b; Maas et al., 2024). This corroborates other studies that document that LGBTQ+ instructors who reveal their identities perceive that their disclosure gives students an LGBTQ+ role model in science and can foster a more inclusive classroom environment (Cooper et al., 2019; Knezz, 2019). However, these studies are based on the science instructor's perceptions of how their disclosure of their LGBTQ+ identity might affect themselves or their LGBTQ+ students.

When LGBTQ+ students are asked about science instructors revealing their LGBTQ+ identities, LGBTQ+ students who had not experienced an instructor doing so thought that it would be transformational for them to have that similarity with the instructor (Cooper and Brownell, 2016; Miranda et al., 2025). Interestingly, many of these same students were concerned about how negatively non-LGBTQ+ students might react, and some went as far as recommending that the instructor does not reveal their identity, highlighting that they perceived that non-LGBTQ+ students may be not only resistant but antagonist to an LGBTQ+ instructor revealing their identity in the classroom (Cooper and Brownell, 2016). However, the few studies that have examined the impact of an openly LGBTQ+ instructor on non-LGBTQ+ students have not supported this assertion; rather, the majority of non-LGBTQ+ students seem to have neutral or positive responses to instructor LGBTQ+ disclosure (Busch et al., 2022; Moreira-Bouchard et al., 2024; Busch et al., 2024b; Busch et al., 2025). Specifically, this has been explored using an experimental approach in two different studies. Participants were randomly assigned to watch either a video of an instructor candidate-for-hire who revealed their LGBTQ+ status and taught a short lesson or a nearly identical video, except the instructor did not reveal their LGBTQ+ status. In both studies, the first sampled from one institution with 666 student participants (Busch et al., 2024b), and the second of 2200 students sampled from seven different institutions (Busch et al., 2025), no evidence was found of students, including non-LGBTQ+ students, rating the instructor candidate-for-hire who disclosed an LGBTQ+ identity lower than the instructor candidate-for-hire who did not. The advantage of this study design is the ability to control for all other aspects of the instructor except for the LGBTQ+ reveal, but the weakness in this study design is that the students only have a brief exposure to the instructor candidate, and it is not an instructor of one of their courses. Probing the impact on non-LGBTQ+ students of an actual LGBTQ+ instructor who reveals their identity to their students on first day of class has also been done in the context of a single LGBTQ+ instructor's biology classroom in the Southwest; the majority of non-LGBTQ+ students perceived a positive impact of the instructor revealing an LGBTQ+ identity, highlighting that it humanized the instructor and generally made her more approachable (Busch et al., 2022). However, this needs to be replicated across multiple instructors and different geographic regions of the United States to understand if this is a general pattern or a specific result of that instructor.

Geographic Differences in LGBTQ+ Acceptance

As was previously mentioned, a limitation of prior studies that have examined students’ perceptions of instructor LGBTQ+ disclosure is that all were conducted at single institutions (e.g., De Souza and Olson, 2017; Boren and McPherson, 2018; Russ et al., 2002; Busch et al., 2022; Bhanderi et al., 2024b; Moreira-Bouchard et al., 2024; Sundblad and Dansereau, 2024). Although LGBTQ+ acceptance has generally been increasing in the United States for the past few decades (Obergefell v. Hodges, 2015; GLAAD, 2017; Goodman, 2018; Bostock v. Clayton County, 2020), there is great variation across geographic regions of the country (Hasenbush et al., 2014; Adamczyk and Liao, 2019; Knauer, 2020; Rigel Hines, 2021; American Civil Liberties Union, 2023). LGBTQ+ acceptance is reflected in state legislation such that states with higher acceptance have more protections and fewer prohibitions on LGBTQ+ individuals’ rights (Knauer, 2020; American Civil Liberties Union, 2023). Thus, the results from prior studies that report on students’ perceptions of instructor LGBTQ+ disclosure in a single geographic area may not be applicable in regions or states with differing LGBTQ+ acceptance, since students may respond more negatively in states with lower acceptance or more positively in states with higher acceptance.

Current Study

To address these gaps in the literature, we conducted a national mixed-methods descriptive study in which nine instructors teaching large-enrollment undergraduate biology courses at institutions across the United States in states with varying levels of LGBTQ+ acceptance revealed their LGBTQ+ identities to their students and then we assessed undergraduates’ perceptions and reactions to disclosure. We addressed the following research questions (RQs):

• RQ1: To what extent do students recall instructor LGBTQ+ disclosure? Do student demographics affect whether they remember?

• RQ2: To what extent does instructor LGBTQ+ disclosure affect specific student outcomes? To what extent do student demographics impact their responses? To what extent does state LGBTQ+ acceptance impact their responses?

• RQ3: How does instructor LGBTQ+ disclosure affect students’ overall experiences in the course, and do state LGBTQ+ acceptance or student demographics predict their responses?

• RQ4: To what extent do students perceive that instructor LGBTQ+ disclosure is appropriate, and do state LGBTQ+ acceptance or student demographics predict their responses?

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This study was conducted under an approved Institutional Review Board protocol from Arizona State University (#00012431).

Study Context and Recruitment

To understand student perceptions of instructor LGBTQ+ identity disclosure, we recruited nine LGBTQ+ instructors to reveal their LGBTQ+ identities in the large-enrollment (100+) college biology course that they taught at universities in states with varying levels of LGBTQ+ acceptance. We wanted to recruit as broadly as possible, so we recruited through two mechanisms. First, we previously conducted a study wherein we emailed every science faculty member at research institutions in the United States, and from that study had a list of LGBTQ+ instructors who were willing to be contacted for future studies. Second, we presented prior research of ours on the experiences of LGBTQ+ individuals in biology as presentations at multiple national conferences and institutions and created a list of audience members who expressed interest in participating in future studies. We sent a recruitment email out to these lists, and 16 instructors agreed to participate. However, three were unable to ultimately participate, and four had course enrollments that were too low for statistical analyses (less than 40 students each), which left nine biology instructors at different institutions who each had more than 100 students in their classes. An expanded description of our recruitment process is available in the Supplementary Material.

Of the nine universities where the instructors taught, four were located in states with low LGBTQ+ acceptance, while five were located in high acceptance states. State acceptance levels were determined using the ratings from the Movement Advancement Project (MAP), a nonprofit think tank that categorizes LGBTQ+ acceptance at the state level based on state legislation and policies (Movement Advancement Project, 2023), and the 2023 State Equality Index from the Human Rights Campaign Foundation and the Equality Federation Institute that uses state-level policies and laws on nondiscrimination, criminal justice, relationship recognition, parenting, youth issues, and health and safety to score state LGBTQ+ equality (HRC Foundation, 2024). There was substantial overlap in the LGBTQ+ acceptance and equality ratings between the MAP and the HRC Foundation. MAP uses a five-point scale (negative to high acceptance), and HRC uses a four-point scale (high priority to achieve basic equality, building equality, solidifying equality, and working toward innovative equality). All states categorized as “low” in the current study had “high priority to achieve basic equality” ratings from HRC and low or negative ratings from MAP. The states categorized as “high” in our study received “working toward innovative equality” or “solidifying equality” ratings from HRC and high or fair ratings from MAP.

We collected some information about the characteristics of these nine instructors and present this in Table 1. An equal number of instructors identified as men and women, with one identifying as nonbinary. Prior research shows that women are more likely to reveal concealable stigmatized identities to students in one-on-one settings, but no differences have been observed based on gender in whole-class disclosure (Busch et al., 2023a). The instructors identified as either white or Latino. Asian instructors are less likely to be out to all undergraduates than white instructors, but previous studies have not documented any differences for PEER instructors (Busch et al., 2023a). Notably, six out of nine instructors were lecturers or teaching faculty, which are generally considered less protected and lower status positions than research faculty (Stein, 2023). However, we have not observed differences in revealing an LGBTQ+ identity to the whole class based on appointment (Busch et al., 2023a). We provide these characteristics for the reader not to assert that these characteristics are most important, but to have a sense for other aspects of the instructors. Although intersectionality of visible identities or rank may affect how students respond to an instructor revealing their LGBTQ+ status, it is also likely that other aspects of their appearance (e.g., how gender normative they appear, how formally they dress, how old they look), their personality (e.g., how funny they are, how charismatic they are), and their interactions with students in class that we did not collect may affect how students respond.

TABLE 1.

Description of instructor identities and the manner in which they disclosed their LGBTQ⁺ identity to students. All names are pseudonyms.

Instructor	University description	State LGBTQ+ acceptance	Survey responses (n)	LGBTQ+ identities	Additional identities	Disclosure description (categorization)
Caleb	Public R2 in the southeast United States	low	111	Gay	Latino man research faculty	“In the very first lecture, in addition to talking about syllabus stuff, I do a summary of my research, and who I am, and my career path. And so I do very explicitly state, I'm gay, and I'm also Hispanic. And I leave it at that. And then throughout my narrative of talking on my career path I talk about meeting my husband also in grad school. […] So I mean, in total, it's probably less than a minute of me actually talking about this.” (brief)
Carlos	Public R2 in the western United States	high	115	Gay	Latino man teaching faculty	“I had a slide at the beginning where I was describing who I was, and I did put a statement with a big rainbow that I was a proud member of the LGBTQ community. So it was the first day of classes and was really easy.” (brief)
Ella	Public R1 in the western United States	high	98	Lesbian, gay	White woman lecturer	“I usually start my very first lecture [… with] a brief introduction about myself. […] So where I grew up, where I went to school. […] I'll say that I'm married, and that we have 2 kids, and I moved with my wife, like I'll kind of keep it casual. […] I try to feature scientists of diverse backgrounds which includes […] any sort of identity. And so the first one I picked for that particular course was a woman who is very outspoken and considers herself gay. And so I feature her as my first scientist of the week. And I'll kind of segue into, I'm also part of this community, and this is really important to me to represent a diversity of scientists.” (brief)
Iris	Public R1 in the western United States	high	335	Queer, pan	White woman research faculty	“On the first day of class we [my co-instructor and I] had each done a getting to know you slide. This year […] I said, and this is a picture of me taking my son to that Pride March. I'm a member of the LGBTQ community.” (brief)
Maeve	Public R1 in the southeast United States	low	317	Gay, queer	White man teaching faculty	“In class [on the first day] I do 2 truths and a lie with [their instructor] kind of thing, and it's got pictures of me with my partner, […] and again I say I'm the advisor to out in STEM.” (brief)
Nonbinosaur	Public R1 in the southeast United States	low	233	Bisexual	Nonbinary research faculty	“When I was preparing to teach about intersex topics [early in the portion of the course that I taught], [I said] as a member of the LGBTQ+ community, I think it's important to recognize that this is a group that has historically struggled to have access to medical care and are often depicted in ways that are dehumanizing. And because of that, I feel like it's important to, when teaching about these topics, talk about people who are doing advocacy in the space for medical access in relation to the various manifestations of sex and gender that are out there in order to humanize people who have historically been very dehumanized.” (elaborate)
Olive	Public R1 in the midwest United States	high	231	Gay woman, lesbian	White woman lecturer	“[On the first day of class,] I had a slide, and the slide had my name and my office and my email and then it had pictures of me and my dogs and hiking and gardening and the [pride] flag. And I basically just said, here's a little bit about me. These are some of my identities […] I identify as a gay woman.” (brief)
Robin	Public R1 in the western United States	high	424	Gay, queer, poly-amorous	White man teaching faculty	“On the first day of class, […] I introduce myself and show a slide with some things about me. And in that slide with things about me I have a picture of me and my husband and I introduce him as my husband. I also have a little oSTEM logo, and I talk about how having queer community in science is very important to me. […] And then also, later on, in that lecture, I do my positionality statement where I say these are identities that I hold. I am a gay and queer man. I'm a proud member of the LGBTQ+ community and so I tell the students those things explicitly. […] I think a lot about feminist epistemological ideas about positionality and how it's impossible to really interrogate the world objectively without thinking about your own perspectives and biases. And so, from a philosophical perspective, it feels important to me to let students know, 'Hey, these are the ways that I think about the world. These are my perspectives. These are the identities that shape who I am. And you're gonna have a different set of those. And it's gonna shape how you view things. And that's not to say that I'm right and you're wrong, or you're right and I'm wrong. But we have different perspectives of looking at the same issues and problems.' So philosophically, there's kind of a component there that doesn't have to do with queerness per se, but has to do with the salience of identity.” (elaborate)
Susanna	Public R2 in the southern United States	low	181	Lesbian/gay	White woman lecturer	“So at the beginning of the semester I just did a Powerpoint slide that just talked about who I was as a person and it included that [… I am] part of the LGBTQ community, and I also talked about how there's a student organization called out in STEM.” (brief)

Each of the instructors disclosed their LGBTQ+ identity in class at the beginning of the semester, either during the introduction (briefly) or more elaborately while discussing the course material. Instructors had a variety of prior experiences coming out; while some had explicitly come out to their students in prior semesters, others had only subtly hinted at it (e.g., by having a water bottle with a pride sticker), and others had never come out in class in any way. For this data collection, all instructors except for one revealed their identity on the first day of class, and the one instructor revealed it when teaching about a particular topic.

At the end of the semester, students in their classes (total n = 2045) completed a survey about their perceptions of their instructor disclosing an LGBTQ+ identity, probing specific outcomes using previously developed scales. A full copy of the survey questions is included in the Supplementary Material, and the questions are described below.

Survey Development

We developed a survey with closed- and open-ended questions to answer our research questions. The survey began by asking whether students recalled their instructor revealing their LGBTQ+ identity. Students who reported that they remembered their instructor disclosing their LGBTQ+ identity were then asked a series of questions to assess their perceived impact of the instructor coming out (see Overall course experience and Specific outcomes affected by instructor LGBTQ+ disclosure). The survey ended with a series of demographic questions, including gender, race/ethnicity, self-reported anxiety and depression, LGBTQ+ status, and religious affiliation. We collected demographic information via closed-ended questions. Specifically with regard to gender, participants had the option to select woman, man, genderqueer or nonbinary, a gender not listed (with a text box), or decline to state. All of the items described have been used in other studies by the research team exploring the impact of instructor disclosure of LGBTQ+ identities or having depression in similar populations (i.e., undergraduate biology students) (Busch et al., 2022; Busch et al., 2024b; Mohammed et al., 2024; Busch et al., 2025). Where applicable, we slightly modified these items for the context of this study. We conducted think-aloud interviews with two undergraduate biology students to ensure that the final survey items were being interpreted as intended and to establish cognitive validity of the items (Trenor et al., 2011).

Overall Course Experience.

To assess the impact of instructor LGBTQ+ disclosure on students’ overall experience in the course, participants responded to a single item on a seven-point scale that ranged from their instructor's LGBTQ+ disclosure had a very negative impact (1) to a very positive impact (7) on their experience in the course with the middle option to select that their instructor's LGBTQ+ disclosure had no impact on their experience in the course (4). This item had previously been used in similar studies exploring the impact of instructor disclosure of an LGBTQ+ identity (Busch et al., 2022) or depression (Mohammed et al., 2024). Then, participants were asked to explain why having their instructor reveal their LGBTQ+ identity had a positive, neutral, or negative impact on their experience in the course based on their response. After providing their open-ended response, participants responded to an identical closed-ended question where they could select any reasons that applied from a provided list. The lists of reasons that instructor LGBTQ+ disclosure had a positive, neutral, or negative impact on their experience in the course were adapted from themes identified in open-ended responses from undergraduate students to similar questions in previous studies (Busch et al., 2022; Busch et al., 2024b).

Specific Outcomes Affected by the Instructor's LGBTQ+ Disclosure.

Next, we assessed the extent to which instructor LGBTQ+ disclosure affected specific outcomes that have been found to be associated with instructor LGBTQ+ disclosure in prior studies (Cooper and Brownell, 2016; Cooper et al., 2019; Busch et al., 2022; Busch et al., 2024b; Busch et al., 2025). Specifically, we measured the impact of instructor LGBTQ+ disclosure on these 10 outcomes: connectedness with the instructor, instructor approachability, instructor competence, course inclusion, sense of belonging in the course, feelings of morale in the course, normalization of LGBTQ+ identities in science, representation of LGBTQ+ identities in science, sense of belonging in science, and feelings of morale in science. Although three of these outcomes are focused on students’ perceptions of the instructor (i.e., connectedness, approachability, competence), students who have more positive views of their instructor are likely to engage more with the instructor, which is ultimately likely to be beneficial for the student (Creasey et al., 2009; Frisby and Martin, 2010; Guerrero and Rod, 2013; Micari and Pazos, 2016; Cooper et al., 2017; Schussler et al., 2021; Hsu et al., 2022; Dauber and Hsu, 2025). Each outcome was measured with three items. For example, one of the items assessing approachability read “My instructor revealing their LGBTQ+ identity caused me to feel as though I can ask them questions in class,” and participants responded on a five-point scale from “much less than before I knew they were LGBTQ+” (1) to “much more than before I knew they were LGBTQ+” (5). All items began with “My instructor revealing their LGBTQ+ identity caused me to feel as though” and the last phrase of the question stem differed for each item. For each of the 10 outcomes, we created an aggregate score by averaging the numeric responses to the three items and calculated Cronbach's α to demonstrate internal consistency in our sample; >0.9 implies excellent and >0.8 implies good internal consistency (Gliem and Gliem, 2003). The measures for instructor approachability (Cronbach's α = 0.85), instructor competence (Cronbach's α = 0.98), course inclusion (Cronbach's α = 0.95), normalization of LGBTQ+ identities in science (Cronbach's α = 0.87), and representation of LGBTQ+ identities in science (Cronbach's α = 0.94) were developed in a prior study to assess the impact of an instructor disclosing that they struggle with depression and have evidence of cognitive validity and internal consistency in college science students (Mohammed et al., 2024). We adapted these items to probe the impact of LGBTQ+ disclosure. The measure for connectedness with the instructor (Cronbach's α = 0.86) was adapted from the Student–Instructor Rapport Scale (Lammers and Gillaspy Jr, 2013), which was developed for use with undergraduate students and has evidence of internal consistency and concurrent validity. The adapted version has previously been used to assess the impact of instructor depression disclosure (Mohammed et al., 2024), where it showed evidence of cognitive validity and internal consistency. The measures for sense of belonging and feelings of morale in the course (Cronbach's α = 0.93 and 0.89) and in science (Cronbach's α = 0.94 and 0.89) were adapted from the two subscales of the Course Cohesion scale developed to measure students’ membership and belonging to a university (Bollen and Hoyle, 1990). These subscales have been widely adapted and used in samples of undergraduate students with respect to departments and courses in addition to universities (Jeong et al., 2019; Busch et al., 2024b; Mohammed et al., 2024; Musgrove et al., 2024; Busch et al., 2025).

Appropriateness.

All participants, both those who did and did not recall their instructor revealing their LGBTQ+ identity, were asked to what extent they agree that it is completely appropriate for STEM instructors to reveal that they are a member of the LGBTQ+ community in the classroom on a 6-point Likert scale from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (6). Based on their responses, participants were asked to explain why they thought it was appropriate (or not) for instructors to disclose their LGBTQ+ identities in the classroom first in an open-ended item and then a closed-ended item where they could select as many reasons as applied from a provided list. The list of reasons was derived from themes identified in open-ended responses to this question in prior survey studies (Busch et al., 2022; Busch et al., 2024b). This question has been used in prior studies exploring undergraduates’ perceptions of instructor LGBTQ+ disclosure (Busch et al., 2022; Busch et al., 2024b; Busch et al., 2025).

Instructor Interviews to Categorize Disclosure

To account for the ways in which the instructors disclosed their LGBTQ+ identities to students in our analyses, we conducted semistructured interviews with each of the nine instructors after they finished teaching that term. All interviews were conducted by one member of the research team (C.A.B.) via an online video conference program. The interviews began with the instructor describing their LGBTQ+ identity(ies). Then, instructors described when (e.g., first day) and how (e.g., during a self-introduction) they disclosed their LGBTQ+ identity(ies) to their students. A full copy of the instructor interview script is included in the Supplementary Material. Instructor explanations of their LGBTQ+ disclosure are provided in Table 1. All instructor names are pseudonyms, and quotes have been lightly edited for clarity. Interviews were used exclusively to classify the manner in which instructors disclosed their LGBTQ+ identity to the students in their courses in order to account for these potential differences in our statistical analyses (see Quantitative Data Analysis).

Quantitative Data Analysis

We conducted all quantitative data analysis in R (R Core Team, 2022). For single items, we report the percent of participants who selected a particular response. To assess demographic differences among outcomes, we used regression analyses. We ran a binary logistic regression using the glmer function in the lme4 package in R (Bates et al., 2015) to examine whether student demographics impacted whether they remembered their instructor revealing their LGBTQ+ identity. In this model, the outcome variable was whether participants remembered the instructor's LGBTQ+ disclosure (yes or no), and the predictors were participant LGBTQ+ status, gender, religious affiliation, race/ethnicity, self-reported anxiety or depression, state LGBTQ+ acceptance, and the manner in which the instructor disclosed their LGBTQ+ identity. We also included a random effect for the instructor to account for the nested design of the participants being students in 9 different courses taught by the 9 instructors (Theobald, 2018). (Model: remember disclosure (0/1) ∼ LGBTQ+ status + gender + religion + race/ethnicity + anxiety/depression + state LGBTQ+ acceptance + disclosure manner + [1|instructor]). We included these demographic characteristics because they are associated with LGBTQ+ acceptance, experiences in undergraduate science courses, and impressions of instructor LGBTQ+ disclosure (Eddy et al., 2015; Cooper and Brownell, 2016; Eddy and Brownell, 2016; Knauer, 2020; Faith Positions, 2021; Busch et al., 2022; Araghi et al., 2023; Busch et al., 2024b). Participants responded to a single item to determine their LGBTQ+ status; those who self-identified as LGBTQ+ were grouped together in a single category. Although there are many different identities included under the umbrella term of LGBTQ+, they have the shared experience of not being straight or cisgender. The remaining students were grouped as non-LGBTQ+ students. With regard to gender, we grouped students as either men or women, nonbinary, or genderqueer. Gender nonbinary and genderqueer students (n = 24) represented a very small fraction of the overall sample and were therefore combined with women students in order to preserve their responses in our analyses. We did not distinguish between trans- and cis-gender when collecting gender identity. For example, transgender and cisgender men are included in the “men” category. The perceptions of transgender students were considered along with other LGBTQ+ students in the LGBTQ+ status category. We grouped students in four categories based on religious identity: Christian, Muslim, nonreligious, and other. The grouping was based solely on religious affiliation and did not consider religiosity or specific belief systems. The Christian group included students who identified as Catholic, Protestant, nondenominational Christian, and Christians belonging to other denominations. Students who self-identified as Muslim were grouped as such. Students who identified as atheist, agnostic, or nonreligious were grouped together as nonreligious. Students of other religious identities that were non-Christian and non-Muslim, such as Hindu, Jewish, Buddhist, or Sikh, were considered together under an “other” category. We specifically considered Christian and Muslim religious affiliations separately from other religious affiliations due to the historic and current ostracization of LGBTQ+ individuals from these religious communities (Abraham, 2010; Habib, 2010; Woodford et al., 2012; Worthen et al., 2017; Wilcox, 2020; Faith Positions, 2021). Although not all Christian or Muslim individuals hold these views, these identities are commonly associated with views that oppose the LGBTQ+ community (Abraham, 2010; Habib, 2010; Woodford et al., 2012; Worthen et al., 2017; Wilcox, 2020; Faith Positions, 2021). In our models, nonreligious students were the reference group. We grouped students in four distinct racial/ethnic groups: white, Asian, PEER (Asai, 2020), and other. The PEER group included students who identified as African American, Black, Hispanic, Latinx, Native American, and Native Hawaiian (Asai, 2020). The other category included any student who did not identify as Asian, white, or PEER, such as participants who identified as multiracial, Middle Eastern, or Pacific Islander. In our models, white students were the reference group. Like LGBTQ+ identities, mental health conditions can be hidden and carry negative stereotypes (i.e., are concealable stigmatized identities) and have repeatedly been shown to affect undergraduates’ experiences in science learning environments (Chaudoir and Quinn, 2010; Cooper et al., 2020b; Busch et al., 2024a). We included whether participants reported anxiety or depression in our models since these are the most common mental health concerns among college students (O'Neill et al., 2016; College Student Mental Health Statistics|BestColleges, 2024). Students who reported that they were currently struggling with anxiety and/or depression were grouped together, as were students who were not currently struggling with anxiety or depression.

In addition to the participant demographics described above, we included LGBTQ+ acceptance of the state in which the university was located in our model. We categorized the states as either low or high LGBTQ+ acceptance states based on ratings from both the MAP (Movement Advancement Project, 2023) and the 2023 State Equality Index from the Human Rights Campaign Foundation and the Equality Federation Institute (HRC Foundation, 2024). Of note, we did not consider LGBTQ+ acceptance of the state where the participant grew up in our models. However, in our sample, 74.6% of participants primarily grew up in the same state in which they attended university. Moreover, 86.4% of all participants grew up and attended a university in states with the same level of LGBTQ+ acceptance. Therefore, for this sample, we would expect similar results when considering LGBTQ+ acceptance of the state where the participant was raised. Because student reactions to instructor self-disclosure are affected by how relevant disclosure is to the course and how long disclosure takes (Cayanus and Martin, 2008; Goodboy et al., 2014; Kromka and Goodboy, 2021), we included the manner in which instructors disclosed their LGBTQ+ identities as a predictor in our models. We classified the manner in which instructors disclosed their LGBTQ+ identities as either brief (e.g., took less than 5 seconds on a single slide during a self-introduction) or elaborate (e.g., disclosed their LGBTQ+ identity in the context of sharing their positionality with students) based on instructors’ descriptions of how they revealed their identities provided during their interviews (Table 1).

We ran linear regression models using the lmer function in the lme4 package in R (Bates et al., 2015) with the same predictors as described above to assess demographic differences in the impact of LGBTQ+ disclosure on the ten outcomes we measured: connectedness with the instructor, instructor approachability, instructor competence, course inclusion, sense of belonging in the course, feelings of morale in the course, normalization of LGBTQ+ identities in science, representation of LGBTQ+ identities in science, sense of belonging in science, and feelings of morale in science. For each of the ten models, the outcome was the aggregate score for the measure that we calculated by averaging the responses to the three corresponding items.

To determine whether participant demographics, state LGBTQ+ acceptance, or manner of disclosure affected the impact instructor LGBTQ+ disclosure had on participants’ overall experiences in the course and the extent to which they perceived instructor LGBTQ+ disclosure to be appropriate, we ran two ordinal regressions using the clmm function in the ordinal package in R (Christensen, 2022). For the impact on students’ overall experience, we included the same predictors as before and responses on the seven-point scale from very negative (1) to very positive (7) as the outcome. With regard to whether participants agreed that instructor LGBTQ+ disclosure is appropriate, the outcome variable was the response to the 6-point Likert scale from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (6). We included the same predictors as described for the other regression analyses.

For all models, we calculated the VIF using the car package in R (Fox and Weisberg, 2019) that indicated no issues with multicollinearity among the predictors. For all logistic regressions, we confirmed that all observations were independent and there were no extreme outliers. For all linear regressions, assumptions of normality, linearity, and homoscedasticity were checked and met. Finally, for all ordinal regressions, proportional odds assumptions were met (UCLA: Statistical Consulting Group, n.d.). Throughout, we use a threshold of p < 0.05 to determine statistical significance and report the full results of all regression analyses in the Supplementary Material. For logistic and ordinal regressions, we report effect sizes using odds ratios (ORs), a standard effect size calculated by exponentiating the beta coefficient (Deeks, 1998; Agresti and Franklin, 2018). The R script for all data analysis and visualizations is available in a GitHub repository (https://github.com/carlybusch/Impact-instructor-LGBTQ-disclosure.git).

Qualitative Data Analysis

Participants responded to open-ended prompts to explain their responses to closed-ended questions probing the impact of instructor LGBTQ+ identity disclosure on their overall experience in the course and their perceived appropriateness of instructor LGBTQ+ disclosure. The specific open-ended prompt regarding overall impact that the student received (i.e., positive impact, neutral impact, negative impact) corresponded to their response to the preceding closed-ended survey question. Similarly, the specific open-ended appropriateness prompt that the student received (i.e., appropriate or not appropriate) depended on their response to the preceding closed-ended survey question.

One researcher (P.B.B.) coded a random sample of 15% of the responses to each prompt using the coding rubrics developed for the same prompts in a previous study (Busch et al., 2024b) while considering any additional themes that participants included in their responses that were not identified in the prior study. The responses for neutral impact, appropriate, and not appropriate did not contain any additional themes, so students’ perspectives were fully captured in the subsequent closed-ended questions to explain their rationale by selecting all of the options that applied from a provided list. Therefore, for these prompts (neutral impact, appropriate, not appropriate) we report only the results from the closed-ended questions.

We identified new themes about LGBTQ+ disclosure affecting the instructor's approach to teaching for the positive impact and negative impact prompts. Therefore, we coded all the responses for positive impact (n = 577) and negative impact (n = 22) in order to assess the prevalence of this emergent theme.

RESULTS

In total, across the nine instructors’ courses, 2045 undergraduate students participated in the study. Participants primarily identified as women (72%), white (36%), Asian (30%), or PEER (28%), and not LGBTQ+ (79%). Participant demographics are described in Table 2.

TABLE 2.

Demographic characteristics of study participants (n = 2045).

Demographic characteristic		% (n)
Gender	Woman	72.32 (1479)
	Man	25.72 (526)
	Gender-queer or nonbinary	1.17 (24)
	A gender not listed	0.15 (3)
	Decline to state	0.64 (13)
Race/ethnicity	White	36.04 (737)
	Asian or Asian American	29.88 (611)
	Hispanic, Latino/a/x, or of Spanish Origin	17.85 (365)
	An identity not listed (inc. Multiracial, Middle Eastern)	9.29 (190)
	Black or African American	4.55 (93)
	American Indian or Alaska Native or Native Hawaiian	0.44 (9)
	Pacific Islander	0.29 (6)
	Decline to state	1.66 (34)
Religious affiliation	Christian	46.45 (950)
	Not religious	18.58 (380)
	Agnostic	7.04 (144)
	Atheist	4.50 (92)
	Hindu	5.23 (107)
	Jewish	4.06 (83)
	Muslim	3.77 (77)
	Buddhist	2.64 (54)
	An identity not listed (e.g., Sikh, Druze, Jain)	1.86 (38)
	Decline to state	5.87 (120)
LGBTQ+ status	No	79.12 (1618)
	Yes	17.41 (356)
	Decline to state	3.47 (71)
Anxiety/Depression Status	Currently struggling with anxiety and/or depression	36.67 (750)
	Not currently struggling with anxiety or depression	54.13 (1107)
	Decline to state	9.19 (188)
State LGBTQ+ acceptance (of university)	High	58.83 (1203)
	Low	41.17 (842)

Finding 1: The Majority of Students Recalled their Instructor Revealing their LGBTQ+ Identity in Class

Across all courses, the majority (88.2%, n = 1803) of participants recalled their instructor revealing their LGBTQ+ identity in class, with the remaining 11.8% not recalling instructor LGBTQ+ disclosure. The proportion of students who recalled instructor LGBTQ+ disclosure ranged from 47.2 to 99.1% of students in the instructors’ respective courses. Supplemental Table S1 includes disaggregated percentages by instructor. Students who identify as LGBTQ+ (OR = 1.76, p = 0.03), women or nonbinary (OR = 1.50, p = 0.05), or Christian (OR = 1.56, p = 0.04) were more likely to recall the disclosure than students identifying as non-LGBTQ+, men, or nonreligious, respectively. No other predictors, including whether the instructor's LGBTQ+ disclosure was brief or elaborate, were significantly associated with whether students remembered their instructors disclosing their LGBTQ+ identities. Full regression results are presented in Supplemental Table S2.

Finding 2a: Students, Particularly those who are LGBTQ+, Women or Nonbinary, PEER, and with Anxiety or Depression, Reported Improved Outcomes from Instructor LGBTQ+ Disclosure

On a five-point scale, participants on average reported that instructor LGBTQ+ disclosure slightly improved their feelings of connectedness with the instructor (M ± SD: 3.23 ± 0.52), instructor approachability (3.28 ± 0.54), instructor competence (3.51 ± 0.88), class inclusion (3.83 ± 0.80), sense of belonging in class (3.23 ± 0.58), feelings of morale in class (3.19 ± 0.52), normalization of LGBTQ+ identities (3.35 ± 0.60), representation of LGBTQ+ identities in science (3.33 ± 0.61), sense of belonging in the science community (3.18 ± 0.52), and feelings of morale in the science community (3.19 ± 0.51; Figure 1A).

FIGURE 1.

(A) Summary statistics (mean and SD) for each of the 10 outcomes. Regression results for each of the 10 outcomes for (B) LGBTQ+ (vs. non-LGTBQ+) students. (C) Women and nonbinary (vs. men) students. (D) PEER (vs. white) students. (E) Asian (vs. white) students. (F) Students struggling with anxiety/depression (vs. those who are not). Standardized beta coefficients are indicated with their corresponding 95% confidence intervals for the given predictor in the linear model. Confidence intervals that do not cross the vertical dashed line and are thicker with a solid point are statistically significant.

Although all students reported slightly improved impressions of the instructors and class environment, some students perceived disproportionate benefits. LGBTQ+ students reported disproportionate benefits compared with non-LGBTQ+ students across all ten outcomes (Figure 1B). Specifically, LGBTQ+ students reported increases in instructor connectedness (β = 0.56, p < 0.0001), instructor approachability (β = 0.46, p < 0.0001), instructor competence (β = 0.33, p < 0.0001), class inclusion (β = 0.47, p < 0.0001), sense of belonging in class (β = 0.60, p < 0.0001), feelings of morale in class (β = 0.46, p < 0.0001), normalization of LGBTQ+ identities (β = 0.52, p < 0.0001), representation of LGBTQ+ identities in science (β = 0.44, p < 0.0001), sense of belonging in science community (β = 0.53, p < 0.0001), and feelings of morale in science community (β = 0.41, p < 0.0001).

Student gender was significantly associated with seven of the ten outcomes (Figure 1C). Women and nonbinary students were more likely to report positive outcomes for instructor connectedness (β = 0.07, p = 0.01), instructor approachability (β = 0.11, p < 0.001), instructor competence (β = 0.26, p < 0.0001), class inclusion (β = 0.23, p < 0.0001), feelings of morale in class (β = 0.09, p = 0.002), normalization of LGBTQ+ identities (β = 0.07, p = 0.04), and representation of LGBTQ+ identities in science (β = 0.10, p = 0.004) than men.

Race was significantly associated with the majority of outcomes (Figure 1, D and E). PEER students reported positive outcomes for instructor competence (β = 0.23, p = 0.0004), sense of belonging in class (β = 0.08, p = 0.04), feelings of morale in class (β = 0.08, p = 0.02), representation of LGBTQ+ identities in science (β = 0.08, p = 0.04), and sense of belonging in the science community (β = 0.07, p = 0.03) compared with white students. Asian students reported positive outcomes for the normalization of LGBTQ+ identities (β = 0.11, p = 0.008), representation of LGBTQ+ identities in science (β = 0.09, p = 0.03), and sense of belonging in the science community (β = 0.07, p = 0.04) compared with their white counterparts. Notably, these significant differences indicate that PEER and Asian students reported higher scores on these scales compared with white students, but that does not mean that white students responded negatively on these scales.

Students currently struggling with anxiety or depression were more likely to report that instructor disclosure improved instructor connectedness (β = 0.05, p = 0.05), instructor approachability (β = 0.06, p = 0.02), class inclusion (β = 0.13, p = 0.001), sense of belonging in class (β = 0.07, p = 0.017), feelings of morale in class (β = 0.06, p = 0.02), normalization of LGBTQ+ identities (β = 0.10, p = 0.001), and representation of LGBTQ+ identities in science (β = 0.10, p = 0.002) than students not currently struggling with anxiety or depression (Figure 1F).

Religion was also significantly associated with student outcomes (Figure 2). Christian (β = −0.16, p = 0.0003) and Muslim (β = −0.41, p < 0.001) students reported significantly lower outcomes for class inclusion compared with nonreligious students. Muslim students also reported lower instructor connectedness (β = −0.13, p = 0.04) and approachability (β = −0.15, p = 0.02) compared with nonreligious students. The full result for all regressions is available in Supplemental Table S3. Because nonreligious students reported disproportionate benefits from instructor LGBTQ+ disclosure compared with Christian and Muslim students, we calculated the group means for Christian and Muslim students for the outcomes with significant differences to assess whether Christian and Muslim students were reporting negative impacts. The mean outcome ratings for class inclusion (Christian: 3.75 ± 0.77, Muslim: 3.48 ± 0.86), instructor approachability (Christian: 3.24 ± 0.50, Muslim: 3.09 ± 0.60), and instructor connectedness (Christian: 3.19 ± 0.48, Muslim: 3.05 ± 0.52) were greater than the midpoint of three on a five-point scale, meaning it was still on the positive end of the measure.

FIGURE 2.

Regression results for each of the 10 outcomes based on religious affiliation (Christian or Muslim). Confidence intervals that do not cross the vertical dashed line and are thicker with a solid point are statistically significant. In the model, nonreligious students are the reference group.

Finding 2b: State LGBTQ+ Acceptance had no Significant Effect on Undergraduate Perceptions of Instructors Coming Out

With participant LGBTQ+ status, gender, religious affiliation, race/ethnicity, self-reported anxiety or depression, and the manner in which their instructor disclosed their LGBTQ+ identity accounted for in the model, state LGBTQ+ acceptance was not a significant predictor for any of the ten outcomes measured (all p > 0.05, Figure 3). The full results are reported in Supplemental Table S3.

FIGURE 3.

State LGBTQ+ acceptance is not a significant predictor for any of the 10 outcomes. Points indicate the standardized beta with the 95% confidence interval. Confidence intervals that cross the vertical dashed line are not statistically significant (p > 0.05). The reference group is low state LGBTQ+ acceptance.

Finding 3: Instructor LGBTQ+ Disclosure had a Neutral or Positive Impact on Most Students’ Overall Experience in Class

Of all respondents, 32.1% (n = 579) reported that instructor LGBTQ+ disclosure had a positive impact, 66.6% (n = 1201) reported a neutral impact, and 1.3% (n = 23) reported a negative impact on their overall experience in the course (Figure 4). Individual courses ranged from 56.4 to 76.4% of students who reported a neutral impact and from 21.8 to 43.6% of students who reported a positive impact (Supplemental Table S1). Of note, four of the nine instructors (one in a low LGBTQ+ acceptance state and three in high LGBTQ+ acceptance states) did not have any student report that LGBTQ+ identity disclosure had a negative impact. Participants who were LGBTQ+ (OR = 6.22, p < 0.001) or women or nonbinary (OR = 1.79, p < 0.001) were more likely to report a more positive impact compared with non-LGBTQ+ students and men. Nonreligious students were more likely to report a more positive impact compared with Christian (OR = 1.42, p = 0.009) and Muslim (OR = 2.18, p = 0.03) students. Full regression results are available in Supplemental Table S4.

FIGURE 4.

Distribution of responses of the impact participants perceived that instructor LGBTQ+ disclosure had on their overall course experience, disaggregated by state LGBTQ+ acceptance.

Of participants who reported that instructor LGBTQ+ disclosure had a positive impact on their experience in the course (n = 579), the most common reasons they selected for why this was the case on the closed-ended question were that it helped create an inclusive classroom environment (89.1%, n = 516), it helped normalize LGBTQ+ identities (85.0%, n = 492), and that it increased representation of LGBTQ+ individuals in science (84.8%, n = 491). The most common reasons participants selected for why the disclosure had a neutral impact on their experience (n = 1201) were that it did not change the instructor's teaching ability (95.9%, n = 1152), it was not relevant to course content (73.4%, n = 882), and that the instructor coming out did not affect them because of their familiarity with the LGBTQ+ community (57.4%, n = 689). Participants who reported a negative impact on their experience (n = 23) primarily selected the reasons that the instructor's LGBTQ+ disclosure distracted them from course material (78.3%, n = 18) and made them feel uncomfortable (56.5%, n = 13). Table 3 provides a summary of the frequency that each of the reasons that instructor LGBTQ+ disclosure had a positive, neutral, or negative impact was selected.

TABLE 3.

Frequency that each of the reasons was selected for why the instructor's LGBTQ+ disclosure had a positive, negative, or neutral impact on students’ experience in the course.

Reason	Frequency, % (n)
Positive Impact (n = 579)
It helped to create an inclusive classroom environment	89.1 (516)
It helped to normalize LGBTQ+ identities	85.0 (492)
It increased the representation of LGBTQ+ individuals in science	84.8 (491)
It made you more comfortable approaching the instructor	72.7 (421)
It made the instructor more relatable	60.4 (350)
None of these options reflects why the instructor's revealing their LGBTQ+ identity had a positive impact	1.7 (10)
Neutral Impact (n = 1201)
It did not change the instructor's teaching ability	95.9 (1152)
It was not relevant to the course content	73.4 (882)
The instructor coming out did not affect you because of your familiarity with the LGBTQ+ community	57.4 (689)
None of these options reflects why the instructor's revealing their LGBTQ+ identity had no impact	1.6 (19)
Negative Impact (n = 23)
It distracted from the course material	78.3 (18)
It made you feel uncomfortable	56.5 (13)
None of these options reflects why the instructors’ revealing their LGBTQ+ identity had a negative impact	8.7 (2)

Note: Participants could select as many reasons as applicable.

Participants’ open-ended responses to why the instructor's LGBTQ+ disclosure had a positive or negative impact on students’ experiences in the course included themes not represented in the closed-ended options. Specifically, participants described that the instructor's LGBTQ+ disclosure had a positive impact on their experience in the course because it positively impacted instructors’ teaching by providing a new perspective in science (4.5%, n = 26). Conversely, participants explained that instructor LGBTQ+ disclosure had a negative impact on their overall experience in the course because it negatively impacted instructors’ teaching by changing what the instructor taught, which meant they focused on what the student perceived to be irrelevant content (43.5%, n = 10; Table 4). Of note, half of these responses (n = 5) were from students in a course whose instructor connected their LGBTQ+ identity specifically to teaching about a topic.

TABLE 4.

Description and example quotes of the novel theme identified in students’ open-ended responses to why the instructor's LGBTQ+ disclosure had a positive or negative impact on their experience in the course.

Theme description	Frequency, % (n)	Example quote 1	Example quote 2
Positive impact
Positively impact teaching by providing a new perspective, especially on gender, sex, reproduction, and marginalized communities	4.5 (26)	Student 61: “(The instructor) made it clear for our reproduction unit that there is a difference between sex and gender. I appreciated that she recognized the distinction where another professor might have chosen to avoid the conversation.” (instructor: Nonbinosaur)	Student 67: “It opened the floor to more in depth conversation on different diseases and issues that the LGBTQ+ community faces in the biology space.” (instructor: Maeve
Negative impact
Negatively impact teaching by wasting time on irrelevant content, especially on gender, sex, and reproduction	43.5 (10)	Student 106: “It made it harder to learn about sexual reproduction since terms like biological female and male had to be used.” (instructor: Nonbinosaur)	Student 91: “It felt like (the instructor) focused more on pushing this idea into the class rather than focusing on content points; it was distracting at times throughout the course.” (instructor: Robin)

Finding 4: Most Students Reported that Instructor LGBTQ+ Disclosure in Class is Appropriate

The vast majority (89.7%, n = 1835) of the participants reported that STEM instructors revealing their LGBTQ+ identity in class is appropriate, while 10.3% (n = 210) reported it is not appropriate (Figure 5). Disaggregated by individual instructor, the percentage of students who perceived instructor LGBTQ+ disclosure is appropriate ranged from 80.7 to 95.0% (Supplemental Table S1). Participants who were LGBTQ+ (OR = 2.20, p < 0.001), women or nonbinary (OR = 1.89, p < 0.001), currently experiencing anxiety or depression (OR = 1.44, p < 0.001), and PEER (OR = 1.49, p = 0.002) were more likely to agree more strongly that instructor disclosure is appropriate compared with their counterparts. Nonreligious students were more likely to agree more strongly that instructor LGBTQ+ disclosure is appropriate compared with Christian (OR = 1.96, p < 0.001) and Muslim (OR = 3.88, p < 0.001) students; full regression results are presented in Supplemental Table S5.

FIGURE 5.

Distribution of responses to the extent to which participants think instructor LGBTQ+ disclosure is appropriate, disaggregated by state LGBTQ+ acceptance.

With regard to why STEM instructor LGBTQ+ disclosure is appropriate, participants most commonly selected that it helps students get to know their instructor (85.3%, n = 1565), it is the instructor's decision whether or not to reveal their LGBTQ+ identity (84.3%, n = 1546), and that it normalizes LGBTQ+ identities (80.4%, n = 1475). Conversely, participants who reported that instructor LGBTQ+ disclosure is not appropriate most commonly selected that it is not relevant to course material (81.0%, n = 170) and that it does not matter whether instructors reveal LGBTQ+ identities (54.3%, n = 114; Table 5).

TABLE 5.

Frequency that each of the reasons was selected for why instructor LGBTQ+ disclosure is appropriate or not appropriate.

Reason	Frequency, % (n)
Appropriate (n = 1835)
It helps students get to know their instructor	85.3 (1565)
It is the instructor's decision whether or not to reveal their LGBTQ+ identity	84.3 (1546)
It normalizes LGBTQ+ identities	80.4 (1475)
It does not impact teaching or learning	72.0 (1321)
It helps to build community and trust in the classroom	66.2 (1214)
An instructor's LGBTQ+ identity is an important part of who they are	64.1 (1177)
It empowers the LGBTQ+ community	64.0 (1175)
Sharing an LGBTQ+ identity is the same as sharing other personal information	63.8 (1170)
None of these options reflects why instructors revealing their LGBTQ+ identities is appropriate	0.9 (16)
Not Appropriate (n = 210)
It is not relevant to the course material	81.0 (170)
It does not matter whether instructors reveal LGBTQ+ identities	54.3 (114)
It promotes certain beliefs or morals	35.2 (74)
It would feel forced	26.7 (56)
It would make students uncomfortable	26.2 (55)
None of these options reflects why instructors revealing their LGBTQ+ identities is not appropriate	10.5 (22)

Note: Participants could select as many reasons as applicable.

When considering the relationship between students’ responses to the impact of instructor LGBTQ+ disclosure on their overall course experience and whether instructor LGBTQ+ disclosure is appropriate, most (20 of 23) participants who reported a negative impact also perceived instructor LGBTQ+ disclosure to be inappropriate. Conversely, 564 of the 579 participants who reported a positive impact also perceived LGBTQ+ disclosure to be appropriate. A small number of students (n = 15) reported a positive impact of their instructor disclosing an LGBTQ+ identity, and that instructor LGBTQ+ disclosure is inappropriate. Of those participants, seven selected that instructor LGBTQ+ disclosure is not appropriate because it is not relevant to course material, and nine selected that it does not matter whether instructors reveal LGBTQ+ identities. The breakdown of responses to the impact of and appropriateness of instructor LGBTQ+ disclosure is reported in Table 6 and Supplemental Table S6.

TABLE 6.

Frequency of participants selecting a particular response for the impact that instructor LGBTQ+ disclosure had on their experience in the course, and whether they perceive instructor LGBTQ+ disclosure as appropriate or inappropriate.

Impact	Appropriate% (n)	Inappropriate% (n)
Negative	0.17 (3)	1.11 (20)
Neutral	58.46 (1054)	8.15 (147)
Positive	31.28 (564)	0.83 (15)

Note: The percentage is out of the 1803 participants who recalled instructor disclosure.

DISCUSSION

In this national study, sampled from nine undergraduate biology classrooms, we found that state LGBTQ+ acceptance does not affect students’ perceptions of instructor LGBTQ+ disclosure. Although LGBTQ+ acceptance in the United States has significantly increased over the past few decades (Obergefell v. Hodges, 2015; GLAAD, 2017; Goodman, 2018; Bostock v. Clayton County, 2020), it still varies greatly based on the state (Hasenbush et al., 2014; Adamczyk and Liao, 2019; Knauer, 2020; Rigel Hines, 2021; American Civil Liberties Union, 2023), which has been found to dissuade LGBTQ+ instructors in low LGBTQ+ acceptance states from disclosing their identities (Cooper et al., 2019; Busch et al., 2024b). However, the vast majority of undergraduate participants across all courses in this study reported that instructor LGBTQ+ disclosure had a positive or a neutral impact on their experience in the course and felt that such a disclosure is appropriate. These results suggest that university campuses may be more accepting of LGBTQ+ individuals than their state politics would suggest, which may encourage more LGBTQ+ instructors to be open about their identities when teaching undergraduate courses. These results may also indicate that state LGBTQ+ acceptance levels do not reflect the views of undergraduate students, as younger generations report more acceptance and openness to LGBTQ+ identities compared with older generations in the United States (Milkman, 2017; Anderson, 2018; Parker et al., 2019).

We found that instructor LGBTQ+ identity disclosure resulted in significantly improved outcomes for LGBTQ+ students and students with other marginalized identities. Compared with non-LGBTQ+ students, participants who identified as LGBTQ+ reported improvement in every measured outcome, from those measuring the student–instructor relationship to belonging in the scientific community broadly. These benefits may be because LGBTQ+ students gained a role model and a potential future mentor in STEM following their instructor's LGBTQ+ disclosure (Cooper and Brownell, 2016; Cooper et al., 2019). Given the importance of similar-identity role models in STEM for students with marginalized backgrounds especially with regards to their impact on self-efficacy (Rask and Bailey, 2002; Cotner et al., 2011; Stout et al., 2011; Shin et al., 2016; Harmsen, 2018; Ferguson and Seery, 2022), gaining LGBTQ+ role models could help improve the retention and professional outcomes of LGBTQ+ students.

Women and nonbinary students, compared with men, reported several benefits, including instructor connectedness and approachability, improved course inclusion, and course morale. Previous studies have also found that women and nonbinary students disproportionately benefit following instructor LGBTQ+ disclosure (Busch et al., 2024b; Busch et al., 2022; 2025) and instructor depression disclosure (Mohammed et al., 2024). This may be because women in general report greater acceptance of LGBTQ+ individuals and identities (Woodford et al., 2012) that may manifest in improved outcomes for women undergraduates. Alternatively, it could be that women prefer to get to know instructors more because they value relationships more than men (Eddy et al., 2015).

PEER students reported improved instructor competence, course morale, course sense of belonging, LGBTQ+ representation, and a higher sense of belonging in science compared with white students following instructor LGBTQ+ disclosure. Asian students reported improved LGBTQ+ representation and normalization. These improved outcomes could be because an instructor revealing a stigmatized identity (e.g., LGBTQ+) results in counterstereotypical representation in a STEM environment (Cech and Waidzunas, 2021), and counterstereotypical representation has been found to be particularly impactful for racially marginalized and minoritized students (Schinske et al., 2016; Yonas et al., 2020).

Students who reported experiencing anxiety or depression reported several benefits, including improved course inclusion, morale, and sense of belonging, than those who are not suffering from anxiety or depression. This could be because revealing an LGBTQ+ identity humanizes the instructor, helping to foster a closer relationship with the students (Busch et al., 2022; Busch et al., 2024b). In turn, students struggling with their mental health may feel more comfortable in the course. Prior research indicates that students feel more comfortable revealing their depression to the instructor when the course environment is welcoming and the instructor is caring (Cooper et al., 2020b; Busch et al., 2023b), and instructor LGBTQ+ disclosure may be one way for instructors to signal to students that they care about their well-being.

Based on the overall benefits students reported as well as the disproportionate benefits reported by students with marginalized identities, instructor LGBTQ+ disclosure may help to broaden students’ perceptions of scientists and improve their ability to recognize themselves as a science person (Carlone and Johnson, 2007; Schinske et al., 2016; Yonas et al., 2020; Metzger et al., 2023). Additionally, instructor LGBTQ+ disclosure can help to build immediacy between students and instructors, specifically by making the instructor more approachable and relatable to students and making the classroom environment more inclusive. Given the importance of instructor immediacy for student–instructor relationships and establishing a positive classroom culture (Gorham, 1988; Cooper et al., 2017; 2018; Cooper et al., 2020c; Busch et al., 2024b), the benefits students reported following instructor LGBTQ+ disclosure may be due to the improved immediacy of the instructor.

Christian students were more likely than nonreligious students to recall instructor LGBTQ+ disclosure. This could be explained by the unexpected nature of coming out in a science course, violating students’ expectations and making the event particularly memorable for Christian and Muslim students who may know fewer people who are open about their LGBTQ+ identities (Erk et al., 2003; Talarico et al., 2009). Christian and Muslim students also report significantly less positive perceptions of instructor LGBTQ+ identity disclosure than nonreligious students. Both Christian and Muslim students reported lower class inclusion, while Muslim students also reported lower instructor approachability and connectedness following instructor LGBTQ+ disclosure compared with nonreligious students. However, the mean ratings for Christian and Muslim students for these outcomes were over three on a five-point scale, which suggests that instructor LGBTQ+ disclosure did not harm these groups of students. Christian and Muslim participants were also less likely to report that instructor LGBTQ+ disclosure had a positive impact on their experience in the course and less likely to agree that instructor LGBTQ+ disclosure is appropriate compared with their nonreligious counterparts. Our findings suggest that instructor LGBTQ+ disclosure is likely having no impact on Christian and Muslim students rather than a negative impact, which could be explained by the anti-LGBTQ+ views held by some Christian and Muslim theologies and individuals (Rayside, 2011; Rehman and Polymenopoulou, 2013; Gnuse, 2015; Faith Positions, 2021). Nonreligious students reported greater gains in a sense of inclusion in the course compared with both Christian and Muslim participants. For LGBTQ+ instructors who are considering disclosing their identities but who are also concerned about the experiences of their religious students, using their own identity disclosure as a way to emphasize that all identities and perspectives will be respected in the classroom may be one way to counteract any negative impact on the classroom environment for religious students.

Importantly, we found that students from universities across the United States recognize potential benefits to themselves and/or to their LGBTQ+ classmates from instructors coming out in class. The majority of participants reported that LGBTQ+ disclosure can humanize instructors, making them more relatable and approachable. This could improve student–instructor relationships, affecting future behaviors (e.g., office hour attendance) and positively impacting student attendance and performance in the course (Cuseo, 2018; Gleason, 2021; Kim et al., 2023). Similar to our initial study with one instructor at one institution (Busch et al., 2022), we found that the majority of students recalled their instructor's LGBTQ+ disclosure. Although in the earlier study, the majority of participants reported that instructor LGBTQ+ disclosure had a positive impact on their overall experience in the course (Busch et al., 2022), in this study, the majority of participants reported an overall neutral impact. Importantly, in both studies, only a small percentage of participants reported a negative impact. LGBTQ+ students, women, and nonreligious students reported disproportionate benefits compared with their counterparts in both studies (Busch et al., 2022), but here we find that students with other marginalized identities, specifically having a history of anxiety or depression, and PEER and Asian students also reported disproportionate benefits compared with their respective counterparts.

This study adds to the growing evidence that instructor LGBTQ+ disclosure could benefit students from all marginalized groups by identifying potential role models and fostering a more inclusive environment (Cooper and Brownell, 2016; Busch et al., 2024b; Moreira-Bouchard et al., 2024; Busch et al., 2022; 2025). Furthermore, this study provides evidence that the geographic variation in state LGBTQ+ acceptance levels in the United States does not impact student perceptions of instructors disclosing LGBTQ+ identities in class.

Limitations and Future Directions

This study is descriptive in nature, which allows us to compare across demographic groups. Future studies could implement a quasi-experimental design (i.e., include a control section of the course without instructor LGBTQ+ disclosure) in order to directly assess the impact of instructor LGBTQ+ disclosure on student outcomes, although this was our original intention and proved to be logistically too challenging. Additional research is needed to understand how an instructor's other identities affect students’ reactions to the instructor coming out, particularly since holding another minoritized identity may cause students to have a more negative reaction to one's LGBTQ+ status (Arlee et al., 2019; Cyrus, 2017). Although we had an equal number of women and men in this sample, we only were able to recruit one nonbinary individual. There is a growing body of research indicating that the experiences of trans and nonbinary/gender nonconforming individuals in biology are distinct and often more negative than cisgender individuals (Casper et al., 2022; Cooper et al., 2025). Additionally, we only had representation of individuals with the race/ethnicity of white and Latino in our sample, so we cannot make any specific claims regarding the experiences of students with Asian, Black, or Indigenous instructors who reveal LGBTQ+ identities in the classroom.

In our study sample, we had a high percentage of student participants who identified as women (72%), which may be a reflection of the percentage of women who earn bachelor's degrees in biology (NCSES, 2023); furthermore, women are more likely than men to complete surveys (Porter and Whitcomb, 2005). Relatedly, we did not have enough genderqueer or nonbinary participants to include more than two gender categories in our regression models. Future work with larger and more gender diverse samples may have the statistical power to further disaggregate gender identities and disentangle the experiences of genderqueer and nonbinary undergraduates from women. The only mental health conditions that we considered in our analyses were depression and anxiety; we focused on them because they are the most common mental health challenges, but future work could expand to other mental health conditions, invisible disabilities, or students who identify as having autism or ADHD. Because LGBTQ+ scientists across STEM fields report unique experiences (Cech and Waidzunas, 2021; Barthelemy et al., 2022; Cooper et al., 2025), we hope future studies will examine the impact on students of instructor LGBTQ+ disclosure across STEM disciplines. This study is contextualized in the United States, so the results may not be generalizable in other countries. Future studies could explore the impact on students from instructor LGBTQ+ disclosure in other countries and cultural contexts. All of the instructors included in this study taught large-enrollment courses at 4-year research-intensive institutions, so the results may not be generalizable to other institution types or in other course contexts. Instructor LGBTQ+ disclosure may be more unexpected in large-enrollment course environments, and thus may be more impactful, because large-enrollment courses are often impersonal, but future studies could test this hypothesis in courses with various enrollment numbers. We intentionally focused on large-enrollment courses for statistical purposes. Because we gave the instructors flexibility with the way in which they disclosed their LGBTQ+ identities to their students, we have a conflation of pairing content with LGBTQ+ identity and a longer disclosure event. We accounted for LGBTQ+ acceptance at the state-level based on the location of the university in our model rather than where participants primarily grew up. However, given the extent to which LGBTQ+ acceptance in the state where the participant grew up and where they attended university matched, the results of this study are unlikely to change based on which state's LGBTQ+ acceptance we include in the model. We chose to base LGBTQ+ acceptance on the state of the university because we perceived that it would be more applicable and generalizable for LGBTQ+ instructors who may consider revealing their own identities to students, as instructors know the state that they teach in but typically have no knowledge or control over where specific students grew up.

Importantly, these data were collected in 2023. Since January 2025, there has been a substantial increase in anti-LGBTQ+ and especially anti-trans rhetoric and policies in the United States. This political landscape may affect both instructors’ feelings of safety in being open about their LGBTQ+ identities and students’ responses to disclosure. Although we hope that this work helps instructors consider potential student benefits of revealing their LGBTQ+ identities in class, we did not study the impact of coming out on instructors themselves in this study. We emphasize that this is a deeply personal decision and that instructors, in both low and high acceptance states, may not feel comfortable or safe revealing their LGBTQ+ identities. We encourage instructors to consider both the potential risk to themselves in addition to any benefit to students if they decide to reveal an LGBTQ+ identity in class.

CONCLUSION

Undergraduate science instructors are well-positioned to become role models of successful scientists for their students, particularly for students with similar identities. In this national study, nine undergraduate science instructors disclosed their LGBTQ+ identities to their students. End-of-semester survey results indicate that state LGBTQ+ acceptance does not affect students’ reactions to instructor LGBTQ+ disclosure in this sample. Furthermore, LGBTQ+ students as well as students with other marginalized identities—including women and nonbinary, PEER, and anxiety or depression—reported disproportionate benefits following instructor LGBTQ+ disclosure. Finally, most participants in this study agreed that instructor LGBTQ+ disclosure is appropriate regardless of state LGBTQ+ acceptance.