Perceived Changes in Attitudes and Behavioral Intentions Among Postsecondary Students Following Instructors’ Disclosures of Mental Illness and/or Neurodiversity

Abstract

Little is known about how postsecondary students experience instructors’ disclosures of mental illness and/or neurodiversity in the classroom. This exploratory study queried students’ (n = 330) understandings of how these revelations shaped their perceptions of disclosing instructors, behavioral intentions, and attitudes toward mental illness. Most students reported that instructors’ disclosures had positively influenced their perceptions of these educators and their attitudes toward mental illness. In addition, lower mental health stigma predicted more positive perceptions of, and behavioral intentions toward, these instructors. Implications for instructors, students, and postsecondary institutions are discussed. Study limitations and suggestions for further research are also delineated.

Keywords

mental illness instructors disclosure student outcomes postsecondary education

Over the last two decades, increasing attention has been paid to experiences of mental illness¹ and neurodiversity² among postsecondary (college and university) instructors across the United States and Canada (e.g., Bourgeault et al., 2022; Linden et al., 2021, Mantler et al., 2021). Postsecondary instructors report disproportionately higher rates of burnout³ and mental illness than the general public (Bourgeault et al., 2022; Mantler et al., 2021; Price & Kerschbaum, 2017), and the number of neurodiverse postsecondary instructors is also growing across the global West (Accardo et al., 2024). Given the persistent stigma surrounding mental illness (Meluch & Starcher, 2019) and neurodiversity (Mellifont, 2023), disclosing these identities carries risks. However, many individuals, including postsecondary instructors, do reveal experiences of mental illness or neurodivergence in both personal and professional contexts (Campbell, 2018; Koch, 2022; Quijada, 2021; Whitten, 2022).

To date, few researchers have explored how postsecondary students receive these disclosures. Studies of actual classroom disclosures (as opposed to vignettes) are even rarer and have focused on perceptions of disclosure appropriateness and the influence of these revelations on student perceptions of instructors and courses. How disclosures influence students’ behavioral intentions (e.g., course decisions), attitudes toward mental illness, or interpersonal experiences is unclear. To address this gap, we conducted an exploratory investigation of how postsecondary students experienced instructors’ disclosures of neurodiversity and/or mental illness within varied disciplines. We explored how students at a research-intensive Canadian university felt these disclosures had (or had not) shaped their perceptions of instructors, impacted academic and help-seeking behaviors, and influenced their broader attitudes toward mental illness, as well as their general perceptions of instructor disclosure. This study contributes to the literature by documenting how postsecondary students perceive instructors’ disclosures of several forms of mental illnesses and neurodiversity to have influenced their attitudes, behavioral intentions, and impressions of instructors in real-world settings while also attending to the personal and interpersonal characteristics that might shape their experiences.

Literature Review

Instructor Disclosures and Educational Outcomes

Research has established instructor self-disclosure as an effective means of improving student–instructor relationships and educational outcomes in postsecondary education. For example, instructors’ disclosures of personal information (e.g., family composition, marital status, hobbies, and everyday experiences) can increase positive feelings toward instructors and their courses (Hosek & Presley, 2018) and improve cognitive and affective learning (Goodboy et al., 2014). Disclosures of group identities (e.g., ethnicity) can also increase participation in classroom discussions (Henry & Thorsen, 2018). Disclosures are most likely to benefit relational and educational outcomes when students consider the information relevant to course content (Cayanus & Martin, 2008; Goodboy et al., 2014; Kaufmann & Frisby, 2017) and tend to be evaluated more positively by students who share similar experiences (such as a fear of public speaking, Meluch & Starcher, 2019).

In contrast, the disclosure of personal experiences or qualities students deem undesirable or inappropriate has been linked to adverse student outcomes and lower student ratings of instructors (Cayanus & Martin, 2008; Miller et al., 2014; Schrodt, 2013). At present, it is unclear whether mental illness and neurodiversity would be considered undesirable characteristics by Canadian postsecondary students, as findings on whether mental health stigma is lower in younger populations are mixed (e.g., Bradbury, 2020; Pescosolido et al., 2021). Amidst this ambiguity, researchers have called for further study of instructors’ disclosures of potentially stigmatized challenges, characteristics, or identities in postsecondary classrooms (Hosek & Presley, 2018).

How Students Experience Instructors’ Disclosures of Mental Illness and Neurodiversity

Information on how postsecondary students experience instructors’ disclosures of mental illness is sparse and primarily indirect. Autoethnographic works highlight the perceived benefits for students among disclosing instructors (Campbell, 2018; Koch, 2022; Quijada, 2021; Uthappa, 2018), such as motivating students living with mental illness or neurodiversity to pursue academic and professional goals, encouraging students to access mental health services (Koch, 2022; Quijada, 2021), and promoting the retention of diverse learners (Koch, 2022). Some instructors additionally believe that these disclosures benefit learning by enhancing course engagement (Burns, 2021) and providing students with opportunities to dismantle internalized and social stigma (Campbell, 2018; Uthappa, 2018).

Few studies have explored postsecondary students’ perspectives on these disclosures. Existing vignette studies have found that students rate an instructor who displayed behaviors consistent with depression and disclosed depression in the classroom lower on measures of character and competence than one who displayed behaviors but did not disclose to students (Meluch & Starcher, 2019), and that instructor approval ratings are lower for disclosures of mental illnesses compared to disclosures of physical illnesses (Hill et al., 2021). Interestingly, while mental illness disclosures negatively impacted student ratings overall, students with personal experiences of mental illness perceived these disclosures more positively than those without (Hill et al., 2021; Meluch & Starcher, 2019).

In addition to vignette studies, two studies have explored student perceptions of real-world instructor disclosures. Hiscock and Leigh (2020) investigated how postsecondary students perceived a STEM instructor’s disclosure of dyslexia. Although students valued their instructor’s transparency and were not “bothered” by this revelation, they also did not feel the disclosure was “helpful.” Most recently, Mohammed et al. (2024) investigated how students responded to an instructor’s disclosure of depression within an undergraduate physiology class. Over 90% of students felt it was appropriate for instructors to reveal personal experiences of depression to students. Most students (∼75%) also indicated the disclosure positively impacted their course experience. In contrast with vignette research by Meluch and Starcher (2019), the authors noted that perceptions of instructor competence increased after disclosure. Finally, in line with vignette studies, the team found that minoritized students and students with higher depressive symptoms experienced the disclosure more positively.

Contact Theory

Discussions of perceived student benefits of instructor disclosures often implicitly draw on Allport’s (1954) contact theory, which posits that direct, positive interactions with members of a stigmatized group can reduce stigma and prejudice. First proposed as a means to reduce stigma and prejudice toward racial/ethnic minority groups (Allport, 1954), the theory has since been extended to other groups, including individuals living with mental illness and/or neurodiversity. For example, a recent meta-analysis concluded that contact was associated with reduced stigma toward persons with mental illnesses immediately after interventions and at short-term and medium-term follow-ups (Maunder & White, 2019). Interestingly, the effect of contact was stronger among university samples than community samples.

The Present Study

While vignette research points to pervasive mental illness stigma among postsecondary students and warns of the risk of disclosing these identities in the classroom (Hill et al., 2021; Meluch & Starcher, 2019), survey investigations of real-world disclosures suggest few negative outcomes and notable benefits of this practice, particularly among students who are neurodiverse or live with mental illness (Hiscock & Leigh, 2020; Mohammed et al., 2024). Amid such variable findings, there is a need to further assess how specific factors, including student attitudes and demographics, influence students’ perceptions of postsecondary instructors’ disclosures of mental illness and/or neurodiversity. Moreover, while previous studies suggest that instructor disclosures of neurodiversity and/or mental illness might uniquely benefit students who share these identities (e.g., Koch, 2022; Mohammed et al., 2024), none have considered whether this is also the case for students with friends and family members who are neurodiverse or live with mental illness.

To further our understanding, we investigated how 330 students from diverse disciplines experienced instructors’ disclosures of neurodiversity and mental illness. Drawing on Allport’s (1954) contact theory, we examined how students understood these disclosures to have influenced their perceptions of, and behavioral intentions toward, disclosing instructors, as well as their attitudes toward mental illness more broadly. We also explored whether student characteristics, mental illness stigma, or mental health literacy predicted perceptions of disclosure events and instructors who disclose mental illnesses and/or neurodiversity. Given conflicting previous findings and the exploratory nature of the study, no formal hypotheses were developed.

Method

Participants

Our sample consisted of 330 students enrolled in undergraduate (n = 316; 95.8%) and graduate (n = 14; 4.2%) courses at a research-intensive university in Western Canada. All students were taught by instructors who disclosed neurodiversity and/or mental illness to students, in Kinesiology (n = 163; 49.2%), History (n = 79; 23.9%), Psychology (n = 44; 13.3%), Education (n = 38; 11.5%), and Engineering (n = 7; 2.1%). Participants’ ages ranged from 17 to 43 (M = 20.90, SD = 3.96). The majority (n = 215; 67.6%) self-identified as cisgender women, with 96 (30.2%) identifying as cisgender men, 6 (1.8%) as genderqueer or non-binary, and one (0.3%) as a transgender man. Most participants (n = 303; 95.6%) were domestic students. The majority (n = 230; 72.8%) were White. Others identified as multiracial (n = 15; 4.7%), South Asian (n = 12; 3.8%), Filipino (n = 11; 1.3%), Métis (n = 10; 3.2%), Black (n = 10; 3.2%), Arab (n = 7; 2.2%), Chinese (n = 7; 2.2%), Southeast Asian (n = 5; 1.6%), First Nations (n = 4; 1.3%), Latino/Hispanic (n = 2; 0.6%), and Korean (n = 1; 0.3%). Two participants (0.6%) preferred not to disclose their ethnicity. Over half of the participants (n = 197; 61.8%) indicated personal experiences of neurodiversity and/or mental illness (see Table 1). Of those who reported experiencing mental illness, 84.8% (n = 167) reported multiple diagnoses. Most (n = 264; 82.6%) participants also reported having at least one family member or close friend with experiences of neurodiversity or mental illness (see Table 1).

Table 1.

Experiences of Mental Disorders

	Personal	Family/friends
Mental health disorder	n (%)	n (%)
Anxiety disorder(s)	165 (51.9)	224 (70.4)
Depressive disorder(s)	117 (36.8)	211 (66.4)
Feeding or eating disorder(s)	58 (18.2)	75 (23.6)
Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder	58 (18.2)	140 (44.0)
Obsessive-compulsive disorder or related disorder(s)	32 (10.1)	58 (18.2)
Post-traumatic stress disorder or related disorder(s)	28 (8.8)	56 (17.6)
Sleep-wake disorder(s)	13 (4.1)	20 (6.3)
Learning disorder(s)	12 (3.8)	80 (25.2)
Bipolar disorder or related disorder(s)	10 (3.1)	84 (26.4)
Dissociative disorder(s)	10 (3.1)	12 (3.8)
Substance-related or addictive disorder(s)	8 (2.5)	65 (20.4)
Personality disorder(s)	6 (1.9)	27 (8.5)
Autism or other neurodevelopmental disorder(s)	5 (1.6)	58 (18.2)
Other disorder(s) (e.g., self-harm)	3 (0.9)	—
Schizophrenia or other psychotic disorder(s)	2 (0.6)	27 (8.5)
Elimination disorder(s)	1 (0.3)	1 (0.3)
Somatic symptom disorder or related disorder(s)	1 (0.3)	—
Disruptive, impulse-control, or conduct disorder(s)	—	11 (3.5)

Procedure

Five instructors known to regularly disclose mental illness and/or neurodiversity as part of their teaching practice were approached to assist with the study. All participating instructors self-identified as women, were between the ages of 38 and 45 (M = 42.80; SD = 2.77), and had been teaching for between 5 and 15 years. All were diagnosed with between two and six psychiatric conditions and reported disclosing one or more to student participants: attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), anxiety, disordered eating, depression, bipolar disorder, dyslexia, and autism. Three participants considered themselves to be living with mental illnesses, two described themselves as living with both mental illness and neurodiversity, and one identified as neurodivergent.

At the beginning of each term, instructors completed a short demographics questionnaire. Throughout the term, they tracked their disclosures, including who they disclosed to (entire class or individual students), the context of the disclosure, and what was disclosed. All instructors reported disclosing to the entire class at least once. Near the end of the term, members of the research team visited the classes of participating instructors to collect student data using online surveys. Instructors were not present during data collection, and student responses were anonymous. Participants first completed measures of mental health literacy and stigma. They then answered questions about their perceptions of the disclosing instructor and their behavioral intentions toward their instructor. Next, they indicated whether they remembered the instructor having disclosed mental illness and/or neurodiversity throughout the course, and if so, which disorder(s) or type(s) of neurodiversity was revealed. Of the 330 participants who completed the survey, 214 correctly remembered their instructor disclosing neurodiversity or mental illness. The 214 participants who correctly recalled such disclosures were queried about how these revelations influenced their perceptions of the instructor and their attitudes toward mental illness; they were also questioned about their attitudes toward these disclosures. Finally, all participants provided demographic information. The survey took approximately 15 min to complete. The study protocol was approved by the University of Saskatchewan Research Ethics Board.

Measures

Mental Health Literacy

Mental health literacy was measured using four items from the 35-item Mental Health Literacy Scale, which includes knowledge and confidence in seeking information about mental health and illness (e.g., “I am confident that I know where to seek information about mental illness”; O'Connor & Casey, 2015). We felt this aspect of mental health literacy was likely to have the greatest impact on students’ beliefs about instructor disclosure, while others (e.g., knowledge of self-treatment) seemed less applicable to the student–instructor dynamic. Participants responded to items using a five-point scale, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). In this study, the omega coefficient was .81.

Mental Illness Stigma

Mental illness stigma was measured using 16 items across four subscales from the 28-item Mental Illness Stigma Questionnaire (MISQ; Day et al., 2007) deemed relevant to the context of student–instructor relationships by the research team. Three items measured beliefs about mental illness treatability (e.g., “There are no effective treatments for mental illnesses”), seven measured mental illness anxiety (e.g., “I tend to feel anxious and nervous when I am around someone with a mental illness”), four measured perceptions of identifiability or visibility (e.g., “I can tell that someone has a mental illness by the way they talk”), and two measured beliefs about recovery (e.g., “People with mental illnesses will remain ill for the rest of their lives”). Participants responded using a 7-point scale ranging from 1 = completely disagree to 7 = completely agree; higher scores indicate greater mental illness stigma. Because we were interested in general mental illness stigma, we calculated a total score across all 16 items for each participant (range: 16–112). The omega coefficient for the total scale was .84.

Behavioral Intentions

Behavioral intentions toward instructors who disclosed neurodiversity and/or mental illness were measured using four items developed by the researchers. The questions asked participants about their desire to take another class with the instructor and willingness to approach the instructor for academic, professional, and/or personal issues (e.g., “How comfortable would you feel approaching this professor for academic assistance, now or in the future?”). We calculated a total score across these four items, with higher scores indicating more positive behavioral intentions. The omega coefficient for these questions in this study was .85.

Overall Evaluation of Instructor

Perceptions of the instructor were measured using 5 items developed by the researchers and inspired by common student evaluation constructs and mental illness stereotype scales. Students were asked to rate their instructor on the following qualities: inspiration, competence, approachability, sensitivity to students’ struggles, and respectability. We did not provide any definitions or examples of these qualities. Students responded on a five-point scale, ranging from 1 (not at all) to 5 (extremely). The omega coefficient in this study was .84.

Perceived Post-Disclosure Changes in Instructor Evaluations

Students’ sense of whether mental illness and/or neurodiversity disclosures impacted their perceptions of the instructor was measured using 5 items developed by the researchers to query changes in the same qualities described above (inspiration, competence, approachability, sensitivity, and respectability). Students responded to these items on a five-point scale, ranging from 1 (decreased a lot) to 5 (increased a lot). The omega coefficient for this measure was .87.

Perceived Post-Disclosure Changes in Behavioral Intentions

Students’ self-perceived changes in their desire to take another class with the instructor and willingness to approach the instructor for academic, professional, and/or personal issues following disclosure were measured using 4 items (e.g., “After learning that the instructor lives with and/or has a history of mental illness, my willingness to approach them for professional help:”). Students responded to these items on a five-point scale, ranging from 1 (decreased a lot) to 5 (increased a lot). The omega coefficient of these questions was .91.

Attitudinal Items

Two additional items were developed by the authors to assess students’ attitudes toward instructors disclosing mental illness in the classroom (“Do you think university instructors should disclose personal experiences with mental illness to their students, provided they feel comfortable doing so?”) and whether they felt their attitudes toward mental illness shifted following their instructor’s disclosure (“Did having an instructor with a mental illness influence your attitudes toward people with mental illness?”). Response options for the former item were 1 = no, 2 = unsure, and 3 = yes. For the latter item, they were 1 = yes, I have more negative attitudes toward individuals living with mental illness, 2 = no change, and 3 = yes, I have more positive attitudes toward individuals living with mental illness.

Analysis

Data analysis was performed using R (version 4.2.1; R Core Team, 2022). First, we examined and reported participant descriptives (means and standard deviations) of perceptions, behavioral intentions, changes, and mental health stigma. Then, we compared participants who did and did not remember disclosures, to determine whether there were any significant differences between these two groups that could influence our interpretation of the findings based on only those students who remembered disclosures, using t-tests and chi-squared tests. We then examined and reported descriptive statistics for our two attitudinal questions.

To explore relationships between students’ demographic variables, mental illness stigma, and mental health literacy, we developed six multilevel models (to account for student data nested within instructors/disciplines). We were interested in whether these predicted students’ perceptions of and behavioral intentions towards their instructors (models 1 and 2), perceived changes in these variables (models 3 and 4), and beliefs about changes in attitudes toward mental illness and whether instructors should disclose (models 5 and 6). We began by fitting a null model for each model and then added five student demographic variables (gender, ethnicity, personal mental illness/neurodiversity experience, friend/family mental illness/neurodiversity experience, and age) sequentially. Significant predictors were then included in the final model, along with mental illness stigma and mental health literacy.

Results

Means and standard deviations for the main study variables are presented in Table 2. Total mean scores for mental illness stigma fell well below the midpoint, suggesting that students had overall positive attitudes toward individuals with mental illness. Total mean scores were also above the scale midpoint for mental health literacy, indicating that participants had a relatively high level of knowledge about mental health. Total mean scores for perceptions and behavioral intentions were above their midpoints, suggesting that participants had generally positive perceptions and behavioral intentions toward instructors who disclosed mental illness and/or neurodiversity. Total mean scores for perceived post-disclosure changes in instructor evaluations and behavioral intentions were also above the midpoint, which indicates that participants generally believed that their perceptions of and behavioral intentions toward their instructor became more positive post-disclosure. As is evident in Table 3, mean scores for each individual item on the latter two measures also fell above the midpoint (i.e., 3). Except for one participant, all students who remembered these disclosures (n = 214) felt their evaluations and behavioral intentions either did not change or improved following their professor’s disclosure.

Table 2.

Scale Descriptives

Measure	M(SD)	Midpoint
Mental illness stigma^a	43.60 (9.58)	64
Mental health literacy^a	14.57 (3.02)	12
Perceptions^a	22.38 (2.54)	15
Behavioral intentions^a	17.32 (2.54)	12
Changes in perceptions^b	19.43 (3.38)	15
Changes in behavioral intentions	14.22 (2.83)	12.5

^aAll participants (N = 330).

^bOnly participants who correctly remembered disclosures (n = 214).

Table 3.

Descriptives for Shifting Perceptions and Behavioral Intentions Toward Professor

Items	M(SD)	Response frequencies = n (%)
My sense of their approachability	4.04 (.85)	Did not change = 73 (34.1%)
		Increased a little = 59 (27.6%)
		Increased a lot = 81 (37.9%)
My sense of their competency	3.43 (.76)	Decreased a little = 1 (0.5%)
		Did not change = 153 (71.5%)
		Increased a little = 25 (11.7%)
		Increased a lot = 34 (15.9%)
My respect for the instructor	3.96 (.84)	Did not change = 79 (36.9%)
		Increased a little = 63 (29.4%)
		Increased a lot = 71 (33.2%)
My sense that they are inspirational	3.90 (.78)	Did not change = 75 (35.0%)
		Increased a little = 83 (38.8%)
		Increased a lot = 54 (25.2%)
My sense of their sensitivity to student struggles	4.21 (.80)	Decreased a little = 1 (0.5%)
		Did not change = 47 (22.0%)
		Increased a little = 71 (33.2%)
		Increased a lot = 94 (43.9%)
My desire to take another class with them	3.45 (.76)	Did not change = 152 (71.0%)
		Increased a little = 26 (12.1%)
		Increased a lot = 35 (16.4%)
My willingness to approach them for academic help	3.55 (.80)	Did not change = 136 (63.6%)
		Increased a little = 36 (16.8%)
		Increased a lot = 41 (19.2%)
My willingness to approach them for professional help	3.51 (.74)	Did not change = 136 (63.6%)
		Increased a little = 45 (21.0%)
		Increased a lot = 32 (15.0%)
My willingness to approach them for help with personal issues	3.77 (.80)	Did not change = 97 (45.3%)
		Increased a little = 67 (31.3%)
		Increased a lot = 49 (22.9%)

Note. Only participants who remembered their instructor’s disclosure responded to these items. Response options are only shown when n > 0.

Participants who remembered the disclosure and those who did not differed significantly in certain variables. Those who remembered a disclosure scored higher (M = 14.89, SD = 3.05) on mental health literacy than those who did not (M = 13.97, SD = 2.89), p = .006. They also scored lower on overall stigma (M = 42.51, SD = 9.28), stigma related to treatment (M = 6.43, SD = 2.48), and anxiety (M = 16.88, SD = 6.78) than those who did not (overall: M = 45.32, SD = 9.88; treatment: M = 7.48, SD = 2.68; anxiety: M = 18.80, SD = 6.85), p = .010, p < .001, and p = .015, respectively. Finally, those who remembered a disclosure reported more positive overall evaluations of their instructors (M = 22.81, SD = 2.29) and more intentions to engage with the professor in the future (M = 17.70, SD = 2.23) than those who did not (evaluation: M = 21.59, SD = 2.79; intentions: M = 16.61, SD = 2.91), ps < .001.

Next, students who remembered disclosures were asked whether they felt having an instructor with a mental illness influenced their attitudes toward mental health challenges, as well as whether they believed instructors should disclose their personal experiences of mental illness to their students. A total of 62 (29.0%) students reported having more positive attitudes toward individuals living with mental illness following disclosure, while 146 (68.2%) stated that they experienced no change in attitudes. Only one (0.5%) believed they held more negative attitudes. Most (n = 147; 68.7%) students believed professors should disclose their experiences of mental illness if they feel comfortable doing so. An additional 50 (23.4%) students were unsure, and 11 (5.1%) students believed professors should not disclose their mental illness experiences to their students.

Multilevel Models

Our first model explored predictors of students’ perceptions of their instructors. Ethnicity, personal mental illness/neurodiversity, and familial/friend mental illness/neurodiversity were not significant predictors, ps > .397. Gender was a significant predictor, such that women and gender-diverse students rated their instructors more positively than men, b = 0.97, t (308.43) = 3.32, p = .001. Age was also a significant predictor, such that older students perceived their instructors more positively than younger students, b = 0.11, t (304.56) = 2.66, p = .008. Mental illness stigma significantly predicted students’ perceptions of their instructors, b = −0.03, t (304.52) = −2.41, p = .016, such that lower mental illness stigma predicted more positive perceptions; but mental health literacy did not, b = 0.09, t (304.48) = 1.91, p = .057.

Our second model explored predictors of students’ behavioral intentions toward their instructors. Personal mental illness/neurodiversity, familial/friend mental illness/neurodiversity, age, and ethnicity were not significant predictors, ps > .172. Gender was a significant predictor, such that women and gender-diverse students had more positive behavioral intentions than men, b = 0.71, t (307.97) = 2.37, p = .018. Mental illness stigma significantly predicted students’ behavioral intentions, b = −0.03, t (303.88) = −2.20, p = .029, as did mental health literacy, b = 0.14, t (303.77) = 2.99, p = .003, such that lower mental illness stigma, and higher mental health literacy, predicted more positive behavioral intentions towards instructors.

Our third model explored predictors of perceived post-disclosure changes in students’ perceptions of their instructors. Personal mental illness/neurodiversity and age were not significant predictors, ps > .152. Gender was a significant predictor, such that women and gender-diverse students had more positive perceived post-disclosure changes in perceptions than men, b = 1.09, t (195.47) = 2.156, p = .032. Ethnicity was also a predictor, such that White students had more positive perceived changes than non-White students, b = −1.14, t (192.94) = −2.14, p = .033. Finally, familial/friend mental illness/neurodiversity was a predictor, such that students who had family or friends living with these realities had more positive perceived changes than those who did not, b = 1.89, t (193.84) = 3.38, p < .001. However, neither mental illness stigma, b = 0.01, t (193.06) = 0.56, p = .579, nor mental health literacy, b = −0.01, t (193.88) = −0.11, p = .911, significantly predicted perceived changes in instructor evaluation.

Our fourth model explored predictors of perceived post-disclosure changes in behavioral intentions toward instructors. Familial/friend mental illness/neurodiversity significantly predicted perceived changes in behavioral intentions, b = 1.00, t (193.2) = 2.15, p = .033, such that those with family or friends with mental health disorders and/or neurodiversity reported more positive perceived changes in behavioral intentions than those who did not. Gender was also a significant predictor, b = 1.19, t (195.0) = 2.82, p = .005, such that women experienced more positive changes in behavioral intentions than men. Ethnicity was also a significant predictor, b = −1.20, t (192.5) = −2.72, p = .007, such that White students experienced more positive changes in behavioral intentions than non-White students. Finally, neither mental health stigma, b = 0.00, t (192.7) = −0.34, p = .700, nor mental health literacy, b = 0.00, t (193.3) = 0.01, p = .993, predicted perceived changes in behavioral intentions.

Our fifth model examined predictors of perceived changes in attitude towards mental illness challenges. As only one participant reported negative change, we ran a logistic model comparing only no change and positive changes in attitude. None of our demographic variables were significant predictors, ps > .127. Mental illness stigma was a significant predictor of overall perceived change, b = 0.04, z = 2.04, p = .041, such that students with greater stigma had higher odds of reporting positive post-disclosure changes in their attitudes. Mental health literacy was not a significant predictor, b = −0.05, z = −0.94, p = .349.

Finally, our last model explored predictors of beliefs about disclosure. We ran a logistic model comparing participants who said that instructors should not disclose mental illness, or were unsure whether they should reveal this information, to those who said instructors should disclose. Gender was a significant predictor, b = 0.72, z = 2.04, p = .041, such that women and gender-diverse students were more likely to report that instructors should disclose their mental illness than men. All other demographic variables were non-significant, ps > .104. Mental illness stigma was not a significant predictor of beliefs about disclosure, b = −0.01, z = −0.67, p = .505, and neither was mental health literacy, b = 0.04, z = 0.73, p = .466.

Discussion

The purpose of the study was to explore (1) how postsecondary instructors’ mental illness/neurodiversity disclosures influenced students’ perceptions of and behavioral intentions toward their instructor as well as their attitudes toward mental illness; (2) how students’ perceptions and behavioral intentions were related to their attitudes toward mental illness and mental illness literacy scores; (3) whether students believed instructors should disclose mental illnesses and/or neurodiversity in the classroom; and (4) how individual differences influence student response patterns (e.g., age and gender). It expanded on past work by considering how both student perceptions and behavioral intentions might be influenced by instructors’ disclosures and examining whether individual differences in mental illness literacy, experiences with mental illness (self or close others), attitudes toward mental illness, age, gender, and ethnicity may impact perceptions of this practice across various disciplines.

Perceptions and Behavioral Intentions

Our findings indicate that, overall, students had positive perceptions and behavioral intentions toward instructors who disclosed mental illness and/or neurodiversity. Students rated their instructors positively on all measured qualities and expressed positive intentions regarding enrolling in future courses taught by the instructor and seeking the instructor’s academic, professional, or personal assistance. Most students also reported that their perceptions and intentions either did not change or became more positive after learning their instructor lived with mental illness and/or neurodiversity. These findings are in line with previous research exploring real-world disclosures in postsecondary classrooms (Hiscock & Leigh, 2020; Mohammed et al., 2024) and contradict vignette studies which demonstrated lower student ratings of hypothetical instructors who disclose mental illness (Meluch & Starcher, 2019). Study design may account for these discrepancies. According to Allport’s (1954) contact hypothesis, intergroup stigma can be reduced by increasing contact between individuals within and outside stigmatized groups. Consequently, students may perceive actual instructors who disclose mental illness and/or neurodiversity in the classroom more positively than hypothetical ones (Manago & Krendl, 2023; Pinfold et al., 2003). However, it is also possible that studies conducted in real-world classrooms are more susceptible to social desirability biases (answering in ways that conform to prevailing social norms) than their hypothetical counterparts (Henderson et al., 2012). Students might also have believed their perceptions had become more positive, but their actual perceptions may not have changed or may have changed in the opposite direction (Nisbett & Wilson, 1977); thus, future research should employ a pre–post design that can control for social desirability biases and account for actual changes in perception.

Current and previous findings (Hiscock & Leigh, 2020; Mohammed et al., 2024) suggest that concerns about diminished student perceptions following instructor disclosure of mental illness might be overstated among postsecondary instructors (e.g., Price et al., 2017). Most students across all disciplines and levels of study reported that learning their instructor lived with mental illness did not negatively impact their perceptions of the instructor. It might be that instructors’ concerns about stigmatized reactions from students are more reflective of internalized stigma and a tendency to overestimate the negative attitudes of contemporary young adults toward persons with mental illness (see Quinn et al., 2015).

We also found that students’ perceptions and behavioral intentions toward their instructors were inversely associated with mental illness stigma, and behavioral intentions were positively associated with mental health literacy. These findings suggest that students with less mental illness stigma had more positive perceptions of their instructor and that students with less mental health stigma and greater mental health literacy had more positive behavioral intentions toward their instructor. These findings are consistent with reports that personal knowledge and interpersonal interactions (Riaz Choudry et al., 2016) shape attitudes and beliefs about mental illness, consistent with Allport’s (1954) contact theory.

Attitudinal Changes Toward Mental Illness and Beliefs About Instructors Disclosing

Students in our sample overwhelmingly reported that having an instructor who disclosed mental illness and/or neurodiversity had no effect (68.2%) or improved (29.0%) their attitudes toward mental illness. This finding supports Allport’s (1954) contact hypothesis and aligns with studies demonstrating that exposure can improve attitudes towards people with mental illness (Maunder & White, 2019). In line with Hiscock and Leigh (2020) and Mohammed et al. (2024), this study also provides support for instructors’ perceptions of improved student attitudes following disclosure (e.g., Koch, 2022; Quijada, 2021; Uthappa, 2018).

Interestingly, we found that students with greater mental illness stigma had higher odds of reporting that their instructors’ disclosure positively influenced their perceptions of their instructors. However, stigma was relatively low in our sample, and even those with greater mental illness stigma had a low-to-moderate level of stigma overall. These findings may also be due to social desirability (i.e., students with greater stigma may be “compensating” by reporting overall positive changes in perception) or changes in unmeasured domains (e.g., instructor “warmth”). Future research should further explore the relationship between mental illness stigma and perceptions of disclosing instructors among students with more negative attitudes toward mental illness.

Demographic-Related Differences

In terms of gender, women and gender-diverse students reported significantly more positive perceptions and behavioral intentions toward disclosing instructors than men, and more positive shifts in their perceptions and behavioral intentions following disclosure. They were also more likely to report that instructors should disclose mental illness and/or neurodiversity in the classroom than men. These findings are consistent with Mohammed et al. (2024) and broader research showing that, compared to men, women have more positive attitudes toward persons with mental illness (Lee et al., 2020).

We also found that students with family and friends who were neurodiverse or lived with mental illness were more likely to report positive post-disclosure shifts in instructor perceptions and behavioral intentions. These findings expand upon works noting unique benefits to postsecondary students who share experiences with disclosing instructors (e.g., Fairlie et al., 2014; Mohammed et al., 2024) by emphasizing that these revelations may also be particularly impactful for students who have close loved ones who are neurodiverse or living with mental illness. An increased sense of belonging or valued practical support (e.g., class accommodations due to a loved one’s mental health problems; insight into how to support a loved one) might drive these intentions.

Interestingly, personal experience of mental illness and/or neurodiversity among students was not a significant predictor in our models. These findings are inconsistent with Mohammed et al. (2024). However, instructors in our study disclosed living with various forms of neurodiversity and mental illnesses, and we did not match student–instructor diagnoses in our analyses. Given that past research has found that mental illness stereotypes and stigma vary across diagnoses (e.g., Sadler et al., 2012), it is possible that disclosures are particularly impactful when diagnoses are matched between instructor and student.

Limitations and Future Directions

Though exploratory in nature, the current study’s findings should be considered within the context of several limitations. First, we explored student perceptions of change (data collected at a single point in time, end of term) rather than actual change. We felt it was unethical to delay instructor disclosures, as early disclosures (e.g., in syllabi posted before the start of the term) were central to some instructors’ teaching practices, making it difficult to collect pre-disclosure data. We were also concerned about the feasibility of an adequately controlled pre-post design, as students could have previously taken courses with their instructor and/or learned about their professor’s disclosures from other sources (e.g., speaking with other students). We were also unable to explore differences across mental illness diagnoses or types of neurodiversity, as several instructors disclosed more than one of these lived realities to students. Consequently, we were unable to determine whether student experiences differed based on which diagnosis/type of neurodiversity was disclosed. This also prevented us from exploring whether students’ experience with specific mental illnesses or types of neurodiversity led to more favorable perceptions or behavioral intentions among students.

Second, all our instructors identified as women. Research has demonstrated that attitudes toward women with mental illness tend to be more positive than toward men with mental illness (Holzinger et al., 2011). Similarly, our analysis was limited by a lack of participant gender diversity: most participants identified as women (n = 215; 67.6%). This is significant, as men tend to hold more negative attitudes towards mental illness (Bradbury, 2020).

Third, we did not measure social desirability and thus could not control for it. It is possible that some students’ responses were based on a desire to present themselves positively (e.g., by saying they saw an instructor as more inspirational after a disclosure because they believe that is what “should” happen), rather than their actual beliefs or perceptions of their experiences.

Finally, when asking students to rate their instructors on specific qualities, we did not provide definitions or examples of these qualities. It is possible, then, that personal definitions or thoughts about these qualities may have influenced our results. Differences in definitions may also have led to differences in whether students reported changes in perceptions; for example, a student whose definition of instructor competence was mostly based on their grades may have perceived less change than a student whose definition was mostly based on the ability of the instructor to connect with their students. These issues could be mitigated in future studies by providing students with explicit definitions or examples of rated qualities.

Additional research is needed to address several limitations and shortcomings of the current work. First, future investigations should apply an intersectional approach and strive for a more diverse sample of both instructors and students. This would allow investigators, for example, to determine whether instructors’ gender influences students’ experiences of mental illness/neurodiversity disclosures or whether students’ attitudes toward disclosing instructors differ based on an instructor’s ethnicity. Second, similar studies should employ longitudinal designs to assess the extent to which instructors’ disclosures lead to real, long-term changes in students’ attitudes and behaviors toward persons with mental illness. Third, future research should consider how the impact of instructor disclosure varies based on the type of mental illness/neurodiversity disclosed, particularly given research on differences in stigma across various lived realities (e.g., Valery & Prouteau, 2020) and whether the tendency to frame personal experiences in terms of “neurodiversity” or “mental illness” shapes students’ perceptions of instructors or behavioral intentions. Finally, future investigations should attend to known challenges and factors that could impact how effective instructor disclosures might be in reducing prejudice and destigmatizing mental illness and neurodiversity among students. In line with Allport’s contact theory (Paluck et al., 2019), exploring issues of generalization (determining whether positive experiences with individual instructors generalize to the broader group) and anxiety (determining whether worries related to instructor disclosures spur stereotype reliance and counteract the potential benefits of the interaction) would be of notable benefit to this body of scholarship.

Implications

Despite its limitations, the present study has important pedagogical and practical implications for postsecondary education. Pedagogically, it suggests that instructor revelations of mental illness and/or neurodiversity are unlikely to negatively impact students’ perceptions of the instructor, student–instructor relationships, or classroom experiences for most students. In fact, such revelations might benefit student perceptions, enhance perceived approachability, and increase students’ desire to take additional courses with disclosing instructors. Our findings suggest that common concerns around student stigma, avoidance, or discrimination expressed by postsecondary instructors who are considering disclosing neurodiversity or mental illness (e.g., Koch, 2022; Quijada, 2021; Uthappa, 2018) might be overstated, at least in contemporary Western Canada. Indeed, given that anticipated stigma and internalized stigma are positively correlated (Quinn et al., 2015), some instructors might tend to overestimate the potential risks of disclosing these lived realities to students. This possibility should be further explored.

These revelations might also promote students’ academic success and personal well-being through increased help-seeking and reduced internalized stigma. Instructor disclosure of mental illness and/or neurodiversity increased perceptions of instructor approachability and the likelihood of seeking their advice and support for academic, professional, and personal challenges. This finding suggests that instructor disclosure practices could be strategically aligned with existing advising and counseling systems. These instructors, when equipped with mental health first-aid training and clear referral pathways, could play a pivotal role in early intervention and support for students in need.

Particularly positive reactions to instructors’ disclosures among students with experiences of mental illness and neurodiversity (personal or close others) suggest that these encounters might uniquely benefit such students. This is important, as mental illness and neurodiversity rates are high among postsecondary students globally and increasing across Canada (Linden et al., 2021). High attrition rates among this student population suggest that many students who are neurodiverse or experiencing mental illness are not connecting with adequate health and education services (Hamilton & Petty, 2023). Indeed, studies in Canada and elsewhere suggest that few postsecondary students seek help when experiencing psychological and emotional challenges (Statistics Canada, 2011), with some estimating treatment-seeking to be as low as 10% (Moghimi et al., 2023). Perceived stigma is a common barrier to help-seeking among persons experiencing mental health challenges (Moghimi et al., 2023). Where instructors’ disclosures of mental illness and/or neurodiversity can reduce internalized stigma, these practices might promote help-seeking among students experiencing psychological challenges.

The current findings also reinforce Allport’s contact theory (Allport, 1954; Maunder & White, 2019), suggesting that exposure to instructors with lived experiences of mental illness or neurodiversity may have a positive influence on students’ attitudes toward these lived realities. Instructors’ disclosures were said to be associated with improved attitudes toward persons with mental illness more broadly, suggesting that instructors who are open about personal experiences of mental illness and/or neurodiversity might contribute to more inclusive campuses. As such, these intentional, pedagogically relevant disclosures may offer a potent complement to formal anti-stigma education efforts.

Given the positive student responses and pedagogical benefits of these practices, postsecondary institutions should foster environments where such disclosures are safe and supported and where negative repercussions are minimized. This includes offering training and resources to help faculty navigate identity disclosures and anticipate and manage any ensuing challenges. Establishing peer mentorship networks or communities of practice would further support neurodiverse instructors and those with mental illnesses by creating spaces to share personal experiences, reduce isolation, and build collective wisdom.

The current study also underscores the need for postsecondary institutions to invest in robust anti-stigma initiatives and mental health literacy programs that address the needs of both students and instructors. The finding that lower mental illness stigma was associated with more positive perceptions of, and behavioral intentions toward, instructors with mental illness and/or neurodiversity implies that reducing mental illness stigma will benefit both students and instructors who live with these realities. Student reports suggest that instructors with lived experience of neurodiversity and mental illness could provide authentic and effective support to such efforts—contributing personal insights, serving as campus advocates, and helping to develop strategies informed by local challenges (Global Anti-Stigma Alliance, 2024).

Finally, institutional policies and procedures should reflect the realities and risks of disclosing potentially stigmatized identities. Student evaluation tools may need to be revised to account for potential bias against instructors. Additionally, institutions should develop or review formal disclosure policies to ensure they align with broader commitments to diversity, equity, and inclusion, thereby protecting the well-being of both students and faculty.

Conclusion

In this exploratory study, postsecondary students generally reported neutral to positive perceptions of instructors who disclosed mental illness and/or neurodiversity, with few indicating negative impacts. Lower mental illness stigma and higher mental health literacy were associated with more favorable perceptions and behavioral intentions toward disclosing instructors. These findings suggest that instructors’ concerns about student backlash following disclosure may be overstated, particularly in contemporary postsecondary settings. Continued research is needed to examine longer-term effects of disclosure, variations across identities and disciplines, and conditions under which such disclosures are most beneficial.

Footnotes

ORCID iDs

Ana Carolina de Barros

Jan Gelech

Jake Bergen

Funding

The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was partially supported by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada through the Explore Grant Program/Not numbered.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Notes

References

Accardo

A. L.

Bomgardner

E. M.

Rubinstein

M. B.

Woodruff

(2024). Valuing neurodiversity on campus: Perspectives and priorities of neurodivergent students, faculty, and professional staff. In: Journal of diversity in higher education. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1037/dhe0000571

Allport

(1954). The nature of prejudice. Basic Books.

American Psychiatric Association . (2022). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed., text rev). American Psychiatric Association Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.books.9780890425787

Bourgeault

Mantler

Power

(2022). Mental health in academia: The challenges faculty face predate the pandemic and require systemic solutions. Academic Matters. https://academicmatters.ca/mental-health-in-academia-the-challenges-faculty-face-predate-the-pandemic-and-require-systemic-solutions/

Bradbury

(2020). Mental health stigma: The impact of age and gender on attitudes. Community Mental Health Journal, 56(5), 933–938. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10597-020-00559-x

Burns

V. F.

(2021). The sober professor: Reflections on the sober paradox, sober phobia, and disclosing an alcohol recovery identity in academia. Contemporary Drug Problems, 48(3), 223–240. https://doi.org/10.1177/00914509211031092

Campbell

R. D.

(2018). Disclosure in teaching: Using personal mental health experiences to facilitate teaching and learning in clinical social work practice. Reflections: Narratives of Professional Helping, 24(2), 44–48. https://reflectionsnarrativesofprofessionalhelping.org/index.php/Reflections/article/view/1644

Cayanus

J. L.

Martin

M. M.

(2008). Teacher self-disclosure: Amount, relevance, and negativity. Communication Quarterly, 56(3), 325–341. https://doi.org/10.1080/01463370802241492

Day

E. N.

Edgren

Eshleman

(2007). Measuring stigma toward mental illness: Development and application of the mental illness stigma scale. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 37(10), 2191–2219. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2007.00255.x

10.

Fairlie

R. W.

Hoffman

Oreopoulos

(2014). A community college instructor like me: Race and ethnicity interactions in the classroom. American Economic Review, 104(8), 2567–2591. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.104.8.2567

11.

Global Anti-Stigma Alliance . (2024). Global anti-stigma alliance. https://antistigma.global/

12.

Goodboy

A. K.

Carton

S. T.

Goldman

Z. W.

Gozanski

T. A.

Tyler

W. J. C.

Johnson

N. R.

(2014). Discouraging instructional dissent and facilitating students' learning experiences through instructor self-disclosure. The Southern Communication Journal, 79(2), 114–129. https://doi.org/10.1080/1041794X.2013.865256

13.

Hamilton

L. G.

Petty

(2023). Compassionate pedagogy for neurodiversity in higher education: A conceptual analysis. Frontiers in Psychology, 14(3), 1093290. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1093290

14.

Henderson

Evans-Lacko

Flach

Thornicroft

(2012). Responses to mental health stigma questions: The importance of social desirability and data collection method. The Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 57(3), 152–160. https://doi.org/10.1177/070674371205700304

15.

Henry

Thorsen

(2018). Teachers' self-disclosures and influences on students' motivation: A relational perspective. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 24(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2018.1441261

16.

Hill

K. J.

Martischewsky

M. J.

Erickson

C. A.

(2021). Information type influences students' perceptions of faculty self-disclosures. Teaching of Psychology, 48(3), 215–220. https://doi.org/10.1177/0098628320952408

17.

Hiscock

Leigh

(2020). Exploring perceptions of and supporting dyslexia in teachers in higher education in STEM. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 57(6), 714–723. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2020.1764377

18.

Holzinger

Floris

Schomerus

Carta

M. G.

Angermeyer

M. C.

(2011). Gender differences in public beliefs and attitudes about mental disorder in Western countries: A systematic review of population studies. Epidemiology and Psychiatric Sciences, 21(1), 73–85. https://doi.org/10.1017/s2045796011000552

19.

Hosek

A. M.

Presley

(2018). College student perceptions of the (in)appropriateness and functions of teacher disclosure. College Teaching, 66(2), 63–72. https://doi.org/10.1080/87567555.2017.1385587

20.

Kaufmann

Frisby

B. N.

(2017). Dimensions of instructor disclosure: Implications for rhetorical and relational goals of instruction. Communication Research Reports, 34(3), 221–229. https://doi.org/10.1080/08824096.2017.1286469

21.

Koch

L. C.

(2022). Disclosure in the classroom and beyond: The perspectives of a professor with mental illnesses. Psychological Services, 19(1), 32–34. https://doi.org/10.1037/ser0000514

22.

Lee

H. Y.

Hwang

Ball

J. G.

Lee

Albright

D. L.

(2020). Mental health literacy affects mental health attitude: Is there a gender difference? American Journal of Health Behavior, 44(3), 282–291. https://doi.org/10.5993/ajhb.44.3.1

23.

Linden

Boyes

Stuart

(2021). Cross-sectional trend analysis of the NCHA II survey data on Canadian postsecondary student mental health and wellbeing from 2013 to 2019. BMC Public Health, 21(1), 590. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-021-10622-1

24.

Manago

Krendl

A. C.

(2023). Cultivating contact: How social norms can reduce mental illness stigma in college populations. Stigma and Health, 8(1), 61–71. https://doi.org/10.1037/sah0000363

25.

Mantler

Tulk

Power

Simkin

Boateng

Mawko

Bourgeault

(2021). Mental health, accommodations, and leaves of absence in academia. Healthy Professional Worker Partnership – Academia. https://www.healthyprofwork.com/academia/#preliminary-findings

26.

Maunder

R. D.

White

F. A.

(2019). Intergroup contact and mental health stigma: A comparative effectiveness meta-analysis. Clinical Psychology Review, 72(1), Article 101749. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2019.101749

27.

McCann

Holt

(2009). An exploration of burnout among lone university professors. Journal of Distance Education, 23(3), 97–110. https://www.ijede.ca/index.php/jde/article/view/620

28.

Mellifont

(2023). Ableist ivory towers: A narrative review informing about the lived experiences of neurodivergent staff in contemporary higher education. Disability and Society, 38(5), 865–886. https://doi.org/10.1080/09687599.2021.1965547

29.

Meluch

A. L.

Starcher

(2019). The stigmatization of mental health disclosure in the college classroom: Student perceptions of instructor credibility and the benefits of disclosure. In Lippert

L. R.

Hall

R. D.

Miller-Ott

A. E.

Davis

D. C.

(Eds.), Communicating mental health: History, contexts, and perspectives (pp. 147–166). Lexington Books.

30.

Miller

A. N.

Katt

J. A.

Brown

Sivan

S. A.

(2014). The relationship of instructor self-disclosure, nonverbal immediacy, and credibility to student incivility in the college classroom. Communication Education, 63(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/03634523.2013.835054

31.

Moghimi

Stephenson

Gutierrez

Jagayat

Layzell

Patel

McCart

Gibney

Langstaff

Ayonrinde

Khalid-Khan

Milev

Snelgrove-Clarke

Soares

Omrani

Alavi

(2023). Mental health challenges, treatment experiences, and care needs of postsecondary students: A cross-sectional mixed-methods study. BMC Public Health, 23(1), 655. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-023-15452-x

32.

Mohammed

T. F.

Doud

Brownell

S. E.

Cooper

K. M.

(2024). The upside to depression: Undergraduates benefit from an instructor revealing depression in a large-enrollment physiology course. Advances in Physiology Education, 48(4), 884–897. https://doi.org/10.1152/advan.00074.2024

33.

Nisbett

R. E.

Wilson

T. D.

(1977). Telling more than we can know: Verbal reports on mental processes. Psychological Review, 84(3), 231–259. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.84.3.231

34.

O'Connor

Casey

(2015). The mental health literacy scale (MHLS): A new scale-based measure of mental health literacy. Psychiatry Research, 229(1–2), 511–516. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2015.05.064

35.

Paluck

E. L.

Green

S. A.

Green

D. P.

(2019). The contact hypothesis re-evaluated. Behavioural Public Policy, 3(2), 129–158. https://doi.org/10.1017/bpp.2018.25

36.

Pescosolido

B. A.

Halpern-Manners

Luo

Perry

(2021). Trends in public stigma of mental illness in the US, 1996-2018. JAMA Network Open, 4(12), e2140202. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.40202

37.

Pinfold

Toulmin

Thornicroft

Huxley

Farmer

Graham

(2003). Reducing psychiatric stigma and discrimination: Evaluation of educational interventions in UK secondary schools. British Journal of Psychiatry, 182(4), 342–346. https://doi.org/10.1192/bjp.182.4.342

38.

Price

Kerschbaum

S. L.

(2017). Promoting supportive academic environments for faculty with mental illnesses: Resource guide and suggestions for practice. Temple University Collaborative. https://tucollaborative.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/Promoting-Supportive-Academic-Environments-for-Faculty-with-Mental-Illnesses-Resource-Guide-and-Suggestions-for-Practice.pdf

39.

Price

Salzer

M. S.

O’Shea

Kerschbaum

(2017). Disclosure of mental disability by college and university faculty: The negotiation of accommodations, supports, and barriers. Disability Studies Quarterly, 37(2). https://doi.org/10.18061/dsq.v37i2.5487

40.

Quijada

M. A.

(2021). My mental health struggle in academia: What I wish all business school faculty, students, and administration knew. Journal of Management Education, 45(1), 19–42. https://doi.org/10.1177/1052562920958433

41.

Quinn

D. M.

Williams

M. K.

Welsz

B. M.

(2015). From discrimination to internalized mental illness stigma: The mediating roles of anticipated discrimination and anticipated stigma. Psychiatric Rehabilitation Journal, 3(2), 103–108. https://doi.org/10.1037/prj0000136

42.

R Core Team . (2022). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. https://www.R-project.org/

43.

Riaz Choudry

Mani

Chiau Ming

Mehmood Khan

(2016). Beliefs and perception about mental health issues: A meta-synthesis. Neuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment, 12, 2807–2818. https://doi.org/10.2147/NDT.S111543

44.

Sadler

M. S.

Meagor

E. L.

Kaye

K. E.

(2012). Stereotypes of mental disorders differ in competence and warmth. Social Science & Medicine, 74(6), 915–922. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2011.12.019

45.

Schrodt

(2013). Content relevance and students' comfort with disclosure as moderators of instructor disclosures and credibility in the college classroom. Communication Education, 62(4), 352–375. https://doi.org/10.1080/03634523.2013.807348

46.

Statistics Canada . (2011). Canadian community health survey: Mental health. Retrieved from: https://www23.statcan.gc.ca/imdb-bmdi/instrument/5105_Q1_V3-eng.pdf

47.

Uthappa

N. R.

(2018). The uses of disclosure: Building a rhetorical scaffolding to fight stigma in the writing classroom. Pedagogy: Critical Approaches to Teaching Literature, Language, Culture, and Composition, 18(3), 566–572. https://doi.org/10.1215/15314200-6937035

48.

Valery

K. M.

Prouteau

(2020). Schizophrenia stigma in mental health professionals and associated factors: A systematic review. European Psychiatry, 65(S1), S617. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2020.113068

49.

Whitten

(2022). Stigma matters: An African American psychology professor comes out of the mental illness closet. Psychological Services, 19(1), 35–37. https://doi.org/10.1037/ser0000486