Close
About
FAQ
Home
Collections
Login
USC Login
Register
0
Selected
Invert selection
Deselect all
Deselect all
Click here to refresh results
Click here to refresh results
USC
/
Digital Library
/
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
/
Disclosure of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) identity among U.S. service members after repeal of LGBT military service bans
(USC Thesis Other)
Disclosure of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) identity among U.S. service members after repeal of LGBT military service bans
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
1 Disclosure of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender (LGBT) Identity Among U.S. Service Members After Repeal of LGBT Military Service Bans by Kathleen A. McNamara, MA, LCSW August 2019 Degree Conferral Doctor of Philosophy (Social Work) USC GRADUATE SCHOOL University of Southern California Dissertation Guidance Committee Carl A. Castro, PhD (Chair) Jeremy T. Goldbach, PhD, LMSW Karen Tongson, PhD The views expressed in this dissertation are those of the author and do not reflect the official policy or position of the U.S. Air Force, U.S. Department of Defense, or U.S. Government. 2 Table of Contents Disclosure of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender (LGBT) Identity Among U.S. Service Members After Repeal of LGBT Military Service Bans ............................................. 1 Table of Contents .......................................................................................................................... 2 List of Tables and Figures ............................................................................................................ 4 Dedication ...................................................................................................................................... 5 Acknowledgements ....................................................................................................................... 6 Chapter One: Introduction and Overview of the Three Manuscripts ..................................... 7 Introduction and Rationale .......................................................................................................... 7 Dissertation Goal ....................................................................................................................... 15 References ................................................................................................................................. 16 Chapter Two: Manuscript One ................................................................................................. 26 Abstract ..................................................................................................................................... 26 Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 27 Methods ..................................................................................................................................... 34 Results ....................................................................................................................................... 38 Institutional ............................................................................................................................ 38 Interpersonal .......................................................................................................................... 44 Individual ............................................................................................................................... 47 Discussion ................................................................................................................................. 53 Conclusion ................................................................................................................................. 59 References ................................................................................................................................. 60 Tables and Figures .................................................................................................................... 67 Chapter Three: Manuscript Two .............................................................................................. 69 Abstract ..................................................................................................................................... 69 Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 70 Methods ..................................................................................................................................... 74 Results ....................................................................................................................................... 78 Quantitative findings ............................................................................................................. 78 Qualitative findings ............................................................................................................... 81 Discussion ................................................................................................................................. 91 Conclusion ................................................................................................................................. 97 3 References ................................................................................................................................. 98 Tables ...................................................................................................................................... 105 Chapter Four: Manuscript Three ........................................................................................... 111 Abstract ................................................................................................................................... 111 Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 112 Methods ................................................................................................................................... 115 Results ..................................................................................................................................... 118 Discussion ............................................................................................................................... 122 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................... 125 References ............................................................................................................................... 126 Tables and Figures .................................................................................................................. 132 Chapter Five: Conclusions, Future Directions, and Recommendations .............................. 139 Major Findings ........................................................................................................................ 139 Limitations and Future Research............................................................................................. 139 Implications and Recommendations ....................................................................................... 141 References ............................................................................................................................... 146 4 List of Tables and Figures Table 1.1 Demographics and military-related traits of qualitative sample Table 1.2. Disclosure stress: Major themes and subthemes Table 2.1. Demographic and military-related traits of qualitative sample Table 2.2. Demographics and military-related traits of quantitative sample Table 2.3. Outness to military authority, friends, and helping professionals among cisgender LGB service members by gender and sexual orientation Table 2.4. Outness to military authority, friends, and helping professionals among transgender service members Table 2.5. Odds ratios of outness to authority and helping professionals by demographic and military-related traits Table 2.6. Odds ratios of outness to unit friends by demographic traits and military-related factors Table 3.1. Demographics and military-related variables of the sample: LGBT compared to non- LGBT service members (N=544) Table 3.2. Correlation matrix of unit climate measures: LGBT and non-LGBT samples Table 3.3. Odds ratios of outness to leaders and unit friends by unit climate variables, demographics and military-level traits Figure 3.1. Non-LGBT vs. Cis-LGB vs. Transgender service members: Perceived unit cohesion, social support in the unit, and LGBT workplace climate Table 3.4. Odds ratios of being out to unit leaders by sexual orientation, gender identity, and military rank 5 Dedication To those who responded to the call to serve and then responded to our call to share. Thank you for gifting us with your experiences as LGBTQ+ service members. I see you striving, being “twice as good,” and I hope my work can, in any small way, clear a path for you to shine even brighter. To Azalea (Zelly) McNamara-Oost for being with me from the beginning. You were a little tadpole growing inside me as I took the GRE, then a newborn napping on my lap as I applied to PhD programs, now a firetruck-and-princess-loving 3-year-old whose kisses and questions fill me up. It's truly a joy watching you be you. To my mom, Mary Segreti McNamara, and brother, Mike McNamara, for being my foundation. You're the definition of unconditional love and Zelly and I are so lucky we won the lottery of you. 6 Acknowledgements Thank you to my advisors, Carl Castro, PhD, and Jeremy Goldbach, LMSW, PhD. I feel honored to have worked with you both and am indebted to you for being able to study at USC and pursue my research interests. Thank you for your thoughtful edits, big picture adjustments, and simply asking how I’m doing from time to time. Thank you to my committee member and professor, Karen Tongson, PhD, for teaching us that we can “queer” anything. Thank you for your time and feedback. Thank you Michale Mor Barak, PhD, Michael Hurlburt, PhD, Malinda Sampson, and the USC Suzanne Dworak-Peck School of Social Work doctoral program for your support. Thank you to my PhD cohort: Daniel Green-Schmidt, Wichada La Motte-Kerr, Abby Palmer Molina, Kexin Yu, Chyna Hill, Daniel Lee, and Mia Liu, for working together harmoniously as we slogged through classes, exams, “Staturdays,” and life challenges together. Thank you to USC’s Military and Veterans Programs staff, especially Sara Kintzle, PhD, Hazel Atuel, PhD, and Nick Barr, PhD, for your enthusiastic support and countless courtside consultations. Thank you to my friends and mentors Carrie Lucas, PhD, Natalia Sanchez, PhD, and Julie Glover, DSc. You’ve each been there for me at precisely the right times and in precisely the right ways. Sarah Elizabeth Bennett, your love changed my life. Thank you for being my sounding board for all concerns, all hours of every day, for 14 years. 7 Chapter One: Introduction and Overview of the Three Manuscripts Introduction and Rationale The U.S. military has situated sexual orientation and gender identity as critical traits with which to measure one’s fitness for duty. Prior to 1993, “homosexuals” were not permitted to serve in the U.S. military and, if it was perceived they were attracted to individuals of the same sex, service members were subject to violence from their fellow military members and discharged from the service (Berube, 1990; Human Rights Watch, 2003; Shibusawa, 2012). Policies have shifted over the past 30 years, allowing lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) individuals to serve; currently an estimated 65,000 LGBT individuals are serving on active duty, with 5% of active duty members indicating they are LGBT (12% of women and 3% of men; <1% transgender; Davis, L., Grifka, A., Williams, K., & Coffey, 2016). This is an increase from the previously widely-cited estimate this group accounted for approximately 2.2% of U.S. military personnel (Gates, 2010a). Following a presidential administration change in 2017, the ban on transgender individuals serving was reinstated, with legal and legislative challenges ensuing (Philipps, 2018; Trump, 2017; Trump v. Karnoski, 2019; Liptak, 2019). Whether LGBT service members perceive the military as accepting of openly LGBT individuals being accepted and integrated remains to be seen. Further, whether they have decided to disclose their sexual or gender minority identity to other service members following repeal of LGBT military service bans is unknown. Such information is not collected by the military, and no research study to date has assessed the efficacy of the repeal’s intent as stated by President Obama on the day of DADT repeal: “No longer will tens of thousands of Americans in uniform be asked to live a lie, or look over their shoulder, in order to serve the country that they love” (Obama, 2010). 8 History of LGBT Service in the U.S. Military Until 1993, LGB Americans were explicitly denied entry into all military branches and, if serving, were pursued and fired (Shibusawa, 2012; Mallory, 2009). The book Coming Out Under Fire: The History of Gay Men and Women in World War Two (Berube, 1990) documents several gay and lesbian service members’ often tumultuous journeys through being drafted or volunteering to serve. During this time, individuals perceived to be “homosexual” [a term that has fallen out of favor due to its association with pathologizing of same-sex attraction (Drescher, 2015)] could be separated from the service due to their perceived homosexual orientation (Berube, 1990). In 1993, as a compromise between U.S. President William Clinton and the Congress, the so-called “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, Don’t Pursue” (DADTDP or DADT), policy was passed (“Don’t Ask Don’t Tell,” 1993). This policy stated that ‘homosexuals’ could serve in the military, but could not speak openly about their homosexuality, could not be asked about their sexual orientation, and could not be pursued by their Command due to speculations they may be LGB (“Don’t Ask Don’t Tell,” 1993). If Command’s speculations were confirmed that a service member was indeed involved in a same-sex relationship or had same-sex romantic interest, then the member could be discharged without benefits (Alford & Lee, 2016). The exact number of LGBT veterans is not known; however U.S. Census reports have been used to estimate approximately one million LGBT veterans, most serving under explicitly anti-LGBT policies (Gates, 2004; Ramirez et al., 2013). One scholar (Burks, 2011) hypothesized that, in addition to the discharge of at least 13,000 service members under DADT, there were likely unintended negative consequences of this ban. Burks (2011) argued that increasing vulnerability of this population to violence, underreported victimizations, and limited support 9 networks, may have harmed LGBT service members. In a 2010 study (National Defense Research Institute), LGB service members overwhelmingly stated that, were DADT to be repealed, they would be selective about to whom they would disclose at work. The participants cited the following as important considerations in their projected decision-making: 1) clear leadership commitment aligning with DADT repeal; 2) clear conduct standards for everyone; and 3) zero tolerance for LGB-related harassment (National Defense Research Institute, 2010). When the Don't Ask, Don't Tell Repeal Act (DADT) of 2010 was passed by Congress and signed by President Barack Obama, LGB service members were granted the permission to “come out” in the military workplace without fear of reprisal for the first time in U.S. history (Alford & Lee, 2016; Goldbach & Castro, 2016). While the ban on openly-LGB service members was fully repealed, policies on transgender service have been non-linear. A repeal of the ban on transgender individuals serving in the military went into effect in 2016, however, was contested by the subsequent presidential administration beginning July 26, 2017. After legal cases contesting reinstatement of the ban, it was officially re-instated April 12, 2019 (U.S. DoD, 2016a; Trump, 2017; DTM-19-004, 2019). This history of institutionalized discrimination against LGBT service members, as well as associated victimization, suggests a possibly uneven evolution from exclusion to inclusion of LGBT service members. This group may not perceive an accepting military environment and may not feel secure in disclosing their authentic identity. This dissertation sheds light on the unexplored issues of LGBT service members’ perception of LGBT inclusion in the military workplace and their disclosure decisions among military colleagues and helping professionals. 10 Disclosure Considerations in a Military Environment While no studies have been conducted on the disclosure decision-making process of active duty LGBT service members to their colleagues, one study found that gay and bisexual male service members were only comfortable disclosing their sexual orientation to their military health care provider if the provider initiated the conversation about the members’ sexual orientation (Biddix, Fogel, & Perry Black, 2013). Gay and bisexual male service members from both enlisted and officer ranks stated they are more likely to disclose their sexual orientation to non-military health care providers than military healthcare providers, even after DADT repeal (Biddix et al., 2013). One study of military healthcare providers conducted after DADT repeal found that only 5% inquired about same-sex sexual activity among their patients (Rerucha, Runser, Ee, & Hersey, 2018). Junior providers were significantly more comfortable assessing the sexual health needs of LGB individuals compared to senior providers (Rerucha et al., 2018). Rerucha et al. (2018) argue that military providers should “assess sexual preferences and behaviors” (p. 89) of their patients, noting that LGB individuals are at increased risk for some chronic health concerns such as tobacco use and associated health problems, as well as have sexual and mental health needs which differ from non-LGB military members. In a qualitative study, lesbian service members noted an overall increase in their likelihood to access mental health treatment from military providers following DADT repeal, however several members noted a continued distrust of “the system” (Mount, Steelman, & Hertlein, 2015, p. 120). Participants noted the paradox of having anxiety due to persistently managing their identity at work, and their perception of being unsafe in mental health clinics, a service they would otherwise access to ease their anxiety (Mount et al., 2015). The overall picture that emerges from 11 these studies is that barriers for disclosure of LGB identity, even to healthcare providers, persist following DADT repeal. Another consideration that may be unique for LGBT service members’ disclosure decisions is the de-emphasis of individuality, and the over-emphasis of conformity in a military community. A Department of Defense memo released in support of DADT repeal echoes the common sentiment that sexual orientation is a “personal and private matter” (Stanley, 2011). While the sentiment was used in the memo’s context as a supportive argument for removing government regulation from a service member’s romantic life, such a statement may also deliver a complex message to sexual minorities. Such a sentiment may intend to state that sexuality is a personal and private matter. However, one could argue that sexual orientation, separate from sexuality, is a demographic characteristic not unlike racial identity, age, or marital status. On top of this complex consideration, the military’s “warrior ethos” and “mission first” culture, which demands that service members place their personal needs after that of the military’s needs, may present an additional layer complicating LGBT disclosure decision-making (Riccio, Sullivan, Klein, Salter, & Kinnison, 2004). Indeed, one argument against DADT repeal by veterans, service members, and legislators argued that unit cohesion and mission effectiveness would be severely limited if LGBT individuals were openly permitted into the military (“Flag and General Officers for the Military,” 2009). This opposition to LGBT disclosure may influence service members’ disclosure decision- making in unique ways not present in other workplaces. Discussing the U.S. military culture, Zurbriggen (2010) argues that the military encourages “masculine socialization” and “hegemonic masculinity” especially during times of war. One of the ways in which the “band of brothers” culture is upheld is by service members proving their masculinity, which in turn assures their 12 colleagues that they are not a threat to the unit. Zurbriggen (2010) argues that sexual harassment and assault of women, toughness, aggression, avoidance of any behaviors seen as feminine, overt homophobia, low empathy, and self-control are used by military members to earn their place in the unit as a trusted member [emphasis added]. Such a culture may add additional considerations for disclosing one’s status and may signal distinct disclosure pathways for lesbian and bisexual women versus gay and bisexual men in the military. Theoretical Framework There is no theory directly explaining disclosure processes in a workplace context for LGBT individuals. Therefore, the proposed project incorporates several theoretical frameworks that guide research in the fields of self-disclosure, workplace climate, and sexual minority social context. Communication Privacy Management Theory (CPM), Stigma Theory, and Minority Stress Theory are briefly explained and subsequently synthesized to provide hypotheses for the proposed manuscripts. Communication Privacy Management Theory. CPM offers a framework for understanding the broader concepts underlying the sharing of information between parties (Petronio, 2002; Petronio, 2013). CPM views self-disclosure of private information as inherently relational, with the “owner” of the information granting “access” to “co-owners” of that information (Petronio, 2002; Petronio, 2013). Self-disclosure, in this framework, involves an ongoing management of the private information in which the owner of the information gauges many factors such as situational needs, risk-benefit analyses, and cultural values (Petronio, 2002; Petronio, 2013). When an individual discloses private information about themselves, they re-“draw” the boundary around that information, thereby drawing another person into that boundary; as such, a new boundary line needs to be negotiated and managed (Petronio, 2002, p. 28). From a CPR 13 framework, it can be hypothesized that LGBT service members will carefully consider who may “co-own” their private information. LGBT service members may disclose to friends in the unit as a process of getting to know one another, thereby “co-owning” the information for the purpose or goal of social support; however, they may disclose to unit leaders with the goal not of “co- owning” this information, but rather to acquire a resource needed for their same-sex spouse, for example. Communication management may specifically be important in a military workplace characterized by instability; deployments, promotions, and military moves may require constant “management” of this information among new colleagues. Stigma Theory. Stigma Theory is a foundational framework commonly used to understand the process of one’s disclosure of a discrediting trait (Goffman, 1963). Goffman (1963) notes that most individuals have both prestigious and stigmatizing traits, which they choose to disclose based on perceived costs and benefits. Goffman gives the example of service members displaying military rank to symbolize a level of prestige among populations in which military service is lauded; in contrast, an individual may unintentionally or purposefully display a symbol that is stigmatizing, what he calls “slips” (Goffman, 1963, p. 40). Goffman argues that people tend to assess the social context of a setting prior to sharing one’s “secret differentness” (Goffman, 1963, p. 69). From a Stigma Theory framework, it can be predicted that LGB service members, despite DADT repeal, will survey their surroundings for hints as to whether an LGBT identity is perceived as a discrediting trait in their workplace. Further, using a Stigma Theory framework, it is predicted that LGBT service members will effortfully conceal their “secret differentness” if they perceive their workplace to view LGBT individuals negatively. Minority Stress Theory. Goffman’s Stigma Theory underpins many social identity frameworks, including Minority Stress Theory (MST), which specifically explains the process by which 14 sexual and gender minorities metabolize their stigmatized identity in the social context, leading to mental and physical health consequences. MST states that LGB individuals experience stress associated with having a stigmatized identity such as discrimination, violence, rejection from others, and internalized negative beliefs about oneself (Meyer, 2003). MST explains that stigmatized social groups suffer prejudice from their community, which adds a burden of social stress, and associated mental health problems follow. Such stress can be experienced through bullying, discrimination, violence, expectations of rejection, internalized homophobia, and identity concealment. In a military setting, otherwise “normative” stressful events that are experienced by all service members regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity can be lived as “minority stress” for LGBT individuals. For example, moving from one duty station to the next, which typically occurs once every two to three years, can be inherently stressful for any person. For an LGBT individual, this might be compounded by the uncertain environment they are entering, and whether they will be rejected if they disclose their LGBT identity. LGBT individuals experience stressors such as verbal and physical harassment, as well as internalizing negative thoughts about sexual minorities. In a military environment, discrimination and harassment may be explicit or implicit, as mentioned above, and may manifest in different ways than in a civilian workplace (Goldbach & Castro, 2016). From a Minority Stress framework, it can be hypothesized that LGBT individuals will overwhelmingly choose to conceal their identity in a military environment despite DADT repeal unless they perceive a supportive immediate workplace unit, accepting coworkers, and a strong overall unit cohesiveness. Building from Communication Privacy Management Theory, Stigma Theory, and Minority Stress Theory, it is hypothesized that LGBT service members will take measures to 15 “control” the “ownership” of their potentially stigmatizing trait, dependent upon several individual, interpersonal, and institutional characteristics. Dissertation Goal Manuscript One: This qualitative analysis of in-depth interviews of 42 active duty LGBT service members addresses the research question: to what extent and under what conditions do LGBT service members disclose their LGBT identity in the military workplace following repeal of LGBT military service bans? This manuscript uses data coded as “Disclosure Stress” by the research team, which was then thematically analyzed to uncover themes related to disclosure stress. Manuscript Two: This mixed methods analysis of 248 surveys and 42 interviews of LGBT service members addresses the research question: Do demographic and military-related traits drive outness among LGBT service members, and to what extent are these individuals “out” to various military colleagues? Qualitative data are then used to contextualize these findings. Manuscript Three: This quantitative analysis of surveys completed by 248 LGBT service members and 296 non-LGBT service members addresses the research question: To what extent do unit climate perceptions vary by sexual orientation and gender identity and do unit climate perceptions drive outness among LGBT service members? 16 References Alford, B., & Lee, S. J. (2016). Toward complete inclusion: Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender military service members after repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. Social Work, 61(3), 257–266. https://doi.org/10.1093/sw/sww033 Bartone, P. T., Johnson, B. H., Eid, J., Brun, W., Laberg, J. C. (2002). Factors influencing small- unit cohesion in Norwegian Navy officer cadets. Military Psychology, 14(1), 1–22. Beals, K. P., Peplau, L. A., & Gable, S. L. (2009). Stigma Management and Well-Being: The Role of Perceived Social Support, Emotional Processing, and Suppression. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 35(7), 867–879. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167209334783 Berg, R. C., Munthe-Kaas, H. M., & Ross, M. W. (2016). Internalized Homonegativity: A Systematic Mapping Review of Empirical Research. Journal of Homosexuality, 63(4), 541–558. https://doi.org/10.1080/00918369.2015.1083788 Berube, A. (1990). Coming out under fire: The history of gay men and women in World War II. New York, NY: Free Press. Biddix, J., Fogel, C., & Black, B. (2013). Comfort levels of active duty gay/bisexual male service members in the military healthcare system. Military Medicine, 178(12), 1335- 1340 Bowring, M. (2017). Can I trust you? Exploring the ways in which sexual orientation disclosure affects the relationship between LGB leaders and their followers. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences / Revue Canadienne Des Sciences De L'Administration, 34(2), 170-181. 17 Burks, D. J. (2011). Lesbian, gay, and bisexual victimization in the military: An unintended consequence of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”? American Psychologist, 66(7), 604–613. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024609 Chaudoir, S. R., Fisher, J. D., & Simoni, J. M. (2011). Understanding HIV disclosure: A review and application of the Disclosure Processes Model. Social Science and Medicine, 72(10), 1618–1629. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2011.03.028 Cochran, B. N., Balsam, K., Flentje, A., Malte, C. A., & Simpson, T. (2013). Mental health characteristics of sexual minority veterans. Journal of Homosexuality, 60(2-3), 419-435. doi: 10.1080/00918369.2013.744932 Corrigan, P. W., & Matthews, A. K. (2003). Stigma and disclosure: Implications for coming out of the closet. Journal of Mental Health, 12(3), 235–248. https://doi.org/10.1080/0963823031000118221 DeJordy, R. (2008). Just passing through: Stigma, passing, and identity decoupling in the workplace. Group and Organization Management, 33(5), 504-531. Derlega, V. J., Metts, S., Petronio, S., & Margulis, S. T. (1993). Sage series on close relationships. Self-disclosure. Thousand Oaks, CA, US: Sage Publications, Inc. Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, 10 U.S.C. § 654 (1993) (Repealed 2010). Retrieved from https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2010-title10/pdf/USCODE-2010-title10- subtitleA-partII-chap37-sec654.pdf Drescher, J. (2015). Out of DSM: Depathologizing homosexuality. Behavioral Sciences, 5(4), 565–75. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs5040565 DTM-19-004. (2019, March 12). Directive-type Memorandum – Military Service by Transgender Persons and Persons with Gender Dysphoria. Retrieved from 18 https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/5767255-DTM- TransgenderMilitaryService.html “Flag & General Officers for the Military.” (2009, March). “Repeal of the 1993 Law re Gays in the Military Would Break the Volunteer Force.” Retrieved from http://flagandgeneralofficersforthemilitary.com/FGOM_Issue_Overview_033109.pdf Gates, G. J. (2004). Gay men and lesbians in the US military: Estimates from Census 2000. The Urban Institute. Retrieved from https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/58086/411069-Gay-Men-and- Lesbians-in-the-U-S-Military.PDF Gates G. J. (2010a). Discharges under the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy: Women and racial/ethnic minorities. The Williams Institute, UCLA School of Law. Retrieved from http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/Gates-Discharges2009-Military- Sept-2010.pdf Gates, G. J. (2010b). Lesbian, gay, and bisexual men and women in the US military: Updated estimates. The Williams Institute, UCLA School of Law. Retrieved from https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/Gates-GLBmilitaryUpdate- May-20101.pdf Gates, G. J. & Herman, J. L. (2014). Transgender military service in the United States. The Williams Institute, UCLA School of Law. Retrieved from williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/Transgender-Military-Service-May- 2014.pdf 19 Gilmore, G., Rose, S., & Rubinstein, R. (2011). The impact of internalized homophobia on outness for lesbian, gay, and bisexual individuals. The Professional Counselor, 1(3), 163- 175. Goffman, E. (1963). Stigma: Notes on the management of spoiled identity. New York: Simon & Schuster. Goldbach, J. T., & Castro, C. A. (2016). Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) service members: Life after Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. Current Psychiatry Reports, 18(6). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11920-016-0695-0 Griffith, K. H., & Hebl, M. R. (2002). The disclosure dilemma for gay men and lesbians: “coming out” at work. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(6), 1191–1199. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.87.6.1191 Hatzenbuehler, M. L. (2009). How does sexual minority stigma “get under the skin”? A psychological mediation framework. Psychological Bulletin, 135(5), 707–730. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016441 Helens-Hart, R. (2017). Females’ (non)disclosure of minority sexual identities in the workplace from a communication privacy management perspective. Communication Studies, 68(5), 607-623. Herek, G. M. (2004). Beyond “homophobia”: Thinking about sexual prejudice and stigma in the twenty-first century. Sexuality Research and Social Policy, 1(2), 6–24. doi:10.1525/ srsp.2004.1.2.6 Huebner, D. M., & Davis, M. C. (2005). Gay and bisexual men who disclose their sexual orientations in the workplace have higher workday levels of salivary cortisol and negative affect. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 30(3), 260–267. 20 Human Rights Watch. (2003). “Uniform Discrimination: The “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” Policy of the U.S. Military.” Human Rights Watch, 15(1). Retrieved from https://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/reports/USA0103.pdf King, E. B., Mohr, J. J., Peddie, C. I., Jones, K. P., & Kendra, M. (2017). Predictors of identity management: An exploratory experience-sampling study of lesbian, gay, and bisexual workers. Journal of Management, 43(2), 476–502. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206314539350 Legate, N., Ryan, R. M., & Weinstein, N. (2012). Is coming out always a “good thing”? Exploring the relations of autonomy support, outness, and wellness for lesbian, gay, and bisexual individuals. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 3(2), 145–152. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550611411929 Liddle, B. J., Luzzo, D. A., Hauenstein, A. L., & Schuck, K. (2004). Construction and validation of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgendered climate inventory. Journal of Career Assessment, 12(1), 33–50. https://doi.org/10.1177/1069072703257722 Liptak, A. (2019, January 22). Supreme Court Revives Transgender Ban for Military Service. New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/22/us/politics/transgender-ban- military-supreme-court.html Mallory, C. (2009). Documenting discrimination against LGBT people in state employment. The Williams Institute, 1–16. Retrieved from http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp- content/uploads/ExecutiveSummary1.pdf Meyer, I. H. (2003). Prejudice, social stress, and mental health in lesbian, gay, and bisexual populations: Conceptual issues and research evidence. Psychological Bulletin, 129(5), 674–697. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.129.5.674 21 Mor Barak, M. E., Lizano, E. L., Kim, A., Duan, L., Rhee, M.-K., Hsiao, H.-Y., & Brimhall, K. C. (2016). The promise of diversity management for climate of inclusion: A state-of-the- art review and meta-analysis. Human Services Organizations: Management, Leadership & Governance, 40(4), 305-333. https://doi.org/10.1080/23303131.2016.1138915 Mount, S. D., Steelman, S. M., & Hertlein, K. M. (2015). “I’m not sure I trust the system yet”: Lesbian service member experiences with mental health care. Military Psychology (American Psychological Association), 27(2), 115–127. https://doi.org/10.1037/mil0000071 National Defense Research Institute. (2010). Sexual orientation and U.S. military personnel policy: an update of RAND’s 1993 study. Retrieved from https://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/MG1056.html Obama, B. (2010, December). "Remarks by the President and Vice President at Signing of the Don't Ask, Don't Tell Repeal Act of 2010." Retrieved from https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2010/12/22/remarks-president- and-vice-president-signing-dont-ask-dont-tell-repeal-a Pachankis, J. E., Cochran, S. D., & Mays, V. M. (2015). The mental health of sexual minority adults in and out of the closet: A population-based study. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 83(5), 890–901. https://doi.org/10.1037/ccp0000047 Petronio, S. (2002). Boundaries of privacy : dialectics of disclosure . Albany: State University of New York Press. Petronio, S. (2013). Brief status report on Communication Privacy Management Theory. Journal of Family Communication, 13(1), 6-14. Philipps, D. (2018, July 5). Ban Was Lifted, but Transgender Recruits Still Can’t Join Up. The 22 New York Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/05/us/military-transgender- recruits.html Ragins, B. R., Singh, R., & Cornwell, J. M. (2007). Making the invisible visible: Fear and disclosure of sexual orientation at work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(4), 1103–1118. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.92.4.1103 Ragins, B. R. (2008). Disclosure disconnects: Antecedents and consequences of disclosing invisible stigmas across life domains. The Academy of Management Review, 33(1), 194– 215. Raifman, J., Moscoe, E., Austin, S. B., & McConnell, M. (2017). Difference-in-differences analysis of the association between state same-sex marriage policies and adolescent suicide attempts. JAMA Pediatrics, 171(4), 350-356. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapediatrics.2016.4529 Ramirez, M. H., Rogers, S. J., Johnson, H. L., Banks, J., Seay, W. P., Tinsley, B. L., Grant, A. G. (2013). If we ask what they might tell: Clinical assessment lessons from LGBT military personnel. Journal of Homosexuality, 60:401–418. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00918369.2013.744931 Rerucha, C. M., Runser, L. A., Ee, J. S., & Hersey, E. G. (2018). Military healthcare providers’ knowledge and comfort regarding the medical care of active duty lesbian, gay, and bisexual patients. LGBT Health, 5(1), 86–90. https://doi.org/10.1089/lgbt.2016.0210 Riccio, G., Sullivan, R., Klein, G., Salter, M., & Kinnison, H. (2004). Warrior ethos: Analysis of the concept and initial development of applications. U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences, Research Report 1827. Rostosky, S. S., & Riggle, E. D. B. (2002). “Out” at work: The relation of actor and partner 23 workplace policy and internalized homophobia to disclosure status. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 49(4), 411–419. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-0167.49.4.411 Sabat, I., Trump, R., & King, E. (2014). Individual, interpersonal, and contextual factors relating to disclosure decisions of lesbian, gay, and bisexual individuals. Psychology of Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity, 1(4), 431–440. https://doi.org/10.1037/sgd0000061 Schope, R. D. (2002). The decision to tell. Journal of Gay & Lesbian Social Services, 14(1), 1– 22. https://doi.org/10.1300/J041v14n01_01 Schrager, S. M., Goldbach, J. T., & Mamey, M. R. (2018). Development of the sexual minority adolescent stress inventory. Frontiers in Psychology, 9(319). https://doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00319 Siebold, G. L., & Kelly, D. R. (1988). Development of the Platoon Cohesion Index (Tech. Rep. No. 816). Alexandria,VA: U.S. Army Research Institute for Behavioral and Social Sciences. (DTIC No. AD–A204 917) Siebold, G. L. (2011). Key questions and challenges to the standard model of military group cohesion. Armed Forces & Society, 37(3), 448–468. https://doi.org/10.1177/0095327X11398451 Shibusawa, N. (2012). The Lavender Scare and empire: Rethinking Cold War antigay politics. Diplomatic History, 36(4), 723–752. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7709.2012.01052.x Sloan, M. M., Evenson Newhouse, R. J., & Thompson, A. B. (2013). Counting on coworkers: Race, social support, and emotional experiences on the job. Social Psychology Quarterly, 76(4), 343–372. https://doi.org/10.1177/0190272513504937 Stanley, C. L. (2011, January). "Repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell and Future Impact on Policy." Retrieved from http://archive.defense.gov/home/features/2010/0610_dadt/USD-PR- 24 DADT_28Jan11.pdf Taylor, J., & Turner, R. J. (2001). A longitudinal study of the role and significance of mattering to others for depressive symptoms. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 42(3), 310– 325. https://doi.org/10.2307/3090217 The Military Acceptance Project. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://cir.usc.edu/research/research- projects/military-acceptance-project-map Trau, R. (2015). The impact of discriminatory climate perceptions on the composition of intraorganizational developmental networks, psychosocial support, and job and career attitudes of employees with an invisible stigma. Human Resource Management, 54(2), 345–366. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm Trump, D. J. [@realDonaldTrump]. (2017, July 26). “After consultation with my Generals…” Retrieved from https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/890193981585444864 Trump v. Karnoski. (2019). Retrieved from https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/trump- v-karnoski/ Turner, R. J. & Marino, F. (1994). Social support and social structure: A descriptive epidemiology. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 35(3), 193–212. U.S. DoD. (June 2016). Secretary of Defense Ash Carter Announces Policy for Transgender Service Members. Retrieved from https://www.defense.gov/News/News-Releases/News- Release-View/Article/821675/secretary-of-defense-ash-carter-announces-policy-for- transgender-service-members/ Velez, B. L., Moradi, B., & Brewster, M. E. (2013). Testing the tenets of minority stress theory in workplace contexts. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 60(4), 532–542. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0033346 25 Wessel, J. L. (2017). The importance of allies and allied organizations: Sexual orientation disclosure and concealment at work. Journal of Social Issues, 73(2), 240–254. https://doi.org/10.1111/josi.12214 Zurbriggen, E. L. (2010). Rape, war, and the socialization of masculinity: Why our refusal to give up war ensures that rape cannon be eradicated. Psychology of Women Quarterly. 34, 538-549. http://journals.sagepub.com.libproxy2.usc.edu/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.1471- 6402.2010.01603.x 26 Chapter Two: Manuscript One Title: “You don’t want to be a candidate for punishment”: A qualitative analysis of LGBT service members’ disclosure decision-making after repeal of LGBT military service bans Authors: McNamara, K. A., Lucas, C. L., Goldbach, J. T., Holloway, I. W., & Castro, C. A. Abstract Policies regarding lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) military service in the U.S. have changed dramatically over the last eight years. Cisgender LGB service members can now disclose their authentic identity and access benefits for same-sex spouses without fear of discharge. Open transgender service was banned, then permitted, then banned again, with legal and legislative struggles ensuing. Limited empirical evidence exists to assess the wellbeing of LGBT service members. The current study seeks to address this gap by exploring the “coming out” experiences of LGBT service members following repeal of LGBT bans. In-depth interviews were conducted with 42 currently serving LGBT military members in the Army, Air Force, Navy, and Marines stationed on American military bases worldwide. Thematic analysis of these data found that half of participants feared that the military environment, at both the institutional and interpersonal level, is not yet LGBT inclusive. However, most participants employed outness in the military as a means of authenticating themselves to others and benefiting other LGBT service members. Additional findings related to LGBT service members’ responses to policy changes, as well as recommendations to improve integration of open LGB service, are discussed. Keywords (5-7): Military, LGBT, Workplace, Policy, Outness, Coming Out, Disclosure 27 Introduction In 1994, the so-called “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, Don’t Pursue” (DADTDP or DADT), policy was passed in the U.S. Congress and signed into law by the president (“Don’t Ask Don’t Tell,” 1993). This policy stated that ‘homosexuals’ could serve in the military, but could not speak openly about their homosexuality, could not be asked about their sexual orientation, and could not be pursued by their Command due to speculations they may be lesbian, gay, or bisexual (LGB; “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell,” 1993). If service members defied the policy, or Command’s speculations were confirmed that a service member was indeed involved in a same- sex relationship or had same-sex romantic interest, then the service member could be discharged without benefits (Alford & Lee, 2016). More than 13,000 service members were discharged for being perceived as gay, lesbian, or bisexual under DADT (Gates, 2010). When the Don't Ask, Don't Tell Repeal Act of 2010 was passed by Congress and signed by President Barack Obama, LGB service members were granted the permission to “come out” in the military workplace without fear of reprisal for the first time in U.S. history (Alford & Lee, 2016; Goldbach & Castro, 2016). On the day of DADT repeal, President Barack Obama stated: “No longer will tens of thousands of Americans in uniform be asked to live a lie, or look over their shoulder, in order to serve the country that they love” (Obama, 2010). Similarly, in 2016 when Secretary of Defense Ash Carter announced repeal of the transgender ban, which had been in place for over 50 years, transgender service members were encouraged to disclose their identity to their Commanders and medical providers for the first time (U.S. DoD, 2016a; U.S. DoD, 2016b). Whether LGBT service members continue to “look over their shoulder” despite policy change remains to be seen. The current study, which collected data shortly after the transgender ban was repealed, and before the subsequent presidential administration threatened 28 to reinstate it, is the first-of-its-kind to assess disclosure decision-making of LGBT identity among still-serving, active duty service members following repeal of LGBT military bans (Trump, 2017; Trump v. Karnoski, 2019; Liptak, 2019). An estimated 65,000 LGBT individuals are serving on active duty, with 5% of active duty members indicating they are LGBT (12% of women and 3% of men; <1% of both women and men indicate they are transgender; Davis, Grifka, Williams, & Coffey, 2016; Meadows et al., 2015). A history of institutionalized discrimination against LGBT service members, as well as probable associated victimization, suggests a possibly non-linear progression from exclusion to inclusion of LGBT service members (Burks, 2011; Castro & Goldbach, 2018). LGBT service members may not perceive an accepting military environment and may not feel secure in disclosing their authentic sexual orientation and/or gender identity. The recent revocation of the transgender ban repeal may also complicate transgender service members’ disclosure decision- making. As the current study took place during the period in which transgender individuals were protected from discharge due to their gender identity, this paper explores active duty LGBT service members’ experience of disclosure of LGBT identity to fellow service members following the DADT and transgender ban repeal. LGBT Outness in the Workplace Research on LGBT “outness” in the civilian workplace offers insight into correlates of disclosure as well as possible consequences. Disclosing or concealing one’s LGBT identity has been found to be associated with several workplace-related outcomes such as job satisfaction, feelings of stress at work, collective self-esteem, work-related commitment, organizational citizenship behaviors, and interpersonal co-worker relationships (Bowring, 2017; Huebner & Davis, 2005; Pachankis, Cochran, & Mays, 2015; Trau, 2015; Velez, Moradi, & Brewster, 2013). 29 Past literature has found that correlates of disclosure in the workplace include traits related to the “disclosee” (the person to whom the LGB worker discloses), including cues of LGB acceptance from the disclosee such as vocal support of an LGB human rights issue, LGB orientation of the disclosee, and female gender of the disclosee (Griffith & Hebl, 2002; Rostosky & Riggle, 2002; Wessel, 2017; King, Mohr, Peddie, Jones, & Kendra, 2017). Individual and organizational factors have been found to be associated with disclosure in the workplace. At the individual level, centrality of LGB orientation to one’s identity, positive past experiences of disclosure, being in a relationship with a same-sex partner, and lower levels of internalized homophobia are associated with workplace disclosure (Griffith & Hebl, 2002; Wessel, 2017; King, et al., 2017; Pachankis et al., 2015; Schope, 2002). At the organizational level, perceived LGB-supportive environment, witnessing other sexual minorities disclose with no negative consequence, explicit policies protecting LGB workers from anti-LGB harassment, and having at least one supportive coworker [an interpersonal and organization level variable] are associated with workplace disclosure (King et al., 2017; Ragins et al., 2007; Velez et al., 2013; Wessel, 2017). Women in masculine-dominated fields may disclose their sexual minority identity to fend off unwanted romantic advances from interested male co-workers, as well as to decrease stigma associated with being female in a male-dominated job (Helens-Hart, 2017). LGBT Service Member and Veteran Outness Some literature suggests that disclosure following DADT repeal is complex and related to several military factors. For example, a qualitative study of LGB service members found that during and after repeal of DADT, sexual minority service members used “identity concealment” strategies: cultivating network ignorance (this refers to proactive measures to ensure colleagues do not suspect they may be LGB), preserving underground networks (discreetly developing 30 social support by interacting with other LGB service members) and disclosing strategically (Van Gilder, 2017). Following repeal of DADT, LGB service members began to use strategies of openness, but continued to be cautious in disclosure decisions (Van Gilder, 2017). Further, a study of active duty lesbian U.S. servicewomen found that the majority of participants indicated a greater comfort level for seeking mental health services following DADT repeal (Mount, Steelman, & Hertlein, 2015). For servicewomen who reported no increased comfort in seeking mental health care following DADT repeal, they noted a fear that individual anti-LGBT attitudes may remain despite DADT repeal. One participant noted that LGB service members were “a hunted group” under DADT, for which the psychological effects persist in the form of feelings of isolation and insecurity (Mount et al., 2015, p. 121). Several servicewomen expressed concern regarding the lack of confidentiality in military medical services, and the fear that their sexual orientation would become known to those other than the therapist to whom they may disclose (Mount et al., 2015). While 100% of U.S. active duty gay and bisexual males expressed understanding that disclosure of their sexual minority identity could no longer be used by the military to negatively affect their careers, only 70% of respondents indicated comfort disclosing to their health care provider (Biddix, Fogel, & Perry Black, 2013). The study also found that gay and bisexual active duty male officers were significantly less concerned about the cost of seeing a non-military health care provider (presumably off base) than enlisted gay and bisexual servicemen (Biddix et al., 2013). In a study of lesbian U.S. veterans, about one in three reported fears that they would experience discrimination from their Veterans Administration health care provider were they to disclose their sexual orientation, with some expressing concern that the provider may hold anti- LGBT conservative religious beliefs (Mattocks et al., 2015). Participants were split as to whether 31 they felt it was appropriate for providers to inquire as to a patient’s sexual orientation, with the largest segment (45%) stating it should only be asked or discussed if the patient mentions it (Mattocks et al., 2015). Over half of the participants stated they had chosen to disclose their sexual orientation to none, a few, or some of their VHA providers (Mattocks et al., 2015). A study of LGBT veterans accessing healthcare at Veterans Administration hospitals found that over half of participants had disclosed their LGBT identity to none, a few, or some of their healthcare providers (Sherman, Kauth, Shipherd, & Street, 2014). One third of participants described the VA’s environment for LGBT veterans as very or somewhat unwelcoming, while 28% described the VA as very or somewhat welcoming, and 33% described the VA as neither welcoming nor unwelcoming to LGBT veterans (Sherman et al., 2014). Taken together, these results indicate that LGBT veterans, for the most part, do not view sexual orientation or transgender identity as basic demographic traits, but rather as personal and protected information, even in a healthcare setting. The experience of sexual minorities serving in the Canadian military may give insight into possible experiences of sexual minorities in the US military. One study compared the experiences of lesbian and gay male military members over two decades from repeal of the Canadian military ban on sexual minorities serving openly (Poulin, Gouliquer, & McCutcheon, 2018). The study found that fellow service members “police” gender presentation of others, specifically rewarding a dominant, masculine presentation, with a caveat that women presenting as too masculine may violate nuanced gender norms regarding women in the military (Poulin et al., 2018, p. 65). To avoid or cope with these stressors, gay and lesbian service members sometimes pass as straight or attempt to get stationed at bases with LGBT affirmative thinking to avoid “redneck mentality” at some bases, as one participant called it (Poulin et al., 2018, p. 68). 32 This study points to the possibility of anti-LGBT thinking prevalent in a military environment despite repeal of LGBT-excluding policies, as the Canadian military has permitted open LGBT service since 1992 (Poulin et al., 2018). If the U.S. military progression is anything like that of the Canadian military, the future for LGBT service members may contain additional barriers. Theoretical Considerations While no theory exists to predict LGBT disclosure in a military workplace setting, two frameworks aid this study in conceptualizing decision making. Communication Privacy Management Theory (CPM) explains the processes by which individuals manage their private information, and Minority Stress Theory (MST) explains the ways in which having a stigmatized identity can impact one’s treatment by others, access to social support, and ultimately one’s health. CPM views self-disclosure of private information as inherently relational, with the “owner” of the information granting “access” to “co-owners” of that information (Petronio, 2002; Petronio, 2013). Self-disclosure, in this framework, involves an ongoing management of the private information in which the owner of the information gauges many factors such as situational needs, risk-benefit analyses, and cultural values (Petronio, 2002; Petronio, 2013). When an individual discloses private information about themselves, they re-“draw” the boundary around that information, thereby drawing another person into that boundary; as such, a new boundary line needs to be negotiated and managed (Petronio, 2002, p. 28). In CPR terminology, “core” and “catalyst” criteria are communicated to and created by individuals around which they create “rules” for disclosing private information. For example, a service member who served under DADT may have internalized a core characteristic in which there exists an impermeable separation between work and personal life. Perhaps they witness over time that it seems to be safe to disclose their LGBT identity to other LGBT service members, at which point their “rules” 33 alter and learning of another service member’s LGBT identity becomes a “catalyst” for their own disclosure. From a CPR framework, it can be hypothesized that LGBT service members will carefully consider who may “co-own” their private information. LGBT service members may disclose to friends in the unit as a process of getting to know one another, thereby “co-owning” the information for the purpose or goal of social support; however, they may disclose to unit leaders with the goal not of “co-owning” this information, but rather to acquire a resource needed for their same-sex spouse, for example. Communication management may specifically be important in a military workplace characterized by instability; deployments, promotions, and military moves that require constant “management” of this information among new colleagues. MST states that LGB individuals experience stress associated with having a stigmatized identity. This stress is characterized by discrimination, violence, and rejection from others and internalized negative beliefs about oneself (Meyer, 2003). MST explains that stigmatized social groups suffer prejudice from the community, which adds a burden of social stress, and associated mental health problems follow. Such stress can be experienced through bullying, discrimination, violence, expectations of rejection, internalized homophobia, and identity concealment. In a military setting, otherwise “normative” stressful events that are experienced by all service members regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity can be lived as “minority stress” for LGBT individuals. For example, moving from one duty station to the next, which typically occurs once every two to three years, can be inherently stressful for any person. For an LGBT individual, this might be compounded by the uncertain environment they are entering, and whether they will be rejected if they disclose their LGBT identity. In a military environment, discrimination and harassment may be explicit or implicit, as mentioned above, and may 34 manifest in different ways than in a civilian workplace (Goldbach & Castro, 2016). From a MST framework, it can be hypothesized that LGBT individuals will overwhelmingly choose to conceal their identity in a military environment despite DADT repeal unless they perceive a supportive climate, accepting coworkers, and low internalized negativity. The current qualitative analysis built on existing literature of LGBT worker wellbeing by analyzing in-depth interviews of active duty LGBT service members. This study aimed to fill in the gaps yet to be addressed in the literature: to what extent and in what conditions do LGBT service members disclose their LGBT identity in the military workplace following DADT and the transgender ban repeal. This information will be meaningful for clinicians, chaplains, and medical personnel serving this population, policymakers, LGBT service members, and unit leaders. Methods Participants and Sampling The present qualitative study was exploratory in nature and employed semi-structured interviews. The research team assembled an expert advisory panel of current and former military members known to the research team and through LGBT networks. This panel met for a 2-day in person meeting, and findings from this process informed development of the interview protocol and recruitment plan. As the LGBT civilian community can be a “hard to reach” population, and LGBT service members in particular can be similarly difficult to reach (Goldbach & Castro, 2016) a multi-pronged recruitment strategy was used: 1) a respondent-driven sampling method was used in order to take advantage of strong networks among this population; 2) to reach LGBT individuals who are not connected or “out” to others in the community, the study advertised through each military branches’ official digital and print newspaper; and 3) the research team 35 promoted the study in private Facebook groups known to a member of the research team. To ensure diversity of sampling, as service members were enrolled, the research team monitored the racial, ethnic, service branch, and sexual/gender identity characteristics of recruited participants. Nearing the end of study recruitment, the research team discontinued enrolling Air Force service members because they had comprised more than 30% of the sample. To participate in the interview, service members were required to 1) be at least 18 years of age; 2) speak English; 3) self-identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, another sexual minority status, and/or transgender; 4) be active duty in the Air Force, Army, Marine Corps, or Navy; and 5) be willing and able to provide consent. A total of 42 LGBT service members took part in the study. Of these 42 LGBT service members, 37 of the interviewees discussed disclosure of their LGBT identity in a military setting following DADT repeal and their data were therefore used in the present analysis. Table 1 shows the demographic characteristics of these individuals. Data Collection Procedures and Instruments Interested participants emailed or called a central email address or phone number and a research assistant at the University of Southern California (USC) or University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) screened them for eligibility to participate in the study. Research assistants were made available during a four-month period in 2016 to conduct approximately 90- to 120- minute interviews with participants. Interviews were conducted virtually using secure video- conferencing software at no cost to the participants. Participants were given the option of communicating solely through the audio feature or using both the audio and video feature. After reviewing the consent form and obtaining verbal agreement, interviews were audio-recorded using two (2) recording devices to mitigate the possibility of lost data. Participants received one (1) $25 gift card and up to six (6) $10 incentives for referring additional LGBT military 36 members. Study protocols were approved by the Institutional Review Boards at both USC and UCLA. Guided by the life history calendar method of interviewing participants, research assistants conducted semi structured interviews and allowed participants to identify salient experiences throughout their life as sexual and/or gender minorities and in their military careers (Fisher, 2013). Interviews covered topics such as motivation to join the military, social support, physical and psychological health during their military service, and salient experiences related to identifying as LGBT. Four (4) life history calendar interviews were initially conducted with members of the target population, with the researchers analyzing the data following each interview. Questions were consistent with past use of life history calendar interviews with sexual minorities (Fisher, 2013). Initial analyses evaluated the procedures used by interviewers and the applicability of the interview questions used with the specific aims of the study. Subsequent interview protocols were amended reflecting lessons learned. Analysis An external transcribing service transcribed verbatim all interviews, which a research assistant entered into QSR NVivo (version 12.1.1, 2018). Informed by relevant literature and theories, the research team thematically analyzed the data and crafted a codebook which they used to code the initial four (4) interviews. The research team edited the codebook as interviews were conducted, such as making amendments to capture emerging themes and collapsing overlapping themes. Research assistants paired up for a total of three (3) partnerships; each research assistant independently coded their assigned interviews, which were co-coded by their partner. Partners used a coding consensus worksheet and discussion between co-coders to reach consensus; in situations in which a consensus was not reached through discussion, coders 37 consulted a third party on the research team. A total of 30 participants initially were identified as featuring the “Disclosure Stress” code anywhere in their interview. These data were extracted for use in the current analysis. The first author reviewed all 42 interviews to ensure complete data related to disclosure stress was collected for use in the current analyses; from this process, seven (7) additional interviews were identified as including disclosure stress data relevant to the current study. A member of the research team reviewed these proposed coding amendments and concurred these data should be coded as Disclosure Stress; a total of 37 interviews were included in the present analysis. To maintain anonymity of participants, quotations included in this paper are identified by participant number, noted as “P1, P2, P3, etc.” Subsequently, first and second authors of the current study independently thematically analyzed those data from a randomly selected portion of data coded as “Disclosure Stress,” identifying major themes and sub-themes associated with LGBT disclosure in the military following repeal of DADT. Both coders carefully analyzed the context of all quotes to ensure that only those which referred to post-DADT disclosure were included in the present study. Coders then collaborated over several meetings to review all identified themes, grouped or excluded codes as needed, and formed a final codebook. Both coders then independently coded the remainder of the data. Over a series of sessions, coders reviewed the data together and assigned a final code to all data. While some data could be assigned multiple codes, the more prominent theme was used for final coding analysis. Finally, a third member of the research team was available for consultation in the event of disagreement between coders, however this step was not needed due to 100% coding consensus among primary reviewers. Finally, the first author utilized quantitative analyses to assess the proportion of participants who endorsed each theme and subtheme as classified by coders (see Table 2). 38 Results Of the 37 LGBT service members who discussed disclosure decision making following DADT repeal, the majority were male, gay, white, aged 26 to 30, and an equal number were in the Army and Air Force. (see Table 1). Factors related to LGBT disclosure decision making fit into three major themes: institutional, interpersonal, and individual. Individual-level factors were the most prevalent, followed by institutional-level, then interpersonal-level (70%, 52%, and 49% of participants respectively; see Table 2). Institutional Most participants (59%) noted a reluctance to disclose their LGBT identity due to the fear that they could still be negatively affected, despite repeal of anti-LGBT policies. These fears were not necessarily motivated by specific incidents, but rather a “sixth sense” that it may not yet be safe to disclose LGBT identity in the military workplace. These fears were often influenced by a concern that anti-LGBT sentiment persisted in the culture and among anti-LGBT colleagues such that there could be career ramifications to disclosure. General fear of misalignment between policy and culture. At the time of interviews, military policy allowed open LGB service. However, 42% of participants noted a general distrust that the culture of the military workplace and colleagues’ opinions were consistent with inclusive policies. As one woman put it: That was a fear of mine when I joined the military was yeah, they’re allowing LGBT, well, LGB people to come in, but are they actually accepting of it or is it just them saying it because they have to, kind of thing (Lesbian, female, Air Force, P19). This comment underscored a concern noted by many participants, that a colleague or the military in general may outwardly display acceptance of this group while clandestinely maintaining an anti-LGBT stance, thereby undermining the safety of LGBT disclosure. One participant noted 39 being concerned about an unspoken, underlying anti-LGBT bias: “There’s what people think they are and then there’s the subconscious, you know, what they’re willing to give preference to and discriminate against. So, I try not to make it too obvious at work” (Bisexual, female, Air Force, P10). Such a comment identified the complicated thought process that this participant experienced; although a fellow service member may outwardly present as LGBT-accepting, the possibility that the coworker might harbor ingrained anti-LGBT sentiment caused this participant to view them as potentially unsafe. Another participant, referring to colleagues in a military healthcare setting, identified a gap between their “official” acceptance of sexual minorities and his perception that there is more education needed: I can tell you right now that it has a long way to go. I think they’ve [fellow clinicians] learned how to be supportive of same-sex couples, at least politically speaking and officially. However, individually, I think the clinicians have a lot of training and sensitivity training to go through (Gay, male, Air Force, P2). Importantly, policy change alone does not seem to communicate to some LGBT service members themselves that they are necessarily included, understood, or safe. Some participants identified aspects of the military culture that may be permissive of anti-LGBT sentiment. For example: There’s still that stigmata [sic] of it’s the old boys’ club. You know, this is a macho man’s military. I don’t run around advertising the fact that I’m gay to most of my workplace. And that’s been throughout the entire military career, for at least as long as I’ve been in (Gay, male, Navy, P31). This participant noted a possibly complex disclosure decision making, starting with the premise that a “macho man’s military” may not be permissive of homosexuality. One participant commented on the transitory nature of military life, noting that he works with new colleagues and is uncertain whether the colleagues have communicated to one another about his sexual 40 orientation. Further, he acknowledged that new colleagues may have opinions not in line with DADT repeal: [The military] is kind of a small community, so sometimes, your reputation precedes you. So I never know, oh does this person know I’m gay, and if they do, do they have a problem with it? And then it’s like... it’s almost like you’re walking with landmines everywhere. You want to be careful” (Bisexual, male, Air Force, P21; has identified as both gay and bisexual). The reference to landmines provides powerful imagery of the cautious and calculated disclosure decision-making some participants described. Despite deliberate management of their identity, LGBT service members still expect and fear explosive responses from others that could cause them harm, which are to a certain extent impossible to predict. In addition, several participants alluded to the hierarchical structure of the military, in which higher ranking individuals are perceived to be empowered to act unilaterally in a way that could significantly negatively impact one’s life or career. Career repercussions. General distrust and fear of misalignment between military culture, policy, and personal opinions also manifested as fear of negative career repercussions (e.g. loss of career broadening opportunities; separation from the military) for 19% of participants interviewed. Participants noted a fear of being separated under the guise of a legitimate concern (e.g. poor performance in a class or training), while the underlying and covert purpose was to remove LGBT people from the service. One service member interviewed worried that coming out as transgender may open him up to violence or negative evaluations. He noted an interest in being an advocate for transgender rights, but weighed this with the perceived risks of disclosure: I didn’t tell any of my classmates. Obviously, I only told people who knew me already. But I made it very clear to them. I was like ‘I’m not trying to come out and be like a poster child for trans people’ because as amazing as that would be, I have a feeling that 41 there will be some people who are not cool with it and they might try to kill me on my way to my car or some professor might not be cool with it and she’ll like flunk me or he’ll flunk me and I just don’t got time for drama right now. Like, let me just try to get through this next tour (Transmale, straight, Navy, P18). In addition to managing disclosure himself, he also ensured that those to whom he did disclose understood that his gender identity was not to be shared with others. He was concerned that the “drama” others may create in reaction to his disclosure would interfere with his plan to perform his military duties and advance to the next stage in his career. Most concerningly, he worried that such disclosure could result in his murder by a fellow service member. One participant viewed his disclosure decision-making directly through the lens of his career projection: I don’t want to screw myself before I even have that opportunity [to be promoted]. I’m in a position like I am right now where I am about to be put on a board for Major and I don’t want to not even have that opportunity to put myself where they can easily be like, ‘Get rid of this guy; if we have to cut 55% of the officers up for it, he’s one of the easy ones we can just find a reason to just cover [ourselves].’ So I want to be smart about it. You can’t be a positive role model if you’re not even there, if you just get tossed out (Gay, male Marine, P38). This participant alluded to the military career pyramid, in which fewer service members occupy each ascending rank. This participant would like to be a positive role model for the community; however, this desire is tempered by his fear that disclosure may threaten his chances of job security and personal military success. One participant discussed not only carefully managing his gender identity, but also carefully managing his other military-related identities. He noted that while he was aware the policy toward transgender service had been altered such that he could come out to his fellow sailors, he was reluctant to do so: I had pressure to perform like an officer, first and foremost. And then maintain expectations that I wasn’t different in any way. I wasn’t gay, I wasn’t queer. I wasn’t trans. So, I had to fit the Naval officer mold first, in order just to try to survive and 42 qualify. So, you know, back again compartmentalize, get to work. But, again, when everybody said ok, you can come out now. I was like uh, I don’t trust any of ya’ll fuckers. I’d been living like this, not trusting anybody” (Transmale, straight, Navy, P18). This service member noted that years of hyper-focusing on fulfilling the demands of his job and prioritizing his identity as a Naval officer established a certain precedent. Disclosing his transgender identity would require a major overhaul not only in his identity construction, but also his engrained distrust of fellow service members. The participant had survived in the military environment by de-emphasizing his gender identity not only to others, but also to himself; altering that prioritization will be a complex process in which he must be convinced that “being different” does not jeopardize his career. One participant noted she is conscientious about the rank and power dynamic between herself and individuals to whom she is considering disclosing: If it’s a peer or somebody junior to me, I don’t really care. I don’t care what they say. I don’t care, because my career is not in their hands. However, it’s the more senior people that I still am hesitant with because they grew up in the same Navy I did. So regardless of what their opinions are, they may or may not be ok with the [DADT] repeal. And so depending on who the senior person is, or who it is that I’m working for, they could just find reasons to give me that adverse evaluation (Lesbian, female, Navy, P7). In an intersection between the general fear of misalignment between military policy and culture, this participant identified that certain colleagues may be more powerful at negatively impacting her career than others. She commented on her time in the Navy before DADT repeal and considers the possibility that her superiors may personally be compelled to continue to enforce DADT by “finding reasons” to harm her career via her annual performance evaluation. While several participants reported a general fear of disclosure due to the possibility that others may not be accepting, one participant recounted witnessing his training instructor make explicit anti-LGBT comments. The instructor was reported to use the pejorative term “fags” during class, disclose other people’s sexual minority identity to his students without their 43 permission, and communicate that he believed sexual minorities were more promiscuous than heterosexuals. Classmates notedly did not verbally protest the instructor’s behaviors, which may have contributed to the sense that the instructor’s beliefs, as opposed to the aggregate of students’ beliefs, were paramount in creating class climate. The participant, having witnessed this dynamic, stated: But, here, I wouldn’t [disclose sexual orientation] ‘cause I just don’t know how that climate would be with him [training course instructor]. Most of my classmates don’t have an issue with it or if they do, they don’t say anything, so there’s not an issue on that side. But because he’s the senior person and he controls a significant amount of my success in this course, I just don’t really want to kind of chance anything right now…since the climate is the way it is, might as well just not do it (Gay, male, Army, P36). It should be noted that the participant viewthe majority of his classmates as accepting, but by nature of the instructor’s stature in the course, the instructor’s opinions superseded that of the participants’ classmates. The instructor’s opinions alone were perceived by the participant as creating an anti-LGBT climate. Having identified that hierarchy matters, anti-LGBT sentiment was allowed to persist, and instructors were permitted to unilaterally determine students’ course success, the participant weighed his options and viewed the risks as significant. One participant discussed weighing her own values, acknowledging that advancing in the military may require de-prioritizing her competing desire to express her authentic self: I think that in any organization there’s going to be different leadership. And so I think specifically for the sexuality issue, if the tone is set that oh, this is not a good thing and I’m an ambitious person, then, I’m going to decide what’s more important to me. You know, like career opportunities or expressing myself and being out and in that situation I’m going to make a decision based on how I feel at that time (Female, lesbian, Navy, P20). This participant’s acknowledgment that she has clear goals of career advancement seem to streamline her disclosure decision making. It is worth noting this was one of the older participants interviewed. 44 In sum, while LGBT-accepting policies were important to LGBT service members, disclosure of their LGBT identity to military colleagues was influenced by their sense that colleagues and military culture in general are amendable to inclusive policies. Some participants perceived the military as an institution that was complicit in anti-LGBT behaviors, potentially allowing superiors to promote anti-LGBT views at odds with policy changes. Interpersonal Half of participants (49%) noted interpersonal level factors guiding their disclosure decision making. These participants stated that they gauge for cues from coworkers to determine whether disclosing to that individual will be safe. This theme of interpersonal cues of acceptance can be grouped into sub-themes, deemed red, green, and white flags. Using the terminology of “flags” which refers to hints, clues, and signifiers that reveal an underlying attitude, participants noted three categories which separate as hostile (red), accepting (green), and neutral (white). Spotting red flags. One in three participants (32%) stated that they were influenced in their disclosure decision-making by witnessing or perceiving that a colleague had a negative attitude toward LGBT individuals in general, or specifically in regards to their service in the military. Red flags are cues that indicate it is likely not safe to disclose LGBT identity to the colleague. Participants noted perceiving colleagues’ religiosity or conservative political beliefs as red flags. For example, a participant stated: I had a few friends there [in training] that I got to know pretty well, but I knew a couple of them had some pretty strong religious backgrounds and I didn’t really feel like testing the waters at that point. I didn’t know where I was going, who I was going to be working with next, so just kind of kept my nose, again, to the grindstone and pushed through the training (Gay, male, Army, P36). This participant developed friendships while in training, getting to know his colleagues “pretty well;” however, their religiosity communicated that disclosing his sexual orientation could 45 threaten their perception of him. Another participant stated he was hesitant to disclose that he was transgender to his coworkers because “people have their religious views…they come from small backgrounds” (Transmale, pansexual, Army, P40). A transgender service member stated he observes coworkers’ disclosure about their own opinions and if “somebody…doesn’t seem overly religious or anti LGBT, then I’ll say I’m a transgender man and explain what that means” (Transmale, asexual, Marines, P34). One participant stated that before she came out as a lesbian to members of her unit, she got along well with the older members; after coming out, she reported being “shunned” which she perceived as being due to their “Bible-stomping beliefs” (Lesbian, female, Army, P41). This participant requested to change units due to this treatment and carried the lesson that it may not be safe to disclose to older or religious individuals in her future units. Other participants noted that older age or higher rank was perceived as a red flag in regards to fellow military members who they did not know well. For example, one individual stated he was seen for a sexual health concern by a “gruff, grumpy, old” doctor who he had not previously seen. The curt manner in which the doctor performed his interview and exam of the participant communicated to this participant that he may not be safe to disclose the specific nature of his symptoms and that they were related to sexual intimacy with a man (Male, gay, Navy, P16). One participant noted that older, higher ranking personnel “grew up in the same Navy I did” and that in general she is hesitant to disclose to anyone who served under DADT (Female, lesbian, Navy, P7). Some service members stated that they observe conversations about related topics among coworkers to gauge for cues. Participants also noted coworkers communicating “ignorant” views about LGBT people in general, in which negative stereotypes 46 were believed as fact, being reluctant to talk about LGBT issues at all, and being against women serving in combat roles as red flags to their own LGBT disclosure. Spotting green and white flags. One in four (27%) of participants noted cues of acceptance or neutrality from colleagues influencing their disclosure decision making. Colleagues coming out as LGBT to participants, observing other LGBT service members being out and accepted in the unit, and colleagues vocally supporting LGBT rights are seen as cues of outright acceptance and green flags for disclosure. Several participants noted that another service member coming out to them as LGBT was perceived as a green flag for their own disclosure. Other service members being out and accepted in the unit was also seen as an acceptance cue impacting disclosure decision making. Some participants referenced “shortcuts” or “rules” that they used in disclosure decision making. For them, certain traits became associated with cues of acceptance, and when a coworker had that trait, the participant perceived a certain cue of acceptance or rejection. For example, one participant stated that he is more inclined to be out to officers than enlisted service members, referencing the educational gap that can exist between officer and enlisted personnel, “People with more college education tend to have that higher level of tolerance and acceptance of it [LGBT issues]” (Gay, male, Army, P22). It is worth noting that this participant had been both enlisted and an officer; he had created a “rule” for himself in disclosure decision making, viewing officers as inherently safer. Another participant viewed a generational divide in LGBT acceptance: “I feel like the generation of the Air Force is getting younger, so people are coming in more open-minded and those very opinionated people are getting out [separating from the military]” (Gay, male, Air Force, P12). For this participant, younger age was perceived as a green flag for disclosure. 47 Similar to green flags, white flags can communicate safety disclosing LGBT identity. They differ from green flags in that they communicate to the service member that sexual or gender minority identity is judged neither negatively nor positively by the individual. Some participants may observe a white flag and choose not to disclose, preferring more overt green flags of LGBT acceptance. Some white flags include a conditional nature of acceptance such that LGBT identity is not problematic unless unrelated flaws are observed. As one participant stated: “All he [coworker] cares about is whether or not we can do our jobs…I think he pretty much echoed everyone else’s feeling about being gay. As long as we’re doing our job, it’s totally fine (Gay, male, Air Force, P28). Individual A majority (70%) of participants noted individual level factors in their LGBT disclosure decision-making in the military workplace. These participants noted concern over the burdens associated with “coming out” as a minority in some way and questioning the relevance of coming out as LGBT at work as barriers to disclosure. Some participants stated that outness gave them a sense of strength and was a service to other LGBT individuals who may benefit from their outness. Some participants stated that being out in their civilian community affirmed their identity and made their concealment at work tolerable. Burden of being different. One in three (32%) participants noted feeling burdened by their “differentness,” such that extra steps and energy are needed to accomplish tasks that would not be required for non-LGBT service members. Some participants noted the need to disclose their LGBT identity to military colleagues at times or in ways that were forced. For example, prior to the Supreme Court ruling in 2015 requiring all U.S. states to perform and recognize same-sex marriages, some service members had to request leave in order to travel to a state that 48 would allow them to marry their same-sex partner. Some participants noted this required them to disclose their LGB identity to their Commander when they would not otherwise have done so. One participant noted: I had just never had to discuss it [being gay], I think, in a formal setting…I think it caught him [Commander] off guard, too, because he had never had to probably address the rules on making sure that a gay person was given the benefits of traveling when they needed to get married...he just kind of sat back in his chair and thought ‘Well, ok. I’ll figure this out for you.’ But I could tell that he understood the frustration that I had to deal with because I had to come to discuss it with him (Gay, male, Air Force, P1). It should be noted that this participant was pleased by his Commander’s reaction to his question; he felt that his Commander accepted him as a gay service member, and he was appropriately aided by his Commander in his request to travel to another state. Some participants noted that accessing sexual health counseling or certain medications from their medical providers required the added burdens of them evaluating acceptance cues, educating their providers, and in some cases seeking medical care off base. The burden of educating others, as well as handling their questions and emotional reactions to one’s disclosure, was noted by several participants. As one transgender woman stated, “It’s just like, it takes a lot of energy to handle people’s reactions [to coming out as transgender]” (Transfemale, bisexual, Army, P3). One participant who was a mental health professional noted that he was referred every patient who presented to the clinic who disclosed they were LGBT: “Like I’m the token homo shrink” (Gay, male, Air Force, P2). Such experiences highlight aftereffects of disclosure to fellow service members that may impact their decision-making in the future. One participant stated that after disclosing he was transgender to his coworkers, he found that not only was he educating his colleagues on “transgender issues” but that he was serving as a representative of sorts for other transgender service members. As a representative, he felt pressure to prove how “normal” transgender people are (Transmale, straight, Navy, P18). One service member stated 49 that he perceived pressure to “fit in” in the military, and that disclosing his bisexuality to coworkers threatened his standing as “normal”: I definitely felt more like I was swimming against the stream. Like, in the military there’s this idea that you don’t want to stand out at all, like you want to blend in with the walls. You want to seem like everyone else. You want to be like interchangeable with other people. You don’t want to stand out because you don’t want to be a candidate for punishment or just seen as having discrepancies about you (Bisexual, male, Air Force, P21). For these participants, LGBT disclosure in the military conferred the burden of being seen as the expert on LGBT issues, required additional steps in order to receive the same benefits provided to non-LGBT service members, and the pressure to show that, despite being LGBT, they were “still normal.” Assessing these burdens as “worth it” may vary by service member and situation, working in concert with institutional and interpersonal factors. Some service members may offset such burdens with coping mechanisms that make disclosure worthwhile. Several participants noted that one way to do that was by seeing their outness as an altruistic decision or as a personal strength. Outness in the workplace benefitting others or as a personal strength. Nearly half (41%) of participants reported that they viewed their disclosure decision making through the lens of improving the lives of other LGBT service members or acknowledging the psychological benefits of presenting as their authentic selves. Referring to the 2016 terror attack on a nightclub in Orlando, Florida frequented by gay males, one participant stated: When that Orlando attack happened, that was kind of a big deal. I’m like well, the best way to keep people from being homophobic is to have them have someone that they know and respect, who is gay. So, I have decided that it would be a conscious decision where I would actually mention that stuff in class, just sort of in passing, especially at this sort of hypermasculine culture at the [Naval] Academy (Gay, male, Navy, P16). 50 For this participant, he viewed his disclosure as a chance to protect against violence in the greater society, as well as presenting his authentic self at the Naval Academy, where he perceived a hypermasculine norm. For some participants, disclosure to coworkers was worth the fear and uncertainty they may have felt. One participant stated: “As I keep going, the better I get at it [disclosing]…But I’ve had this idea for fearlessly being myself, right? And I just need to remember that I should just fearlessly be myself” (Lesbian, female, Navy, P30). A transgender participant noted that she did not want her colleagues to “continue thinking false things about me” in reference to her motivation to disclose her gender identity (Bisexual, transfemale, Army, P3). This aversion to misleading others was noted by another participant: My wife and I are able to enjoy all the benefits that any other military family can enjoy and I just feel like being able to be more transparent is better. You feel more like you’re a part of a team than the person with the dirty secret (Lesbian, female, Army, P42). For this service member, keeping her identity a secret from coworkers facilitated its “dirtiness,” while outness empowered her and neutralized the information. For these participants, disclosure was viewed as an important step in building healthy relationships with coworkers. They noted that to serve with integrity and as a member of the team meant presenting as their authentic selves. One participant connected the experience of being respected by coworkers in his gender identity with his workplace performance: All I can say as a final word is that I hope that with the data that you get from not only me but from all the other service members, I hope that the Department of Defense and just everybody in general can see that we want to stay. We want to do our job. Some of us love doing our job. Just even simply being recognized by our right pronoun, it makes our day. Or when someone refers to me by the male pronoun, it completely makes my day. It brightens up my day and I just work harder, I work happier. I work with a smile. And I think it just makes more sense that you would want happy workers, happy service members doing their job (Pansexual, transmale, Army, P29). 51 Questioning relevance/appropriateness of discussing LGBT identity in the workplace. One in five (19%) participants reported they assessed the relevance or appropriateness of discussing their LGBT identity in a military workplace setting prior to disclosure. These participants noted that they were concerned with presenting as “professional” and worried that commenting on their personal lives threatened their professional presentation. As one participant noted about LGBT identity, “Just the topic in general, who you like to have sex with and who you love, is just kind of awkward in nature” (Straight, transmale, Marines, P35). Another participant stated that he is “reserved” about disclosure, “in the way that all people should be reserved in how they’re romantic” (Gay, male, Navy, P26). One participant stated that he viewed disclosing his sexual orientation as aligning him with a “social change” movement, which is inconsistent with how he views himself in the workplace. This participant witnessed an anti-LGBT comment from a coworker and weighed his possible responses. On one hand, he felt compelled to disclose his sexual orientation to the individual who made the comment in order to confront and possibly amend her views. On the other hand, he recognized that she was a high- ranking official in the unit, that confronting her may upset his own career advancement, and concluded: It is more important for me to be more of a closed book in the office than an open book, just from a professional standpoint, for a number of reasons, but mostly because I don’t see myself as a person jockeying for social change in the workplace and I don’t think that’s my place (Gay, male, Air Force, P25). This participant viewed professionalism and “jockeying for social change” as inconsistent with one another; it may be the case that the presence of LGBT topics in political spaces dissuades some from aligning with LGBT topics in general. While some may define professionalism as vocally upholding institutional policy that promotes LGBT inclusion, he determined it was “not his place” to address the anti-LGBT comment made by a higher-ranking colleague. 52 Some LGBT service members referenced their time serving under DADT, noting that they were forced to de-prioritize this aspect of themselves for so long, internalizing its irrelevance and inappropriateness at work, now they have trouble re-prioritizing it. For some service members in a committed relationship, while it felt natural to have a picture of their significant other as the background image on their cell phone, or a photo on their desk, for example, they worried that a coworker would view this as a political statement. One participant stated that, while taking part in an LGBT Pride Parade with other service members, he felt: …a little bit uncomfortable because it’s like well, how do we be political, how do we be sexual in a way that doesn’t somehow [pause] how do we nix these two things? Like, what’s asked of us as young people in the LGBT rights or political movement…and then what’s asked of us in the military and how do we bridge that divide? (Male, gay, Navy, P26). Outness outside the military as a strength. One in ten (11%) participants noted that their outness outside of the military provided a sense of strength that offset the challenges of being out in the military. A transgender Marine noted that while he couldn’t yet present as male in his military community, he was able to be out in his non-military community, and others respected his gender identity. I just got so fed up, that I was living a double life, like, you know, being out here, it was great because people knew that hey, I go by he, him, his. People knew that I was transgender, knew not to refer to me as she. But the thing is it was a different story at work. So, it’s like I was living a double life. Here I’m being this female Marine but then outside of work, I’m being him, the person I know that I am, the man that I am (Transmale, straight, Marines, P35). Another transmale stated that he was able to be “out” in the civilian community while stationed internationally. Due to gender presentation differences and the community’s limited interactions with Americans, this service member was able to present and introduce himself authentically while off duty. “That’s when I started dressing as myself on my free time, I would be up there, and I was comfortable. I lived as myself and I was fine” (Transmale, straight, Navy, P18). A 53 straight transmale and a bisexual female stated that being stationed in a progressive state allowed them to be out in their “off time;” while stressful to live differently on and off duty, they appreciated feeling safe to be out at least part of the time. Discussion This first-of-its-kind qualitative analysis of in-depth interviews of LGBT active duty service members across all military branches found institutional, interpersonal, and individual level factors influence their disclosure decision making. Despite repeal of both DADT (2010) and the transgender ban (2016), most participants cautiously evaluated their military environment for cues of safety prior to disclosure, fearing that anti-LGBT sentiment lingers. Further, this study found that many LGBT service members worry that unspoken norms, or military culture, lag behind verbalized expectations or military policy. Just as LGBT bans did not seamlessly serve their purposes of keeping LGBT individuals from serving or disclosing their LGBT identity in the military, findings from the current study indicate that repeal of these bans does not seamlessly allow full, unlimited disclosure (Moradi, 2009; Parco, Levy, & Spears, 2015). This study found that LGBT service members gauge coworkers for cues of acceptance, neutrality, or rejection prior to disclosure. Individual worldviews regarding outness as altruism and personal strength, outness as a burden, as well as considering the relevance of LGBT identity in the workplace all impact LGBT disclosure in the military. As posited by Communication Privacy Management theory (CPM), participants noted that they carefully protected information regarding their LGBT identity when able. Participants created “core criteria” which needed to be met, such as younger age, supportive LGBT political views, and lack of religiosity, for example, prior to disclosure. Some participants experienced a “catalyst” to disclosure such that they were pressured to disclose in order to access needed 54 resources. Consistent with CPM, LGBT service members reported that they carefully manage their private information and thoughtfully select military coworkers to “co-own” their information. Using CPM terminology, it may be the case that service members develop “rules” for themselves in which they are open to disclosure, redrawing boundaries around their private information, as they gauge for catalyst criteria indicating that this new boundary will be upheld. The current study found that, despite LGBT military ban repeals, LGBT service members do not necessarily trust all fellow service members to “co-own” this information. Consistent with Minority Stress Theory (MST), one’s perception of anti-LGBT stigma in the greater society impacted LGBT service members’ disclosure decisions. Witnessing anti- LGBT sentiment that went unchecked despite DADT repeal fostered a sense that individual anti- LGBT beliefs may persist despite policy change. This study also found that social support, an individual sense of outness as strength, and outness as activism and altruism acted as coping mechanism. MST indicates that such supports, which can be interpreted through the MST terminology of “valence” and “prominence” of one’s LGBT identity, will interact with anti- LGBT factors to influence one’s wellness (Meyer, 2003, p. 678). As discussed in MST literature, participants in this study noted that while de-prioritizing their LGBT identity at work was stressful, concealment was used strategically to accomplish personal goals such as career advancement or merely career security. Military-specific cultural norms may impact findings from the present study, such as the de-emphasis of individuality, and the emphasis on teamwork and conformity in a military community. A Department of Defense memo released in support of DADT repeal echoes the common sentiment that sexual orientation is a “personal and private matter” (Stanley, 2011). While the sentiment was used in the memo’s context as a supportive argument for removing 55 government regulation from a service member’s romantic life, such a statement may also deliver a complex message to sexual minorities. Such a sentiment may intend to state that sexuality is a personal and private matter. However, one could argue that sexual orientation, separate from sexuality, is a demographic characteristic not unlike racial identity, age, or marital status. If a demographic trait is classified as “personal and private,” it may connote an underlying expectation of secrecy. This dilemma was expressed by those participants in the current study who worried that disclosure of their LGBT identity in the military workplace was not relevant or appropriate. Coupled with the oft-repeated sentiment heard from coworkers that their sexual orientation or gender identity “doesn’t matter” as long as they can accomplish their job, service members may feel ambivalent about whether to disclose. On top of this complex consideration, the military’s “warrior ethos” and “mission first” culture, which demands that service members place their personal needs after that of the military’s needs, may present an additional layer complicating LGBT disclosure decision-making (Riccio, Sullivan, Klein, Salter, & Kinnison, 2004). Further, a culture that is perceived to be permissive of anti-LGBT sentiment may encourage LGBT service members to conceal in order to protect themselves from violence from those who wish to assert their dominance in a competitive, hypermasculine workplace (Castro & Goldbach, 2018). The participant who stated, “you don’t want to stand out at all, like you want to blend in with the walls” (Bisexual, male, Air Force, P21) highlighted this sense that there is danger in transgressing the expectation of conformity. The present findings mirror the literature on LGBT disclosure in civilian workplaces. King et al. (2017) found that institutional policies, climate, and partner cues of acceptance and rejection predicted disclosure of LGB workers in a civilian environment. Wessel (2017) found that having a supportive coworker and accepting organizational policies were associated with 56 disclosure for LGB workers. Velez, Moradi, and Brewster (2013) found that disclosure at work can work as a buffer between low, but not high, levels of discrimination at work and wellbeing. As such interactions were not explored in the present study, the complex relationships between work-related variables and disclosure decisions should continue to be explored. Further, the present findings are consistent with past research on LGBT service members which found that DADT repeal did alleviate some of the stress associated with being an LGBT service member (Mount et al., 2015; Van Gilder, 2017; Biddix et al., 2013). However, lingering distrust was found in those studies as well; as noted in the Mount et al. (2015) paper regarding LB servicewomen’s comfort accessing medical care, one participant stated “I know [DADT] has been repealed, but I’m not sure I trust the system yet.” If military values (e.g. conformity, warrior ethos) and logistical factors (e.g. frequent moves, rank structure, limited confidentiality) are mandatory military workplace elements, what can be done to integrate LGBT service members beyond revocation of LGBT bans? The findings from this study offered a number of suggestions. Several participants mentioned either the importance of having, or their desire to have, an LGBT role model who was higher ranking and had experienced military success while being openly LGBT. Others mentioned the subjectivity involved in a standard evalution and promotion process, such that the possibility of their career being harmed under the guise of another, non-LGBT-related motivation, was a constant threat. Several participants noted that disclosure of anti-LGBT religious beliefs communicated a “red flag” to LGBT disclosure. Some participants recalled experiences in which a unit leader either voiced anti-LGBT beliefs, or failed to hold another unit member accountable for voicing anti- LGBT beliefs, despite LGBT ban repeals. While in other contexts, an LGBT community may value a counter-culture presence, this was not communicated by LGBT service members in this 57 study. One transgender individual communicated a sentiment that was alluded to by several LGBT participants: “We’re normal. We’re super normal” (Transmale, straight, Navy, P18). In sum, LGBT service members interviewed for this study advocated for an increase in openly LGBT higher-ranking service members at both the enlisted and officer levels, greater transparency in the career evaluation process, cultivation of stronger community norms that statements of discrimination and bigotry won’t be tolerated (even if these views are religion- based), and the freedom to define for themselves whether or not to emphasize their LGBT identity in the military workplace. From an administrative perspective, military officials may consider implementing clear guidance for unit leaders to communicate LGB-integrative language and sentiment in line with DADT repeal. Further, due to the abrupt reinstatment of the ban on open transgender service, there may be a complex tension between transgender service member acceptance and existing policy. To avoid a problematic ask, tell, pursue mindset against currently-serving transgender members, á la the anti-LGB DADT policy, military officials may consider implementing policy that allows open service for those individuals. Future studies on this population may employ quantitative data analysis in order to explore the relationships between demographic factors such as rank and sexual orientation sub- group with workplace disclosure. Additionally, factors such as unit cohesion and social support may be assessed in relation to disclosure and LGBT climate. Also, as higher internalized homonegativity or transnegativity has been associated with lower outness, future studies should investigate to what extent these factors may be at play for LGBT service members (Whitman & Nadal, 2015; Rostosky & Riggle, 2002; Gilmore, Rose, & Rubinstein, 2011). Continued research on the acceptance and integration of LGBT service members will be helpful in assessing for changes over time. As the policies regarding transgender service have changed, these service 58 members’ wellbeing must be monitored. Finally, consequences of LGBT disclosure on one’s mental health, unit cohesion, work performance, and other factors may be helpful for researchers to explore in order to paint a more complete picture of LGBT service member health and design interventions to support their wellbeing. Limitations This study contains limitations that should be noted. While recruitment was conducted intentionally to incorporate LGBT service members from a variety of venues, it is possible that the sample is biased. It could be the case that the sample is comprised mostly of individuals who are more “out,” as one of the main recruitment strategies involved reaching potential participants via LGBT military social media. Those who are not members of such social media groups may not be inclined to select a link to a survey for LGBT service members no matter the venue. On the other hand, it may be the case that the sample is biased toward individuals who experience some form of stress related to their LGBT identity in the military, while those who are not preoccupied with such stressors do not feel compelled to partake in such a study. While this study had a relatively high number of participants, the sub-samples were not large enough to assess for differences by sub-groups. Whether bisexual male service members experience different disclosure decision making factors than gay male service members, for example, was not assessed. Differences in disclosure decision making by branch, sexual orientation, gender identity, race, etc. may be explored in future studies. Due to the timely policy shifts around transgender service members, the logistical needs of this group, and the unique societal stigma associated with transgender individuals, this group may warrant a research study specifically exploring their experience disclosing in a military context. 59 Conclusion Efforts taken by U.S. government officials to introduce the military to open LGBT service have been acknowledged by the LGBT military community. However, these actions do not seem to be enough to eliminating the stigma of being an LGBT service member. Participants in the present study state that they continually assess the military climate and their coworkers for cues that it is safe to disclose their LGBT identity. Participants evaluate these factors as they weigh their own individual motivations to conceal or disclose. All participants noted that they have disclosed to some military colleagues and have concealed to others. The results indicate that, while DADT repeal and movements toward open transgender service have reduced some stress for LGBT service members, the repeals have also created an added burden. Sexual and gender minority service members must now analyze their environment for cues that they are safe to disclose. Participants in this study sought safety in LGBT disclosure such that they will not be subject to negative career repercussions, be burdened with feelings of differentness or expectations to teach others how to treat them, be limited in their family’s ability to access needed resources and sense of community, and, ultimately, that their physical and personal integrity will not be endangered. In an all-volunteer force, it makes logical sense that the estimated 60,000+ actively serving LGBT personnel be permitted to serve their country without continued fear of reprisal for presenting as their authentic self. As it stands, many LGBT service members continue to fear that doing so opens them up as a “candidate for punishment.” 60 References Alford, B., & Lee, S. J. (2016). Toward complete inclusion: Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender military service members after repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. Social Work, 61(3), 257–266. https://doi.org/10.1093/sw/sww033 Biddix, J. M., Fogel, C. I., & Perry Black, B. (2013). Comfort levels of active duty gay/bisexual male service members in the military healthcare system. Mil Med, 178(12), 1335–1340. https://doi.org/10.7205/MILMED-D-13-00044 Bowring, M. A. (2017). Can I trust you? Exploring the ways in which sexual orientation disclosure affects the relationship between LGB leaders and their followers. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, 181, 170–181. https://doi.org/10.1002/cjas.1435 Burks, D. J. (2011). Lesbian, gay, and bisexual victimization in the military: An unintended consequence of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”? American Psychologist, 66(7), 604–613. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024609 Castro, C. A., & Goldbach, J. (2018). The perpetrator hypothesis: Victimization involving LGBT service members. In L. Roberts & C. Warner (Eds.), Military and veteran mental health (Online advanced publication). New York, NY: Springer. Croteau, J. M., Anderson, M. Z., & Vanderwal, B. L. (2008). Models of workplace sexual identity disclosure and management. Group & Organization Management, 33(5), 532– 565. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601108321828 Davis, L., Grifka, A., Williams, K., & Coffey, M. (2016). 2016 Workplace and Gender Relations Survey of Active Duty Members. Retrieved from 61 https://sapr.mil/public/docs/reports/FY17_Annual/FY16_Annual_Report_on_Sexual_Ass ault_in_the_Military_Full_Report_Part2_4.pdf Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, 10 U.S.C. § 654 (1993) (Repealed 2010). Retrieved from https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2010-title10/pdf/USCODE-2010-title10- subtitleA-partII-chap37-sec654.pdf Fisher, C. M. (2013). Queering data collection: Using the life history calendar method with sexual-minority youth. Journal of Social Service Research, 39(3), 306–321. https://doi.org/10.1080/01488376.2013.766554 Gates, G. J. (2010). Lesbian, gay, and bisexual men and women in the US military: Updated estimates. The Williams Institute. Retrieved from https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/Gates-GLBmilitaryUpdate- May-20101.pdf Gilmore, G., Rose, S., & Rubinstein, R. (2011). The impact of internalized homophobia on outness for lesbian, gay, and bisexual individuals. The Professional Counselor, 1(3), 163- 175. Goldbach, J. T., & Castro, C. A. (2016). Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) service members: Life after Don't Ask, Don't Tell. Current Psychiatry Reports, 18(6). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11920-016-0695-0 Griffith, K. H., & Hebl, M. R. (2002). The disclosure dilemma for gay men and lesbians: “coming out” at work. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(6), 1191–1199. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.87.6.1191 62 Helens-Hart, R. (2017). Females’ (non)disclosure of minority sexual identities in the workplace from a Communication Privacy Management perspective. Communication Studies, 68(5), 607–623. https://doi.org/10.1080/10510974.2017.1388827 Huebner, D. M., & Davis, M. C. (2005). Gay and bisexual men who disclose their sexual orientations in the workplace have higher workday levels of salivary cortisol and negative affect. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 30(3), 260–267. King, E. B., Mohr, J. J., Peddie, C. I., Jones, K. P., & Kendra, M. (2017). Predictors of identity management: An exploratory experience-sampling study of lesbian, gay, and bisexual workers. Journal of Management, 43(2), 476–502. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206314539350 Liptak, A. (2019, January 22). Supreme Court Revives Transgender Ban for Military Service. New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/22/us/politics/transgender-ban- military-supreme-court.html Mattocks, K. M., Sullivan, J. C., Bertrand, C., Kinney, R. L., Sherman, M. D., & Gustason, C. (2015). Perceived stigma, discrimination, and disclosure of sexual orientation among a sample of lesbian veterans receiving care in the Department of Veterans Affairs. LGBT Health, 2(2), 147–153. https://doi.org/10.1089/lgbt.2014.0131 Meadows, S. O., Engel, C. C., Collins, R. L., Beckman, R., Cefalu, M., Hawes-Dawson, J., … Williams, K. M. (2015). 2015 Department of Defense Health Related Behaviors Survey (HRBS). Retrieved from https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR1695.html Meyer, I. H. (2003). Prejudice, Social stress, and mental health in lesbian, gay, and bisexual populations: Conceptual issues and research evidence. Psychological Bulletin, 129(5), 63 674–697. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.129.5.674 Moradi, B. (2009). Sexual orientation disclosure, concealment, harassment, and military cohesion: Perceptions of LGBT military veterans. Military Psychology, 21, 513–533. https://doi.org/10.1080/08995600903206453 Mount, S. D., Steelman, S. M., & Hertlein, K. M. (2015). “I’m not sure i trust the system yet”: Lesbian service member experiences with mental health care. Military Psychology (American Psychological Association), 27(2), 115–127. https://doi.org/10.1037/mil0000071 Obama, B. (2010, December). "Remarks by the President and Vice President at Signing of the Don't Ask, Don't Tell Repeal Act of 2010." Retrieved from https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2010/12/22/remarks-president- and-vice-president-signing-dont-ask-dont-tell-repeal-a Pachankis, J. E., Cochran, S. D., & Mays, V. M. (2015). The mental health of sexual minority adults in and out of the closet: A population-based study. Journal of Consulting and Clincal Psychology, 83(5), 890–901. https://doi.org/10.1037/ccp0000047 Parco, J. E., Levy, D. A., & Spears, S. R. (2015). Transgender military personnel in the post- DADT repeal era: A phenomenological study. Armed Forces and Society, 41(2), 221. https://doi.org/10.1177/0095327X14530112 Petronio, S. (2002). Boundaries of privacy : dialectics of disclosure . Albany: State University of New York Press. Petronio, S. (2013). Brief status report on Communication Privacy Management Theory. Journal of Family Communication, 13(1), 6–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/15267431.2013.743426 64 Poulin, C., Gouliquer, L., & McCutcheon, J. (2018). Violating gender norms in the canadian military: the experiences of gay and lesbian soldiers. Sexuality Research and Social Policy, 15, 60–73. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13178-017-0304-y QSR NVivo [Computer software]. (2018). Retrieved from https://www.qsrinternational.com/nvivo/nvivo-products Ragins, B. R., Singh, R., & Cornwell, J. M. (2007). Making the invisible visible: Fear and disclosure of sexual orientation at work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(4), 1103– 1118. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.92.4.1103 Riccio, G., Sullivan, R., Klein, G., Salter, M., & Kinnison, H. (2004). Warrior ethos: Analysis of the concept and initial development of applications. U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences, Research Report 1827. Rostosky, S. S., & Riggle, E. D. B. (2002). “Out” at work: The relation of actor and partner workplace policy and internalized homophobia to disclosure status. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 49(4), 411–419. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-0167.49.4.411 Schope, R. (2002). The decision to tell. Journal of Gay & Lesbian Social Services, 14(1), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1300/J041v14n01 Sherman, M. D., Kauth, M. R., Shipherd, J. C., & Street, R. L. (2014). Communication between VA providers and sexual and gender minority veterans: A pilot study. Psychological Services, 11(2), 235–242. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0035840 65 Stanley, C. L. (2011, January). "Repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell and Future Impact on Policy." Retrieved from http://archive.defense.gov/home/features/2010/0610_dadt/USD-PR- DADT_28Jan11.pdf Trau, R. (2015). The impact of discriminatory climate perceptions on the composition of intraorganizational developmental networks, psychosocial support, and job and career attitudes of employees with an invisible stigma. Human Resource Management, 54(2), 345–366. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm Trump, D. J. [@realDonaldTrump]. (2017, July 26). “After consultation with my Generals…” Retrieved from https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/890193981585444864 Trump v. Karnoski. (2019). Retrieved from https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/trump- v-karnoski/ U.S. DoD. (June 2016a). Secretary of Defense Ash Carter Announces Policy for Transgender Service Members. Retrieved from https://www.defense.gov/News/News-Releases/News- Release-View/Article/821675/secretary-of-defense-ash-carter-announces-policy-for- transgender-service-members/ U.S. DoD. (2016b). Transgender Service in the U.S. Military: An Implementation Handbook. Retrieved from https://www.defense.gov/Portals/1/features/2016/0616_policy/DoDTGHandbook_09301 6.pdf Van Gilder, B. J. (2017). Coping with sexual identity stigma in the U.S. Military: An examination of identity management practices prior to and after the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”. Identity, 17(3), 156–175. https://doi.org/10.1080/15283488.2017.1340162 66 Velez, B. L., Moradi, B., & Brewster, M. E. (2013). Testing the tenets of minority stress theory in workplace contexts. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 60(4), 532–542. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0033346 Wessel, J. L. (2017). The importance of allies and allied organizations: Sexual orientation disclosure and concealment at work. Journal of Social Issues, 73(2), 240–254. https://doi.org/10.1111/josi.12214 Whitman, C. & Nadal, K. (2015). Sexual minority identities: Outness and well-being among lesbian, gay, and bisexual adults. Journal of Gay & Lesbian Mental Health, 19(4), 1-27. 67 Tables and Figures Table 1.1. Demographics and military-related traits of qualitative sample Characteristic Participants interviewed (N=42) Interviews coded with Disclosure Stress by sub- group (n=37) n % n % Gender Cismale 21 50% 18 86% Cisfemale 12 29% 10 83% Transmale 6 14% 6 100% Transfemale 3 7% 3 100% Sexual Orientation Heterosexual 3 (all trans) 7% 3 100% Bisexual/Pansexual 6 14% 6 100% Gay 20 50% 17 81% Lesbian 11 26% 9 82% Asexual 2 5% 2 100% Age 22 to 24 8 19% 7 88% 26 to 30 17 40% 16 94% 31 to 35 10 24% 10 100% 36 to 40 6 14% 4 57% 50 1 2% 0 0% Branch Army 13 31% 12 92% Air Force 15 36% 12 80% Navy 11 26% 10 91% Marine Corps 3 7% 3 75% Race White 30 71% 27 87% Black 4 10% 3 75% Latino 6 14% 5 83% Asian 2 5% 2 100% 68 Table 1.2. Disclosure stress: Major themes and subthemes Theme and Subtheme Frequency Participants who endorsed n=37 (% of 37) Institutional 1) General fear of misalignment between policy and culture 21 16 (43%) 2) Fear of negative career repercussions 9 7 (19%) Total 30 19 (52%) Interpersonal 1) Spotting red flags 19 12 (32%) 2) Spotting green and white flags 10 10 (27%) Total 29 18 (49%) Individual 1) Burden of being different 24 12 (32%) 2) Outness in the workplace benefitting others or as a personal strength 19 15 (41%) 3) Questioning relevance/appropriateness of discussing LGBT identity in the workplace 8 7 (19%) 4) Outness outside the military as a strength 4 4 (11%) Total 55 26 (70%) Note: Due to participants endorsing >1 sub-theme per theme, results for Total + Participants who Endorsed are summed as unique individuals. 69 Chapter Three: Manuscript Two Title: “Even if the policy changes, the culture remains the same”: A mixed methods analysis of LGBT service members’ outness patterns after repeal of LGBT military service bans McNamara, K. A., Lucas, C. L., Goldbach, J. T., Holloway, I. W., Castro, C. A. Abstract Despite the repeal of the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell (DADT) policy in 2011, and the transgender ban in 2016, lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) service members may be reluctant to disclose their sexual orientation and gender identity to their military colleagues. This study used data collected through the Military Acceptance Project, a Department of Defense-funded mixed methods research study conducted from 2016 to 2018. A sample of 248 active duty LGBT service members completed a survey while a sample of 42 active duty service members completed an in-depth interview. Logistic regression analyses tested for differences in outness by demographic and military-related traits, while a thematic analysis of qualitative data was used to contextualize these findings. Outness to fellow service members varied greatly, with the lowest outness to chaplains (38%) and the highest outness to other LGBT unit friends (93%). Three fourths of the sample were out to unit leaders, medical providers, and counselors. Officers, those with a Bachelors degree or above, single service members, and bisexuals had lower odds of being out to fellow service members compared to enlisted personnel, those with some college or less, partnered servicemembers, lesbians and gays. Almost all transgender service members were out to fellow service members. Qualitative data shed light on these findings, as officers discussed a lack of “out” higher ranking officers to act as role models; single LGBT service members spoke to a military culture that prioritizes married personnel, stigma associated with coming out as bisexual, and an assumption of anti-LGBT sentiment among religious colleagues and chaplains. Transgender service members discussed the necessity of disclosing their identity to unit leaders, medical personnel, and counselors in order to access needed resources. Implications for military leadership, medical providers, and chaplains are discussed. Keywords: Military, Workplace, Policy, LGBT, Outness, Coming Out, Disclosure 70 Introduction In interpersonal relationships, individuals make frequent disclosure decisions regarding their thoughts, motivations, and traits. For people with traits that may be stigmatized in their culture, decision-making on sharing this stigmatized trait can be fraught. Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) individuals often weigh the benefits and costs of disclosing their sexual or gender minority identity in various life domains. In a workplace environment, for example, LGBT workers may assess coworkers for cues of acceptance, rejection, and neutrality, while choosing the level of openness they want to share. The U.S. military is one example of a workplace in which a history of exclusionary LGBT policies and stigmatization may impact LGBT service members’ disclosure decision-making to colleagues. As of 2011, LGB service members have been permitted to serve openly, and in 2016 the ban on transgender individuals serving was removed (“Repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” 2010; U.S. DoD, 2016a). Challenges to the transgender ban repeal occurred between 2017 and 2019, with the ban reinstated on April 12, 2019 (Trump, 2017; Trump v. Karnoski, 2019; Liptak, 2019; DTM-19-004, 2019). Whether LGBT service members choose to disclose their LGBT identity to military coworkers is largely unknown. This mixed methods study uses survey and interview data from currently serving LGBT military service members to shed light on this topic. Overview of LGBT service in the U.S. military An estimated 65,000 LGBT individuals are serving on active duty, with 5% of active duty members indicating they were LGBT (11-17% of women and 2-5% of men; Davis, L., Grifka, A., Williams, K., & Coffey, 2016; Meadows et al., 2015). While there is evidence to suggest that LGBT individuals have served in the U.S. military for two centuries, policies prohibiting open service have prevented collection of data regarding LGBT service (Berube, 71 1990; Shibusawa, 2012; “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” 1993). In 1993, the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, Don’t Pursue (DADT) policy was enacted, allowing sexual minorities to serve; however, they were required to remain “closeted” (“Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” 1993). One study found that at least 13,000 service members were discharged for disclosing their LGB identity or being perceived as LGB under the DADT policy (Gates, 2010). After nearly 17 years of DADT, The Don't Ask, Don't Tell Repeal Act of 2010 was passed by Congress and signed by President Barack Obama, thereby allowing LGB service members for the first time to “come out” in the military workplace without fear of institutional reprisal (“Repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” 2010; Alford & Lee, 2016; Obama, 2010). In 2016, the Department of Defense (DoD) announced that transgender service members who met specific medical and psychological thresholds would be permitted to serve openly in the U.S. military, with official policy regarding integration of open transgender service released later that year (U.S. DoD, 2016a; U.S. DoD, 2016b). Just one year after the DoD announced its plan to allow open transgender service, a new presidential administration announced it would be rescinding the ruling (Trump, 2017; Liptak, 2019). LGBT outness in the U.S. military pre- and post-LGBT bans Limited data exists regarding LGBT service, however one study conducted prior to repeal of DADT found that LGB veterans had high levels of concealment and low levels of outness while in the military (Moradi, 2009). Another study of LGB veterans who served prior to DADT repeal found that 70% reported they were “constantly trying to conceal their sexual orientation while in the service” (Cochran, Balsam, Flentje, Malte, & Simpson, 2013, p. 429). One study conducted from 2013 to 2014, prior to the transgender ban repeal, found that between 6 to 16% of transgender active duty service members were out to fellow military personnel (Hill, Bouris, 72 Barnett, & Walker, 2016); Parco, Levy, & Spears (2015) found that participants were cautious in disclosing to fellow service members and many accessed medical treatment outside of the military. Emerging evidence suggests that LGB service members disclose their LGB identity at higher rates following DADT repeal, with perhaps as many as 72% of LGB service members being out to at least one fellow service member (Evans et al., 2018). However, coming out is complicated; Van Gilder (2017) described “strategic self-disclosure” to other service members even after DADT repeal, along with “strategies of openness.” For example, gay and bisexual male service members were comfortable disclosing their sexual orientation to their military health care provider, but only if the provider brought up the topic of sexual orientation (Biddix et al., 2013). Openness has been found to be associated with decreased feelings of isolation and stress and increased feelings of confidence and positive self-regard among LGB service members (Van Gilder, 2017). In terms of accessing mental health care, lesbian service members reported an overall increase in their likelihood to access mental health treatment from military providers following DADT repeal; however several members noted a continued distrust of “the system” were they to come out in a medical setting (Mount, Steelman, & Hertlein, 2015, p. 120). The overall picture that emerges from these studies is that barriers for disclosure of LGB identity persist following DADT repeal, however under certain conditions, some service members do feel they can disclose their LGB identity to helping professionals and colleagues. Theoretical Considerations There are no theories that explain the experience of LGBT service member disclosure of sexual orientation and/or gender identity in the workplace. However, theories of living with a 73 stigmatized identity and managing one’s private information in social contexts offer frameworks for understanding disclosure. Minority stress theory (MST) explains the progression by which sexual and gender minorities process their stigmatized identity in their specific social context (Meyer, 2003). MST states that LGB individuals experience stress associated with having a stigmatized identity such as discrimination, violence, rejection from others, and internalized negative beliefs about oneself (Meyer, 2003). MST explains that stigmatized social groups suffer prejudice from their community, which adds a burden of social stress, and associated mental health problems. Sexual minorities use concealing strategies to protect themselves from prejudice, while using strategies of openness to connect with like-minded individuals and build social supports (Meyer, 2003). Communications privacy management theory (CPM) explains the processes by which people control “ownership” of their private information (Petronio, 2002; Petronio, 2013). CPM explains that individuals observe their environment for “criteria” which they use to determine where to place “boundaries” around their private information. In a military setting, otherwise “normative” stressful events that are experienced by all service members regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity can be lived as “minority stress” for LGBT individuals. For example, getting to know one’s unit leaders, a frequent occurrence in the military due to a dynamic work environment in which trainings, deployments, and moves cause workplace changes, can be inherently stressful for any service member. For LGBT service members, this might be compounded by uncertainty regarding their new unit leaders’ opinions on working with LGBT personnel, and whether they will be rejected if they disclose their LGBT identity. From an MST and CPM framework, it can be hypothesized that LGBT individuals will gauge their 74 environment for LGBT-related opinions as they weigh the costs and benefits of concealing or disclosing their LGBT identity to military coworkers. Current study This study explores outness to military colleagues following repeal of DADT and the transgender ban. First, this paper provides descriptive analyses of outness across types of colleagues: unit leaders, friends, and military helping professionals. Second, this paper further explores outness to military colleagues and helping professionals by demographic and military- related traits, using binary logistic regression. Third, this paper provides context for these findings using qualitative interview data. Taken together survey and interview data may help inform programs and policies to support LGBT military service members. Methods The current study uses both qualitative and quantitative data collected between 2016 and 2018 through the DoD-supported Military Acceptance Project, an initiative aimed at assessing the acceptance, integration and health of LGBT service members (“The Military Acceptance Project,” n.d.). Methods were approved by the Institutional Review Board at the University of Southern California (USC) and the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA). This study was divided into two phases: the first phase consisted of in-depth interviews of active duty LGBT service members, and the second phase surveyed active duty LGBT service members. To participate in the interview or survey, service members were required to 1) be at least 18 years of age; 2) speak English; 3) be active duty in the Air Force, Marines, Army or Navy; 4) self- identify as LGB and/or T; and 5) be willing and able to provide consent. Participants were given a $25 gift card for participation and up to six (6) $10 incentives for referring additional military members. 75 As the LGBT civilian community can be a “hard to reach” population, and LGBT service members in particular can be similarly difficult to reach (Goldbach & Castro, 2016), a multi- pronged recruitment strategy was used: 1) an expert advisory board was assembled through military and LGBT networks; 2) a respondent-driven sampling method was used in order to take advantage of strong networks among this population; 3) a digitally purposive sampling strategy was used to reach both LGBT individuals who are not connected or “out” to others in the community by advertising in each military branches’ official digital and print newspaper, and to reach those connected to LGBT military groups online. Data collection and analysis of qualitative data. A team of six (6) researchers conducted interviews over a four-month period in late 2016, with interviews lasting between 90 to 120 minutes. Guided by the life history calendar method of interviewing participants, the interviews allowed participants to identify salient experiences throughout their life as sexual and/or gender minorities and in their military careers (Fisher, 2013). For the qualitative phase, 42 LGBT service members were interviewed; demographic characteristics of the qualitative sample are shown in Table 1. Interviews were conducted virtually using secure video-conferencing software at no cost to the participants. All interviews were transcribed verbatim by an external transcribing service and entered into QSR NVivo. Informed by relevant literature and theories, thematic analysis was used to code the data and craft a codebook (Meyer, 2003; Padgett, 2012). For the current study, the first author reviewed the codebook, identifying codes relevant to outness of LGBT service members in the military following repeal of the LGBT bans. Coded data chosen for selection in the present paper specifically expound upon quantitative findings. Data quoted in the present study are accompanied by a participant number, which is displayed as 76 “P” followed by the number given to the participant by the research team to manage the data while ensuring confidentiality of interviewees. Data collection and analysis of quantitative data. In total, 544 participants completed the survey, 248 of whom identified as LGBT; demographic characteristics of the quantitative sample are shown in Table 2. Sexual orientation was assessed by asking participants “What is your sexual identity” with the options: Heterosexual or straight; Gay or lesbian; Bisexual; Sexual orientation not listed here. Those who selected the final option (n=11) were grouped according to their responses to a survey item assessing sexual attraction; for example, a ciswoman who selected “Other” and “Attracted to men and women equally” was coded as bisexual. Those who wrote in “pansexual” (n=2) were coded as bisexual for analyses. Gender identity was assessed by asking participants “What is your gender identity?” with the options Male; Female; Transgender male/Trans man; Transgender female/Trans woman; Genderqueer/Gender non-conforming; Gender identity not listed here; please specify. After consideration by the research team, those who selected Genderqueer/Gender non-conforming (n=5) were categorized as Transgender by considering their response to a survey item assessing sex at birth. For example, a participant who selected “Female” for the question “What sex were you assigned at birth (i.e., what sex is on your birth certificate)?” and Genderqueer/Gender non-conforming was coded as Transgender male. Those who selected “Gender identity not listed here” (n=2) typed in “Bigender” and “Gender fluid” and were similarly categorized as Transgender according to their Sex at Birth response from Female to Transgender Male, and vice versa. Age was assessed as a free text response. Race was assessed by asking “What is your race/ethnicity?” with the options: Black or African American, Latino or Hispanic, White or Caucasian, Native American or Alaskan Native, Asian or Pacific Islander, Multiracial, Other, 77 Decline to Answer. Due to sample sizes (66% of the sample was White), this variable was categorized into four (4) groups for descriptive analyses and into two (2) groups as White and Non-White for regression analyses. Marital status was assessed by asking “What is your marital status?” Those who selected Single, Divorced, Separated, or Widowed were combined into one group, while those who selected Married or Domestic partnership were combined into another group for analyses. Education level was assessed by asking respondents “What is your highest level of education completed?” For analyses, those who selected Some high school, GED, High school diploma, Some college, or Associate’s degree were categorized a group, while those who selected Bachelor’s degree, Master’s degree or Doctorate were categorized into another. Two (2) participants who selected “Other” were reclassified as “Some college” due to their free text responses. Rank was assessed by asking participants “What is your current pay grade” with all pay grades listed. In descriptive analyses, rank is displayed in four (4) classifications of Enlisted 1 to Enlisted 4, Enlisted 5 to Enlisted 9, Officer 1 to Officer 3, Officer 4 to Officer 6, as well as dichotomized Enlisted and Officer (Table 2). In regression analyses, the dichotomized variable was used (Tables 5 and 6). Branch was assessed by asking participants “What is your current branch of service?” with the options U.S. Air Force, U.S. Army, U.S. Marine Corps, U.S. Navy, Other branch of service [a free text box was included with the prompt “Please specify”]. No respondents marked Other. Outness items were asked as “Do the following people know you are LGBT?” with the options: Yes; No; Not applicable or do not have this person in my life; Decline to answer. This measure included thirteen (13) items spanning family members, civilian friends, military colleagues, medical providers, and religious personnel. Only those items relevant to the present study were used in analyses. This item was re-coded to include only those who responded Yes or 78 No. For example, in reference to outness to the chaplain, 69 LGBT individuals selected “Not applicable or do not have this person in my life” and four (4) declined to answer; therefore, these data were removed from analyses as opposed to being coded as “No” (not out to chaplain). Descriptive analyses were run to present outness patterns among the sample by gender and sexual orientation (see Tables 3 and 4). Bivariate binominal logistical regression analyses were run to assess for associations between demographic and military-related variables and outness to unit leaders, medical providers, counselors, chaplains, LGBT unit friends, and non-LGBT unit friends (see Tables 5 and 6). Data cleaning and analyses were conducted in STATA/IC version 15.1. Results Quantitative findings Although qualitative data were collected prior to quantitative data, findings are displayed in the reverse order such that qualitative data contextualizes quantitative findings. The LGBT sample (n=248) was made up of 44% gay men, 24% lesbian women, 23% bisexual men and women, and 8% heterosexual service members, all of whom were transgender (see Table 2). Almost half of the sample was cisgender male (47%); 30% of the sample was cisgender female, and a quarter (24%) was transgender, split nearly evenly between transgender women/feminine and men/masculine. The sample was between the ages of 18 and 54, with a mean of 27.7 years (SD= 6.12). The sample was mostly White (66%), with about 10% Hispanic and 10% Black. The remaining service members were Native American, Alaskan Native, Asian Pacific Islander, Multiracial, or “Other.” Half of the sample was married or in a domestic partnership, while half was single, divorced, or separated. A slight majority of the sample had at least a Bachelors degree (55%). Over half (60%) of the sample was enlisted, while the remaining 40% were 79 officers. Army members made up the largest percentage of the sample (42%). Demographic and military-related traits are displayed in Table 2. Outness to Unit Leaders. Three fourths of the sample (73%; n=180/247) were out to unit leaders. Bisexual cismale service members were the least likely to be out to unit leaders (33%; n=6/9). Officers had half the odds of being out to unit leaders compared to enlisted servicemembers (OR=.46; CI=.26-.82; p=0.008). LGBT servicemembers with a Bachelors degree or above had half the odds of being out to unit leaders than those with an Associates degree or below (OR=.47; CI=.26-.87; p=.016). LGBT servicemembers who were married or in a domestic partnership were over 3 times as likely to be out to unit leaders compared to single, divorced, or separated LGBT service members (OR=3.37; CI=1.80-6.32; p=0.001). The majority (88%; n=50/57) of transgender servicemembers were out to unit leaders and were significantly more likely to be out to unit leaders than cisgender LGB participants (OR=3.30; CI=1.41-7.70; p=0.006). No statistically significant differences in outness to unit leaders was found by gender comparing male to female cisgender LGB service members, by sexual orientation, age, race/ethnicity, or military branch (see Tables 3, 4 and 5). Outness to Unit Friends. A large majority of the sample was out to non-LGBT friends in their unit (85%; n= 211/247) as well as to LGBT friends in their unit (93%; n=198/212). Bisexual service members were at significantly lower odds of being out to LGBT friends in their unit than gay men (OR=.14; CI=.03-.58; p=.007) and lesbian women (OR=.03; CI=.001-.54; p=.018). No significant differences were found in outness to LGBT unit friends by gender, age, race/ethnicity, marital status, education, rank, or branch. No statistically significant differences were found in outness to non-LGBT friends in their unit by any demographic or military-related variables (see Tables 3, 4, and 6). 80 Outness to Medical Providers. Three-quarters (76%; n=184/242) of the sample was out to medical providers. Bisexual service members were at significantly lower odds of being out to medical providers than gay men (OR=.18; CI=.07-.48; p= 0.000) and lesbian women (OR=.24; CI=.09-.67; p= 0.007). Transgender service members were found to be at 4 times more likely to be out to medical providers than cisgender LGB service members (OR=4.18; CI=1.58-11.03; p=0.004). Being married or partnered increased the odds of being out to medical providers compared to being single, separated, or divorced (OR=1.96; CI=1.05-3.69; p=0.036). No statistically significant differences in outness to medical providers were found by sexual orientation, age, race/ethnicity, education, rank, or branch (see Tables 3, 4, and 5). Outness to Counselors. About three-fourths of the sample was out to counselors and mental health professionals (71%; n=123/173). Bisexual service members were less likely to be out to counselors than gay men (OR=.29; CI=.10-.89; p= 0.031) and lesbian women (OR=.19; CI=.06-.63; p= 0.007). Transgender service members were at six times the odds of being out to counselors than cisgender LGB service members (OR=6.38; CI=2.37-17.17; p= 0.000). LGBT service members with a Bachelors degree or above were at half the odds of being out to counselors than those with an Associates degree or below (OR=.48; CI=.24-.98; p=0.042). No statistically significant differences in outness to counselors was found by gender comparing male to female cisgender LGB service members. Similarly, there were no statistically significant differences by age, race, marital status, rank, or branch of service (see Tables 3, 4, and 5). Outness to Chaplains. A minority of the sample (38%; n=66/175) reported that they were out to chaplains. Bisexual service members were at lower odds of being out to chaplains than gay men (OR=.23; CI=.06-.85; p=0.028). Married or partnered LGBT service members had over twice the odds of being out to chaplains than single, separated, or divorced participants 81 (OR=2.29; CI=1.15-4.59; p=0.018). Officers had half the odds of being out to chaplains than enlisted LGBT service members (OR=.51; CI=.26-.99; p=0.048). LGBT service members in the Air Force had one-third the odds of being out to chaplains than LGBT service members in the Army (OR=.32; CI=.14-.74; p=0.007). No difference in outness to chaplains was found by gender, age, or education (see Table 3, 4, and 5). Qualitative findings Of the sample of 42 LGBT active duty LGBT service members who partook in an in- depth interview, the majority were cismale (50%), gay (50%), white (71%), aged 26 to 30 (35%), and in the Air Force (36%); the sample included lesbians (n=11), bisexuals (n=8), transgender men (n=6) and women (n=3), members of the Army (31%), Navy (26%), and Marines (7%; see Table 1). For a thematic analysis of outness among LGBT service members using the study’s qualitative data, see McNamara, Lucas, Goldbach, Holloway, and Castro (under review). Outness to Unit leaders. Among LGBT service members who took part in the study’s survey, 73% reported that their unit leaders knew they were LGBT (see Tables 3 and 4). While numerous interview participants shared accounts of accepting unit leadership, some noted continued concern that military culture or individual anti-LGBT attitudes lagged behind the then- current policy, which allowed open service. One transgender service member shared: It was overwhelmingly positive, and I didn’t get a single negative word, which was incredible. After speaking with my commander, a few days later, we got a new two-star General over the office and he had me in his office. I was there for an hour and twenty minutes. I had never had that much time with a General Officer before one-on-one in my life. And he just wanted to be educated and, to paraphrase him, he said he was so far in my corner they’d have to come in with picks and shovels to dig him out. And if anyone said a negative word to me, he would squash them. It’s been absolutely incredible (Transfemale, straight, Air Force, P5). One participant stressed her vulnerable career trajectory and the possibility that disclosing her sexual orientation could jeopardize her career options: 82 It’s more the senior people that I’m a little more concerned with and I mean, these next four years are kind of crucial. So, it’s either get ready for retirement, or get ready to put on another rank. I’m kind of in limbo right now and I don’t know which way to go. So, if I knew which way that I was going, it probably wouldn’t matter to me what the senior leadership thinks…so I’m still a little cautious (Lesbian, Navy, P7). One interviewee discussed a jarring event that occurred as he settled in to a new unit: Within a month of arriving to my new unit, there was a couple of senior people who were talking. They’re both military civilians. And they were having a conversation and the topic of same-sex marriages came up. And this was 2014 when they were talking about it and one of them said ‘Oh, yeah, all those homos should be taken out back and shot’ and the other was like ‘Yeah, I agree’ and I was [thinking] like ‘Wow I can’t believe you’re saying that, and ok, I need to be a little more guarded here. Is this the command climate? Is this two people saying what they think?’ And they were older, too, one was in his 40s, one was in his 50s. So I was a little uneasy about that (Gay, Army, P36). These violent comments made by older, higher ranking civilians colored this participant’s perception of the unit climate as he navigated whether it was safe to be himself. He pointed to a distinction between whether these comments are “what they think” versus “the command climate,” with the former presumably being preferred. This interviewee noted the comments were made in 2014, years after open LGB service was officially sanctioned. Another participant discussed this “cultural stigma” that he also experienced despite policy change: So, then, when Don’t Ask Don’t Tell went away in 2011, there was no real legal ways, means to go after people. So, all that was left was cultural stigma and so like a lot of Commanders and squadrons, a lot of the units actually ramped up the [anti-LGBT] rhetoric just to remind people that it’s not accepted. That’s how I felt (Bisexual male, Air Force, P21). The participant personified squadrons and units, presuming that a vocal majority or unit leaders spoke for the entirety of the group to enforce the status quo. Outness to Military Helping Professionals Outness to Medical Providers. In the quantitative analysis, 76% of LGBT service members were out to medical providers (see Tables 3 and 4). Several interviewees discussed 83 their outness to medical providers as feeling as though it was a necessary step in accessing, or refusing, care. Some participants discussed brief, simple ways in which medical personnel communicated LGBT acceptance. For example, one participant said: “A doctor was screening me and he was like ‘Are you dating anyone?’ I said ‘Yes’. He’s like ‘Male or female?’ and I said ‘Male’. And he was like ‘Ok.’ That was ok.” (Gay, Army, P36). For one participant, having her wife present at her prenatal appointments and childbirth implied sexual orientation disclosure simply by her wife’s continued presence at the appointments: I feel like a different nurse would come in every time and do my vital signs and [wife] would be with me, it was a whole new like ‘Oh...’ because usually, pregnant women bring their husbands and it’d be like ‘Oh, is this your friend? Is this your sister? Is this your cousin?’ I mean, I’ve heard everything. So, [my wife] definitely dreaded coming to the doctor with me because it was always like a thing. She’s like, ‘I wish that people just wouldn’t notice. That would be great’ (Lesbian, Army, P14). One participant stated that she preferred not to disclose her sexual orientation to her medical provider, but felt pressure to disclose in order for the provider to respect her request to not be prescribed birth control medication: I just say that I’m abstinent and I just don’t need it, because they press. They’re like ‘You need birth control.’ And I’m like ‘No, I don’t.’ But I really don’t. But this last time it was just kind of, I think I was just really answering questions and he was like ‘Do you have sex?’ and then I was like ‘Yes’ and then he was like ‘Are you on birth control?’ And I was like ‘No’ and he was like ‘Do you want to be on birth control?’ and I was like ‘No.’ So, I ended up telling him [my sexual orientation], because I kind of got like pushed into like a corner” (Lesbian, Navy, P13). This participant felt that simply answering the doctor’s questions honestly was not effectively satisfying his line of questioning. Simply stating that she did not need nor want birth control was not respected, and she felt forced to disclose to someone with whom she would not otherwise have shared the information. 84 Several cismale participants noted that they were compelled to disclose their sexual minority identity to their medical providers by requesting pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP), a prescription medication that reduces the risk of HIV acquisition and is recommended for some men who have sex with men (U.S. Public Health Service, 2018). In some cases, service members reported that their medical provider was unaware of the medication, was unclear what it was used for, or made judgmental comments about same-sex male relationships. One participant relayed an experience told to him by another gay service member in which the healthcare provider reportedly responded to a request for this medication by stating, “No, I won’t put you on that. You’re not supposed to be having that many sexual partners” (Gay, Navy, P17). This comment also highlighted the importance of social networking in which individuals reach out to similarly-situated other service members to gauge the broader context. In this case, a provider made a comment that was perceived as uninformed about the use of PrEP by conflating same-sex behavior with promiscuity. This experience was then relayed to other service members, which may in turn impact their decisions to seek this medication or disclose their sexual identity to providers in the future. Outness to Counselors and Mental Health Providers. In the quantitative portion of the study, 71% of LGBT service members reported that, if they had a counselor, the counselor knew the participant was LGBT (see Tables 3 and 4). Several interviewees noted that they had been pleased to find LGBT-accepting counselors. Some noted a fear of losing military duties or losing their military career altogether were they to access mental health services. Some participants alluded to the strong mythology in the military community which stigmatizes vulnerability; presenting for treatment of an emotional, mental, or behavioral concern could be viewed by one’s unit as “weak.” For these service members, they preferred to avoid the mental health clinic 85 even when they felt they could benefit from its care. For those who have accessed counseling, some noted that they hold their LGBT identity close until they build a rapport with their therapist. Even then, several participants stated their perception that mental health services are “required to divulge a lot [to one’s Commander]” (Gay, Air Force, P12) such that a therapist can, and in some cases must, convey the content of therapy sessions to the patient’s Commander. Through this perceived process, disclosing one’s LGBT identity to a therapist can be akin to disclosing directly to one’s Commander. As one participant shared: If something happens, there are ways for your chain of command to get stuff out of mental health and if you happen to get somebody in mental health that, say, is a bigot, you know, they could fabricate a situation which they needed to talk to your chain of command about something and you can’t stop them from doing that” (Bisexual female, Air Force, P10). This participant noted her perceived lack of control over her own information once she disclosed to a counselor. She felt that she would not have the ability to stop a bigoted counselor or a bigoted Commander from effectively threatening her career, should the two collude to advance an anti-LGBT service member agenda. In quantitative analysis, transgender service members were at higher odds of being out to counselors than cisgender LGB service members (see Tables 4 and 5). Several transgender interview participants noted that they were required to seek mental health counseling and specifically discuss their gender identity concerns in order to receive a referral to a medical provider for gender-related care. One participant stated: “I did see an on-base therapist, though, here just because I felt like I needed to and she was great, but I was really trying to get chest surgery at the time, so I was really trying to get my referral in through her. So, it would come out about how I felt and how I was like in a depressed mode like going in to work not wanting to do 86 stuff because your chest is showing, stuff like that. I was really trying to bring that out to her” (Transmale, straight, Marines, P35). Outness to Chaplains. The lowest level of outness in the survey portion of this study was to chaplains, with only 38% reporting that their chaplain knew they were LGBT (see Tables 3, 4, and 5). As participants were able to select the option “Not applicable or do not have this person in my life,” it can be presumed that those who answered “Yes” or “No” are in touch with a chaplain. Many interviewees discussed their experience with religious services in the military, specifically as it related to their LGBT identity: Honestly, nobody I know who is LGBT has ever told me that they went to see a chaplain. I think that there is so much, even me, myself, that the two most religious members of my family are the two least tolerant of me and my girlfriend and so I think that there is kind of in a lot of the communities, there’s a separation that wouldn’t necessarily seek out any sort of religious services (Bisexual female, Air Force, P10). Another participant stated: A couple of years ago the Chief of Chaplains had disparaging things to say about the LGBT community and at that point, I just felt that it’s their place to be here for all the service members and that’s why they exist, to help everyone out and if they’re there specifically excluding and discriminating against us, I don’t think that they should exist any longer. Yeah, if they’re there to serve service members and if they’re refusing to do that, then, find someone else who will, or they shouldn’t have a job (Gay, Air Force, P28). The participant viewed the Chief of Chaplains’ comments as representing the broader field of chaplain services. Discussing both mental health and chaplain services, one participant stated: I know other [LGBT] people who are really anti-religion because they have had bad experiences [but] chaplains are kind of an exception to the rule as far as seeking counseling for security clearance purposes. So, yeah. I mean, to make that [mental health services] the only option, they’re robbing a lot of service members the ability to get support” (Bisexual female, Air Force, P10). This service member pointed out the double bind in which some LGBT service members may feel uncomfortable seeking care from a chaplain for fear of anti-LGBT sentiment, however 87 chaplains are held to a higher degree of confidentiality than mental health services. A service member seeking care which is both fully confidential and LGBT-accepting may be “robbed” of the chance to access care at all. Emerging LGBT service member outness trends Outness patterns by LGBT service member rank, education, sexual orientation sub-group, marital status, and transgender identity are discussed. Differences by Rank and Education. Survey data found that officers and higher- educated LGBT service members were less likely to be out in several military domains than enlisted LGBT service members and those with an Associates degree or below (see Table 5). In interviews, several LGBT officers noted a disconnect from similarly-situated others. This isolation reportedly caused them to feel that LGBT disclosure would be unorthodox in a military environment, specifically among higher ranking officers: What I’ve seen is that just that there is not necessarily a culture of openness because the senior officers are, like there are very few senior officers who are gay. It doesn’t really feel like you can look up the ladder and say ‘Oh, wow, there’s someone who is a senior officer who is out and proud’ (Gay, Navy, P26). The following participant similarly is aware only of junior ranking officers who are openly LGBT: I’ve never known an O4 or an O5 [Field Grade Officer] female that was an out lesbian in my career…camaraderie would probably be the most positive thing. I think the problem with the military is the uniformity and they don’t like to acknowledge difference. You know, it’s all very much like one team, one fight. But they need to create a path for mentorship for senior women to mentor junior women in an organized way because right now, everybody is an island. Every female or every gay person is just an individual and they can’t find these social networks and they can’t make them on their own but there is no recognition of difference or encouragement of groups, to be subgroups, because they don’t want us to separate. They want us to all be together (Lesbian, Navy, P20). This participant acknowledged several barriers to outness, from lack of lesbian officer role models, to the military preference for sameness among its troops. 88 Differences by Sexual orientation. Another significant finding in quantitative analyses was the lower likelihood of bisexual cisgender service members to be out to various military entities than lesbian and gay service members (see Tables 3, 5 and 6). One interviewee worried that coming out to others as bisexual invited a judgmental association that she preferred to avoid: I’m not as anti-label as I was when I was trying to figure it out. Now I don’t have as much of a problem referring to myself as bisexual. My big issue with referring to myself as bisexual is the negative connotation that is attached to bisexuality that automatically you’re promiscuous if you’re bisexual and it fits both genders, I mean male and female, both, they think that you just sleep around, essentially. So, I do try to avoid the term a little bit. But, mostly just because of that (Bisexual female, Air Force, P10). One bisexual participant discussed his decision to refer to himself as gay to others, despite internally identifying as bisexual: “I feel like the decision to call myself gay is because I want to avoid any complexity. Like, I’d rather not have people dwell on my sexuality as they’re trying to figure out exactly what I mean by bisexual” (Bisexual male, Air Force, P21). Differences by Marital Status. In survey data, married and partnered LGBT service members were found to be significantly more likely to be out in several military domains than single, separated, or divorced LGBT service members (see Table 5). Several interview participants discussed their outness to unit colleagues as a necessary step in navigating a nascent and unpaved path to marrying or accessing benefits for their same-sex partner. One participant stated: Getting married would be a significant event because it was really the first time I’ve ever had to have a discussion with someone in my leadership about my personal life, I think. So I had to go tell my commander that I wanted to get married and that it was illegal in the state that I lived in and could he give me leave to go get married in another state? (Gay, Air Force, P1). This participant refers to the omnipresence of military regulations and leadership in one’s personal life such that he requires permission to travel to another state to get married. 89 Conversely, he had never before shared his personal life to his leadership. If it weren’t for administrative requirements necessary to access resources, or the omnipresence of the military institution in service members’ day-to-day lives, it is possible that this service member may not have otherwise disclosed his “personal life” to military leaders. One married participant whose spouse is also on active duty stated: My two-star general knows me. His three-star general knows him [my husband]. They’ve seen us out of context from the office. They recognize the last name and they’re the first to say “oh, I work with your husband.” So, it’s unique. It’s nice to know that they can say I work with your husband to another man and not bat an eyelash about it, where who knows historically, in the past, how that would’ve been five years ago (Gay, Air Force, P11). When asked about his experience being openly gay on base, this participant discusses the acceptance he feels from high ranking officers he and his husband work with, speaking to the importance of high-level support in creating a climate of LGBT-acceptance. A single service member discusses both the legacy of silence regarding one’s LGBT identity serving under DADT, as well as how this may shield him from having to discuss his sexual orientation in the military workplace, for better or worse. But, it [sexual orientation] almost never does come up because they’re still of the DADT mindset where they just don’t talk about sexuality at all. It’s easy for me, too, because I’m single. I’m not married, so it’s an easy topic to avoid. It’s kind of like how it was with DADT, I was just a single guy. You know? (Bisexual male, Air Force, P21). This service member is aided in his desire not to reveal his sexual orientation by the fact that he is single, presumably referencing the military’s culture of incorporating military families into the total force as evidenced by the benefits and resources awarded to military spouses, as well as the presence of spouses at official military events, as noted by other interviewees. Unique Concerns Related to Transgender Identity. Transgender service members surveyed in this study were found to be overwhelmingly out to military friends, authority and 90 helping professionals, with at least 80% of both transgender men and women out to these entities. One exception is found in outness to chaplains, to which 55% of transgender men and 45% of transgender women were out (see Tables 3, 4, 5, and 6). In the same way that same-sex partnered service members discussed the necessity of coming out to military entities in order to access benefits and resources, several transgender participants noted their high levels of outness were motivated by their need for resources or permission related to their gender identity. One transgender participant referred to sitting down with his unit leaders in 2016 to come out as transgender to resolve an ongoing issue. This service member held a position in the military in which he and his coworkers wear civilian clothing; he had been reprimanded for both his short hair and his style of clothing, which his superiors felt did not match his assumed gender of female: He [immediate supervisor] wanted me to explain where I was at in the process [of transitioning] and then once I got all that out, he was like ‘Ok, I’ll talk to Master Sergeant and Master Guns [Master Gunnery Sergeant] and then we’ll go from there.’ Basically running it up the flag pole, just going up the chain of command. So the next day, I sat down with him and Master Guns, and explained it again, kind of like how it all came to be and how I’d figured it out. And then, kind of what the process was at that point, because at that point, we didn’t have an instruction from the DoD [Department of Defense]. We were just pulling it out of thin air in hopes that someday ‘they’re working on it. There’s a policy being written.’ (Transmale, asexual, Marines, P34). For this service member, he felt compelled to disclose his transgender identity partly in an effort to curtail the daily trouble he was experiencing at his work site. He referenced the fact that disclosing to one person in his command caused his transgender identity to then be disclosed to other unit leaders without his involvement in these conversations. He and his leadership then attempted to address the issue without clear military guidance regarding next steps. Several transgender service members reported that they were managing their disclosure to military colleagues carefully. For example, one transgender woman recounted her step by step 91 plan of meeting with her commander, finding a medical provider to begin hormone therapy, addressing administrative changes associated with coming out as a transgender service member, and coming out to the rest of her unit six months later. For her, it is important that she see physical changes associated with hormone therapy before disclosing to her unit; as a person in a leadership position in a new unit, she felt she wanted her new coworkers “to work with me long enough to know who I am as a person and as a leader” (Transfemale, bisexual, Army, P33). Some transgender service members interviewed discussed beginning their social and physical transition on their own, without disclosing to military colleagues, in a “wait and see if others notice” mindset; others, like the participant above, carefully managed her transition process with consistent communication with her supervisor. All interview participants reported a relief upon learning of the DoD official policy change to allow them to openly serve; as one participant put it: “I’m kind of in this euphoric cloud of being able to identify as trans now” (Transmale, pansexual, Army, P40). Discussion This study provides important information about LGBT servicemembers’ outness since the 2011 repeal of Don’t, Ask, Don’t Tell barring sexual minority service members from openly serving and the 2016 lifting of the ban on transgender service (U.S. Department of Defense, 2016; “Repeal of ‘Don’t, Ask, Don’t Tell,’” 2011). This mixed methods analysis of survey results from 248 LGBT service members and interviews with 42 LGBT service members found high levels of LGBT identity disclosure to military colleagues. Taken as a whole, nearly all LGBT service members were out to LGBT and non-LGBT friends in their units, about three- fourths of LGBT service members were out to unit leaders, counselors, and medical providers, while about one-third of LGBT service members were out to their chaplain. 92 Qualitative data help contextualize these findings. LGBT officers discussed the lack of LGBT officer “role models” and the associated difficulty they experience navigating how to be “out and proud” while also maintaining professionalism as military officers. The finding that LGBT service members with a higher level of education were more likely to be out than those with a lower education level was likely due to a high correlation (78%) between rank and education; 100% of officers in this sample had a Bachelors degree or above, while 81% of enlisted service members in this sample had an Associates degree or below. Therefore, the finding that education level was associated with outness to unit leaders, for example, was likely an artifact of its correlation with rank. Bisexual service members explained their reluctance to come out to other service members as a perception that gay and lesbian service members may be accepted and normalized in the military workplace; however, according to participants, bisexuality carried a distinct stigma even from the gay and lesbian community. Partnered service members noted they were often out to military colleagues in order to obtain needed resources for their families. These interview participants discussed the fact that having a same-sex partner set them apart from non- LGBT service members in that they required special permission or were compelled to explain themselves in situations that were stressful regardless of sexual orientation (i.e. travelling to get married, pre-natal medical appointments). Single service members discussed their sense that the military prioritizes service members with families and the sense that LGBT service members with families are more accepted than single LGBT service members. Similarly to partnered LGBT service members, transgender participants noted that their outness was often related to accessing a needed resource related to gender identity (i.e. medical care, uniform change). Outness to medical providers was 93 also discussed as a means of accessing or fending off medical treatments (i.e. acquiring HIV prophylactic, refusing birth control). Many interview participants noted that a history of negative experiences with religious individuals, both civilian and military, colored their expectations of disclosing to their chaplain. The finding that LGBT Army members were at higher odds of being out to their chaplain than LGBT Air Force members may be related to embeddedness of chaplains in Army units, as opposed to the Air Force use of centralized, base-wide chaplains, and an associated increase in familiarity and trust; however, this topic requires further study. As both Minority stress theory (MST) and Communication privacy management theory (CPM) explain, service members discussed gauging their environment for cues of rejection or acceptance prior to disclosure. Participants indicated their use of disclosure to fellow service members to build social supports to buffer anti-LGBT stigma (Meyer, 2003; Petronio, 2002). As predicted by MST, LGBT service members “learned to hide” (Meyer, 2003, p.681) to protect themselves from harm, while thoughtfully sharing their “stigmatized” identity with similarly- stigmatized persons in an effort to gain the positive psychological effects of affiliating with a safe community (Meyer, 2003). As noted by CPM, participants discussed their preference for disclosing to fellow service members who have communicated cues of LGBT acceptance, as opposed to disclosing for the purpose of gaining a needed resource. Petronio noted, “Because individuals believe they own rights to their private information, they also justifiably feel that they should be the ones controlling their privacy” (Petronio, 2013, p. 9). This sentiment played out among LGBT service members in the present study who discussed reluctantly disclosing their LGBT identity to fellow service members in the absence of cues of acceptance, in order to access needed resources. Conversely, the high degrees of outness and positive stories of 94 acceptance found in this study suggest many LGBT service members do assess specific military spaces and individuals as safe for disclosure. The current study found a sharp contrast in LGBT outness following repeal of LGBT military bans compared to studies conducted prior to ban repeals. Studies of LGB veterans serving under LGB bans found that most were cautious in their disclosure and were not out to non-friends in the military (Cochran et al., 2013a; Moradi, 2009). Similarly, less than 20% of active duty transgender service members reported they were out to unit friends, their whole unit, their commanding officer, and all other military personnel prior to the transgender ban repeal (Hill et al., 2016). The current study’s findings are in accord with a study that found over 70% of LGB service members reported being out to other military members following DADT repeal (Evans et al., 2018). In agreement with perspectives set forth by others, some LGBT service members did report a legacy of anti-LGBT sentiment, a sense of “otherness,” and feeling targeted due to their LGBT identity (Burks, 2011; Castro & Goldbach, 2018). In terms of outness to medical providers, a study conducted after DADT repeal found that only 5% of military healthcare providers inquired about same-sex sexual activity among their patients, and that junior providers were significantly more comfortable assessing the sexual health needs of LGB individuals compared to senior providers (Rerucha, Runser, Ee, & Hersey, 2018). Rerucha et al. (2018) argued that military providers should assess sexual behaviors of their patients, noting that LGB individuals are at increased risk for some physical, sexual, and mental health problems compared to their non-LGB peers. As both quantitative and qualitative data found high levels of outness among transgender service members, it should be noted that transgender service members are encouraged to be open about their gender identity with their Commanders (U.S. DoD, 2016b). The Transgender Service 95 in the U.S. Military: Implementation Handbook provides communication strategies for disclosing one’s gender identity to colleagues, such as through email or in a meeting (U.S. DoD, 2016b). Handbooks for each branch directed transgender service members to discuss their gender identity with colleagues, patiently answer their questions about being transgender (U.S. Navy, 2016; Secretary of the Air Force, 2016; Secretary of the Army, 2016). Such guidance may have contributed to the high rates of outness this study found among transgender service members and their unit friends, leaders, medical providers, and counselors (all over 80% for both transmale and transfemale service members). It is important to note that the ban on transgender service was reimplemented in 2019, with significant media coverage and commentary from the U.S. president (Trump, 2017; Trump v. Karnoski, 2019; Liptak, 2019). It may be the case that these factors will critically change the course of transgender service members’ outness decision- making and their wellbeing in the military. While greater outness among LGBT service members is likely related to the removal of LGBT military bans, it may also be related to a greater visibility and acceptance of LGBT individuals in the broader social context in the U.S (Pew Research Center, 2017a; Pew Research Center, 2017b). LGB social acceptance is the highest it has ever been, with a majority of both dominant political parties in the U.S. stating that homosexuality should be accepted (Pew Research Center, 2017b). Similarly, one study found that knowing a transgender person is associated with having more favorable views of transgender individuals and believing society should be more accepting of transgender individuals (Pew Research Center, 2017a). As social support for LGBT individuals increases, policies on military service, same-sex marriage, and anti-LGBT workplace discrimination become more LGBT-affirming, and more LGBT service members “come out,” it is possible that rates of disclosure will continue to rise. 96 Limitations and Future Directions This study has limitations that should be noted. Although the study used a multi-pronged recruitment strategy to ensure a diverse sample, it may be the case that those interested in taking part are those with salient LGBT-related military experiences. Perhaps those for whom being LGBT has not overtly impacted their military service, such as bisexual service members in exclusively different-sex relationships, may not have been inclined to participate. The current study does not parse out the sexual orientation diversity of transgender service members. For example, a transgender individual who identifies as lesbian may have interpreted “Do the following know you are LGBT” in terms of being out as a lesbian, but not as transgender. The current study does not take into account whether serving prior to the LGBT ban repeals leads to different experiences of outness compared to service members who joined after repeal. These limitations should be noted for future research. Future research may assess outness not only to unit friends, but also colleagues one does not view as friends; such information may be important in better understanding cohesion and information sharing among one’s total network of colleagues. A recent review of the health and wellbeing of LGBT military and ex-military personnel found this community experiences higher rates of everyday discrimination, mental distress, suicide, sexual assault, and lower emotional support (McNamara et al., 2019). Future research should investigate disclosure experiences in the military as they relate to such health outcomes. Research on disclosure in the military workplace may also consider use of LGBT workplace disclosure models put forth by others (Clair, Beatty, & Maclean, 2016; Croteau, Anderson, & Vanderwal, 2008; Ragins, 2008). These models, while not focused on a military workplace, offer frameworks for predicting disclosure 97 and concealment, and may offer a direction for the military to consider in better understanding disclosure decisions among personnel. Conclusion Findings from this mixed methods analysis of LGBT service member outness, during a time in which LGBT military bans were lifted, show a trend toward openness. However, the analyses highlighted several possible areas of concern in integrating LGBT service members, namely among officers, bisexual men and women, and single, separated, or divorced LGBT service members. Low levels of outness to chaplains, as well as the levels of outness to unit leaders and helping professionals are also noteworthy. If LGBT-affirming policies prevail in the U.S. military, those serving in the helping professions and as unit leaders may consider intentional outreach communicating their personal alignment with LGBT-affirming military policy. As one participant put it: Even if the policy changes, the culture remains the same. The law of the land might be one thing, but if the minds and hearts of the people that you serve shoulder to shoulder with every day, if that doesn’t change, then you still feel the impact of being treated differently (Lesbian, Army, P42). Findings from the current study suggest that policy change alone, without assurances that being LGBT will not be held against them, may not be enough to fully integrate LGBT service members into the fighting force. 98 References Alford, B., & Lee, S. J. (2016). Toward complete inclusion: Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender military service members after repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. Social Work, 61(3), 257–266. https://doi.org/10.1093/sw/sww033 Berube, A. (1990). Coming out under fire: The history of gay men and women in World War II. New York, NY: Free Press. Biddix, J. M., Fogel, C. I., & Perry Black, B. (2013). Comfort levels of active duty gay/bisexual male service members in the military healthcare system. Mil Med, 178(12), 1335–1340. https://doi.org/10.7205/MILMED-D-13-00044 Burks, D. J. (2011). Lesbian, gay, and bisexual victimization in the military: An unintended consequence of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”? American Psychologist, 66(7), 604–613. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024609 Castro, C. A., & Goldbach, J. (2018). The perpetrator hypothesis: Victimization involving LGBT service members. In L. Roberts & C. Warner (Eds.), Military and veteran mental health (Online advanced publication). New York, NY: Springer. Clair, J. A., Beatty, J. E., & Maclean, T. L. (2016). Out of sight but not out of mind: Managing invisible social identities in the workplace. The Academy of Management Review, 30(1), 78–95. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.2005.15281431 Cochran, B. N., Balsam, K., Flentje, A., Malte, C. A., & Simpson, T. (2013). Mental Health Characteristics of Sexual Minority Veterans. Journal of Homosexuality, 60(2–3). https://doi.org/10.1080/00918369.2013.744932 99 Croteau, J. M., Anderson, M. Z., & Vanderwal, B. L. (2008). Models of workplace sexual identity disclosure and management. Group & Organization Management, 33(5), 532– 565. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601108321828 Davis, L., Grifka, A., Williams, K., & Coffey, M. (2016). 2016 Workplace and Gender Relations Survey of Active Duty Members. Retrieved from https://sapr.mil/public/docs/reports/FY17_Annual/FY16_Annual_Report_on_Sexual_Ass ault_in_the_Military_Full_Report_Part2_4.pdf Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, 10 U.S.C. § 654 (1993) (Repealed 2010). Retrieved from http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/ pkg/USCODE-2010-title10/pdf/USCODE-2010- title10- subtitleA-partII-chap37-sec654.pdf DTM-19-004. (2019, March 12). Directive-type Memorandum – Military Service by Transgender Persons and Persons with Gender Dysphoria. Retrieved from https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/5767255-DTM- TransgenderMilitaryService.html Evans, W. R., Bliss, S. J., Rincon, C. M., Johnston, S. L., Bhakta, J. P., Webb-Murphy, J. A., … Balsam, K. F. (2018). Military Service Members’ Satisfaction with Outness. Armed Forces & Society, 45(1), 0095327X1775111. https://doi.org/10.1177/0095327X17751111 Fisher, C. M. (2013). Queering Data Collection: Using the Life History Calendar Method With Sexual-Minority Youth. Journal of Social Service Research, 39(3), 306–321. https://doi.org/10.1080/01488376.2013.766554 Gates G. J. (2010). Discharges under the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy: Women and racial/ethnic minorities. The Williams Institute, UCLA School of Law. Retrieved from 100 http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/Gates-Discharges2009-Military- Sept-2010.pdf Goldbach, J. T., & Castro, C. A. (2016). Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender (LGBT) Service Members: Life After Don't Ask, Don't Tell. Current Psychiatry Reports, 18(6). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11920-016-0695-0 Hill, B. J., Bouris, A., Barnett, J. T., & Walker, D. (2016). Fit to Serve? Exploring Mental and Physical Health and Well-Being Among Transgender Active-Duty Service Members and Veterans in the U.S. Military. Transgender Health, 1(1), 4–11. https://doi.org/10.1109/THZ.1998.731691 Liptak, A. (2019, January 22). Supreme Court Revives Transgender Ban for Military Service. New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/22/us/politics/transgender-ban- military-supreme-court.html Meadows, S. O., Engel, C. C., Collins, R. L., Beckman, R., Cefalu, M., Hawes-Dawson, J., … Williams, K. M. (2015). 2015 Department of Defense Health Related Behaviors Survey (HRBS). Retrieved from https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR1695.html Meyer, I. H. (2003). Prejudice, Social Stress, and Mental Health in Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Populations: Conceptual Issues and Research Evidence. Psychological Bulletin, 129(5), 674–697. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.129.5.674 McNamara, K. A., Mark, K. M., Gribble, R., Sharp, M., Stevelink, S. A. M., Schwartz, A., … Fear, N. T. (2019). The health and well-being of LGBTQ serving and ex-serving personnel: a narrative review. International Review of Psychiatry, 31(1), 75–94. https://doi.org/10.1080/09540261.2019.1575190 101 McNamara, K. A., Lucas, C. L., Goldbach, J. T., Holloway, I. W., & Castro, C. A. (under review). “You don’t want to be a candidate for punishment”: A qualitative analysis of LGBT service members’ disclosure decision-making post-Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. Moradi, B. (2009). Sexual orientation disclosure, concealment, harassment, and military cohesion: Perceptions of LGBT military veterans. Military Psychology, 21, 513–533. https://doi.org/10.1080/08995600903206453 Mount, S. D., Steelman, S. M., & Hertlein, K. M. (2015). “I’m Not Sure I Trust the System Yet”: Lesbian service member experiences with mental health care. Military Psychology (American Psychological Association), 27(2), 115–127. https://doi.org/10.1037/mil0000071 Obama, B. (2010, December). "Remarks by the President and Vice President at Signing of the Don't Ask, Don't Tell Repeal Act of 2010." Retrieved from https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2010/12/22/remarks-president- and-vice-president-signing-dont-ask-dont-tell-repeal-a Padgett, D. (2012). Qualitative and mixed methods in Public Health. SAGE Publications, Inc. Parco, J. E., Levy, D. a, & Spears, S. R. (2015). Transgender military personnel in the post- DADT repeal era: A phenomenological study. Armed Forces and Society, 41(2), 221. https://doi.org/10.1177/0095327X14530112 Petronio, S. (2002). Boundaries of privacy: dialectics of disclosure. Albany: State University of New York Press. 102 Petronio, S. (2013). Brief Status Report on Communication Privacy Management Theory. Journal of Family Communication, 13(1), 6–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/15267431.2013.743426 Pew Research Center. (2017a). “2017 Pew Research Center’s American Trends Panel: TRANSGEND1-3.” Retrieved from http://www.pewresearch.org/wp- content/uploads/2017/11/transgender-topline-final.pdf Pew Research Center. (2017b). “The Partisan Divide on Political Values Grows Even Wider: Homosexuality, gender and religion.” Retrieved from http://www.people- press.org/2017/10/05/the-partisan-divide-on-political-values-grows-even-wider/ Ragins, B. R. (2008). Disclosure disconnects: Antecedents and consequences of disclosing invisible stigmas across life domains. The Academy of Management Review, 33(1), 194– 215. “Repeal of ‘Don’t, Ask, Don’t Tell.’” (2011, Sept 20). Retrieved from http://archive.defense.gov/home/features/2010/0610_dadt/USD-PR- DADT_Repeal_Day_Memo_20Sep.pdf Rerucha, C. M., Runser, L. A., Ee, J. S., & Hersey, E. G. (2018). Military healthcare providers’ knowledge and comfort regarding the medical care of active duty lesbian, gay, and bisexual patients. LGBT Health, 5(1), 86–90. https://doi.org/10.1089/lgbt.2016.0210 Secretary of the Air Force. (2016). Air Force Policy Memorandum for In-Service Transition for Airmen Identifying as Transgender. Retrieved from http://static.e- publishing.af.mil/production/1/af_a1/publication/_afpm2016-36-01/afpm2016-36-01.pdf 103 Secretary of the Army. (2016). Army Directive 2016-35: Army Policy on Military Service of Transgender Soldiers. Retrieved from https://www.army.mil/e2/c/downloads/453704.pdf Shibusawa, N. (2012). The Lavender Scare and empire: Rethinking Cold War antigay politics. Diplomatic History, 36(4), 723–752. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7709.2012.01052.x “The Military Acceptance Project.” (n.d.). Retrieved from http://cir.usc.edu/research/research- projects/military-acceptance-project-map Trump, D. J. [@realDonaldTrump]. (2017, July 26). “After consultation with my Generals…” Retrieved from https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/890193981585444864 Trump v. Karnoski. (2019). Retrieved from https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/trump- v-karnoski/ U.S. DoD. (2016a). Secretary of Defense Ash Carter Announces Policy for Transgender Service Members. Retrieved from https://www.defense.gov/News/News-Releases/News-Release- View/Article/821675/secretary-of-defense-ash-carter-announces-policy-for-transgender- service-members/ U.S. DoD. (2016b). Transgender Service in the U.S. Military: An Implementation Handbook. Retrieved from https://www.defense.gov/Portals/1/features/2016/0616_policy/DoDTGHandbook_09301 6.pdf United States Navy. (2016). Transgender and Gender Transition Commanding Officer’s Toolkit. Retrieved from http://www.public.navy.mil/bupers- 104 npc/support/21st_Century_Sailor/lgbt/Documents/CO%20Toolkit%20USN_Transgender %20and%20Transitioning%20Command%20Officers%20Toolkit_V2.pdf U.S. Public Health Service. (2018, March). Preexposure Prophylaxis for the Prevention of HIV Infection in the United States – 2017 Update: A Clinical Practice Guideline. Retrieved from https://www.cdc.gov/hiv/pdf/risk/prep/cdc-hiv-prep-guidelines-2017.pdf. Van Gilder, B. J. (2017). Coping with Sexual Identity Stigma in the U.S. Military: An Examination of Identity Management Practices Prior to and After the Repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”. Identity, 17(3), 156–175. https://doi.org/10.1080/15283488.2017.1340162 105 Tables Table 2.1. Demographics and military-related traits of qualitative sample Participants interviewed (n=42) n % Sexual Orientation Heterosexual 3 (all trans) 7% Bisexual/Pansexual 8 19% Gay 20 50% Lesbian 11 26% Gender Cismale 21 50% Cisfemale 12 29% Transmale 6 14% Transfemale 3 7% Age 22 to 24 8 19% 26 to 30 17 40% 31 to 35 10 24% 36 to 40 6 14% 50 1 2% Race White 30 71% Black 4 10% Latino 6 14% Asian 2 5% Branch Army 13 31% Air Force 15 36% Navy 11 26% Marine Corps 3 7% Total 42 100% 106 Table 2.2. Demographic and military-related traits of quantitative sample (n=248) Total n % Sexual Orientation Gay cis + trans men 110 44% Lesbian cis + trans women 60 24% Bisexual/Pansexual cis + trans 58 23% Heterosexual (all transgender) 20 8% Total 248 100% Gender Identity Cismale 116 47% Cisfemale 74 30% Transgender male 32 13% Transgender female 26 11% Total 248 100% Age 18 to 25 81 33% 26 to 30 87 35% 31 to 35 42 17% 36+ 38 15% Total 248 100% Race White/Caucasian 164 66% Latino/Hispanic 33 13% Black/African American 20 8% Other 30 12% Total 247 100% Marital Status Single/Divorced/Separated 115 51% Married/Domestic Partnership 111 49% Total 226 100% Education Some high school, GED, High school diploma, Some college, or Associates degree 102 45% Bachelors degree, Masters degree, or Doctorate 127 55% Total 229 100% Rank (4 categories) E1-E4 70 28% E5-E9 78 31% O1-O3 78 31% O4-O6 22 9% Total 248 100% Rank (2 categories) Enlisted 148 60% Officer 100 40% Total 248 100% Branch Air Force 71 29% Army 105 42% Marine Corps 22 9% Navy 50 20% Total 248 100% Race “Other”= Native American, Alaskan Native, Asian Pacific Islander, Multiracial, or Other 107 Table 2.3. Outness to military authority, friends, and helping professionals among cisgender LGB service members by gender and sexual orientation 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% LGBT Unit Friends Non-LGBT Unit Friends Unit Leaders Medical Providers Counselors Chaplain Gay cismen (n=107) Bi+ cismen (n=9) Lesbian ciswomen (n=58) Bi+ ciswomen (n=16) 108 Table 2.4. Outness to military authority, friends, and helping professionals among transgender service members 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% LGBT Unit Friends Non-LGBT Unit Friends Unit Leaders Medical Providers Counselors Chaplain Transmen (n=32) Transwomen (n=26) 109 Table 2.5. Odds ratios of outness to authority and helping professionals by demographic and military-related traits Unit Leaders n=247 Medical Providers n=242 Counselors n=173 Chaplain n=175 OR 95% CI OR 95% CI OR 95% CI OR 95% CI Sexual Orientation (cis) Gay male (ref) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lesbian 1.16 .57-2.35 .76 .36-1.61 1.54 .64-3.70 .67 .30-1.47 Bisexual+ .63 .25-1.57 .18* .07-.48 .29* .10-.89 .23* .06-.85 Bisexual+ vs. Lesbian .55 .20-1.48 .24* .09-.67 .19* .06-.63 .34 .09-1.35 Gender Male (cis) (ref) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Female (cis) 1.28 .68-2.41 .67 .35-1.28 1.27 .60-2.70 .59 .29-1.24 Trans vs. Cis. 3.30* 1.41-7.70 4.18* 1.58-11.03 6.38* 2.37- 17.17 1.36 .68-2.72 Age .99 .95-1.03 1.01 .97-1.06 .99 .95-1.05 .99 .94-1.04 Race White (ref) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Non-White .80 .44-1.43 .61 .33-1.11 .72 .36-1.40 1.19 .64-2.23 Marital Status Single/Separated/Divorce d (ref) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Married/Partnered 3.37* 1.80-6.32 1.96* 1.05- 3.69 1.99 .97-4.06 2.29* 1.15-4.59 Education Associates degree or below (ref) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Bachelors degree or above .47* .26-.87 1.01 .55-1.86 .48* .24-.98 .57 .29-1.12 Rank Enlisted (ref) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Officer .46* .26-.82 .81 .45-1.48 .59 .30-1.20 .51* .26-.99 Branch Army (reference) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Air Force .72 .37-1.40 .61 .30-1.22 .62 .28-1.34 .32* .14-.74 Marines vs. Army 1.47 .45-4.76 .68 .24-1.96 .79 .22-2.83 .61 .19-1.98 Navy vs. Army .99 .46-2.12 1.24 .52-2.93 1.05 .41-2.69 .55 .24-1.28 * = significant odds ratio at p<.05 (ref) = reference group (cis)=cisgender Non-White=Black or African American, Latino or Hispanic, Native American or Alaskan Native, Asian Pacific Islander, Multiracial, Other 110 Table 2.6. Odds ratios of outness to unit friends by demographic traits and military-related factors LGBT Unit Friends n=212 Non-LGBT Unit Friends n=247 OR 95% CI OR 95% CI Sexual Orientation (cis) Gay male (ref) 1.00 1.00 Lesbian 5.15 .27-97.67 1.09 .41-2.87 Bisexual+ .14* .03-.58 .58 .19-1.79 Bisexual+ vs. Lesbian .03* .001-.54 .53 .15-1.88 Gender Male (cis) (ref) 1.00 1.00 Female (cis) 5.45 .66-44.68 1.09 .47-2.55 Trans vs. Cis. .53 .17-1.66 .88 .39-2.01 Age .97 .89-1.04 .99 .94-1.04 Race White (ref) 1.00 1.00 Non-White 1.34 .40-4.42 .78 .38-1.62 Marital Status Single/Separated/Divorced (ref) 1.00 1.00 Married/Partnered 1.84 .59-5.71 1.67 .79-3.52 Education Associates degree or below (ref) 1.00 1.00 Bachelors degree or above .61 .19-1.91 .86 .41-1.80 Rank Enlisted (ref) 1.00 1.00 Officer .42 .14-1.26 .72 .36-1.47 Branch Army (ref) 1.00 1.00 Air Force 1.35 .33-5.46 1.04 .45-2.37 Marines vs. Army .37 .09-1.61 1.22 .33-4.59 Navy vs. Army 3.58 .43-29.99 1.74 .60-5.02 * = significant odds ratio at p<.05 (ref) = reference group (cis)=cisgender Non-White=Black or African American, Latino or Hispanic, Native American or Alaskan Native, Asian Pacific Islander, Multiracial, Other To address the problem of separation in the data, Stata command firthlogit was used in the analysis of Sexual Orientation and Outness to LGBT Unit Friends. 111 Chapter Four: Manuscript Three Title: Unit cohesion, social support, LGBT workplace climate, and “outness” post-LGBT military service bans In preparation for submission to The Leadership Quarterly McNamara, K. A., Goldbach, J. T., Holloway, I. W., & Castro, C. A. Abstract In an increasingly-diverse workforce, many institutions have implemented policies to signal protection for historically-marginalized workers. In the U.S. military, lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) individuals were granted permission to serve openly in the military for the first time in U.S. history; however, whether they perceive a supportive workplace is uncertain. This Department of Defense-funded project surveyed non-LGBT (n=296) and LGBT (n=248) service members between August 2017 and March 2018, prior to re- implementation of the ban on open transgender service in April 2019. This study found that LGBT service members perceived significantly lower unit cohesion and social support than non- LGBT service members. A more affirming LGBT workplace climate was associated with greater odds of outness to unit leaders and friends. LGBT service members may have a different experience in their unit than non-LGBT service members. Military leaders hold significant responsibility to foster an explicitly-accepting climate for LGBT service members. Keywords (3-5): LGBT, Outness, Military, Workplace, Climate 112 Introduction Employing over 3 million people, the U.S. military is the largest employer in the world (Taylor, 2015; DoD Personnel, 2018). As such, the U.S. Department of Defense has a defining role in the field of workplace leadership. In an increasingly diverse military, the question of acceptance and integration of previously-marginalized groups is of interest to military leadership and social science researchers alike (National Defense Research Institute, 2010; Military Acceptance Project, n.d.). For example, lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) individuals had been barred from serving in the military in various capacities throughout the military’s history (Shibusawa, 2012; Berube, 1990). The extent to which military leaders have fostered an inclusive environment which communicates social support and a cohesive unit for this vulnerable group remains uncertain. The current study aimed to shed light on this topic using a diverse sample of LGBT and non-LGBT active duty service members in the U.S. recruited as part of a DoD-funded study. This research assessed for disparities in perceived unit cohesion, social support, and LGBT workplace climate by sexual orientation and gender identity and tested for relationships between LGBT service member “outness” to unit leaders and coworkers by unit climate measures. A recent review of workplace diversity and inclusion literature found that working in a diverse environment is not necessarily associated with perceiving an inclusive workplace (Mor Barak et al., 2016). Rather, intentional inclusive leadership behaviors were found to lead to perceiving an inclusive workplace, which was associated with positive work outcomes (Mor Barak et al., 2016). Another meta-analysis found that a perceived supportive workplace environment, by way of leadership or social support, for example, consistently explained variance in burnout, work engagement, and safety outcomes across employment industries 113 (Nahrgang, Morgeson, & Hofmann, 2011). Thus, as diversity and inclusion have been found to be separate constructs and existence of the former does not imply existence of the latter, whether military leaders foster an inclusive environment for newly-integrated LGBT service members must be assessed. Comprising between 11 to 17% of active duty servicewomen and 2 to 5% of active duty servicemen, LGBT service members total at least 65,000 (Davis, L., Grifka, A., Williams, K., & Coffey, 2016; Meadows et al., 2015). Announcements made by the U.S. President and Secretary of Defense corresponding with repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell in 2010 and the transgender ban in 2016 spoke to the assumption that, upon repeal of the bans, LGBT service members would no longer have reason to conceal their sexual orientation or gender identity from military coworkers (U.S. DoD, 2016; Obama, 2010). However, studies have found that many LGBT service members continue to conceal their sexual and gender minority identities despite repeals (Evans et al., 2018; Gurung et al., 2018; Van Gilder, 2017). Some LGBT service members report strategically concealing in order to avoid negative career repercussions, poor medical care, and social stigmatization (McNamara, Lucas, Goldbach, Holloway, & Castro, under review (a); McNamara, Lucas, Goldbach, Holloway, & Castro, under review (b)). LGBT service members have been found to be at higher risk for sexual violence and harassment than non-LGBT service members, with female sexual minorities in the military at the highest risk (Gurung et al., 2018). A review of the literature on the health and wellbeing of serving and ex-serving LGBT military personnel worldwide found that this population is at risk for several mental and physical problems and that many have concerns about accessing available healthcare due to experienced and anticipated stigma (McNamara et al., 2019). Unit climate has thus far not been assessed as it 114 relates to actively-serving LGBT service members’ wellbeing and outness; this study aims to fill these gaps. Disclosure of concealable stigmatized identities in the workplace has been found to be associated with perceived social support and an LGBT-inclusive climate (Chaudoir, Fisher, & Simoni, 2011; Croteau et al., 2008; Jones & King, 2014; Rose Ragins et al., 2007). In civilian settings, research has found that social support mediates the relationship between LGB disclosure and wellbeing (Beals, Peplau, & Gable, 2009). Further, higher anticipated support for LGB disclosure has been found to result in higher LGB disclosure in the workplace (Sabat, Trump, & King, 2014). A meta-analysis found that social support in the workplace was associated with better work attitudes, LGBT disclosure, and several measures of wellbeing among LGBT workers (Webster, Adams, Maranto, Sawyer, & Thoroughgood, 2018). The same meta-analysis found that LGBT-supportive workplace policies were the weakest predictor of experiences of LGBT workers (Webster et al., 2018). Unit cohesion, a concept often discussed in military literature, was named as a prime concern among those who speculated that open LGBT service would lead to deterioration of unit performance (“Flag and General Officers for the Military,” 2009; National Defense Research Institute, 2010). While not explicitly assessed in civilian LGBT disclosure literature, the present study explores the relationship of outness and unit cohesion due to this historical linkage. Taken together, prior literature suggests that LGBT disclosure in a military workplace may be associated with interpersonal and institutional support for both LGBT inclusion as well as non-LGBT-related social inclusion. The current study will be the first to assess perceived LGBT climate in a military setting, as well as LGBT service members’ outness in their military unit as it relates to unit climate measures. 115 In a military environment, where uniformity is highly valued, if not required, it may be the case that those with a potentially stigmatizing trait may choose concealment strategies. Indeed in the foremost theory of LGBT wellbeing, Minority Stress Theory, concealment of one’s LGBT identity is understood to protect from harmful attention that can lead to social exclusion, harassment, discrimination and (sometimes) violence (Meyer, 2003). Paradoxically, concealment can foreclose the possibility of connecting with other LGBT individuals and building social support, which may protect against the harm associated with having a stigmatized identity (Meyer, 2003). Thus, LGBT disclosure and concealment in the military workplace may consist of repeated nuanced and deliberate decisions. The current study addresses these gaps in the literature by testing for disparities in unit cohesion, social support, and perceived LGBT workplace climate between LGBT and non-LGBT service members, as well as possible associations between these unit climate constructs and outness to unit leaders and coworkers. Methods The current study uses survey data collected between August 2017 and March 2018 through the DoD-supported Military Acceptance Project, an initiative aimed at assessing the acceptance, integration and health of LGBT service members (“The Military Acceptance Project,” n.d.). Methods were approved by the Institutional Review Boards at the University of Southern California (USC) and the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA). To participate in the survey, service members were required to 1) be at least 18 years of age; 2) speak English; 3) be active duty in the Air Force, Marines, Army or Navy; and 4) be willing and able to provide consent. To recruit sufficient LGBT service members to power analyses, an expert advisory panel was formed using military and LGBT networks known to the research team. Respondent-driven and digitally purposive sampling methods were used to reach both 116 LGBT and non-LGBT service members. Participants were given a $25 gift card for completing the survey and up to six (6) $10 incentives for referring additional military members. Demographics of the sample are shown in Table 1. Measures Unit Cohesion. Horizontal, or peer-to-peer, cohesion was measured using Bartone and colleagues’ (2002) four (4)-item adaptation of the 20-item unit Platoon Cohesion Index by Siebold and Kelly (1988). The shortened scale has shown good internal consistency (Cronbach’s α = .71; Bartone et al., 2002). This item included the following prompts: Members of my unit have trust in each other; Members of my unit care for each other; Members of my unit work well together to get the job done; Members of my unit support each other as a team. Response options used a Likert-style scale with the options: 1=Not at all true, 2=A little true, 3=Moderately true, 4=Mostly true, 5=Completely true. Participants could also decline to answer any item. Scores on individual items were summed to create a single variable with a total range between 4 and 20, with a higher score indicating greater unit cohesion. Social Support in Unit. Social support in the workplace was measured using a three (3)- item scale shown to have good internal consistency (Cronbach’s α = .75; Turner & Marino, 1994; Taylor & Turner, 2001). This item included the following prompts: I feel close to the people at work; I have people at work who could always take the time to talk over my problems, should I want to; I often feel really appreciated by the people I work with. Response options used a Likert-style scale: 1=Strongly agree, 2=Disagree, 3=Agree, 4=Strongly Agree. Participants could also decline to answer any item. Scores on individual items were summed to create a single variable with a total range between 3 and 12, with higher scores indicating higher greater support in the unit. 117 LGBT Workplace Climate. Perception of LGBT inclusion in the workplace was measured using the 20-item LGBT Climate Inventory, which has been shown to have high internal consistency (Cronbach’s α = .96) and good test-retest reliability (r=.87; Liddle, Luzzo, Hauenstein, & Schuck, 2004). The scale states: “Please rate the following items according to how well they describe the atmosphere for LGBT employees in your workplace” with response options: Doesn’t describe at all; Describes somewhat/a little; Describes pretty well; Describes extremely well; Decline to answer. Eight items are reverse scored; scores on individual items were summed to create a single variable with a range of 25 to 80, with higher scores indicating greater LGBT inclusion. LGBT outness to unit coworkers. Outness to military friends and leaders was assessed by asking respondents Do the following people know that you are LGBT? with the options: Yes; No; Not applicable, or do not have this person in my life; Decline to answer. This measure included thirteen (13) items, three (3) of which related to unit coworkers: Unit leaders; Straight friends in your unit; Friends in your unit who are LGBT. Each response was assessed as a dichotomous variable Yes or No. Analyses Data cleaning and analyses were completed in STATA/IC version 15.1. Due to 8% missingness in the LGBT Workplace Climate measure, multiple imputation was used to impute mean scores for observations missing this measure. Missingness in this measure was likely due to its placement as the final measure in the survey. A correlation matrix, using Bonferroni correction, was run to assess for correlation between independent variables in both the LGBT and non-LGBT samples (see Table 2). Z-tests for difference in means were used to test the hypotheses that mean scores for 1) Unit Cohesion, 2) Social Support, and 3) LGBT Workplace Climate would differ between LGBT and non-LGBT service members. Simple linear regression 118 models tested for differences in unit cohesion, social support, and LGBT workplace climate between non-LGBT, cisgender LGB, and transgender service members. Binomial bivariate logistic regression models were built to test for significance between outness to 1) unit leaders; 2) non-LGBT unit friends; and 3) LGBT unit friends with demographic, military related traits, and unit climate measures. First, independent and control variables were assessed for their association with dependent variables in a series of bivariate regressions. All variables significant at the p<.25 level were included in preliminary final models (Hosmer, Lemeshow, & Sturdivant, 2013). Interactions between variables in preliminary final models were tested; one interaction between gender and military rank was found to be significant at p<.05 and was included in the final adjusted model for outness to unit leaders. The final model for outness to unit leaders included covariates of marital status, education level, and the interaction between gender and rank. The final model for outness to non-LGBT unit friends included covariates of social support in the unit and marital status. The final model for outness to LGBT unit friends included covariates of gender and rank (see Table 3). Further exploration of the moderating effect of gender and military rank on sexual orientation and outness to unit leaders was completed by calculating odds ratios for each combination (see Table 4). Results Most of the total sample was cismale (60%), with cismen making up 70% of the non- LGBT sample and half (47%) of the LGBT sample. The transgender sample was approximately evenly split by transgender men and transgender women, making up 10% of the total sample. The average age of the total sample was 27.7 years (SD=6.12), with no significant age difference between the LGBT and non-LGBT samples. Half of the LGBT sample identified as gay men, 119 one-fourth as lesbian women, one-fifth as bisexual and one-tenth as heterosexual (all transgender). Non-whites made up a larger portion of the non-LGBT group (48%) then the LGBT group (34%). Half of both LGBT and non-LGBT groups were married or in a partnership. The LGBT group was more likely to have a Bachelors degree or higher and be an Officer than the non-LGBT group. The non-LGBT group had a slightly higher percentage of Air Force members, and the LGBT group had a slightly higher percentage of Navy members (see Table 1). LGBT outness to unit coworkers. Unit leaders. LGBT service members reported moderate to high levels of outness to unit leaders, with 87% of transgender (n=57), 69% of gay cismale (n=106), 72% of lesbian cisfemale (n=57), and 58% of bisexual cismale and cisfemale (n=24) out to their unit leaders. Higher LGBT workplace climate score (AOR=1.08; CI=1.05- 1.12; p<.001), being cisfemale lesbian or bisexual (AOR=.26; CI=.08-.84; p=0.024) and being married or in a domestic partnership (AOR=2.73, CI=1.31- 5.68; p=0.007) were found to be associated with statistically significantly higher odds of being out to unit leaders when controlling for covariates (see Table 3). Gender and military rank were found to moderate the relationship between sexual orientation and outness to unit leaders (see Table 4). Gay and bisexual enlisted cismen had three times the odds of being out to unit leaders compared to gay and bisexual cismale officers. Lesbian and bisexual enlisted ciswomen had 1/3 the odds of being out to unit leaders compared to enlisted transmen and transwomen. Enlisted transmen and transwomen had 6 times the odds of being out to unit leaders compared to gay and bisexual cismale officers. Gay and bisexual cismale officers had 1/3 the odds of being out to unit leaders compared to lesbian and bisexual cisfemale officers (see Table 4). 120 Non-LGBT unit friends. LGBT service members reported moderately high to high levels of outness to non-LGBT unit friends, with 83% of transgender (n=60), 87% of gay cismale (n=106), 88% of lesbian cisfemale (n=57), and 80% of bisexual cismale and cisfemale (n=25) out to non-LGBT unit friends. LGBT workplace climate was found to be significantly associated with outness to non-LGBT unit friends when controlling for covariates (AOR=1.08; CI=1.04- 1.13; p<.001; see Table 3). LGBT unit friends. Relative to outness to other military entities, high percentages of LGBT service members reported outness to LGBT unit friends, with 91% of transgender (n=53), 96% of gay cismale (n=90), 100% of lesbian cisfemale (n=49), and 76% of bisexual cismale and cisfemale (n=21) out to LGBT unit friends. Unit climate measures, demographic traits, and military-related traits were not found to be associated with outness to LGBT unit friends (see Table 3). Unit Cohesion. The average unit cohesion score for the whole sample was 16.4 (min. 4; max. 20; SD=3.4), indicating a high levels of unit cohesion (see Figure 3.1a). Non-LGBT service members reported significantly higher unit cohesion (M=17.2, SD=3.1) than LGBT service members (M=15.4, SD=3.4; z=6.13, p=.000, two-tailed). In the simple linear regression model, cisgender LGB service members perceived significantly lower unit cohesion than non-LGBT service members (B=-1.37, SE=.30, t=-4.55, p=0.000, CI=-1.97,-.78), transgender service members scored significantly lower on unit cohesion than cisgender LGB service members (B=- 1.57, SE=.49, t=-3.23, p=0.001, CI=-2.53, -.62) and non-LGBT service members (B=-2.95, SE=.47, t=-6.33, p=0.000, CI= -3.86, -2.03). Unit cohesion was not found to be statistically significantly associated with outness to unit leaders, non-LGBT unit friends, or LGBT unit friends (see Table 3). 121 Social Support in Unit. The average social support score for the whole sample was 8.9 (min. 3; max. 12; SD=2.0), indicating a moderate level of social support in one’s unit (see Figure 3.1b). Non-LGBT service members reported significantly higher social support (M=9.3, SD=1.8) than LGBT service members (M=8.4, SD=2.2; z=4.8, p=.000). In the simple linear regression model, cisgender LGB service members had statistically significantly lower social support scores than non-LGBT service members (B=-.72, SE=.19, t=-3.71, p=0.000, CI=-1.10, -.34), transgender service members had lower social support than cisgender LGB service members (B=-.64, SE=.31, t=-2.09, p=0.037, CI=-1.24, -.04) and non-LGBT servicemembers(B=-1.36, SE=.29, t=-4.68, p=0.000, CI=-1.93, -.79). Social support in the unit was found to be associated with outness to non-LGBT unit friends in bivariate analyses, but not in the adjusted model; social support in the unit was not associated with outness to unit leaders or LGBT unit friends in bivariate analyses (see Table 3). LGBT Workplace Climate. The average LGBT workplace climate score for the whole sample was 57.4 (min. 25; max. 80; SD=10.6), indicating a moderate level of LGBT acceptance (see Figure 3.1c). While not significantly different, non-LGBT service members reported higher LGBT workplace climate (M=58.6, SD=9.9) than LGBT service members (M=56.5, SD=11.3; z=1.84, p=.06, two-tailed). Transgender service members were found to score significantly lower on LGBT workplace climate than non-LGBT service members (B=-4.76, SE=1.51, SE=-3.16, p=0.002, CI=-7.72, -1.80). LGBT workplace climate was found to be statistically significantly associated with outness to unit leaders when controlling for covariates; for every one (1) unit increase in LGBT workplace climate score, respondents’ odds of being out to unit leaders and non-LGBT unit friends increased by 8% (see Table 3). LGBT workplace climate was not found to be statistically significantly associated with outness to LGBT unit friends (see Table 3). LGBT 122 workplace climate was found to be strongly positively correlated with both unit cohesion and social support in the unit for the LGBT sample only (see Table 2). Discussion This first-of-its-kind, exploratory analysis found that LGBT service members perceive significantly lower unit cohesion and social support than non-LGBT service members, with transgender service members scoring significantly lower than cisgender LGB service members on these measures. No difference in LGBT workplace climate was found between non-LGBT and cisgender LGB service members, however transgender service members perceived a less- affirming LGBT workplace climate than both cisgender and non-LGBT samples. Both LGBT and non-LGBT groups reported an overall high level of unit cohesion and a moderate level of social support. A higher perceived LGBT-affirming workplace climate was associated with higher odds of being out to one’s unit leader as well as non-LGBT unit friends. Being a lesbian or bisexual cisgender female and married or in a domestic partnership were also associated with higher odds of being out to unit leaders in adjusted models. As expected, unit cohesion and social support in the unit were strongly positively correlated for both LGBT and non-LGBT groups, and LGBT workplace climate was strongly positively correlated with both unit cohesion and social support in the unit in the LGBT group only. The current study’s findings are in line with a meta-analysis that found that an LGBT supportive climate was strongly associated with disclosure in the civilian workplace (Webster et al., 2018). Similarly, non-LGBT-specific social support has been found to be associated with LGBT disclosure in the workplace, however to a much lesser extent than LGBT-specific supportive climate. The present analyses also found that non-LGBT-specific social support was not associated with disclosure after controlling for covariates (Webster et al., 2018). Prior 123 research has also found that disclosing in “low autonomy support” environments, which it could be argued is descriptive of a military workplace, is associated with poor coming out experiences in which coming out does not confer the psychological benefits availed of those in high autonomy support environments (Legate, Ryan, & Weinstein, 2012). This conditional nature of outness and its association with wellbeing may help explain the current study’s finding that one in five LGBT service members choose not to disclose to unit coworkers. As predicted by the National Defense Research Institute in their report on the prospect of open LGB service (2010), but in contrast to predictions from those opposed to repeal of the LGB ban (“Flag & General Officers for the Military,” 2009) the present study found that unit cohesion was not associated with outness. Diversity and inclusion researcher Mor Barak defines workplace inclusion as a marriage of a sense of belongingness and uniqueness (Mor Barak, 2015). It may be the case that LGBT acceptance infers integration or assimilation in which LGBT service members highlight the similar aspects of themselves to coworkers, such as being married or having children, and de- emphasize uniqueness. Life experiences or worldviews that may be related to one’s LGBT identity, such as political opinions, family-of-origin relationships, trauma history, and romantic relationships, for example, may be concealed from coworkers if LGBT service members perceive such information may situate them outside of the norm. If this were the case, an LGBT- accepting climate could be perceived while LGBT individuals themselves feel socially unsupported by coworkers. Future research should explore social support in military units among all personnel, with special consideration to factors leading to lower felt-support among LGBT personnel. 124 A traditionally top-down model of norm-uptake persists in the military environment, granting military leaders broad responsibility in shaping unit climate (Wong, Bliese, & Mcgurk, 2003). The most recent report authored by the Military Leadership Diversity Commission acknowledges a gap between policies of inclusion and translation into service members’ felt- inclusion (“From Representation to Inclusion,” 2011). The report calls on leaders to “personally” and “visibly” commit to including diverse members in their unit (“From Representation to Inclusion,” 2011, p.xv). LGBT exclusion was an institutionalized norm for several decades, and there is evidence that anti-LGBT sentiment was felt at the unit level as well (Cochran, Balsam, Flentje, Malte, & Simpson, 2013b; Moradi, 2009). With service members now permitted to disclose their LGB identity, welcome same-sex partners to military events, disclose their orientation to military medical professionals, and access resources for their family, whether they perceive an LGBT- accepting workplace climate was uncertain. The current study is the first to use a validated LGBT climate measure to address this gap; the finding that LGBT (and non-LGBT) service members perceive a moderately-accepting environment for LGBT individuals may communicate to military leaders that the climate is improving, however room for improvement remains. Limitations The current study provides novel research to the fields of leadership, LGBT wellbeing, and military functioning; however, some limitations should be considered. The current study uses a single item query regarding outness to each unit coworker; future research may use validated outness inventories and assess the quality and reception of disclosure to these entities. As is often the case in sexual and gender minority research, large enough sample sizes to test for differences by sexual orientation subgroup were not collected; bisexuals as a whole, and 125 separated by gender, may have different outness and perceptions of unit climate. The present study does not take into account the length of time participants have served; future studies should explore a possible link between serving prior to, and after, repeal of LGBT bans. Although transgender individuals were able to serve openly for nearly two and a half years, this policy of inclusion was recently reversed (Philipps, 2019). As a cross sectional study, the current data do not speak to this policy change, and transgender service member wellbeing should be monitored. Conclusion The U.S. military comprises the largest workplace in the modern world and has a profound responsibility to model acceptance of diverse groups to service members. Unit leaders bridge the divide between official policies of inclusion and the daily experience of unit members. Effective leadership considers the felt-inclusion of workers, acknowledging that social support, unit cohesion and performance are inextricably linked. The ability to bring one’s authentic self into the workplace without fear of reprisal benefits employees and their ability to accomplish the mission. Military leaders can set a tone of openness and support, with explicit acknowledgement of the added burden LGBT service members experience, as they determine the level of outness to bring to the workplace. As current military leaders model supportive and affirming workplace climates, they train future leaders to do the same. 126 References Bartone, P. T., Johnson, B. H., Eid, J., Brun, W., Laberg, J. C. (2002). Factors influencing small- unit cohesion in Norwegian Navy officer cadets. Military Psychology, 14(1), 1–22. Beals, K. P., Peplau, L. A., & Gable, S. L. (2009). Stigma management and well-being: The role of perceived social support, emotional processing, and suppression. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 35(7), 867–879. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167209334783 Berube, A. (1990). Coming out under fire: The history of gay men and women in World War II. New York, NY: Free Press. Chaudoir, S. R., Fisher, J. D., & Simoni, J. M. (2011). Understanding HIV disclosure: A review and application of the Disclosure Processes Model. Social Science and Medicine, 72(10), 1618–1629. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2011.03.028 Cochran, B. N., Balsam, K., Flentje, A., Malte, C. a, & Simpson, T. (2013). Mental health characteristics of sexual minority veterans. Journal of Homosexuality, 60(2–3), 419–35. https://doi.org/10.1080/00918369.2013.744932 Croteau, J. M., Anderson, M. Z., & Vanderwal, B. L. (2008). Models of workplace sexual identity disclosure and management. Group & Organization Management, 33(5), 532– 565. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601108321828 Davis, L., Grifka, A., Williams, K., & Coffey, M. (2016). 2016 Workplace and Gender Relations Survey of Active Duty Members. Retrieved from https://sapr.mil/public/docs/reports/FY17_Annual/FY16_Annual_Report_on_Sexual_Ass ault_in_the_Military_Full_Report_Part2_4.pdf 127 DoD Personnel, Workforce Reports & Publications. (2018). Military and Civilian Personnel by Service/Agency by State/Country (Updated Quarterly): December 2018. Retrieved from https://www.dmdc.osd.mil/appj/dwp/dwp_reports.jsp Evans, W. R., Bliss, S. J., Rincon, C. M., Johnston, S. L., Bhakta, J. P., Webb-Murphy, J. A., … Balsam, K. F. (2018). Military Service Members’ Satisfaction With Outness. Armed Forces & Society, 45(1), 0095327X1775111. https://doi.org/10.1177/0095327X17751111 “Flag & General Officers for the Military.” (2009, March). “Repeal of the 1993 Law re Gays in the Military Would Break the Volunteer Force.” Retrieved from http://flagandgeneralofficersforthemilitary.com/FGOM_Issue_Overview_033109.pdf “From Representation to Inclusion.” (2011). Military Leadership Diversity Commission. Retrieved from https://diversity.defense.gov/Portals/51/Documents/Special%20Feature/MLDC_Final_Re port.pdf Gurung, S., Ventuneac, A., Rendina, H. J., Savarese, E., Grov, C., & Parsons, J. T. (2018). Prevalence of military sexual trauma and sexual orientation discrimination among lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender military personnel: A descriptive study. Sexuality Research and Social Policy, 15, 74–82. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/s13178- 017-0311-z Hosmer, D., Lemeshow, S., & Sturdivant, R. (2013). Applied logistic regression (Third edition.). Hoboken, New Jersey: Wiley. 128 Jones, K. P., & King, E. B. (2014). Managing concealable stigmas at work: A review and multilevel model. Journal of Management, 40(5), 1466–1494. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206313515518 Legate, N., Ryan, R. M., & Weinstein, N. (2012). Is coming out always a “good thing”? Exploring the relations of autonomy support, outness, and wellness for lesbian, gay, and bisexual individuals. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 3(2), 145–152. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550611411929 Liddle, B. J., Luzzo, D. A., Hauenstein, A. L., & Schuck, K. (2004). Construction and validation of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgendered climate inventory. Journal of Career Assessment, 12(1), 33–50. https://doi.org/10.1177/1069072703257722 Meadows, S. O., Engel, C. C., Collins, R. L., Beckman, R., Cefalu, M., Hawes-Dawson, J., … Williams, K. M. (2015). 2015 Department of Defense Health Related Behaviors Survey (HRBS). Retrieved from https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR1695.html Meyer, I. H. (2003). Prejudice, social stress, and mental health in lesbian, gay, and bisexual populations: Conceptual issues and research evidence. Psychological Bulletin, 129(5), 674–697. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.129.5.674 McNamara, K. A., Mark, K. M., Gribble, R., Sharp, M., Stevelink, S. A. M., Schwartz, A., … Fear, N. T. (2019). The health and well-being of LGBTQ serving and ex-serving personnel: a narrative review. International Review of Psychiatry, 31(1), 75–94. https://doi.org/10.1080/09540261.2019.1575190 129 McNamara, K. A., Lucas, C. L., Goldbach, J. T., Holloway, I. W., Castro, C. A. (under review). “Even if the policy changes, the culture remains the same:” A mixed methods analysis of LGBT service members’ outness patterns post-repeal of LGBT bans. McNamara, K. A., Lucas, C. L., Goldbach, J. T., Holloway, I. W., & Castro, C. A. (under review). “You don’t want to be a candidate for punishment”: A qualitative analysis of LGBT service members’ disclosure decision-making post-Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. Mor Barak, M. E. (2015). Inclusion is the key to diversity management, but what is inclusion? Human Service Organizations: Management, Leadership & Governance, 39(2), 83–88. https://doi.org/10.1080/23303131.2015.1035599 Mor Barak, M. E., Lizano, E. L., Kim, A., Duan, L., Rhee, M.-K., Hsiao, H.-Y., & Brimhall, K. C. (2016). The promise of diversity management for climate of inclusion: A state-of-the- art review and meta-analysis. Human Service Organizations: Management, Leadership & Governance, 3131(April), 305–333. https://doi.org/10.1080/23303131.2016.1138915 Moradi, B. (2009). Sexual orientation disclosure, concealment, harassment, and military cohesion: Perceptions of LGBT military veterans. Military Psychology, 21, 513–533. https://doi.org/10.1080/08995600903206453 Nahrgang, J. D., Morgeson, F. P., & Hofmann, D. A. (2011). Safety at work: A meta-analytic investigation of the link between job demands, job resources, burnout, engagement, and safety outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(1), 71–94. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021484 National Defense Research Institute. (2010). Sexual Orientation and U.S. Military Personnel Policy: An Update of RAND’s 1993 Study. https://doi.org/10.7249/mg1056osd 130 Obama, B. (2010, December). "Remarks by the President and Vice President at Signing of the Don't Ask, Don't Tell Repeal Act of 2010." Retrieved from https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2010/12/22/remarks-president- and-vice-president-signing-dont-ask-dont-tell-repeal-a Philipps, D. (2019, March 13). “New Rule for Transgender Troops: Stick to Your Birth Sex, or Leave.” New York Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/13/us/transgender-troops-ban.html Ragins, B. R., Singh, R., & Cornwell, J. M. (2007). Making the invisible visible: Fear and disclosure of sexual orientation at work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(4), 1103– 1118. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.92.4.1103 Sabat, I., Trump, R., & King, E. (2014). Individual, interpersonal, and contextual factors relating to disclosure decisions of lesbian, gay, and bisexual individuals. Psychology of Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity, 1(4), 431–440. https://doi.org/10.1037/sgd0000061 Shibusawa, N. (2012). The Lavender Scare and Empire: Rethinking Cold War Antigay Politics. Diplomatic History, 36(4), 723–752. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7709.2012.01052.x Siebold, G. L., & Kelly, D. R. (1988). Development of the Platoon Cohesion Index (Tech. Rep. No. 816). Alexandria,VA: U.S. Army Research Institute for Behavioral and Social Sciences. (DTIC No. AD–A204 917) Taylor, J., & Turner, R. J. (2001). A longitudinal study of the role and significance of mattering to others for depressive symptoms. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 42(3), 310–325. https://doi.org/10.2307/3090217 131 Taylor, H. (2015). “Who is the world’s biggest employer? The answer might not be what you expect.” World Economic Forum. Retrieved from https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2015/06/worlds-10-biggest-employers/?link=mktw “The Military Acceptance Project.” (n.d.). Retrieved from http://cir.usc.edu/research/research- projects/military-acceptance-project-map Turner, R. J. & Marino, F. (1994). Social support and social structure: A descriptive epidemiology. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 35(3), 193–212. U.S. DoD. (2016, June). Secretary of Defense Ash Carter Announces Policy for Transgender Service Members. Retrieved from https://www.defense.gov/News/News-Releases/News- Release-View/Article/821675/secretary-of-defense-ash-carter-announces-policy-for- transgender-service-members/ Van Gilder, B. J. (2017). Coping with sexual identity stigma in the U.S. Military: An examination of identity management practices prior to and after the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”. Identity, 17(3), 156–175. https://doi.org/10.1080/15283488.2017.1340162 Webster, J. R., Adams, G. A., Maranto, C. L., Sawyer, K., & Thoroughgood, C. (2018). Workplace contextual supports for LGBT employees : A review, meta-analysis, and agenda for future research. Human Resource Management, 57(1), 193–210. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.21873 Wong, L., Bliese, P., & Mcgurk, D. (2003). Military leadership: A context specific review. The Leadership Quarterly, 14, 657–692. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2003.08.001 132 Tables and Figures Table 3.1. Demographics and military-related variables of the sample: LGBT compared to non- LGBT service members (N=544) LGBT sample n=248 Non-LGBT sample n=296 Total sample N=544 n % n % n % Gender Identity Cismale 116 47% 208 70% 324 60% Cisfemale 74 30% 88 30% 162 30% Transgender male 32 13% 0 0% 32 6% Transgender female 26 11% 0 0% 26 5% Sexual Orientation Gay male 113 46% 0 0% 113 21% Bisexual male 19 8% 0 0% 19 3% Lesbian female 61 25% 0 0% 61 11% Bisexual female 35 14% 0 0% 35 6% Heterosexual or straight 20 8% 296 100 % 316 58% Age Avg. (min.-max.) 29 (18-54) 27 (19-53) 28 (18-54) Race/Ethnicity White/Caucasian 164 66% 152 51% 316 58% Latino/Hispanic 33 13% 40 14% 73 13% Black/African American 20 8% 71 24% 91 17% Other 30 12% 31 10% 61 11% Marital Status Single/Divorced/Separated 115 51% 143 51% 258 51% Married/Domestic Partnership 111 49% 136 49% 247 49% Education Associates degree or lower 102 45% 159 57% 261 51% Bachelors degree or higher 127 55% 121 43% 248 49% Rank E1-E4 70 28% 152 51% 222 41% E5-E9 78 31% 59 20% 137 25% Total Enlisted 148 60% 211 71% 359 66% O1-O3 78 31% 73 25% 151 28% O4-O6 22 9% 12 4% 34 6% Total Officer 100 40% 85 29% 185 34% Branch Air Force 71 29% 111 38% 182 33% Army 105 42% 121 41% 226 42% Marine Corps 22 9% 30 10% 52 10% Navy 50 20% 34 11% 84 15% • Sexual Orientation sums cis and transgender participants. • Race “Other”= Native American, Alaskan Native, Asian Pacific Islander, Multiracial, or Other. 133 Table 3.2. Correlation matrix of unit climate measures: LGBT and non-LGBT samples LGBT sample Non-LGBT sample 1 2 3 1 2 3 Social Support 1.00 - - 1.00 - - Unit Cohesion .49*** 1.00 - .45*** 1.00 - 3. LGBT Workplace Climate .51*** .45*** 1.00 .08 -.04 1.00 Bonferroni correction was used *** p<.001 134 Table 3.3. Odds ratios of outness to leaders and unit friends by unit climate variables, demographics and military-level traits Out to Unit Leaders n=225 Out to Non-LGBT Unit Friends n=247 Out to LGBT Unit Friends n=212 OR 95% CI aOR 95% CI OR 95% CI aOR 95% CI OR 95% CI aOR 95% CI LGBT Workplace Climate 1.07*** 1.04- 1.10 1.08*** 1.05- 1.12 1.08*** 1.04- 1.12 1.08*** 1.04- 1.13 1.04 .99- 1.09 1.03 .98- 1.08 Unit Cohesion 1.04 .96- 1.13 n/s 1.03 .93- 1.14 n/s .95 .81- 1.12 n/s Social Support in Unit 1.04 .91- 1.19 n/s 1.19* 1.01- 1.40 .98 .80- 1.20 1.00 .79- 1.27 n/s SOGI Cismale gay/bi (ref) 1.00 1.00 1.00 n/s 1.00 1.00 Cisfemale lesbian/bi 1.28 .68- 2.41 .26* .08- .84 1.10 .47- 2.55 5.45 .66- 44.68 4.82 .58- 40.13 Transgender 3.62** 1.50- 8.72 1.60 .45- 5.63 .92 .38- 2.20 .79 .24- 2.56 .52 .13- 2.09 Age .99 .95- 1.03 n/s .99 .94- 1.04 n/s .97 .90- 1.04 n/s Race White (ref) 1.00 n/s 1.00 n/s 1.00 Non-White .80 .44- 1.43 .78 .38- 1.62 1.34 .40- 4.42 Marital Status Single/separated/ divorced (ref) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 n/s Married/partnered 3.37*** 1.80- 6.32 2.73** 1.31- 5.68 1.67 .79- 3.52 1.33 .60- 2.94 1.84 .59- 5.71 Education Associates degree or lower (ref) 1.00 1.00 1.00 n/s 1.00 n/s Bachelors degree or higher .47* .26- .87 .61 .19- 1.95 .86 .41- 1.80 .61 .20- 1.91 Rank Enlisted (ref) 1.00 1.00 1.00 n/s 1.00 1.00 Officer .46** .26- .82 .34 .09- 1.27 .72 .36- 1.47 .42 .14- 1.26 .30 .08- 1.08 Branch Army (ref) 1.00 n/s 1.00 n/s 1.00 n/s Non-Army (Air Force, Marines, Navy) .88 .50- 1.56 1.25 .62- 2.54 1.25 .42- 3.70 Gender x Rank interaction Enlisted GB cismale (ref) 1.00 1.00 n/a n/a Enlisted LB cisfemale .53 .21- 1.33 .26* .08-.84 Enlisted transmale or transfemale 1.92 .65- 5.64 1.60 .45- 5.63 Officer cismale .31** .14-.71 .34 .09- 1.27 135 Officer LB cisfemale .88 .30- 2.56 .74 .17- 3.31 Officer transmale or transfemale 1.28 .14-12 2.94 .18-47 pseudo R 2 =.22 pseudo R 2 =.10 pseudo R 2 =.10 Notes: ref=reference group n/s=not significant at p<.25 in bivariate analyses, thus not included in final model *** p<.001; ** p<.01; * p <.05 Non-White=Black or African American, Latino or Hispanic, Native American or Alaskan Native, Asian Pacific Islander, Multiracial, Other GB=gay or bisexual; LB=lesbian or bisexual All gender x rank interaction results are presented in Table 4 136 Figure 3.1. Non-LGBT vs. Cis-LGB vs. Transgender service members: Perceived unit cohesion, social support in the unit, and LGBT workplace climate Notes: Confidence intervals and sample mean scores by sexual orientation and transgender identity are displayed. Notes: Confidence intervals and sample mean scores by sexual orientation and transgender identity are displayed. 137 Notes: Confidence intervals and sample mean scores by sexual orientation and transgender identity are displayed. 138 Table 3.4. Odds ratios of being out to unit leaders by sexual orientation, gender identity, and military rank 1 2 3 4 5 6 1. Enlisted gay/bi cismen 1.00 1.89 .52 3.22** 1.14 .78 2. Enlisted lesbian/bi ciswomen .53 1.00 .28* 1.71 .60 .41 3. Enlisted transmen/women 1.92 3.62* 1.00 6.18*** 2.19 1.5 4. Officer gay/bi cismen .31** .59 .16 *** 1.00 .35* .24 5. Officer lesbian/bi ciswomen .88 1.66 .46 2.82* 1.00 .69 6. Officer transmen/women 1.28 2.41 .67 4.12 1.46 1.00 *p<.05; **p</01; ***p<.001 139 Chapter Five: Conclusions, Future Directions, and Recommendations Major Findings The goal of this dissertation was to expand the fields of LGBT military well-being and LGBT workplace disclosure. As the first-of-its-kind investigation of LGBT disclosure in the military workplace following repeal LGBT military service bans, these studies significantly further the literature and offer clear avenues for future research directions and possible areas of intervention. Findings from the three manuscripts are consistent with Minority Stress Theory’s linkage of “circumstances in the environment” to distal and proximal stressors, including concealment and disclosure (Meyer, 2003, p. 679). Findings are also consistent with Communication Privacy Management’s “privacy ownership” and “privacy control” conceptualizations, in which individuals take cues from their social environment to contextualize their private information and make appropriate disclosure “rules” to guide their disclosure decisions (Petronio, 2002; Petronio, 2013). Limitations and Future Research Both qualitative and quantitative samples were recruited from a variety of sources to reduce the possibility of biased sampling; however, it may be the case that LGBT service members inclined to participate in such a project tend to have mostly LGBT-affirming, or mostly LGBT-discriminatory service experiences. Samples were not large enough to parse out possible differences by sexual orientation among transgender service members, nor among cisgender service members. Future studies should aim to increase sexual orientation sub-samples to power statistical analyses. Quantitative analyses relied heavily on a survey item inquiring whether civilian and military individuals “know that you are LGBT.” Such a query, while providing important and 140 first-of-its-kind data, is potentially problematic in that it assumes the research participant can speak to another person’s knowledge. It is possible that this is a more complicated query requiring nuanced responses beyond the available options: Yes, No, Not applicable or do not have this person in my life, Decline to answer. Additionally, it is difficult to know whether research participants interpreted each individual in the way the research team intended; for example, active duty service members typically access medical care at the medical clinic located at their assigned military installation, however a survey respondent may also access care off base with a civilian provider and interpret the question as to whether their medical providers know they are LGBT in reference to an off-base, civilian medical provider. Future research should consider clearly articulating potential disclosees in surveys. Future studies should consider testing for traits that have been found to be associated with LGBT disclosure in civilian workplaces, such as centrality of LGBT identity, gender of the disclosee, and history of risk-taking behavior. Past studies have found mixed results in the association between LGBT disclosure in the civilian workplace and mental health, physical health, and workplace outcomes. Future research on LGBT servicemember outness should assess for the relationship with these outcomes. Additionally, as policies regarding transgender service shift, it is critical that the wellbeing of this group continue to be assessed. Future studies may employ an intersectional framework of analysis; although race/ethnicity was not found to be associated with disclosure, preliminary analysis found disparities in unit climate measures by race/ethnicity, which must be further explored. Gates (2010) found that women and racial minorities began to bear more of the burden of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell discharges over time from 1993 to 2010; such a trajectory may impact current disclosure decisions. 141 If open LGB service is permitted by policy, while anti-LGB views persist among personnel, as the current studies’ findings indicate, prejudice reduction may be indicated. Therefore, interviews and surveys with service members, especially military leaders, who subscribe to anti-LGBT views may be helpful moving forward. Additionally, interventions to reduce anti-LGB prejudice may be tested for efficacy among this group. Implications and Recommendations The present studies findings’ indicate that most self-defined LGBT service members are out to unit friends, unit leaders, medical providers, and counselors, whereas the majority are not out to their chaplain. Outness patterns varied by marital status, education level, rank, sexual orientation, gender identity, and perceived LGBT workplace climate. Being married, having an Associates degree or below, being enlisted, gay/lesbian cisgender, transgender, and perceiving a higher LGBT workplace climate were found to be associated with greater odds of outness in the military. Beliefs regarding the military as an institution that may be complicit in enduring anti- LGBT sentiment, interpersonal cues of coworkers’ LGBT attitudes, and individual motivations and worldviews were found to impact disclosure decision-making. LGBT service members were found to perceive significantly lower unit cohesion and social support than non-LGBT service members, with transgender service members perceiving significantly lower cohesion and support than cisgender LGB service members. Transgender service members were found to perceive lower LGBT workplace climate than cisgender LGB and non-LGBT service members. Service member race, age, military branch, perceived unit cohesion, and social support in the unit were not found to be associated with outness. Such fingings suggest that most LGBT service members perceive that the military workplace is a safe space to disclose one’s LGBT identity, however some barriers to disclosure 142 remain. Several service members interviewed for this study put forth recommendations to address these barriers. Recommendations included 1) an increase in openly LGBT higher- ranking service members at both the enlisted and officer levels, 2) greater transparency in the career evaluation process, 3) an intolerance of anti-LGBT commentary in the workplace, even if these views are religion-based, 4) and the freedom to define for themselves whether or not to emphasize their LGBT identity in the military workplace. Each of these recommendations would involve an interplay between policy change and cultural changes. Were the participants to be interviewed in the current political climate, several would undoubtedly advocate for a repeal of the reinstated ban on open transgender service. Taking into account participants’ accounts with, and reported outness to, medical personnel, the military may consider educating them on LGBT- specific healthcare needs as well as culturally-sensitive communication with this group. Military religious personnel may benefit from similar culturally-sensitive education on working with LGBT personnel. Additionally, they may consider employing explicitly-LGBT-affirming messages if they wish to attempt to repair the rift many participants discussed between themselves and a religious community. As perceiving a higher LGBT workplace climate was associated with greater odds of outness to unit leaders, and most participants noted a surveying of fellow military members’ LGBT-related opinions prior to disclosure, it may be beneficial for military leadership to overtly communicate an LGBT-affirming stance. While the ban on openly-LGB service members was repealed in 2011, the ban on openly transgender service members has seen a tumultuous roll-out. The policy allowing open transgender service went into effect June 30, 2016, was contested by the subsequent presidential administration beginning July 26, 2017, and was officially re-instated April 12, 2019 (U.S. DoD, 143 2016; Trump, 2017; DTM-19-004, 2019). Continued surveillance of the well-being of actively serving transgender service members is needed. There may exist possible variations in compliance with LGBT military policies by medical provider and military leadership, for instance, allowing some transgender individuals to continue serving in their affirmed gender, while a similarly-situated transgender service member with different medical care providers or unit leaders may be discharged under the re-enacted ban. As such variations in compliance with policy were seen under DADT and under the initial transgender ban, it is likely this will continue to occur (Parco, Levy, & Spears, 2015). In this case, misalignment between military policy (currently transgender-discriminatory) and culture (transgender-accepting) may cause stress as well as hopefulness among the currently serving transgender population. The question of whether LGBT service members are accepted and integrated into the military community following policy changes is complex. It could be argued that acceptance and integration are two distinct concepts, with one paradoxically undermining the other. LGBT individuals have a recent history of institutionalized “otherness.” They have fought to remove homosexuality and gender diversity from the list of mental health disorders, they have lobbied for the right to legally marry an individual of the same sex, to adopt children, to be members of certain religious institutions, and to serve openly in the U.S. military, to name a few. For each of these battles, an argument of “sameness” has been used, in which the LGBT community and allies rightly put forth the argument that they were normal and healthy. In these areas, the LGBT community fought to be integrated into existing structures. However, integration may not imply acceptance if integration assumes an assimilation into social norms. For example, perhaps being married (albeit to a same-sex individual) ingratiates LGBT service members to non-LGBT 144 service members in the military’s family-focused culture, leading to higher rates of outness among married LGBT personnel. Aspects of having an LGBT identity that could situate an individual outside of the norm, such as relationships with family members, interaction with religious traditions, mental health concerns, trauma history, romantic encounters, stylistic presentation, and sense of self-esteem could be concealed for fear of being seen as an LGBT service member who is abnormal, unhealthy, or “queer.” If integration and acceptance purports “fitting in,” then the military’s dominant values may drive individual disclosure choices. The prevalent message that several research participants noted hearing, and some internalizing, of “I don’t care if you’re gay, as long as you can do your job” exemplifies the possible paradox between integration and acceptance. If one’s ability to do their job is the only metric necessary for acceptance, then disparities in perceived unit cohesion, social support, and LGBT workplace climate should not be present. Therefore, a feeling of inclusion versus a sense of integration may be assessed in future studies on this population. Interventions to improve unit cohesion and social support among LGBT service members may consider this possible paradox. Borrowing from stereotype literature, these studies found that LGBT service members use “bookkeeping” to track and weigh decision-making factors to potential disclosees (Weber & Crocker, 1983, p. 975). LGBT service members noted that they keep track of anti-, neutral-, and pro-LGBT comments, concepts referred to in the present analyses as red, white, and green flags, made by colleagues, bosses, and helping professionals. This additional stressor is referenced in both guiding theoretical frameworks of this dissertation: Minority Stress Theory and Communication Privacy Management Theory. Both frameworks describe the process by which individuals with a stigmatized identity assess their social surroundings for cues of acceptance or rejection in the process of deciding to what extent to disclose their identity. The current study 145 suggests that concealment of LGBT identity in the military, as predicted in Minority Stress Theory, is used as a strategy of self-protection (i.e. military career, social status). Disclosure is often used to connect with affirming others, creating networks which may mitigate the risks of serving in a historically LGBT-discriminatory workplace which may continue to harbor anti- LGBT beliefs (Meyer, 2003). In sum, repeal of a decades-long discriminatory policy has left currently serving LGBT individuals somewhat guarded. The present studies found that the legacy of anti-LGBT sentiment is felt by LGBT service members as they report carrying an added burden of social bookkeeping each time they move to a new duty station, are assigned a new leader, medical provider, seek counseling, or religious guidance. While the recent reinstatement of the transgender ban complicates this matter, these findings indicate that military leaders hold significant responsibility to ensure service members that an LGB-accepting policy is mirrored by unit climate. 146 References DTM-19-004. (2019, March 12). Directive-type Memorandum – Military Service by Transgender Persons and Persons with Gender Dysphoria. Retrieved from https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/5767255-DTM- TransgenderMilitaryService.html Gates, G. J. (2010). Discharges under the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy: Women and racial/ethnic minorities. The Williams Institute. Retrieved from http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/Gates-Discharges2009-Military- Sept-2010.pdf Meyer, I. H. (2003). Prejudice, social stress, and mental health in lesbian, gay, and bisexual populations: Conceptual issues and research evidence. Psychological Bulletin, 129(5), 674–697. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.129.5.674 Parco, J. E., Levy, D. a, & Spears, S. R. (2015). Transgender military personnel in the post- DADT repeal era: A phenomenological study. Armed Forces and Society, 41(2), 221. https://doi.org/10.1177/0095327X14530112 Petronio, S. (2002). Boundaries of privacy : dialectics of disclosure . Albany: State University of New York Press. Petronio, S. (2013). Brief status report on Communication Privacy Management Theory. Journal of Family Communication, 13(1), 6–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/15267431.2013.743426 Trump, D. J. [@realDonaldTrump]. (2017, July 26). “After consultation with my Generals…” Retrieved from https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/890193981585444864 U.S. DoD. (June 2016). Secretary of Defense Ash Carter Announces Policy for Transgender Service Members. Retrieved from https://www.defense.gov/News/News-Releases/News- 147 Release-View/Article/821675/secretary-of-defense-ash-carter-announces-policy-for- transgender-service-members/ Weber, R., & Crocker, J. (1983). Cognitive processes in the revision of stereotypic beliefs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45(5), 961–977. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.45.5.961
Abstract (if available)
Abstract
Despite repeal of the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell (DADT) policy in 2011, and the transgender ban in 2016, it is unknown whether lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) service members choose to disclose their sexual orientation and gender identity to their military colleagues, or if they perceive an LGBT-supportive climate in the military workplace. ❧ This study used data collected through the Military Acceptance Project, a Department of Defense-funded mixed methods research study conducted from 2016 to 2018. A sample of 248 LGBT and 296 non-LGBT active duty service members completed a survey while a sample of 42 active duty LGBT service members completed an in-depth interview. Thematic analyses and quantitative statistical analyses were used to provide 1) a first-of-its-kind qualitative inquiry of LGBT disclosure decision-making
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
Impact of change in sexual identity on mental health risks among sexual minority adolescents
PDF
Military and veteran
PDF
LGBT+Aging Immersion Experience: an innovative LGBT cultural competency course for healthcare professionals and students
PDF
A mixed-methods examination of transgender and gender nonbinary students’schooling experiences: implications for developing affirmative schools
PDF
Full spectrum transition assistance: preventing loneliness and social isolation in military members during moves
PDF
Mental health outcomes associated with profiles of risk and resilience among military-connected youth
PDF
Tobacco use change among formerly homeless supportive housing residents: socioecological barriers and facilitators to cessation
PDF
Complicated relationships: the prevalence and correlates of sexual assault, dating violence victimization, and minority stress among sexual minority adolescents throughout the United States
PDF
Promoting emotional intelligence and resiliency in youth: S.U.P.E.R. peer counseling program ©
PDF
Sex talks: an examination of young Black women's social networks, sexual health communication, and HIV prevention behaviors
PDF
Be mindful—be well: a randomized comparative effectiveness trial—addressing brain health among older African Africans
PDF
County of San Diego Child Welfare Services Hotline Redesign
PDF
Blue Star Families Connected Communities Pilot
PDF
We are our neighbors' keeper: an innovative field kit of outreach and assessment tools to help end homelessness
PDF
Advancing the nonprofit message via technology: blending storytelling and gamified elements to promote engagement
PDF
Mobile interventions: targeting alcohol misuse among college and university students
PDF
Delineating the processes and mechanisms of sustainment: understanding how evidence-based prevention initiatives are maintained after initial funding ends
PDF
Mindfulness and resilience: an investigation of the role of mindfulness in post-9/11 military veterans' mental health-related outcomes
PDF
A targeted culturally-informed approach for caregiver stress among Vietnamese caregivers of family members [capstone paper]
PDF
Childhood adversity across generations and its impact on externalizing behavior
Asset Metadata
Creator
McNamara, Kathleen Anne
(author)
Core Title
Disclosure of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) identity among U.S. service members after repeal of LGBT military service bans
School
Suzanne Dworak-Peck School of Social Work
Degree
Doctor of Philosophy
Degree Program
Social Work
Publication Date
07/24/2019
Defense Date
05/14/2019
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
coming out,disclosure,LGBT,Military,OAI-PMH Harvest,outness,policy,workplace
Format
application/pdf
(imt)
Language
English
Contributor
Electronically uploaded by the author
(provenance)
Advisor
Castro, Carl A. (
committee chair
), Goldbach, Jeremy T. (
committee member
), Tongson, Karen (
committee member
)
Creator Email
kamcnam@gmail.com,kamcnama@usc.edu
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c89-189944
Unique identifier
UC11663035
Identifier
etd-McNamaraKa-7589.pdf (filename),usctheses-c89-189944 (legacy record id)
Legacy Identifier
etd-McNamaraKa-7589.pdf
Dmrecord
189944
Document Type
Dissertation
Format
application/pdf (imt)
Rights
McNamara, Kathleen Anne
Type
texts
Source
University of Southern California
(contributing entity),
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
(collection)
Access Conditions
The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...
Repository Name
University of Southern California Digital Library
Repository Location
USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA
Tags
coming out
disclosure
LGBT
outness
policy
workplace