Across the lifespan, individuals make repeated course selection decisions. As Ackerman (1996) and others (e.g., Babad, 2001; Kerin, Harvey, & Crandall, 1975) have suggested, students’ course selection decisions may importantly affect their academic and career success. Although there has been some research on the situational determinants of course selection decisions, there has been surprisingly little systematic research to date examining the role that individual differences may play in determining how the characteristics of a course (e.g., class size, difficulty) influence individuals’ course selection decisions. Two studies (a pilot study and a main study) were conducted to examine the influence of individual differences in reward sensitivity and punishment sensitivity on course selection preferences.

The pilot study was conducted to determine the course features associated with individuals’ standings on punishment sensitivity and reward sensitivity. Based on the results of the pilot study, course descriptions were developed for the main study that resemble the layout of websites designed to help students select courses based on comments made by other students. To investigate the hypothesis that individual differences in punishment sensitivity and reward sensitivity influence course selection preferences in the main study, the comments included in the course descriptions were manipulated to describe course features that were either aversive, appetitive, or neutral.

The results of the main study tended to conform to the predictions made in the hypotheses. Consistent with Reward Sensitivity Theory, participants with a higher standing on punishment sensitivity were more likely to rate course descriptions more negatively on a negatively-toned rating scale than participants with a lower standing on punishment sensitivity and participants with a higher standing on reward sensitivity were more likely to rate course descriptions more positively on a positively-toned rating scale than participants with a lower standing on reward sensitivity. An examination of the predictive efficiency of the interaction between punishment and reward sensitivity supported the presence of interaction effects; however, the nature of the effect was inconsistent across samples and predictor pairs. In addition, although participants rated courses with more aversive features more negatively and courses with more appetitive features more positively, the results from multilevel modeling analyses indicated that punishment sensitivity and reward sensitivity continued to predict course selection preferences in models that also included the emotional-tone (aversive, appetitive, or neutral) of the comments in the course descriptions as variables. Cross-level interactions of punishment and reward sensitivity with the patterns of comment valences did little to improve model fit.

Inherent in the hypotheses of the main study was a boundary condition that punishment sensitivity would only predict ratings when a course description included aversive comments and reward sensitivity would only predict ratings when a course description included appetitive comments. The comment structure of the course descriptions did not appear to moderate the predictive efficiency of punishment sensitivity or reward sensitivity. However, in general, the results did suggest that individuals’ standing on punishment sensitivity was associated with viewing courses in terms of negative features and reward sensitivity was associated with viewing courses in terms of positive features. The results support the conclusion that punishment sensitivity is associated with a tendency to perceive courses more negatively in terms of the aversive features of the course and reward sensitivity is associated with a tendency to perceive courses more positively in terms of the appetitive features of the course. To provide a more comprehensive assessment of course selection preferences from respondents with higher standings on punishment sensitivity and reward sensitivity, the results suggest that scales should include items that address both the negative and positive features of courses.