Review

Psychology Learning & Teaching

Predictors of Student 2015, Vol. 14(2) 131–146
! The Author(s) 2015
Satisfaction with University Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav

Psychology Courses: A Review DOI: 10.1177/1475725715590959

plat.sagepub.com

Heather J. Green
Menzies Health Institute Queensland and School of Applied Psychology, Griffith University, Australia

Michelle Hood
Menzies Health Institute Queensland and School of Applied Psychology, Griffith University, Australia

David L. Neumann
Menzies Health Institute Queensland and School of Applied Psychology, Griffith University, Australia

Abstract
Student satisfaction at university is receiving increasing attention. While academic discipline has been
associated with student satisfaction in many studies, we found no previous reviews of student satis-
faction within psychology, a discipline with among the largest undergraduate enrolments. In this paper,
we review the student satisfaction literature, with a focus on undergraduate psychology. Searches of
relevant databases and reference lists were used to source articles for this narrative review. Evidence
regarding institutional, teaching, and student variables associated with student satisfaction is discussed.
Teaching variables, particularly teaching quality and expertise, tend to show the strongest relationships
with student satisfaction. Institutional variables, such as services, facilities, image, and research activity,
are also important. Individual student characteristics including achievement and attitudes have been
associated with psychology students’ satisfaction. Recommendations to improve satisfaction include
helping psychology students to develop accurate expectations of courses, facilitating teaching quality
and style that matches psychology students’ preferred thinking styles, and assisting students to develop
self-efficacy and other positive attitudes. Further research to understand and improve psychology
students’ satisfaction would be beneficial.

Keywords
Student satisfaction, university, psychology, literature review, learning and teaching, marketing

Universities increasingly value student satisfaction (Douglas, Douglas, McClelland, &

Davies, 2015; Xiao & Wilkins, 2015). Reviews have examined student satisfaction across
multiple disciplines (Audin, Davy, & Barkham, 2003) or in specific disciplines (Gibson,
2010). However, we could find no previously published review of psychology students’

Corresponding Author:
Heather J. Green, School of Applied Psychology, Gold Coast Campus, Griffith University, QLD 4222, Australia.
Email: H.Green@griffith.edu.au
132 Psychology Learning & Teaching 14(2)

satisfaction. In this paper, we examine predictors of student satisfaction that we see as being
particularly relevant to undergraduate psychology. Further, we discuss implications and
make recommendations for teaching undergraduate psychology based on this existing lit-
erature. We searched databases including PsycINFO, Google Scholar, and Education
Resources Information Center (ERIC) using the terms ‘‘student satisfaction,’’ ‘‘predictors
of student satisfaction,’’ ‘‘psychology,’’ ‘‘teaching psychology,’’ and ‘‘psychology courses.’’
Satisfaction refers to the evaluation of a service and comprises cognitive, affective, and
attitudinal components (Petruzzellis, D’Uggento, & Romanazzi, 2006). Higher satisfaction is
associated with consumer loyalty and positive affect, in research that has mostly tested cross-
sectional associations (e.g., Baumann, Elliott, & Burton, 2012). Therefore, institutional out-
comes such as word-of-mouth recommendations, enrolment, and retention relate to student
satisfaction; these associations are generally interpreted as indicating consequences of satis-
faction but reciprocal relations are possible (Clemes, Gan, & Kao, 2008; Umbach & Porter,
2002). Student satisfaction can also have important implications for teaching due to its
bidirectional associations with student engagement and achievement (Pike, 1991).
Two key models of consumer satisfaction have been applied to interpreting student sat-
isfaction data. The expectancy/disconfirmation paradigm suggests that satisfaction results
when consumer experience is better than expected, and dissatisfaction when the experience is
worse than expected (Arambewela & Hall, 2009; Oliver, 1981). The second model,
Herzberg’s two-factor theory of work satisfaction (Herzberg, Mausner, & Snyderman,
1967), distinguishes between ‘‘satisfiers,’’ elements that result in satisfaction if adequately
fulfilled, and ‘‘dissatisfiers,’’ elements that lead to dissatisfaction if they are present
(DeShields Jr., 2005). For students, satisfiers usually directly relate to academic outcomes
(e.g., interactions with academic staff), whereas dissatisfiers are factors extrinsic to core
student experiences (e.g., enrolment issues, DeShields Jr. et al., 2005; Gibson, 2010).
Satisfaction varies across disciplines. Australian science and agriculture students were the
most satisfied (Radloff & Coates, 2010), while psychology graduates scored close to the
mean ratings across disciplines (Lipp et al., 2006). Garcı́a-Aracil (2009) found
that European social science graduates were as satisfied as law and medicine graduates,
but less satisfied than education graduates. Wiers-Jenssen, Stensaker, and Grogaard
(2002) found that Norwegian social science and medical students were more satisfied than
natural science and technology students.
Understanding factors that influence psychology students’ satisfaction is important because
psychology has some of the highest enrolments among undergraduate courses or majors (Rask
& Bailey, 2002), yet most psychology students will not become psychologists, which can lead
to disappointment and dissatisfaction (Haskell et al., 2012). Another potential source of dis-
satisfaction with psychology is the emphasis placed on the scientific method and statistics in
instruction (Freng, Webber, Blatter, Wing, & Scott, 2011; Rowley, Hartley, & Larkin, 2008).
Psychology is classified as a ‘‘soft, pure’’ discipline in Biglan’s (1973) nomenclature. ‘‘Hard’’
fields, such as physics, life sciences, and medicine, have a single paradigm, whereas ‘‘soft’’
fields, such as social sciences, humanities, business, and nursing, use multiple paradigms. Since
the soft-hard distinction is associated with differences in both teaching methods (Lindblom-
Ylänne, Trigwell, Nevgi, & Ashwin, 2006) and student beliefs about learning (Green & Hood,
2013), predictors of psychology student satisfaction would be expected to be more similar to
those of soft than hard disciplines. Indeed, there is evidence for differential predictors of
student satisfaction in different disciplines (e.g., Hearn, 1985). Findings below relate to
broad student samples, unless specific disciplines are identified.
Green et al. 133

Institutional and Course Variables

University services and facilities, campus physical environment, and global perceptions of a
university potentially influence student satisfaction. Moreover, major departments, like
psychology, can create ‘‘subenvironments’’ that might be more important for student satis-
faction than overall institutional culture (Ewell, 1989). For example, Umbach and Porter
(2002) found that departments with predominantly female undergraduates, which is often
the case for psychology, received higher student ratings, even after accounting for depart-
mental size and academic focus. They also found that students in departments where faculty
were more successful in research, such as by obtaining research grants, reported higher
satisfaction (see also Grunwald & Peterson, 2003; Volkwein & Carbone, 1994). From
such results it may be concluded that research success produces a halo effect.
Alternatively, it might be that research directly or indirectly contributes to improved
teaching. Although psychology grant applications often have similar success rates to other
disciplines (Christensen et al., 2011; Golberg, 2015), the value of grant funding awarded to
psychology tends to be relatively low (American Association for the Advancement of
Science, 2015), which may affect perceptions of prestige.
Broad institutional image can also influence student satisfaction (e.g., Arambewela
& Hall, 2009). Brown and Mazzarol (2009) found the association between image and student
satisfaction, across diverse disciplines, was independent of institutional age. Image dimen-
sions comprise: (a) study environment (perceptions of support, innovation, and student
focus); (b) practicality (how applied and job oriented courses are); and (c) conservativeness
(established for a long time and perceived as prestigious). In addition to direct links between
image and satisfaction, an indirect path emerged via perceived value. Reputation, which
may be implicated in image, has also been positively associated with satisfaction (DeWitz
& Walsh, 2002; Palacio, Meneses, & Perez Perez, 2002).
Learning environment also affects student satisfaction. For example, business students’
satisfaction decreases with larger class sizes (Coles, 2002). However, Cheng (2011) found that
psychology students’ satisfaction was not affected by class size, despite psychology having
some of the largest class sizes. Less satisfaction is found for distance education rather than
face-to-face instruction (Allen, Bourhis, Burrell, & Mabry, 2002; Ritchie & Newby, 1989),
although these effects are tempered by variable findings and small effect sizes (Allen et al.,
2002), as well as by limited data on newer online and blended learning technologies.
Another relevant institutional factor is the amount of social interaction among students
(Audin et al., 2003). Social climate factors, including social interaction, predicted satisfac-
tion of nursing (Liegler, 1997) and business (Arambewela & Hall, 2009) students. At one
large US university, campus social life was second only to obtaining a quality education as a
predictor of student satisfaction (Hampton, 1993). It can be surmised that fostering psych-
ology student organizations and facilitating student participation in broader professional
networks is likely to promote satisfaction in psychology students.
Facilities and services, specifically administrative staff service, library and computer
access, campus cafeteria, and physical amenities predict student satisfaction (Mavondo,
Tsarenko, & Gabbott, 2004; Wiers-Jenssen et al., 2002), as well as dissatisfaction.
Petruzzellis et al. (2006) found that Italian university students reported dissatisfaction
with services linked to staff, such as contacts with staff and online exam bookings, and
those that included administration, tutoring, placement, international relations, counselling,
and free language courses.
134 Psychology Learning & Teaching 14(2)

Caution should be exercised in interpreting some research findings, because results

might be specific to a given institution or location. For example, Mai (2005) found that
US and UK business students differed in perceptions of student services and satisfaction.
In addition, institutional variables can differ in their importance to students (Douglas,
Douglas, & Barnes, 2006). Such findings highlight potential differences based on student
nationality and the university.
Overall, there is evidence that institutional variables are important predictors of student
satisfaction. It is important that future research determines if unique institutional factors
influence psychology students’ satisfaction, since institutional factors have rarely been exam-
ined in this population. In the following section, we examine variables more directly under
the control of psychology departments, namely, teaching factors.

Teaching Variables
Three subsets of teaching variables have been linked to student satisfaction. First, satisfac-
tion appears to be most strongly associated with aspects of teaching quality (Bigne, Moliner,
& Sanchez, 2003), such as teachers’ knowledge and teaching style (Oldfield & Baron, 2000)
together with course topics and execution (Curran & Rosen, 2006). Second, assessment and
workload are important. Third, staff-student affective interactions may be related to student
satisfaction.

Teacher’s Style and Knowledge

An actor who presented well but delivered little content received highly favorable evalu-
ations from mental health graduate students (Naftulin, Ware, & Donnelly, 1973). This sug-
gests that students rate teaching style as more important than knowledge or content.
Similarly, Guolla (1999) concluded that lecturers’ enthusiasm was the most important
factor in business students’ evaluations of teaching quality. However, both educational
psychology and ‘‘general studies’’ students distinguished between style and substance
when more specific aspects of satisfaction were examined (Marsh & Ware, 1982).
Presenter expressiveness influenced student ratings of their enthusiasm while content influ-
enced evaluations of their knowledge. Similarly, social science students’ personal views of the
lecturer’s charisma were associated with 69% of the variance in perceived teaching ability,
but with 37% of variance in satisfaction with the course (Shevlin, Banyard, Davies, &
Griffiths, 2000).
Perceived teacher knowledge and teaching ability are more important predictors of stu-
dent ratings of quality (Douglas et al., 2006) and satisfaction (Eom, Wen, & Ashill, 2006;
Hearn, 1985) than faculty availability, or approachability (Douglas et al., 2006; Hearn,
1985), or perceived teacher interest in the content (Mai, 2005). Letcher and Neves (2010)
found that teaching quality was the second most important predictor of business students’
satisfaction (following student self-confidence). Similarly, Elliott and Shin (2002) found that
excellent instruction, knowledgeable advisors, knowledgeable faculty, and overall quality of
instruction were the top four factors in university student satisfaction related to course and
teaching quality. Spooren, Mortelmans, and Denekens (2007) identified clarity of objectives,
build-up of subject matter, presentation skills, organization, course materials, and teacher
assistance as important aspects of teaching style and knowledge for student satisfaction.
Green et al. 135

Many of these factors relate to course structure, which Eom et al. (2006) found predicted
student satisfaction in online courses.
However, there are mixed findings regarding the relative importance of teaching variables
in explaining student satisfaction. Richardson, Slater, and Wilson (2007) found teaching
quality explained 46% of variance in student satisfaction with their undergraduate degree.
However, Nevill and Rhodes (2004) found that good teaching was only nominated by 11%
of education students as a factor that would retain them at university (ranked fifth of seven
factors), but was nominated by 16% (ranked second) with respect to attrition, suggesting it
may operate more as a dissatisfier. Consistent with this, Chen and Hoshower (2003) found
that students rated improved teaching quality as a more important outcome of student
evaluations than improved course content.
For undergraduate UK psychology, medicine, and business students, Sander,
Stevenson, King, and Coates (2000) found that teaching skill was rated as most import-
ant, ahead of approachability, knowledge, enthusiasm, and organization. However,
psychology and business students were significantly more concerned about teachers’
approachability than were medical students. Miglietti and Strange (1998) found that
student-centered instruction was important to Spanish psychology students. They
reported greater course satisfaction when the class was conducted in an innovative
manner, when the teacher specified what students had to do and in what order, and
when student autonomy regarding learning decisions was encouraged. Green and Hood
(2013) also found greater satisfaction among psychology students who receive student-
centered instruction. Malouff, Hall, Schutte, and Rooke (2010) identified 22 aspects of
teaching style and knowledge relevant to satisfaction in psychology students. The stron-
gest predictors were expressed interest in facilitating student learning (r ¼ .41), publicly
praising student effort (r ¼ .41), using objective grading criteria (r ¼ .36), and stimulating
discussion (r ¼ .36).

Workload, Assessment, and Feedback

Appropriate assessment and workload, and provision of clear goals and standards for assess-
ment, are important predictors of student satisfaction (Ginns, Prosser, & Barrie, 2007).
Psychology students’ satisfaction was predicted by using objective assessment criteria such
as grading rubrics and specifying typical performance at each grade level (r ¼ .36; Malouff
et al., 2010). Similarly, Richardson et al. (2007) found that clear and fair assessment
(r ¼ .54), development of generic skills (r ¼ .50), and feedback (r ¼ .47) were more strongly
related to satisfaction than was workload (r ¼ .17) in a national undergraduate student
sample.
Promptness and detail of feedback from lecturers predicted satisfaction in UK under-
graduates (Richardson et al., 2007), international postgraduate business students
(Arambewela & Hall, 2009), and online students (Eom et al., 2006). According to
Douglas et al. (2006), ‘‘promptness’’ is perceived as receipt of feedback within three
weeks of submission, although students did take class size into account when considering
what was reasonable.
The role of perceived assessment fairness was mixed, possibly reflecting the level at
which satisfaction was assessed. Elliott and Shin (2002) found that fair and unbiased faculty
was ranked least important for global satisfaction. However, strong relationships were found
between perceived fairness and satisfaction with individual classes or instructors (Feldman,
136 Psychology Learning & Teaching 14(2)

1983; Rodabaugh & Kravitz, 1994). In psychology students, perceptions of fairness

accounted for a majority of the variance in their ratings of teachers (Wendorf &
Alexander, 2005).

Affective Aspects of Teaching

Several researchers have identified affective aspects of teaching, including approachability,
empathy, and staff-student interactions, as predictors of student satisfaction (see Alves &
Raposo, 2009). However, results are mixed, with some researchers finding these are lower in
importance than teaching quality or feedback and assessment. Results for demographic
characteristics of teachers, such as age and gender, are mixed and weak (Feldman, 1983;
Marsh & Hocevar, 1991). Tenured staff received higher ratings than graduate teaching
assistants (Braskamp & Ory, 1994).
Staff friendliness (Nevill & Rhodes, 2004), approachability (Douglas et al., 2006; Elliott
& Shin, 2002), and responsiveness (Mai, 2005) are not important factors. Richardson et al.
(2007) found that availability and quality of support and advice had the second highest
correlation with overall satisfaction (r ¼ .59), after teaching quality, but Letcher and
Neves (2010) found no association between business students’ satisfaction with advising
and program satisfaction. It is possible that personal qualities of the teacher or advisor,
such as responsiveness, might only function as dissatisfiers (DeShields Jr. et al., 2005;
Douglas et al., 2015).
However, the point in the student lifecycle at which satisfaction is measured might influ-
ence findings. Scott (2008) found that Australian graduates ranked staff accessibility third of
ten subdomains in importance, whereas teaching skill was ranked only eighth. Similarly,
Douglas et al. (2006) reported that staff responsiveness was more important to final
year students. By comparison, staff approachability only explained around 3% of additional
variance in satisfaction of Australian first year students, over that explained by how well
the university met their expectations and how interesting they found their courses (Lee,
Jolly, Kench, & Gelonesi, 2000). Possibly by the end of their degrees, students’ expectations
of their relationship with staff changes to one approaching collegiality, resulting in
staff accessibility and responsiveness becoming more salient. It is also possible that as com-
plexity increases in later years, needs for staff assistance, including future career advice,
increase and, therefore, accessibility and responsiveness become more important to
satisfaction.
There are also discipline differences in perceptions regarding approachability.
Psychology and business undergraduates were significantly more concerned about staff
approachability than were undergraduate medical students (Sander et al., 2000).
However, staff responsiveness was more important to female than male medical students
(Robins, Gruppen, Alexander, Fantone, & Davis, 1997). Malouff et al. (2010) found that
showing empathy for students was a significant predictor of psychology students’ satis-
faction (r ¼ .35).
There are also mixed results for the importance of teacher-student interactions. Astin
(1993) identified this as an important predictor of satisfaction. However, Liegler (1997)
found that this was no longer a significant predictor for nursing students once perceived
academic development was accounted for. Hearn (1985) also found that interaction was not
an important predictor of satisfaction and this did not differ significantly by field.
Green et al. 137

Summary
Teaching quality is consistently found to be among the most important predictors of student
satisfaction. Assessment and feedback clarity are also important. Affective qualities of the
teacher are generally less important, but do show greater influence on satisfaction in final
year and female students. For psychology students, both teaching skill and affective qualities
affect satisfaction. Communicating clear expectations for assessment and grading fairly are
also important to psychology students’ satisfaction.

Student Variables
Comparatively less research has examined associations between student characteristics and
satisfaction. Results are often mixed and generally these are weaker predictors of satisfaction
than are institutional and teaching variables. However, there is evidence that they account
for independent variance in satisfaction to that explained by institutional and teaching
characteristics.

Demographic Characteristics
Findings regarding student age are mixed, possibly due to cultural differences. Older
European graduates were more satisfied than younger ones, even after controlling for aca-
demic environment variables (Garcı́a-Aracil, 2009), but older Australian students
(20 + years) were less satisfied, even though they reported greater engagement, better learn-
ing outcomes, and less intention to leave the institution than did younger students (Radloff
& Coates, 2010). El Ansari and Oskrochi (2006) found that a significant age-satisfaction
relationship for public health students disappeared when other factors (class size, study
mode, academic level, ethnicity, entry qualifications, and qualification aim) were controlled.
Thus, age does not appear to explain independent variance in satisfaction. One potential
mediator of the age-satisfaction relationship is peer interaction, which is lower in older
students and is related to higher satisfaction (e.g., among nursing students, Liegler, 1997).
Similarly, some researchers have reported no gender differences in satisfaction, especially
once other factors were controlled (Abbasi, Malik, Chaudhry, & Imdadullah, 2011;
Chan, Miller, & Tcha, 2005; El Ansari & Oskrochi, 2006; Lee et al., 2000; Wiers-Jenssen
et al., 2002). This is despite the fact that female students tend to outperform male students
(e.g., Win & Miller, 2005), and achievement is related to satisfaction. Other researchers have
reported less satisfaction in female students (Garcı́a-Aracil, 2009; Hesli, Fink, & Duffy,
2003; Robins et al., 1997; Umbach & Porter, 2002), which held after controlling for other
important factors like mentoring (Hesli et al., 2003).
Teacher-student gender might interact in their relationship with satisfaction. Female uni-
versity students were more satisfied with female teachers whereas no such effect was found
for male students (Bachen, McLoughlin, & Garcı́a, 1999). The relationship between gender
and satisfaction might also depend on how satisfaction is measured and the country being
sampled. Females were more satisfied with presentations and assessment and less satisfied
with teaching techniques than males in the US, but there were no gender differences in Israel
(Neumann & Neumann, 1981). However, in both the US and Israel, gender was the
most important predictor of satisfaction with their relationships with faculty, with females
more satisfied than males. Gender effects in student satisfaction may be particularly relevant
138 Psychology Learning & Teaching 14(2)

to psychology, since this discipline has more female than male students and teaching staff
(Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, 2006).
Satisfaction may also differ according to nationality or ethnicity of the student. Spanish
and French graduates were more satisfied than German graduates, although degree program
moderated this relationship. With social sciences as the reference category, graduate satis-
faction was significantly higher for humanities, law, and mathematics in France, and for
humanities in Spain, but significantly lower for law in Spain (Garcı́a-Aracil, 2009). Being an
international student, or studying in a less familiar language, may relate to lower satisfac-
tion. For example, international students studying in Australia reported lower satisfaction
than domestic students in health, management, and commerce, but not in other disciplines
(Denson, Loveday, & Dalton, 2010; Radloff & Coates, 2010). International students showed
lower achievement and less involvement in work-integrated learning (Radloff & Coates,
2010), which might explain their lower satisfaction. Similarly, in health sciences, Lee et al.
(2000) found that 67% of English-speaking Australian students were satisfied compared to
50% of non-English-speaking students. This was despite the non-English-speaking students
being engaged in more enrichment activities. However, like international students, their
achievement was also lower on average, possibly explaining their lower satisfaction
(Radloff & Coates, 2010).
Ethnic minority students also have more negative perceptions (Rankin & Reason, 2005).
Generally, white US students were more satisfied than ethnic minority students, but Latino
students were as satisfied as white students; it was African Americans who were least satisfied
(National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE), 2005). Latino students might be more
satisfied because they represent the biggest minority group in the US (United States Census
Bureau, 2013). Consistent with this, Umbach and Porter (2002) found that Asian Pacific
American graduates, one of the smallest minority groups, were less satisfied with their major
than were white graduates. In contrast to the NSSE (2005) findings, Umbach and Porter
found that African American graduates were as satisfied as white graduates, once a range of
other demographic and institutional factors were controlled. Thus, the relationship between
satisfaction and ethnicity might differ depending on the relative size of the ethnic minority
group and other methodological factors.
Most researchers have found that working status is not related to student satisfaction,
regardless of country or educational level (San, 2007; Wiers-Jenssen et al., 2002). Similarly,
Radloff and Coates (2010) found no differences in satisfaction between full- or part-time
Australian students, but Denson et al. (2010) found that full-time Australian students were
more satisfied, after controlling for other student and institutional factors. However, they
only found this relationship in students studying natural and health sciences, and society and
culture, and not in other disciplines. El Ansari and Oskrochi (2006) also found this relation-
ship in British health students. Thus, discipline appears to interact with enrolment status in
determining satisfaction levels.

Attitudes
A range of student attitudes including expectations, motivation, capacity to self-regulate,
and self-efficacy have been related to satisfaction. Expected liking of the course predicted
satisfaction in both traditional and web-based psychology courses (Maki & Maki, 2003),
while having expectations met predicted greater satisfaction in Portuguese students (Alves
& Raposo, 2009). However, business students’ retrospective recall of expectations matched
Green et al. 139

more strongly with end-of-semester satisfaction than did prospectively measured

expectations (Appleton-Knapp & Krentler, 2006). It appears that students’ recall of initial
expectations was fitted to their current levels of satisfaction. Consistent with this, Olivares
(2001) found that the strongest predictor of satisfaction with psychology teachers was
improvement in students’ interest from the beginning to the end of a course. Therefore, it
is important that researchers take into account the dynamic nature of the expectations-
satisfaction relationship.
Chan et al. (2005) argued that the match between students’ expectations and the demands
placed on them might explain relationships found between workload and time management,
and satisfaction. Students who expect to succeed tend to expend more effort and so accept
heavier workloads and manage their time accordingly, with no detriment to satisfaction.
However, students who expect to fail tend to disengage, perceive the workload as burden-
some, and do not manage their time effectively, resulting in dissatisfaction.
Results regarding motivation are mixed. Eom et al. (2006) found that student motivation
predicted satisfaction with online course delivery, independently of instructional factors.
However, Curran and Rosen (2006) found that motivation and intention to engage in stat-
istics courses were not related to students’ attitudes toward the course, whereas instructional
factors were. Thus, factors like course delivery and discipline might moderate the relation-
ship between motivation and satisfaction. Chan et al. (2005) found that self-regulation,
specifically time management, was the second most important predictor of economics
students’ satisfaction, after other individual and institutional factors were controlled. In
particular, having enough time for recreation outside of university was the most important
factor in satisfaction.
For psychology students, thinking styles predicted satisfaction with teaching (Betoret,
2007). In particular, hierarchical, judicial, and global thinking styles were associated with
greater satisfaction, and local and liberal styles with less satisfaction. In other words, psych-
ology students who were systematic and organized, who liked to critically analyze and
evaluate ideas, and who preferred more abstract and general tasks were the most satisfied.
However, those who liked working on more specific tasks and who liked to work in more
innovative or creative ways were less satisfied. Maki and Maki (2003) found that a prefer-
ence for working independently was related to greater satisfaction with both traditionally
presented and online psychology courses.
Most studies find that self-efficacy is one of the strongest predictors of satisfaction in
students across disciplines (Letcher & Neves, 2010; San, 2007; Wiers-Jenssen et al., 2002).
Specifically, college self-efficacy, and not social or general self-efficacy, predicted psychology
students’ satisfaction (DeWitz & Walsh, 2002). Similarly, San (2007) found that graduate
students’ attitudes regarding their knowledge and capability explained a unique variance to
that explained by other attitudes and institutional factors.

Achievement
Higher achievement is consistently related to better satisfaction. This has been found in both
traditional and web-based psychology courses (Maki & Maki, 2003), graduates (Umbach &
Porter, 2002), and undergraduates (Denson et al., 2010). Almost half the students surveyed
by Crumbley, Henry, and Kratchman (2001) reported that they would ‘‘punish’’ lecturers on
student evaluations of teaching if they believed that they had not taught them enough to
allow them to maintain their grade point average. Similarly, perceptions of more lenient
140 Psychology Learning & Teaching 14(2)

grading were associated with more favorable student evaluations (Crumbley et al., 2001;
Olivares, 2001).
Students’ perceptions of their own performance accounted for 24% to 55% of the vari-
ance in US and Israeli students’ satisfaction with presentations, assessment, relationships
with faculty, and teaching techniques, after school year, major, and gender were controlled
(Neumann & Neumann, 1981). Researchers examining Australian students have found that
those whose marks matched their expectations reported greater satisfaction (Chan et al.,
2005; Lee et al., 2000). In psychology, even expecting to do well in a course was related to
higher satisfaction with teachers (Wendorf & Alexander, 2005). However, caution is needed
in interpreting the direction of the achievement-satisfaction relationship. Pike (1991) argued
that satisfaction exerts a stronger influence on achievement than does achievement on
satisfaction.

Summary
A range of demographic, attitude, and achievement measures have been found to predict
student satisfaction in psychology and other disciplines, independently of institutional and
teaching factors. However, many mixed findings and null results might reflect unmeasured
moderating variables, such as seniority of students or differences in timing and focus of
satisfaction measures.

Implications and Recommendations for Research and Practice

Multiple factors that potentially influence students’ satisfaction have been demonstrated,
with many of these findings coming from students in psychology or similar ‘‘soft’’ disciplines.
The exception is broader ‘‘institutional’’ factors, which have largely been studied in general
student samples. In accordance with the expectancy/disconfirmation paradigm, higher sat-
isfaction results when student expectations are met or exceeded. Helping students develop
accurate expectations of psychology courses should increase satisfaction. One randomized
intervention study showed that students in introductory psychology classes, where the tea-
cher clarified course expectations and facilitated student-student and student-staff inter-
actions, reported significantly greater satisfaction in end-of-term evaluations than students
in control classes (Hermann, Foster, & Hardin, 2010).
Based on the distinction between satisfiers and dissatisfiers, we suggest that psychology
departments focus on satisfiers that can be further improved or dissatisfiers that are nega-
tively affecting students, rather than on dissatisfiers that are currently adequate. For exam-
ple, interaction between psychology students and academic staff is a satisfier that would be a
target for further improvement if it is suboptimal. In contrast, dissatisfiers such as enrolment
issues should be a target for improvement via psychology departments providing enrolment
advice only if it is found to be inadequate (DeShields Jr. et al., 2005; Gibson, 2010).
Identifying where factors fall within a ‘‘satisfaction  importance grid’’ has also been
suggested as a helpful approach for both teachers (Guolla, 1999) and departments or insti-
tutions (Hampton, 1993). Factors high in importance but low in satisfaction are logical
targets for improvement. We found no studies that examined both importance and satisfac-
tion in psychology students. However, business and law students rated timetabling, textbook
availability in learning centers, and workload as high in importance and low in satisfaction
(Douglas et al., 2006). In a large student sample, workload was a weaker predictor of
Green et al. 141

satisfaction than knowing what they needed to do and in what order (Richardson et al.,
2007). Thus, these may be areas for psychology departments to investigate in order to
improve satisfaction.
Generally, teaching variables tend to relate more highly to student satisfaction than either
institutional or student variables and so are a logical target to improve satisfaction.
High quality teaching, clear assessment standards and criteria, and assessment fairness are
important to psychology students’ satisfaction. Affective aspects of teaching are less import-
ant, although these might be more relevant later in the student lifecycle and for women.
Given that the majority of psychology students are women, this might be particularly
important in psychology.
Improving the image of the psychology department might improve student satisfaction.
Image may be improved by increasing research involvement and communicating that to stu-
dents. Psychology departments can use social media, such as Facebook and Twitter, to high-
light research and other indicators of prestige to their students. Other institutional variables
that contribute to student satisfaction include manageable class sizes, although Cheng (2011)
found this was not a factor in psychology students’ satisfaction despite large classes.
Students who achieve, or expect to achieve, higher grades are more satisfied, although
satisfaction might affect achievement as much as or more than achievement affects satisfac-
tion (Pike, 1991). Providing support around learning and assessment is likely to improve
psychology students’ satisfaction, although simply focusing on supporting student achieve-
ment to improve satisfaction might be too simplistic. We also identified a range of individual
differences that moderated student satisfaction. Fostering psychology students’ expectations
that they will like their courses, assisting them to develop college self-efficacy, and matching
their preferred thinking styles are others ways that psychology departments might consider
to improve psychology students’ satisfaction.
There are some limitations to note. No single study has tested all the predictors of student
satisfaction described in this review, so the independent contributions of each predictor
remain difficult to evaluate. Methodological issues relating to how and when satisfaction
is measured have been highlighted. Moreover, not all predictors have been specifically tested
in psychology students, despite evidence of cross-disciplinary differences. Finally, due to the
correlational designs employed in most studies, the cause-effect relationships between
variables and student satisfaction remain to be demonstrated. However, bearing these limi-
tations in mind, the research does suggest areas that could be targeted to improve satisfac-
tion of psychology students, as outlined above. More research in which the student is seen as
a consumer of services is needed to fully understand satisfaction in psychology students. In
particular, intervention studies aimed at improving satisfaction would be valuable for future
research.

Funding
This research was funded by the Teaching in Psychology Research Group, School of Applied
Psychology, Griffith University, Australia.

References
Abbasi, M. N., Malik, A., Chaudhry, I. S., & Imdadullah, M. (2011). A study on student satisfaction in
Pakistani universities: The case of Bahauddin Zakariya University, Pakistan. Asian Social Science,
7, 209–219.
142 Psychology Learning & Teaching 14(2)

Allen, M., Bourhis, J., Burrell, N., & Mabry, E. (2002). Comparing student satisfaction with distance
education to traditional classrooms in higher education: A meta-analysis. American Journal of
Distance Education, 16, 83–97.
Alves, H., & Raposo, M. (2009). The measurement of the construct satisfaction in higher education.
The Service Industries Journal, 29, 203–218.
American Association for the Advancement of Science. (2015). Historical trends in federal research and
development. Retrieved from http://www.aaas.org/page/historical-trends-federal-rd#Disc
Appleton-Knapp, S. L., & Krentler, K. A. (2006). Measuring student expectations and their effects on
satisfaction: The importance of managing student expectations. Journal of Marketing Education, 28,
254–264.
Arambewela, R., & Hall, J. (2009). An empirical model of international student satisfaction. Asia
Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, 21, 555–569.
Astin, A. W. (1993). What matters in college?: Four critical years revisited. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-
Bass.
Audin, K., Davy, J., & Barkham, M. (2003). University quality of life and learning (UNIQoLL): An
approach to student well-being, satisfaction and institutional change. Journal of Further and Higher
Education, 27, 365–382.
Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. (2006). Psychology labour force 2003. AIHW cat. no. HWL
34. Retrieved from http://www.aihw.gov.au/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=6442458352
Bachen, C. M., McLoughlin, M. M., & Garcı́a, S. S. (1999). Assessing the role of gender in college
students’ evaluations of faculty. Communication Education, 48, 193–210.
Baumann, C., Elliott, G., & Burton, S. (2012). Modeling customer satisfaction and loyalty: Survey data
versus data mining. Journal of Services Marketing, 26, 148–157.
Betoret, F. D. (2007). The influence of students’ and teachers’ thinking styles on student course sat-
isfaction and on their learning process. Educational Psychology, 27, 219–234.
Biglan, A. (1973). The characteristics of subject matter in different academic areas. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 57, 195–203.
Bigne, E., Moliner, M. A., & Sanchez, J. (2003). Perceived quality and satisfaction in multiservice
organisations: The case of Spanish public services. The Journal of Services Marketing, 17, 420–442.
Braskamp, L. A., & Ory, J. C. (1994). Assessing faculty work: Enhancing individual and institutional
performance. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Brown, R. M., & Mazzarol, T. W. (2009). The importance of institutional image to student satisfaction
and loyalty within higher education. Higher Education, 58, 1–95.
Chan, G., Miller, P. W., & Tcha, M. (2005). Happiness in university education. International Review of
Economics Education, 4, 20–45. Retrieved from http://www.economicsnetwork.ac.uk/iree/i4/
chan.htm
Chen, Y., & Hoshower, L. B. (2003). Student evaluation of teaching effectiveness: An assessment of
student perception and motivation. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 28, 71–88.
Cheng, D. A. (2011). Effects of class size on alternative educational outcomes across disciplines.
Economics of Education Review, 30, 980–990.
Christensen, H., Batterham, P. J., Hickie, I. B., McGorry, P. D., Mitchell, P. B., & Kulkarni, J.
(2011). Funding for mental health research: The gap remains. Medical Journal of Australia, 195,
681–684.
Clemes, M. D., Gan, C. E. C., & Kao, T. H. (2008). University student satisfaction: An empirical
analysis. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 17, 292–325.
Coles, C. (2002). Variability of student ratings of accounting teaching: Evidence from a Scottish
business school. The International Journal of Management Education, 2, 30–39.
Crumbley, L., Henry, B. K., & Kratchman, S. H. (2001). Students’ perceptions of the evaluation of
college teaching. Quality Assurance in Education, 9, 197–207.
Curran, J. M., & Rosen, D. E. (2006). Student attitudes toward college courses: An examination of
influences and intentions. Journal of Marketing Education, 28, 135–148.
Green et al. 143

Denson, N., Loveday, T., & Dalton, H. (2010). Student evaluation of courses: What predicts satisfac-
tion? Higher Education Research and Development, 29, 339–356.
DeShields, O. W. Jr, Kara, A., & Kaynak, E. (2005). Determinants of business student satisfaction and
retention in higher education: Applying Herzberg’s two-factor theory. International Journal of
Educational Management, 19, 128–139.
DeWitz, S. J., & Walsh, W. B. (2002). Self-efficacy and college student satisfaction. Journal of Career
Assessment, 10, 315–326.
Douglas, J., Douglas, A., & Barnes, B. (2006). Measuring student satisfaction at a UK university.
Quality Assurance in Education, 14, 251–267.
Douglas, J. A., Douglas, A., McClelland, R. J., & Davies, J. (2015). Understanding student satisfaction
and dissatisfaction: An interpretive study in the UK higher education context. Studies in Higher
Education, 40, 329–349.
El Ansari, W., & Oskrochi, R. (2006). What matters most? Predictors of student satisfaction in public
health educational courses. Public Health, 120, 462–473.
Elliott, K. M., & Shin, D. (2002). Student Satisfaction: An alternative approach to assessing this
important concept. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 24, 197–209.
Eom, S. B., Wen, H. J., & Ashill, N. (2006). The determinants of students’ perceived learning outcomes
and satisfaction in university online education: An empirical investigation. Decision Sciences
Journal of Innovative Education, 4, 215–235.
Ewell, P. T. (1989). Institutional characteristics and faculty/administrator perceptions of outcomes: An
exploratory analysis. Research in Higher Education, 30, 113–136.
Feldman, K. A. (1983). Seniority and experience of college teachers as related to evaluations they
receive from students. Research in Higher Education, 18, 3–124.
Freng, S., Webber, D., Blatter, J., Wing, A., & Scott, W. D. (2011). The role of statistics and research
methods in the academic success of psychology majors: Do performance and enrollment timing
matter? Teaching of Psychology, 38, 83–88.
Garcı́a-Aracil, A. (2009). European graduates’ level of satisfaction with higher education. Higher
Education, 57, 1–21.
Gibson, A. (2010). Measuring business student satisfaction: A review and summary of the major
predictors. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 32, 251–259.
Ginns, P., Prosser, M., & Barrie, S. (2007). Students’ perceptions of teaching quality in higher educa-
tion: The perspective of currently enrolled students. Studies in Higher Education, 32, 603–615.
Golberg, A. (2015). ESRC success rates by discipline: What on earth is going on? Retrieved from
http://socialscienceresearchfunding.co.uk/?p=574
Green, H. J., & Hood, M. (2013). Significance of epistemological beliefs for teaching and learning
psychology: A review. Psychology Learning and Teaching, 12, 168–178.
Grunwald, H., & Peterson, M. W. (2003). Factors that promote faculty involvement in and satisfaction
with institutional and classroom student assessment. Research in Higher Education, 44, 173–204.
Guolla, M. (1999). Assessing the teaching quality to student satisfaction relationship: Applied cus-
tomer satisfaction research in the classroom. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 7, 87–97.
Hampton, G. M. (1993). Gap analysis of college student satisfaction as a measure of professional
service quality. Journal of Professional Services Marketing, 9, 115–128.
Haskell, T., Burrows, M., Harrington, C., McCullough, K., Schuh, K., & Sperberg, A. (2012). The
value of a psychology major: Bridging the gap between perceptions and reality. Psychology
Learning and Teaching, 11, 158–170.
Hearn, J. C. (1985). Determinants of college students’ overall evaluations of their academic programs.
Research in Higher Education, 23, 413–437.
Hermann, A. D., Foster, D. A., & Hardin, E. E. (2010). Does the first week of class matter? A quasi-
experimental investigation of student satisfaction. Teaching of Psychology, 37, 79–84.
Herzberg, F., Mausner, B., & Snyderman, B. B. (1967). The motivation to work (2nd ed.). New York,
NY: Wiley.
144 Psychology Learning & Teaching 14(2)

Hesli, V. L., Fink, E. C., & Duffy, D. M. (2003). Mentoring in a positive graduate student experience:
Survey results from the midwest region, Part 1. PS: Political Science & Politics, 36, 457–460.
Lee, G., Jolly, N., Kench, P., & Gelonesi, B. (2000). Factors related to student satisfaction with uni-
versity. Paper presented at the Fourth Pacific Rim – First year in Higher Education Conference:
Creating futures for a new millennium, Brisbane, Australia.
Letcher, D. W., & Neves, J. S. (2010). Determinants of undergraduate business student satisfaction.
Research in Higher Education Journal, 6, 1–26.
Liegler, R. M. (1997). Predicting student satisfaction in baccalaureate nursing programs: Testing a
causal model. Journal of Nursing Education, 36, 357–364.
Lindblom-Ylänne, S., Trigwell, K., Nevgi, A., & Ashwin, P. (2006). How approaches to teaching are
affected by discipline and teaching context. Studies in Higher Education, 31, 285–298.
Lipp, O. V., Terry, D. J., Chalmers, D., Bath, D., Hannan, G., Martin, F., . . . Provost, S. C. (2006).
Learning Outcomes and Curriculum Development in Psychology. Sydney, Australia: The Carrick
Institute for Learning and Teaching in Higher Education Ltd.
Mai, L. W. (2005). A comparative study between UK and US: The student satisfaction in higher
education and its influential factors. Journal of Marketing Management, 21, 859–878.
Maki, R. H., & Maki, W. S. (2003). Prediction of learning and satisfaction in web-based and lecture
courses. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 28, 197–219.
Malouff, M. J., Hall, L., Schutte, S. N., & Rooke, E. S. (2010). Use of motivational teaching tech-
niques and psychology student satisfaction. Psychology Learning and Teaching, 9, 39–44.
Marsh, H. W., & Hocevar, D. (1991). Students’ evaluations of teaching effectiveness: The stability of
mean ratings of the same teachers over a 13-year period. Teaching and Teacher Education, 7,
303–314.
Marsh, H. W., & Ware, J. E. (1982). Effects of expressiveness, content coverage, and incentive on
multidimensional student rating scales: New interpretations of the Dr. Fox effect. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 74, 126–134.
Mavondo, F. T., Tsarenko, Y., & Gabbott, M. (2004). International and local student satisfaction:
Resources and capabilities perspective. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 14, 41–60.
Miglietti, C. L., & Strange, C. C. (1998). Learning styles, classroom environment preferences, teaching,
styles, and remedial course outcomes for underprepared adults at a two-year college. Community
College Review, 26, 1–19.
Naftulin, D. H., Ware, J. E. J., & Donnelly, F. A. (1973). The Doctor Fox Lecture: a paradigm of
educational seduction. Academic Medicine, 48, 630–635.
Neumann, Y., & Neumann, L. (1981). Determinants of students’ satisfaction with course work: An
international comparison between two universities. Research in Higher Education, 14, 321–333.
Nevill, A., & Rhodes, C. (2004). Academic and social integration in higher education: A survey of
satisfaction and dissatisfaction within a first year education studies cohort at a new university.
Journal of Further and Higher Education, 28, 179–193.
NSSE (2005) Exploring Different Dimensions of Student Engagement. Bloomington, IN: Indiana
University Center for Postsecondary Research.
Oldfield, B. M., & Baron, S. (2000). Student perceptions of service quality in a UK university business
and management faculty. Quality Assurance in Education, 8, 85–95.
Olivares, O. J. (2001). Student interest, grading leniency, and teacher ratings: A conceptual analysis.
Contemporary Educational Psychology, 26, 382–399.
Oliver, R. L. (1981). Measurement and evaluation of satisfaction processes in retail settings. Journal of
retailing, 57, 25–48.
Palacio, A. B., Meneses, G. D., & Perez Perez, P. (2002). The configuration of the university image and
its relationship with the satisfaction of students. Journal of Educational Administration, 40, 486–505.
Petruzzellis, L., D’Uggento, A. M., & Romanazzi, S. (2006). Student satisfaction and quality of service
in Italian universities. Managing Service Quality, 16, 349–364.
Green et al. 145

Pike, G. R. (1991). The effects of background, coursework, and involvement on students’ grades and
satisfaction. Research in Higher Education, 32, 15–30.
Radloff, A., & Coates, H. (2010). Doing more for learning: Enhancing engagement and outcomes.
Australasian Survey of Student Engagement: Australasian Student Engagement Report.
Camberwell, Australia: Australian Council for Educational Research (ACER).
Rankin, S. R., & Reason, R. D. (2005). Differing perceptions: How students of color and white
students perceive campus climate for underrepresented groups. Journal of College Student
Development, 46, 43–61.
Rask, K. N., & Bailey, E. M. (2002). Are faculty role models? Evidence from major choice in an
undergraduate institution. Journal of Economic Education, 33, 99–124.
Richardson, J. T. E., Slater, J. B., & Wilson, J. (2007). The National Student Survey: Development,
findings and implications. Studies in Higher Education, 32, 557–580.
Ritchie, H., & Newby, T. J. (1989). Classroom lecture/discussion vs. Live televised instruction: A
comparison of effects on student performance, attitude, and interaction. American Journal of
Distance Education, 3, 36–45.
Robins, L. S., Gruppen, L. D., Alexander, G. L., Fantone, J. C., & Davis, W. K. (1997). A predictive
model of student satisfaction with the medical school learning environment. Academic Medicine, 72,
134–139.
Rodabaugh, R. C., & Kravitz, D. A. (1994). Effects of procedural fairness on student judgments of
professors. Journal on Excellence in College Teaching, 5, 67–83.
Rowley, M., Hartley, J., & Larkin, D. (2008). Learning from experience: The expectations and experi-
ences of first-year undergraduate psychology students. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 32,
399–413.
San, N. N. (2007). Management system of a new educational organization: an empirical study of graduate
program student satisfaction at Shinawatra University. Master of Science in Management thesis,
Shinawatra University, Thailand.
Sander, P., Stevenson, K., King, M., & Coates, D. (2000). University students’ expectations of teach-
ing. Studies in Higher Education, 25, 309–323.
Scott, G. (2008). University student engagement and satisfaction with learning and teaching. Canberra,
Australia: Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations.
Shevlin, M., Banyard, P., Davies, M., & Griffiths, M. (2000). The validity of student evaluation of
teaching in higher education: Love me, love my lectures? Assessment and Evaluation in Higher
Education, 25, 397–405.
Spooren, P., Mortelmans, D., & Denekens, J. (2007). Student evaluation of teaching quality in higher
education: Development of an instrument based on 10 Likert-scales. Assessment & Evaluation in
Higher Education, 32, 667–679.
Umbach, P. D., & Porter, S. R. (2002). How do academic departments impact student
satisfaction? Understanding the contextual effects of departments. Research in Higher
Education, 43, 209–234.
United States Census Bureau. (2013). State and County quick facts. Retrieved 15 March 2013 from
http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/00000.html
Volkwein, J. F., & Carbone, D. A. (1994). The impact of departmental research and teaching climates
on undergraduate growth and satisfaction. The Journal of Higher Education, 65, 147–167.
Wendorf, C. A., & Alexander, S. (2005). The influence of individual- and class-level fairness-related
perceptions on student satisfaction. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 30, 190–206.
Wiers-Jenssen, J., Stensaker, B., & Grogaard, J. B. (2002). Student satisfaction: Towards an empirical
deconstruction of the concept. Quality in Higher Education, 8, 183–195.
Win, R., & Miller, P. W. (2005). The effects of individual and school factors on university students’
academic performance. Australian Economic Review, 38, 1–18.
146 Psychology Learning & Teaching 14(2)

Xiao, J., & Wilkins, S. (2015). The effects of lecturer commitment on student perceptions of teaching
quality and student satisfaction in Chinese higher education. Journal of Higher Education Policy and
Management, 37, 98–110.

Author biographies
Heather J. Green is a lecturer in the School of Applied Psychology, Griffith University,
Australia. She teaches clinical, health, and applied psychology in undergraduate and post-
graduate programs. Her research interests include self-efficacy and skill development in
students and professionals, and helping people understand and manage chronic health con-
ditions, such as cancer.

Michelle Hood is a senior lecturer at Griffith University, Australia. She teaches undergradu-
ate courses in research methods and statistics, developmental psychology, and psychological
assessment. Her research interests include academic engagement and motivation, especially
in university students, children’s literacy and numeracy development, and career develop-
ment in young adults.

David L. Neumann is the Deputy Head of School (Learning and Teaching) in the School of
Applied Psychology at Griffith University, Australia. He teaches undergraduate courses in
statistics, learning, and physiological psychology. His research interests include learning and
performance, including the learning of research methods and statistics at university.