In three studies, college student participants read a description of ambiguous (i.e., neither explicitly positive nor explicitly negative) academic feedback from a faculty member. Evaluations of the ambiguous feedback were compared across participants' gender identities and levels of social and intellectual belonging in their academic majors and were used to predict participants' future coursework preferences. Data from exploratory Study 1 (n = 423) were used to develop hypotheses for two pre-registered confirmatory studies: a direct replication (Study 2, n = 233) and an extension (Study 3, n = 469) that replicated several effects from Studies 1 and 2 and included additional exploratory measures. Across students in both STEM (science, technology, engineering, and math) and non-STEM majors, men evaluated ambiguous feedback as significantly more positive than women. Greater social belonging predicted more positive evaluation of the feedback in two of the three studies. Men and those who evaluated the feedback as more positive reported an increased preference for taking difficult-yet-fulfilling coursework in the future, even when controlling for academic standing. Thus, after a brief exchange of information, students' interpretations of ambiguous feedback differed across gender and social belonging and predicted students' future course intentions, with students who interpreted the feedback more positively reporting preferences for advanced coursework, even after controlling for student grades.