How Cultural Capital Impacts Education and Marriage

Cultural Capital, Educational Attainment, and Marital Selection
Author(s): Paul DiMaggio and John Mohr

Source: American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 90, No. 6 (May, 1985), pp. 1231-1261
Published by: The University of Chicago Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2779635
Accessed: 21-07-2015 16:02 UTC
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/
info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
The University of Chicago Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to American Journal of
Sociology.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 200.16.5.202 on Tue, 21 Jul 2015 16:02:42 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Cultural Capital, Educational Attainment,

and Marital Selection1
Paul DiMaggio and JohnMohr
Yale University
sharplybetween"class" (an individAlthoughWeberdistinguished

ual's marketposition)and "status"(participationin a collectivity
bound togetherby a shared statusculture),only measuresof the
formerhave beenincludedin mostempiricalanalysesofthestratifiparticipacationprocess.In thisarticlea measureof status-culture
tion(or culturalcapital)is developedfromtheresponsesofmenand
womeninterviewedin 1960 by ProjectTalent. Questionstapped a
interests
and activities.Analysesofdata from
rangeofhigh-cultural
effectsof cultural
a follow-upstudy11 yearslatershow significant
capital (withappropriatecontrols)on educationalattainment,college attendance, college completion,graduate attendance, and
maritalselectionforbothmen and women.
has been
A vital elementin Weber'sclassic theoryof social stratification
process. Alstudiesof the stratification
omittedin most contemporary
thoughresearchershave shown ingenuityin developingmeasures of
"class" or "marketposition,"fewhave addressedthe problemof how to
measure participationin prestigiousstatus culturesdirectly.Instead,
mosthave attemptedto capture"status"throughmeasuresof such positionalor demographicattributesas occupationalrank,gender,socioeco1 This paperhas benefited
immensely
fromcarefuland criticalreadingsby Randall
Collins,HerbertGans,JeromeKarabel,David Karen,RichardMurnane,RichardA.
Peterson,
RobertRobinson,KeithRoe, AnnSwidler,MichaelUseem,and threeanonymousreviewers,
thegoodadviceofnoneofwhomwas followed
so scrupulously
as to
renderthemculpableforanyremaining
inadequacies.An earlierdraftof thispaper
was presented
at theannualmeeting
oftheAmerican
Sociological
Association
(Section
on Education,Sessionon SocialClass and HigherEducation;Jerome
Karabel,chair),
Detroit,August1983. We gratefully
acknowledgecomputersupportfromthe Yale
University
forSocial and PolicyStudiesand
SociologyDepartmentand Institution
institutional
assistancefromtheYale Programon Non-Profit
Organizations
and the
CenterforAdvancedStudyin theBehavioralSciences.We are indebtedto Marilyn
Mandell,BarbaraRuber,and Leslie Lindzeyforexpertassistancein preparing
this
manuscript
forpublication.Requestsforreprints
shouldbe sentto Paul DiMaggio,
Department
of Sociology,Yale University,
New Haven, Connecticut
06520.
of Chicago.All rightsreserved.
C 1985by The University
.50
0002-9602/85/9006-0005$01
AJS Volume 90 Number6
1231
AmericanJournalof Sociology
nomic status, or educational attainment(oftentreatedas a proxyfor
humancapital or labor marketposition[Parkin1978]).
If Weber's conceptof statusculturewere reducibleto such measures
(i.e., if status-culture
membershipwere tightlycoupled to statusgroups
formedon the basis of economicmarketposition),such failureto distinguishbetween"class" and "status"would have fewconsequences.To the
extentthatthetwo are onlylooselyassociated,however,it is essentialto
distinguishthemboth analyticallyand operationally.2
Several recent studies suggest the inabilityof conventionaldemographicand positionalmeasuresto captureconsequentialaspectsof culturalvariation.Jenckset al. (1979) foundstrongeffectsof familybackgroundon educationaland occupationalattainment
thatwerenottapped
by a wide rangeof conventionalmeasuresof family"status."DiMaggio
(1982a) discovered only modest correlationsbetween fathers' and
mothers'educationalattainments
and the"culturalcapital"of a national
sample of whitehighschool students,particularlyamong the boys,but
found significanteffectsof culturalcapital on grades. Peterson(1983)
reportslow correlationsbetweendemographicmeasuresand patternsof
culturalparticipationand stylesof life. Howell and McBroom (1982)
reportsubstantialeffectsof measures of familycultureon the school
performance
ofelementary
studentsbutweak relationships
betweenpositional measuresof familybackgroundand child-rearing
beliefsand attitudes.Davis, in an articleon "class cultures,"findsso few notable
associationsofpositionalvariableswitha broadrangeofattitudesthathe
concludesthat"new theories,perhapsmoreculturalthanstructural,
may
be in order"to explainsome aspectsof thestratification
system(1982, p.
585).
We believe that what is needed is a returnto Weber's earlyinsight
aboutthedistinction
betweentheclass (marketposition)and statusorders
([1922] 1968, pp. 926-40). A person'sclass position,as he definesit,
consistsof causal factorsinfluencing
the individual'slife chances in a
marketeconomy.A class "does not in itselfconstitutea group"(p. 930).
Class positionis impersonal:"the marketand its processesknows no
personaldistinctions"(p. 936). In contrast,Weber viewed statusas in2 We use theterm"class"onlyin theWeberiansense.Marxistdefinitions
ofclassare
variedand manifold.In general(and withno littleoversimplification),

Marx's"classin-itself'
is similarto "class"in Weber'ssense(albeitwitha strongemphasison labor
marketpositionas opposedtopositioninothermarkets),
whereas"class-for-itself'
is a
Weberianlabormarketclassthatis also a statusgroup.Similarly,
ouruse oftheterm
"status"followsfrom(althoughit developson) thatof Weber.The relationship
betweenthisconception
ofstatusand theuse oftheterminsocialanthropology
(Warner
and Lunt 1942,p. 3, n. 1) and structural
sociology
(Burt1982)is similarly
beyondthe
scopeofthispaper.
1232
CulturalCapital
separablefromthe individual'sparticipationin a humangroupand the
cultureof thatgroup,the "styleof life"thatis "expectedfromall those
who wish to belongto the circle"(p. 932). Statusis seen as an emergent
qualitygroundedin inte-action:as "an effective
claim to social esteem"
(pp. 304-6), implyingboth a claimantand a claimee who, at least formally,maytreattheclaimas illegitimate.
The statuscultureis themeans
by whichthestatusgroupmaintainsitscohesionand preservesitsability
to distanceitselffromothergroupsin society."The decisiveroleofa style
oflifein statushonormeansthatstatusgroupsare thespecificbearersof
all conventions"(pp. 935-36).
We take Weber's emphasison the interactionaland culturalbases of
statusseriously.Using a measuredeveloped by DiMaggio (1982a), we
show thatinterestin and experiencewithprestigiousculturalresources
(which,followingBourdieu,we call "culturalcapital")in highschoolhas
a significantly
positiveimpact on many aspects of the educationaland
maritalattainmentof a cross-sectional
sample of whiteAmericanmen
and women 11 yearslater.
Our focusis on theimpactofstatus-culture
participation
on theeducational attainmentprocessand on maritalselection.Educational attainmenthas becometheprimaryrouteto occupationalattainment
in modern
industrialsocieties.Highereducation,in particular,is a crucialprerequisite to the occupancyof the economy'smost lucrativeand influential
positions.Bourdieu(1977a, 1977b)has arguedthatit is in theeducational
systemthatparticipationin a prestigiousstatuscultureis moststrongly
rewarded.Yet not a singlestudyof the U.S.educationalattainment
process has ever attemptedto measure culturalcapital or to distinguish
operationallyculturalfactorsfrommeasuresof class position.
Marital selectionis a traditionalfocusof studentsof the stratification
processforwomen, because women have been less likelythan men of
comparableabilityto followotherpathsofeducationaland occupational
attainment(e.g., completingcollege or pursuingmiddle-classcareers).
Althoughmostworkin sociologyhas addressedthemaritalattainment
of
women,choiceof spouse is also highlyconsequentialformen. In a brief
reviewof the literatureof human capital economics,Leibowitz(1974a)
reportsthatboththe earningsand thehealthof marriedmen have a net
positiveassociationwiththeirwives' educationalattainments.For both
womenand men,then,maritalselectionis vitalto individuallifechances
and well-being.
Most sociologicaltreatments
ofmaritalselection(e.g., Elder 1969)have
viewed it as a formof exchange,increasingly
individualizedwithrising
ratesofhighereducationand geographicmobility.As Wallerand Hill put
it, "previouslythefamiliesbargained,but now everyonemusthagglefor
himself"(1951, p. 160). Taylor and Glenn (1976) have criticizedthe ex1233
of
changeperspective,however,contendingthattheunequal distribution
informationand the variationin men's preferencesmake maritalexchangemoreof a barterthana marketeconomy.Indeed, Waller,despite
his seminal contributionsto the exchange perspective,recognizedthe
importanceof sharedculturalresourcesin enablingmen and womento
develop the intimacyrequiredforrelationshipsto ripeninto marriage.
Commoninterestsgive couples "an area of rapport,a commonuniverse
of discourseor arena of interaction"
(Wallerand Hill 1951,pp. 176-77).
From the exchangeperspective,then,marriageis seen as a marketto
which potentialpartnersbringfungibleresourcesthat determinetheir
respectivemarket positions. In contrast,in this second "matching
model," maritalselectionis seen as a processwherebypartnersmatch
culturalresourcesto create"a commonuniverseof discourseor arena of
statusand class in the mannersuggested
interaction."By distinguishing
above, we can addresstheissues raisedby earlierworkmoreeffectively
thancan researcherswho relysolelyon measuresof"marketposition"as
of mates.
proxiesforthe culturalsimilarity
In the followingsection,we develop morefullythe theoreticalargumentthatstatus,distinctfromclass position,can be understoodas parThe
interaction.
ticipationin a statusculturethatemergesin face-to-face
thirdand fourthsectionsdescribe the resultsof our empiricalwork,
whichfollowsfromand lends credibility
to the theoreticalargument.
STATUS IN ADVANCED MARKET ECONOMIES
In his essay on class, status,and party,Weber ([1922] 1968) providesa
crispanalyticaldistinctionbetweenstatusand class but hedgeson two
ofstatusgroups,and theempirical
criticalpoints:therelationalstructure
associationof class and status.
Concerningthe first,he writes:"In contrastto classes, Stande (status
groups)are normallygroups.They are, however,oftenof an amorphous
kind" (p. 932). The contemporaryreader is uncertainwhetherthese
cliques,morediffuse"circles,"or yet
"groups"are denselyinterconnected
more''amorphous"and ultimatelyunboundedsocial networks.
In his discussionsof thelinkbetweenclass and status,Weberdisplays
discretion,notingthat"whilestatushonor
appropriateand characteristic
need not necessarilybe linked with a class situation"and "normally
... today
standsin sharpoppositionto thepretensions
ofsheerproperty,
the class situationis by farthe predominantfactor"in the formationof
statusgroups(p. 932).
In ideal typicalterms,then,Weberconceivesofstatusgroupsas tightly
bounded collectivitiestendingtoward monopolisticclosureof material
and culturalopportunitiesthroughrules governingownershipof prop1234
CulturalCapital
erty,occupancyof jobs, maritalchoice, and social interaction.Under
such conditions,class is tightlybound to status-group
membership,because mostdesirableopportunities
forexchangeare dominatedby status
groups.
But marketsand statussystemsare competitive
formsofsocial organization.The relationship
betweenthetwois historically
specific:economic
developmentand technologicalchange tend to erode statusboundaries
and push class to the fore,whereaseconomicstagnationencouragesthe
dominanceof statusover class.
Thus Weber acknowledgesthat, in marketeconomies,particularly
thosecharacterizedby rapid economicand technologicalchange,status
operates somewhatdifferently
fromwhat his ideal type suggests.We
would extendhis argumentto suggestthat,in rapidlychangingmarket
economies(such as the UnitedStatesduringthe past century),(a) status
groups tend to become amorphousand extendednetworksinstead of
cliquesor circlesand (b) therelationship
betweenstatusand class tendsto
be relativelyloose.
The reasonsforthisloose couplingare many,but each is linkedto the
expansion of national and internationalmarketsand to technological
development.They include an increasinglycomplexsocial divisionof
labor, expanded geographicmobility,increasesin scale and availability
of transportation
and communicationsmedia, urbanization,increased
levels of education, and the relativedecline in the importanceof the
extendedfamilyto the fortunesof membersof the middleclass (Sorokin
1959, p. 187; Collins 1975, pp. 210-14).
Under theseconditions:
1. Individual-socialnetworks,particularly
middle-classnetworks,become larger,less dense and multiplex,and morediffuse.(Fischer[1982]
notesthatthesequalities are more characteristic
of urban than of rural
and of upper-middle-class
than of working-class
networksin
friendship
the contemporary
United States.)
2. Individualsface increasedsegregationof audiencesin everydayinteractions.Impressionmanagement(Goffman1959),based on themanipulation of role-specific
codes and codes specificto speech communities
(Bernstein1971), replacesthe role playedin moretightlyboundedcommunities,wherestatusinheredin social positions,by masteryof a constantsocial identity.
3. Statusthusbecomesless reducibleto positionor groupmembership
and becomesmorea culturalprocess(Collins 1981)enactedin thecourse
of face-to-face
encountersin relativelydiffusesocial networks.The abilityto participatein a status cultureis a culturalresourcethat permits
actorsto get ahead by managingimpressions,developingpositivelocal
reputations,impressinggatekeepers,and constructing
social networks
1235
thatmay be usefulin educational,marital,and occupationalattainment
(Granovetter1982; Lin, Ensel, and Vaughn 1981). The abilityto participate in a prestigiousstatusculture,then,enables individualsto survive
what Cicourel(1981) calls "theroutineassessmentof social competence"
and to sustain relationshipswith those in controlof the allocation of
process.(See also Collins 1975;
the stratification
rewardsthatconstitutes
1979, p. 58; 1981.)
MEASURES AND DATA
First,let us considerour measureof culturalcapital. If, in modernmarketsocieties,culturalcapitalis onlylooselycoupledto class position,from
wheredo prestigiousstatusculturescome? We believethattheyare historicallygroundedin the classificationprojects of relativelybounded
projects,"we mean thecollectiveefforts
statusgroups.By "classification
by membersof emergentstatus groups to defineand institutionalize
specificculturalelementsas prestigiousand sacred. DiMaggio (1982b,
1982c) has documentedhow the Boston Brahmins,between 1870 and
1910,definedtheelementsof an artisticand musicalhighculture,develthat culture,and created institutionsto
oped an ideologysanctifying
perpetuateit. Tuchman (1982), Weber (1976), and Wolff(1982) have
in thefieldsofmusic,art,and lettersin England
identified
similarefforts
and on the Continentduringthe 19thcentury.3
Althoughthe statusgroupsthatprovidedthe structuralbasis forthis
statusculturehave becomemorediffuse(as definedbyhigherratesofoutand inmarriage,more diverseand less potentsocializinginstitutions,
with
the
status
culture
creased social interaction
economicparvenus),
that theycodifiedretainsits interactionalpotencyfor several reasons.
part of the formaleducationalsystem
First,it has become a significant
and, throughthat system,has been diffused,as a cultural model,
throughoutthe class structure.Second, it is preservedthroughstatus
emulationby manymembersofthemiddleclass, who have adoptedboth
theculturaltraditionand theideologythatlegitimatesit. Third,interest
in and familiaritywith high cultureare still relatedto class position,
albeitimperfectly.
The collegeeducatedare morelikelythanthosewith
less educationto attendartsevents,and professionalsare morelikelyto
attendthanblue-collarworkers(DiMaggio and Useem 1978).(Low correin thecontentofprestigious
statuscultures
leadsus toempha3 Although
ourinterest
statusgroupsinthissection,we shouldalso note
sizetheculturalprojectsofdominant
have
class and ethnicity
anotherimportant
culturalchangeduringthepast century:
numbersofthedescendants
ofeasternand southern
becomeseparatedas substantial
have enteredthemiddleclass. Alongwiththis,thepowerand
Europeanimmigrants
eroded.
working-class
cultureshave beensignificantly
prevalenceofdistinctively
1236
CulturalCapital
lationsbetweenculturalparticipationand demographicmeasuresresult,
in part,fromthe factthatonlya minority
of thosegroupsmostlikelyto
activitiesrequiringadparticipateactuallydo so.) Finally,high-culture
vanced levels of sophistication(e.g., appreciatingthe avant-garde)or
involvingtheexerciseofinfluence(e.g., trusteeships
ofmajorartsinstitutions)are stillprimarilydominatedby occupantsof highclass positions,
as definedby income,education,and occupationalattainment.4
Data used in thisstudyare from1,427menand 1,479womenwho were
surveyedin 1960,whentheywerein theeleventhgrade,and resurveyed
in 1971 by ProjectTalent. The Talent surveyis unique in the rangeof
questionsstudentswereasked about theirattitudestoward,activitiesin,
and knowledgeabout highculture.The sample used hereis a weighted
crosssectionof whitemen and womenwho werein theeleventhgradein
U.S. high schoolsin 1960. (For more detaileddiscussionof the Talent
data, see Jenckset al. 1979; Jencks,Crouse, and Mueser 1983.)
Scores forculturalcapital rangefromzero to 4.39 formen and from
zero to 4.18 forwomen,based on separatefactoranalysesformen and
womenof 16 measuresof high-and otherculturalattitudes,activities,
and information.
(These measureswere taken at the timeof the initial
surveyin 1960.) For men,variablesloadingmorethan.35 on thecultural
capitalfactorincludeinterestin attendingsymphony
concerts,experience
on stageoutsideof schoolsettings,attendanceat artsevents,
performing
and havinga "cultivatedself-image."(The latteris therespondent's
score
on a Talent-developedscale, based on such self-evaluation
itemsas "I
enjoybeautifulthings"and "I am a culturedperson.")For women,variables loadinghighon culturalcapital includeall thoselistedformen as
wellas a self-report
ofliterature
reading.Male and femaleculturalcapital
scoresare convertedto z-scoresin the analysesreportedbelow to ensure
comparability
of resultsformen and women.
The mannerin whichthe culturalcapital scale was developedand the
rationaleforits interpretation
are discussedat lengthelsewhere(DiMaggio 1982a). Althoughwe would like to have data on otherprestigious
culturalresources,we believethatinterestin and familiarity
withtraditionalhigh-culture
formsare the mostgeneralcomponentsof the dominantAmericanstatuscultureand theones mostbroadlysalientand least
limitedto personsof a certainage or region.Analysesreportedearlier
(DiMaggio 1982a) indicatethat this scale is not simplya proxyforun4For a morecompletedevelopmentofthisargument,see DiMaggio and Useem (1982).
Because we are concerned in this paper with the stratification

process in general and
not simplythe upper reaches of it, our measures of interestin and involvementwith
"high culture" gauge modest levels of commitmentin which there is likely to be
significantvariation. In termsof Gans's typologyof culturalstratification
(1974), these
measures tap "upper-middle"-ratherthan "high"-culturalinvolvement.
1237
in mathemeasuredacademic ability(because its effecton performance
in morehumanisticsubjects),
maticsis less thanitseffecton performance
activiart-making
in less prestigious,
forcreativity
(because participation
tieshad no effecton students'grades),or forspecificknowledge(because
scoreson a batteryof artsachievementtestshad no independentimpact
on gradesonce generalabilitywas controlled).Note thatculturalcapital
as muchas actual
and self-image
would seemto measureself-presentation
fields.We believethatthismeasureof cultural
expertisein high-culture
forthe explorcapital is the best one available and thatit is satisfactory
atorypurposesof the researchreportedhere. The principalresultof its
will be to bias its observedeffectsdownward.
imperfections
Let us now turn to a discussionof the othervariables used in the
analyses reportedbelow (see Appendix). Father's educationis father's
years of formaleducation, based on recodingof categoricalmeasures
(e.g., highschoolgraduate,somecollege,somegraduateschool).Father's
occupationalprestigeis theDuncan scoreforfather'soccupationin 1960.
Grades in English and in mathematicsare six-pointscales (from"less
Generalability
thanDs" through"all As") based on studentself-reports.
compositeof resultson a seriesof achievementand
is a Talent-generated
abilityteststhat behaves similarlyto othertestsof studentability(see
Jenckset al. 1979).
"FrequencyofTalk about FuturePlans" is a scale rangingfromzeroto
18. Respondentswere asked how manytimestheyhad discussedtheir
"plans for afterhigh school" with various people. Our measureis an
additivescale based on the numberof timestheyreportedhavingthese
conversationswiththeirteachers,schoolcounselors,and peers.
Outcomemeasuresfromthe Talent 11-yearfollow-upincludeeducationalattainmentin 1971,yearsof educationof the respondent'sspouse,
and dichotomousmeasuresindicatingwhetheror not the respondent(a)
attendedcollege, (b) completedcollege, and (c) receivedany graduate
training.
FINDINGS
Results are reportedas follows:First, forall male and femalerespondents,we reportthe impactof father'seducation,father'soccupational
prestige,measuredability,high school grades, and culturalcapital on
educationalattainmentand collegeattendance.5Second,forall menand
s Father'seducationis used as the onlyeducationalcontrolforfamilybackground
relatedto culturalcapitalformen(and onlyslightly
becauseit is muchmorestrongly
education.Also,we expectittobe a
lessstrongly
associatedforwomen)thanmother's
betterproxyof familyculturalclimatethan mother'seducation.We acknowledge
of educais a betterpredictor
thatmother'seducationalattainment
others'findings
1238
CulturalCapital
women with one or more years of college, we estimatethe effectsof
father'seducation;father'soccupationalprestige;measuredability;and
culturalcapital on college completion,graduateeducation,and educationalattainment.Finally,forall marriedmenand women,we assess the
effectsof generalability,culturalcapital, and own educationalattainmenton whomone marries,as measuredby spouse'seducationalattainment.In each case, separateanalysesofthefullsampleofrespondents
of
each genderare followedby disaggregatedanalysesin orderto testfor
interactions.6
Note that we do not attemptto estimatea completemodel of the

processesof educationalattainmentand maritalselection(whichwould
requireinclusionof a broaderrangeof backgroundand schoolvariables)
or of the role of status-culture
participationin these processes(which
would requirea richerand moredirectset of measuresof severaldimensionsofstatus-culture
participation).We attemptonlyto assess theextent
and natureoftheimpactof a singledimensionofstatus-culture
participation-familiaritywithand interestin highculture-on aspectsofeducationalattainmentand maritalselection.Our focushere,then,is on the
effectsand significance
of culturalcapital ratherthanon the parameters
of the model as a whole.
EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT AND COLLEGE ATTENDANCE
Hypotheses
First, we shall considertwo vital aspects of the stratification
process:
educational attainment,which all studies show to have a substantial
effecton occupational attainment,and college attendance,a crucial
thresholdincreasingly
requiredforsuccessin the worldof work(Collins
1971; Faia 1981).
HYPOTHESIS 1: Culturalcapitalhas a positiveneteffect
on educational
attainmentand collegeattendanceformen and women.
tional attainmentforwomen than father's(Sewell et al. 1980) and thatmother's"home
inputs"are moreimportantforthe educational achievementofyoungchildren(but not
adolescents) than fathers' (Leibowitz 1974b; Mercy and Steelman 1982; Murnane,
Maynard, and Ohls 1981). In the absence of definitivedata, however, we expect that
"cultured"women of the generationof the Talent sample's parentswere more likelyto
marrywell-educated men than to pursue educational credentialsthemselves.Consequently, we suspect that father'seducation is as good a proxy measure of mother's
status-cultureparticipationas mother'seducation itself.
6 We undertakeseparate analyses formen and women in all cases in the lightof other
studies reportingdifferencesin the stratificationprocess by gender (Sewell and Shah
1967; Alexander and Eckland 1974; Feathermanand Hauser 1976; Sewell et al. 1980).
DiMaggio (1982a) found variation between men and women of different
familybackgrounds in the effectsof cultural capital on high school grades.
1239
Culturalcapital is expectedto affectstudents'educationalattainments
by (a) increasing
and theirlikelihoodof attendingcollege significantly
forspecial help fromteachersand othergatekeepers,
theiropportunities
(b) permitting
themto develop generalizedreputationsas "culturedpersons," and (c) facilitatingaccess to social milieusin whicheducationis
is availabouteducationalopportunities
valued and in whichinformation
able. (Culturalcapitalis also expectedto have a positive,indirectimpact
on educationalattainmentand college attendancethroughits positive
effecton highschool grades.)
effects
ofculturalcapitalon high
DiMaggio (1982a) reportedsignificant
school grades. Bourdieu (1977a) treatsculturalcapital as cumulative,
arguingthat the greaterthe early endowment,the easier the further
acquisition. It is possible, of course, that individuals are sufficiently
plasticthattheeffectsofthismeasurewould notpersistintoearlyadultin thelongitudinalanaleffects
hood. Nevertheless,we predictpersistent
yses reportedhere.
on the educational
HYPOTHESIS 2: Culturalcapital has similareffects
attainmentand collegeattendanceof men and of women.
Otherresearchershave reportedthatwomenrelyon ascriptivecharacteristics(e.g., father'seducation) in educational attainment,whereas
men's educational attainmentis more dependenton measured ability
(Alexanderand Eckland 1974; Sewell, Hauser, and Wolf 1980). We do
not know whetherthis is true because women are judged moreon the
performance
(diffuseness
basis oftheir"selves"thanon theirtask-specific
in Parsonianterms)or because womensucceedon thebasis
vs. specificity,
of the resourcesand reputationsof theirfamiliesinstead of theirown
(ascriptionvs. achievement).If the formeris true,we would expectcultural capital-an achieved but diffusely
relevantattributeof the social
self-to have greatereffectsforwomenthanformen. If thelatteris, we
would expecttheeffectsofculturalcapitalto be about equal formenand
women.
HYPOTHESIS 3: The net impactof culturalcapital on educationalattainmentand college attendance is greater for daughtersof higheducationmen than fordaughtersof low-educationmen.
HYPOTHESIS4: The net impactof culturalcapital on educationalattainmentand collegeattendanceis greaterforsonsoflow-educationmen
thanforsons of high-education
men.
Bourdieu(1977b) has arguedthat(forFrance) the efficacyof cultural
interestsis dependenton the backgroundof theirpossessorand that
individualsof higherclass positionpossessa moreauthenticrelationship
to culturethanthosein less privilegedgroups.In thisculturalreproduction view, a positiveinteractionbetweenfamilybackgroundmeasures
and culturalcapital is expected. DiMaggio (1982a), in a studyof the
1240
CulturalCapital
effectsof culturalcapital on highschoolgrades,foundsome supportfor
this view forwomen's achievement.But he also foundthat, forboys,
cultural capital had its strongestimpact on grades for sons of least
educatedmen. He interpreted
thisas an indicationthattheacquisitionof
socializationintothe
culturalcapitalis, forboys,an aspectofanticipatory
middleclass. In this culturalmobilitymodel, then,we would expecta
negativeinteractionbetweenbackgroundmeasuresand culturalcapital
in predictingeducationalattainment.7
HYPOTHESIS5: Culturalcapital has a positivenet effecton conversations about futureplans with teachers,counselors,and peers forboth
men and women.
Recall thatwe arguethatculturalcapitalassistsstudentsbyfacilitating
interactionwith high-statusothers, consequentlyincreasingthe frequencyof such interactions.In the initialTalent survey,studentswere
asked how oftentheyspoke with othersabout theirpost-highschool
plans. We expectculturalcapitalto be associatedwithfrequencyofconversationwithteachersand school counselorsabout futureplans. Also,
because we anticipateculturalcapitalto facilitateparticipation
in student
milieusthatvalue education,we expectitto be positivelyassociatedwith
frequencyof such conversationswithpeers.
Results
Resultsof OLS regressionanalysisforthe fullmale and femalesamples
are displayedin table 1. Distributionson the binaryvariablesweresplit
fairlyevenly,and logisticregressionanalysesyieldedresultsthat were
identicalto theOLS findings.Consequently,we presentthe
substantively
OLS resultsherein theinterestofcomparability
and simplicity
ofpresentation(see Cohen and Cohen 1975).
Culturalcapital has a stronglysignificant
(P < .001) effecton both
educationalattainmentand collegeattendance-withfather'seducation,
gradesin mathematics
and English,and measuredabilitycontrolled-for
bothmen and women. Hypothesis1, then,receivesstrongsupport.For
bothgenders,theeffectof culturalcapitalon educationalattainment
and
collegeattendanceis greaterthantheeffects
offather'seducationor high
school grades. For women, the effectof culturalcapital is more than
three-fifths
thatof measuredability.8
7 We acknowledge the possibility,however, thatthe materialconstraintson the ability
of sons of low-education fathersto pay for college may diminishthis effect(e.g., see
Benson [1982] on the relativeinefficacyof home inputsin boostingthe achievementof
low-incomechildren).
8
Input forthe regressionanalyses are correlationmatriceswithpairwise deletion. The
only variable forwhich therewas a substantial percentageof missingcases (23% for
1241
*
X
H)
~-0
*
*
,O Ce
O ?0
E-
*o
(N0~)
00w)
00~~~~~~-~~~
00~~~~~
*
*
*
u)
*?a
*t
*
"j
-4
C-
*
*
00
C7
0
*e
*^
-4
-'-4
I~~~~~~~~~'
000
000
C7
0c-
E
C
00H-~
t,
Nm
t
o0
X
H0-I)
ooooo
Ur
o*
00w)
n
00o-o
*-
*-
d0
*0NC
*~0
t-
-4
000
*O
00
Io
oo
-O
d
z?
N
X
c~
N~C
004--I c
0
N
? t e N
H
Cl
C-q
C/)
~C ~
~~~~~~~~)
H z-~00~r
Z/
<r
H_
H
X
u
~*o
*
11
)C
~~~~
~~~I I
"O "O
**
*
CD O
CD-CDO
_
oCDoCo
*o
"O0
to
\o
CI t-
O N
"O
00
00
--
It
ce
t
*<b
oC
(N
CN
t
Ot
*CD
"t
E-4
00
O)
OCD c-0N
1-
) I -
I"'t
*o-
CD
(N
'
00
;
*
*o
0*cN0O
*oN
*S
b
-
0t-ooN
CD(N
zb
0c0] * 12 bw
_t)
't
*t
*
(N*00
O
t
It
*
*
*
4
*
*
00*(N
O
CD
Cl)
nbfC
*o
*
' 00N
*
*
*
of)
~00
c
C
(D
CD
C-q00~ ,
zO
,O
*
*
*
*
*( o
*
*
*
Ev
uz
o)
~-
f=(
*
*
*
00
ItC
00~'
c N
*
*
*
Hv
0-
*_0~'
00
00
~~~~~oo
*00;
*00z
=*
W
CulturalCapital
TABLE 2
UNSTANDARDIZED COEFFICIENTS AND STANDARD ERRORS FROM DISAGGREGATED
ANALYSES FOR ALL MEN AND WOMEN
MEN
SUBSAMPLE
POPED1 (less than highschool

diploma) ..........................
POPED2 (highschooldiploma and vocationalschool) ...........
...........
POPED3 (at least some college) ........
WOMEN
EDATT
COLATT
EDATT
COLATT
.453***
.083
.081***
.021
.347***
.064
.102***
.017
.354***
.107
.105***
.023
.308***
.091
.065**
.022
.240*
.117
.029
.021
.472***
.111
.102***
.026
NOTE.-Results are fromthe disaggregatedanalysesoftheeffectsofculturalcapital (CULTCAP) on

educationalattainment(EDATT) and college attendance(COLATT) by subsamplesbased on father's
education(POPED), withall otherindependentvariablescontrolled.
*P
.05.
** P '
01.
*** P '
.001.
Althoughthe effectof culturalcapital relativeto measuredgeneral

abilityis greaterforwomenthanmen,thisis because theeffectofability
beis significantly
greaterformen than women.In fact,the differences
The metric
tweenthe coefficients
of culturalcapital are not significant.
coefficient
forthe effectof culturalcapital on educationalattainmentis
greaterformen, whereas the coefficient
forthe effecton collegeattendance is greaterforwomen. Incrementto R2 is comparableforeducationalattainmentbut greaterforwomenforcollegeattendance.Consequently,table 1 providessome supportforhypothesis2.
Unstandardizedcoefficients
and standarderrorsof culturalcapital by
subsampleare reportedin table 2. (Completeregressionresultsforthese
modelsand forthosein tables6 and 8 are available on request.)For men,
culturalcapital provesmost importantforsons of moderatelyeducated
fathers(thosewith high school diplomas but no collegeeducation)and
least importantforsons of collegemen, withthedifference
in effectson
botheducationalattainmentand collegeattendanceforthesetwo groups
men and 16% forwomen) was culturalcapital, which, because it is a scale, is sensitive
to item nonresponse. To test forbias stemmingfromcorrelationof nonresponsewith
othervariables in our model, we ran separate regressions,using a dummyvariable for
missing data and coding missing cases as zeros on cultural capital (see Cohen and
Cohen 1975, chap. 7). These testsrevealed no importantbias derivingfromthe use of
the pairwise matrix.
1243
TABLE
UNSTANDARDIZED
STANDARDIZED
COEFFICIENTS,
STANDARD
FROM REGRESSIONS
COEFFICIENTS
ERRORS, AND
OF FREQUENCY
OF
TALK ABOUT COLLEGE

MEN
VARIABLE
FUTALK
.0679
.........
POPED
PPRES .......... .
GRADESE ......
GRADESM ...... .
INTERCEPT
....
df .............
2 .
-.0137
.0615
.0423
0085
.0053
.0073
.0055
.0048
.0300
- .0144
.0481
FUTALK
-.0261
.0299
- .0276
.0066
.0048
.0433
.0490
.0306
0037***
.0038***
.0057***
.0054***
.0009
.1228
.0009
.1271
.0009
.1899
.0009
.1801
.1664
.0184
.3363***
.2475*
.1073
.0506
.1051
.0056
.0951
.1138
.0968
.0837
.1112
.0276
.0373
.1001
.0354
.0863
.0100
.0858
.0136
1065
...
......
.0467
FUTALK
.0345
.1034
.0334
CULTCAP
FUTALK
.0355
.0056
GENERAL ...... .
WOMEN
2.4509
1.0102***
.1088
.2528
-1.9435
...
2.5831
.3997***
.0939
.1183
.9440
1270
1269
1337
1336
0460
.1066
.0773
.0896
NOTE -Results are fromregressions

offrequencyoftalk about collegewithteachers,
counselors,and peers(FUTALK) on father'seducation(POPED), father'soccupational
prestige(PPRES), generalability(GENERAL), gradesin English(GRADESE), grades
in mathematics(GRADESM), and culturalcapital (CULTCAP) forall men and women
in Talent sample.
*
**
P '
.05.
P ' .01.
*** P '
.001.
approaching significance.Among women, the cultural reproduction

modelis notsupported.The resultsforeducationalattainment
are in the
predicteddirection(strongereffectsforhigh-statuswomen)but not significantly
so.
Consistentwithhypothesis5, table 3 showsthatculturalcapitalhas a
ofthefrequency
substantialindependentimpacton students'self-reports
with which theydiscussedfutureplans with teachers,counselors,and
1244
CulturalCapital
peers. For men, the effectsare particularlystriking:b = .253, nearly
effectofmeasuredability.For women,theimpactof
twicethesignificant
culturalcapital on talk about plans is moremodest(b = .118), but also
significant,
amountingto morethan halfthe effectof measuredability.
Analyses,by father'seducation, of the effectof culturalcapital on
discussionsof futureplans indicatethat the effectof culturalcapital is
particularly
strongforsonsoftheleasteducatedfathers,forwhomcollege
attendanceis presumablymostproblematic(tablesavailable on request).
For women,theeffectof culturalcapitalon talkabout thefutureis least
amongdaughtersofmen who attendedcollegeand greaterfordaughters
are notsignificant,
ofless well educatedmen. Althoughthesedifferences
theydo suggestthe possibilitythat culturalcapital is most useful in
enablingstudentsto interacteasilyacross social boundariesratherthan
withinthem.
CULTURAL CAPITAL AND THE OUTCOMES OF HIGHER

EDUCATION
Hypotheses
HYPOTHESIS 6: Amongmenand womenwho have matriculated,
cultural
capital has a significant

impact(netof familybackgroundand measured
ability)on college completion,graduateeducation,and educationalattainment.
Despitethesignificant
effects
ofculturalcapitalon collegeentry,itdoes
not necessarilyfollowthat culturalcapital will similarlypredicteducationaloutcomesamongthosestudentswho do go on to college.Research
indicatingstronglong-term
effectsof collegeeducationon attitudes(see
Hyman and Wright[1979] and Meyer [1970] on "chartering")suggests
that the experienceof college mightmoderateor eliminatepreexisting
variationin the possessionof valued culturalresources.If thiswere the
case, we wouldnotexpectculturalcapital,as measuredin highschool,to
influencethe educational attainmentsof college students,except indirectlythroughitsimpacton matriculation.
If, however,culturalcapitalis
a stableattribute(or ifitsrateofincreaseis dependenton itsinitiallevel),
we would expectculturalcapitalto influence
theeducationalattainments
of college studentsand theirchances of attendinggraduateprograms.
Indeed, if Bourdieu's contentionthat culturalcapital is valued more
highlyin the highereducationalsystemthan elsewhereapplies to the
UnitedStates,returnsto culturalcapitalcouldbe particularly
highforthe
college-attending
subsamples.
HYPOTHESIS 7: The impactof culturalcapitalon collegecompletionis
greaterforwomenthanformen.
1245
Women are less likelythan men to completecollege educations.An
equal percentageof men and womenwho have earnedtheirB.A.'s enter
graduateprograms,but far more women drop out beforeearningadvanced degrees(Alexanderand Eckland 1974; Sewell and Shah 1967).
Withincollege,womenare morelikelythanmento take"soft"or humanisticcoursesof study(Kellyand Nihlen 1982;Jencksand Riesman 1977)
to choose
and, accordingto one suggestivestudyof an eliteuniversity,
skillsand a warm,affecmajordepartments
thatemphasizeinterpersonal
tive climate (Hearn and Olzak 1981). Generalizedculturalresources
of success in humanistic
should be particularlyimportantdeterminants
majors and in departmentsthat emphasize personalisticrelationsbetweenfacultyand students.
graduateproHYPOTHESIS 8: The effectof culturalcapitalon entering
gramsis strongerformen thanforwomen.
DiMaggio (1982a) arguedthatculturalcapitalappeared,because of its
relativelyhighcorrelationswithparentalsocioeconomicstatusand measuredability,to be normatively
sanctionedforhighschoolgirls.If thisis
correct,culturalcapital may be less usefulfor women who overcame
genderstereotyping,
especiallyin the social climate of the mid-1960s
(Thorntonand Freedman1979;Lueptow 1980),bypursuingtheirformal
educationbeyondcollege.We see fewgroundsforpredictingdifferences
in effectsof culturalcapital on collegematriculants'educationalattainmentby gender.
HYPOTHESIS 9: The effectof culturalcapital on college completion,
is greaterforsonsofless
graduateeducation,and educationalattainment
well educatedmen.
Sons and daughtersfromlow-educationfamiliesare relativelyunlikely
to attendcollege. Those who do attendmay be overselected(Bourdieu
1977b);thatis, theymay possessspecial traitsthatgive theman advanclassmateswhose matriculationhas been
tage over higher-background
taken forgranted.If this is true,we would expect(a) the tendencyfor
culturalcapital to have a strongereffecton the attainmentof highbackgroundwomen to be reduced or eliminatedamong the collegemen to
attendingsample and (b) the tendencyof lower-background
benefitmorefromculturalcapital to be increased.9
9 We expected to findstrongeffectsof culturalcapital on college quality and of college
quality on college completionand otheroutcome measures. Such findingshave been
commonin otherstudiesof college quality effects(Griffinand Alexander 1978; Karabel
and McClelland 1983). With the help ofJeromeKarabel and KatherineMcClelland of
the Huron Instituteand Laurie Steele of Project Talent, we mergedthe Talent college
codes with the former'sHuron InstitutionalFile, which containsa varietyof measures
of college quality. Analysis of the mergeddata revealed many cases forwhich college
qualitymeasures were not available. Use of a correlationmatrixwithpairwise deletion
revealed modest and inconsistentcollege quality effects. Use of listwise deletion
1246
CulturalCapital
TABLE 4
UNSTANDARDIZED COEFFICIENTS, STANDARD ERRORS, AND STANDARDIZED
COEFFICIENTS FROM REGRESSIONS FOR COLLEGE MEN
COMPLETE
Variable
COMPLETE
GRADED
GRADED
EDATT
EDATT
.0091
.0056
.0643
.0076
.0056
.0538
.0039
.0057
.0279
.0016
.0057
.0116
.0357
.0197
.0720
.0259
.0194
.0522
PPRES
.0007
.0009
.0305
.0007
.0009
.0309
.0003
.0009
.0152
.0003
.0009
.0158
.0040
.0030
.0527
.0040
.0029
.0534
GENERAL.
.0015***
.0002
3421
.0015***
.0001
3404
.0014***
.0002
3086
.0013***
.0002
.3059
0053***
.0005
.3432
.0052***
.0005
.3399
POPED.
CULTCAP ....
INTERCEPT
..
...
-.3760
df.767
.1366
.0467**
.0165
.0951
-.6008
...
-.4485
.0733***
.0167
.1490
-.8011
...
12.3157
3121***
.0570
1805
10.8132
766
767
766
767
766
.1456
.1018
.1238
.1463
.1785
NOTE.-Results are from regressionsof college completion(COMPLETE), graduate training

(GRADED), and educationalattainment
(EDATT) on father'seducation(POPED), father'soccupational
prestige(PPRES), generalability(GENERAL), and culturalcapital (CULTCAP)
*P '
05
01
*** P ' .001
**
P -
Results
Tables 4 and 5 reportresultsof OLS regression
analysesfortheeffects
of
father'seducation;measuredgeneralability;and culturalcapital on collegecompletion,graduateeducation,and educationalattainment
formen
and women with at least one year of college. As was the case above,
because binarydependentvariables are evenlydistributedand because
logisticregressionresultswere substantivelyidentical,we reportOLS
findingsto simplifythe presentation.
Culturalcapitalhas significant
effects
on all outcomemeasuresforboth
showed somewhat strongercollege quality effects(albeit still substantiallyless strong
than those found in otherstudies) but with a set of respondentsthatdifferedconsiderably from the sample. And a dummy-variableanalysis (with dummy variables for
missingdata in the same equation as the main effects[Cohen and Cohen 1975, pp.
271-79]) revealed substantial bias resultingfrompairwise deletionof missingdata on
college quality. Consequently,we dropped college quality fromthe analysis. We hope
that otherstudies of the educational effectsof dimensionsof status-cultureparticipation will have more adequate data on college quality.
1247
TABLE 5
UNSTANDARDIZED COEFFICIENTS, STANDARD ERRORS, AND STANDARDIZED
COEFFICIENTS FROM REGRESSIONS FOR COLLEGE WOMEN
Variable
POPED .......
PPRES .........
COMPLETE
o0101
.0074
.0737
CULTCAP ....
0008
.0006
.0011
...........
.0289
GRADED
GRADED
.0091
.0071
.0709
.0085
.0071
.0663
EDATT
-.0011
-.0017
.0011
.0011
.0033
- .0569
.0433*
.0213
.1065
.0459*
.0215
.1129
-.0010
- .0511
EDATT
- .0266
-.0022
.0033
- .0346
.0015***
.0015***
.0011***
.0011***
.0050***
.0050***
.0002
.2850
.0002
.2846
.0002
.2278
.0002
.2275
.0006
.3269
.0006
.3265
...
INTERCEPT .. -.4488
df...........
.0093
.0073
.0676
.0011
.0364
GENERAL.
COMPLETE
.0683***
.0206
.1351
-.8458
...
-.4060
.0491*
.0200
.1034
-.6916
..
12.0995
.2123***
.0603
.1417
10.8648
530
529
530
529
530
529
.1066
.1247
.0575
0681
.1306
.1506
NOTE.-Results
are from regressionsof college completion(COMPLETE), graduate training
(GRADED), and educationalattainment
(EDATT) on father'seducation(POPED), father'soccupational
prestige(PPRES), generalability(GENERAL), and culturalcapital (CULTCAP).
* P _ .05.
* P
.01.
*** P ' .001.
genders.For both men and women, the effectsof culturalcapital are

largerthanthoseoffather'seducation.For women,theimpactofcultural
capitalon all threeoutcomesis between43% and 48% ofthatofmeasured
ability.For men,theculturalcapital effectrangesfromjust overa quarterof theimpactof measuredabilityon collegecompletionto morethan
halfof the abilityeffecton educationalattainment.These findingsprovide strongsupportforthe predictionsof hypothesis6.
If we comparetheeffectsofculturalcapitalon educationalattainment
forthecollegesampleto thoseforthefullsample,we see littleindication
that the effectsof college socializationmoderatevariationin cultural
capital and consequentlyreduce its effects.While unstandardizedbeta
coefficients
are substantiallylower forthe college group (reflecting
the
truncatedrangeof educationalattainmentfortheserespondents),standardizedcoefficients
are onlyslightly
lowerformenand about30% lower
forwomen. These findingsare consistentwiththe conclusionthat students who pursue elite culturalinterestsand activitiesin high school
maintaintheirrelativeadvantagethroughout
the collegeyears.
1248
CulturalCapital
TABLE 6
UNSTANDARDIZED
COEFFICIENTS
ANALYSES
AND STANDARD
FOR COLLEGE
MEN
ERRORS FROM DISAGGREGATED

AND WOMEN
WOMEN
MEN
EDATT
COMPLETE
GRADED
.082*
.108***
.438***
POPED2 (highschooldiploma .060
.060
.294**
.043
.035
.110
POPED3 (at least some
-.031
.019
.117
.028
.031
.112
SUBSAMPLE
POPED1 (less than high
schooldiploma) ..........
.....s
and vocational SChOO)
college) ...................
.032
.029
.107
COMPLETE
.034
GRADED
.007
EDATT
.092
.013
.134
.095**
.065
.292**
.036
.036
.104
.044
.084*
.043
.196*
.036
.037
.095
ofculturalcapitalon collegecompletion
NOTE.-Results are fromdisaggregatedanalysesoftheeffects
(COMPLETE), graduateeducation(GRADED), and educationalattainment(EDATT) by subsamples
based on father'seducation(POPED), withotherindependentvariablescontrolled.
*P '
**
.05.
P ' .01.
*** P '
.001.
The differences
in effects
on collegecompletionand graduateeducation
in the directionpredictedby hypotheses7
men
and
are
between
women
As predicted,theimpact
significant.
and 8, but theyare not statistically
of culturalcapital on men's collegeoutcomesis negativelyand linearly
relatedto father'seducation(see table 6). For each outcome,the effects
are greatestamong sons of men who did not graduatefromhighschool
and notsignificant
amongsonsofmenwithat leastsomecollegetraining.
forsons oftheleast
In each case, thedifference
betweenbeta coefficients
at the.05 level. The strength
and mosteducatedmenis nearlysignificant
outcomemeasuresproand monotonicity
of thispatternacrossdifferent
vide some supportforhypothesis9.
Also as expected,the advantage of women fromthe most educated
familiesin returnsto culturalcapital is moderatedamong the collegeattendinggroup,withslightlyhighereffectsfordaughtersof highschool
graduateswithoutcollegethanfordaughtersof collegemen.
CULTURAL CAPITAL AND MARITALSELECTION
Hypotheses
relatedto
HYPOTHESIS10: Culturalcapital is positivelyand significantly
spouse's educationformen and women,when own education,father's
education,and measuredabilityare controlled.
From an exchangeperspective,we would expectmen and womento
desireeducated spouses because such spouses are likelyto have greater
1249
earningpower,to be presentablein higher-prestige
social circles,and to
have broaderand moreinfluential
social networksthanmenand women
withless education(Fischer 1982). Followingthislogic, we expectculofone's
turalcapitalto be relatedpositivelyto theeducationalattainment
spouse,bothindirectly
(throughitspositiveeffecton own education)and
directly,because men and womenwithculturalcapital have an advantage in developingrelationshipswithpersonsof highsocial rank.
HYPOTHESIS 11: The impactof culturalcapital on whomone marries
is comparableformen
(as measuredby spouse's educationalattainment)
and women.
Froman exchangeperspective,we mightexpectculturalcapitalto play
a strongerrole in the marital prospectsof women, because women's
educationalattainmentis less than thatof men and because womenare
less likelyto controlotherresourcesusefulin economicexchange. In
contrast,fromthe matchingperspectivementionedearlier,we would
expectsimilareffectsforbothgenders,fordiffuseculturalresourcesprovide a basis forintimacy.
HYPOTHESIS 12: The impactof culturalcapital on whomone marries
(as measured by spouse's educational attainment)is greatestfor lowstatusmen and forhigh-status
women.
Culturalcapitalcould be used bymenand womenfromlow-education
familiesto "marryup" or by men and women fromhigh-education
familiesto consolidatetheirclass positions.On the basis of our earlier
findings,we anticipatethatthe relationshipvaries by gender.
Results
Testing these hypothesesraises problemsof specification,in that the
expectationthat partnersmatch each other's characteristicsimplies
in theeffectsof own educationand thatofthespouse. Fursimultaneity
because spouse'seducationservesas a proxyforotherqualities
thermore,
(e.g., culturalcapital) thatmake a man or a woman a desirablespouse,
thereis possiblesimultaneity
betweenotherattributesof the respondent
and spouse's education.Because simultaneity
is likelyto be greatestbetween own education and spouse's education, the misspecification
is
likelyto inflatetheeffectsofown educationon thatofthespouseand, in
so doing,to bias downwardtheestimatesoftheeffects
ofculturalcapital
and otherindependentvariables.Because we are concernedherewiththe
effectsof culturalcapital and not withthe parametersof themodelas a
forculturalcapital and rewhole, we directattentionto the coefficients
10
gardtheuse ofOLS regressionas a conservativetestofour hypotheses.
10 Efforts
to undertaketwo-stageleast squaresanalysesin responseto thisproblem
1250
CulturalCapital
TABLE 7
UNSTANDARDIZED
STANDARDIZED
COEFFICIENTS,
MARRIED
STANDARD
MEN
AND
ERRORS,
FROM REGRESSIONS
COEFFICIENTS
FOR ALL
AND WOMEN
WOMEN
MEN
SPOUSED
.......
.0291
.0152
.0520
.0279
.0152
.0500
.0829***
.0201
.1112
.0795***
.0201
.1067
PPRES ........
.0039
.0024
.0446
.0036
.0024
.0408
.0087**
.0032
.0723
.0087**
.0032
.0724
0005
POPED
GENERAL
EDATT
........
CULTCAP
....
INTERCEPT
df ...........
2 ............
SPOUSED
SPOUSED
SPOUSED
VARIABLE
.0007
.0024***
.0023***
.0004
.0347
.0004
.0470
.0006
.1029
.0006
.0995
4403***
.0242
.4181***
.0249
.6317***
.0359
.6100***
.0370
.5236
.4972
.4691
.4529
...
.1717***
.0494
.0845
...
.1511*
.0629
.0569
6.1061
5.4754
2.8133
3.1816
1214
1213
1263
1262
.3353
.3419
.3768
.3796
NOTE.-Results are from regressionsof spouse's educational attainment

(SPOUSED) on father'seducation (POPED), father'soccupational prestige
(PPRES), generalability(GENERAL), own educationalattainment(EDATT),
and culturalcapital (CULTCAP)
* P ' .05.
** P
.01.
*** P '
.001.
Regressionanalysesof spouse's educationon father'seducation,measured ability,own education,and culturalcapital formen and women
indicatethat,forbothgenders,culturalcapital has a highlysignificant,
albeitmodest,directimpacton spouse'seducationalattainment
(table 7).
In addition,it has a largerindirecteffectthroughown educationalattainment.For men,the unstandardizedcoefficient
of thedirectplus indirect
is
effectis .3842; forwomen,the total effectunstandardizedcoefficient
in
thatwerebotheffective
becauseoftheabsenceofinstruments
werenotsuccessful,
withtheerror
owneducationand, at thesametime,plausiblyuncorrelated
predicting
spouse'seducationalattainment.
termoftheequationpredicting
1251
TABLE 8
UNSTANDARDIZED COEFFICIENTS AND STANDARD ERRORS FROM
DISAGGREGATED ANALYSES FOR MARRIED MEN AND WOMEN
SPOUSED
Men
SUBSAMPLE
POPED1 (less than highschool diploma).

POPED2 (highschool diploma and vocational
school) ................................
POPED3 (at least some college) ......
......
Women
.2430** .0359
.0746
.0943
.1338
.1029
.1587
.1203
.2941**
.1092
.4454*
.1736
NOTE.-Results are fromdisaggregatedanalyses of the effectsof cultural

capital on spouse'seducation(SPOUSED) by subsamplesbased on father'sedu(COLATT), with
cation(POPED) and own collegeattendanceor nonattendance
otherindependentvariablescontrolled.
*P
.05.
** P
.01.
*** P '
.001.
.4006 (tables available on request). These findingslend supportto hyofculturalcapitalis greaterthanthe

pothesis10. For men,thecoefficient
effectsof father'seducation and measured ability. For women, the
coefficient
of culturalcapital is smallerthantheeffectsof measuredabilityor father'seducation.Father'seducation,measuredability,and own
educationalattainmentare all betterpredictorsoftheeducationalattainmentsofhusbandsthanof wives,suggesting
thateducationalattainment
is a poorerproxyforwhatevermakes a woman a desirablespouse than
forthe desirablequalitiesof husbands.
The net effectsof culturalcapital on spouse's educationare approximatelyequal forwomenand men,lendingtentativesupportto hypothesis
11 and to a view of culturalcapital as permitting
intimacybetween
potentialmatesinsteadof actingas a generalizedmediumofexchangein
the maritalmarketplace.
Hypothesis12 receiveslittlesupport(see table 8). The effectsof culturalcapital on spouse's educationare strongerfordaughtersof college
men and high school graduatesthan forwomen whose fathersdid not
For
completehighschool,but thedifferences
onlyapproachsignificance.
in effectsare again in the predicteddirection,with
men,the differences
culturalcapital havingthestrongest
effectson spouse'seducationforthe
sons of highschool dropouts,but theydo not approachsignificance.
During the 1960s, women'scollege attendanceincreasedand women
began to explorenew occupationalroles(Thorntonand Freedman1979;
1252
CulturalCapital
Lueptow 1980). We anticipatedfindingtwo separatestrategiesof mobilityforwomen: a traditionalpatternbased on attainmentthroughmarriageand a less traditionalone via one's own education.It was expected
thatwomenwho enteredbut failedto completecollegewould relymore
on culturalcapital in maritalselectionthan eitherwomenwho did not
attendcollegeat all (and thushad somewhatless access to menlikelyto
value culturalcapital) or womenwho completedcollege(who were less
likelyto adhereto traditionalconceptsof thefeminineroleand who had
more earningpower to offerin maritalexchange).These expectations
were correct:culturalcapital and spouse's education were correlated
.1991 forwomencollegedropouts,comparedto .1071 forwomenwho did
not matriculateand only .0561 forwomen college graduates.We also
strongamongdaughexpectedthatthisassociationwould be particularly
tersofhighlyeducatedmen,forwhomcollegegraduationwas likelyto be
a moreclearlyavailable option.Again, thisexpectationwas confirmed.
For nongraduates among college-goingdaughters of non-collegeattendingmen,the correlationof culturalcapital and spouse'seducation
was only .0636. In contrast,among college graduates'daughterswho
enteredbut did not completecollege,the correlationbetweencultural
capital and spouse's education was .4169. Consequently,we conclude
strategyof
that maritalattainmentvia culturalcapital was a preferred
families.
womenfromhigh-education
mobilityfortradition-minded
DISCUSSION
We began by focusingon Weber'sclassicdistinction
betweenclass (market position)and status, notingthat most studiesof the stratification
process only have measures of the former.To the extentthat status
culturesare not firmly
groundedin boundedstatusgroupsconsistingof
individualswithcommonmarketpositions,separatemeasuresof statuscultureparticipation
are necessaryforaddressinga numberofanomalous
literature.
findingsin the stratification
We exploredtheutilityofthisview, usingdata on one aspectofstatuscultureparticipation-familiarity
with and interestin high culturetaken froma cross sectionof U.S. high school studentssurveyedby
ProjectTalent in 1960 and followedup 11 yearslater. The expectation
thatstatus-culture
participationdirectlyaffectseducationaland marital
outcomesfor men and women was stronglyconfirmed.The effectof
culturalcapital on everyoutcomemeasurewe investigated(educational
attainment,collegeattendance,collegecompletion,graduateeducation,
and maritalselection)was significantly
positiveforbothmenand women.
Indeed, foreveryoutcomeexceptspouse's education,the standardized
coefficient
of culturalcapital was largerthan that of any independent
1253
ofculturalcapitalas
variableexceptmeasuredability.Our interpretation
a conversationalresourcewas supportedby the stronglysignificant
imof the extentto
pact of culturalcapital on eleventhgraders'self-reports
which theydiscussedtheirfutureplans with teachers,counselors,and
peers.The effectof culturalcapitalthroughcollegeand beyondsupports
Bourdieu's view of it as anchoredin a stable set of dispositionsthat
emergebeforeadulthood.
The most importantfindingof our separate analyses for men and
women is the greatsimilarityin the effectsof culturalcapital between
genders. When the male and female samples were disaggregatedby
father'seducationallevel, some modestdifferences
emerged.For men,a
culturalmobilityhypothesisseems worthyof furtherinvestigation,
because theimpactof culturalcapitalon all measuresofeducationalattainmentis least forsons of the most-educatedfathers.
The strikingsimilarity
in the effectsof culturalcapital on the educationaland maritaloutcomesof men and womenleads us to questionthe
conventionalassertionthatwomen'sattainment
is based on morediffuse
and particularistic
tend to be
qualities than men's. Such formulations
based on studiesthatpresentfindings
forwomenonly(e.g., studiesofthe
effectsof physicalattractiveness
on mate selection)or thatassume that
demographicvariables are proxiesfordiffuseattributesof the self. In
contrast,we would distinguish
betweenascriptivecriteria(based on familystatus,whichis moreimportantforwomen)and diffusepersonalistic
criteria(such as culturalcapital, which may be equally importantfor
men). Despite the ample supplyof culturalstereotypes
about feminine
wiles, we interpretthis evidence as suggestingthat diffuseaspects of
personalstyleare no moreimportantto the lifechancesof womenthan
theyare to thoseof men.
This pointcan be seen mostclearlyin thefindings
on maritalselection.
Father's education(an ascriptivecriterion)has a significantly
stronger
effecton spouse'seducationforwomenthanformen.But culturalcapital
(a diffusecriterion)
has similareffects
forbothgenders.This suggeststhat
"maritalmarkets"may best be characterizedas matches,in whichboth
spousesdesireintimacybased on culturalsimilarity,
insteadofas generalized exchangesin which any "good" can be exchangedforany other.
Althoughwe do not deny the possibilitythat certainincommensurable
"goods" (e.g., attractiveness
and earnings)are regularlyexchanged,we
suggestthat futureresearchshould identifywhich "resources"are exchanged(and amongwhichsubpopulations)and whichare matched.Our
resultsalso illustratethevalue of comparativestudyofthemaritalselectionprocessformen and women.
Finally,we demonstrated
thattheeffectsof culturalcapital on educa1254
CulturalCapital
tionaland maritaloutcomesweresignificant
netoftheeffects
ofsocioeconomicbackgroundas measuredby father'seducationand father'soccupational prestige,variables selectedbecause theyare the demographic
measuresmostlikelyto be associatedwithfamilyculturalcapital. Entering culturalcapital intoour modelsintroducedvirtuallyno reductionof
the impact of father'seducationand occupationalprestigeon spouse's
of thesebackeducation,a verysmall (5%-15%) reductionin theeffects
groundvariableson mostoutcomemeasures,and somewhatgreaterreductionsof the small effectsof father'seducationon educationalattainmentand graduateeducationformale collegestudents.This strengthens
our convictionthat conventionalsociodemographic
statusmeasuresare
poorproxiesforfamilyculturalclimateand thatculturalcapitaldoes not
offamilyeconomicclass position.Nonetheless,
simplymediatetheeffects
thisconclusionis tentative,pendinga fullinvestigation
oftheimpactofa
broaderrangeof measuresof familybackgroundon culturalcapital.
Disaggregatedanalysesdid reveal small differences
in the role of cultural capital in the attainmentprocessformen and womenof varying
socioeconomicbackgrounds.As we have noted,the impactof cultural
capital is slightlygreateron the educationalattainmentof sons of less
well-educatedfathers.The evidencealso suggeststhatamongtraditionmindedupper-middle-class
women, culturalcapital may play an especially importantrole in attractingwell-educatedhusbands. These findings demonstratethe importanceof investigating
alternativestrategies
of mobilityamong different
classes and even among different
segments
of the same social class (see Bourdieu 1977b; Karabel and McClelland
1983).
IMPLICATIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH
We hope thattheseconsistentand robustfindingsacross severaleducationaland maritaloutcomemeasuresforbothmenand womenwill provide convincingevidencethat the perspectiveadvanced here has merit
and thatnondemographic
measuresofstatus-culture
participation
should
be incorporatedinto models of the stratification
process. We findthe
effectsof our one imperfectmeasuresuggestiveand believe that better
measuresof severaldimensionsof status-culture
participationwill show
strongeffectson theseand otherstratification
outcomes.
In particular,we woulddistinguish
betweenculturalcapital,definedas
thecontentofprestigiousstatuscultures,and communicative
competence
as styleof discourse(includingnonverbalcues, accent, and pacing of
speech [Hymes 1964]). Only one study,Erickson and Schultz's(1982)
researchon junior college student-counselor
encounters,has measured
1255
Conventional
demographic
of
measures
ability
outcomes
background
to:
Revised
ability
demographic
measures
of
family
background
cultural
measures
of
family
background
-*cultural
capital
social
(network)
resources
outcomes
communicative
competence
FIG. 1. -Conventional
and revised attainment models
boththe contentand styleof talk directlyand independently.

Each was
foundto have an independentand positiveimpacton theoutcomesofthe
encountersobservedby the authors.
In thispaper, we restricted
our attentionto positivelyvalued cultural
resources.It is possiblethatnegativelyvalued culturalstyles(e.g., punk
influencethestratification
life-styles)
processin comparablebut opposite
ways. (For suggestiveevidencefromSweden, see Roe 1983.) This possibilitydeservesanalyticattention.
An underlying
ofstatusassumptionofour argumentis thattheeffects
cultureparticipation
are mediatedbycharacteristics
ofindividuals'social
networks:theirsize, the statusof theirmembers,and the facilitywith
whichindividualsenlargethem.We proposethatnetworkfactorsof the
kindthatLin (1982) refersto as "social resources"and Bourdieu(1977a)
calls "social capital" are productsof culturalcapital and communicative
competenceand, in turn, contributeto the attainmentof high social
status.In thispaper, however,our data permitteddirectexplorationof
thelinkbetweenculturalcapitaland social networkresourcesonlyin our
analysisof the effectsof culturalcapital on the frequencywith which
studentstalk to peersand school personnelabout postgraduation
plans.
Obviously,muchmoreworkis needed.
These suggestionsimplythattheWisconsinmodel(Sewell,Haller,and
1256
CulturalCapital
Portes 1969; Sewell, Haller, and Ohlendorf1970; Sewell and Hauser
1975) presentedin a simplifiedformat the top of figure1 should be
expanded. We propose the revised formshown below it, in orderto
bases of
incorporateWeber'sinsightsabout theculturaland interactional
process.We
statusand statusculturesintoourmodelsofthestratification
suspect that such models may yield impressiveincreasesin predictive
powerand theoreticalunderstanding.
1257
.-
0
10
In
In
00
00
C'j~~~~~~~~~~~
C;
I
n
~oc~ ~r
U)
C-)
0
v
r.
00
C'
xD
t-
C'
0-
afi
H
H1
lz
z
zH
0o
r-0
00
00 e
00e
o'
C'
C.-
0
00
C.
tC'
t
0
O
00U
xD
0c
tn
00
00
00
NN
0 C'
C'
C.-o
0
C'
Co
tn
oO
-tDOx
00
0~
0'
n00
0
xD
00
~)
C:
-~~~~~~~
~ ~
0
00~~~~00
00
00
eI
>
C'
0
0
100
00
00 0
00
tn tNNN
_0
C'
tn
C0-
0C
ox-
OC.
C.-
C.
00
00
00~~~~~~~~0
oN
.
ol
o0
00
!t
Z]
00
xD
~~00
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
N
z-
0N
oO
F
_1 oC _1 I00
C'
C.-Nt O0N
0
lz
oo00nt
xD
t-
?~~~~~~.
OHU
000
ol
.
C.-
0~~~~~~~~~~~~~0
00
cl0
t-
0~~~~~0
t-
00
c
c
o
00
olN'0
e~~~000
.00
00V'
in
IO
v 0N t tneOeeN
oo
C
Co
Ino00
e
In
CO
o
tn
U)~~~~~~~~')
in
0's
in
r)
oo
>C
00
00
'oO
CDO
no
..
'~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
H
H
e~~~~~~~~~
oo
0't00
lC
'
t )
>
o -X
Q~~~
00
00
' O-
0t
0N
0~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
0
<
O 84DIn e e
0
X
ON
T
0
CulturalCapital
REFERENCES
Alexander, Karl L., and Bruce K. Eckland. 1974. "Sex Differencesin the Educational
AttainmentProcess." AmericanSociologicalReview39:668-82.
Benson, Charles S. 1982. "Household Production of Human Capital: Time Uses of
Parents and Children as Inputs." Pp. 52-77 in Financing Education: Overcoming
Inefficiencyand Inequity, edited by Walter W. McMahon and Terry Geske. Urbana: Universityof Illinois Press.
Bernstein,Basil. 1971. Class, Codes, and Control.Vol. 1. Boston: Routledge & Kegan
Paul.
Bourdieu, Pierre. 1977a. "Cultural Reproductionand Social Reproduction."Pp. 487511 in Power and Ideology in Education, edited by Jerome Karabel and A. H.
Halsey. New York: Oxford UniversityPress.
in Education,Society,Culture.BeverlyHills, Calif.:
. 1977b. Reproduction
Sage.
Burt, Ronald S. 1982. Toward a StructuralTheoryofAction. New York: Academic
Press.
Cicourel, Aaron V. 1981. "Notes on the Integrationof Micro- and Macro-Levels of
Analysis."Pp. 51-80 in Advancesin Social Theoryand Methodology:
Towardan
Integrationof Micro- and Macro-Sociologies, edited by Karen Knorr-Cetinaand
Aaron V. Cicourel. Boston: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Cohen, Jacob, and Patricia Cohen. 1975. Applied Multiple Regression/Correlation
Analysis
fortheBehavioralSciences.New York:Wiley.
Collins, Randall. 1971. "Functional and ConflictTheories of Educational Stratification."AmericanSociologicalReview36:1002-19.

1975. Conflict
Sociology:Towardan Explanatory
Science.New York:Academic Press.
. 1979. The CredentialSociety:An HistoricalSociologyofEducation and
Stratification.New York: Academic Press.
. 1981. "On the Microfoundationsof Macrosociology." American Journal of
Sociology86:984-1014.
Davis, James A. 1982. "AchievementVariables and Class Cultures: Family, Schooling, Job, and Forty-nineDependent Variables in the Cumulative GSS." American
SociologicalReview47:569-86.
DiMaggio, Paul. 1982a. "Cultural Capital and School Success: The Impact of Status
Culture Participation on the Grades of U.S. High School Students." American
. 1982b. "Cultural Entrepreneurshipin Nineteenth-CenturyBoston, Part I:
The Creation of an Organizational Base for High Culture in America." Media,
Culture,and Society4:33-50.
. 1982c. "Cultural Entrepreneurshipin Nineteenth-CenturyBoston, Part II:
The Classification and Framing of American Art." Media, Culture, and Society
4:303-22.
DiMaggio, Paul, and Michael Useem. 1978. "Cultural Democracy in a Period of
Cultural Expansion." Social Problems28:180-97.
. 1982. "The Arts in Class Reproduction." Pp. 181-201 in Cultural and EconomicReproduction in Education, edited by Michael W. Apple. Boston: Routledge
& Kegan Paul.
Elder, Glen H. 1969. "Appearance and Education in Marriage Mobility." American
Schultz. 1982. The Counselor as Gatekeeper:Social
Erickson, Frederick, and Jeffrey
Interaction in Interviews. New York: Academic Press.
Faia, Michael A. 1981. "Selection by Certification:A Neglected Variable in Stratification Research." American
JournalofSociology86:1093-1111.
1259
Featherman,
David L., and RobertM. Hauser. 1976."SexualInequalitiesand Socioin the U.S., 1962-1973."AmericanSociologicalReview
economicAchievement
41:462-83.
Fischer,Claude. 1982. To Dwell amongFriends:PersonalNetworksin Townand
City.Berkeleyand Los Angeles:University
ofCaliforniaPress.
Gans,HerbertJ. 1974.PopularCultureand High Culture.New York: Basic.
Goffman,Erving. 1959. The Presentationof Self in EverydayLife. New York:
Doubleday.
Mark. 1982. "The Strength
of Weak Ties: A NetworkTheoryRevisGranovetter,
ited." Pp. 105-30 in Social Structureand NetworkAnalysis,editedby PeterV.
Marsdenand Nan Lin. BeverlyHills,Calif.:Sage.
AttainGriffin,
LarryJ., and Karl Alexander.1978. "Schoolingand Socioeconomic
ments:High School and College Influences."AmericanJournalof Sociology
84:310-47.
in the
Hearn,JamesC., and Susan Olzak. 1981. "The Role of Major Departments
Reproduction
of SexualInequality."SociologyofEducation54:195-205.
Howell,FrankM., and LynnW. McBroom.1982."SocialRelationsat Homeand at
School: An Analysisof the Correspondence
Principle."Sociologyof Education
55:40-52.
Hyman,HerbertH., and CharlesR. Wright.1979.Education'sLastingInfluence
on
Values.Chicago:University
ofChicagoPress.
Hymes,Dell. 1964."Introduction:
TowardEthnographies
ofCommunication."
Pp. 134 in The Ethnography
of Communication,
editedby JohnJ. Gumperzand Dell
Hymes.Specialpublication,
AmericanAnthropologist
Seriesno. 66, part2. Washington,D.C.: AmericanAnthropological
Association.
et al. 1979. WhoGetsAhead: The Determinants
Jencks,Christopher,
ofEconomic
Successin America.New York: Basic.
Jencks,Christopher,
JamesCrouse,and PeterMueser.1983."The WisconsinModel
A NationalReplicationwithImprovedMeasuresofAbility
of StatusAttainment:
and Aspiration."
SociologyofEducation56:3-19.
Jencks,Christopher,
and David Riesman.1977.TheAcademicRevolution.Chicago:
ofChicagoPress.
University
Karabel,Jerome,
and Katherine
McClelland.1983."The Effects
ofCollegeQualityon
Labor MarketOutcomes:Variationsby WorkerCharacteristic
and Type ofJob."
Photocopied.Cambridge,Mass.: HarvardUniversity,
Department
of Sociology.
ofPatriarKelly,Gail P., and AnnS. Nihlen.1982."Schoolingand theReproduction
chy:Unequal Workloads,Unequal Rewards."Pp. 162-80 in Culturaland EconomicReproduction
inEducation,editedbyMichaelW. Apple.Boston:Routledge
& Kegan Paul.
AmericanEconomic
Leibowitz,Arleen.1974a. "Educationand Home Production."
Review64:243-56.
in Children."Journalof Political Economy
. 1974b. "Home Investments
82:S111-S131.
Lin, Nan. 1982. "Social Resourcesand Instrumental
Action."Pp. 131-45in Social
and Network
Structure
Analysis,editedbyPeterV. Marsdenand Nan Lin. Beverly
Hills,Calif.:Sage.
Lueptow,LloydB. 1980."SocialChangeand Sex-RoleChangeinAdolescent
OrientationstowardLife,Work,and Achievement:
1964-75."Social Psychology
Quarterly
43:48-59.
ontheIntellectual
Mercy,JamesA., and Lala CarrSteelman.1982."FamilyInfluence
Attainment
ofChildren."AmericanSociologicalReview47:532-42.
in Schools."Pp.
Meyer,John.1970."The Charter:Conditions
ofDiffuseSocialization
564-78 in Social Processesand Social Structures,
editedby W. R. Scott.New
York:Holt, Rinehart& Winston.
1260
CulturalCapital
Murnane,RichardJ., RebeccaA. Maynard,and JamesC. Ohls. 1981."Home Resourcesand Children'sAchievement."
ReviewofEconomicsand Statistics63:36977.
Parkin,Frank.1978."SocialStratification."
Pp. 599-632inA HistoryofSociological
Analysis,editedbyTom Bottomore
and RobertNisbet.New York:Basic.
Peterson,
RichardA. 1983."Patterns
ofCulturalChoice:A Prolegomenon."
American
BehavioralScientist26:422-38.
Roe, Keith.1983.Mass Media and Adolescent
Schooling:Conflict
or Co-Existence?
Stockholm:
Almqvist& WiksellInternational.
Sewell,WilliamH., Archibald0. Haller,and G. Ohlendorf.
1970."The Educational
and Early OccupationalStatusAttainment
Process:Replicationand Revision."
AmericanSociologicalReview35:1014-27.
Sewell,WilliamH., Archibald0. Haller,and AlejandroPortes.1969."The Educationaland EarlyOccupationalAttainment
Process."American
SociologicalReview
34:82-92.
Sewell,WilliamH., and RobertM. Hauser. 1975.Education,Occupationand Earnings.New York:AcademicPress.

Sewell,WilliamH., RobertM. Hauser,and WendyC. Wolf.1980."Sex, Schooling,
and OccupationalStatus."American
JournalofSociology86:551-83.
Sewell,WilliamH., and VimalP. Shah. 1967."Socioeconomic
Status,Intelligence,
and theAttainment
of HigherEducation."SociologyofEducation40:1-23.
Sorokin,PitirimA. 1959.Social and CulturalMobility.New York:Free Press.
Taylor,PatriciaAnn, and Norval D. Glenn. 1976. "Females' StatusAttainment
through
Marriage."AmericanSociologicalReview41:484-98.
Thornton,
Arland,and DeborahFreedman.1979."Changesin theSex RoleAttitudes
ofWomen,1962-1977:Evidencefroma PanelStudy."AmericanSociologicalReview 44:831-42.
Tuchman,Gaye. 1982."Cultureas MaterialResource."Media, Culture,and Society

4:3-18.
Rev.
Waller,Willard,and ReubenHill. 1951.TheFamily:A DynamicInterpretation.
ed. New York: Dryden.
Warner,W. Lloyd,and Paul S. Lunt. 1942.TheStatusSystemofa ModernCommunity.New Haven, Conn.: Yale University
Press.
Rothand Claus
Weber,Max. (1922)1968.Economyand Society.EditedbyGuenther
Wittich.New York: Bedminster.
Weber,William.1976.Music and theMiddle Class in Nineteenth
Century
Europe.
New York:Holmes& Meier.
ofArt:A Case Studyof
Wolff,
Janet.1982."The ProblemofIdeologyin theSociology
in theNineteenth
Manchester
Century."
Media, Culture,and Society4:63-76.
1261

How Cultural Capital Impacts Education and Marriage

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

How Cultural Capital Impacts Education and Marriage

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Cultural Capital, Educational Attainment, and Marital Selection

Author(s): Paul DiMaggio and John Mohr

Cultural Capital, Educational Attainment,

sharplybetween"class" (an individAlthoughWeberdistinguished

AJS Volume 90 Number6

variedand manifold.In general(and withno littleoversimplification),

Because we are concerned in this paper with the stratification

Note that we do not attemptto estimatea completemodel of the

POPED1 (less than highschool

NOTE.-Results are fromthe disaggregatedanalysesoftheeffectsofculturalcapital (CULTCAP) on

Althoughthe effectof culturalcapital relativeto measuredgeneral

TALK ABOUT COLLEGE

NOTE -Results are fromregressions

approaching significance.Among women, the cultural reproduction

CULTURAL CAPITAL AND THE OUTCOMES OF HIGHER

capital has a significant

NOTE.-Results are from regressionsof college completion(COMPLETE), graduate training

genders.For both men and women, the effectsof culturalcapital are

ERRORS FROM DISAGGREGATED

POPED2 (highschooldiploma .060

POPED3 (at least some

POPED1 (less than high

NOTE.-Results are from regressionsof spouse's educational attainment

POPED1 (less than highschool diploma).

NOTE.-Results are fromdisaggregatedanalyses of the effectsof cultural

.4006 (tables available on request). These findingslend supportto hyofculturalcapitalis greaterthanthe

and revised attainment models

boththe contentand styleof talk directlyand independently.

Collins, Randall. 1971. "Functional and ConflictTheories of Educational Stratification."AmericanSociologicalReview36:1002-19.

Sewell,WilliamH., and RobertM. Hauser. 1975.Education,Occupationand Earnings.New York:AcademicPress.

Tuchman,Gaye. 1982."Cultureas MaterialResource."Media, Culture,and Society

You might also like