a dynamic model of cultural reproduction › ws › files › 412833 › 684012.pdfa dynamic model...

A Dynamic Model of Cultural Reproduction1

Mads Meier JægerUniversity of Copenhagen

Richard BreenYale University

The authors draw on Pierre Bourdieu’s theory of cultural reproduc-tion to develop a formal model of the pathways through which cul-tural capital acts to enhance children’s educational and socioeconomicsuccess. The authors’ approach brings conceptual and empirical clarityto an important area of study. Their model describes how parents trans-mit cultural capital to their children and how children convert culturalcapital into educational success. It also provides a behavioral frameworkfor interpreting parental investments in cultural capital. The authorsreview results from existing empirical research on the role of culturalcapital in education to demonstrate the usefulness of their model for in-terpretative purposes, and they use National Longitudinal Survey ofYouth 1979—Children and Young Adults survey data to test some ofits implications.

INTRODUCTION

Pierre Bourdieu’s theory of cultural capital and cultural reproduction is oneof the most influential explanations in social stratification research of whyinequalities in educational and socioeconomic outcomes persist over gen-erations. The theory outlines a complex system in which parents transmit cul-tural capital to children, children exploit their acquired cultural capital in the

AJS Volume 121 Number 4 (January 2016): 1079–1115 1079

1Earlier versions of this article were presented at the RC28 Meeting at the University ofVirginia, August 2012, and at research seminars at the University of Oxford, the Univer-sity of Turku, and the University of Copenhagen. We thank the AJS reviewers and DavidGrusky, Jan O. Jonsson, Paul Kingston, Karl-Ulrich Meyer, Wout Ultee, Tak Wing Chan,Michael Biggs, Juho Härkonen, and Martin Hällsten for constructive comments. The re-

© 2016 by The University of Chicago. All rights reserved.0002-9602/2016/12104-0003$10.00

This content downloaded from 062.116.193.162 on March 13, 2016 05:06:35 AMAll use subject to University of Chicago Press Terms and Conditions (http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/t-and-c).

educational system, and, as a consequence, families who possess cultural cap-ital have an advantage that helps them reproduce their privileged socioeco-nomic position ðBourdieu 1977a, 1984; Bourdieu and Passeron 1990Þ.Despite the enormous popularity of the theory of cultural reproduction,

we know surprisingly little about how cultural capital gets transferred fromparents to children and whether it facilitates educational and socioeconomicsuccess. The reasons for these limitations are twofold: a lack of clarity inBourdieu’s theory of cultural reproduction and, partly as a consequence ofthis, a large body of empirical research that provides inconclusive results.There is agreement among interpreters of Bourdieu that core concepts andmechanisms are ill defined in his writings on cultural reproduction ðLamontand Lareau 1988; Kingston 2001; van de Werfhorst 2010Þ. For example,Bourdieu provides no consistent explanation of what cultural capital is,how parents transmit it to children, and how it leads to educational success.The lack of theoretical clarity has had a detrimental impact on empirical re-search, which is characterized by highly diverse approaches to measuringcultural capital, piecemeal tests of the theory of cultural reproduction, andlittle attention to identifying the causal pathways through which culturalcapital might lead to educational success ðKingston 2001; Sullivan 2002;Lareau andWeininger 2004; Goldthorpe 2007; Jæger 2011; Xu andHampden-Thompson 2012Þ.This article begins from the observation that the combination of a lack of

clarity in the theory, together with limitations in empirical research that hassought to test it, warrants a new approach to analyzing cultural reproduction.We argue that if the theory of cultural reproduction is to remain a relevantexplanation of intergenerational inequalities in educational and socioeco-nomic outcomes, it needs to provide a clear theoretical account of core con-cepts and mechanisms that can be tested empirically. Debates on the exactmeaning of Bourdieu’s writings on cultural reproduction have been ongoingfor decades ðDiMaggio 1982; Lamont and Lareau 1988; Mohr and DiMaggio1995; Swartz 1997; Kingston 2001; van de Werfhorst 2010Þ with no sign ofconsensus, suggesting that effort might better be spent rethinking the coreideas of cultural reproduction rather than attempting to clarify Bourdieu’soriginal thoughts.In this article we present a formal model, expressed verbally, mathemat-

ically, and diagrammatically, describing the process of cultural reproduction.Compared to previous research, the main benefit of our model is that it ex-

search leading to the results presented in this article has received funding from the Euro-pean Research Council under the European Union’s Seventh Framework Programmeð½FP/2007-2013�/ERC grant 312906Þ. Direct all correspondence toMadsMeier Jæger, Uni-versity of Copenhagen, Øster Farimagsgade 5, 1353 Copenhagen K, Denmark. E-mail:[email protected]

American Journal of Sociology

1080


plicates and formalizes the different mechanisms through which cultural cap-ital leads to educational and socioeconomic success. In doing so, it presentsan encompassing model of cultural reproduction that has been absent fromthe literature, that helps to organize and interpret results from existing re-search, and that may act as a starting point for future research that seeksto test cultural reproduction theory. Borrowing terminology from econom-ics, the model we present is structural: it attempts to describe all the relevantrelationships and presents the behavioral assumptions needed to interpret itsparameters. In our model, parents possess a stock of cultural capital thatthey transmit to children through active investments and through children’sexposure to cultural capital in the home. Children convert their acquiredcultural capital into educational performance within the educational system,which leads to higher educational attainment and later socioeconomic suc-cess, thereby completing the process of social reproduction.In addition to presenting a formal model of cultural reproduction, our

structural model provides a behavioral framework for interpreting the pa-rameters in this model. We do this to address Bourdieu’s lack of clarity aboutwhat motivates parents’ behavior. How do parents decide on how much oftheir cultural capital to invest in a child? How strong are parents’ beliefs thatcultural capital will yield a return in the future? In order to provide answersto these questions, we build on the assumption that parents invest in chil-dren’s cultural capital in the hope that these investments will promote chil-dren’s educational and socioeconomic success. It is not clear from Bourdieuwhether parents make cost-benefit calculations when attempting to trans-mit cultural capital to children or whether this process happens more or lessunconsciously. We take the position that the best point of departure for ana-lyzing cultural reproduction is to assume that parents have beliefs and goals,and, given their limitations on time, money, and information, they act toachieve these goals. We are explicit about behavioral assumptions becausethese are crucial for interpreting not only our model but also the results ofprevious empirical research. Most research documents positive correlationsbetween empirical indicators of cultural capital, such as how often parentstake children to cultural events and children’s educational success. However,assumptions about what drives parental behavior are needed to interpretthese correlations, and the lack of a clear behavioral framework in Bourdieumeans that there is little agreement on how to do this ðe.g., Do these corre-lations arise from deliberate investments or from parents’ unconsciously re-peating behavior learned through socialization?Þ. Our structural model pro-vides a framework for analyzing how differences in resources and beliefs ðe.g.,differences by race and socioeconomic group, which we discuss in detailÞ leadto different investments in cultural capital and to differences in educationaloutcomes. Thus, our model not only helps to organize results from previousresearch but also provides a framework for interpreting them.

Dynamic Model of Cultural Reproduction

1081


As a final contribution, our model also addresses two black boxes in thetheory of cultural reproduction. Although Bourdieu argued that parents trans-mit cultural capital to children throughout childhood, he does not explainhow the transmission takes place. Similarly, the way in which children con-vert cultural capital into educational achievements is underspecified.We pro-vide a dynamic account of both mechanisms. We draw on recent dynamicmodels of intergenerational transmissions ðTodd and Wolpin 2007; Cunhaand Heckman 2008; Bisin and Verdier 2011Þ and treat childhood as a se-quence of time periods during which parents invest in transmitting culturalcapital to children. In our model, parents may change their investments overtime.Thismay be because of limitations on resources ðdue to events such as un-employment or illnessÞ, outcomes of past investments in cultural capital ðwhichmay or may not have yielded a returnÞ, or investments in other child skillsðe.g., cognitive or social skillsÞ. We also provide a dynamic account of howchildren convert cultural capital into educational performance. In each timeperiod the child converts his or her cultural capital into educational perfor-mance by affecting teachers’ perceptions of his or her academic ability, whichleads to greater teacher inputs ðe.g., of attention and helpÞ and better perfor-mance. Thus, in addition to describing the outcome of cultural reproduction,we provide an account of the process of cultural reproduction.To demonstrate the usefulness of our model, we provide illustrative em-

pirical evidence on the dynamic nature of cultural capital investments. We uselongitudinal data from the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth 1979—Children and Young Adults ðNLSY-CYAÞ and estimate dynamic panel datamodels describing, first, how parents invest over time in transmitting theircultural capital to children and, second, how cultural capital affects educationalperformance. Our findings suggest that children accumulate cultural capitalfrom parents and, furthermore, that cultural capital has a positive effect oneducational performance. And althoughwe lack direct data on teacher inputsin children, the empirical results are consistent with our model. We also findthat parents adjust their investments in cultural capital on the basis of whatthey believe to be the educational payoffs of past investments; a finding thatis also consistent with our model.In summary, while we seek to provide a new conceptual framework for

analyzing cultural reproduction, we do not claim to have captured everyaspect of Bourdieu’s thoughts: our model builds on our interpretation of thetheory of cultural reproduction. However, the model we propose is flexible,in the sense that it can be extended to cover more complex situations, keyparameters can be modified in light of new theoretical or empirical insights,and the behavioral assumptions underlying our interpretation of mecha-nisms and parameters are open to modification. We hope, therefore, that itwill stimulate research on the potentially complex ways in which culturalcapital may facilitate educational and socioeconomic success. Furthermore,


1082


because our model is expressed in mathematical terms, it is highly transpar-ent, so its empirical implications can readily be derived and tested.In the next section of the article we review the basic elements of Bourdieu’s

theory. Then follows the development of our theory, first in static then in dy-namic form. Next we provide a review and reinterpretation of results fromprevious research to illustrate the usefulness of our approach, followed byempirical analyses that involve direct testing of the dynamic aspects of ourmodel using the NLSY-CYA data. In the article’s conclusion we summarizeour arguments and results and consider some of the ways in which our modelcould be extended.

CULTURAL REPRODUCTION THEORY

The theory of cultural reproduction provides an explanation of the inter-generational reproduction of socioeconomic position. Bourdieu argued thatindividuals and families possess resources in the form of different types ofcapital—economic, social, and cultural—that can be invested to generate moreresources or converted from one type of capital into another ðBourdieu 1977a,1986; Bourdieu and Passeron 1990Þ. Economic capital refers to all forms ofeconomic resources ðincome, wealth, property, etc.Þ, while social capital re-fers to gainful social networks ðBourdieu 1986Þ.Although Bourdieu’s definition of cultural capital is far from clear ðLamont

and Lareau 1988; Kingston 2001; van de Werfhorst 2010Þ, at the most gen-eral level it refers to familiarity with the dominant culture in a society. Lamontand Lareau ð1988, p. 156Þ proposed an influential definition of cultural capitalas “widely shared, high-status cultural signals ðattitudes, preferences, formalknowledge, behaviors, goods and credentialsÞ used for social and cultural ex-clusion.”We follow this definition in the current article. As with economic andsocial capital, cultural capital is a resource that can be invested in order topromote one’s relative position within a social hierarchy populated by in-dividuals with different compositions and amounts of capital. Cultural capi-tal exists in three states—embodied ðlinguistic competence, mannerisms, cul-tural knowledge, etc.Þ, objectified ðcultural goods, paintings, books, etc.Þ, andinstitutionalized ðeducational credentials; Bourdieu 1977a, 1986; Bourdieuand Passeron 1990Þ—and it can contribute to social reproduction in all threestates.According to Bourdieu, cultural reproduction is an important mecha-

nism through which social reproduction takes place. Society is composedof different fields, that is, subsystems in which the different types of capitalcarry different weight ðBourdieu 1986Þ. Education is a major subfield, andone in which cultural capital is particularly important. Bourdieu argues thatthe educational system is biased toward valorizing cultural capital, ascribingpositive qualities to individuals and families that possess it. This bias arises


1083


from cultural capital being associated with high culture and social status,and it means that the embodied cultural capital that students put “on display”in school conveys an impression of academic brilliance that leads to favorabletreatment by teachers and to educational success. Thus, cultural capital createsa false impression of academic brilliance that yields a real return in the formof educational success. Since families in advantaged socioeconomic positionstend to possess more cultural capital than those in less advantaged positions,and because children tend to inherit capital from parents, cultural capital con-tributes to social reproduction by increasing the likelihood of educational suc-cess ðinstitutionalized cultural capitalÞ and subsequent socioeconomic successðbecause socioeconomic position in adulthood is heavily dependent on edu-cational credentialsÞ.

Intergenerational Transmission of Cultural Capital

We begin the presentation of our formal model with a simple version de-scribing the intergenerational transmission of cultural capital. We let C de-note the child’s cultural capital and subscripts c and P, respectively, the childand parents. For now we assume that there is only one child in the family.Cultural reproduction theory argues that parents possess a stock of culturalcapital and furthermore that they transmit some of this to their child. Trans-mission of cultural capital takes place through two channels: parents activelyinvesting in transmitting their cultural capital to their child ðe.g., by taking thechild to the theater and by reading to the childÞ and the child passively acquir-ing cultural capital via exposure to objectified cultural capital in the homeðe.g., works of artÞ. The child’s acquisition of cultural capital also dependson family resources other than cultural capital ðe.g., parents’ socioeconomic re-sourcesÞ and on the child’s academic ability. We let S denote parents’ totalstock of cultural capital and v the amount that they actively invest in the child.We thenwrite

Cc 5 b1vp 1 b2Sp 1 b3Xp 1 b4Ac 1 Lc; ð1Þwhich states that the child’s cultural capital depends on parents’ active in-vestments in transmitting their cultural capital to the child ðb1vpÞ and on thechild’s passive exposure to cultural capital in the home ðb2SpÞ. The returnðin terms of the child’s cultural capitalÞ to parental investments in the child’scultural capital is b1, and b2 is the “passive” rate of transfer of cultural capi-tal from parents to the child. The child’s cultural capital also depends on par-ents’ socioeconomic resources Xp, the child’s academic ability Ac ðwhich weassume to be constant over timeÞ, and luck L. The relative sizes of b1 and b2

are not clear from Bourdieu’s writings, but both are assumed to be greaterthan zero. Below, we review research that provides empirical estimates ofb1 and b2.


1084


Cultural Capital, Educational Success, and Social Reproduction

In addition to accounting for parental transmission of cultural capital tochildren, cultural reproduction theory argues that children convert theirðembodiedÞ cultural capital into educational success ðinstitutionalized cul-tural capitalÞ, which in turn promotes socioeconomic success. Consequently,cultural capital is a means to an end. Bourdieu ð1986, p. 247Þ writes thatcultural capital is “a symbolically and materially active, effective capitalinsofar as it is appropriated by agents and implemented.” He furthermorewrites that “academic success is directly dependent upon cultural capitaland on the inclination to invest in the academic market” ðBourdieu 1977a,p. 504Þ.2It is not entirely clear from Bourdieu how children convert their embod-

ied cultural capital into educational success. He argues that the educationalsystem is intrinsically biased toward misconceiving cultural capital as aca-demic brilliance, and, as a consequence, children who possess cultural capi-tal use it to present an impression of brilliance that is rewarded by teachersðBourdieu and Passeron 1990; Moore 2004Þ. The reason teachers miscon-ceive cultural capital as academic brilliance is that it signals familiarity withhigh culture and social status, and, as a consequence, teachers implicitlyassociate cultural capital with other desirable qualities ðGanzeboom 1982;Crook 1997Þ. Bourdieu uses the concept of the habitus to capture the waysin which children’s cultural capital, acquired from parents and manifestedin values, tastes, and behaviors, helps to create such an impression ðBourdieu1977bÞ. And although the impression of academic brilliance associated withcultural capital is false ðin the sense that, unlike economic capital, culturalcapital has no intrinsic value other than that ascribed to itÞ, its consequencesare real. Children who possess cultural capital are perceived as more aca-demically gifted than children who do not ðthus leading to better subjectiveevaluations by teachers and better gradesÞ. Moreover, they are treated in amore favorable way by teachers, which may lead to a better learning envi-ronment and so to better educational performance.3 Thus, it follows that themain channel through which embodied cultural capital is converted into in-stitutionalized cultural capital ðeducational credentialsÞ is through educa-tional performance. We now incorporate this idea into our model. Specifi-

2 In their influential paper, Lamont and Lareau ð1988, p. 154Þ interpret Bourdieu’s writ-ings as follows: “Indeed, they ½Bourdieu and Passeron� argued that individuals’ socialposition and family background provide them with social and cultural resources whichneed to be actively ‘invested’ to yield social profits.”3Bourdieu’s idea that teachers are inclined toward valorizing cultural capital has someempirical merit. For example, DiMaggio ð1982Þ cites research showing that althoughteachers are often recruited from the lower middle class, they are overrepresented amongconsumers of highbrow culture. In her qualitative study, Lareau ð2003, pp. 14–32Þ findsthat teachers place high value on pupils’ cultural activities and actively promote such ac-tivities among their own children.


1085


cally, letting Ec denote final educational attainment, Pc educational perfor-mance, and U and J luck, we write

Ec 5 h1Pc 1 h2Xp 1 h3Ac 1Uc;

Pc 5 j1Cc 1 j2Ac 1 Jc:ð2Þ

Equation ð2Þ states that final educational attainment depends on educa-tional performance, but furthermore that educational performance dependson the child’s cultural capital and on academic ability. Consequently, the pa-rameter j1 captures the “bonus” to educational performance from the im-pression of academic brilliance generated by cultural capital ðnet of the effectof actual ability AÞ. Cultural reproduction theory tells us that j1 > 0. Fur-thermore, the parameter h1 captures the effect of educational performanceon final educational attainment ðagain, net of actual academic abilityÞ, andwe assume h1 > 0. Note that the reason we use different letters across equa-tions to capture the luck component is that the factors that go into this com-ponent need not be the same across the different outcomes that the equationsdescribe.The final stage in cultural reproduction theory is the link between edu-

cational attainment ðinstitutionalized cultural capitalÞ and socioeconomic suc-cess. Letting Yc denote the child’s socioeconomic position in adulthood andQ luck, we write

Yc 5 r1Ec 1 r2Xp 1 r3Ac 1 Qc: ð3ÞIn this model cultural capital has no direct effect on socioeconomic successbut nevertheless contributes to it by improving educational performance,which in turn facilitates educational success, which directly affects socio-economic position ðso we assume r1 > 0Þ.

A DYNAMIC MODEL OF CULTURAL REPRODUCTION

The model presented above summarizes the main features of cultural repro-duction theory. Equation ð1Þ describes how parents transmit their culturalcapital to the child, equation ð2Þ describes how cultural capital is convertedinto educational success, and equation ð3Þ describes how educational successis converted into socioeconomic success. These are the basic building blocksin the theory of cultural reproduction. Our model, however, and Bourdieu’swritings on cultural reproduction, does not describe the actual mechanismsthat lead to the outcomes summarized in equations ð1Þ–ð3Þ. Building on re-cent models of intergenerational transmissions in economics ðTodd andWolpin 2007; Cunha andHeckman 2008; Bisin and Verdier 2011Þ, we nowextend our model to address two important black boxes in Bourdieu’s writ-ings: ð1Þ the mechanism through which parents invest in transmitting cultural


1086


capital to the child and ð2Þ the mechanism through which the child convertscultural capital into educational success.A necessary condition for the theory of cultural reproduction to be con-

sistent is that children acquire cultural capital from parents. In our model,we explicate this condition by assuming that b1 > 0 and b2 > 0. Bourdieuð1986, p. 249Þ writes that “the initial accumulation of cultural capital, theprecondition for the fast, easy accumulation of every kind of useful cul-tural capital, starts at the outset, without delay, without wasted time. . . .The accumulation period covers the whole period of socialization.” We takethis formulation to suggest that children accumulate cultural capital through-out childhood and, furthermore, that parents actively seek to transmit theircultural capital to their child. We now extend our model to accommodate thisidea.After the child’s birth, parents have a finite time horizon in which they

can invest in her cultural capital ðand in other endowments that facilitateeducational success, such as human capitalÞ. We assume that parents seekto transmit as much as possible of their cultural capital to the child, and theybegin investing when the child is young ðbelow, we discuss parents’ invest-ment strategies in detailÞ. For the purposes of our model, we represent child-hood as divided into T time periods ðt 5 1, . . . , TÞ, beginning at birthand ending at the time the child leaves compulsory education ðaround age16 in most countriesÞ.4 As described in equation ð2Þ, returns to cultural cap-ital are manifest in educational performance, in the form of grades, testscores, or placement in a prestigious educational track. This occurs becausecultural capital conveys an impression of academic brilliance, leading to fa-vorable evaluations, more attention, and ultimately better performance ðcap-tured by the parameter j1 in eq. ½2�Þ. However, equation ð2Þ is silent as to themechanism through which cultural capital is converted into educational per-formance, and we now address that issue. We write

Pct 5 a1Tt 1 a2Ac 1 a3Xpt 1Wct;

Tt 5 J1Pct21 1 J2Cct 1 Vct;ð4Þ

where Pct is educational performance at time t, Tt is teacher inputs ðeval-uations, attention, etc.Þ, Cct is the child’s cultural capital, A is academic ability,and Xpt is parental resources. Variables W and V capture the influence ofluck and other unmeasured factors that affect performance and teacher in-puts, respectively. Equation ð4Þ states that cultural capital affects educational

4Parents may still transmit cultural capital to the child after age 16. However, we in-terpret Bourdieu as suggesting that the main thrust of parental investments in culturalcapital takes place when the child is comparatively young. Also, it may be difficult forparents to transmit cultural capitalwhen the child has left the home, for example, to attendhigher education. Instead, parents may rely on their economic or social capital.


1087


performance by improving teachers’ evaluations of the child ðvia J2Þ that, inturn, determine the inputs teachers provide to the child ðvia a1Þ. We expectJ2 > 0 ðmore cultural capital leads to higher teacher inputsÞ and a1 > 0 ðhigherteacher inputs lead to better educational performanceÞ. Our model also statesthat teachers’ inputs in period t depend on the child’s educational per-formance in the previous period: teachers are not myopic, and they adjusttheir inputs in the child on the basis of her past educational performanceðso, we expect J1 > 0Þ. Equation ð4Þ thus describes the mechanism throughwhich embodied cultural capital is converted into educational performance.High educational performance during compulsory school leads to high edu-cational attainment ðeq. ½2�Þ, which in turn leads to high socioeconomic sta-tus ðeq. ½3�Þ, thus completing the process of social reproduction.Moving back in the causal chain, we now describe the mechanism through

which parents invest in transmitting cultural capital to their child. Parentspossess a stock of cultural capital, S. In each time period they actively in-vest amount v in their child. In addition, the child acquires cultural capitalvia passive exposure to cultural capital in the home. Finally, given the cu-mulative nature of cultural capital formation, the child’s stock of culturalcapital at time t also depends on how much cultural capital she had in theprevious period. Putting these components together, we write the processthrough which the child acquires cultural capital:

Cct 5 g1Cct21 1 g2vpt 1 g3Sp 1 g4Xpt 1 g5Ac 1 Lct: ð5Þ

Equation ð5Þ states that the child’s stock of cultural capital in period tdepends on her stock in the previous period, her parents’ active invest-ments in the present period, her passive exposure to cultural capital in thehome, and other factors. On the basis of cultural reproduction theory, weexpect g1 > 0, g2 > 0, and g3 > 0; that is, we expect the child to have morecultural capital in the present period if she had more cultural capital in theprevious period and if parents invest more in cultural capital. Note that vtcan be larger than S since parents may try to inculcate cultural capital intheir child that they do not themselves possess, for example, by organizingsuitable out-of-school activities.

WHAT MOTIVATES PARENTS’ INVESTMENTS?

In his writings, Bourdieu devotes little attention to describing what parentsactually do to transmit their cultural capital to children. In relation to ourmodel, this means that it is not clear from cultural reproduction theory howparents decide how much of their cultural capital to invest in each time pe-riod, and, consequently, the preferences and behaviors that generate theparameters a1, g1, g2, and g3 are unspecified.


1088


We combine the two mechanisms described in equations ð4Þ and ð5Þand propose a behavioral framework for interpreting the parameters inthese equations. We assume that parents are utility maximizers who seekto transmit as much as possible of their cultural capital to the child, but theymay differ in their beliefs about the returns to investments in cultural capital.We realize that this approach departs from a conventional interpretation ofBourdieu, but we find it more analytically meaningful than simply assumingthat parents more or less unconsciously reproduce behaviors learned throughsocialization. Moreover, our approach is motivated by an influential body ofempirical research that documents that, at least in the U.S. context, middle-class parents deliberately and strategically organize children’s time and lei-sure activities with the intent of cultivating their cognitive and social skillsðLareau 1989, 2003; Calarco 2014Þ.5We begin by specifying a model for the different factors that determine

the child’s educational performance. Putting together equations ð4Þ andð5Þ yields the following expression for the child’s performance in time pe-riod t:

Pct 5 a1½J1Pct21 1 J2Cct 1 Vt�1 a2Ac 1 a3Xpt 1Wct

5 a1J1Pct21 1 a1J2½g1Ct21 1 g2vpt 1 g3Sp 1 g4Xpt 1 g5Ac 1 Lt�

1 a2Ac 1 a3Xpt 1 a1Vct 1Wct

5 a1J1Pct21 1 a1J2g1Ct21 1 a1J2g2vpt 1 a1J2g3Sp 1 ða1J2g5 1 a2ÞAc

1 ða1J2g4 1 a3ÞXpt 1 a1J2Lct 1 a1Vct 1Wct

5m0Pct21 1m1Ct21 1m2vpt 1m3Sp 1m4Ac 1m5Xpt 1 εct:

ð6ÞIn this model, the child’s educational performance in time t depends on herperformance in the previous period, her cultural capital, parents’ active invest-ments in cultural capital, passive exposure to cultural capital, academic

5Lareau ð2003, p. 238Þ summarizes some of her key findings as follows: “In these ½mid-dle class� families, parents actively fostered and assessed their children’s talents, opinions,and skills. They scheduled their children for activities. They reasoned with them. Theyhovered over them and outside the home they did not hesitate to intervene on the chil-dren’s behalf. They made a sustained and deliberate effort to stimulate children’s devel-opment and to cultivate their cognitive and social skills.” Lareau also argues that the pro-pensity to invest in children, and beliefs about returns to investments, varies by social classbackground. Below, we discuss how our model accommodates this idea.


1089


ability, and parental resources, as well as a term capturing luck, εct.6 Theweight of each component is captured by the parameter m ðm 5 0, . . . , 5Þ.No one knows the true values of the parametersm ði.e., the values that max-imize the child’s educational performanceÞ, but parents have beliefs aboutall of them originating in past experiences and socialization ðHaller 1982;Kerckhoff 1989Þ. Our model thus states that parents differ in the extent towhich they believe that the child’s past performance, her cultural capital,parents’ own investments in cultural capital, and other factors affect theirchild’s educational performance. We believe these assumptions are in linewith cultural reproduction theory. Given the available information and theirbeliefs about m, parents must choose how much of their stock of culturalcapital ðSÞ they wish to invest ðvÞ in each time period. We assume that par-ents seek to maximize utility; that is, they wish to make the optimal in-vestment in each period given their beliefs and resources. We write theobjective function that parents want to maximize in each time period:

mPct 2 cðvptÞ: ð7ÞThe objective function has two components that reflect the benefits andcosts of investing cultural capital in the child’s educational performance.The parameter m captures altruism ðalthough all parents care about theirchild’s educational performance, some care more than othersÞ and parents’beliefs about the importance of educational performance relative to otherfactors that might affect their child’s socioeconomic outcomes.7 The termcðvptÞ is a cost function: it captures the costs associated with investing in thechild’s cultural capital. Costs principally include time and resources thatcould have been used for other purposes ðe.g., investments in other types ofskillsÞ.How do parents decide howmuch of their cultural capital to invest in each

time period? Bourdieu provides no answer to this question, and we need tomake several assumptions in order to provide one. Our first assumption isthat, given their beliefs about the values of m, parents choose the optimuminvestment, v*pt, by finding the value of vpt that maximizes the objective func-tion described in equation ð7Þ. In other words, we assume that parents choosewhatever amount of investment they think will yield the highest return for agiven cost. Our second assumption is that yccðvpÞ=yvp is greater than zero.This means that parents incur greater costs, the greater their active invest-ment in the child’s cultural capital, or, put differently, high investments are

6The error term in eq. ð6Þ is given by εct 5 a1J2Lt 1 a1Vt 1 Wt.7Some families may use means other than education to promote social reproductionðe.g., social connections or moneyÞ. Families may also invest in other types of skills, e.g.,social skills, or simply in making their child happy. Our model focuses on parents’ in-vestments in cultural capital, and investments in other types of skills enter our modelthrough the cost function that is described next.


1090


more costly than low investments. Our third assumption is that parents’ rel-ative cost of investing in cultural capital decreases with the size of theiroverall stock of cultural capital, S. This means that it is less costly for parentswho have a lot of cultural capital to invest in their child’s cultural capitalcompared with parents who have little cultural capital. Combining theseassumptions, and letting the term hv capture our third assumption that therelative cost of investing in cultural capital decreases when the stock of cul-tural capital S increases ðand where h is smaller, the larger is the stock ofparental cultural capitalÞ, the optimum investment at time t is

v*pt 5mm̂2t

h: ð8Þ

Here, m̂2t is parents’ belief at time t in the return ðin terms of the child’seducational performanceÞ to active investment in the child’s cultural cap-ital. Equation ð8Þ shows that the optimum investment at time t is given bythe combination of parents’ beliefs about the returns to investing in culturalcapital m̂2t and their altruism m weighted by the cost of making the invest-ment, which, as noted, is smaller for parents with a greater stock of culturalcapital. In other words, the optimum investment is the one that reconcilesparents’ expectations about which investment will generate the highest re-turn, how much they care about their child’s educational performance, andhow costly it is for them to make the investment. It also follows from ourmodel that

yv*ptySp

> 0;yv*ptym

> 0;yv*ptym̂2

> 0;

that is, parents invest more when they have a greater stock of culturalcapital, when they care more about their child’s educational performance,and when they believe that investing in their child’s cultural capital has abigger payoff in terms of educational performance. We believe these as-sumptions are consistent with Bourdieu’s idea that cultural capital is prin-cipally a means for those who possess cultural capital to promote socialreproduction.Finally, we need to consider how parents’ beliefs about the returns to

cultural capital, m̂2, evolve over time. Bourdieu does not provide any in-sights into how parents might change their beliefs about the usefulness ofinvestments in cultural capital. Instead, we draw on research that suggeststhat parents use information on the outcomes of past investments to de-cide on current investments ðBehrman 1997; Ayalew 2005; Todd andWolpin2007Þ. This research emphasizes that a feedback mechanism exists from thechild’s behavior to parents’ beliefs and investments. Building on this re-search, we propose in our model that parents use new information about thechild’s educational performance from grades and test scores to inform their


1091


belief about the returns to investing in cultural capital. We implement thisidea by assuming that parents update their belief according to the follow-ing rule:

m̂2t 5 m̂2t21 11 pPct21 2 Pct22

vt21 2 vt22

� �� : ð9Þ

Equation ð9Þ captures the idea that if increases ðdecreasesÞ in culturalcapital investments, v, between one period and the next are associated withincreases ðdecreasesÞ in educational performance ði.e., the sign of vt21 2 vt22

is the same as the sign of Pct21 2 Pct22Þ, then parents increase their beliefabout the size of m2, whereas, if they have opposite signs, their belief de-clines. In other words, if investing in cultural capital seems to pay off, par-ents strengthen their belief in the value of such investments; otherwise,their belief diminishes. The degree to which their belief increases or de-creases for a given change in performance, relative to a change in invest-ment, is captured by the adjustment parameter, p. Below, we provide il-lustrative empirical evidence that parents adjust their investments in culturalcapital in light of the outcomes of past investments.Figure 1 provides a summary of the main parts of our dynamic model.

For ease of presentation, we do not show either the “luck” ðor errorÞ terms ofour equations or the effects of the X variables, and we show the underlyingrelationships at only two points in time. The notation in the figure is thesame as in the equations. The underlying logic of the model is very straight-

FIG. 1.—Dynamic model of cultural reproduction


1092


forward. Parents’ investment in their child’s cultural capital helps to de-termine the child’s cultural capital. This influences teachers’ perceptionsof ðand inputs inÞ the child, which, in turn, affects the child’s educationalperformance. The child’s educational performance leads parents to updatetheir investment, and this new investment, together with existing culturalcapital, shapes the child’s later cultural capital, which affects teacher per-ceptions, and so on. This process continues throughout the period of com-pulsory schooling, eventually leading to final educational attainment, whichaffects socioeconomic success.

IMPLEMENTING OUR MODEL

In the remainder of the article, we illustrate the usefulness of our model forpast and future research on cultural reproduction. First, we argue that ourmodel helps to organize results from previous research that has sought to testcultural reproduction theory. Second, we argue that our model can be used toimprove interpretations of results from a wide range of research that usescultural reproduction theory to explain persisting socioeconomic differencesin educational success ðe.g., differences by race and social classÞ. Third, weuse data from the NLSY-CYA to provide an illustrative test of the assump-tion in our model that the processes through which children accumulatecultural capital from parents and convert this capital into educational per-formance are dynamic.

Organizing Previous Research

We begin by using our theoretical model to organize previous empirical re-search on cultural capital and educational success. Table 1 summarizes theoperational measures of cultural capital used in each study in our reviewðdistinguishing indicators of highbrow culture, reading climate, educationalresources, cultural communication, and extracurricular activitiesÞ, the mainfinding, and the country in which the study was conducted. The table showsthat previous empirical research can be classified into three groups focusingon, respectively, ðaÞ the link between parents’ and children’s cultural capital,ðbÞ the direct effect of cultural capital on educational success, and ðcÞ the waysin which cultural capital is converted into educational success.From the perspective of our model, research that addresses the transmis-

sion of cultural capital from parents to children seeks to identify the param-eters b1 and b2 in equation ð1Þ. This research includes indicators of parents’active investments in cultural capital ðcultural activities, cultural communi-cation, etc.Þ and their passive cultural capital ðcultural objects, books, etc.Þand relates these measures to children’s cultural capital. Most studies findthat there is a positive correlation between parents’ cultural capital ðboth


1093


TABLE

1SummaryofResultsfrom

PreviousResearch

Study

Dim

ension

ofCulturalCap

ital

MainResult

Cou

ntry

Transm

ission

ofculturalcapital

from

parents

tochild

ren:

Kraaykam

pð2003Þ

...........................

RPositiveeffect

Netherlan

ds

Georg

ð2004Þ

................................

H/R/C

Positiveeffect

German

yKraaykam

pan

dvan

Eijck

ð2010Þ

................

HPositiveeffect

Netherlan

ds

Yaish

andKatz-Gerro

ð2012Þ

...................

HPositiveeffect

Israel

Culturalcapital

andeducation

alsuccess:

Outcom

e—acad

emic

achievem

ent:*

DiM

aggioð1982Þ

...........................

HPositiveeffect

United

States

DeGraaf

ð1988Þ

...........................

RPositiveeffect

German

yKatsillisan

dRub

insonð1990Þ

.................

HNoeffect

Greece

Dow

ney

ð1995Þ

............................

H/E

Positiveeffect

United

States

Sullivan

ð2001Þ

............................

HPositiveeffect

United

Kingd

omDumaisð2002Þ

.............................

HPositiveeffect

United

States

Eitle

andEitle

ð2002Þ

.......................

H/E

Mainly

positiveeffect

United

States

Cheungan

dAndersenð2003Þ

.................

RPositiveeffect

United

Kingd

omBaron

eð2006Þ

.............................

H/C

Positiveeffect

25coun

tries

Lee

andBow

enð2006Þ

......................

CPositiveeffect

United

States

Van

deWerfhorst

andHofstedeð2007Þ

..........

HPositiveeffect

Netherlan

ds

Bod

ovskian

dFarkas

ð2008Þ

..................

H/R/X

Positiveeffect

United

States

Cheadle

ð2008Þ

............................

H/C

Positiveeffect

United

States

Jægerð2009Þ

..............................

H/E/C

Positiveeffect

Denmark

Wild

hagen

ð2009Þ

..........................

HPositiveeffect

United

States

Cov

ayan

dCarbon

aroð2010Þ

.................

XPositiveeffect

United

States

Flere

etal.ð2010Þ

..........................

HPositiveeffect

Slovenia

Tramon

tean

dWillmsð2010Þ

.................

H/C

Positiveeffect

28coun

tries

Jægerð2011Þ

..............................

H/R/X

Positiveeffect

United

States

Byu

n,Schofer,an

dKim

ð2012Þ

................

HPositiveeffect

Sou

thKorea

Xuan

dHam

pden-T

hompsonð2012Þ

............

H/C/E

Positiveeffect

22coun

tries

Gad

disð2013Þ

.............................

H/R

Positiveeffect

United

States

1094


Study

Dim

ension

ofCulturalCap

ital

MainResult

Outcom

e—education

alattainment:y

DiM

aggioan

dMoh

rð1985Þ

...................

HPositiveeffect

Denmark

DeGraaf

ð1986Þ

...........................

H/R

Mainly

positiveeffect

Netherlan

ds

Teachman

ð1987Þ

..........................

EPositiveeffect

United

States

Graetzð1988Þ

.............................

HPositiveeffect

Australia

Kalmijnan

dKraaykam

pð1996Þ

...............

HPositiveeffect

United

States

Ascha

ffenbu

rgan

dMaasð1997Þ

...............

HPositiveeffect

United

States

Roscign

oan

dAinsw

orth-D

arnellð1999Þ

.........

H/E

Positiveeffect

United

States

DeGraaf,deGraaf,an

dKraaykam

pð2000Þ

......

H/R

Positiveeffect

Netherlan

ds

Georg

ð2004Þ

..............................

H/R

Positiveeffect

German

yKau

fman

andGab

lerð2004Þ

..................

XPositiveeffect

United

States

Jægeran

dHolm

ð2007Þ

......................

H/R

Positiveeffect

Denmark

Evan

set

al.ð2010Þ

.........................

RPositiveeffect

27coun

tries

Yam

amotoan

dBrintonð2010Þ

...............

H/R

Positiveeffect

Japan

Effectof

cultural

capitalon

teachers’

perception

s:z

Farkas

etal.ð1990Þ

...........................

Appearan

ce,ab

senteeism

,disruptiveness,workhab

its

Positiveeffect

ofstudentSESon

teacher

rating

ofclassroom

skills

United

States

Tak

ei,Johnson,an

dClark

ð1998Þ

................

XNoeffect

ofculturalcapital

onteacher

rating

ofstudent’sclassroom

skills

United

States

Roscign

oan

dAinsw

orth-D

arnellð1999Þ

...........

H/E

Teacher

perception

sof

student’saca-

dem

icskillsmediatessomeof

theef-

fect

ofculturalcapital

onacad

emic

achievem

ent

United

States

Dumaisð2006Þ

..............................

HPositiveeffect

ofculturalcapitalon

teacher

ratings

ofstudent’slangu

age

andmathskills;how

ever,effect

for

low-SESchild

renon

ly

United

States

Bod

ovskian

dFarkas

ð2008Þ

....................

H/R/X

Noeffect

ofindex

of“con

certed

culti-

vation”on

teacher

rating

ofstudent’s

acad

emic

skills

United

States

Wild

hagen

ð2009Þ

............................

HNoeffect

ofculturalcapital

onteacher

rating

ofstudent’sclassroom

skills

United

States

1095


TABLE

1(Con

tinued)

Study

Dim

ension

ofCulturalCap

ital

MainResult

Cou

ntry

Dumais,Kessinger,an

dGhoshð2012Þ

.............

Parentalinvolvem

ent

ðvolunteeringÞ

Effectof

parentalinvolvem

enton

teacherratingof

child

ren’s

acad

emic

skillsvariesbyparentalSES

United

States

Lareauð1987,

1989,2003Þ;Lareauan

dHorvat

ð1999Þ

...........................

Xð1ÞP

arents

use

extracurricularactivities

tofoster

culturalcapitalin

child

renan

dð2Þp

arents

use

cultural

capital

topro-

motechild

ren’s

successin

school;ð3Þv

ari-

ationsin

effectsbySESan

drace

United

States

NOTE.—

Typ

eof

culturalcapitalmeasure:H

5highbrow

culture,E

5education

alresources/objects,C

5cultural

communication/in

teraction/in

volvem

ent;

X5

extracurricularactivities;R

5read

ingbehav

ior/clim

ate.

*GPA,test

scores,etc.

yYears

ofscho

oling,

college

completion

,etc.

zTeachers’

perception

sof

child

ren’s

acad

emic

ability.


active investments and passive cultural capitalÞ and children’s cultural cap-ital, thereby establishing that, as we argue in our model, cultural capital ispassed on from parents to children ðb1 > 0, b2 > 0Þ.Research that addresses the direct effect of cultural capital on educational

success ðwhich makes up the majority of existing empirical researchÞ ana-lyzes the effect of cultural capital on different measures of educational achieve-ment. In the terminology of our model, this research can be conceptualizedas directly identifying j1 in equation ð2Þ ðthe positive effect of cultural cap-ital on educational performanceÞ or, if the outcome variable is final educa-tional attainment, indirectly identifying this effect through h1 ðthe effect ofeducational performance on final educational attainment that is attributableto cultural capitalÞ. Table 1 shows that most studies report a positive corre-lation between cultural capital and educational success, thereby suggestingthat embodied cultural capital is converted into educational performance andattainment.Finally, research that addresses the effect of cultural capital on teachers’

perceptions of children deals with the mechanisms that lead to the expectedpositive sign of j1 in equation ð2Þ. After controlling for observable academicability, some studies find that indicators of children’s cultural capital arepositively correlated with teachers’ perceptions of children’s academic andsocial skills. This research corroborates the assumption in cultural repro-duction theory and in our model that the reason j1 is positive—even aftertaking children’s actual academic ability into account—is due to systematicmisrecognition of cultural capital as academic ability.Our review of previous research on cultural capital and educational suc-

cess from the perspective of our model shows that this research has ad-dressed, and found empirical support for, some of the core hypotheses incultural reproduction theory. However, our review also highlights that thestudies summarized in table 1 test parts of Bourdieu’s theory rather than thewhole. To our knowledge, no research has attempted to analyze the theoryof cultural reproduction in its structural form, that is, specifying and testingall the causal pathways through which cultural capital leads to educationaland socioeconomic success. Again borrowing terminology from economics,all of the studies listed in table 1 are “reduced form” in the sense that theytest only a subset of empirical implications of the theory of cultural repro-duction, in particular the implication that cultural capital has a direct posi-tive effect on educational success. And although this research has yieldedimportant insights into the link between cultural capital and educational suc-cess, at present we have no empirical evidence on whether parental invest-ments in cultural capital in childhood actually lead to socioeconomic successin adulthood ði.e., to social reproductionÞ. An advantage of our structuralmodel is that it could be used as a starting point for analyzing the entire


1097


causal chain through which investments in cultural capital lead to socialreproduction.

Better Interpretations of Past Research

In addition to organizing results from previous research, our model pro-vides a new framework for interpreting results from research that has usedcultural reproduction theory to explain persisting socioeconomic differencesin educational outcomes. In what follows, we use our model to reinterpretfindings from three influential lines of research that have analyzed ðaÞ black-white differences in educational outcomes, ðbÞ social class differences in edu-cational outcomes, and ðcÞ institutional differences in returns to culturalcapital. The objective of this section is to demonstrate that our model ac-commodates a wide range of proposed explanations of why cultural capitalmight account for socioeconomic differences in educational outcomes.Black-white differences.—Drawing on Bourdieu, several studies argue

that black-white differences in educational attainment in the United Statesare partly mediated by cultural capital ðFarkas et al. 1990; Farkas 1996;Kalmijn and Kraaykamp 1996; Lareau and Horvat 1999; Roscigno andAinsworth-Darnell 1999Þ. Explanations of why cultural capital mediatesthese differences build on empirical observations that blacks are ð1Þ lesslikely to participate in highbrow cultural activities than whites ðDiMaggioand Ostrower 1990; Kalmijn and Kraaykamp 1996Þ, ð2Þ less likely to orga-nize cultural trips or extracurricular activities for their children ðRoscignoand Ainsworth-Darnell 1999; Charles, Roscigno, and Torres 2007Þ, ð3Þmoremistrustful toward schooling ðLareau and Horvat 1999Þ, and ð4Þ less likelyto convert cultural capital ðif possessedÞ into educational performance ðRos-cigno and Ainsworth-Darnell 1999Þ. Our model accommodates all of theseexplanations since black-white differences in educational attainment mayarise if ð1Þ blacks possess less cultural capital than whites ði.e., they have dif-ferent values of S in eq. ½1�Þ, ð2Þ they are less likely to invest this cultural cap-ital ði.e., even for a fixed S, v is lower among blacks than whitesÞ, ð3Þ theyhave weaker beliefs than whites that cultural capital yields a return ði.e.,different values of m2 in eq. ½6�Þ, or ð4Þ their actual rate of return to cul-tural capital is lower than that of whites ði.e., a lower value of j1 in eq. ½2�even for constantAÞ. In ourmodel, all of these factors lead to different levelsof parental investment in cultural capital ðeq. ½8�Þ and, in the end, differentlevels of educational attainment, as has been reported in empirical research.Social class differences.—Lareau and colleagues argue that cultural cap-

ital mediates social class inequalities in educational success ðLareau 1987,1989, 2003; Lareau and Horvat 1999; Calarco 2014Þ. The argument in thisliterature is that middle-class parents engage in concerted cultivation; thatis, they organize children’s leisure time activities with the intention of in-


1098


culcating skills and behaviors in children that promote future socioeco-nomic success. In addition to organizing activities outside the home,middle-class parents engage children in conversations and discussion, teaching themto be analytical, reasoning, and argumentative. Working-class parents, bycontrast, are much less likely to engage in these activities and to find themuseful. All these elements speak directly to our dynamic model of parentalinvestments, which can be used to analyze how social class differences inchild-rearing practices and investments lead to educational inequalities.Class differences in the stock of cultural capital are captured in differentaverage values of S. Investments in cultural capital with extracurricular ac-tivities purchased in the market means, in our terms, that vt may exceed S.8

That middle-class parents have stronger beliefs that cultural capital mattersfor educational success would be captured in higher values of m2, and thisbelief might be updated according to the rule described in equation ð9Þ.Lareau and colleagues also argue that middle-class families tend to bemore involved than working-class parents in their children’s schooling, forexample, by volunteering at school events or by requesting special treatmentfor their children. In our model, we may think of these practices as invest-ments over and above those made directly in the child’s cultural capitalðeq. ½5�Þ that either affect teachers’ perceptions of the child ðresulting in ahigher value of J2 in eq. ½4�Þ or, if parents are successful in obtainingspecial treatment, lead to higher teacher inputs in the child ða higher valueof a1 in eq. ½4�Þ. Both strategies lead to higher educational performancein our model and help to explain how cultural capital may mediate socialclass differences in educational success.Institutional differences.—A final example of how our model can be used

to improve the interpretation of results from previous research relates toDiMaggio’s ð1982Þ influential cultural mobility model. DiMaggio arguedthat cultural capital may be a means of upward mobility for children fromdisadvantaged socioeconomic backgrounds. The reason cultural capital isparticularly beneficial for children from disadvantaged backgrounds is thatthey tend to populate educational settings in which there is little culturalcapital, and, compared to children from more advantaged backgrounds,they face less competition when attempting to show off their cultural capi-tal. This model turns Bourdieu on his head by suggesting that returns tocultural capital, if possessed, are higher for those from less advantaged back-grounds than for those from more advantaged backgrounds ðDiMaggio

8The strategy of purchasing extra inputs ðextracurricular activities, tutoring, etc.Þ tosupplement in-house investments in cultural capital is particularly relevant in manynon-Western contexts. For example, research shows that in Japan and South Koreaparents invest extensively in “shadow education” to promote children’s educationalsuccess ðYamamoto and Brinton 2010; Lee and Rouse 2011; Byun, Schofer, and Kim2012Þ.


1099


1982; Aschaffenburg and Maas 1997; de Graaf, de Graaf, and Kraaykamp2000Þ. DiMaggio’s model is inconsistent with Bourdieu’s ideas but can beaccommodated within our model in which it implies, holding constant re-sources, investments, and beliefs ði.e., S, v, and m2Þ, that returns to cul-tural capital ðvia J2 and a1Þ are higher for children from disadvantaged so-cioeconomic backgrounds than for those from advantaged backgrounds.Our model does not address the question why returns to cultural capitalmight be different for children from different socioeconomic backgrounds,but it could be extended to include such factors. For example, variation inJ2 and a1 by socioeconomic background could arise from differences acrossschooling environments in the mean level of cultural capital in these envi-ronments. In that case, returns might be higher in environments charac-terized by low levels of cultural capital because less cultural capital is neededto stand out relative to one’s peers. In our model we could capture this sce-nario by extending equation ð4Þ to include C̄, where C̄ is the mean level ofcultural capital in the school or class context.

DYNAMIC ANALYSIS OF CULTURAL REPRODUCTION

We have argued that our model can be used to organize findings from re-search on cultural capital and to improve the interpretation of a diversebody of research that has used the theory of cultural reproduction to ac-count for socioeconomic differences in educational success. In this final sec-tion we provide empirical evidence on the dynamic nature of cultural capitalinvestments. Our aim is to illustrate three aspects of our model that havenot been addressed in previous research: ð1Þ parents invest continuously inchildren’s cultural capital, ð2Þ children’s cultural capital affects their edu-cational performance, and ð3Þ parents modify investments in cultural capi-tal in light of the outcomes of previous investments. We use longitudinal datafrom the NLSY-CYA and estimate empirical approximations of equationð5Þ ðdescribing the process through which the child accumulates culturalcapital over timeÞ and equation ð6Þ ðdescribing the process through whichcultural capital is converted into educational performanceÞ. We also providetentative empirical evidence that parents update their beliefs about returnsto investments in cultural capital on the basis of the outcomes of past in-vestments ðas described by eq. ½9�Þ.

Data and Variables

We use data from NLSY-CYA, a panel study conducted biannually be-tween 1986 and 2010, which collects information on all biological childrenof female participants in the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth 1979ðsee CHRR 2006a, 2006bÞ. We use the NLSY-CYA because, unlike other


1100


available data sets, it includes longitudinal information on cultural capitalfor NLSY 1979 mothers and for children age 10 and older. Our indicatorsof children’s cultural capital are mainly collected from children themselves,and, consequently, we focus on children 10–14 years old, for most of whomwe have three observations. The NLSY-CYA also includes longitudinalinformation on children’s academic achievement and socioeconomic back-ground. Unfortunately, the NLSY-CYA does not include direct measures ofteacher inputs in children, a point to which we return below.We include four types of variables to capture the core ingredients in our

theoretical model. These variables measure ð1Þ the child’s cultural capital,ð2Þ parents’ cultural capital, ð3Þ the child’s educational performance, andð4Þ socioeconomic background and demographic controls. Table A1 pre-sents detailed information and summary statistics for all variables includedin the analyses.Child’s cultural capital.—Previous research has used empirical indica-

tors of highbrow culture, reading behavior, extracurricular activities, cul-tural communication, and educational resources to capture different aspectsof cultural capital ðsee table 1 for a summaryÞ. In the NLSY-CYA we arelimited to including indicators of reading behavior when constructing ameasure of the child’s cultural capital ðC in eqq. ½1�, ½2�, and ½4�–½6�Þ.9Specifically, we construct a composite index that is composed from threeitems: ð1Þ the mother’s report of how much the child reads for enjoyment,ð2Þwhether the child reports that she typically reads a book ormagazine notassigned at school, and ð3Þ whether the child reports that she reads books ormagazines for fun on a usual summer day. This index, which captures thechild’s reading habits, is constructed by first rescaling the indicator of howmuch the child reads for enjoyment to lie in the range 0–1 and then summariz-ing the child’s total score on the three indicators included in the index.In the empirical analysis, we rescale the index to lie in the range 0–1.Parents’ cultural capital.—We construct two indicators of parents’ cul-

tural capital. The first indicator, active cultural investments, is a compositeindex intended to capture how much parents actively invest in transmittingtheir cultural capital to the child ðv in eqq. ½1�, ½5�, and ½6�Þ. It is made up offive items capturing ð1Þ how often in the last year a family member has takenthe child to any type of museum, ð2Þ how often in the last year a familymember has taken the child to any type of musical or theatrical perfor-mance, ð3Þ how many books the child has, ð4Þ whether the family encour-ages the child to start and keep doing hobbies, and ð5Þ whether the childgets special lessons or does extracurricular activities. The index, which com-

9Keeping this limitation in mind, we note that, among the different aspects of culturalcapital that have been included in previous research, reading behavior is the aspect thathas been found to be most strongly correlated with educational success ðe.g., de Graafet al. 2000; Jæger 2009; Gaddis 2013Þ.


1101


bines indicators of highbrow cultural participation, reading climate, and ex-tracurricular activities, summarizes parents’ response to all five items, and itis rescaled to lie in the range 0–1. The second indicator, passive cultural cap-ital, is intended to capture the influence of cultural capital in the home, netof parents’ active investments ðS in eqq. ½1�, ½5�, and ½6�Þ. We use two indi-cators to create this index: ð1Þ whether the family gets a daily newspaperand ð2Þ whether there is a musical instrument in the home that the child canuse. The index summarizes parents’ responses to these two questions, and itis rescaled to lie in the range 0–1.Educational performance.—The NLSY-CYA includes two time-varying

indicators of the child’s academic achievement, the Peabody IndividualAchievement Tests ðPIATÞ in math and reading recognition. We use thesemeasures as proxies for educational performance ðP in eqq. ½2�–½4� and ½6�Þ.We use percentile scores for each PIAT test, normed to children’s age.Controls.—We include a range of socioeconomic and demographic con-

trol variables ðX in eqq. ½1�–½6�Þ, which are described in appendix table A1.

Analytical Strategy

We use linear dynamic panel data ðDPDÞ models to estimate approxima-tions of equations ð5Þ and ð6Þ in the theoretical model. DPD models are avariant of traditional panel regression models in which present values ofthe dependent variable are treated as dynamic in the sense that they may de-pend on past values of the dependent variable, as well as on present andpast values of explanatory variables ðe.g., Arellano and Bond 1991; Arellanoand Bover 1995; Blundell and Bond 1998Þ. The models we estimate are“reduced form” because they involve statistical estimation of relationshipsthat are derived from our structural model. We interpret the empiricalresults in light of our underlying structural model that specifies the mech-anisms and behaviors that are assumed to generate these results. Likestandard panel regression models, DPD models exploit longitudinal infor-mation in the panel data to control for the effect of unobserved individualcharacteristics that affect the outcomes of interest.We estimate the following reduced form DPD model for the child’s cul-

tural capital ðeq. ½5�Þ:

Ci;t 5 ~g1Ci;t21 1 ~g2vi;t 1~g3Si;t 1 ~g4Xi;t 1 T 1 ui 1 e1i;t; ð10Þ

where Ci,t is the child’s cultural capital ðreading behaviorÞ and where i in-dexes individuals ði5 1, . . . , NÞ and t indexes time ðt5 1986–2010Þ. The ~gare parameters to be estimated, and the tildes are used to indicate thatthese are our empirical estimates of the parameters of equation ð5Þ. The pa-


1102


rameter ui is a child-specific effect that captures time-invariant unobservedcharacteristics that affect cultural capital.10 In this model the child’s culturalcapital in period t depends on her cultural capital in the previous periodðthus capturing the idea that cultural capital accumulated in the past affectscultural capital in the presentÞ, parents’ active cultural investments and pas-sive cultural capital in the present period ðv and S, respectivelyÞ, and parents’resources in the present period ðXÞ. The model also includes dummies forsurvey year T ð1986–2010Þ to capture time trends and an error term e1.We estimate the following reduced form DPD model for the child’s edu-

cational performance ðeq. ½6�Þ:Pi;t 5 ~m0Pi;t21 1 ~m1Ci;t21 1 ~m2vi;t 1 ~m3Si;t 1 ~m5Xi;t 1 T 1 ui 1 e2i;t; ð11Þ

where the child’s performance on the PIAT math and reading recognitiontests in period t, Pi,t, depends on her performance and cultural capital in theprevious period, parents’ active investments in cultural capital and passivecultural capital in the home, and parents’ resources. We should note thatthis reduced form model is an incomplete representation of our structuralmodel because we do not observe teacher inputs in the child in the NLSY-CYA data. Consequently, rather than estimating the effect of the child’scultural capital on teacher inputs ðwhich is the “catalyst” through whichcultural capital is assumed to be converted into educational performancein our modelÞ, we estimate ~m1, which captures the combined effect of J2

ðthe effect of cultural capital on teacher inputsÞ and a1 ðthe effect of teacherinputs on educational performanceÞ.Finally, we estimate reduced form DPD models to substantiate our as-

sumption that parents adjust their investments in cultural capital in lightof the outcomes of past investments ðdescribed in eqq. ½7�–½9�Þ. We esti-mate the following model:

vi;t 5 ~t1vi;t21 1 ~t2vi;t22 1 ~t3Pi;t21 1 ~t4ðvi;t22 � Pi;t21Þ1 ~t5Si;t

1 ~t6Xi;t 1 T 1 ui 1 e3i;t;ð12Þ

where vi,t is parents’ active cultural investments in the child in period t.11

Parents’ active cultural investment in period t depends on their investmentin the previous period ðvi,t21Þ, their investment two periods ago ðvi,t22Þ, the

10Our theoretical model also includes academic ability, Ac ðeq. ½5�Þ. We control indirectlyfor academic ability via ui, which, among other factors, also captures the effect ofacademic ability on cultural capital.11Note that our indicators of parents’ investments in cultural capital cover the periodwhen the child was 6–14 years old ðand in some cases 0–14 years old; see table A1Þ,which means that we have more repeated observations of parents’ investments thanobservations of children’s cultural capital.


1103


child’s educational performance in the previous period ðPi,t21Þ, and an in-teraction effect between parents’ investment two periods ago and the child’seducational performance in the previous period ðS, X, T, u, and e are thesame as aboveÞ. The ~t are parameters to be estimated. The idea in thismodel is to test whether, as stipulated in equation ð9Þ, parents adjust theirbeliefs about the returns to cultural capital, and thus their active culturalinvestments in the present, on the basis of the outcomes of past investments.If parents adjust their investments, the coefficient on the interaction term,~t4, should be positive. Parents know how much they invested two periodsago ðvi,t22Þ, they observed the outcome of this investment in the child’s edu-cational performance in the previous period ðPi,t21Þ, and if returns to pastinvestments are positive, parents should update their beliefs so as to investmore in the present ðvi,tÞ. Thus, the coefficient on the interaction effect cap-tures the adjustment in parents’ active cultural investments in the presentthat follows from a combination of investments two periods ago and aca-demic performance one period ago.We estimate the parameters of the DPD models using the one-step

system generalized method of moments estimator implemented in the Stataado xtabond2 ðRoodman 2009Þ. Finally, because the NLSY-CYA includesseveral children from the same family, we adjust all standard errors forclustering of respondents within families.

Results

Table 2 presents results from reduced form DPD regressions of the child’scultural capital and the child’s score on the PIAT math and reading rec-ognition tests. In all models, we use data on three observations for eachchild collected between age 10 and 14.Results from the DPD model for the child’s cultural capital are consis-

tent with the predictions of our theoretical model. We find that the child’scultural capital ðmeasured by reading habitsÞ in period t depends on hercultural capital in the previous period ð~g1 5 :29, P < .001Þ, thus indicat-ing that the child accumulates cultural capital over time. Net of this cu-mulative effect, we also find a positive and statistically significant effectof parents’ active cultural investments in the present period on the child’scultural capital ð~g2 5 :15, P < .001Þ and a positive effect of parents’ passivecultural capital ð~g3 5 :04, P < .01Þ. These results are in line with our argu-ment that the process through which the child accumulates cultural capitalfrom parents is dynamic, and, moreover, parents’ active cultural investmentsand the child’s passive exposure to cultural capital both contribute to theintergenerational transmission of cultural capital.We now turn to the results for the child’s educational performance, as de-

scribed in equation ð6Þ in our theoretical model. Table 2 shows results from


1104


reduced form DPD regressions of the child’s math and reading ability onthe child and parents’ cultural capital and on the controls. Results are verysimilar for the two measures of academic achievement. In addition to testscores in the present period depending on the test score in the previous periodðreflecting a cumulative effectÞ, math and reading ability in the present pe-rioddependonthechild’sculturalcapital in thepreviousperiod ð~m1math 5 4:52,~m1reading 5 6:31; both P < .001Þ and on parents’ active cultural investmentsin the present period ð~m2math 5 10:64, ~m2reading 5 8:42; both P < .001Þ andpassive cultural capital ð~m3math 5 4:66, ~m3reading 5 4:12; both P < .001Þ. Keep-ing the limitations of the NLSY-CYA data in mind, we find that these em-pirical findings are consistent with our theoretical model. Since we do notobserve teacher inputs, we interpret the positive effect of the child’s culturalcapital on educational performance as capturing the outcome of a two-stageprocess in which cultural capital is converted into teacher inputs, which arethen converted into educational performance. In this regard, our reducedform estimates capture the “rate of return” to cultural capital in terms ofeducational performance, as expressed in our model.Finally, table 3 presents results from reduced form DPD models of par-

ents’ active cultural investments. In equation ð12Þ we stipulate that, in ad-dition to other factors, parents’ active cultural investments in the presentdepend on the outcomes of their investments two periods ago, manifestedin the child’s educational performance one period ago. If parents adjust their

TABLE 2Results from DPD Regressions of Child’s Cultural Capital

and PIAT Math and Reading Recognition Test Scores

Dependent VariableChild’s Cultural

Capital MathReading

Recognition

Child:Lagged academic achievement . . . .13 .30

ð.03Þ*** ð.03Þ***Lagged cultural capital . . . . . . . .29 4.52 6.31

ð.06Þ*** ð1.15Þ*** ð1.12Þ***Parents:Active cultural investments . . . . .15 10.64 8.42

ð.03Þ*** ð2.37Þ*** ð2.19Þ***Passive cultural capital . . . . . . . .04 4.66 4.12

ð.02Þ** ð1.08Þ*** ð1.06Þ***Controls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Yes Yes YesN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,325 4,430 4,443

NOTE.—Estimator is one-step system generalized method of moments. Models also includedummy variables for survey year ð1986–2010Þ. SEs ðin parenthesesÞ are corrected for cluster-ing of respondents within families. See table A1 for list of controls.* P < .05.** P < .01.*** P < .001.


1105


investments in cultural capital on the basis of the outcomes of past invest-ments, we expect a positive coefficient on the interaction term between activecultural investments two periods ago and educational performance one pe-riod ago. Table 3 shows results from two model specifications that use, re-spectively, PIAT math and reading recognition as the indicators of edu-cational performance. As hypothesized, and net of other factors, we finda positive and statistically significant coefficient on the interaction termsvi;t22 � Pi;t21 in both models ð~t4 5 :004, P < .001Þ. Although our approachis a crude approximation of the theoretical mechanism we propose, theseresults indicate, as implied by equation ð9Þ, that parents invest more incultural capital in the present if higher investments in the past yieldedhigher educational performance.12 In other words, our results are consis-

TABLE 3Results from DPD Regressions of Parents’ Active Cultural Investments

Measure of Educational Performance MathReading

Recognition

Lagged active cultural investments ðt 2 1Þ . . . . . .21 .22ð.02Þ*** ð.02Þ***

Lagged active cultural investments ðt 2 2Þ . . . . . 2.10 2.12ð.06Þ ð.07Þ

Lagged academic achievement:Lagged PIAT math ðt 2 1Þ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.00

ð.00Þ***Lagged PIAT reading recognition ðt 2 1Þ . . . . 2.00

ð.00Þ***Interaction effect:Lagged active cultural investments ðt 2 2Þ �lagged PIAT math ðt 2 1Þ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .004

ð.00Þ***Lagged active cultural investments ðt 2 2Þ �lagged PIAT reading recognition ðt 2 1Þ . . . .004

ð.00Þ***Passive cultural capital . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .09 .09

ð.01Þ*** ð.01Þ***Controls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Yes YesN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10,059 10,044

NOTE.—Estimator is one-step system generalized method of moments. Models also includedummy variables for survey year ð1986–2010Þ. SEs ðin parenthesesÞ are corrected for clus-tering of respondents within families. See table A1 for list of controls.* P < .05.** P < .01.*** P < .001.

12The main effect on parents’ active investments two periods ago is not significant,while the main effect on the child’s educational performance is negative and significant.Taken together with the positive interaction term, this suggests that parents’ investments


1106


tent with the idea that parents update their beliefs about the returns tocultural capital on the basis of the outcomes of past investments. Naturally,more research, including direct testing, is needed to determine the extentto which parents adjust investments in cultural capital.

DISCUSSION

This article was motivated by what we regard as a discrepancy betweenthe prominent position of the theory of cultural reproduction in socialstratification research and its conceptual and empirical validity. There iswidespread agreement that Bourdieu’s writings on cultural reproductionare unclear with regard to core concepts and mechanisms. We argue thatthis lack of clarity has had a detrimental impact on research on culturalreproduction, which is characterized by little consensus on how to con-ceptualize and measure cultural capital and how to interpret empirical corre-lations between cultural capital and educational success. At present, we arenot convinced that the literature provides a credible answer to Bourdieu’soriginal question: Does cultural capital promote social reproduction?Instead of debating the exact meaning of Bourdieu’s original thoughts,

we present a formal theoretical model of cultural reproduction that encap-sulates what we believe to be the core ideas in his theory. This structuralmodel brings together Bourdieu’s ideas and may be used as a basis for or-ganizing and interpreting results from previous research and as a conceptualstarting point for future research. Our model describes the three componentsthat make up the theory of cultural reproduction: how parents transmit theircultural capital to children, how children convert cultural capital into edu-cational success, and how educational success promotes social reproduction.It extends Bourdieu’s ideas by describing the mechanism through whichparents invest in their children’s cultural capital and the mechanism throughwhich children convert cultural capital into educational performance. Onthe basis of a rational choice perspective, we also propose a flexible set of be-havioral assumptions on the part of parents, children, and institutions thatenables us to interpret the parameters in our structural model.We use our theoretical model to interpret the results of existing empiri-

cal research and use NLSY-CYA data to illustrate the dynamic natureof cultural capital investments and their implications for children’s educa-

in their child’s cultural capital remain unchanged if she performs poorly. If, following lowparental investment, the child performs well, parents reduce their investment further, per-haps because it seems to be unnecessary to their child’s educational success. But if, followingrelatively high parental investment, their child performs well, parents increase their sub-sequent investment because, as we argue, they interpret this to mean that investing in theirchild’s cultural capital pays off.


1107


tional performance. Our literature review suggests that results from pre-vious research are mostly in line with cultural reproduction theory but alsothat research has yet to test the full implications of the theory and to iden-tify the specific mechanisms through which cultural capital may lead to edu-cational success. Results from our illustrative analysis of the NLSY-CYAdata are consistent with the hypotheses that children accumulate culturalcapital from parents, cultural capital has a positive effect on educationalperformance, and parents adjust their investments in cultural capital on thebasis of the outcomes of past investments.We believe that the main contribution of this article is to propose a new

direction for research that uses the concepts of cultural reproduction andcultural capital to explain persisting intergenerational inequalities in socio-economic outcomes. In our view, there is little doubt that the inequalitiesin socioeconomic outcomes that have been extensively documented in socialstratification research are partly attributable to cultural factors in the familyof origin. The challenge is how to conceptualize these cultural factors andthe ways in which they operate and how to document their implications forpatterns of intergenerational social mobility. We think Bourdieu’s theory ofcultural reproduction represents a starting point for such an investigationbut is ultimately limited by its lack of clarity in several core dimensions.A key advantage of our model is that it can be extended to accommo-

date a richer conceptual setup or new empirical insights. For example, ourmodel assumes that parents have only one child. But how do parents allo-cate investments in cultural capital when they have more than one child?Related research shows that parents allocate resources to each child in thefamily on the basis of the expected costs and benefits of these allocationsand on the basis of observable outcomes of past investments ðSteelman andPowell 1991; Behrman 1997; Ayalew 2005Þ. Lareau’s ð2003Þ qualitative studyillustrates this point. In the Tallinger family—a white middle-class familywith three boys—the parents allocate a disproportionate share of the fam-ily’s resources to the oldest son, Garrett, whom they believe is the mostgifted among the three children. We could extend our model to accom-modate this situation by arguing that, when a family has more than onechild and assuming that there is a limit on the family’s resources, invest-ment in children’s cultural capital ðgiven by vipt, where i indexes childrenÞwill be proportional to parents’ belief about each child’s m2 parameter. Thatis, parents will invest in proportion to how much return their investmentis expected to yield, in terms of educational performance, for each child.Children who more effectively translate parental investments into educa-tional performance will receive greater investment than will their brotheror sister whose performance is less sensitive to parental investment. Fu-ture research should explore whether this type of logic applies in multichildhouseholds.


1108


Another extension of our model might be to incorporate heterogeneityin returns to cultural capital. Our model assumes that the return to culturalcapital in the form of educational performance, j1 ðor, in the dynamic con-text, J2Þ, is the same for all children. Yet, it may be that j1 varies system-atically by institutional context or by socioeconomic factors. For example,Jæger ð2011Þ found that returns to highbrow cultural capital ðmeasured byfrequency of going to museums and concertsÞ were higher for children fromadvantaged socioeconomic backgrounds than for those from less advan-taged backgrounds. He argued that this difference in the rate of return tohighbrow cultural capital might be due to different institutionalizations ofcultural capital across schooling environments: children from advantagedbackgrounds tend to be in schooling environments that appreciate famil-iarity with highbrow culture, while those from less advantaged backgroundstend not to be in these environments. In a similar vein, Leopold and Shavitð2013Þ found that immigrants from the former Soviet Union in Israel receivea lower return to their cultural capital in Israeli schools than natives becausethey possess the “wrong” type of cultural capital that is not appreciated inmainstream education. In our model we could incorporate these types ofheterogeneity by, for example, letting j1 in equation ð2Þ be a function of aset of institutional or social characteristics. Indeed, many extensions of ourmodel are possible, and we hope that future research will extend, modify,and test the model presented in this article and, in that process, provide aricher understanding of the ways in which cultural capital may contributeto social reproduction.


1109


APPENDIX

TABLE

A1

DescriptiveStatisticsandSummaryofVariables

Indicator

Respon

seCategory

Age

Ran

geMean/%

SD

N*

Child

’sculturalcapital:y

.56

.33

12,303

How

oftenchild

read

sforenjoym

ent

.........

15

never;25

several

times

ayear;

35

several

times

amon

th;45

several

times

aweek;55

everyday

z6–14

Child

read

sbookor

magazineafterschool

.....

05

no;

15

yes

10–1

4Child

read

sbooksor

magazines

forfunon

asummer

day

.........................

05

no;

15

yes

10–1

4Parents’activecultural

investments:§

.58

.18

12,153

How

oftenin

thelast

year

child

istakento

museum

............................

15

never;2

5on

ceor

twice;35

several

times;45

abou

ton

ceamon

th;55

abou

ton

ceaweekor

moreoftenz

3–14

How

oftenin

thelast

year

child

istakento

concert/theater.......................

15

never;2

5on

ceor

twice;35

several

times;45

abou

ton

ceamon

th;55

abou

ton

ceaweekor

moreoftenz

6–14

Number

ofbookschild

has

.................

15

non

e;25

1or

2books;35

3–9

books;45

10or

morebooksz

0–14

Fam

ilyencourageschild

totakeon

hob

bies

....

05

no;

15

yes

6–14

Child

gets

speciallesson

s/doesextracurricular

activities

...........................

05

no;

15

yes

6–14

Parents’passivecultural

capital:k

.49

.37

11,941

Fam

ilysubscribes

todaily

new

spap

er........

05

no;

15

yes

6–14

Musicalinstrumentav

ailable

inchild

’shom

e...

05

no;

15

yes

6–14

Academ

icachievem

ent:

PIA

Tmath

.............................

Peabod

yIndividual

Achievem

entTest,

5–14

53.47

28.53

11,871

1110


Indicator

Respon

seCategory

Age

Ran

geMea-

n/%

SD

percentile

scoreð0–1

00Þ

PIA

Tread

ingrecogn

ition

..................

Peabod

yIndividual

Achievem

entTest,

percentile

scoreð0–1

00Þ

5–14

57.81

29.77

11,883

Con

trols:

Fam

ilyincomeðlo

gÞ......................

Log

oftotalfamily

income,

indexed

to1986

10.75

1.71

10,479

Mother’s

education

.......................

Years

ofscho

oling

12.74

2.57

12,268

Mother’s

IQ............................

Mother’s

scoreon

Arm

edForcesQualifi

cation

Test,percentile

scoreð0–1

00Þ

36.09

28.36

12,303

Fam

ilysize

.............................

Total

number

ofchild

renliv

ingin

mother’s

hou

seho

ld2.61

1.21

12,285

Mother’s

race:

White

...............................

Dummyvariable

.43

Black

...............................

Dummyvariable

.30

Hispan

ic.............................

Dummyvariable

.18

Other

................................

Dummyvariable

.10

Child

’ssex

.............................

15

female,

05

male

.51

.50

12,088

Child

’sage

.............................

Child’s

agein

mon

ths

147.46

17.02

12,285

NOTE.—

Allvariableswerecollected

intheyears1986–2010,withthefollo

wingexception

s:child

read

sbookor

magazineafterscho

olð1992–2010Þ,child

read

sbooksor

magazines

forfunon

asummer

day

ð1992–2010Þ,an

dmother’srace

ðcollected

1979Þ.

*Child-by-year

observations

defined

asallob

servationswithvalid

respon

seon

child

’scultural

capital.

yFirstfactor

inprincipal

compon

entan

alysisðPCAÞa

ccou

ntsfor65.1%

ofthecovariance

betweentheitem

sin

theindex

ðestimates

based

onpolychoric

correlationmatrixsince

allindicatorsarecategoricalÞ.

Cronba

ch’s

a5

.484.

zVariable

rescaled

to0–1.

§First

PCA

factor

accountsfor44.7%

oftotalvariance.Cronba

ch’s

a5

.549.

kPolychoric

correlationbetweenitem

sis.168.C

ronba

ch’s

a5

.193.

1111


REFERENCES

Arellano, Manuel, and Stephen R. Bond. 1991. “Some Tests of Specification for PanelData: Monte Carlo Evidence and an Application to Employment Equations.”Reviewof Economic Studies 58:277–97.

Arellano, Manuel, and Olympia Bover. 1995. “Another Look at the Instrumental Var-iable Estimation of Error-Components Models.” Journal of Econometrics 68:29–51.

Aschaffenburg, Karen, and Ineke Maas. 1997. “Cultural and Educational Careers: TheDynamics of Social Reproduction.” American Sociological Review 62:573–87.

Ayalew, Tekabe. 2005. “Parental Preference, Heterogeneity, and Human CapitalInequality.” Economic Development and Cultural Change 53:381–407.

Barone, Carlo. 2006. “Cultural Capital, Ambition and the Explanation of Inequalities inLearning Outcomes: A Comparative Perspective.” Sociology 40:1039–58.

Behrman, Jere R. 1997. “Intrahousehold Distribution and the Family.” Pp. 127–87 inHandbook of Population and Family Economics, vol. 1A. Edited by Mark Ro-senzweig and Oded Stark. Amsterdam: North Holland.

Bisin, Alberto, and Thierry Verdier. 2011. “The Economics of Cultural Transmis-sion and Socialization.” Pp. 340–416 in Handbook of Social Economics, vol. 1A.Edited by Jess Benhabib, Alberto Bisin, andMatthewO. Jackson. Amsterdam: NorthHolland.

Blundell, Richard, and Stephen R. Bond. 1998. “Initial Conditions and MomentRestriction in Dynamic Panel Data Models.” Journal of Econometrics 87:115–43.

Bodovski, Katerina, and George Farkas. 2008. “‘Concerted Cultivation’ and UnequalAchievement in Elementary School.” Social Science Research 37:903–19.

Bourdieu, Pierre. 1977a. “Cultural Reproduction and Social Reproduction.” Pp. 487–511 inPower and Ideology in Education, edited by Jerome Karabel and Albert H. Halsey.New York: Oxford University Press.

———. 1977b. Outline of a Theory of Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.———. 1984. Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste. Cambridge, Mass.:

Harvard University Press.———. 1986. “The Forms of Capital.” Pp. 241–58 in Handbook of Theory and Re-

search in the Sociology of Education, edited by John G. Richardson. New York:Greenwood.

Bourdieu, Pierre, and Jean-Claude Passeron. 1990. Reproduction in Education, Societyand Culture. London: Sage.

Byun, Soo-yong, Evan Schofer, and Kyung-keun Kim. 2012. “Revisiting the Role ofCultural Capital in East Asian Educational Systems: The Case of South Korea.” Soci-ology of Education 85:219–39.

Calarco, Jessica McCrory. 2014. “Coached for the Classroom: Parents’ Cultural Trans-mission and Children’s Reproduction of Educational Inequalities.” American Sociolog-ical Review 79:1015–37.

Charles, Camille Z., Vincent J. Roscigno, and Kimberly C. Torres. 2007. “Racial In-equality and College Attendance: The Mediating Role of Parental Investments.” SocialScience Research 36:329–52.

Cheadle, Jacob A. 2008. “Educational Investment, Family Context, and Children’s Mathand Reading Growth from Kindergarten through the Third Grade.” Sociology of Edu-cation 81:1–31.

Cheung, Sin Yi, and Robert Andersen. 2003. “Time to Read: Family Resources andEducational Outcomes in Britain.” Journal of Comparative Family Studies 34:413–33.

CHRR ðCenter for Human Resource ResearchÞ. 2006a. NLSY79 Child and Young AdultData Users Guide. Columbus, Ohio: Center for Human Resource Research, Ohio StateUniversity.

———. 2006b. NLSY79 User ’s Guide. Columbus, Ohio: Center for Human Resource Re-search, Ohio State University.


1112


http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1177%2F003804070808100101





http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/action/showLinks?system=10.1086%2F425377

http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1016%2FS0304-4076%2898%2900009-8






http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1016%2Fj.ssresearch.2008.02.007

http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1016%2F0304-4076%2894%2901642-D



Covay, Elizabeth, and William Carbonaro. 2010. “After the Bell: Participation in Extra-curricular Activities, Classroom Behavior, and Academic Achievement.” Sociology ofEducation 83:20–45.

Crook, Christopher. 1997. Cultural Practices and Socioeconomic Attainment: The Aus-tralian Experience. Westport, Conn.: Greenwood.

Cunha, Flavio, and James J. Heckman. 2008. “Formulating, Identifying and Estimatingthe Technology of Cognitive and Noncognitive Skill Formation.” Journal of HumanResources 43:738–82.

De Graaf, Nan Dirk, Paul M. de Graaf, and Gerbert Kraaykamp. 2000. “ParentalCultural Capital and Educational Attainment in the Netherlands: A Refinement of theCultural Capital Perspective.” Sociology of Education 73:92–111.

De Graaf, Paul M. 1986. “The Impact of Financial and Cultural Resources on EducationalAttainment in the Netherlands.” Sociology of Education 59:237–46.

———. 1988. “Parents’ Financial and Cultural Resources, Grades, and Transitions toSecondary School in the Federal Republic of Germany.” European Sociological Review4:209–21.

DiMaggio, Paul. 1982. “Cultural Capital and School Success: The Impact of Status Cul-ture Participation on the Grade of U.S. High School Students.” American SociologicalReview 47:189–201.

DiMaggio, Paul, and John W. Mohr. 1985. “Cultural Capital, Educational Attainment,and Marital Selection.” American Journal of Sociology 90:1231–61.

DiMaggio, Paul, and Francie Ostrower. 1990. “Participation in the Arts by Black andWhite Americans.” Social Forces 68:753–78.

Downey, Douglas B. 1995. “When Bigger Is Not Better: Family Size, Parental Re-sources, and Children’s Educational Performance.” American Sociological Review60:746–61.

Dumais, Susan A. 2002. “Cultural Capital, Gender, and School Success: The Role ofHabitus.” Sociology of Education 75:44–68.

———. 2006. “Early Childhood Cultural Capital, Parental Habitus, and Teachers’ Per-ceptions.” Poetics 34:83–107.

Dumais, Susan A., Richard J. Kessinger III, and Bonny Ghosh. 2012. “ConcertedCultivation and Teachers’ Evaluations of Students: Exploring the Intersection ofRace and Parents’ Educational Attainment.” Sociological Perspectives 55:17–42.

Eitle, Tamela McNulty, and David J. Eitle. 2002. “Race, Cultural Capital, and theEducational Effects of Participation in Sports.” Sociology of Education 75:123–46.

Evans, Maria D. R., Jonathan Kelley, Joanna Sikora, and Donald J. Treiman. 2010.“Family Scholarly Culture and Educational Success: Books and Schooling in 27Nations.” Research in Social Stratification and Mobility 28:171–97.

Farkas, George. 1996. Cultural Capital or Human Capital? Ethnicity and Poverty Groupsin an Urban School District. New York: de Gruyter.

Farkas, George, Robert P. Grobe, Daniel Sheehan, and Yuan Shuan. 1990. “CulturalResources and School Success: Gender, Ethnicity, and Poverty Groups within anUrban School District.” American Sociological Review 55:127–42.

Flere, Sergej, Marina T. Krajnc, Rudi Klanjsek, Nojan Musil, and Andrej Kirbis. 2010.“Cultural Capital and Intellectual Ability as Predictors of Scholastic Achievement: AStudy of Slovenian Secondary School Students.” British Journal of Sociology of Edu-cation 31:47–58.

Gaddis, S. Michael. 2013. “The Influence of Habitus in the Relationship between Cul-tural Capital and Academic Achievement.” Social Science Research 42:1–13.

Ganzeboom, Harry. 1982. “Explaining Differential Participation in High-Cultural Activi-ties: A Confrontation of Information-Processing and Status-Seeking Theories.” Pp. 186–205 in Theoretical Models and Empirical Analyses: Contributions to the Explanationof Individual Actions and Collective Phenomena, edited by Werner Raub. Utrecht:E. S. Publications.


1113


http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1016%2Fj.poetic.2005.09.003




http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1093%2Fsf%2F68.3.753

http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1525%2Fsop.2012.55.1.17






http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1353%2Fjhr.2008.0019

http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1353%2Fjhr.2008.0019




http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1016%2Fj.rssm.2010.01.002




Georg, Werner. 2004. “Cultural Capital and Social Inequality in the Life Course.” Euro-pean Sociological Review 20:333–44.

Goldthorpe, John H. 2007. “‘Cultural Capital’: Some Critical Observations.” Sociologia2:1–23.

Graetz, Brian. 1988. “The Reproduction of Privilege in Australian Education.” BritishJournal of Sociology 39:358–76.

Haller, Archibald O. 1982. “Reflections on the Social Psychology of Status Attainment.”Pp. 3–28 in Social Structure and Behavior: Essays in Honor of William HamiltonSewell, edited by Robert M. Hauser, David Mechanic, Archibald O. Haller, andTaissa S. Hauser. New York: Academic Press.

Jæger, Mads Meier. 2009. “Equal Access but Unequal Outcomes: Cultural Capital andEducational Choice in a Meritocratic Society.” Social Forces 87:1943–71.

———. 2011. “Does Cultural Capital Really Affect Academic Achievement? New Evi-dence from Combined Sibling and Panel Data.” Sociology of Education 84:281–98.

Jæger, Mads Meier, and Anders Holm. 2007. “Does Parents’ Economic, Cultural, andSocial Capital Explain the Social Class Effect on Educational Attainment in the Scan-dinavian Mobility Regime?” Social Science Research 36:719–44.

Kalmijn, Matthijs, and Gerbert Kraaykamp. 1996. “Race, Cultural Capital, and Schooling:An Analysis of Trends in the United States.” Sociology of Education 69:22–34.

Katsillis, John, and Richard Rubinson. 1990. “Cultural Capital, Student Achievement,and Educational Reproduction: The Case of Greece.” American Sociological Review55:270–79.

Kaufman, Jason, and Jay Gabler. 2004. “Cultural Capital and the ExtracurricularActivities of Girls and Boys in the College Attainment Process.” Poetics 32:145–68.

Kerckhoff, Alan C. 1989. “On the Social Psychology of Social Mobility Processes.” SocialForces 68:17–25.

Kingston, Paul M. 2001. “The Unfulfilled Promise of Cultural Capital Theory.” Soci-ology of Education 74:88–99.

Kraaykamp, Gerbert. 2003. “Literary Socialization and Reading Preferences: Effect ofParents, the Library, and the School.” Poetics 31:235–57.

Kraaykamp, Gerbert, and Koen van Eijck. 2010. “The Intergenerational Reproductionof Cultural Capital: A Threefold Perspective.” Social Forces 89:209–31.

Lamont, Michele, and Annette Lareau. 1988. “Cultural Capital: Allusions, Gaps andGlissandos in Recent Theoretical Developments.” Sociological Theory 6:153–68.

Lareau, Annette. 1987. “Social Class Differences in Family-School Relationships: TheImportance of Cultural Capital.” Sociology of Education 60:73–85.

———. 1989. Home Advantage: Social Class and Parental Intervention in ElementaryEducation. London: Falmer.

———. 2003. Unequal Childhoods: Class, Race, and Family Life. Berkeley and LosAngeles: University of California Press.

Lareau, Annette, and Erin McNamara Horvat. 1999. “Moments of Social Inclusion andExclusion: Race, Class, and Cultural Capital on Family-School Relationships.”Sociology of Education 72:37–53.

Lareau, Annette, and Elliot B. Weininger. 2004. “Cultural Capital in Educational Re-search: A Critical Assessment.” Pp. 105–44 in After Bourdieu: Influence, Critique,Elaboration, edited by David L. Swartz and Vera L. Zolberg. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

Lee, Jung-Sook, and Matasha K. Bowen. 2006. “Parent Involvement, Cultural Capital,and the Achievement Gap among Elementary School Children.” American EducationalResearch Journal 43:193–218.

Lee, Soojeung, and Roger C. Rouse. 2011. “The Impact of Prestige Orientation onShadow Education in South Korea.” Sociology of Education 84:212–24.

Leopold, Liliya, and Yossi Shavit. 2013. “Cultural Capital Does Not Travel Well: Im-migrants, Natives, and Achievement in Israeli Schools.” European Sociological Re-view 29:450–63.


1114











http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1093%2Fesr%2Fjcr086

http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1093%2Fesr%2Fjcr086



http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1093%2Fesr%2Fjch028

http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1093%2Fesr%2Fjch028


http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1353%2Fsof.0.0192


http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1016%2FS0304-422X%2803%2900033-0




http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1016%2Fj.poetic.2004.02.001

http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1353%2Fsof.2010.0087

Mohr, John W., and Paul DiMaggio. 1995. “The Intergenerational Transmission of Cul-tural Capital.” Research in Social Stratification and Mobility 14:169–200.

Moore, Rob. 2004. “Objective Probability and the Cultural Arbitrary.” British Journal ofSociology of Education 25:445–56.

Roodman, David. 2009. “How to Do xtabond2: An Introduction to Difference andSystem GMM in Stata.” Stata Journal 9:86–136.

Roscigno, Vincent J., and James W. Ainsworth-Darnell. 1999. “Race, Cultural Capital,and Educational Resources: Persistent Inequalities and Achievement Returns.” So-ciology of Education 72:158–78.

Steelman, Lala C., and Brian Powell. 1991. “Sponsoring the Next Generation: ParentalWillingness to Pay for Higher Education.” American Journal of Sociology 96:1505–21.

Sullivan, Alice. 2001. “Cultural Capital and Educational Attainment.” Sociology 35:893–912.

———. 2002. “Bourdieu and Education: How Useful Is Bourdieu’s Theory for Re-searchers?” Netherlands’ Journal of Social Sciences 38:144–66.

Swartz, David. 1997. Culture and Power: The Sociology of Pierre Bourdieu. Chicago:University of Chicago Press.

Takei, Yoshimitsu, Michael P. Johnson, and Melvin E. Clark. 1998. “Academic Achieve-ment and Impression Management as Factors in the Grading of White Junior HighPupils.” Sociological Perspectives 41:28–47.

Teachman, Jay D. 1987. “Family Background, Educational Resources, and EducationalAttainment.” American Sociological Review 52:548–57.

Todd, Petra E., and Kenneth I. Wolpin. 2007. “The Production of Cognitive Achieve-ment in Children: Home, School, and Racial Test Score Gaps.” Journal of HumanCapital 1:91–136.

Tramonte, Lucia, and J. Douglas Willms. 2010. “Cultural Capital and Its Effects onEducation Outcomes.” Economics of Education Review 29:200–213.

Van de Werfhorst, Herman G. 2010. “Cultural Capital: Strengths, Weaknesses andTwo Advancements.” British Journal of Sociology of Education 31:157–69.

Van de Werfhorst, Herman G., and Saskia Hofstede. 2007. “Cultural Capital or Rela-tive Risk Aversion? Two Mechanisms for Educational Inequality Compared.” Brit-ish Journal of Sociology 58:391–415.

Wildhagen, Tina. 2009. “Why Does Cultural Capital Matter for High School Perfor-mance? An Empirical Assessment of Teacher-Selection and Self-Selection Mech-anisms as Explanations of the Cultural Capital Effect.” Sociological Quarterly 50:173–200.

Xu, Jun, and Gillian Hampden-Thompson. 2012. “Cultural Reproduction, CulturalMobility, Cultural Resources, or Trivial Effect? A Comparative Approach to Cul-tural Capital and Educational Performance.” Comparative Education Review 56:98–124.

Yaish, Meir, and Tally Katz-Gerro. 2012. “Disentangling ‘Cultural Capital’: The Con-sequences of Cultural and Economic Resources for Taste and Participation.” Euro-pean Sociological Review 28:169–85.

Yamamoto, Yoko, and Mary C. Brinton. 2010. “Cultural Capital in the East Asian Edu-cational Systems: The Case of Japan.” Sociology of Education 83:67–83.


1115



http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1111%2Fj.1468-4446.2007.00157.x








http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1016%2Fj.econedurev.2009.06.003





http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1093%2Fesr%2Fjcq056

http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1093%2Fesr%2Fjcq056




a dynamic model of cultural reproduction › ws › files › 412833 › 684012.pdfa dynamic model...

Documents