DiMaggio 1985

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

Source: American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 90, No. 6 (May, 1985), pp. 1231-1261
Published by: The University of Chicago Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2779635
Accessed: 28-09-2015 20:41 UTC
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/
info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
The University of Chicago Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to American Journal of
Sociology.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 128.6.218.72 on Mon, 28 Sep 2015 20:41:48 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Cultural Capital, Educational Attainment,
and Marital Selection1
Paul DiMaggio and JohnMohr
Yale University
AlthoughWeberdistinguished sharplybetween"class" (an individ-

ual's marketposition)and "status"(participationin a collectivity
bound togetherby a shared statusculture),only measuresof the
formerhave beenincludedin mostempiricalanalysesofthestratifi-
cationprocess.In thisarticlea measureof status-culture participa-
tion(or culturalcapital)is developedfromtheresponsesofmenand
womeninterviewedin 1960 by ProjectTalent. Questionstapped a
rangeofhigh-cultural interestsand activities.Analysesofdata from
a follow-upstudy11 yearslatershow significant effectsof cultural
capital (withappropriatecontrols)on educationalattainment,col-
lege attendance, college completion,graduate attendance, and
maritalselectionforbothmen and women.
has been
A vital elementin Weber'sclassic theoryof social stratification
omittedin most contemporary studiesof the stratificationprocess. Al-
thoughresearchershave shown ingenuityin developingmeasures of
"class" or "marketposition,"fewhave addressedthe problemof how to
measure participationin prestigiousstatus culturesdirectly.Instead,
mosthave attemptedto capture"status"throughmeasuresof such posi-
tionalor demographicattributesas occupationalrank,gender,socioeco-
1 This paperhas benefited immensely fromcarefuland criticalreadingsby Randall

Collins,HerbertGans,JeromeKarabel,David Karen,RichardMurnane,RichardA.
Peterson,RobertRobinson,KeithRoe, AnnSwidler,MichaelUseem,and threeanon-
ymousreviewers, thegoodadviceofnoneofwhomwas followed so scrupulouslyas to
renderthemculpableforanyremaining inadequacies.An earlierdraftof thispaper
was presented at theannualmeetingoftheAmerican Sociological
Association (Section
on Education,Sessionon SocialClass and HigherEducation;Jerome Karabel,chair),
Detroit,August1983. We gratefully acknowledgecomputersupportfromthe Yale
UniversitySociologyDepartmentand Institution forSocial and PolicyStudiesand
institutional
assistancefromtheYale Programon Non-Profit Organizations and the
CenterforAdvancedStudyin theBehavioralSciences.We are indebtedto Marilyn
Mandell,BarbaraRuber,and Leslie Lindzeyforexpertassistancein preparing this
manuscript forpublication.Requestsforreprintsshouldbe sentto Paul DiMaggio,
Department of Sociology,Yale University,New Haven, Connecticut 06520.
C 1985by The University

of Chicago.All rightsreserved.
.50
0002-9602/85/9006-0005$01
AJS Volume 90 Number6 1231
AmericanJournalof Sociology
nomic status, or educational attainment(oftentreatedas a proxyfor

humancapital or labor marketposition[Parkin1978]).
If Weber's conceptof statusculturewere reducibleto such measures
(i.e., if status-culture
membershipwere tightlycoupled to statusgroups
formedon the basis of economicmarketposition),such failureto distin-
guishbetween"class" and "status"would have fewconsequences.To the
extentthatthetwo are onlylooselyassociated,however,it is essentialto
distinguishthemboth analyticallyand operationally.2
Several recent studies suggest the inabilityof conventionaldemo-
graphicand positionalmeasuresto captureconsequentialaspectsof cul-
turalvariation.Jenckset al. (1979) foundstrongeffectsof familyback-
groundon educationaland occupationalattainment thatwerenottapped
by a wide rangeof conventionalmeasuresof family"status."DiMaggio
(1982a) discovered only modest correlationsbetween fathers' and
mothers'educationalattainments and the"culturalcapital"of a national
sample of whitehighschool students,particularlyamong the boys,but
found significanteffectsof culturalcapital on grades. Peterson(1983)
reportslow correlationsbetweendemographicmeasuresand patternsof
culturalparticipationand stylesof life. Howell and McBroom (1982)
reportsubstantialeffectsof measures of familycultureon the school
performance ofelementary
studentsbutweak relationships betweenposi-
tional measuresof familybackgroundand child-rearing beliefsand at-
titudes.Davis, in an articleon "class cultures,"findsso few notable
associationsofpositionalvariableswitha broadrangeofattitudesthathe
concludesthat"new theories,perhapsmoreculturalthanstructural, may
be in order"to explainsome aspectsof thestratification system(1982, p.
585).
We believe that what is needed is a returnto Weber's earlyinsight
aboutthedistinction betweentheclass (marketposition)and statusorders
([1922] 1968, pp. 926-40). A person'sclass position,as he definesit,
consistsof causal factorsinfluencing the individual'slife chances in a
marketeconomy.A class "does not in itselfconstitutea group"(p. 930).
Class positionis impersonal:"the marketand its processesknows no
personaldistinctions"(p. 936). In contrast,Weber viewed statusas in-
2 We use theterm"class"onlyin theWeberiansense.Marxistdefinitions

ofclassare
variedand manifold.In general(and withno littleoversimplification),
Marx's"class-
in-itself'
is similarto "class"in Weber'ssense(albeitwitha strongemphasison labor
marketpositionas opposedtopositioninothermarkets), whereas"class-for-itself'
is a
Weberianlabormarketclassthatis also a statusgroup.Similarly, ouruse oftheterm
"status"followsfrom(althoughit developson) thatof Weber.The relationship be-
tweenthisconception ofstatusand theuse oftheterminsocialanthropology (Warner
and Lunt 1942,p. 3, n. 1) and structural
sociology
(Burt1982)is similarly
beyondthe
scopeofthispaper.
1232
CulturalCapital
separablefromthe individual'sparticipationin a humangroupand the

cultureof thatgroup,the "styleof life"thatis "expectedfromall those
who wish to belongto the circle"(p. 932). Statusis seen as an emergent
qualitygroundedin inte-action:as "an effective claim to social esteem"
(pp. 304-6), implyingboth a claimantand a claimee who, at least for-
mally,maytreattheclaimas illegitimate. The statuscultureis themeans
by whichthestatusgroupmaintainsitscohesionand preservesitsability
to distanceitselffromothergroupsin society."The decisiveroleofa style
oflifein statushonormeansthatstatusgroupsare thespecificbearersof
all conventions"(pp. 935-36).
We take Weber's emphasison the interactionaland culturalbases of
statusseriously.Using a measuredeveloped by DiMaggio (1982a), we
show thatinterestin and experiencewithprestigiousculturalresources
(which,followingBourdieu,we call "culturalcapital")in highschoolhas
a significantly positiveimpact on many aspects of the educationaland
maritalattainmentof a cross-sectional sample of whiteAmericanmen
and women 11 yearslater.
Our focusis on theimpactofstatus-culture participationon theeduca-
tional attainmentprocessand on maritalselection.Educational attain-
menthas becometheprimaryrouteto occupationalattainment in modern
industrialsocieties.Highereducation,in particular,is a crucialprerequi-
site to the occupancyof the economy'smost lucrativeand influential
positions.Bourdieu(1977a, 1977b)has arguedthatit is in theeducational
systemthatparticipationin a prestigiousstatuscultureis moststrongly
rewarded.Yet not a singlestudyof the U.S.educationalattainment pro-
cess has ever attemptedto measure culturalcapital or to distinguish
operationallyculturalfactorsfrommeasuresof class position.
Marital selectionis a traditionalfocusof studentsof the stratification
processforwomen, because women have been less likelythan men of
comparableabilityto followotherpathsofeducationaland occupational
attainment(e.g., completingcollege or pursuingmiddle-classcareers).
Althoughmostworkin sociologyhas addressedthemaritalattainment of
women,choiceof spouse is also highlyconsequentialformen. In a brief
reviewof the literatureof human capital economics,Leibowitz(1974a)
reportsthatboththe earningsand thehealthof marriedmen have a net
positiveassociationwiththeirwives' educationalattainments.For both
womenand men,then,maritalselectionis vitalto individuallifechances
and well-being.
Most sociologicaltreatments ofmaritalselection(e.g., Elder 1969)have
viewed it as a formof exchange,increasingly individualizedwithrising
ratesofhighereducationand geographicmobility.As Wallerand Hill put
it, "previouslythefamiliesbargained,but now everyonemusthagglefor
himself"(1951, p. 160). Taylor and Glenn (1976) have criticizedthe ex-
1233
changeperspective,however,contendingthattheunequal distribution of
informationand the variationin men's preferencesmake maritalex-
changemoreof a barterthana marketeconomy.Indeed, Waller,despite
his seminal contributionsto the exchange perspective,recognizedthe
importanceof sharedculturalresourcesin enablingmen and womento
develop the intimacyrequiredforrelationshipsto ripeninto marriage.
Commoninterestsgive couples "an area of rapport,a commonuniverse
of discourseor arena of interaction"(Wallerand Hill 1951,pp. 176-77).
From the exchangeperspective,then,marriageis seen as a marketto
which potentialpartnersbringfungibleresourcesthat determinetheir
respectivemarket positions. In contrast,in this second "matching
model," maritalselectionis seen as a processwherebypartnersmatch
culturalresourcesto create"a commonuniverseof discourseor arena of
interaction."By distinguishing statusand class in the mannersuggested
above, we can addresstheissues raisedby earlierworkmoreeffectively
thancan researcherswho relysolelyon measuresof"marketposition"as
proxiesforthe culturalsimilarity of mates.
In the followingsection,we develop morefullythe theoreticalargu-
mentthatstatus,distinctfromclass position,can be understoodas par-
ticipationin a statusculturethatemergesin face-to-face The
interaction.
thirdand fourthsectionsdescribe the resultsof our empiricalwork,
whichfollowsfromand lends credibility to the theoreticalargument.
STATUS IN ADVANCED MARKET ECONOMIES

In his essay on class, status,and party,Weber ([1922] 1968) providesa
crispanalyticaldistinctionbetweenstatusand class but hedgeson two
criticalpoints:therelationalstructure ofstatusgroups,and theempirical
associationof class and status.
Concerningthe first,he writes:"In contrastto classes, Stande (status
groups)are normallygroups.They are, however,oftenof an amorphous
kind" (p. 932). The contemporaryreader is uncertainwhetherthese
"groups"are denselyinterconnected cliques,morediffuse"circles,"or yet
more''amorphous"and ultimatelyunboundedsocial networks.
In his discussionsof thelinkbetweenclass and status,Weberdisplays
appropriateand characteristic discretion,notingthat"whilestatushonor
need not necessarilybe linked with a class situation"and "normally
standsin sharpoppositionto thepretensions ofsheerproperty, ... today
the class situationis by farthe predominantfactor"in the formationof
statusgroups(p. 932).
In ideal typicalterms,then,Weberconceivesofstatusgroupsas tightly
bounded collectivitiestendingtoward monopolisticclosureof material
and culturalopportunitiesthroughrules governingownershipof prop-
1234
CulturalCapital
erty,occupancyof jobs, maritalchoice, and social interaction.Under

such conditions,class is tightlybound to status-group membership,be-
cause mostdesirableopportunities forexchangeare dominatedby status
groups.
But marketsand statussystemsare competitive formsofsocial organi-
zation.The relationship betweenthetwois historically
specific:economic
developmentand technologicalchange tend to erode statusboundaries
and push class to the fore,whereaseconomicstagnationencouragesthe
dominanceof statusover class.
Thus Weber acknowledgesthat, in marketeconomies,particularly
thosecharacterizedby rapid economicand technologicalchange,status
operates somewhatdifferently fromwhat his ideal type suggests.We
would extendhis argumentto suggestthat,in rapidlychangingmarket
economies(such as the UnitedStatesduringthe past century),(a) status
groups tend to become amorphousand extendednetworksinstead of
cliquesor circlesand (b) therelationshipbetweenstatusand class tendsto
be relativelyloose.
The reasonsforthisloose couplingare many,but each is linkedto the
expansion of national and internationalmarketsand to technological
development.They include an increasinglycomplexsocial divisionof
labor, expanded geographicmobility,increasesin scale and availability
of transportation and communicationsmedia, urbanization,increased
levels of education, and the relativedecline in the importanceof the
extendedfamilyto the fortunesof membersof the middleclass (Sorokin
1959, p. 187; Collins 1975, pp. 210-14).
Under theseconditions:
1. Individual-socialnetworks,particularly middle-classnetworks,be-
come larger,less dense and multiplex,and morediffuse.(Fischer[1982]
notesthatthesequalities are more characteristic of urban than of rural
and of upper-middle-class than of working-class
friendshipnetworksin
the contemporary United States.)
2. Individualsface increasedsegregationof audiencesin everydayin-
teractions.Impressionmanagement(Goffman1959),based on themanip-
ulation of role-specificcodes and codes specificto speech communities
(Bernstein1971), replacesthe role playedin moretightlyboundedcom-
munities,wherestatusinheredin social positions,by masteryof a con-
stantsocial identity.
3. Statusthusbecomesless reducibleto positionor groupmembership
and becomesmorea culturalprocess(Collins 1981)enactedin thecourse
of face-to-faceencountersin relativelydiffusesocial networks.The abil-
ityto participatein a status cultureis a culturalresourcethat permits
actorsto get ahead by managingimpressions,developingpositivelocal
reputations,impressinggatekeepers,and constructing social networks
1235
thatmay be usefulin educational,marital,and occupationalattainment

(Granovetter1982; Lin, Ensel, and Vaughn 1981). The abilityto partici-
pate in a prestigiousstatusculture,then,enables individualsto survive
what Cicourel(1981) calls "theroutineassessmentof social competence"
and to sustain relationshipswith those in controlof the allocation of
rewardsthatconstitutes process.(See also Collins 1975;
the stratification
1979, p. 58; 1981.)
MEASURES AND DATA

First,let us considerour measureof culturalcapital. If, in modernmar-
ketsocieties,culturalcapitalis onlylooselycoupledto class position,from
wheredo prestigiousstatusculturescome? We believethattheyare his-
toricallygroundedin the classificationprojects of relativelybounded
statusgroups.By "classification projects,"we mean thecollectiveefforts
by membersof emergentstatus groups to defineand institutionalize
specificculturalelementsas prestigiousand sacred. DiMaggio (1982b,
1982c) has documentedhow the Boston Brahmins,between 1870 and
1910,definedtheelementsof an artisticand musicalhighculture,devel-
oped an ideologysanctifying that culture,and created institutionsto
perpetuateit. Tuchman (1982), Weber (1976), and Wolff(1982) have
identified similareffortsin thefieldsofmusic,art,and lettersin England
and on the Continentduringthe 19thcentury.3
Althoughthe statusgroupsthatprovidedthe structuralbasis forthis
statusculturehave becomemorediffuse(as definedbyhigherratesofout-
marriage,more diverseand less potentsocializinginstitutions, and in-
creased social interaction with economicparvenus), the status culture
that theycodifiedretainsits interactionalpotencyfor several reasons.
First,it has become a significant part of the formaleducationalsystem
and, throughthat system,has been diffused,as a cultural model,
throughoutthe class structure.Second, it is preservedthroughstatus
emulationby manymembersofthemiddleclass, who have adoptedboth
theculturaltraditionand theideologythatlegitimatesit. Third,interest
in and familiaritywith high cultureare still relatedto class position,
albeitimperfectly. The collegeeducatedare morelikelythanthosewith
less educationto attendartsevents,and professionalsare morelikelyto
attendthanblue-collarworkers(DiMaggio and Useem 1978).(Low corre-
3 Althoughourinterestin thecontentofprestigious
statusculturesleadsus toempha-
sizetheculturalprojectsofdominantstatusgroupsinthissection,we shouldalso note
anotherimportant culturalchangeduringthepast century: have
class and ethnicity
becomeseparatedas substantialnumbersofthedescendants ofeasternand southern
Europeanimmigrants have enteredthemiddleclass. Alongwiththis,thepowerand
prevalenceofdistinctivelyworking-class eroded.
cultureshave beensignificantly
1236
CulturalCapital
lationsbetweenculturalparticipationand demographicmeasuresresult,
in part,fromthe factthatonlya minority of thosegroupsmostlikelyto
participateactuallydo so.) Finally,high-culture activitiesrequiringad-
vanced levels of sophistication(e.g., appreciatingthe avant-garde)or
involvingtheexerciseofinfluence(e.g., trusteeships ofmajorartsinstitu-
tions)are stillprimarilydominatedby occupantsof highclass positions,
as definedby income,education,and occupationalattainment.4
Data used in thisstudyare from1,427menand 1,479womenwho were
surveyedin 1960,whentheywerein theeleventhgrade,and resurveyed
in 1971 by ProjectTalent. The Talent surveyis unique in the rangeof
questionsstudentswereasked about theirattitudestoward,activitiesin,
and knowledgeabout highculture.The sample used hereis a weighted
crosssectionof whitemen and womenwho werein theeleventhgradein
U.S. high schoolsin 1960. (For more detaileddiscussionof the Talent
data, see Jenckset al. 1979; Jencks,Crouse, and Mueser 1983.)
Scores forculturalcapital rangefromzero to 4.39 formen and from
zero to 4.18 forwomen,based on separatefactoranalysesformen and
womenof 16 measuresof high-and otherculturalattitudes,activities,
and information. (These measureswere taken at the timeof the initial
surveyin 1960.) For men,variablesloadingmorethan.35 on thecultural
capitalfactorincludeinterestin attendingsymphony concerts,experience
performing on stageoutsideof schoolsettings,attendanceat artsevents,
and havinga "cultivatedself-image."(The latteris therespondent's score
on a Talent-developedscale, based on such self-evaluation itemsas "I
enjoybeautifulthings"and "I am a culturedperson.")For women,vari-
ables loadinghighon culturalcapital includeall thoselistedformen as
wellas a self-report ofliterature
reading.Male and femaleculturalcapital
scoresare convertedto z-scoresin the analysesreportedbelow to ensure
comparability of resultsformen and women.
The mannerin whichthe culturalcapital scale was developedand the
rationaleforits interpretation are discussedat lengthelsewhere(DiMag-
gio 1982a). Althoughwe would like to have data on otherprestigious
culturalresources,we believethatinterestin and familiarity withtradi-
tionalhigh-culture formsare the mostgeneralcomponentsof the domi-
nantAmericanstatuscultureand theones mostbroadlysalientand least
limitedto personsof a certainage or region.Analysesreportedearlier
(DiMaggio 1982a) indicatethat this scale is not simplya proxyforun-
4For a morecompletedevelopmentofthisargument,see DiMaggio and Useem (1982).

Because we are concerned in this paper with the stratificationprocess in general and
not simplythe upper reaches of it, our measures of interestin and involvementwith
"high culture" gauge modest levels of commitmentin which there is likely to be
significantvariation. In termsof Gans's typologyof culturalstratification
(1974), these
measures tap "upper-middle"-ratherthan "high"-culturalinvolvement.
1237
measuredacademic ability(because its effecton performance in mathe-

maticsis less thanitseffecton performance in morehumanisticsubjects),
forcreativity (because participation art-making
in less prestigious, activi-
tieshad no effecton students'grades),or forspecificknowledge(because
scoreson a batteryof artsachievementtestshad no independentimpact
on gradesonce generalabilitywas controlled).Note thatculturalcapital
would seemto measureself-presentation and self-image as muchas actual
expertisein high-culture fields.We believethatthismeasureof cultural
capital is the best one available and thatit is satisfactory forthe explor-
atorypurposesof the researchreportedhere. The principalresultof its
imperfections will be to bias its observedeffectsdownward.
Let us now turn to a discussionof the othervariables used in the
analyses reportedbelow (see Appendix). Father's educationis father's
years of formaleducation, based on recodingof categoricalmeasures
(e.g., highschoolgraduate,somecollege,somegraduateschool).Father's
occupationalprestigeis theDuncan scoreforfather'soccupationin 1960.
Grades in English and in mathematicsare six-pointscales (from"less
thanDs" through"all As") based on studentself-reports. Generalability
is a Talent-generated compositeof resultson a seriesof achievementand
abilityteststhat behaves similarlyto othertestsof studentability(see
Jenckset al. 1979).
"FrequencyofTalk about FuturePlans" is a scale rangingfromzeroto
18. Respondentswere asked how manytimestheyhad discussedtheir
"plans for afterhigh school" with various people. Our measureis an
additivescale based on the numberof timestheyreportedhavingthese
conversationswiththeirteachers,schoolcounselors,and peers.
Outcomemeasuresfromthe Talent 11-yearfollow-upincludeeduca-
tionalattainmentin 1971,yearsof educationof the respondent'sspouse,
and dichotomousmeasuresindicatingwhetheror not the respondent(a)
attendedcollege, (b) completedcollege, and (c) receivedany graduate
training.
FINDINGS
Results are reportedas follows:First, forall male and femalerespon-
dents,we reportthe impactof father'seducation,father'soccupational
prestige,measuredability,high school grades, and culturalcapital on
educationalattainmentand collegeattendance.5Second,forall menand
s Father'seducationis used as the onlyeducationalcontrolforfamilybackground

becauseit is muchmorestrongly relatedto culturalcapitalformen(and onlyslightly
lessstronglyassociatedforwomen)thanmother's education.Also,we expectittobe a
betterproxyof familyculturalclimatethan mother'seducation.We acknowledge
others'findingsthatmother'seducationalattainment of educa-
is a betterpredictor
1238
CulturalCapital
women with one or more years of college, we estimatethe effectsof

father'seducation;father'soccupationalprestige;measuredability;and
culturalcapital on college completion,graduateeducation,and educa-
tionalattainment.Finally,forall marriedmenand women,we assess the
effectsof generalability,culturalcapital, and own educationalattain-
menton whomone marries,as measuredby spouse'seducationalattain-
ment.In each case, separateanalysesofthefullsampleofrespondents of
each genderare followedby disaggregatedanalysesin orderto testfor
interactions.6
Note that we do not attemptto estimatea completemodel of the
processesof educationalattainmentand maritalselection(whichwould
requireinclusionof a broaderrangeof backgroundand schoolvariables)
or of the role of status-cultureparticipationin these processes(which
would requirea richerand moredirectset of measuresof severaldimen-
sionsofstatus-culture participation).We attemptonlyto assess theextent
and natureoftheimpactof a singledimensionofstatus-culture participa-
tion-familiaritywithand interestin highculture-on aspectsofeduca-
tionalattainmentand maritalselection.Our focushere,then,is on the
effectsand significanceof culturalcapital ratherthanon the parameters
of the model as a whole.
EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT AND COLLEGE ATTENDANCE

Hypotheses
First, we shall considertwo vital aspects of the stratification
process:
educational attainment,which all studies show to have a substantial
effecton occupational attainment,and college attendance,a crucial
thresholdincreasingly requiredforsuccessin the worldof work(Collins
1971; Faia 1981).
HYPOTHESIS 1: Culturalcapitalhas a positiveneteffect on educational
attainmentand collegeattendanceformen and women.
tional attainmentforwomen than father's(Sewell et al. 1980) and thatmother's"home

inputs"are moreimportantforthe educational achievementofyoungchildren(but not
adolescents) than fathers' (Leibowitz 1974b; Mercy and Steelman 1982; Murnane,
Maynard, and Ohls 1981). In the absence of definitivedata, however, we expect that
"cultured"women of the generationof the Talent sample's parentswere more likelyto
marrywell-educated men than to pursue educational credentialsthemselves.Conse-
quently, we suspect that father'seducation is as good a proxy measure of mother's
status-cultureparticipationas mother'seducation itself.
6 We undertakeseparate analyses formen and women in all cases in the lightof other
studies reportingdifferencesin the stratificationprocess by gender (Sewell and Shah

1967; Alexander and Eckland 1974; Feathermanand Hauser 1976; Sewell et al. 1980).
DiMaggio (1982a) found variation between men and women of different familyback-
grounds in the effectsof cultural capital on high school grades.
1239
Culturalcapital is expectedto affectstudents'educationalattainments

and theirlikelihoodof attendingcollege significantly by (a) increasing
theiropportunities forspecial help fromteachersand othergatekeepers,
(b) permitting themto develop generalizedreputationsas "culturedper-
sons," and (c) facilitatingaccess to social milieusin whicheducationis
valued and in whichinformation abouteducationalopportunities is avail-
able. (Culturalcapitalis also expectedto have a positive,indirectimpact
on educationalattainmentand college attendancethroughits positive
effecton highschool grades.)
DiMaggio (1982a) reportedsignificant effectsofculturalcapitalon high
school grades. Bourdieu (1977a) treatsculturalcapital as cumulative,
arguingthat the greaterthe early endowment,the easier the further
acquisition. It is possible, of course, that individuals are sufficiently
plasticthattheeffectsofthismeasurewould notpersistintoearlyadult-
hood. Nevertheless,we predictpersistent effectsin thelongitudinalanal-
yses reportedhere.
HYPOTHESIS 2: Culturalcapital has similareffects on the educational
attainmentand collegeattendanceof men and of women.
Otherresearchershave reportedthatwomenrelyon ascriptivecharac-
teristics(e.g., father'seducation) in educational attainment,whereas
men's educational attainmentis more dependenton measured ability
(Alexanderand Eckland 1974; Sewell, Hauser, and Wolf 1980). We do
not know whetherthis is true because women are judged moreon the
basis oftheir"selves"thanon theirtask-specific performance (diffuseness
vs. specificity,in Parsonianterms)or because womensucceedon thebasis
of the resourcesand reputationsof theirfamiliesinstead of theirown
(ascriptionvs. achievement).If the formeris true,we would expectcul-
tural capital-an achieved but diffusely relevantattributeof the social
self-to have greatereffectsforwomenthanformen. If thelatteris, we
would expecttheeffectsofculturalcapitalto be about equal formenand
women.
HYPOTHESIS 3: The net impactof culturalcapital on educationalat-
tainmentand college attendance is greater for daughtersof high-
educationmen than fordaughtersof low-educationmen.
HYPOTHESIS4: The net impactof culturalcapital on educationalat-
tainmentand collegeattendanceis greaterforsonsoflow-educationmen
thanforsons of high-education men.
Bourdieu(1977b) has arguedthat(forFrance) the efficacyof cultural
interestsis dependenton the backgroundof theirpossessorand that
individualsof higherclass positionpossessa moreauthenticrelationship
to culturethanthosein less privilegedgroups.In thisculturalreproduc-
tion view, a positiveinteractionbetweenfamilybackgroundmeasures
and culturalcapital is expected. DiMaggio (1982a), in a studyof the
1240
CulturalCapital
effectsof culturalcapital on highschoolgrades,foundsome supportfor

this view forwomen's achievement.But he also foundthat, forboys,
cultural capital had its strongestimpact on grades for sons of least
educatedmen. He interpreted thisas an indicationthattheacquisitionof
culturalcapitalis, forboys,an aspectofanticipatory socializationintothe
middleclass. In this culturalmobilitymodel, then,we would expecta
negativeinteractionbetweenbackgroundmeasuresand culturalcapital
in predictingeducationalattainment.7
HYPOTHESIS5: Culturalcapital has a positivenet effecton conversa-
tions about futureplans with teachers,counselors,and peers forboth
men and women.
Recall thatwe arguethatculturalcapitalassistsstudentsbyfacilitating
interactionwith high-statusothers, consequentlyincreasingthe fre-
quencyof such interactions.In the initialTalent survey,studentswere
asked how oftentheyspoke with othersabout theirpost-highschool
plans. We expectculturalcapitalto be associatedwithfrequencyofcon-
versationwithteachersand school counselorsabout futureplans. Also,
because we anticipateculturalcapitalto facilitateparticipationin student
milieusthatvalue education,we expectitto be positivelyassociatedwith
frequencyof such conversationswithpeers.
Results
Resultsof OLS regressionanalysisforthe fullmale and femalesamples
are displayedin table 1. Distributionson the binaryvariablesweresplit
fairlyevenly,and logisticregressionanalysesyieldedresultsthat were
substantivelyidenticalto theOLS findings.Consequently,we presentthe
OLS resultsherein theinterestofcomparability and simplicity
ofpresen-
tation(see Cohen and Cohen 1975).
Culturalcapital has a stronglysignificant (P < .001) effecton both
educationalattainmentand collegeattendance-withfather'seducation,
gradesin mathematics and English,and measuredabilitycontrolled-for
bothmen and women. Hypothesis1, then,receivesstrongsupport.For
bothgenders,theeffectof culturalcapitalon educationalattainment and
collegeattendanceis greaterthantheeffects offather'seducationor high
school grades. For women, the effectof culturalcapital is more than
three-fifths
thatof measuredability.8
7 We acknowledge the possibility,however, thatthe materialconstraintson the ability

of sons of low-education fathersto pay for college may diminishthis effect(e.g., see
Benson [1982] on the relativeinefficacyof home inputsin boostingthe achievementof
low-incomechildren).
8
Input forthe regressionanalyses are correlationmatriceswithpairwise deletion. The
only variable forwhich therewas a substantial percentageof missingcases (23% for
1241
* * *o *t *?a
X (N0~) ~-0 - C- 0 00 x -'-4 -4 * H

- C7
00~~~~~~-~~~
00~~~~~ 00w)
*
000 000
I I~~~~~~~~~'0
*e
0c-
H) * *
*
u) H * * * * *^
E- O ?0 ,O Ce "j -4 C7 E
0 C
Ur * * * *-
t, 00H-~ 00o-o 00w)

n e 0 o 000 00 Io 0 oo -
H0-I) o* o * *- o * I m *O I o
Nm
t -O
d
o0 O t- 7
ooooo
X d0 -4 - -
H * * * * *
Z H *0NC * 0 *~0 * f=( ~- 0
z?
Q ~~~~
~~~I I to
N
X 004--I c N~C c~ O t 0- ItC 0
? *00z *00; *_0~' o) *( o t 0 0 t

*<b It 0 _t)
0 00 00 00~' 0 0 \o CI t- u
? t e N O N
~~~~~oo
N C-q c N ,O CD "O 00 00 -
"t
o
X C It ce -- 't E-4
H * * * * * zb
Cl Hv * * * * *
H * * * * * b
0 00 C-q00~ , 0 ' 00N 4 00 CD(N 1- - O n

I ) I - I"'t
C/) ~~~~~~~~) ~C ~
H z-~00~r v )C of)
C nbfC
) (N CN
t
~ 0t-ooN 0 '
E O "O "O O 0 O Ot O) O o (N O 00
uz Ev * * ** * * ;
H * * * * *o
Z Z/
H c ~00 00*(N (N*00 *t
* OCD c- o o *oN
O 4 O
CD CD O CD-CDO O c -0N 0*cN0O
<r u
X ~*o C
(D _ *o oCDoCo
_ *o oC t *CD o _ C
*o-
CD *S
H_ E * * *
11 * "O0 * 0c0] * 12 bw
H * * * *
zO . . =*
Cl) O O O U ~ W C .
CulturalCapital
TABLE 2
UNSTANDARDIZED COEFFICIENTS AND STANDARD ERRORS FROM DISAGGREGATED

ANALYSES FOR ALL MEN AND WOMEN
MEN WOMEN
SUBSAMPLE EDATT COLATT EDATT COLATT
POPED1 (less than highschool

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

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

abilityis greaterforwomenthanmen,thisis because theeffectofability
greaterformen than women.In fact,the differences
is significantly be-
tweenthe coefficients The metric
of culturalcapital are not significant.
coefficientforthe effectof culturalcapital on educationalattainmentis
greaterformen, whereas the coefficient forthe effecton collegeatten-
dance is greaterforwomen. Incrementto R2 is comparableforeduca-
tionalattainmentbut greaterforwomenforcollegeattendance.Conse-
quently,table 1 providessome supportforhypothesis2.
Unstandardizedcoefficients and standarderrorsof culturalcapital by
subsampleare reportedin table 2. (Completeregressionresultsforthese
modelsand forthosein tables6 and 8 are available on request.)For men,
culturalcapital provesmost importantforsons of moderatelyeducated
fathers(thosewith high school diplomas but no collegeeducation)and
least importantforsons of collegemen, withthedifference in effectson
botheducationalattainmentand collegeattendanceforthesetwo groups
men and 16% forwomen) was culturalcapital, which, because it is a scale, is sensitive
to item nonresponse. To test forbias stemmingfromcorrelationof nonresponsewith
othervariables in our model, we ran separate regressions,using a dummyvariable for
missing data and coding missing cases as zeros on cultural capital (see Cohen and
Cohen 1975, chap. 7). These testsrevealed no importantbias derivingfromthe use of
the pairwise matrix.
1243
TABLE 3
UNSTANDARDIZED COEFFICIENTS, STANDARD ERRORS, AND

STANDARDIZED COEFFICIENTS FROM REGRESSIONS OF FREQUENCY OF
TALK ABOUT COLLEGE
MEN WOMEN
VARIABLE FUTALK FUTALK FUTALK FUTALK
POPED ......... .0679 .0467 -.0137 -.0261

.0355 .0345 .0300 .0299
.0615 .0423 - .0144 - .0276
PPRES .......... . 0085 .0053 .0073 .0066

.0056 .0055 .0048 .0048
.0490 .0306 .0481 .0433
GENERAL ...... . 0037*** .0038*** .0057*** .0054***
.0009 .0009 .0009 .0009
.1228 .1271 .1899 .1801
GRADESE ...... .1664 .0184 .3363*** .2475*

.1073 .1051 .0951 .0968
.0506 .0056 .1138 .0837
GRADESM ...... . 1065 .1112 .0276 .0373

.1034 .1001 .0863 .0858
.0334 .0354 .0100 .0136
CULTCAP ...... ... 1.0102*** ... .3997***

.1088 .0939
.2528 .1183
INTERCEPT .... 2.4509 -1.9435 2.5831 .9440
df ............. 1270 1269 1337 1336

2 . . 0460 .1066 .0773 .0896
NOTE -Results are fromregressionsoffrequencyoftalk about collegewithteachers,

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

modelis notsupported.The resultsforeducationalattainment are in the
predicteddirection(strongereffectsforhigh-statuswomen)but not sig-
nificantly
so.
Consistentwithhypothesis5, table 3 showsthatculturalcapitalhas a
ofthefrequency
substantialindependentimpacton students'self-reports
with which theydiscussedfutureplans with teachers,counselors,and
1244
CulturalCapital
peers. For men, the effectsare particularlystriking:b = .253, nearly

twicethesignificant effectofmeasuredability.For women,theimpactof
culturalcapital on talk about plans is moremodest(b = .118), but also
significant,amountingto morethan halfthe effectof measuredability.
Analyses,by father'seducation, of the effectof culturalcapital on
discussionsof futureplans indicatethat the effectof culturalcapital is
particularly strongforsonsoftheleasteducatedfathers,forwhomcollege
attendanceis presumablymostproblematic(tablesavailable on request).
For women,theeffectof culturalcapitalon talkabout thefutureis least
amongdaughtersofmen who attendedcollegeand greaterfordaughters
ofless well educatedmen. Althoughthesedifferences are notsignificant,
theydo suggestthe possibilitythat culturalcapital is most useful in
enablingstudentsto interacteasilyacross social boundariesratherthan
withinthem.
CULTURAL CAPITAL AND THE OUTCOMES OF HIGHER

EDUCATION
Hypotheses
HYPOTHESIS 6: Amongmenand womenwho have matriculated,
cultural
capital has a significantimpact(netof familybackgroundand measured
ability)on college completion,graduateeducation,and educationalat-
tainment.
Despitethesignificant effects
ofculturalcapitalon collegeentry,itdoes
not necessarilyfollowthat culturalcapital will similarlypredicteduca-
tionaloutcomesamongthosestudentswho do go on to college.Research
indicatingstronglong-term effectsof collegeeducationon attitudes(see
Hyman and Wright[1979] and Meyer [1970] on "chartering")suggests
that the experienceof college mightmoderateor eliminatepreexisting
variationin the possessionof valued culturalresources.If thiswere the
case, we wouldnotexpectculturalcapital,as measuredin highschool,to
influencethe educational attainmentsof college students,except indi-
rectlythroughitsimpacton matriculation. If, however,culturalcapitalis
a stableattribute(or ifitsrateofincreaseis dependenton itsinitiallevel),
we would expectculturalcapitalto influence theeducationalattainments
of college studentsand theirchances of attendinggraduateprograms.
Indeed, if Bourdieu's contentionthat culturalcapital is valued more
highlyin the highereducationalsystemthan elsewhereapplies to the
UnitedStates,returnsto culturalcapitalcouldbe particularly highforthe
college-attending subsamples.
HYPOTHESIS 7: The impactof culturalcapitalon collegecompletionis
greaterforwomenthanformen.
1245
Women are less likelythan men to completecollege educations.An

equal percentageof men and womenwho have earnedtheirB.A.'s enter
graduateprograms,but far more women drop out beforeearningad-
vanced degrees(Alexanderand Eckland 1974; Sewell and Shah 1967).
Withincollege,womenare morelikelythanmento take"soft"or human-
isticcoursesof study(Kellyand Nihlen 1982;Jencksand Riesman 1977)
and, accordingto one suggestivestudyof an eliteuniversity, to choose
majordepartments thatemphasizeinterpersonal skillsand a warm,affec-
tive climate (Hearn and Olzak 1981). Generalizedculturalresources
should be particularlyimportantdeterminants of success in humanistic
majors and in departmentsthat emphasize personalisticrelationsbe-
tweenfacultyand students.
HYPOTHESIS 8: The effectof culturalcapitalon entering graduatepro-
gramsis strongerformen thanforwomen.
DiMaggio (1982a) arguedthatculturalcapitalappeared,because of its
relativelyhighcorrelationswithparentalsocioeconomicstatusand mea-
suredability,to be normatively sanctionedforhighschoolgirls.If thisis
correct,culturalcapital may be less usefulfor women who overcame
genderstereotyping, especiallyin the social climate of the mid-1960s
(Thorntonand Freedman1979;Lueptow 1980),bypursuingtheirformal
educationbeyondcollege.We see fewgroundsforpredictingdifferences
in effectsof culturalcapital on collegematriculants'educationalattain-
mentby gender.
HYPOTHESIS 9: The effectof culturalcapital on college completion,
graduateeducation,and educationalattainment is greaterforsonsofless
well educatedmen.
Sons and daughtersfromlow-educationfamiliesare relativelyunlikely
to attendcollege. Those who do attendmay be overselected(Bourdieu
1977b);thatis, theymay possessspecial traitsthatgive theman advan-
tage over higher-background classmateswhose matriculationhas been
taken forgranted.If this is true,we would expect(a) the tendencyfor
culturalcapital to have a strongereffecton the attainmentof high-
backgroundwomen to be reduced or eliminatedamong the college-
attendingsample and (b) the tendencyof lower-background men to
benefitmorefromculturalcapital to be increased.9
9 We expected to findstrongeffectsof culturalcapital on college quality and of college
quality on college completionand otheroutcome measures. Such findingshave been
commonin otherstudiesof college quality effects(Griffinand Alexander 1978; Karabel
and McClelland 1983). With the help ofJeromeKarabel and KatherineMcClelland of
the Huron Instituteand Laurie Steele of Project Talent, we mergedthe Talent college
codes with the former'sHuron InstitutionalFile, which containsa varietyof measures
of college quality. Analysis of the mergeddata revealed many cases forwhich college
qualitymeasures were not available. Use of a correlationmatrixwithpairwise deletion
revealed modest and inconsistentcollege quality effects. Use of listwise deletion
1246
CulturalCapital
TABLE 4
UNSTANDARDIZED COEFFICIENTS, STANDARD ERRORS, AND STANDARDIZED

COEFFICIENTS FROM REGRESSIONS FOR COLLEGE MEN
Variable COMPLETE COMPLETE GRADED GRADED EDATT EDATT
POPED. .0091 .0076 .0039 .0016 .0357 .0259

.0056 .0056 .0057 .0057 .0197 .0194
.0643 .0538 .0279 .0116 .0720 .0522
PPRES .0007 .0007 .0003 .0003 .0040 .0040

.0009 .0009 .0009 .0009 .0030 .0029
.0305 .0309 .0152 .0158 .0527 .0534
GENERAL. .0015*** .0015*** .0014*** .0013*** 0053*** .0052***

.0002 .0001 .0002 .0002 .0005 .0005
3421 3404 3086 .3059 .3432 .3399
CULTCAP .... ... .0467** ... .0733*** ... 3121***

.0165 .0167 .0570
.0951 .1490 1805
INTERCEPT .. -.3760 -.6008 -.4485 -.8011 12.3157 10.8132
df.767 766 767 766 767 766
R .1366 .1456 .1018 .1238 .1463 .1785
NOTE.-Results are from regressionsof college completion(COMPLETE), graduate training

(GRADED), and educationalattainment (EDATT) on father'seducation(POPED), father'soccupational
prestige(PPRES), generalability(GENERAL), and culturalcapital (CULTCAP)
*P ' 05
** P -01
*** P ' .001
Results
Tables 4 and 5 reportresultsof OLS regression analysesfortheeffects
of
father'seducation;measuredgeneralability;and culturalcapital on col-
legecompletion,graduateeducation,and educationalattainment formen
and women with at least one year of college. As was the case above,
because binarydependentvariables are evenlydistributedand because
logisticregressionresultswere substantivelyidentical,we reportOLS
findingsto simplifythe presentation.
Culturalcapitalhas significanteffects
on all outcomemeasuresforboth
showed somewhat strongercollege quality effects(albeit still substantiallyless strong

than those found in otherstudies) but with a set of respondentsthatdifferedconsider-
ably from the sample. And a dummy-variableanalysis (with dummy variables for
missingdata in the same equation as the main effects[Cohen and Cohen 1975, pp.
271-79]) revealed substantial bias resultingfrompairwise deletionof missingdata on
college quality. Consequently,we dropped college quality fromthe analysis. We hope
that otherstudies of the educational effectsof dimensionsof status-cultureparticipa-
tion will have more adequate data on college quality.
1247
TABLE 5
UNSTANDARDIZED COEFFICIENTS, STANDARD ERRORS, AND STANDARDIZED

COEFFICIENTS FROM REGRESSIONS FOR COLLEGE WOMEN
Variable COMPLETE COMPLETE GRADED GRADED EDATT EDATT
POPED ....... o0101 .0093 .0091 .0085 .0459* .0433*

.0074 .0073 .0071 .0071 .0215 .0213
.0737 .0676 .0709 .0663 .1129 .1065
PPRES ......... 0008 .0006 -.0010 -.0011 -.0017 -.0022
.0011 .0011 .0011 .0011 .0033 .0033
.0364 .0289 - .0511 - .0569 - .0266 - .0346
GENERAL. .0015*** .0015*** .0011*** .0011*** .0050*** .0050***
.0002 .0002 .0002 .0002 .0006 .0006
.2850 .2846 .2278 .2275 .3269 .3265
CULTCAP .... ... .0683*** ... .0491* .. .2123***

.0206 .0200 .0603
.1351 .1034 .1417
INTERCEPT .. -.4488 -.8458 -.4060 -.6916 12.0995 10.8648
df........... 530 529 530 529 530 529
2 ........... .1066 .1247 .0575 0681 .1306 .1506
NOTE.-Results are from regressionsof college completion(COMPLETE), graduate training

(GRADED), and educationalattainment (EDATT) on father'seducation(POPED), father'soccupational
prestige(PPRES), generalability(GENERAL), and culturalcapital (CULTCAP).
* P _ .05.
* P .01.
*** P ' .001.
genders.For both men and women, the effectsof culturalcapital are

largerthanthoseoffather'seducation.For women,theimpactofcultural
capitalon all threeoutcomesis between43% and 48% ofthatofmeasured
ability.For men,theculturalcapital effectrangesfromjust overa quar-
terof theimpactof measuredabilityon collegecompletionto morethan
halfof the abilityeffecton educationalattainment.These findingspro-
vide strongsupportforthe predictionsof hypothesis6.
If we comparetheeffectsofculturalcapitalon educationalattainment
forthecollegesampleto thoseforthefullsample,we see littleindication
that the effectsof college socializationmoderatevariationin cultural
capital and consequentlyreduce its effects.While unstandardizedbeta
coefficientsare substantiallylower forthe college group (reflecting
the
truncatedrangeof educationalattainmentfortheserespondents),stan-
dardizedcoefficientsare onlyslightlylowerformenand about30% lower
forwomen. These findingsare consistentwiththe conclusionthat stu-
dents who pursue elite culturalinterestsand activitiesin high school
maintaintheirrelativeadvantagethroughout the collegeyears.
1248
CulturalCapital
TABLE 6
UNSTANDARDIZED COEFFICIENTS AND STANDARD ERRORS FROM DISAGGREGATED

ANALYSES FOR COLLEGE MEN AND WOMEN
MEN WOMEN
SUBSAMPLE COMPLETE GRADED EDATT COMPLETE GRADED EDATT
POPED1 (less than high .082* .108*** .438*** .034 .007 .092
schooldiploma) .......... .032 .029 .107 .044 .013 .134
POPED2 (highschooldiploma .060 .060 .294** .095** .065 .292**
.....s
and vocational SChOO) .043 .035 .110 .036 .036 .104
POPED3 (at least some -.031 .019 .117 .084* .043 .196*
college) ................... .028 .031 .112 .036 .037 .095
NOTE.-Results are fromdisaggregatedanalysesoftheeffects

ofculturalcapitalon collegecompletion
(COMPLETE), graduateeducation(GRADED), and educationalattainment(EDATT) by subsamples
based on father'seducation(POPED), withotherindependentvariablescontrolled.
*P ' .05.
** P ' .01.
*** P ' .001.
The differences on collegecompletionand graduateeducation

in effects
between men and women are in the directionpredictedby hypotheses7
and 8, but theyare not statisticallysignificant.As predicted,theimpact
of culturalcapital on men's collegeoutcomesis negativelyand linearly
relatedto father'seducation(see table 6). For each outcome,the effects
are greatestamong sons of men who did not graduatefromhighschool
and notsignificant amongsonsofmenwithat leastsomecollegetraining.
In each case, thedifference betweenbeta coefficients forsons oftheleast
and mosteducatedmenis nearlysignificant at the.05 level. The strength
and monotonicity of thispatternacrossdifferent outcomemeasurespro-
vide some supportforhypothesis9.
Also as expected,the advantage of women fromthe most educated
familiesin returnsto culturalcapital is moderatedamong the college-
attendinggroup,withslightlyhighereffectsfordaughtersof highschool
graduateswithoutcollegethanfordaughtersof collegemen.
CULTURAL CAPITAL AND MARITALSELECTION

Hypotheses
relatedto
HYPOTHESIS10: Culturalcapital is positivelyand significantly
spouse's educationformen and women,when own education,father's
education,and measuredabilityare controlled.
From an exchangeperspective,we would expectmen and womento
desireeducated spouses because such spouses are likelyto have greater
1249
earningpower,to be presentablein higher-prestige social circles,and to

have broaderand moreinfluential social networksthanmenand women
withless education(Fischer 1982). Followingthislogic, we expectcul-
turalcapitalto be relatedpositivelyto theeducationalattainment ofone's
spouse,bothindirectly (throughitspositiveeffecton own education)and
directly,because men and womenwithculturalcapital have an advan-
tage in developingrelationshipswithpersonsof highsocial rank.
HYPOTHESIS 11: The impactof culturalcapital on whomone marries
(as measuredby spouse's educationalattainment) is comparableformen
and women.
Froman exchangeperspective,we mightexpectculturalcapitalto play
a strongerrole in the marital prospectsof women, because women's
educationalattainmentis less than thatof men and because womenare
less likelyto controlotherresourcesusefulin economicexchange. In
contrast,fromthe matchingperspectivementionedearlier,we would
expectsimilareffectsforbothgenders,fordiffuseculturalresourcespro-
vide a basis forintimacy.
HYPOTHESIS 12: The impactof culturalcapital on whomone marries
(as measured by spouse's educational attainment)is greatestfor low-
statusmen and forhigh-status women.
Culturalcapitalcould be used bymenand womenfromlow-education
familiesto "marryup" or by men and women fromhigh-education
familiesto consolidatetheirclass positions.On the basis of our earlier
findings,we anticipatethatthe relationshipvaries by gender.
Results
Testing these hypothesesraises problemsof specification,in that the
expectationthat partnersmatch each other's characteristicsimplies
simultaneity in theeffectsof own educationand thatofthespouse. Fur-
thermore, because spouse'seducationservesas a proxyforotherqualities
(e.g., culturalcapital) thatmake a man or a woman a desirablespouse,
thereis possiblesimultaneity betweenotherattributesof the respondent
and spouse's education.Because simultaneity is likelyto be greatestbe-
tween own education and spouse's education, the misspecification is
likelyto inflatetheeffectsofown educationon thatofthespouseand, in
so doing,to bias downwardtheestimatesoftheeffects ofculturalcapital
and otherindependentvariables.Because we are concernedherewiththe
effectsof culturalcapital and not withthe parametersof themodelas a
whole, we directattentionto the coefficientsforculturalcapital and re-
gardtheuse ofOLS regressionas a conservativetestofour hypotheses. 10
to undertaketwo-stageleast squaresanalysesin responseto thisproblem

10 Efforts
1250
CulturalCapital
TABLE 7
UNSTANDARDIZED COEFFICIENTS, STANDARD ERRORS, AND

STANDARDIZED COEFFICIENTS FROM REGRESSIONS FOR ALL
MARRIED MEN AND WOMEN
MEN WOMEN
VARIABLE SPOUSED SPOUSED SPOUSED SPOUSED
POPED ....... .0291 .0279 .0829*** .0795***

.0152 .0152 .0201 .0201
.0520 .0500 .1112 .1067
PPRES ........ .0039 .0036 .0087** .0087**

.0024 .0024 .0032 .0032
.0446 .0408 .0723 .0724
GENERAL . 0005 .0007 .0024*** .0023***

.0004 .0004 .0006 .0006
.0347 .0470 .1029 .0995
EDATT ........ 4403*** .4181*** .6317*** .6100***

.0242 .0249 .0359 .0370
.5236 .4972 .4691 .4529
CULTCAP .... ... .1717*** ... .1511*

.0494 .0629
.0845 .0569
INTERCEPT 6.1061 5.4754 2.8133 3.1816
df ........... 1214 1213 1263 1262

2 ............ .3353 .3419 .3768 .3796
NOTE.-Results are from regressionsof spouse's educational attainment

(SPOUSED) on father'seducation (POPED), father'soccupational prestige
(PPRES), generalability(GENERAL), own educationalattainment(EDATT),
and culturalcapital (CULTCAP)
* P ' .05.
** P .01.
*** P ' .001.
Regressionanalysesof spouse's educationon father'seducation,mea-

sured ability,own education,and culturalcapital formen and women
indicatethat,forbothgenders,culturalcapital has a highlysignificant,
albeitmodest,directimpacton spouse'seducationalattainment (table 7).
In addition,it has a largerindirecteffectthroughown educationalattain-
ment.For men,the unstandardizedcoefficient of thedirectplus indirect
effectis .3842; forwomen,the total effectunstandardizedcoefficient is
becauseoftheabsenceofinstruments
werenotsuccessful, in
thatwerebotheffective
withtheerror
owneducationand, at thesametime,plausiblyuncorrelated
predicting
termoftheequationpredictingspouse'seducationalattainment.
1251
TABLE 8
UNSTANDARDIZED COEFFICIENTS AND STANDARD ERRORS FROM

DISAGGREGATED ANALYSES FOR MARRIED MEN AND WOMEN
SPOUSED
SUBSAMPLE Men Women
POPED1 (less than highschool diploma). .2430** .0359

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

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

pothesis10. For men,thecoefficient ofculturalcapitalis greaterthanthe
effectsof father'seducation and measured ability. For women, the
coefficientof culturalcapital is smallerthantheeffectsof measuredabil-
ityor father'seducation.Father'seducation,measuredability,and own
educationalattainmentare all betterpredictorsoftheeducationalattain-
mentsofhusbandsthanof wives,suggesting thateducationalattainment
is a poorerproxyforwhatevermakes a woman a desirablespouse than
forthe desirablequalitiesof husbands.
The net effectsof culturalcapital on spouse's educationare approxi-
matelyequal forwomenand men,lendingtentativesupportto hypothesis
11 and to a view of culturalcapital as permitting intimacybetween
potentialmatesinsteadof actingas a generalizedmediumofexchangein
the maritalmarketplace.
Hypothesis12 receiveslittlesupport(see table 8). The effectsof cul-
turalcapital on spouse's educationare strongerfordaughtersof college
men and high school graduatesthan forwomen whose fathersdid not
completehighschool,but thedifferences onlyapproachsignificance. For
men,the differences in effectsare again in the predicteddirection,with
culturalcapital havingthestrongest effectson spouse'seducationforthe
sons of highschool dropouts,but theydo not approachsignificance.
During the 1960s, women'scollege attendanceincreasedand women
began to explorenew occupationalroles(Thorntonand Freedman1979;
1252
CulturalCapital
Lueptow 1980). We anticipatedfindingtwo separatestrategiesof mobil-

ityforwomen: a traditionalpatternbased on attainmentthroughmar-
riageand a less traditionalone via one's own education.It was expected
thatwomenwho enteredbut failedto completecollegewould relymore
on culturalcapital in maritalselectionthan eitherwomenwho did not
attendcollegeat all (and thushad somewhatless access to menlikelyto
value culturalcapital) or womenwho completedcollege(who were less
likelyto adhereto traditionalconceptsof thefeminineroleand who had
more earningpower to offerin maritalexchange).These expectations
were correct:culturalcapital and spouse's education were correlated
.1991 forwomencollegedropouts,comparedto .1071 forwomenwho did
not matriculateand only .0561 forwomen college graduates.We also
expectedthatthisassociationwould be particularly strongamongdaugh-
tersofhighlyeducatedmen,forwhomcollegegraduationwas likelyto be
a moreclearlyavailable option.Again, thisexpectationwas confirmed.
For nongraduates among college-goingdaughters of non-college-
attendingmen,the correlationof culturalcapital and spouse'seducation
was only .0636. In contrast,among college graduates'daughterswho
enteredbut did not completecollege,the correlationbetweencultural
capital and spouse's education was .4169. Consequently,we conclude
that maritalattainmentvia culturalcapital was a preferred strategyof
mobilityfortradition-minded womenfromhigh-education families.
DISCUSSION
We began by focusingon Weber'sclassicdistinction betweenclass (mar-
ket position)and status, notingthat most studiesof the stratification
process only have measures of the former.To the extentthat status
culturesare not firmly groundedin boundedstatusgroupsconsistingof
individualswithcommonmarketpositions,separatemeasuresof status-
cultureparticipationare necessaryforaddressinga numberofanomalous
findingsin the stratification
literature.
We exploredtheutilityofthisview, usingdata on one aspectofstatus-
cultureparticipation-familiarity with and interestin high culture-
taken froma cross sectionof U.S. high school studentssurveyedby
ProjectTalent in 1960 and followedup 11 yearslater. The expectation
thatstatus-culture participationdirectlyaffectseducationaland marital
outcomesfor men and women was stronglyconfirmed.The effectof
culturalcapital on everyoutcomemeasurewe investigated(educational
attainment,collegeattendance,collegecompletion,graduateeducation,
and maritalselection)was significantly
positiveforbothmenand women.
Indeed, foreveryoutcomeexceptspouse's education,the standardized
of culturalcapital was largerthan that of any independent
coefficient
1253
variableexceptmeasuredability.Our interpretation ofculturalcapitalas

a conversationalresourcewas supportedby the stronglysignificant im-
pact of culturalcapital on eleventhgraders'self-reports of the extentto
which theydiscussedtheirfutureplans with teachers,counselors,and
peers.The effectof culturalcapitalthroughcollegeand beyondsupports
Bourdieu's view of it as anchoredin a stable set of dispositionsthat
emergebeforeadulthood.
The most importantfindingof our separate analyses for men and
women is the greatsimilarityin the effectsof culturalcapital between
genders. When the male and female samples were disaggregatedby
father'seducationallevel, some modestdifferences emerged.For men,a
culturalmobilityhypothesisseems worthyof furtherinvestigation, be-
cause theimpactof culturalcapitalon all measuresofeducationalattain-
mentis least forsons of the most-educatedfathers.
The strikingsimilarity in the effectsof culturalcapital on the educa-
tionaland maritaloutcomesof men and womenleads us to questionthe
conventionalassertionthatwomen'sattainment is based on morediffuse
and particularistic qualities than men's. Such formulations tend to be
based on studiesthatpresentfindings forwomenonly(e.g., studiesofthe
effectsof physicalattractiveness on mate selection)or thatassume that
demographicvariables are proxiesfordiffuseattributesof the self. In
contrast,we would distinguish betweenascriptivecriteria(based on fam-
ilystatus,whichis moreimportantforwomen)and diffusepersonalistic
criteria(such as culturalcapital, which may be equally importantfor
men). Despite the ample supplyof culturalstereotypes about feminine
wiles, we interpretthis evidence as suggestingthat diffuseaspects of
personalstyleare no moreimportantto the lifechancesof womenthan
theyare to thoseof men.
This pointcan be seen mostclearlyin thefindings on maritalselection.
Father's education(an ascriptivecriterion)has a significantly stronger
effecton spouse'seducationforwomenthanformen.But culturalcapital
(a diffusecriterion)
has similareffectsforbothgenders.This suggeststhat
"maritalmarkets"may best be characterizedas matches,in whichboth
spousesdesireintimacybased on culturalsimilarity, insteadofas general-
ized exchangesin which any "good" can be exchangedforany other.
Althoughwe do not deny the possibilitythat certainincommensurable
"goods" (e.g., attractiveness and earnings)are regularlyexchanged,we
suggestthat futureresearchshould identifywhich "resources"are ex-
changed(and amongwhichsubpopulations)and whichare matched.Our
resultsalso illustratethevalue of comparativestudyofthemaritalselec-
tionprocessformen and women.
Finally,we demonstrated thattheeffectsof culturalcapital on educa-
1254
CulturalCapital
tionaland maritaloutcomesweresignificant netoftheeffects ofsocioeco-

nomicbackgroundas measuredby father'seducationand father'soccu-
pational prestige,variables selectedbecause theyare the demographic
measuresmostlikelyto be associatedwithfamilyculturalcapital. Enter-
ing culturalcapital intoour modelsintroducedvirtuallyno reductionof
the impact of father'seducationand occupationalprestigeon spouse's
education,a verysmall (5%-15%) reductionin theeffects of theseback-
groundvariableson mostoutcomemeasures,and somewhatgreaterre-
ductionsof the small effectsof father'seducationon educationalattain-
mentand graduateeducationformale collegestudents.This strengthens
our convictionthat conventionalsociodemographic statusmeasuresare
poorproxiesforfamilyculturalclimateand thatculturalcapitaldoes not
simplymediatetheeffects offamilyeconomicclass position.Nonetheless,
thisconclusionis tentative,pendinga fullinvestigation oftheimpactofa
broaderrangeof measuresof familybackgroundon culturalcapital.
Disaggregatedanalysesdid reveal small differences in the role of cul-
tural capital in the attainmentprocessformen and womenof varying
socioeconomicbackgrounds.As we have noted,the impactof cultural
capital is slightlygreateron the educationalattainmentof sons of less
well-educatedfathers.The evidencealso suggeststhatamongtradition-
mindedupper-middle-class women, culturalcapital may play an espe-
cially importantrole in attractingwell-educatedhusbands. These find-
ings demonstratethe importanceof investigating alternativestrategies
of mobilityamong different classes and even among different segments
of the same social class (see Bourdieu 1977b; Karabel and McClelland
1983).
IMPLICATIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH

We hope thattheseconsistentand robustfindingsacross severaleduca-
tionaland maritaloutcomemeasuresforbothmenand womenwill pro-
vide convincingevidencethat the perspectiveadvanced here has merit
and thatnondemographic measuresofstatus-culture participationshould
be incorporatedinto models of the stratification
process. We findthe
effectsof our one imperfectmeasuresuggestiveand believe that better
measuresof severaldimensionsof status-culture participationwill show
strongeffectson theseand otherstratificationoutcomes.
In particular,we woulddistinguishbetweenculturalcapital,definedas
thecontentofprestigiousstatuscultures,and communicative competence
as styleof discourse(includingnonverbalcues, accent, and pacing of
speech [Hymes 1964]). Only one study,Erickson and Schultz's(1982)
researchon junior college student-counselorencounters,has measured
1255
Conventional
demographic
measures of * ability outcomes
background
to:
Revised
ability
demographic
measures of
family
background -*cultural capital - social
(network) - outcomes
resources
cultural communicative
measures of - * competence
family
background
FIG. 1. -Conventional and revised attainment models
boththe contentand styleof talk directlyand independently. Each was

foundto have an independentand positiveimpacton theoutcomesofthe
encountersobservedby the authors.
In thispaper, we restricted our attentionto positivelyvalued cultural
resources.It is possiblethatnegativelyvalued culturalstyles(e.g., punk
influencethestratification
life-styles) processin comparablebut opposite
ways. (For suggestiveevidencefromSweden, see Roe 1983.) This possi-
bilitydeservesanalyticattention.
An underlying assumptionofour argumentis thattheeffects ofstatus-
cultureparticipation are mediatedbycharacteristics ofindividuals'social
networks:theirsize, the statusof theirmembers,and the facilitywith
whichindividualsenlargethem.We proposethatnetworkfactorsof the
kindthatLin (1982) refersto as "social resources"and Bourdieu(1977a)
calls "social capital" are productsof culturalcapital and communicative
competenceand, in turn, contributeto the attainmentof high social
status.In thispaper, however,our data permitteddirectexplorationof
thelinkbetweenculturalcapitaland social networkresourcesonlyin our
analysisof the effectsof culturalcapital on the frequencywith which
studentstalk to peersand school personnelabout postgraduation plans.
Obviously,muchmoreworkis needed.
These suggestionsimplythattheWisconsinmodel(Sewell,Haller,and
1256
CulturalCapital
Portes 1969; Sewell, Haller, and Ohlendorf1970; Sewell and Hauser

1975) presentedin a simplifiedformat the top of figure1 should be
expanded. We propose the revised formshown below it, in orderto
bases of
incorporateWeber'sinsightsabout theculturaland interactional
process.We
statusand statusculturesintoourmodelsofthestratification
suspect that such models may yield impressiveincreasesin predictive
powerand theoreticalunderstanding.
1257
00 00 CO Co IO n in
c
.- 0 In O I e o Ino00
10 In n tn e
In e olN'0 o
00 c
C; C'j~~~~~~~~~~~
v 0N t tneOeeN e~~~000
oo 0
.- C 0
C 00
00 n
00V' 0 0 00 0
H 0~~~~~0
-
u
~ ~oc~ ~r 0 r. 00 000
ol 0
~ 0
ol oN
t- 0 C' 0 C . . .
C.-
t- cl0 C.- O o0 o 0
00 0
U)
0~~~~~~~~~~~~~0
t- 0 C'
0- oo00nt o C. 1 C.
H ) xD afi t o t- xD xD 00 C C0-
C-)
0
v
Q H 0c
0o
r-0 00
H N C e 00 O 00 0C 00
?~~~~~~. OC. ox- tn tNNN 0

0
H e 00 e 00e _0 100 0 0
U
n
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Q H1 _1 oC _1 I-
00 0 N
OHU C' ~~00 N

00 - 0 -tDOx
lz
z H
C ~ C.-Nt O0N
0 o' 0
00 00 0
00 0 C' C' C.-o
0
zH Q z- C' o C' t- - N C' Co oO tn N
C.- C' 00 00 0 00
0N
oO t O N t e tn t tn
00
-~~~~~~~
F - t 0 NN 00 eI t O 0 0' 0
lz
!t
00~~~~~~~~0
00~~~~00
0 ~ ~ 0~ n00
? 0
Z] O
00U xD O xD 00
> 0 ~) 00 00 >C
U)~~~~~~~~') in in r) oo 'oO 0 CDO

no
1
C'
C: 0's .
..
z ?
0 '~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
0't00 H H e~~~~~~~~~
' lC > 00 0t ON
oo t ) t t ) t 00 o ' O- O 0N N
Q~~~
o -X < o H t
T
0~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
O 84DIn e e
X 0 0 0 Q ? Q Q 0 O
CulturalCapital
REFERENCES
Alexander, Karl L., and Bruce K. Eckland. 1974. "Sex Differencesin the Educational
AttainmentProcess." AmericanSociologicalReview39:668-82.
Benson, Charles S. 1982. "Household Production of Human Capital: Time Uses of
Parents and Children as Inputs." Pp. 52-77 in Financing Education: Overcoming
Inefficiencyand Inequity, edited by Walter W. McMahon and Terry Geske. Ur-
bana: Universityof Illinois Press.
Bernstein,Basil. 1971. Class, Codes, and Control.Vol. 1. Boston: Routledge & Kegan
Paul.
Bourdieu, Pierre. 1977a. "Cultural Reproductionand Social Reproduction."Pp. 487-
511 in Power and Ideology in Education, edited by Jerome Karabel and A. H.
Halsey. New York: Oxford UniversityPress.
. 1977b. Reproduction in Education,Society,Culture.BeverlyHills, Calif.:
Sage.
Burt, Ronald S. 1982. Toward a StructuralTheoryofAction. New York: Academic
Press.
Cicourel, Aaron V. 1981. "Notes on the Integrationof Micro- and Macro-Levels of
Analysis."Pp. 51-80 in Advancesin Social Theoryand Methodology: Towardan
Integrationof Micro- and Macro-Sociologies, edited by Karen Knorr-Cetinaand
Aaron V. Cicourel. Boston: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Cohen, Jacob, and Patricia Cohen. 1975. Applied Multiple Regression/Correlation
Analysis
fortheBehavioralSciences.New York:Wiley.
Collins, Randall. 1971. "Functional and ConflictTheories of Educational Stratifica-
tion."AmericanSociologicalReview36:1002-19.
Sociology:Towardan Explanatory
1975. Conflict Science.New York:Aca-
demic Press.
. 1979. The CredentialSociety:An HistoricalSociologyofEducation and
Stratification.New York: Academic Press.
. 1981. "On the Microfoundationsof Macrosociology." American Journal of
Sociology86:984-1014.
Davis, James A. 1982. "AchievementVariables and Class Cultures: Family, School-
ing, Job, and Forty-nineDependent Variables in the Cumulative GSS." American
SociologicalReview47:569-86.
DiMaggio, Paul. 1982a. "Cultural Capital and School Success: The Impact of Status
Culture Participation on the Grades of U.S. High School Students." American
. 1982b. "Cultural Entrepreneurshipin Nineteenth-CenturyBoston, Part I:
The Creation of an Organizational Base for High Culture in America." Media,
Culture,and Society4:33-50.
. 1982c. "Cultural Entrepreneurshipin Nineteenth-CenturyBoston, Part II:
The Classification and Framing of American Art." Media, Culture, and Society
4:303-22.
DiMaggio, Paul, and Michael Useem. 1978. "Cultural Democracy in a Period of
Cultural Expansion." Social Problems28:180-97.
. 1982. "The Arts in Class Reproduction." Pp. 181-201 in Cultural and Eco-
nomicReproduction in Education, edited by Michael W. Apple. Boston: Routledge
& Kegan Paul.
Elder, Glen H. 1969. "Appearance and Education in Marriage Mobility." American
Erickson, Frederick, and Jeffrey Schultz. 1982. The Counselor as Gatekeeper:Social
Interaction in Interviews. New York: Academic Press.
Faia, Michael A. 1981. "Selection by Certification:A Neglected Variable in Stratifica-
tion Research." American JournalofSociology86:1093-1111.
1259
Featherman, David L., and RobertM. Hauser. 1976."SexualInequalitiesand Socio-

economicAchievement in the U.S., 1962-1973."AmericanSociologicalReview
41:462-83.
Fischer,Claude. 1982. To Dwell amongFriends:PersonalNetworksin Townand
City.Berkeleyand Los Angeles:University ofCaliforniaPress.
Gans,HerbertJ. 1974.PopularCultureand High Culture.New York: Basic.
Goffman,Erving. 1959. The Presentationof Self in EverydayLife. New York:
Doubleday.
Granovetter, Mark. 1982. "The Strength of Weak Ties: A NetworkTheoryRevis-
ited." Pp. 105-30 in Social Structureand NetworkAnalysis,editedby PeterV.
Marsdenand Nan Lin. BeverlyHills,Calif.:Sage.
Griffin,LarryJ., and Karl Alexander.1978. "Schoolingand Socioeconomic Attain-
ments:High School and College Influences."AmericanJournalof Sociology
84:310-47.
Hearn,JamesC., and Susan Olzak. 1981. "The Role of Major Departments in the
Reproduction of SexualInequality."SociologyofEducation54:195-205.
Howell,FrankM., and LynnW. McBroom.1982."SocialRelationsat Homeand at
School: An Analysisof the Correspondence Principle."Sociologyof Education
55:40-52.
Hyman,HerbertH., and CharlesR. Wright.1979.Education'sLastingInfluence on
Values.Chicago:University ofChicagoPress.
Hymes,Dell. 1964."Introduction: TowardEthnographies ofCommunication." Pp. 1-
34 in The Ethnography of Communication, editedby JohnJ. Gumperzand Dell
Hymes.Specialpublication, AmericanAnthropologistSeriesno. 66, part2. Wash-
ington,D.C.: AmericanAnthropological Association.
Jencks,Christopher, et al. 1979. WhoGetsAhead: The Determinants ofEconomic
Successin America.New York: Basic.
Jencks,Christopher, JamesCrouse,and PeterMueser.1983."The WisconsinModel
of StatusAttainment: A NationalReplicationwithImprovedMeasuresofAbility
and Aspiration." SociologyofEducation56:3-19.
Jencks,Christopher, and David Riesman.1977.TheAcademicRevolution.Chicago:
University ofChicagoPress.
Karabel,Jerome, and Katherine McClelland.1983."The Effects ofCollegeQualityon
Labor MarketOutcomes:Variationsby WorkerCharacteristic and Type ofJob."
Photocopied.Cambridge,Mass.: HarvardUniversity, Department of Sociology.
Kelly,Gail P., and AnnS. Nihlen.1982."Schoolingand theReproduction ofPatriar-
chy:Unequal Workloads,Unequal Rewards."Pp. 162-80 in Culturaland Eco-
nomicReproduction inEducation,editedbyMichaelW. Apple.Boston:Routledge
& Kegan Paul.
Leibowitz,Arleen.1974a. "Educationand Home Production." AmericanEconomic
Review64:243-56.
. 1974b. "Home Investments in Children."Journalof Political Economy
82:S111-S131.
Lin, Nan. 1982. "Social Resourcesand Instrumental Action."Pp. 131-45in Social
Structure and Network Analysis,editedbyPeterV. Marsdenand Nan Lin. Beverly
Hills,Calif.:Sage.
Lueptow,LloydB. 1980."SocialChangeand Sex-RoleChangeinAdolescent Orienta-
tionstowardLife,Work,and Achievement: 1964-75."Social Psychology Quarterly
43:48-59.
Mercy,JamesA., and Lala CarrSteelman.1982."FamilyInfluence ontheIntellectual
Attainment ofChildren."AmericanSociologicalReview47:532-42.
Meyer,John.1970."The Charter:Conditions ofDiffuseSocializationin Schools."Pp.
564-78 in Social Processesand Social Structures, editedby W. R. Scott.New
York:Holt, Rinehart& Winston.
1260
CulturalCapital
Murnane,RichardJ., RebeccaA. Maynard,and JamesC. Ohls. 1981."Home Re-

sourcesand Children'sAchievement."
ReviewofEconomicsand Statistics63:369-
77.
Parkin,Frank.1978."SocialStratification."
Pp. 599-632inA HistoryofSociological
Analysis,editedbyTom Bottomore and RobertNisbet.New York:Basic.
Peterson,RichardA. 1983."Patterns
ofCulturalChoice:A Prolegomenon."American
BehavioralScientist26:422-38.
Roe, Keith.1983.Mass Media and Adolescent Schooling:Conflict
or Co-Existence?
Stockholm: Almqvist& WiksellInternational.
Sewell,WilliamH., Archibald0. Haller,and G. Ohlendorf.
1970."The Educational
and Early OccupationalStatusAttainment Process:Replicationand Revision."
AmericanSociologicalReview35:1014-27.
Sewell,WilliamH., Archibald0. Haller,and AlejandroPortes.1969."The Educa-
tionaland EarlyOccupationalAttainmentProcess."AmericanSociologicalReview
34:82-92.
Sewell,WilliamH., and RobertM. Hauser. 1975.Education,Occupationand Earn-
ings.New York:AcademicPress.
Sewell,WilliamH., RobertM. Hauser,and WendyC. Wolf.1980."Sex, Schooling,
and OccupationalStatus."American JournalofSociology86:551-83.
Sewell,WilliamH., and VimalP. Shah. 1967."Socioeconomic Status,Intelligence,
and theAttainment of HigherEducation."SociologyofEducation40:1-23.
Sorokin,PitirimA. 1959.Social and CulturalMobility.New York:Free Press.
Taylor,PatriciaAnn, and Norval D. Glenn. 1976. "Females' StatusAttainment
throughMarriage."AmericanSociologicalReview41:484-98.
Thornton,Arland,and DeborahFreedman.1979."Changesin theSex RoleAttitudes
ofWomen,1962-1977:Evidencefroma PanelStudy."AmericanSociologicalRe-
view 44:831-42.
Tuchman,Gaye. 1982."Cultureas MaterialResource."Media, Culture,and Society
4:3-18.
Waller,Willard,and ReubenHill. 1951.TheFamily:A DynamicInterpretation.Rev.
ed. New York: Dryden.
Warner,W. Lloyd,and Paul S. Lunt. 1942.TheStatusSystemofa ModernCommu-
nity.New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press.
Weber,Max. (1922)1968.Economyand Society.EditedbyGuenther Rothand Claus
Wittich.New York: Bedminster.
Weber,William.1976.Music and theMiddle Class in Nineteenth Century Europe.
New York:Holmes& Meier.
Janet.1982."The ProblemofIdeologyin theSociology
Wolff, ofArt:A Case Studyof
Manchester in theNineteenth Century."Media, Culture,and Society4:63-76.
1261

DiMaggio 1985

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

DiMaggio 1985

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Cultural Capital, Educational Attainment, and Marital Selection

Author(s): Paul DiMaggio and John Mohr

AlthoughWeberdistinguished sharplybetween"class" (an individ-

1 This paperhas benefited immensely fromcarefuland criticalreadingsby Randall

C 1985by The University

AJS Volume 90 Number6 1231

nomic status, or educational attainment(oftentreatedas a proxyfor

2 We use theterm"class"onlyin theWeberiansense.Marxistdefinitions

separablefromthe individual'sparticipationin a humangroupand the

STATUS IN ADVANCED MARKET ECONOMIES

erty,occupancyof jobs, maritalchoice, and social interaction.Under

thatmay be usefulin educational,marital,and occupationalattainment

MEASURES AND DATA

4For a morecompletedevelopmentofthisargument,see DiMaggio and Useem (1982).

measuredacademic ability(because its effecton performance in mathe-

s Father'seducationis used as the onlyeducationalcontrolforfamilybackground

women with one or more years of college, we estimatethe effectsof

EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT AND COLLEGE ATTENDANCE

tional attainmentforwomen than father's(Sewell et al. 1980) and thatmother's"home

studies reportingdifferencesin the stratificationprocess by gender (Sewell and Shah

Culturalcapital is expectedto affectstudents'educationalattainments

effectsof culturalcapital on highschoolgrades,foundsome supportfor

7 We acknowledge the possibility,however, thatthe materialconstraintson the ability

X (N0~) ~-0 - C- 0 00 x -'-4 -4 * H

t, 00H-~ 00o-o 00w)

Z H *0NC * 0 *~0 * f=( ~- 0

? *00z *00; *_0~' o) *( o t 0 0 t

0 00 C-q00~ , 0 ' 00N 4 00 CD(N 1- - O n

UNSTANDARDIZED COEFFICIENTS AND STANDARD ERRORS FROM DISAGGREGATED

POPED1 (less than highschool

NOTE.-Results are fromthe disaggregatedanalysesoftheeffectsofculturalcapital (CULTCAP) on

Althoughthe effectof culturalcapital relativeto measuredgeneral

UNSTANDARDIZED COEFFICIENTS, STANDARD ERRORS, AND

VARIABLE FUTALK FUTALK FUTALK FUTALK

POPED ......... .0679 .0467 -.0137 -.0261

PPRES .......... . 0085 .0053 .0073 .0066

GRADESE ...... .1664 .0184 .3363*** .2475*

GRADESM ...... . 1065 .1112 .0276 .0373

CULTCAP ...... ... 1.0102*** ... .3997***

INTERCEPT .... 2.4509 -1.9435 2.5831 .9440

df ............. 1270 1269 1337 1336

NOTE -Results are fromregressionsoffrequencyoftalk about collegewithteachers,

approaching significance.Among women, the cultural reproduction

peers. For men, the effectsare particularlystriking:b = .253, nearly

CULTURAL CAPITAL AND THE OUTCOMES OF HIGHER

Women are less likelythan men to completecollege educations.An

UNSTANDARDIZED COEFFICIENTS, STANDARD ERRORS, AND STANDARDIZED

Variable COMPLETE COMPLETE GRADED GRADED EDATT EDATT

POPED. .0091 .0076 .0039 .0016 .0357 .0259

PPRES .0007 .0007 .0003 .0003 .0040 .0040

GENERAL. .0015*** .0015*** .0014*** .0013*** 0053*** .0052***

CULTCAP .... ... .0467** ... .0733*** ... 3121***

df.767 766 767 766 767 766

R .1366 .1456 .1018 .1238 .1463 .1785

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

showed somewhat strongercollege quality effects(albeit still substantiallyless strong

UNSTANDARDIZED COEFFICIENTS, STANDARD ERRORS, AND STANDARDIZED

Variable COMPLETE COMPLETE GRADED GRADED EDATT EDATT

POPED ....... o0101 .0093 .0091 .0085 .0459* .0433*

CULTCAP .... ... .0683*** ... .0491* .. .2123***

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

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

UNSTANDARDIZED COEFFICIENTS AND STANDARD ERRORS FROM DISAGGREGATED

SUBSAMPLE COMPLETE GRADED EDATT COMPLETE GRADED EDATT

Z H 0NC 0 ~0 f=( ~- 0

? 00z 00; _0~' o) ( o t 0 0 t

CULTCAP ...... ... 1.0102* ... .3997*

GENERAL. .0015* .0015* .0014* .0013* 0053* .0052*

CULTCAP .... ... .0467 ... .0733* ... 3121***

POPED ....... .0291 .0279 .0829* .0795*

PPRES ........ .0039 .0036 .0087 .0087

GENERAL . 0005 .0007 .0024* .0023*

EDATT ........ 4403* .4181* .6317* .6100*