British Journal of Sociology of Education

ISSN: 0142-5692 (Print) 1465-3346 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cbse20

Cultural capital and habitus in context: the

importance of high school college-going culture

Josipa Roksa & Karen Jeong Robinson

To cite this article: Josipa Roksa & Karen Jeong Robinson (2017) Cultural capital and habitus
in context: the importance of high school college-going culture, British Journal of Sociology of
Education, 38:8, 1230-1244, DOI: 10.1080/01425692.2016.1251301

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/01425692.2016.1251301

Published online: 22 Nov 2016.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 3700

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 11 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=cbse20
British Journal of Sociology of Education, 2017
VOL. 38, NO. 8, 1230–1244
https://doi.org/10.1080/01425692.2016.1251301

Cultural capital and habitus in context: the importance of

high school college-going culture
Josipa Roksaa and Karen Jeong Robinsonb
a
Sociology, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, USA; bSociology, CSU San Bernardino, San Bernardino,
CA, USA

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

While an extensive body of research has examined the role of cultural Received 31 October 2014
capital in reproducing social class inequality in educational outcomes, Accepted 17 October 2016
the role of habitus and school context has received less attention
KEYWORDS
in quantitative studies. We attend to this gap in the literature by Cultural capital; habitus;
considering the relationship between cultural capital, habitus, and the US higher education;
transition into higher education across high schools with low and high college-going culture;
college-going cultures in the United States. Findings indicate that school context; social class
the relationship between cultural capital and transition into higher inequality
education is context specific and manifested only in schools with a
high college-going culture. In addition, students from less advantaged
family backgrounds benefit more from cultural capital than their more
advantaged counterparts, but this is the case primarily in schools
with a high college-going culture. Habitus, however, is related to the
transition into higher education regardless of the high school context
and benefits all students equally.

Introduction
Bourdieu’s theory of cultural reproduction provides an important framework for understand-
ing social inequality in educational outcomes (Bourdieu 1977a; Bourdieu and Passeron 1990).
Drawing on this framework, ample research has examined how cultural capital contributes to
inequality in academic achievement between children from different social class backgrounds
(for a review, see Lareau and Weininger 2003). While providing valuable insights, quantitative
studies in this tradition have less often attended to another concept central to Bourdieu’s account
of social reproduction: habitus (see Edgerton and Roberts 2014). Integration of cultural capital
and habitus is particularly rare in research on higher education transitions.
In challenging the notion that the educational system is meritocratic, Bourdieu argued that
schools reproduce inequality by rewarding cultural capital of the dominant social class. Because
schools expect children to have specific ‘linguistic and cultural competencies’ and ‘familiarity
with culture’ (Bourdieu 1977a, 494), they advantage children whose socialization experiences
are aligned with those expectations and thereby facilitate the conversion of dominant cultural
capital into educational success. At the core of this conception of educational reproduction is
thus the congruence between the school’s expectations and the dominant group’s cultural capital.

CONTACT  Karen Jeong Robinson  krobinson@csusb.edu

© 2016 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
 BRITISH JOURNAL OF SOCIOLOGY OF EDUCATION   1231

Another conception of social reproduction, however, suggests a different form of congru-

ence. Bowles and Gintis (1976) argued that inequality is legitimized and perpetuated by distinct
socialization patterns wherein schools serving middle-class students have different expectations
and values from those serving working-class students.1 A number of qualitative studies have
described distinct school cultures that promote different expectations and attitudes among
students (Ingram 2009; McDonough 1997; Reay 1998; Stanton-Salazar 2001). Therefore, not all
schools may reward middle-class cultural capital and habitus to the same extent.
We contribute to the prior literature in two specific ways. First, we examine the joint influence
of cultural capital and habitus on students’ decision to pursue education beyond high school.
Second, we examine how school context may moderate the relationship between students’ cul-
tural capital and habitus with their college-going behaviors. In other words, we examine the
possibility not only that school cultures have a relationship to student success but that students’
ability to benefit from their cultural capital and habitus varies across school contexts. Using
nationally representative data from a recent cohort of high school students in the United States,
we offer new insights into the processes of social reproduction and mobility and how they play
out in specific school contexts.

Literature review
Cultural capital, habitus, and educational outcomes
Bourdieu’s original conceptualization of cultural capital referred to the knowledge, tastes, and
linguistic competencies of the dominant social class (although see Lamont and Lareau [1988] for
a discussion of variation in the definition across Bourdieu’s writings). Following this conceptual-
ization, empirical research in education has often defined cultural capital as reflecting high-status
culture (Aschaffenburg and Maas 1997; DiMaggio 1982; Dumais and Ward 2010; Roscigno and
Ainsworth-Darnell 1999). This definition, however, has been criticized as being limited and not
transferrable across national contexts (Robbins 2004; Sullivan 2002; Swartz 1997).
Lareau and Weininger (2003) provided the most elaborate critique of the status-marker defi-
nition of cultural capital in educational research. They argued for a more expansive definition
of cultural capital that reflects individuals’ ability to comply with expectations and evaluative
standards of social institutions such as schools (see also Lareau 2011). This argument builds
on a broader definition of cultural capital that emphasizes ‘legitimized knowledge present in a
home environment’ which ‘allows parents and children to secure advantages in the educational
process’ (Vryonides 2007, 870). A number of studies have shown that this broader definition of
cultural capital is related to students’ academic outcomes (Bodovski and Farkas 2008; Cheadle
2008; Roksa and Potter 2011).2
In addition to arguing for a more expansive definition of cultural capital, Lareau (2011)
showed that family socialization shaped children’s understanding of their place in the world
and possibilities that lie ahead (see also Bodovski 2010). This argument resonates with the idea
of habitus, which Bourdieu defined as ‘a system of lasting, transposable dispositions which,
integrating past experiences and actions, functions at every moment as a matrix of perceptions,
appreciations, and actions’ (1977b, 82–83). Habitus therefore reflects what is possible for some-
one in a given social class position or what Bourdieu referred to as subjective expectations of
objective probabilities of success (Bourdieu and Passeron 1990).
Reay (2004, 432) noted that ‘habitus is probably Bourdieu’s most contested concept.’ Although
some scholars have critiqued the concept of habitus as being too imprecise to quantify (Sullivan
2002; van de Werfhorst 2010), others have defended it as analytically useful (Edgerton and
Roberts 2014; McNamara Horvat and Earl Davis 2011; Nash 1999). It is common for qualitative
studies to invoke habitus (or to not distinguish between habitus and cultural capital) and for
quantitative studies to focus on cultural capital (Edgerton and Roberts 2014). McClelland (1990)
1232   J. ROKSA AND K. J. ROBINSON

was one of the first to operationalize habitus in quantitative research using students’ occupational
expectations. Dumais (2002) used a similar definition, arguing that expectations represent an
important aspect of habitus because they capture an individual’s understanding of the social
structure and one’s place in it. Expectations reflect students’ possibilities of success, based on
a mix of past and current successes and their experiences and interactions with educational
institutions. Some recent studies have expanded the definition of habitus beyond educational
expectations to include attitudes toward teachers and dispositions toward postsecondary edu-
cation (see Edgerton, Roberts, and Peter 2013).
With increasing attention on habitus, several recent quantitative studies have considered cul-
tural capital and habitus jointly (Bodovski and Farkas 2008; Dumais 2006; Gaddis 2013; Roksa
and Potter 2011; Wildhagen 2009). Focusing on primary and secondary school outcomes such
as grades and test scores, these studies show that both cultural capital and habitus contribute to
social reproduction. They thus affirm Dumais’ argument that ‘it is necessary to consider both
one’s resources (capital) and an orientation one has toward using those resources (habitus)’
(2002, 54). We extend these insights to the transition into higher education in the United States.3
Habitus may be particularly consequential in this context given the model of contest mobility in
which there are no clear discontinuation points (Turner 1960). In the pursuit of higher education
in the United States (and increasingly in the United Kingdom; see Atkinson 2010), habitus may
thus capture the disposition of students to remain in the contest while cultural capital represents
the resources that help them succeed.

Differential benefits of cultural capital and habitus

As much as the definitions of cultural capital and habitus remain contested in empirical research,
so does the question of whether they serve only to reproduce social inequality or whether they
can also facilitate social mobility. Bourdieu (1977a, 506) argued that the ‘value of the diploma
… depends on the economic and social values of the person who possesses it,’ implying that
the rewards for specific actions depend on the social status of the actor. While working-class
children may acquire some of the cultural knowledge necessary to do well in school, they are
not likely to learn as quickly as middle-class children or acquire the ‘natural familiarly’ with
schooling practices and thus not likely to reap the same rewards. Several studies have found
support for this line of argument, showing that students from higher socioeconomic status
(SES) backgrounds benefit more from parents’ cultural practices (Aschaffenburg and Maas 1997;
McNeal 1999; Roscigno and Ainsworth-Darnell 1999).
Findings from other studies, however, have indicated that less socioeconomically advantaged
students can benefit as much, if not more, from cultural capital (Dumais 2006; De Graaf, De
Graaf, and Kraaykamp 2000; Roscigno and Ainsworth-Darnell 1999). Working-class children
who participate in cultural activities or whose parents read to them stand out to teachers and
are perceived as fitting well within the culture of the school (Dumais 2006). Moreover, De Graaf,
De Graaf, and Kraaykamp (2000) proposed that cultural capital can be an ‘extra asset’ for less
advantaged children, which can narrow the gap between the home environment and school and
help these children acquire competencies and skills that are rewarded by educational institu-
tions. The role of habitus in facilitating social mobility or social reproduction has received less
attention, although a few recent quantitative studies indicate that habitus benefits students from
different social class backgrounds equally (Dumais 2006; Roksa and Potter 2011).

Considering school context

Schools reproduce social inequality by expecting and rewarding cultural capital of the dominant
social class. Bourdieu (1977a, 494) argued that ‘by doing away with giving explicitly to every-
one what it implicitly demands of everyone, the educational system demands of everyone alike
 BRITISH JOURNAL OF SOCIOLOGY OF EDUCATION   1233

that they have what it does not give.’ By expecting, but not teaching, middle-class cultural and
linguistic competencies, educational institutions not only reproduce inequality but also make
it largely invisible. This line of argument implies that, at their core, schools will be similar in
expecting and rewarding middle-class cultural capital and habitus.
A number of qualitative studies, however, have highlighted variation in school cultures. From
elementary schools (Reay 1995) to high schools (Hodkinson and Bloomer 2000; Ingram 2009;
Stanton-Salazar 2001), scholars have described how distinct school cultures promote different
attitudes and expectations among students. Building on Bourdieu’s conception of individual
habitus, McDonough (1997, 106) argued that schools have an organizational habitus, defined
as school’s ‘view of the opportunity structure of American higher education officially presented
to all students.’ Schools communicate a set of expectations and norms to students, includ-
ing whether they should attend college and what type of college. This creates distinct student
trajectories that pattern and reproduce inequality. Ingram made a similar argument studying
working-class boys in Belfast, noting that ‘schools differ in their “taken-for-granted” assump-
tions about education and their pupils’ educational trajectory. A school will structure a child’s
disposition towards education in line with its particular habitus’ (2009, 424).
These studies highlight that not all schools expect the same from their students in terms of
academic achievement or college-going (see also Bowles and Gintis 1976). Quantitative studies
have been slow to integrate these ideas (for some recent exceptions, see Edgerton, Roberts, and
Peter 2013; Martleto and Andrade 2014; Perna and Titus 2005; Roderick, Coca, and Nagaoka
2011). If all schools do not expect the same outcomes for their students, it is possible that they
may not reward cultural capital and habitus equally. In this case, the logic of congruence would
not imply similarity but variation: namely, students’ cultural capital and habitus will be rewarded
most in schools that emphasize academic achievement and college-going because in those con-
texts the students’ intentions and cultural resources match those of the school. We evaluate these
propositions regarding the benefits of students’ cultural capital and habitus across various high
school contexts in a study of students’ transition into higher education.

Data and methods

We use data from the Education Longitudinal Study of 2002 (ELS), which surveyed a nationally
representative sample of US high school students who were 10th graders in 2002. Follow-up
surveys were conducted in 2004 and 2006. The analytic sample used in this study is restricted
to students who were high school seniors in 2004. Cases with missing values on the dependent
and key independent variables (college enrollment, cultural capital, habitus, and high school
college-going culture) were dropped, leaving an analytic sample of 7930 students.4 In order to
preserve our sample size, we used multiple imputation by chained equations for missing values
on control variables using the ‘mi’ command in Stata. Table 1 presents the weighted means and
proportions of all variables used in the analysis.
We use multinomial logistic regression models to predict one of three outcomes: enrolled
at a four-year college, enrolled at a two-year college, and did not enroll in college (reference).
All analyses were conducted using the ‘mi estimate: svy’ command in Stata to account for the
multiple-imputed data and ELS complex survey design.5 Moreover, because most of our ques-
tions rest on comparing coefficients across models or groups, we report the results in the form
of average marginal effects. Logged-odds and odds ratios, which are commonly reported for
logistic regression analyses, can produce incorrect inferences for comparisons across models or
groups (Mood 2010). Average marginal effects represent the average of the computed marginal
effect for all cases and are interpreted as the predicted change in the probability of an outcome
given a one-unit change in the independent variable. The average marginal effects for two-year
enrollment and non-enrollment are available upon request from the authors.
1234   J. ROKSA AND K. J. ROBINSON

Table 1. Weighted means and proportions for the variables used in the analysis.

Full sample Low college-going culture High college-going culture

Individual characteristics
Parent–student discussion 5.88 (2.50) 5.76 (2.29) 6.02 (2.58)
Educational expectations (students
and parents)
 Low 0.35 0.44 0.28
 Moderate 0.37 0.35 0.40
 High 0.27 0.22 0.32
SES quartile
 Bottom 0.20 0.27 0.12
 Second 0.25 0.28 0.21
 Third 0.28 0.27 0.29
 Top 0.27 0.18 0.37
Female 0.54 0.54 0.53
Race/ethnicity
 Asian 0.04 0.04 0.04
 Black 0.11 0.13 0.08
 Latino 0.12 0.17 0.07
 Other race/ethnicity 0.05 0.05 0.04
 White 0.69 0.51 0.77
Two-parent household 0.63 0.59 0.67
Siblings 2.18 (1.44) 2.33 (1.37) 2.01 (1.41)
Cumulative high school GPA 2.91 (.37) 2.85 (.61) 2.99 (.68)
Mathematics and reading test score 52.59 (9.50) 50.38 (8.52) 55.02 (9.46)
School characteristics
Private high school 0.09 0.10 0.17
Average school SES (standardized) 0.03 (0.39) −0.17 (0.27) 0.25 (0.38)
Percent minority 29.60 (29.05) 37.52 (27.54) 21.02(26.31)
Urbanicity
 Suburban 0.53 0.55 0.52
 Urban 0.26 0.23 0.29
 Rural 0.20 0.22 0.19
Outcome: college enrollment
Not enrolled 0.19 0.25 0.13
Enrolled – two-year college 0.30 0.36 0.23
Enrolled – four-year college 0.51 0.39 0.64
N 7930 3540 4390
Note: Sample sizes are rounded to the nearest 10. Standard deviations of continuous variables presented in parentheses.

Variables
The outcome examined in this study is postsecondary enrollment. We consider three categories
of enrollment: enrolled in a four-year institution, enrolled in a two-year institution, and did not
enroll in college. This information was collected in the second ELS follow-up, when students
were two years out of high school.
Key independent variables are cultural capital and habitus. To develop our measure of cultural
capital, we build on Lareau’s (2011) recent work illuminating the high level of engagement of
middle-class parents in their children’s education, including the transition into higher educa-
tion. One of the important components of parental involvement is discussion with children,
particularly when considering transition into higher education (Myers and Myers 2012; Perna
and Titus 2005; Plank and Jordan 2001). Discussion about academic matters reflects the trans-
mission of capital in the home through scholastic investment strategies (Bourdieu 1997; Jaeger
2009). Our measure of cultural capital thus reflects student–parent discussion of five academic
and college-related issues. The questions asked how often students discussed the following with
their parents: school courses, things studied in class, grades, scholastic aptitude test/American
college testing (SAT/ACT) preparation, and going to college (Cronbach alpha  =  0.80). The
original question included three response categories: never, sometimes, and often. We recoded
responses of never to zero, sometimes to one, and often to two. Following, we totaled the scores
 BRITISH JOURNAL OF SOCIOLOGY OF EDUCATION   1235

across all five measures, resulting in a 0–10 scale. For analyses, the measure is standardized to
a mean of zero and standard deviation of one.
The second key variable of interest is habitus. Prior research has often operationalized habitus
as either parents’ or students’ educational or occupational expectations. Although habitus can be
altered, Bourdieu emphasized the durability of habitus and noted that habitus reflects subjective
expectations of objective probabilities of success (Bourdieu and Passeron 1990). We thus define
habitus by considering both the consistency of students’ expectations over time (10th and 12th
grades) and congruency of their expectations with those of their parents.6 The final variable is
divided into three categories: low, moderate, and high expectations. The low college expectations
category includes students who did not expect a college degree in either the 10th or the 12th
grade and whose parents did not expect them to attain a college degree either. In addition, this
category includes students who had inconsistent BA expectations, meaning they only expected a
BA in one of the two years, and their parents did not expect them to obtain a bachelor’s degree.
The moderate category includes students who expected to attain a bachelor's degree in both
the 10th and 12th grades and their parents’ also expected them to attain a bachelor’s degree.
Some students in this category may have expected higher than a bachelor’s degree but did not
align with their parents’ lower expectations, or their own expectations were lower in the 10th
grade or lowered by the 12th grade. Finally, students who expected at least a master’s degree in
both the 10th and 12th grades, in addition to their parents expecting them to complete at least
a master’s degree as well, were considered to have high expectations. This category also includes
students whose parents expected at least a master’s degree and who also expected only a bach-
elor’s degree in the 10th grade, but expected a master’s or higher by the 12th grade.
To capture students’ family background we use a composite SES indicator developed by the
ELS. The ELS constructed this variable from five equally weighted and standardized measures:
father’s/male guardian’s education; mother’s/female guardian’s education; family income; father’s/
male guardian’s occupational prestige score; and mother’s/female guardian’s occupation prestige
score. We created a categorical variable dividing SES into quartiles based on the original full
sample of 16,200 students, with the lowest quartile serving as a reference.
In terms of school context, we focus on one key institutional characteristic: high school
college-going culture. Recent quantitative studies have used the percentage of students entering
higher education (and/or different types of institutions) as a proxy for college-going culture.
Grodsky and Riegle-Crumb noted that this measure captures what is supposed to be the outcome
of the college-going culture:
If there is such a thing as a college-going culture, or organizational habitus, it should exert its influence at
the school level, leading students attending more collegiately focused schools to enjoy a greater likelihood
of college attendance than otherwise similar students attending schools with lower levels of organizational
habitus. (2010, 21)
Roderick, Coca, and Nagaoka similarly argued that this kind of a proxy measure is useful because
it captures multiple aspects of the environment, noting that:
past college-going rates will be influenced by whether (1) the school directs resources to counseling;
(2) the school creates strong norms and supports for college attendance; (3) the academic curriculum is
preparing students for college; and (4) students have access to peers and networks that promote college
attendance (student body composition and context effects). (2011, 188)
Qualitative research on college-going culture implies that this concept represents categorical
differences in students’ experiences. It is not important that one (or a few) more percent of stu-
dents attend college, but that in some schools most students do. Schools with a large proportion
of students going to college are expected to be different from those with a low proportion. We
thus constructed a dichotomous measure of high college-going culture, which represents schools
where 50% or more of the previous senior class enrolled in a four-year institution.
All analyses also include various individual and school-level controls. We control for students’
demographic characteristics, including gender (female) and race (dummy indicators for Asian,
1236   J. ROKSA AND K. J. ROBINSON

Black, Latino, other race, and White [reference]). In addition, we include two family character-
istics: the number of siblings, and a dummy variable for a two-parent household. We control
for academic ability and achievement with cumulative high school grade point average (GPA)
and a combined mathematics and reading test score. For analysis, both of these measures are
standardized to a mean of zero and standard deviation of one. In addition to the college-going
culture, we control for several school-level characteristics, including: urbanicity (dummy varia-
bles for urban and rural, with suburban as a reference), sector (dummy variable for private high

Table 2. Average marginal effects predicting enrollment at a four-year institution.

  Model 1 Model 2 Model 3

Individual characteristics
Parent–student discussion (stand- 0.042 *** – 0.017 **
ardized) (0.006) (0.006)
Educational expectations (students
and parents, reference: low)
 Moderate – 0.224 *** 0.214 ***
(0.017) (0.017)
 High – 0.301 *** 0.286 ***
(0.019) (0.020)
SES quartiles (reference: bottom)
 Second 0.000 0.003 0.002
(0.018) (0.018) (0.018)
 Third 0.032 0.022 0.019
(0.019) (0.018) (0.018)
 Top 0.117 *** 0.084 *** 0.080 ***
(0.021) (0.021) (0.021)
Race/ethnicity (reference: white)
 Asian 0.046 * 0.025 0.027
(0.020) (0.021) (0.020)
 Black 0.140 *** 0.100 *** 0.097 ***
(0.020) (0.020) (0.020)
 Latino −0.018 −0.029 −0.028
(0.022) (0.022) (0.022)
 Other race/ethnicity 0.068 * 0.048 0.048
(0.030) (0.030) (0.030)
Female 0.008 −0.007 −0.010
(0.012) (0.011) (0.011)
Two-parent household 0.007 0.005 0.004
(0.011) (0.011) (0.011)
Siblings −0.004 −0.004 −0.003
(0.004) (0.004) (0.004)
Cumulative high school GPA 0.174 *** 0.137 *** 0.136 ***
(standardized)
(0.008) (0.008) (0.008)
Mathematics and reading test 0.103 *** 0.068 *** 0.068 ***
score (standardized)
(0.007) (0.007) (0.007)
School characteristics
High college-going culture 0.099 *** 0.091 *** 0.093 ***
(0.018) (0.017) (0.018)
Urbanicity (reference: suburban)
 Urban 0.079 *** 0.071 *** 0.071 ***
(0.019) (0.018) (0.018)
 Rural −0.005 0.000 −0.001
(0.020) (0.019) (0.020)
Private high school 0.061 ** 0.040 0.040
(0.022) (0.021) (0.021)
Average school SES (standardized) 0.090 *** 0.068 ** 0.065 **
(0.023) (0.022) (0.022)
Percent minority 0.001 0.000 0.000
(0.000)   (0.000)   (0.000)  
Note: Standard errors in parentheses.
*p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001 (two-tailed tests).
 BRITISH JOURNAL OF SOCIOLOGY OF EDUCATION   1237

schools), percent minority students, and average SES of the high school (this is an aggregate
measure obtained from the original full sample of 16,200 students).

Results
The first model presented in Table 2 indicates that parent–student discussion is related to the
probability of enrolling in a four-year institution. Net of individual and school-level controls, one
standard deviation increase in parent–student discussion is associated with a 4% increase in the
probability of enrolling in a four-year institution. The second model illuminates the importance
of educational expectations. When students and their parents have high educational expecta-
tions (expecting more than a bachelor’s degree), students’ probability of enrolling in a four-year
institution increases by 30% relative to students and their parents who have low educational
expectations, net of controls. Similarly, when students expect to attain a bachelor’s degree, and
when their parents do so as well (i.e. when they have moderate educational expectations), their
probability of enrolling in a four-year institution increases by 22%, compared with students in
the low educational expectations category. The magnitude of these relationships is worth noting.
These relationships are several times stronger than increasing either test scores or high school
GPA by one standard deviation: increasing test scores by one standard deviation increases the
probability of four-year enrollment by 7%, while increasing high school GPA by one standard
deviation increases the same probability by 14%. The benefits of high educational expectations
for students’ transitions into higher education thus surpass in magnitude those associated with
substantial changes in academic performance.
The final model considers the joint role of parent–student discussion and educational expec-
tations in facilitating higher education transitions. After both measures are included in the
model, the relationship between educational expectations and probability of four-year enroll-
ment remains essentially the same. Parent–student discussion also continues to have a statistically
significant and positive relationship to the probability of four-year enrollment, but the magnitude
of the relationship decreases by over 50%. These patterns are consistent with recent empirical
and theoretical work on cultural capital and habitus. Reay (2004), for example, argued that cul-
tural capital and habitus are conceptually distinct but that habitus underlies cultural capital, or
in other words that cultural capital is a reflection of habitus. Finding that both parent–student
discussion and expectations are statistically significant predictors of educational transitions, and
at the same time that educational expectations substantially mediate the effect of parent–student
discussions, is consistent with this interpretation.
Two other findings are worthy of note in the final model. First, being in the highest SES
quartile increases the probability of four-year enrollment relative to the first quartile, net of other
factors. Being in the middle two SES quartiles, however, is statistically indistinguishable from
the bottom quartile. Moreover, even net of controls, attending a school with a high college-going
culture substantially increases the probability of four-year enrollment. The magnitude of the
effect for attending a school with a high college-going culture is comparable with that of being in
the highest SES quartile. Students in the top quartile of the SES distribution have an 8% higher
probability of enrolling in a four-year institution, while those who attend schools with a high
college-going culture have a 9% higher probability of doing so, net of other factors. The next set
of analyses considers whether parent–child discussion and educational expectations are related
to college-going equally in different high school contexts.

High-school college-going culture

Table 3 presents selected results from the final model in Table 2 separately for high schools with
high and low college-going cultures. The results indicate that the previously reported relation-
ship between parent–student discussion and four-year enrollment holds only in schools with
1238   J. ROKSA AND K. J. ROBINSON

Table 3. Average marginal effects predicting enrollment at a four-year institution, by high school college-going culture
(selected results).

Low college-going culture High college-going culture

  (n = 3540)   (n = 4390)
Parent–student discussion (standardized) 0.007 0.028 **
(0.010) (0.008)
Educational expectations (students and
parents, reference: low)
 Moderate 0.192 *** 0.242 ***
(0.023) (0.026)
 High 0.284 *** 0.291 ***
(0.027) (0.030)
SES quartiles (reference: bottom)
 Second 0.031 −0.031
(0.023) (0.028)
 Third 0.019 0.024
(0.023) (0.028)
 Top 0.070 * 0.085 **
(0.032) (0.028)

Note: Standard errors in parentheses. Models include all variables from Table 2.
*p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001 (two-tailed tests).

a high college-going culture. One standard deviation increase in parent–student discussion is

associated with an almost 3% increase in the probability of enrolling in a four-year institution
in that context, which is statistically significant. Parent–student discussion, however, is not
related to the probability of four-year enrollment in schools with a low college-going culture.
The relationship in this context is not statistically significant and is of very low magnitude (just
a quarter of the magnitude observed in schools with a high college-going culture).
The patterns for educational expectations are similar in schools with high and low college-go-
ing cultures. When students and their parents have high educational expectations (expecting
master’s degree or higher), students’ probability of enrolling in a four-year institution increases by
29% in a school with a high college-going culture and by 28% in a school with a low college-go-
ing culture, relative to students and parents who have low educational expectations. Similarly,
when students expect to attain a bachelor’s degree, and when their parents do so as well (i.e.
when they have moderate educational expectations), their probability of enrolling in a four-year
institution increases substantially in both high school contexts, compared with students in the
low educational expectations category.
Following the patterns for educational expectations, family background has a similar rela-
tionship to four-year enrollment in schools with high and low college-going cultures. Only
being in the top SES quartile significantly increases the probability of enrolling in a four-year
institution relative to the bottom quartile, net of controls, and the magnitude is similar in both
high school contexts.
Reflecting the debates about the extent to which cultural capital and habitus may differentially
benefit students from different family backgrounds, we included interaction terms between
each of the SES categories and parent–student discussion in the final model separated by school
context.7 There were no statistically significant interactions between parent–student discussion
and students’ SES in schools with a low college-going culture, but there was a statistically signif-
icant interaction between the top SES quartile and parent–student discussion in schools with
a high college-going culture. To illustrate these findings, we report the difference in predicted
probabilities between attending a four-year institution and not attending college for high and
low SES students within different high school contexts. Predicted probabilities are calculated
for three points in the parent–student discussion distribution: one standard deviation below
the mean (low), at the mean (average), and one standard deviation above the mean (high). For
 BRITISH JOURNAL OF SOCIOLOGY OF EDUCATION   1239

Figure 1. Predicted probabilities of attending a four-year institution versus not enrolling in college for low and high SES
students, by high school college-going culture.

each of those levels, we calculated predicted probabilities for the top and bottom SES quartiles.
All other variables are held at their means.
Figure 1 reveals that students in both the bottom and top SES quartiles benefit equally from
increases in parent–student discussion in schools with a low college-going culture. As would
be expected, probabilities for students in the top SES quartile are higher than those for students
in the bottom SES quartile. Both lines are fairly flat, however, meaning that parent–student dis-
cussion does not substantially increase the probability of four-year enrollment among students
attending schools with a low college-going culture.
The second half of the figure shows the patterns for high schools with a high college-going
culture. The line for the top SES quartile is flat, indicating that parent–student discussion is
not related to the probability of four-year enrollment for this group of students. However, par-
ent–student discussion matters for less socioeconomically advantaged students in this context.
Students in the bottom SES quartile who are low on the parent–student discussion measure
have a 34% probability of enrolling in a four-year institution, compared with 49% for students
who are high on the parent–student discussion measure. Since high SES students do not benefit
from an increase in parent–student discussion while low SES students do, the gap between the
two SES groups narrows with increasing parent–student discussion in high schools with a high
college-going culture.

Discussion
While an extensive body of research has examined how cultural capital facilitates educational
success, the role of habitus has received less attention in quantitative research. Moreover, quanti-
tative research has largely assumed that the benefits of cultural capital and habitus are universal
across contexts – in other words, cultural capital and habitus benefit students equally regardless
of the high school context in which they are embedded. At the same time, a number of qualitative
studies show that schools vary notably in terms of the expectations and norms they commu-
nicate to students, including whether students should go to college and what type of college
(Hodkinson and Bloomer 2000; Ingram 2009; McDonough 1997; Reay 1998; Stanton-Salazar
2001). Students’ cultural capital and habitus may thus not be associated with higher education
transitions to the same extent across different high school contexts. We evaluate this proposition
by examining the relationship between cultural capital, habitus, and the transition into higher
education across high schools with low and high college-going cultures.
We follow recent developments in the educational research on cultural reproduction in defin-
ing our key variables of interest. Recent studies, particularly in the US context, have moved away
from defining cultural capital in terms of the ‘high-brow’ culture and instead are considering a
broader array of cultural practices through which parents transmit class advantages to children
1240   J. ROKSA AND K. J. ROBINSON

(see Lareau and Weininger 2003). We thus define cultural capital in terms of the parent–student
discussion regarding academic and college-related matters. Moreover, we build on research that
has operationalized habitus in terms of educational and occupational expectations (Dumais 2006;
Grodsky and Riegle-Crumb 2010; Roksa and Potter 2011; Wildhagen 2009). To more closely
approximate the notion of durability and centrality of family socialization, we consider stability
in students’ expectations over time as well as congruence with their parents’ expectations.
Presented findings indicate that the benefits of parent–student discussion vary across high
school contexts. Parent–student discussion is positively related to enrollment in a four-year
institution in high schools with a high college-going culture, but not in high schools with a
low college-going culture. Educational expectations, on the other hand, have universal effects:
regardless of whether a school has a high or a low college-going culture, educational expectations
facilitate transition into four-year institutions to the same extent.
These empirical results imply that cultural capital and habitus have differing effects across high
school contexts. This variation may appear surprising because most of the prior literature, either
implicitly or explicitly, treats cultural capital and habitus as emerging from the same source –
family class location. Even when scholars agree that cultural capital and habitus are conceptually
distinct, they are conceived of as being intricately related (see Dumais 2002). Reay, for example,
argued that ‘habitus lies beneath cultural capital generating its myriad manifestations’ (2004,
435–436), implying that cultural capital is in essence a manifestation of habitus. Regardless of
how scholars have conceptualized the relationship between cultural capital and habitus, they
have typically assumed that the two concepts reflect the same underlying processes and therefore
exhibit similar patterns of influence (Edgerton and Roberts 2014).
While prior research has emphasized similarities between cultural capital and habitus, the
presented findings draw attention to their differences. Habitus reflects one’s subjective expec-
tation of the objective probability of success, or in other words an internalization of external
structures of opportunities and constraints. This results in a particular understanding of what is
reasonable for individuals in a particular social class group, or what is reasonable for ‘the likes of
us’ (Bourdieu and Passeron 1990, 157). Habitus has thus often been interpreted as representing
underlying dispositions – in this context, dispositions toward education or a positive orientation
toward schooling (Nash 2002a). Our findings indicate that this disposition toward schooling
is universally beneficial regardless of context. When students expect to attain a high level of
education, and when their parents expect the same, they pursue higher education regardless of
the high school context in which they are embedded.
Cultural capital, however, has typically been conceived of as a cultural resource (Edgerton and
Roberts 2014). As such, it needs to be activated and legitimated within a particular educational
setting. As Lareau and Weininger noted, cultural capital is reflected in the ‘micro-interactional
processes whereby individuals’ strategic use of knowledge, skills, and competence comes into
contact with institutionalized standards of evaluation’ (2003, 569). Cultural capital must there-
fore be evaluated and deemed valuable in a specific context. While it is typically assumed that
all educational institutions belong to the same field and thus are governed by the same ‘rules
of the game’ (Lareau and Horvat 1999), our findings highlight the value of developing a more
nuanced understanding of social context that reflects a more localized sphere of action (i.e.
school-specific context). The idea of cultural capital as a resource is conducive to considering
how the benefits of cultural capital may vary not only across broad fields but also within specific
environments. As our results indicate, it is only in schools with a high college-going culture that
cultural capital translates into desirable educational outcomes.
In addition, we find that students from disadvantaged family backgrounds benefit more
than their high SES counterparts from cultural capital, but only in schools with a high col-
lege-going culture. This finding supports the cultural mobility argument, but modifies it to
reflect only a specific educational context. Prior research is largely mixed in terms of whether
the benefits of cultural capital vary across social class groups. Several studies, particularly when
 BRITISH JOURNAL OF SOCIOLOGY OF EDUCATION   1241

using broader measures of cultural capital (i.e. not ‘high-brow’ cultural activities) have found
that cultural capital has a stronger relationship to educational outcomes of students from less
advantaged backgrounds (Dumais 2006; De Graaf, De Graaf, and Kraaykamp 2000; Roscigno
and Ainsworth-Darnell 1999). We add an important modification to that finding – this holds
only in certain school contexts, and more specifically only in school environments that are more
focused on college-going.
While providing valuable insights, reported results are limited by the definitions used to
operationalize key predictors. We relied on a longitudinal data-set of a nationally representative
sample of high school students in the United States, which is both a strength and a limitation.
The questions used to measure cultural capital and habitus are constrained by the items available
in the survey. Ideally, we would not only capture the extent of parent–child discussion, but also
the content of that interaction and the actual knowledge, attitudes, and preferences that are
transmitted during those exchanges. One may anticipate that the type and depth of exchanges
taking place between parents and children in more and less advantaged families would differ.
Thus, the frequency of discussion is only one component of a more complex process.
This is also the case for the definition of habitus. Although reflective of habitus, expectations
are only one potential expression of habitus (see discussion in Dumais 2002). Capturing addi-
tional dimensions of habitus may warrant asking questions about attitudes and beliefs toward
schools and dispositions toward future lifestyles. Moreover, while we aim to more closely approx-
imate Bourdieu’s original conceptualization of habitus by focusing on consistency of students’
expectations as well as congruency between students’ and parents’ expectations, it could be
argued that parental expectations reflect cultural capital instead of habitus. Our reasoning for
including parental educational expectations in the definition of habitus is to highlight the dis-
tinction between dispositions (habitus) and resources (cultural capital). Parents who have high
expectations for their children (habitus) are likely to engage in practices that facilitate their
children’s college going process (cultural capital). This discussion highlights the challenges of
distinguishing between cultural capital and habitus. While a number of scholars have argued
for the value of considering the two as distinct concepts (Dumais 2002; Edgerton and Roberts
2014; Meo 2011), they also recognize that Bourdieu postulated a complex relationship between
cultural capital and habitus, which makes distinctions complicated and inevitably contested.
While regression analyses of large national datasets can offer insights into specific relation-
ships, they cannot unpack the underlying mechanisms or illuminate micro-level individual
experiences. In their discussion of cultural capital and habitus, Edgerton and Roberts (2014)
emphasize the importance of using mixed methods to provide more convincing explanations of
the processes of cultural reproduction (see also Nash 2002b). Focusing specifically on the role
of school context, qualitative research of micro-interactional processes within schools is needed
to fully understand how cultural capital is translated into positive educational outcomes within
specific school environments. With a few exceptions (Lareau and Horvat 1999; Reay, David,
and Ball 2005; Stanton-Salazar 2001) previous research has not studied interactions between
parents, students, and school personnel. Our analyses suggest the value of that line of inquiry
for illuminating the cultural processes unfolding in different school contexts.

Notes
1. 
While this article focuses on variation across school contexts, it is valuable to note that students can also
be sorted within schools (such as tracking), which is particularly salient in Bowles and Gintis’ work.
2. 
Although see Kingston (2001) for a critique of this broader definition of cultural capital.
3. 
Higher education literature has tended to focus either on cultural capital (Kaufman and Gabler 2004;
Dumais and Ward 2010; Noble and Davies 2009) or on habitus (Grodsky and Riegle-Crumb 2010),
without considering them jointly. There is a large body of research on educational expectations, but this
research is rarely framed within Bourdieu’s social reproduction framework.
1242   J. ROKSA AND K. J. ROBINSON

4. 
All sample sizes have been rounded to the nearest 10 in compliance with standards regarding national
center for education statistics (NCES) restricted-use data files.
5. 
An alternative model specification would include using hierarchical linear modeling (HLM). However,
our current version of HLM has limited multiple imputation capabilities and does not provide estimates
of average marginal effects, which is crucial for our purposes given that our analyses rest on comparing
coefficients across models and school contexts.
6. 
Parents were asked about educational expectations of their children only in the baseline parent survey
(i.e. 10th grade).
7. 
We also tested interactions between educational expectations and SES. Those results are not reported
because there were no statistically significant interactions in either schools with a low or a high college-
going culture.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

References
Aschaffenburg, K., and I. Maas. 1997. “Cultural and Educational Careers: The Dynamics of Social Reproduction.”
American Sociological Review 62: 572–587.
Atkinson, W. 2010. Class, Individualization and Late Modernity: In Search of the Reflexive Worker. New York:
Palgrave Macmillan.
Bodovski, K. 2010. “Parental Practices and Educational Achievement: Social Class, Race, and Habitus.” British
Journal of Sociology of Education 31 (2): 139–156.
Bodovski, K., and G. Farkas. 2008. “‘Concerted Cultivation’ and Unequal Achievement in Elementary School.”
Social Science Research 37: 903–919.
Bourdieu, P. 1977a. “Cultural Reproduction and Social Reproduction.” In Power and Ideology in Education, edited
by J. Karabel, and A. H. Halsey, 487–511. New York: Oxford University Press.
Bourdieu, P. 1977b. Outline of a Theory of Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bourdieu, P. 1997. “The Forms of Capital.” In Education. Culture, Economy, Society, edited by A. Halsey, H. Lauder,
P. Brown, and A. S. Wells, 46–58. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Bourdieu, P., and J. Passeron. 1990. Reproduction in Education, Society and Culture. Translated by R. Nice.
London: Sage Publications.
Bowles, S., and H. Gintis. 1976. Schooling in Capitalist America: Educational Reform and the Contradictions of
Economic Life. New York: Basic Books.
Cheadle, J. E. 2008. “Educational Investment, Family Context, and Children’s Math and Reading Growth from
Kindergarten through the Third Grade.” Sociology of Education 81: 1–31.
De Graaf, N. D., P. M. De Graaf, and G. Kraaykamp. 2000. “Parental Cultural Capital and Educational Attainment
in the Netherlands: A Refinement of the Cultural Capital Perspective.” Sociology of Education 73: 92–111.
DiMaggio, P. 1982. “Cultural Capital and School Success: The Impact of Status Culture Participation on the
Grades of U.S. High School Students.” American Sociological Review 47: 189–201.
Dumais, S. A. 2002. “Cultural Capital, Gender, and School Success: The Role of Habitus.” Sociology of Education
75: 44–68.
Dumais, S. A. 2006. “Early Childhood Cultural Capital, Parental Habitus, and Teachers’ Perceptions.” Poetics
34 (2): 83–107.
Dumais, S. A., and A. Ward. 2010. “Cultural Capital and First-Generation College Success.” Poetics 38: 245–265.
Edgerton, J. D., and L. W. Roberts. 2014. “Cultural Capital or Habitus? Bourdieu and beyond in the Explanation
of Enduring Educational Inequality.” Theory and Research in Education 12 (2): 193–220.
Edgerton, J. D., L. W. Roberts, and T. Peter. 2013. “Disparities in Academic Achievement: Assessing the Role of
Habitus and Practice.” Social Indicators Research 114: 303–322.
Gaddis, S. M. 2013. “The Influence of Habitus in the Relationship between Cultural Capital and Academic
Achievement.” Social Science Research 42 (1): 1–13.
Grodsky, E., and C. Riegle-Crumb. 2010. “Those Who Choose and Those Who Don’t: Social Background and
College Orientation.” The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 627: 14–35.
Hodkinson, P., and M. Bloomer. 2000. “Stokingham Sixth Form College: Institutional Culture and Dispositions
to Learning.” British Journal of Sociology of Education 21 (2): 187–202.
McNamara Horvat, E. M., and J. E. Earl Davis. 2011. “Schools as Sites for Transformation: Exploring the
Contribution of Habitus.” Youth & Society 43: 142–170.
Ingram, N. 2009. “Working-Class Boys, Educational Success and the Misrecognition of Working-Class Culture.”
British Journal of Sociology of Education 30 (4): 421–434.
 BRITISH JOURNAL OF SOCIOLOGY OF EDUCATION   1243

Jaeger, M. M. 2009. “Equal Access but Unequal Outcomes: Cultural Capital and Educational Choice in a
Meritocratic Society.” Social Forces 87 (4): 1943–1971.
Kaufman, J., and J. Gabler. 2004. “Cultural Capital and the Extracurricular Activities of Girls and Boys in the
College Attainment Process.” Poetics 32 (2): 145–168.
Kingston, P. 2001. “The Unfulfilled Promise of Cultural Theory.” Sociology of Education Extra Issue 74: 88–99.
Lamont, M., and A. Lareau. 1988. “Cultural Capital: Allusions, Gaps and Glissandos in Recent Theoretical
Developments.” Sociological Theory 6: 153–168.
Lareau, A. 2011. Unequal Childhoods: Class, Race, and Family Life. 2nd ed. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Lareau, A., and E. M. Horvat. 1999. “Moments of Social Inclusion and Exclusion: Race, Class, and Cultural
Capital in Family-School Relationships.” Sociology of Education 72: 37–53.
Lareau, A., and E. B. Weininger. 2003. “Cultural Capital in Educational Research: A Critical Assessment.” Theory
and Society 32: 567–606.
Martleto, L., and F. Andrade. 2014. “The Educational Achievement of Brazilian Adolescents Cultural Capital and
the Interaction between Families and Schools.” Sociology of Education 87 (1): 16–35.
McClelland, K. 1990. “Cumulative Disadvantage among the Highly Ambitious.” Sociology of Education 63 (2):
102–121.
McDonough, P. M. 1997. Choosing Colleges: How Social Class and Schools Structure Opportunity. Albany, NY:
State University of New York Press.
McNeal, R. B. 1999. “Parental Involvement as Social Capital: Differential Effectiveness on Science Achievement,
Truancy, and Dropping out.” Social Forces 78 (1): 117–144.
Meo, A. I. 2011. “Zafar , So Good: Middle‐Class Students, School Habitus and Secondary Schooling in the City
of Buenos Aires (Argentina).” British Journal of Sociology of Education 32 (3): 349–367.
Mood, C. 2010. “Logistic Regression: Why We Cannot Do What We Think We Can Do, and What We Can Do
about It.” European Sociological Review 26 (1): 67–82.
Myers, S. M., and C. B. Myers. 2012. “Are Discussions about College between Parents and Their High School
Children a College-Going Planning Activity? Making the Case and Testing the Predictors.” American Journal
of Education 118 (3): 281–308.
Nash, R. 1999. “Bourdieu, ‘Habitus’, and Educational Research: Is It All worth the Candle?” British Journal of
Sociology of Education 20 (2): 175–187.
Nash, R. 2002a. “The Educated Habitus, Progress at School, and Real Knowledge.” Interchange 33 (1): 27–48.
Nash, R. 2002b. “Numbers and Narratives: Further Reflections in the Sociology of Education.” British Journal of
the Sociology of Education 23 (3): 397–412.
Noble, J., and P. Davies. 2009. “Cultural Capital as an Explanation of Variation in Participation in Higher
Education.” British Journal of Sociology of Education 30 (5): 591–605.
Perna, L. W., and M. A. Titus. 2005. “The Relationship between Parental Involvement as Social Capital and
College Enrollment: An Examination of Racial/Ethnic Group Differences.” The Journal of Higher Education
76: 485–518.
Plank, S. B., and W. J. Jordan. 2001. “Effects of Information, Guidance, and Actions on Postsecondary Destinations:
A Study of Talent Loss.” American Educational Research Journal 38: 947–979.
Reay, D. 1995. “‘They Employ Cleaners to Do That’: Habitus in the Primary Classroom.” British Journal of Sociology
of Education 16: 353–371.
Reay, D. 1998. “‘Always Knowing’ and ‘Never Being Sure’: Familial and Institutional Habituses and Higher
Education Choice.” Journal of Education Policy 13 (4): 519–529.
Reay, D. 2004. “‘It’s All Becoming a Habitus’: Beyond the Habitual Use of Habitus in Educational Research.”
British Journal of Sociology of Education 25: 431–444.
Reay, D., M. E. David, and S. Ball. 2005. Degrees of Choice: Social Class, Race and Gender in Higher Education.
Stoke on Trent, UK: Trentham Books Limited.
Robbins, D. 2004. “The Transcultural Transferability of Bourdieu's Sociology of Education.” British Journal of
Sociology of Education 25 (4): 415–430.
Roderick, M., V. Coca, and J. Nagaoka. 2011. “Potholes on the Road to College: High School Effects in Shaping
Urban Students’ Participation in College Application, Four-Year College Enrollment, and College Match.”
Sociology of Education 84 (3): 178–211.
Roksa, J., and D. Potter. 2011. “Parenting and Academic Achievement: Intergenerational Transmission of
Educational Advantage.” Sociology of Education 84: 299–321.
Roscigno, V. J., and J. W. Ainsworth-Darnell. 1999. “Race, Cultural Capital, and Educational Resources: Persistent
Inequalities and Achievement.” Sociology of Education 72: 158–178.
Stanton-Salazar, R. D. 2001. Manufacturing Hope and Despair: The School and Kin Support Networks of US-Mexican
Youth. New York: Teachers College Press.
Sullivan, A. 2002. “Bourdieu and Education: How Useful is Bourdieu’s Theory for Researchers?” Netherlands
Journal of Social Sciences 38 (2): 144–166.
Swartz, D. 1997. Culture and Power: The Sociology of Pierre Bourdieu. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
1244   J. ROKSA AND K. J. ROBINSON

Turner, R. H. 1960. “Sponsored and Contest Mobility and the School System.” American Sociological Review 25
(6): 855–867.
Vryonides, M. 2007. “Social and Cultural Capital in Educational Research: Issues of Operationalisation and
Measurement.” British Educational Research Journal 33 (6): 867–885.
van de Werfhorst, H. G. 2010. “Cultural Capital: Strengths, Weaknesses and Two Advancements.” British Journal
of Sociology of Education 31 (2): 157–169.
Wildhagen, T. 2009. “Why Does Cultural Capital Matter for High School Academic Performance?” The Sociological
Quarterly 50 (1): 173–200.