British Journal of Sociology of Education

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

Cultural capital a shift in perspective: an analysis

of PISA 2009 data for Croatia
Saa Puzi, Margareta Gregurovi & Iva Kouti
To cite this article: Saa Puzi, Margareta Gregurovi & Iva Kouti (2016) Cultural capital a
shift in perspective: an analysis of PISA 2009 data for Croatia, British Journal of Sociology of
Education, 37:7, 1056-1076, DOI: 10.1080/01425692.2014.1001058
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01425692.2014.1001058

Published online: 04 Feb 2015.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 145

View related articles

View Crossmark data

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

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=cbse20
Download by: [Zagreb University]

Date: 17 November 2016, At: 11:27

British Journal of Sociology of Education, 2016

Vol. 37, No. 7, 10561076, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01425692.2014.1001058

Cultural capital a shift in perspective: an analysis of PISA 2009

data for Croatia
Saa Puzia*, Margareta Gregurovib and Iva Koutia
a

Institute for Social Research, Center for Educational Research and Development,
Zagreb, Croatia; bInstitute for Migration and Ethnic Studies, Department for
Ethnicity and Ethnic-Minority Research, Zagreb, Croatia
(Received 7 November 2013; nal version received 3 December 2014)
Using PISA 2009 data for Croatia, this paper addresses the relationship
between socio-economic background, cultural capital and educational
attainment. Following Bourdieu, we emphasized the importance of interpreting cultural capital effects as effects of family habitus. The results
indicated that the material and the relational dimension of cultural capital had independent effects on science literacy results. Although there
was no signicant interaction effect between socio-economic status and
cultural capital, the analysis suggested both a tendency for social reproduction as well as the possibility for social mobility of students with
lower socio-economic status.
Keywords: cultural capital; habitus; cultural reproduction; cultural
mobility; Programme for International Student Assessment

1. Introduction
Although the association between social privilege and academic success
remains a common nding in research on education (Shavit and Blossfeld
1994; Sirin 2005) there is still a lack of consensus concerning the mechanisms of reproduction of existing educational inequalities (Vester 2006). One
explanation for the persisting nature of educational inequalities asserts that
school culture is closely linked to the culture of the dominant classes, which
is why achievement in school is not evaluated according to classneutral standards (Flere et al. 2010). The best known articulation of this view
is Pierre Bourdieus concept of cultural capital that, for the past 30 years, has
been adopted by many scholars in empirical research (Lareau and Weininger
2003). Although frequently used in international research, the concept of cultural capital was rarely applied in educational research in Croatia (Doolan
2009). In order to ll this gap, the aim of our paper was to test the validity
of Bourdieus theory of cultural capital for Croatian students. Students
*Corresponding author. Email: puzic@idi.hr
2015 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group

British Journal of Sociology of Education

1057

cultural capital was analysed using variables and indexes from the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) 2009 survey data,
whilst educational attainment was operationalized as their result on the
science literacy test.
This paper extends previous studies on cultural capital in several ways.
The inclusion of family reading practices in the analytical model expands
the previously used PISA cultural capital indicators, thus broadening the
analytical basis for investigations of social and educational inequalities.
Moreover, cultural capital was considered here in its integral form in which
the effects of cultural capital were interpreted as effects of family habitus.
This kind of interpretation reinforces the plausibility of the thesis on the
theoretical and practical usefulness of different approaches in measuring cultural capital, and at the same time allows for simultaneity of compensatory
and cumulative processes regarding class-related inequalities in education.
Besides, the analysis of PISA survey results for Croatia shows the complementarity and consistency with analyses of cultural capital effects in other
countries participating in the PISA survey (for Germany, France and
Switzerland, see Jungbauer-Gans 2004; for Denmark, see Jaeger 2009).
2. Cultural capital and social reproduction
According to Bourdieu, the school transmits and reproduces the culture of
dominant classes and, therefore, individuals enter the educational system
with different cultural capacities depending on their social class background:
This consists mainly of linguistic and cultural competence and that relationship of familiarity with culture which can only be produced by family
upbringing when it transmits the dominant culture (Bourdieu 1977a, 494).
The most important consequence of this class-related process of socialization is the shaping of a particular way of reasoning and acting, which
Bourdieu calls habitus. Bourdieu denes habitus as a system of lasting,
transposable dispositions which, integrating past experiences, functions at
every moment as a matrix of perceptions, appreciations, and actions
(1977b, 8283). This means that habitus, as a structurally mediated and
internalized system of dispositions, enables the individual to act spontaneously without consciously thinking about aims and actions necessary for
their attainment in specic (typical) social situations.1
Transformed into habitus, class attributes of socialization are ultimately
naturalized, thus concealing and legitimizing their inuence on school
attainment. This creates the impression that the school awards individuals
exclusively on the basis of their natural abilities and individual merits
(Bourdieu and Passeron 1990). Bourdieu dismisses the described view on
the meritocratic nature of school and claims that, within the educational
eld, class habitus is recognized as cultural capital. Although there are also
other forms of capital (economic, social), cultural capital is the most useful

1058

S. Puzi et al.

form of capital in school. Cultural capital appears in three forms (Bourdieu

1997): incorporated or embodied cultural capital (linguistic and cognitive
competencies, cultural habits and tendencies), objectied cultural capital
(possession of cultural goods: books, paintings, etc., which is connected
with the cognitive ability of their symbolic appropriation) and institutionalized cultural capital (formal educational qualications such as diplomas or
certicates). Objectied cultural capital is also referred to as the material
dimension of cultural capital, while embodied cultural capital designates its
relational dimension (Barone 2006). Given the multiplicity of its forms,
Bourdieu examines the notion of cultural capital in a relatively abstract
manner, as any cultural competence that brings exclusive advantages in
the appropriation of the cultural heritage (Bourdieu 1997, 56). In the educational context, this includes all cultural resources that have a positive
effect on success in school (primarily internalized aspects of the dominant
culture) and that are unevenly distributed among members of different
classes (Lareau and Weininger 2003).
Cultural capital is recognized in school through institutionalized, formal
and informal, standards of evaluation of students and their parents (Lareau
and Weininger 2003). Since these standards reect the norms, values and
knowledge of the dominant culture, they typically favour students from the
dominant classes: teachers communicate more easily with students who
have more cultural capital and give them more attention and special assistance, and perceive them as more intelligent or gifted than students who
lack cultural capital (DiMaggio 1982, 190).
The described processes show how the mechanism of cultural capital
mediates the inuence of socio-economic background on school achievement. Cultural capital thereby represents a resource that secures access to
rare goods (educational qualications), which can be monopolized and
which, since it can be transmitted from one generation to the next, enables
the reproduction of social structure (Lareau and Weininger 2003). This
means that educational monopolization of cultural capital (cultural reproduction) allows the transmission of social privileges from parents to children
(social reproduction). In the next section, research on cultural capital and
achievement in school is discussed, with some critical reections on the
usage of the cultural capital concept.
3. Cultural capital in research on educational inequalities
In his inuential study DiMaggio showed that cultural capital operationalized as participation in elite status culture has an impact on high school
grades that is highly signicant and that, in nontechnical subjects,
approaches the contribution of measured [intellectual] ability (1982, 199).
DiMaggio stressed that cultural capital is most benecial for boys from lower
socio-economic background, interpreting that fact as a conrmation of the

British Journal of Sociology of Education

1059

cultural mobility model.2 Instead of acting as a social reproduction mechanism, cultural capital affects educational attainment of anyone who has it,
regardless of class origin (Kingston 2001). Moreover, for children of lower
socio-economic status (SES), cultural capital can serve as a compensatory
mechanism and the path to upward social mobility. DiMaggio conrmed
these ndings in a longitudinal analysis of effects of cultural capital on
college attendance, college completion and graduate education (DiMaggio
and Mohr 1985). Although other researchers took over DiMaggios operationalization of cultural capital as participation in highbrow cultural activities, empirical ndings differ in whether cultural capital has an effect on
educational outcomes and what that effect is (Dumais 2002). This includes
strong support for the cultural capital effect (Kalmijn and Kraaykamp 1996),
differences between particular types of activities (Aschaffenburg and Maas
1997) and minimal or no support for effects of cultural capital on educational
outcomes (Katsillis and Rubinson 1990).
Several authors associate the concept of cultural capital with parents
cultural skills, especially with reading behaviour in the family and its meaning for the intergenerational transmission of linguistic and cognitive skills
(De Graaf, De Graaf, and Kraaykamp 2000, 96; De Graaf 1988). Results
obtained by De Graaf (1988) from a German sample indicate that parents
reading habits mediate nearly one-half of the effect of fathers occupation
on grades in German language, but have no effect on grades in arithmetic.
In a related vein and using a representative sample from the Netherlands,
De Graaf, De Graaf, and Kraaykamp (2000) demonstrated that parents
reading habits, and not their participation in highbrow culture, affects the
attained level of education. It is also emphasized that differences in cultural
capital are more important for children from lower and middle socioeconomic backgrounds and less important for children from high socioeconomic backgrounds (2000, 108). The authors suggest that the cultural
capital concept should be replaced by a concept of the transmission of specic human capital from one generation to the next (De Graaf, De Graaf,
and Kraykamp 2000), and that family cognitive resources may not be as
strictly associated with class origins as Bourdieu seems to imply (Barone
2006). Accordingly, recent research on achievement gaps in England shows
that parenting practices in combination with other contextual variables (risk
and school factors) can explain up to two-thirds of SES variation in
educational attainment at age 16 (Strand 2014).
Studies that focused on the importance of cultural capital also examined
to what extent students have books, dictionaries, newspapers, computers
and other educational and cultural resources at their disposition at home and
to what extent these elements of family environment inuenced educational
success (Teachman 1987; Jungbauer-Gans 2004; Barone 2006). Other studies analysed the interaction and communication patterns in the family as a
means of transmission of parents cultural capital to their children (Downey

1060

S. Puzi et al.

1995; Jaeger 2009). Both types of studies found at least limited support for
the association of cultural capital with educational attainment net of other
socio-economic and family background variables.
In sum, the overview of past quantitative research shows that empirical
ndings differ to a signicant extent and offer no clear support to cultural
capital theory. Possible explanations (Barone 2006) relate to the fact that
studies refer to different stages of the educational career with progressively
increasing or declining differences (Aschaffenburg and Maas 1997), and that
the relationship between social class and cultural resources may be of varying intensity across different educational systems (De Graaf, De Graaf, and
Kraykamp 2000). But the most common explanation for the divergent
results regarding cultural capital theory points out the fact that there is no
consensus about the proper operationalization of what accounts for academic success (Sullivan 2001). For the most part this was attributed to the
lack of clear conceptualization of cultural capital theory (Kingston 2001;
Dumais 2002; Barone 2006). Another more pragmatic reason for different
operationalizations of cultural capital stems from the need to dene it
according to the types of variables available in the dataset that is being analysed (Sullivan 2001; Dumais 2002). The notion of cultural capital has thus
often experienced a transformation from a tool of studying class hegemony
via education to a tool for examining processes of hidden family inuences
on childrens academic success (Flere et al. 2010).
However, exibility in dening and operationalizing cultural capital can
also be seen as a legitimate part of Bourdieus ideas (Bourdieu 1984). This
implies that the concept of cultural capital cannot be viewed separately from
the notion of habitus (one integral concept), which is, at least as a tendency,
also notable in texts (McClelland 1990; Dumais 2002) that emphasize the
importance of habitus (cultural capital and habitus as two related but separated concepts). From our perspective, what is at stake in the discussed
research on cultural capital is the implicit association between classed family habitus and school success, rather than the more direct relationship
between cultural resources and educational attainment. In that sense,
Kingstons criticism can be seen as an expansion of research perspective
commenting on the effects of students participation in highbrow culture on
their school success, the author points out that it is:
just as imaginable, however, that the cultural capital effect [participation in high
culture] reects the fact that cultural capital is associated with other family-based
processes (e.g., parenting styles or supplementary drill in academic subjects), that,
in turn, are associated with academic success. (Kingston 2001, 92)

In our opinion, one does not exclude the other participation in highbrow
culture and the listed family processes all represent elements of the students
socialization environment and as such participate in the formation of

British Journal of Sociology of Education

1061

students cultural capital. As already mentioned, this viewpoint implies the

existence of family habitus the deeply ingrained system of perspectives,
experiences and predispositions family members share (Reay 1998, 527).
Qualitative research on childhood practices and educational aspirations
(Clark 1983; Tomanovi 2004) indicates that family habitus generates and
activates different forms of capital through practices such as organization of
time and use of space, social contacts and interpersonal relationships, as
well as availability and quality of different activities and cultural stimuli. To
what extent and under what conditions are families able to create grown
forms of capital and exercise agency in classed contexts is a complex
issue in need of further research.
4. Research questions and hypotheses
The aim of this paper was to examine whether the mechanism of cultural capital is associated with differences in attainment of Croatian students in PISA
testing. The following research questions and hypotheses were formulated:
(1) Is there a relationship between students socio-economic background
and results in science literacy? Based on the ndings of numerous
international studies, our rst hypothesis was as follows:
Hypothesis 1: The students of higher socio-economic status
achieve better results in science literacy than students of lower
socio-economic status.
(2) Does students cultural capital mediate the relationship between
socio-economic background and results in science literacy? Starting
from Bourdieus thesis on the importance of cultural capital, we
derived the following hypotheses:
Hypothesis 2a: The possession of cultural capital is positively
related to success in the science literacy test.
Hypothesis 2b: Cultural capital mediates the relationship between
socio-economic status and the results in science literacy.
(3) What is the relationship between the material (possession of cultural
goods) and the relational (reading habits and discussions between
parents and children) dimensions of cultural capital? Taking
Bourdieus consideration of different dimensions of cultural capital
into account, the third hypothesis was derived as follows:
Hypothesis 3: The material and the relational dimension of
cultural capital each have independent effects on science literacy
results.
(4) Is there empirical support for DiMaggios cultural mobility model?
Following the thesis that cultural capital can serve as a compensatory
mechanism and a path to upward social mobility, the next hypotheses was set:

1062

S. Puzi et al.

Hypothesis 4: The effect of cultural capital on success in the science literacy test is stronger for students of lower socio-economic
status than for those of higher socio-economic status.
5. Methodology
5.1. Sample
The data used in this paper are from the Croatian PISA 2009 survey, which
was conducted on 5033 students (Bra Roth et al. 2010). This sample is
representative for 15-year old Croatian students with regard to gender,
school programme and school grade.3 The survey included reading, mathematical and science literacy tests and three additional questionnaires: student
questionnaire, parent questionnaire and school questionnaire,4 which
covered different topics, among others students family, habits, school
environment, and so forth.
5.2. Measures
5.2.1. Dependent variable
5.2.1.1. Test result in science literacy. Even though reading literacy was
the main eld of assessment in PISA 2009, we decided to focus on the
results in science literacy as the dependent variable. The rationale for this is
that students reading habits are used as the cultural capital indicator: it is
assumed that reading competency is directly related to reading practices in
the family, whereas the relationship between reading practices and science
competency is more thoroughly mediated by family habitus. In the PISA
2009 cycle, science literacy was dened as the ability to use scientic
knowledge, to identify questions and to draw evidence-based conclusions in
order to understand and make decisions about the natural world and changes
caused by human actions (Bra Roth et al. 2010, 203). Question design
and scoring of performance in science literacy were based on Item Response
Theory.5 The descriptive data for all of the variables are summarized in
Table 1. The table also shows the average OECD results in order to enable
comparison with the Croatian data.
5.2.2. Independent variables
5.2.2.1. Students family socio-economic status. This variable was measured with four indicators obtained from student (two indicators) and parent
(two indicators) questionnaires:
(1) The highest occupational level of parents index (HOLP) was created
using students responses to the open-ended question on parents
occupation. The answers were coded as four-digit ISCO codes and

British Journal of Sociology of Education

1063

Table 1. Descriptive data for the variables used.

Minimum

Maximum

OECD
(mean/
SD)

4994 486
81
124 points
indicators
4820 47.15 15.39 16

717 points

501/94

N
Dependent variable
Science literacy result
Socio-economic status
Highest occupational
level of parents
Highest educational
level of parentsa

Mean SD

4989 2.33

0.60

1
(Elementary
school or
lower)
4181 2.97 1.33 1 (Less than
Average monthly
HRK
household incomea
3000.00)
4411 2.98 1.51 1 (Less than
Average monthly
HRK
expenses for
150.00)
educationa
Material dimension indicators of cultural capital
Cultural goods
4877 0.39 0.97 1.58
possession index
Number of books in
4948 2.65 1.31 1 (010
the household
books)
4500 0.01 0.97
Family reading
resources indexa
Relational dimension indicators of cultural
Reading pleasure
4920 0.13 0.87
index
Reading frequency
4982 3.37 0.82
(books and
newspaper)
4476 2.28 0.95
Frequency of
discussion between
parents and children
on political or social
issuesa
4483 2.27 0.82
Frequency of
discussion between
parents and children
on what child is
readinga

3.00
capital
3.23

90

48.37/
16.79
3 (College 2.10/
or higher) 0.74

6 (More

than HRK
15,000.00)
6 (More

than HRK
900.00)
0.98
6 (More
than 500
books)
1.43
3.50

0.06/
0.97
3.22/
1.45
0.06/
0.98
0.02/
0.99
2.82/
0.92

1 (Never or
almost
never)
1 (Never or
almost
never)

5 (Several
times a
week)
4 (Every
2.64/
or almost
1.04
every day)

1 (Never or
almost
never)

4 (Every
2.28/
or almost
0.97
every day)

Note: aBased on the questionnaire for parents.

structured in accordance with the International Socio-Economic

Index of Occupational Status (Ganzeboom, De Graaf, and Treiman
1992). The Index was represented by the result of the parent whose

1064

S. Puzi et al.

occupation had a higher rank higher index values indicated higher

occupational status (OECD 2012; cf. Gregurovi and Kuti 2010).
(2) The highest educational level of parents was represented by a modied index that was obtained from parents answers to dichotomous
yesno questions. The questions referred to the completion of educational level for each parent. If a parent questionnaire was missing
(about 10%), the students answer on parents educational status was
used. The nal index used in this paper consists of three categories:
primary school or lower, secondary school and college or higher.
The index value is expressed with the data for the parent with higher
level of education.
(3) Average monthly household income was assessed on a scale with six
categories, ranging from one (Less than HRK 3000.00) to six
(HRK 15,000.00 or more).
(4) Average monthly expenses for education included tuition fees for the
school the child attends, paying for lessons in or outside school and
paying for various preparatory courses, and was measured on a scale
ranging from one (Nothing) to six (HRK 900.00 or more).
A total of seven indexes and variables from the PISA 2009 survey were
used as cultural capital indicators. According to Bourdieus (1997) review
of certain aspects of cultural capital and its interpretations in analysis of
PISA data (Barone 2006), we can differentiate the material and the
relational dimensions of cultural capital.
5.2.2.2. Cultural capital material dimension. This variable indicates
material objects that incorporate and express cultural meanings that are differentiated according to social class (Barone 2006, 1045). Indicators of the
material dimension of cultural capital in our research are the Possession of
cultural goods index, the Family reading resources index and Number of
books in the household. The Possession of cultural goods index was created
using Item Response Theory based on students answers on the possession
of three items classical literature, books of poetry and works of art in the
household (Cronbachs = 0.68). Higher index values represented higher
possession of cultural goods. The Family reading resources index was created using parents responses on the availability of email, chat, Internet,
newspapers, magazine subscriptions and books (Cronbachs = 0.84). The
variable Number of books in the household was based on students estimates on the number of books in their household, ranging from one (010
books) to six (More than 500 books).
5.2.2.3. Cultural capital relational dimension. This variable manifests
itself through a system of adopted dispositions, and refers mainly to the
interaction and language skills related to social class (Barone 2006, 1045).

British Journal of Sociology of Education

1065

These skills are seen as part of family habitus; that is, the deeply ingrained
system of dispositions that family members share. As indicators of the relational dimension of cultural capital, the Reading for enjoyment index was
used along with variables Frequency of reading, Frequency of discussing
political or social issues with parents and Frequency of discussing with
child about what he/she is reading on his/her own. The Reading for enjoyment index was based on 11 items from the student questionnaire (such as
I read only if I have to, Reading is one of my favourite hobbies, I like
talking about books with other people, etc.), on a scale from one (Strongly
disagree) to four (Strongly agree) (Cronbachs = 0.89). Higher values
indicated a higher enjoyment of reading. Frequency of reading was a composite variable consisting of three items reading books, ction (1) and
non-ction (2), and newspapers (3) (Cronbachs = 0.48). Students reported
on a scale from one (Never or almost never) to ve (Several times a
week). Frequency of discussing political or social issues with children and
Frequency of discussing with child about what he/she is reading on his/her
own were two variables from the parent questionnaire with the assessment
scale from one (Never or almost never) to four (Every day or almost
every day).
5.3. Statistical procedures
In the rst step we analysed bivariate (Pearson) correlations between indicators of SES and cultural capital. Afterwards, multiple regression analyses
were completed in order to determine the effects of SES and cultural capital
indicators on science literacy achievement. The analyses were carried out
using the SPSS complex samples module with the aim to adjust standard
errors for clustering at the school level. All variables were standardized
prior to analyses conducted to ensure the comparability between different
predictors. Finally, in order to evaluate the effects of cultural capital at different levels of SES, an interaction analysis was completed, and analysis of
variance differences in the science literacy result between different levels of
HOLP (1 standard deviation [SD], mean, +1 SD) and total cultural capital
index (1 SD, mean, +1 SD) were presented.6
6. Results
As a rst step we analysed how strongly two sets of cultural capital indicators (i.e. the material and relational dimensions) are related to socioeconomic background variables. If cultural capital represents a mechanism
through which SES affects achievement in science, correlations should exist
between SES of the students families and cultural capital indicators.
Correlation coefcients showed that socio-economic background is
positively correlated with indicators of both dimensions of cultural capital

1066

S. Puzi et al.

(Table 2). However, the correlation coefcients indicate a stronger association with indicators of the material dimension. This primarily refers to the
highest occupational level of parents as well as monthly household income
and their relationship with cultural goods, books and reading resources present in the household. Even though all correlations were statistically signicant (due to the large number of respondents), the association between
socio-economic background and indicators of the relational dimension of
cultural capital is negligible. A possible explanation for the stronger relationship of the material dimension of cultural capital with family SES is the
fact that cultural and educational goods, apart from indicating cultural habitus, also show the nancial possibilities of the students families. The latter
can be seen in research on educational attainment where family possession
of material goods is used as an indicator of family SES (De Graaf, De
Graaf, and Kraaykamp 2000).
In order to investigate whether students socio-economic background is
associated with results in the science literacy test and whether cultural
capital mediates this relationship, a series of multiple regression analyses
were conducted (Table 3).7

Table 2. Correlations between socio-economic background and cultural capital.

Socio-economic status indicators

Cultural capital
indicators
Cultural goods
possession index
Number of books in the
household
Family reading
resources index
Enjoyment of reading
index
Frequency of reading
(books and newspapers)
Frequency of discussion
on political or social
issues between parents
and children
Frequency of discussion
between parents and
children on what child
is reading

Highest
occupational
level of
parents

Highest
educational
level of
parents

Average
monthly
household
income

Monthly
expenditure
for
education

0.356***

0.246***

0.331***

0.120***

0.385***

0.272***

0.374***

0.094***

0.284***

0.213***

0.366***

0.165***

0.110***

0.073***

0.100***

0.067***

0.174***

0.105***

0.195***

0.082***

0.181***

0.124***

0.179***

0.051**

0.059***

0.033*

0.034*

0.102***

Note: *p< 0.05; **p< 0.01; ***p< 0.001.

British Journal of Sociology of Education

1067

Model 1 served to determine the total effect of students SES on performance in the science literacy test. The set of predictors consisted of highest
occupational level of parents, highest educational level of parents, average
monthly household income and monthly expenses for education, which
explained a total of 15% of the variance in the science literacy test. This
result corresponds with results of similar studies in which SES indicators,
alone or in combination with other demographic variables, explained
between 5% and 25% of the variance in learning outcomes (De Graaf 1988;
Table 3. Regression analysis results.
Model 1
Intercept
Highest occupational
level of parents
(HOLP)
Highest educational
level of parents
(HELP)
Average monthly
household income
Monthly expenditure
on education
Cultural goods
possession index
Number of books in
household
Family reading
resources index
Enjoyment of reading
index
Frequency of reading
(books and
newspapers)
Frequency of
discussion between
parents and children
on political or social
issues
Frequency of
discussion between
parents and children
on what child is
reading

Model 2

Model 3

b()

s.e.

b()

s.e.

b()

s.e.

0.037**
0.211***

0.012
0.019

0.054***
0.126***

0.012
0.019

0.047***
0.128***

0.012
0.018

0.066***

0.018

0.045**

0.017

0.047**

0.017

0.198***

0.018

0.110***

0.018

0.104***

0.018

0.099*** 0.015 0.117*** 0.014 0.114*** 0.014

0.109***

0.018

0.029

0.018

0.148***

0.020

0.101***

0.019

0.111***

0.017

0.085***

0.016

0.134***

0.015

0.166***

0.017

0.100***

0.016

0.087*** 0.015

R2 = 0.149

R2 = 0.206

Note: *p< 0.05; **p< 0.01; ***p< 0.001.

R2 for Model 2 = 0.057 (p< 0.001);R2 for Model 3 = 0.071 (p< 0.001).

R2 = 0.277

1068

S. Puzi et al.

De Graaf, De Graaf, and Kraaykamp 2000; Flere et al. 2010). The indicator
with the highest beta coefcient was highest occupational level of parents,
suggesting that students from families in which parents occupation has a
higher rank according to this index achieve better results in the science literacy test. A similar positive association was obtained for higher monthly
household income and higher level of parents education, which supports
the expectation of a positive relationship between family SES and educational attainment. The nding that parental occupation and income have a
greater effect on childrens school success than their level of education deviates from results of similar studies in which education appears to be more
important in a social reproductive sense (for example, De Graaf, De Graaf,
and Kraaykamp 2000; Flere et al. 2010). This predominance of mostly economic elements indicates greater nancial barriers in educational careers of
Croatian students, especially in comparison with other countries such as
Slovenia, the Netherlands or Denmark (for Slovenia, see Flere et al. 2010;
for the Netherlands, see De Graaf, De Graaf, and Kraaykamp 2000; for
Denmark, see Jaeger 2009). The indicator of monthly expenses for education was negatively correlated with performance in science literacy, pointing
to the possibility that these expenses cover mostly additional lessons taken
by students who are less successful in science.
Models 2 and 3 demonstrate the results when cultural capital indicators
are included in the analysis. Data in Table 3 indicated that each subsequent
model explains signicantly more variance of students science literacy
achievement. Model 2 explained an additional 6% of variance in science
literacy (total of 21%) and all predictors were statistically signicant. The
introduction of our explanatory concept reduced the effect of SES indicators
on performance in science, although this effect remained statistically signicant. More precisely, the introduction of cultural capital in the analysis
explained about 40% of the parents occupational status effect, about 30%
of the parents education effect and as much as 45% of family income
effect. The described results indicate that cultural capital can at least partially explain the effect of social background on achievement in science.
The predictor with the highest beta coefcient in Model 2 was number of
books in the household, which indicated a positive correlation between
number of books in the household and achievement in science. It is somewhat surprising that the addition of cultural capital in the model explained a
signicantly lower proportion of variance for parent education (30% vs.
4045%) compared with the other two dimensions of family SES (occupation and income). We point this out because parents education is, in general, also used as an indicator of family cultural capital (Flere et al. 2010),
which is assumed to signicantly affect socialization processes within the
family. In contrast, our analysis indicates a relatively stable effect of
parental education in all three models tested, which is a nding closer to

British Journal of Sociology of Education

1069

DiMaggios thesis that educational attainment is a very imperfect proxy for

cultural capital (1982, 199).
Model 3 added indicators of the relational dimension of cultural capital
to the model, which increased the proportion of explained variance to a total
of 28% (additional 7%). The strongest effect came from the frequency of
reading whose higher incidence was associated with better results in science. The frequency of discussion about what the child is reading was negatively associated with achievement in science, which indicates that, in this
case, parents probably discuss with children when certain problems arise in
school. Although the introduction of the last four cultural capital indicators
had no implications for the beta coefcients of SES indicators (which is
linked to the aforementioned weak correlation coefcients), the beta coefcients of the material dimension of cultural capital indicators were reduced,
with two of them remaining statistically signicant. This suggests that material aspects of cultural capital are also mediated through reading practices
and communication patterns within the family, even though none of the
latter cultural capital indicators are necessarily associated with students
social background. It should be noted that the effect of reading enjoyment/
frequency on science attainment could also be interpreted in a more direct
way; that is, not as cultural capital but rather as cognitive or academic
ability. We do not follow this solution for two reasons: one relates to
Bourdieus contention that individual characteristics cannot be divided from
cultural traits (Lareau and Weininger 2003), and the other is the assumption
that familial habitus can include perspectives and dispositions with different
levels of class impact. Or to put it in another way, the described effect of
the relational dimension on attainment in science, along with its weak relationship with family SES, may indicate the possibility that parents can, to a
certain extent, compensate for their lower SES if they create a culturally
stimulating family environment.
The next step was aimed at determining whether the effects of cultural
capital are stronger or weaker for children from high or low social origins.
Table 4 presents the appropriate modications of Model 1, adding the interaction effect between highest parental occupational status, as the major indicator of parental socio-economic background, and total cultural capital
index. The obtained results indicated no signicant interaction effect, meaning that the effects of cultural capital are similar for students at different
levels of SES.
To further evaluate the effects of cultural capital at different levels of
SES, Table 5 and Figure 1 present mean science literacy achievement for
groups divided by cultural capital and highest occupational level of parents
(both variables were categorized as 1 SD, mean, +1 SD). Although the
overall effect of cultural capital did not differ substantially at higher/lower
levels of SES, the results from this analysis indicated that the difference in
achievement between students with high and low levels of cultural capital

1070

S. Puzi et al.

Table 4. Effects of interaction between cultural capital index and highest

occupational level of parents on science literacy achievement.
Model 4
b()
Intercept
The highest occupational level of parents (HOLP)
The highest educational level of parents
Average monthly household income
Monthly expenditure on education
Cultural capital index
Cultural capital index HOLP

0.001
0.155***
0.049**
0.141***
0.122***
0.362***
0.013
R2 = 0.260

s.e.
0.013
0.018
0.017
0.017
0.014
0.015
0.015

Note: *p< 0.05; **p< 0.01; ***p< 0.001.

Table 5. Mean science literacy achievement by cultural capital and highest

occupational level of parents.
Cultural capital
HOLP

1 SD

Mean

+1 SD

1 SD
Mean
+1 SD

411.2
444.2
491.6

448.5
479.3
517.5

503.5
531.8
569.7

decreases somewhat with higher SES, and that students with more cultural
capital (+1 SD) can partially compensate for their lower socio-economic
background; that is, they had better results in science literacy than their
peers from higher socio-economic backgrounds with low (1 SD) to average
(mean) cultural capital.8 As the data in Table 5 indicate, this effect was
more prominent at the lower levels of SES.
7. Discussion
The aim of this paper was to examine whether the mechanism of cultural
capital is associated with differences in attainment of Croatian students in
PISA testing. Several hypotheses were formulated which addressed the relations between socio-economic background, cultural capital and educational
success. The conducted analyses showed that students from families of
higher SES achieve better results in science literacy than students of lower
status (Hypothesis 1 conrmed).
As for the second hypothesis (Hypothesis 2a), it was conrmed that possession of cultural capital is positively related to success in the science literacy test. The introduction of cultural capital indicators into the models

British Journal of Sociology of Education

1071

Figure 1. Student achievement in science literacy by cultural capital and highest

occupational level of parents.

reduced the effects of family background on achievement in science literacy,

although the inuence of SES remained statistically signicant (Hypothesis
2b conrmed). The described ndings demonstrated that cultural capital
does partially mediate the relationship between social background and success in science literacy, but also that the effects of SES cannot be reduced
to differences in cultural resources. Apart from cultural capital, there seem
to be other related mechanisms responsible for the relationship between students social background and educational success (Baumert and Schmer
2001; Vester 2006).
The relationship between SES and cultural capital was mediated by the
possession of cultural and educational resources (material dimension of cultural capital), but not through reading and communication practices in the
family (relational dimension of cultural capital). Despite its weak relationship with family SES, the introduction of the relational dimension indicators
into the model increased the proportion of explained variance in scientic
literacy for an additional 7% (to a total of 28%). The inclusion of these cultural capital indicators explained a substantial part of the effects of the possession of cultural goods, which supports Bourdieus claim that objectied
cultural capital is also associated with some form of its embodiment or symbolic appropriation (Bourdieu 1997). Furthermore, the fact that heterogeneous cultural capital indicators which we used had independent effects on
achievements in science literacy reinforces the thesis (Jaeger 2009) on the
theoretical and practical usefulness of different approaches in measuring
cultural capital (Hypothesis 3 conrmed).

1072

S. Puzi et al.

The fact that the demonstrated effect of the relational dimension of cultural capital was not associated with family SES is in line with DiMaggios
(1982) model of cultural mobility. According to this model, the educational
benet from cultural capital should be higher for students of lower SES.
However, according to our analysis the interaction between SES and cultural capital was rather weak and not signicant, meaning that the effects of
cultural capital are similar at different levels of SES (Hypothesis 4 not conrmed); that is, generally speaking, higher levels of cultural capital cannot
undo the effects of socio-economic background (Figure 1). From this perspective the overall distribution of cultural capital and its educational benet correspond with patterns of social stratication. Nonetheless, such
ndings must be taken cautiously due to the fact that, at a closer look, students from lower SES families with more cultural capital were actually able
to catch up to a certain extent with students from high SES background
(Table 5). Contrary to the reproduction model, this tendency was more
prominent at the lower levels of SES. The fact that our analysis gives support to social reproduction but also suggests the possibility of social mobility was interpreted as their principle complementarity, which allows for
simultaneity of compensatory and cumulative processes (Aschaffenburg and
Maas 1997; Bremer 2006). This means that cultural capital may serve as a
compensatory mechanism for children of lower social origin even if it provides educational advantages for children from privileged families (whose
habitus, compared with lower class students, ts with the complexity of the
school environment in a more complete and coherent way). In our case,
parents can, to a certain extent, compensate for their lower SES if they
encourage reading habits and discussions in the family.
The described ndings may have important implications for policy initiatives addressing educational inequalities. They suggest that long-term effective compensatory programmes demand, apart from interventions at the
school level, more comprehensive measures aimed at the students home
environment. In this sense, redistributive policies that are clearly of central
importance (Lynch and Baker 2005) need to be extended with initiatives for
parent involvement in culture and education. By this we not only mean
involvement of parents in school activities, but also a more general empowering of parents that would lead to the creation of a family environment in
which cultural values and practices (in the broadest sense) are recognized
and become part of everyday family interaction. The presented thesis is
consistent with studies which showed that school success of children from
low-income families is associated with an emotionally supportive family
environment in which academic achievement is afrmed (Clark 1983). Ideally, cultural empowering of parents would create the preconditions for
modications in family habitus and its adjustments to school expectations
(Lareau and Weininger 2003). On the other hand, in this kind of consideration one must bear in mind that in a Bourdieuian sense school curricula

British Journal of Sociology of Education

1073

and pedagogies are elements of an arbitrary school culture (Bourdieu 1984).

Considering our analysis, this implies that, if treated as compensatory practices (as opposed to more spontaneous manifestations of family habitus),
there is a risk that reading sessions or cognitively and verbally stimulating
conversations in the family will be overshadowed by other elements of a
deprived family habitus, and consequently will not be recognized as cultural
capital in the school environment. Such consideration gains further relevance regarding the fact that the demonstrated signicance of cultural capital for the science literacy construct may also reect its value for adaptation
to related educational structures being advocated by the OECD and other
international organizations and political bodies; for example, the World
Bank or the European Commission (Beckert 2010). In other words, differences in cultural capital may prove to be even more important in future
school environments. In this respect we believe that in addressing the tension between compensatory practices and the cultural arbitrary it should be
kept in mind that habitus is not a mere reection of class opportunities or
solely a state of mind. More accurate would be to think of it as a process of
continuous adaptation to specic (classed or other) social conditions.
8. Limitations
One limitation of the conducted study is related to the type of cultural capital indicators used. Data from PISA 2009 have a limited range of cultural
capital indicators, the obvious ones being related to the possession of cultural and educational goods and communication patterns in the family. We
have tried to expand them with variables that address students reading
practices. What is missing are some other important aspects of cultural capital, such as participation of students and their parents in cultural activities
or their attending of cultural events such as visiting theatre and exhibitions.
Another limitation of our study arises from the cross-sectional nature of
our data. The fact that the analysed data were limited to just one point in
the students educational career did not allow for processes of cumulative
disadvantage to be taken into analysis (McClelland 1990; Aschaffenburg
and Maas 1997).
Finally, the shortcomings of the conducted study include the lack of an
in-depth view on the utilization of cultural capital in school, which would
demand qualitative analysis. The basic complaint herein is that quantitative
models assume a simple causal sequence which misses the meaning of how
cultural capital is actually converged into educational advantage (Kingston
2001). In this sense, qualitative analysis would include data on the
meanings of students interactional styles, their linguistic competence and
organization of school knowledge (Reay 1995).

1074

S. Puzi et al.

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

Notes
1. Habitus should be distinguished from conventional models of socialization
since it basically represents the result of practical adjustment on limited class
and/or status opportunities (Swartz 1997).
2. DiMaggio contrasts his cultural mobility model with the cultural reproduction
model assigned to Bourdieu.
3. Data were weighted by the ofcial PISA weights in order to correct the minor
non-response distortions and to ensure comparability with other analyses based
on the same dataset.
4. Downloaded from http://pisa2009.acer.edu.au/.
5. More details in OECD (2012).
6. The index of total cultural capital is represented by a summative composite
variable composed of all indicators of both cultural capital dimensions (divided
by 10).
7. Control of collinearity and suppression effect was taken into account using the
tolerance and variance ination factor as collinearity measures, and by checking
the discrepancies between beta coefcients and partial and zero-order correlations using the linear regression analysis. These effects were not detected in
any of the models.
8. The average science achievement differences by cultural capital within the
separate categories of HOLP were tested by using analysis of variance. All
differences were statistically signicant. HOLP 1 SD category: F = 258.604;
p = 0.000; Tamhane T2 post hoc 1 2, 3; 2 3. HOLP mean category:
F = 1244.843; p = 0.000; Tamhane T2 post hoc 1 2, 3; 2 3. HOLP +1 SD
category: F = 446.796; p = 0.000; Tamhane T2 post hoc 1 2, 3; 2 3.

References
Aschaffenburg, K., and I. Maas. 1997. Cultural and Educational Careers: The
Dynamics of Social Reproduction. American Sociological Review 62 (4):
573587.
Barone, C. 2006. Cultural Capital, Ambition and the Explanation of Inequalities in
Learning Outcomes: A Comparative Analysis. Sociology The Journal of the
British Sociological Association 40 (6): 10391058.
Baumert, J., and G. Schmer. 2001. Familire Lebensverhltnisse, Bildungsbeteiligung Und Kompetenzerwerb. In PISA 2000: Basiskompetenzen von Schlerinnen
und Schlern im internationalen Vergleich, edited by Deutsches PISA-Konsortium, 323407. Opladen: Leske und Budrich.
Beckert, J. 2010. Institutional Isomorphism Revisited: Convergence and
Divergence in Institutional Change. Sociological Theory 28 (2): 150166.
Bourdieu, P. 1977a. Cultural Reproduction and Social Reproduction. In Power
and Ideology in Education, edited by J. Karabel and A. H. Halsey, 487511.
New York: Oxford University Press.
Bourdieu, P. 1977b. Outline of a Theory of Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Bourdieu, P. 1984. Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste.
London: Routledge.

British Journal of Sociology of Education

1075

Bourdieu, P. 1997. The Forms of Capital. In Education: Culture, Economy, and

Society, edited by A. H. Halsey, H. Lauder, P. Brown, and A. Stuart Wells,
4758. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bourdieu, P., and J. C. Passeron. 1990. Reproduction in Education, Society and
Culture. London: Sage.
Bra Roth, M., A. Markoi-Dekani, M. Marku, and M. Gregurovi. 2010. PISA
2009. italake Kompetencije Za ivot [Reading Competences for Life]. Zagreb:
Nacionalni centar za vanjsko vrednovanje PISA centar.
Bremer, H. 2006. Die Mglichkeit Von Chancengleichheit: Pierre Bourdieus Entzauberung Der Natrlichkeit Von Bildung Und Erziehung Und Deren Ungebrochene Aktualitt. In Die Natur Der Gesellschaft: Verhandlungen Des 33.
Kongresses Der Deutschen Gesellschaft Fr Soziologie in Kassel 2006, edited
by K.-S. Rehberg, D. Giesecke, and T. Dumke, 15281539. Franfurt a/Main:
Campus Verlag.
Clark, R. M. 1983. Family Life and School Achievement: Why Poor Black Children
Succeed or Fail. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
De Graaf, P. M. 1988. Parents Financial and Cultural Resources, Grades, and
Transition to Secondary School in the Federal Republic of Germany. European
Sociological Review 4: 209221.
De Graaf, N. D., P. M. De Graaf, and G. Kraaykamp. 2000. Parental Cultural
Capital and Educational Attainment in the Netherlands: A Renement of the
Cultural Capital Perspective. Sociology of Education 73 (2): 92111.
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 (2): 189201.
DiMaggio, P., and J. Mohr. 1985. Cultural Capital, Educational Attainment, and
Marital Selection. American Journal of Sociology 90: 12311261.
Doolan, K. 2009. My Dad Studied Here Too: Social Inequalities and Educational
(Dis)Advantage in a Croatian Higher Education Setting. PhD diss., University
of Cambridge.
Downey, D. B. 1995. When Bigger is Not Better: Family Size, Parental
Resources, and Childrens Educational Performance. American Sociological
Review 60 (5): 746759.
Dumais, S. A. 2002. Cultural Capital, Gender, and School Success: The Role of
Habitus. Sociology of Education 75 (1): 4468.
Flere, S., M. Tavar Krajnc, R. Klanjek, B. Musil, and A. Kirbi. 2010. Cultural
Capital and Intellectual Ability as Predictors of Scholastic Achievement: A
Study of Slovenian Secondary School Students. British Journal of Sociology of
Education 31 (1): 4758.
Ganzeboom, H. B. G., P. M. De Graaf, and D. J. Treiman. 1992. Standard
International Socio-economic Index of Occupational Status. Social Science
Research 21: l56.
Gregurovi, M., and S. Kuti. 2010. Uinak Socioekonomskog Statusa Na
Obrazovno Postignue Uenika: Primjer PISA Istraivanja, Hrvatska 2006
[Effect of Socioeconomic Status on Students Educational Achievement: The
Example of Pisa Study, Croatia 2006]. Revija Za Socijalnu Politiku [Croatian
Journal of Social Policy] 17 (2): 179196.
Jaeger, M. M. 2009. Equal Access but Unequal Outcomes: Cultural Capital and
Educational Choice in a Meritocratic Society. Social Forces 87 (4): 19431971.

1076

S. Puzi et al.

Jungbauer-Gans, M. 2004. Einuss Des Sozialen Und Kulturellen Kapitals Auf

Die Lesekompetenz: Ein Vergleich Der PISA 2000 - Daten Aus Deutschland,
Frankreich Und Der Schweiz. Zeitschrift Fr Soziologie 33 (5): 375397.
Kalmijn, M., and G. Kraaykamp. 1996. Race, Cultural Capital, and Schooling: An
Analysis of Trends in the United States. Sociology of Education 69: 8198.
Katsillis, J., and R. Rubinson. 1990. Cultural Capital, Student Achievement, and
Educational Reproduction: The Case of Greece. American Sociological Review
55: 270279.
Kingston, P. W. 2001. The Unfullled Promise of Cultural Capital Theory.
Sociology of Education 74 (Extra Issue): 8899.
Lareau, A., and E. B. Weininger. 2003. Cultural Capital in Educational Research:
A Critical Assessment. Theory and Society 32 (5/6): 567606.
Lynch, K., and J. Baker. 2005. Equality in Education: An Equality of Condition
Perspective. Theory and Research in Education 3 (2): 131164.
McClelland, K. 1990. Cumulative Disadvantage among the Highly Ambitious.
Sociology of Education 63: 102121.
OECD. 2012. PISA 2009 Technical Report. Paris: OECD Publishing.
Reay, D. 1995. They Employ Cleaners to Do That: Habitus in the Primary
Classroom. British Journal of Sociology of Education 16 (3): 353371.
Reay, D. 1998. Always Knowing and Never Being Sure: Familial and
Institutional Habituses and Higher Education Choice. Journal of Education
Policy 13 (4): 519529.
Shavit, Y., and H.-P. Blossfeld. 1994. Persistent Inequality: Changing Educational
Attainment in Thirteen Countries. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Sirin, S. R. 2005. Socioeconomic Status and Academic Achievement: A Metaanalytic Review of Research. Review of Educational Research 75 (3): 417453.
Strand, S. 2014. Ethnicity, Gender, Social Class and Achievement Gaps at Age
16: Intersectionality and Getting It for the White Working Class. Research
Papers in Education 29 (2): 131171.
Sullivan, A. 2001. Cultural Capital and Educational Attainment. Sociology 35
(4): 893912.
Swartz, D. 1997. Culture and Power. The Sociology of Pierre Bourdieu. Chicago,
IL: The University of Chicago Press.
Teachman, J. D. 1987. Family Background, Educational Resources and
Educational Attainment. American Sociological Review 52 (4): 548557.
Tomanovi, S. 2004. Family Habitus as the Cultural Context for Childhood.
Childhood 11 (3): 339360.
Vester, M. 2006. Die Stndische Kanalisierung Der Bildungschancen. Bildung
Und Soziale Ungleicheit Zwischen Boudon Und Bourdieu. In Soziale
Ungleicheit Im Bildungssystem. Eine Empirisch-theoretische Bestandsaufnahme,
edited by G. Werner, 1354. Konstanz: UVK.