This article was downloaded by: [University of Michigan]
On: 16 April 2012, At: 19:42
Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Equity & Excellence in Education
Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ueee20
Revisiting College Predisposition:
Integrating Sociological and Psychological
Perspectives on Inequality
a
a
Johanna C. Massé , Rosemary J. Perez & Julie R. Posselt
a
a
University of Michigan
Available online: 05 Aug 2010
To cite this article: Johanna C. Massé, Rosemary J. Perez & Julie R. Posselt (2010): Revisiting
College Predisposition: Integrating Sociological and Psychological Perspectives on Inequality, Equity &
Excellence in Education, 43:3, 279-293
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10665684.2010.492271
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.
The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation
that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any
instructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primary
sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings,
demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or
indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
EQUITY & EXCELLENCE IN EDUCATION, 43(3), 279–293, 2010
C University of Massachusetts Amherst School of Education
Copyright ISSN: 1066-5684 print / 1547-3457 online
DOI: 10.1080/10665684.2010.492271
Revisiting College Predisposition: Integrating Sociological
and Psychological Perspectives on Inequality
Johanna C. Massé, Rosemary J. Perez, and Julie R. Posselt
Downloaded by [University of Michigan] at 19:42 16 April 2012
University of Michigan
Student choice models from the higher education literature elucidate the psychosocial factors that are
correlated with college enrollment. They do not, however, clarify how these factors interact to cultivate
the inclination to pursue postsecondary education. This critical review integrates a Bourdieuian
framework with research on academic domain identification and stereotype threat to suggest that
the educational system is currently structured to perpetuate racial inequalities by discouraging black
and Latino students from developing the predisposition to attend college. Current public policies
impose repeated opportunities for stereotype threat to be activated among blacks and Latinos, thereby
perpetuating a cycle of academic disidentification. The implications for this integrative framework
on higher education research and practice are also discussed.
In this paper, we posit a framework outlining structural origins of unequal college attendance
by integrating theory from sociology and psychology. Historically researchers and policymakers
have cited cultural deficits in black and Latino communities to explain the college enrollment
gap (e.g., Heller, 1966; Hess & Shipman, 1965; Moynihan, 1965). Our analysis adds to emergent
challenges of this interpretation by analyzing structural bases of some such socially constructed
“deficits” (P. Carter, 2005; Steele, 1997; Yosso, 2005). The majority of students start high school
with high educational aspirations (Kao & Tienda, 1998), and communities of color have long
upheld advanced education as central to their visions of social uplift and empowerment (Feagin,
Vera, & Imani, 1996; St. John, 2003). However, there are structures embedded in schooling and
society that lead many black and Latino students to adopt an orientation toward the future in
which college is not necessarily normative (Teranishi & Briscoe, 2006; Urrieta, 2007).
Caught in a network of competing social forces, many black and Latino students become
discouraged about their prospects for further educational opportunities. One explanation for this
discouragement is that students of color reject academic culture and opportunity (Ogbu, 1988),
yet ethnographic research has repudiated this perspective (P. Carter, 2005). We suggest discouragement happens through two mechanisms. First, school curriculum and college admissions
We thank Eric Dey, Edward St. John, and Deborah Faye Carter for their assistance in helping us prepare this
manuscript. This paper is dedicated to Professor Dey, who had an irreplaceable impact on our development as scholars.
The authors all contributed equally to this paper. Names are in alphabetical order. An earlier version of this paper was
presented at the 33rd Annual ASHE Conference, November 6–8, 2008, Jacksonville, FL.
Address correspondence to Johanna Massé, University of Michigan, 2117 School of Education Building, 610 E.
University Avenue, Ann Arbor, MI 48109. E-mail: [email protected]
Downloaded by [University of Michigan] at 19:42 16 April 2012
280
MASSÉ ET AL.
narrowly define what counts as valuable social and cultural capital. Prevailing definitions of merit
“advantage the already privileged” (Karabel, 2005, p. 407) and discount other forms of “nonelite” social and cultural capital—effectively excluding students who possess them (Freeman,
2006; Stevens, 2007). Freeman describes schools’ work in this regard as cultural annihilation,
a process that “severely erodes the cultural identity and educational opportunities of Blacks”
(p. 42). Second, in a system reliant on standardized tests for quantitative measures of merit, the
impact of stereotypes about intelligence threaten the opportunities that Blacks and Latinos have
to demonstrate their capacity for college education (Steele, 1997). From this perspective, the
burden of improving college access and advancing a more socially just education system lies not
with students but with school leaders and policymakers.
Drawing from conceptualizations of college choice as a three-stage process (Hossler, Schmit,
& Vesper, 1999; Hossler & Stage, 1992), we focus our analysis on the earliest phase of college
decision-making wherein students develop a predisposition to extend their education beyond
high school and view college attendance as a reasonable possibility. The predisposition to attend
college is a function of how individuals construct a sense of what is possible within an education
system that operates as a gatekeeper to social mobility. Bourdieu’s (1977) model of purposive
action under conditions of constraint provides a way of interpreting educational decision-making
at a cultural level but is less explicit about the cognitive processes implicated in exercising
individual agency. Steele’s (1997) work on stereotype threat complements Bourdieu’s theory
for the US context by linking cognition, identity, and action among people of color within the
academic domain. While these individual theories have informed structural understandings of
educational inequality for years, we propose that previously unexamined intersections of these
theories lend additional perspective on why black and Latino students may or may not cultivate
an inclination to pursue higher education.
Our work integrating a Bourdieuian sociological perspective and the research on stereotype
threat evolved out of our shared interest in how America’s racialized educational context shapes
college access and perceptions of opportunity. We desire to understand the ways individuals make
personal meaning of broad social values about education (e.g., for whom and what college is
for and stereotypes of academic ability) and how such cognitive micro-processes may enable
agency in navigating constraints in their decisions about education. Two of us identify as Asian
American women and one as a white woman, and we believe that postsecondary education plays
a key role in breaking cycles of inequality that have historically oppressed people of color in
America. Thus, our analysis assumes that the benefits of higher education, which include but are
not limited to human capital development, should be accessible to all people as a lynchpin of a
socially just educational system.
A weakness in our analysis is the absence of attention to Native Americans and Asian Americans, two groups that have also been made “Other” within America’s racial hierarchy (Omi
& Winant, 1994). While we recognize that Asian Americans and Native Americans are also
racialized ethnic groups, our work utilizes the extant literature on stereotype threat, which has
primarily examined detrimental effects on black and Latino student achievement. We use the
term “underrepresented students” to refer to Blacks and Latinos who are underrepresented in the
American higher education system relative to their proportion of the general population, while
acknowledging that Native Americans are also numerically underrepresented. Although we do
not wish to reproduce essentialist/biological categories of meaning to describe groups of people,
our language is necessarily constrained by the disciplinary traditions from which we draw.
INTEGRATING PERSPECTIVES ON INEQUALITY
281
HABITUS AND THE INTERPLAY OF SOCIAL AND CULTURAL CAPITAL
IN SOCIAL REPRODUCTION
Downloaded by [University of Michigan] at 19:42 16 April 2012
Habitus and College Predisposition
For the past 30 years, educational researchers have turned to Bourdieu’s model of symbolic
violence and capital (Bourdieu & Passeron, 1990) to explain how the educational system reproduces inequality intergenerationally. Bourdieu’s conception of constrained yet purposive action
“emphasizes structural constraints and unequal access to institutional resources” (Dika & Singh,
2002, p. 34), particularly in regard to class. For example, upper- and middle-class parents endow
their children with the aspiration and material resources to attend college, thereby perpetuating their status as the educated elite (Bourdieu, 1984). At the other end of the class spectrum,
low-income and working-class children lack both the perceived entitlement and the financial
and informational resources to see college attendance as a rite of passage. (Johnston, 2007;
McDonough, 1997). Bourdieu argues that class is both intergenerational and relatively deterministic, for individuals act according to the habitus with which they are raised, thus reproducing the
lifestyles and educational attainment of their parents (Bourdieu, 1984, 1990).
Habitus is a critical element of Bourdieu’s theory of how social reproduction operates through
the education system. In his later works, Bourdieu (1990) defined habitus as:
A system of durable, transposable dispositions, structured structures predisposed to function as
structuring structures, that is principles which generate and organize practices and representations
that can be objectively adapted to their outcomes without presupposing a conscious aiming at ends
or an express mastery of the operations necessary in order to attain them. (p. 53)
Thus, habitus is a set of internalized dispositions, grounded in personal history and family
socialization that subconsciously frames one’s sense of legitimate actions. The dispositions
that comprise one’s habitus are largely internalized assumptions about oneself in the social
world. While the concept of habitus seems deterministic, Bourdieu allows for agency by linking
habitus to behavior within specific fields of interaction, which are socially constructed spaces
where individuals struggle to access and preserve power (Bourdieu & Wacquant, 1992). As sites
where social reproduction is negotiated, fields are characterized by the pattern of power relations
present in the larger class structure, yet each field operates by specific formal and informal rules.
Therefore, to understand the reproduction of inequality in society, we need to understand the ways
reproduction occurs on smaller scales in fields of interaction, such as the educational system and
the schools that comprise it.
According to Bourdieu, families are the primary generator and constructor of one’s habitus
(Bourdieu, 1990; Horvat, 1997). In many schools where college is normative, individual families
interact with an entrenched system that encourages conformity to a “hidden” set of cultural
expectations derived from a history of favoring white and upper-middle-class interests (Lareau
& Horvat, 1999; McDonough, 1997). Researchers also debate whether the habitus one acquires
through family upbringing is fixed. Laureau (2003) found that while one may adopt new ways
of being and take up new aspirations, the habitus obtained in childhood will always feel more
comfortable than that acquired later in life. Horvat’s (2001, 2003) research on the interaction
of race and class in black females’ transition to college points to the importance of contextual
Downloaded by [University of Michigan] at 19:42 16 April 2012
282
MASSÉ ET AL.
factors. She found that students’ habitus did not substantively change as they left high school and
entered college, even as race and class took on different meanings and salience.
Urrieta (2007) views habitus as more malleable and school structures as potentially facilitating
social mobility by affording students the opportunity to shift their orientation toward the future.
In studying working-class Chicanos’ educational experiences, he found that some students’ early
identification as “smart” led to their placement in academic tracks that presented an opportunity
to gain “secondary habitus” (p. 135). Obtaining what he identifies as middle-class habitus (i.e.,
valuing choice, academic merit, strong personal drive, etc.) provided entree into middle-class
social mobility by fostering positive academic identity and success, which translated into their
perceiving and actualizing future academic opportunities.
The seeming discrepancy in how “structuring” individual habitus may occur depends, in
part, upon when in Bourdieu’s career his definition of habitus is cited. Over time Bourdieu’s
conceptualization of habitus broadened to acknowledge the possibility of educational and social
attainment beyond one’s birth class (Swartz, 1997). Responding to critiques that the theory of
habitus is overly deterministic, Bourdieu and Wacquant (1992) explained:
Habitus is not the fate that some people read into it. Being the product of history, it is an open system
of dispositions that is constantly subjected to experiences, and therefore constantly affected by them
in a way that either reinforces or modifies its structures. It is durable but not eternal! (p. 133)
While action that is inconsistent with one’s habitus is unlikely, individuals are not inexorably
static. Therefore, it is possible to transcend one’s birth class, despite odds that are stacked against
some individuals more than others (e.g., D. Carter, 2003; Freeman, 1999a, 1999b; Urrieta, 2007).
Characteristics external to the individual, such as peer groups, help inform how broadly or
narrowly an individual internally frames what constitutes a reasonable set of expectations for the
future (McDonough, 1997).
Cultural and Social Capital
Bourdieu (1990) argues that one’s social and cultural capital function symbiotically to reinforce
one’s habitus, producing actions that are so internalized as to defy rational choice. Cultural
capital describes the knowledge of cultural symbols that are generally associated with the dominant (usually upper-) class (Bourdieu, 1977). In Bourdieu’s conceptualization, the behaviors and
knowledge associated with cultural capital are not inherently valuable until they are defined as
such by the upper-class and are used to allocate opportunities (Bourdieu & Passeron, 1990). Historically, American upper-class values have been determined by white, Protestant, heterosexual
males—not coincidentally the primary consumers of higher education in America prior to the
twentieth century. Social capital describes the way that benefits accrue to individuals through engagement with others who possess desired resources. Bourdieu perceived social capital primarily
in terms of its instrumental value, and his conceptualization consists of the relationship between:
(a) actual social relationships that facilitate access to others’ resources and (b) the character of
the resources themselves, namely their amount and quality. Investment in those relationships is
an indirect form of investment in the resources (i.e., capital) of one’s associates and, like cultural
capital, social capital is both a product and reflection of one’s social class.
INTEGRATING PERSPECTIVES ON INEQUALITY
283
Downloaded by [University of Michigan] at 19:42 16 April 2012
The forms of capital with which one is raised and the dispositions comprising one’s habitus
are reproduced intergenerationally. Simply put, children tend to inherit their values and beliefs
from their parents. Rather than systematically enabling social opportunity, Bourdieu and Passeron
(1990) argue that education more typically confers additional capital upon those who already
have it. Concurrently, students whose family backgrounds have fostered the development of nondominant cultural strengths may struggle to navigate a college admissions game that privileges
the elite (McDonough, 1997; Vélez-Ibáñez & Greenberg, 2005).
Within a single model, habitus, cultural capital, and social capital describe a process of unjust
social reproduction that functions at a macroscopic level. We now turn to the psychological
literature on stereotype threat for an explanation of one way that racialization contributes to
differences in students’ predisposition to college.
ACADEMIC DOMAIN IDENTIFICATION AND THE IMPACT
OF STEREOTYPE THREAT
Stereotype threat emerged from social psychology and its theory of domain identification. Scholars often use stereotype threat to explain the inner states of mind and cognitive processes that
suppress individual academic performance (Steele, 1997). It has also been hypothesized to contribute to the academic achievement gap between Blacks and Latinos and their white peers
(Gonzales, Blanton, & Williams, 2002; Steele & Aronson, 1995). Psychologists’ conceptualization of domain bears close resemblance to what Bourdieu called the field of interaction, in that
opportunity for advancement in given social context depends on one’s engagement or identification with it (i.e., domain or field). Since domain is contested territory, internal conflict and
external competition affect how one perceives the space and determines whether or not engaging
in it is worthwhile.
Domain identification theory posits that sustained success in a particular space can only be
achieved if individuals internally identify and are willing to engage with the domain. Steele
(1997) described the process of domain identification within an educational context:
To sustain school success one must be identified with school achievement in the sense of its being
a part of one’s self-definition, a personal identity to which one is self-evaluatively accountable. This
accountability—that good self-feelings depend in some part on good achievement—translates into
sustained achievement motivation. (p. 613)
In other words, as one achieves success within the broad domain of school and experiences
positive feelings associated with this success, one feels an internal drive to continue a high level
of achievement in order to preserve self-esteem. The relationships among school success, positive
feelings, and self-esteem function as a feedback loop. Over time, the continuous cycling of this
loop can strengthen the associations between one’s self-esteem and academic success, ultimately
leading one to identify with the domain. However, the strength of this association depends on one’s
perception of the potential for continued success given one’s skills, abilities, talents, resources,
and sense of belonging in the domain (Steele, 1997). If a positive association with academics is
not formed or is severed, the potential for achievement is diminished.
Quantitative investigations of stereotype threat have focused on its situational effects on taskspecific performance. According to Smith (2004), a stereotype threat is, “a situational performance
Downloaded by [University of Michigan] at 19:42 16 April 2012
284
MASSÉ ET AL.
result of a stereotyped individual’s expectations for success/failure combined with the importance
the individual places on doing well” (p. 179). Performance is “couched in how others’ expectations
about performance success/failure affect the individual who is the target of those expectations”
(p. 179). Essentially, a stereotype threat occurs when individuals fear that poor performance on
an evaluative task in a personally relevant domain will confirm negative stereotypes about their
identity groups. This fear of confirming negative stereotypes suppresses the ability to perform in
the domain, limiting achievement. When repeatedly confronted with stereotype threats, one may
disassociate the domain from one’s identity in order to preserve self-esteem (Major, Spencer,
Schmader, Wolfe, & Crocker, 1998; Morgan & Mehta, 2004; Steele, 1997).
Blacks and Latinos are particularly vulnerable to stereotype threat in academic environments,
given strongly racialized notions of intelligence (Mills, 1997). Scholars assert these negative
stereotypes pervade schools, such that they frame national debates about racial differences in
I.Q. (Steele, 1997) and shape teachers’ perceptions of the abilities of students of color (e.g.,
Rosenthal & Jacobson, 1968; Tatum, 2007). In effect, stereotype threat manifests prevailing
societal (mis)perceptions of intellectual inferiority, which impede how underrepresented students
respond to academic environments. When coupled with systemic social reproduction in schools,
a clear difference between the real and perceived educational opportunities for underrepresented
students and their white peers emerges.
In their early work, Steele and Aronson (1995) demonstrated the relevance of race-based
stereotype threat on academic performance through a series of quantitative studies of black
and white undergraduates. In one study, participants were asked to complete items from the
Graduate Record Examination and were told prior to beginning the task that its purpose was
either an intellectual diagnostic or a non-diagnostic tool to understand problem solving abilities.
Undergraduates in the non-diagnostic condition performed significantly better on the test than
those in the diagnostic condition, and white students performed significantly better than black
students, with the widest differential between racial groups occurring in the diagnostic condition.
These results suggest that presenting a task as a measure of intellectual ability suppressed black
students’ performance. Moreover, when black undergraduates believed their intelligence could
be judged negatively due to race, their underperformance intensified.
In another study, Steele and Aronson (1995) primed black and white undergraduates to think
about their racial identity by having a white male experimenter ask them to complete a survey that
asked for demographic information, including race. The experimenter then indicated participants
would be completing a task that was either diagnostic or non-diagnostic of their verbal abilities.
After completing the task, participants completed a questionnaire that was intended to measure the
extent to which they believed race had an impact on their performance as a proxy to gauging the
influence of stereotype threat on achievement. Steele and Aronson (1995) found that “Blacks in
the race-prime condition performed worse than virtually all of the other groups, yet in the no-race
prime group condition their performance equaled that of Whites” (p. 807). Further examination of
the post-test surveys indicated that Blacks felt the impact of race more than Whites regardless of
whether they were primed for race before completing the performance task. Steele and Aronson
argue that in academically diagnostic situations, stereotype threat is salient to Blacks regardless
of whether race is explicitly primed. By extrapolation, when race is explicitly mentioned in
an academic testing venue, the effect of stereotype threat could explain a depression in black
students’ performance.
Downloaded by [University of Michigan] at 19:42 16 April 2012
INTEGRATING PERSPECTIVES ON INEQUALITY
285
Since Steele and Aronson’s initial studies, other researchers have attempted to uncover factors
that affect stereotype threat. Some scholars have suggested that developing a positive black racial
identity mitigates individuals’ susceptibility to stereotype threat (Davis, Aronson, & Salinas,
2006). Aronson et al. (2002) found that black undergraduates who viewed intelligence as malleable
were less susceptible to stereotype threat than those who saw it as fixed. Although stereotype threat
was not eliminated, Blacks who believed that intelligence was alterable identified with school as
a domain. They achieved higher grades and reported appreciating and valuing academics more
than those who perceived intelligence as static. Similarly, Ryan and Ryan (2005) theorize that
the nature of one’s achievement goals mediates the effects of stereotype threat. They speculate
that situational cues prompting stereotype threat affect performance-avoidant goals in order to
discredit negative stereotypes. In practical terms, negatively stereotyped students may adopt a goal
to avoid situations where they may appear to be incompetent according to normative, evaluative
standards. By this notion, stereotype threat affects habitus, such that perceptions of possible
courses of action become constrained.
The vast majority of the literature examining stereotype threat explores its influence on domain
identification via situational disengagement or permanent disidentification, not the factors that
precipitate stereotype threat. Quantitative, experimental research has demonstrated that stereotype
threat is situation-specific; however, it is hypothesized that chronic exposure to stereotype threat in
an educational environment may lead underrepresented students to permanently disidentify with
academic achievement in order to preserve self-esteem (Steele, 1997). Domain “disidentification
does not offer a costless victory because it undermines the motivation and commitment that are
necessary for continued educational achievement. Thus, unlike stereotype threat, disidentification
directly lowers motivation and an individual’s own performance expectations further depressing
achievement” (Morgan & Mehta, 2004, p. 84). In effect, disidentification reframes the habitus
of underrepresented students such that school achievement is no longer seen as a reasonable
possibility, triggering a self-fulfilling prophecy whereby the choice not to continue on to college
is a corollary of habitual academic underperformance.
American education policies have raised the stakes of standardized testing, such that effects of
stereotype threat have implications for how educational opportunity is conceptualized. The ramifications of stereotype threat are powerful in the present policy context where underrepresented
students face an educational environment where racial stereotypes not only underestimate and
devalue their abilities but also regard Whites’ knowledge and academic performance as normative
(Steele & Aronson, 1998). Standardized test outcomes shape students’ educational trajectories,
both in educational gatekeeping (Grodsky, Warren, & Felts, 2008) and, as research reported
here has shown, in shaping their identification with academics. In a self-proclaimed meritocracy,
these tests are intended to neutrally assess ability and achievement and to predict future educational performance (Lemann, 2000). Testing “fairness” aside, stereotype threat may contribute
to underrepresented students’ achievement gap. Standardized testing, such as that required by
No Child Left Behind (2002), places underrepresented students into evaluative situations that
repeatedly trigger stereotype threat (Ryan & Ryan, 2005). If unsuccessful over a sustained period
of time, they may be more likely to disidentify with the academic domain to preserve self-concept
(Major et al., 1998; Osborne, 1997), which in turn reduces their strength of predisposition towards
postsecondary education.
We speculate that the compounded effect of stereotype threat on those with multiple stereotyped
identities also has a strong influence on habitus. For example, Gonzales et al. (2002) found that
286
MASSÉ ET AL.
Latina undergraduates performed lower than Latinos, white men, and white women on a numerical
and special relations test after being primed for race and gender differences. For underrepresented
students who are also women, first-generation, queer, or of low socioeconomic status, interlocking
oppressions may further constrict habitus such that the perceived scope of possible futures
continues to narrow. Integrating the mechanisms of social and cultural reproduction with the
psychosocial effects of domain identification into our understanding of how black and Latino
students become predisposed to attend college may illuminate where interventions may be needed.
Downloaded by [University of Michigan] at 19:42 16 April 2012
REVISITING COLLEGE PREDISPOSITION FOR UNDERREPRESENTED
STUDENTS
The Interplay Among Habitus, Domain Identification, and College Predisposition
Our review of the literature suggests the substantive differences (see Table 1) between Bourdieu’s
theory of social reproduction and psychologists’ notion of stereotype threat complement one another to explain how inequality is perpetuated within American schools. Bourdieu’s sociological
theorizing provides a strong framework for describing intergenerational class transmission at a
TABLE 1
Proposed Comparison of Theories
Basis for Comparison
Bourdieu
Focus of analysis
Elites’ structures to maintain privilege
Focus of social relations
Strengths of approach
Class privilege
– Explains macro level class processes
– Identifies structural relations that are
observed across fields.
– Does not acknowledge race.
– Individual level processes are poorly
articulated
Weaknesses of approach
Orientation toward self and
future
Context
Threats/assets to predisposition
Mechanism
Habitus
Field
Capital
Dominant class defines what capital is
valued in accordance with interests
that perpetuate their status.
Stereotype Threat (ST)
Outcomes of cognitions within
structures among non-elites
Race privilege
Examines how macro level structures
(i.e., stereotypes) affect individuals
– Research constrained to experimental
settings.
– Does not explain how people resist
ST and how much of observed
disparities actually result from ST.
– Assumes, but does not explicate,
factors in decision making that are
external to the self
Identity
Domain
Stereotype/domain identification
(1) Stereotype is activated as salient
(priming)
(2) Threat of conforming to stereotype
diminishes performance
(3) Repeated experience of ST reduces
identification with academic domain
Downloaded by [University of Michigan] at 19:42 16 April 2012
INTEGRATING PERSPECTIVES ON INEQUALITY
287
micro-level (i.e., habitus), while stereotype threat reveals how macro-level societal constructs (i.e.,
stereotypes) affect individuals. The theories further complement each other in the subjects of their
analysis. Bourdieu illuminates the creation and reproduction of social stratification based on class.
In contrast, stereotype threat research explores how stereotypes about racialized differences in academic ability negatively affect performance on evaluative tasks for underrepresented minorities.
While both theories represent efforts to link cognition and action, neither sufficiently explains
the cognitive processes constraining individuals’ perceived scope of possibilities. However, the
areas in which the two theories overlap shed light on the practical ways in which individuals
navigate the American educational system, such that they may or may not develop the predisposition to attend college. As previously noted, individual habitus is a distinguishing characteristic
that shapes one’s likelihood of continuing education beyond high school. Specifically, habitus
comprises broad social norms about college going, identification with academics (which is partly
informed by previous academic performance), and known resources, including family finances
and social and cultural capital. In the context of college predisposition, accretion of cultural and
social capital acts as an asset to college-going. Conversely, if a student does not feel that additional
education is sensible for a person like herself, she is unlikely to be inclined toward it.
An individual’s habitus changes by adapting to external constraints and supports within a
given field of interaction. Habitus in the academic field may expand or contract as experiences
and resources are gained or lost and identification with academics is enhanced or weakened.
In one’s habitus, a way of being in the world—and way of being in the academic field of
interaction—develops from which college may or may not be seen as a reasonable possibility.
Students’ academic domain identification may affect habitus as one is affirmed or dissuaded
from scholarly pursuits based on classroom and testing performance. Moreover, the salience
of stereotype threats may undermine underrepresented students’ potential for school success
by unconsciously depressing academic performance in evaluative situations. As such, school
experiences have an impact on one’s habitus by either widening or narrowing the scope of
possibility for pursuing postsecondary education.
Stereotypes are a tool of social reproduction in that they are persistent and pervasive, holding
meaning across generations (Mills, 1997). Additionally, stereotypes function as subversive mechanisms through which self-concept can be manipulated. Stereotype threat does not address the
macro-level implications of stereotypes, per se, but targets how specific preconceived notions of
intelligence have relevance for students in the educational domain. Achievement measured by test
scores (Steele, 1997; Steele & Aronson, 1995) and strength of racial identity (Davis et al., 2006)
inform the strength of one’s academic domain identification. Students’ perceived self-efficacy
in school environments also factors into academic domain identification by shaping perceptions
of individual abilities to successfully complete tasks (Bandura, 1977; Stage, Muller, Kinzie, &
Simmons, 1998). However, self-efficacy is distinct from domain identification since it is possible
for one to see oneself as highly capable in school without rooting self-esteem and self-concept in
academic performance.
We do not wish to underestimate the resilience that many underrepresented students display
in the face of constraints or the unique strengths they bring to the experience of schooling. When
preserved, academic domain identification, for example, may also represent a vital resource that
broadens underrepresented students’ scope of future educational possibilities. Students of color
enter the educational system with rarely acknowledged forms of social and cultural capital, what
Yosso (2005) calls “community cultural wealth,” (p. 70) that operate beneath the dominant class
Downloaded by [University of Michigan] at 19:42 16 April 2012
288
MASSÉ ET AL.
radar. This subversive acquisition of valuable capital allows individuals to widen the scope of
possibilities for attending college despite structural constraints. For example, African American
communities have been found to activate social capital that is distinct from socio-historic white
institutions but is nonetheless instrumental in promoting strong academic achievement among
black students (Morris, 2004). Similarly, household funds of knowledge operate at the nexus
of culture and power and provide a critical lens for validating alternative ways of knowing.
This kind of community wealth occupies “that space between structure and agency, between the
received historical circumstances of a group, and the infinite variations that social agents are able
to negotiate within a structure” (González, 2005, p. 43). Acknowledging the contribution that
non-dominant cultural paradigms play in the resilience of oppressed groups creates opportunities
for educators to consider how these self-same assets can be leveraged as an affordance in working
with underrepresented students. Additionally, juxtaposing the strengths that black and Latino
communities can bring to bear on educational endeavors with the evidence of stereotype threat
strongly undermines the argument that deficient cultures are responsible for ethnic achievement
gaps (Steele & Aronson, 1998).
Strength of College Predisposition
While research typically discusses students’ enrollment decision as a dichotomous “whether
or not” conclusion, we view disposition toward college as a continuum. Students who weakly
identify with the academic domain may be less likely to develop a strong predisposition for
college since they perceive their probability of success as low. The strength of individuals’
academic domain identification may have an effect on their aspirations by late junior high/early
high school, when extant college predisposition develops into the search stage of student choice
for those who consider themselves to be college material (Hossler et al., 1999; Hossler & Stage,
1992). For even if one is less likely to pursue college immediately after high school, it does not
preclude their eventual enrollment, a reality reflected in the increased average age of college
students and the growth of non-traditionally aged college students (Kazis et al., 2007).
Reframing college predisposition as lifelong inclination provides another means to understand
college-going persistence among underrepresented students. Research on lifelong learning has
shown that linear educational pathways fail to capture the experience of many students (Pusser
et al., 2007). We speculate that once removed from a formal schooling, those with some inclination
to attend college may continue to identify with the academic domain since they are less likely to
face repeated, evaluative stereotype threats related to their intelligence. Alternatively, they may
have additional opportunities to accrue social and cultural capital that may be valued in a college
setting. Continued identification with academics and shifts in the capital one possesses may affect
one’s college-going habitus. While college attendance may have seemed improbable immediately
after high school, it may seem a more reasonable possibility at later points in time.
IMPLICATIONS
Researchers
Our theoretical reconceptualization of college predisposition creates opportunities for multiple
lines of research. While widely deployed as a theoretical framework in qualitative and quantitative
Downloaded by [University of Michigan] at 19:42 16 April 2012
INTEGRATING PERSPECTIVES ON INEQUALITY
289
research alike, there are no common criteria for operationalizing Bourdieuian constructs, such as
cultural and social capital. Although attempts have been made to correlate cultural capital and
habitus to college outcomes using statistical models (e.g., Nora, 2004; Perna & Titus, 2005),
American scholars have yet to come to consensus about what forms and qualities of capital
are valuable in our multicultural society. A strengths-based approach to understanding cultural
capital can discern what qualities within non-dominant cultures promote achievement and pave
pathways to success (Yosso, 2005). Research with academically successful Latino and black
males confirms that opportunities are enhanced not only through social capital generated through
relationships with powerful elites but also in peer networks (Harper, 2008; Stanton- Salazar,
2004). Investigating cultural traits specific to successful black and Latino students would allow
researchers to gain keener insight into how these communities overcome structural constraints to
achieve academic success. Furthermore, additional research is needed to investigate if and how
stereotype threat manifests among other underrepresented populations, such as Native Americans
and Asian Americans.
The literature on stereotype threat is limited to controlled experiments with college students;
therefore, additional research is needed to test the explanatory power of stereotype threat outside
of laboratory conditions and on broader populations. Extant literature on stereotype threat leaves
open the question of how stereotypes affect individuals’ sense of self beyond task-based scenarios.
As such, research is needed to discern the interplay between stereotype threat and other forms of
cognition such as self-efficacy, motivation, and attribution. Furthermore, stereotype threat studies
hypothesize that individuals disidentify with domains after repeated negative evaluation in order
to preserve self-esteem. However, we lack substantive longitudinal research to understand when
and how this process occurs for underrepresented students in the academic domain.
Practitioners
Because habitus is shaped in many contexts, it is unclear where specific interventions need to occur. To sustain a meaningful expansion of one’s habitus such that postsecondary education seems
possible, a multi-tiered approach may be needed to address conflicting messages that students
encounter in their family, schools, and communities. Despite support they may receive in one or
more of these contexts, underrepresented students are often caught in the nexus of negative societal assumptions about what comprises “college material.” The higher education community must
take more responsibility for creating successful K-16+ bridge programs that promote seamless
transitions along all stages of schooling. While many individual colleges and universities have
developed outreach programs, the national dialogue about whom college is for has often been
initiated by private organizations. Because forces of social reproduction undermine meritocratic
educational access, targeted interventions promoting academic domain identification among underrepresented students are necessary to counteract epistemological racism that has historically
excluded some groups from developing a college-going orientation. Ideally, partnerships between
the K-12 system and higher education institutions can be developed to promote a long-term vision
of postsecondary aspiration.
Policy
The research on stereotype threat suggests that high stakes testing takes a disproportionate
psychological toll on students who have internalized the burden of acting as representatives of their
Downloaded by [University of Michigan] at 19:42 16 April 2012
290
MASSÉ ET AL.
race in competitive situations. While we understand that standardized tests have a place in making
general assessments of students across populations, more attention must be paid to the possibility
that the net result of cumulative test-taking may be a decrease in students’ predisposition to
pursue additional education. Standardized tests also reduce the objective chances of high school
graduation among low-achieving students of color, as recent research on the California High
School Exit exam reveals (Reardon, Atteberry, Arshan, & Kurlander, 2009). As such, it may be
beneficial for education policymakers to consider requiring more purposeful, holistic assessments
of student learning.
Conceptions of social justice in higher education are not an endpoint, but rather a starting
point for a national conversation about our assumptions around college-going. Historically, higher
educational policy discourses have been constructed with an eye to multiple, competing, goals
for education that rest upon discrepant assumptions about the role higher education should play
(Posselt, 2009). Among these goals, the aim of social mobility rightfully draws attention to
unequal access, and thus merits a place in dialogues about social justice in education. However,
the vision of social mobility through educational attainment is maintained not only as a hope
of oppressed communities, but also as insurance among the privileged. Furthermore, structuring
education around opportunity for advancement implicitly validates a competitive system that (a)
demands prescribed definitions of merit to allocate rewards, (b) is both stratified and stratifying,
and (c) serves agendas of social and economic efficiency over democratic equality (Labaree,
1999). Social mobility goals, particularly those measured through the lens of human capital
development, are only sometimes congruent with the principle of social justice and are, thus, a
questionable basis for considering the relationship between college access and social justice.
CONCLUSION
Maximizing postsecondary educational access is more than a means of creating an equitable
occupational structure or competitive national economy. In addition to developing human capital,
higher education plays a role in developing dispositions and skills for participation in a diverse
democracy (Gurin, Dey, Hurtado, & Gurin, 2002; King, Kendall Brown, Lindsay, & VanHecke,
2007). Thus, enhancing equitable college access also has the potential to harness America’s
democratic potential. This essay presents one way of explaining how deeply entrenched biases
in our current educational system create obstacles to academic achievement, which may subsequently limit Blacks’ and Latino/as’ full and equitable participation in society to the detriment of
all.
REFERENCES
Aronson, J., Fried, C. B., & Good, C. (2002). Reducing the effects of stereotype threat on African American college
students by shaping theories of intelligence. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 38(2), 113–125.
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavior change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191–215.
Bourdieu, P. (1977). Outline of a theory of practice (R. Nice, trans.). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Bourdieu, P. (1984). Distinction: A social critique of the judgment of taste (R. Nice, Trans.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Downloaded by [University of Michigan] at 19:42 16 April 2012
INTEGRATING PERSPECTIVES ON INEQUALITY
291
Bourdieu, P. (1990). The logic of practice (R. Nice, trans.). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Bourdieu, P., & Passeron, J. C. (1990). Reproduction in education, society, and culture (2nd ed., R. Nice, trans.). Newbury
Park, CA: Sage.
Bourdieu, P., & Wacquant, L. J. D. (1992). An invitation to reflexive sociology. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Carter, D. F. (2003). College students’ degree aspirations: A theoretical model and literature review with a focus on
African American and Latino students. In J. Smart (Ed.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and research (vol.
19, pp. 129–172). New York, NY: Agathon.
Carter, P. L. (2005). Keepin’ it real: School success beyond black and white. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Davis, C., III, Aronson, J., & Salinas, M. (2006). Shades of threat: Racial identity as a moderator of stereotype threat.
The Journal of Black Psychology, 32(4), 399–417.
Dika, S. L., & Singh, K. (2002). Applications of social capital in educational literature: A critical synthesis. Review of
Educational Research, 72(1), 31–60.
Feagin, J. R., Vera, H., & Imani, N. (1996). The agony of education: Black students at white colleges and universities.
New York, NY: Routledge.
Freeman, K. (1999a). My soul is missing: African American students’ perceptions of the curriculum and the influence on
college choice. Review of African American Education, 1(1), 31–43.
Freeman, K. (1999b). The race factor in African Americans’ college choice. Urban Education, 34(1), 4–25.
Freeman, K. (2006). “If only my eyes were different”: The loss of identity and the under-utilization of black children’s
educational potential—Rethinking social justice and assimilation. In J. I. Zajda, S. Majhanovich, & V. D. Rust (Eds.),
Education and social justice (pp. 39–56). New York, NY: Springer.
Gonzales, P. M., Blanton, H., & Williams, K. J. (2002). The effects of stereotype threat and double-minority
status on the test performance of Latino women. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28(5), 659–
670.
González, N. (2005). Beyond culture: The hybridity of funds of knowledge. In N. González, L. C. Moll, & C. Amanti
(Eds.), Funds of knowledge: Theorizing practices in households, communities, and classrooms (pp. 29–46). Mahwah,
NJ: Erlbaum.
Grodsky, E., Warren, J. R., & Felts, E. (2008). Testing and social stratification in American education. Annual Review of
Sociology, 34, 385–404.
Gurin, P., Dey, E. L., Hurtado, S., & Gurin, G. (2002). Diversity and higher education: Theory and impact on educational
outcomes. Harvard Educational Review, 72(3), 330–367.
Harper, S. R. (2008). Realizing the intended outcomes of Brown: High-achieving African American male undergraduates
and social capital. American Behavioral Scientist, 51(7), 1029–1052.
Heller, C. S. (1966). Mexican American youth: Forgotten youth at the crossroads. New York, NY: Random House.
Hess, R. D., & Shipman, V. C. (1965). Early experience and the socialization of cognitive modes in children. Child
Development, 36(4), 869–886.
Horvat, E. M. (1997, March). Structure, standpoint and practices: The construction and meaning of Blackness for AfricanAmerican female high school seniors in the college choice process. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the
American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.
Horvat, E. M. N. (2001). Understanding equity and access in higher education: The potential contribution of Pierre
Bourdieu. In J. Smart (Ed.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and research (vol. 16, pp. 195–238). Memphis,
TN: Agathon.
Horvat, E. M. (2003). The interactive effects of race and class in educational research: Theoretical insights from the work of
Pierre Bourdieu. Perspectives on Urban Education. 2(1). Retrieved April 17, 2010, from http://www.urbanedjournal.
org/archive/Issue3/articles/article0009.html
Hossler, D., Schmit, J., & Vesper, N. (1999). Going to college: How social, economic, and educational factors influence
the decisions students make. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Hossler, D., & Stage, F. K. (1992). Family and high school experience influences on the postsecondary educational plans
of ninth-grade student. American Educational Research Journal, 29(2), 425–451.
Johnston, B. J. (2007). Class/culture/action: Representation, identity and agency in educational analysis. In J. A. Van
Galen & G. W. Noblit (Eds.), Late to class: Social class and schooling in the new economy (pp. 29–52). Albany, NY:
State University of New York Press.
Kao, G., & Tienda, M. (1998). Educational aspirations of minority youth. American Journal of Education, 106(3),
349–384.
Downloaded by [University of Michigan] at 19:42 16 April 2012
292
MASSÉ ET AL.
Karabel, J. (2005). The chosen: The hidden history of admission and exclusion at Harvard, Yale, and Princeton. New
York, NY: Houghton Mifflin.
Kazis, R., Callahan, A., Davidson, C., McLeod, A., Bosworth, B., Choitz, V., & Hoops, J. (2007). Adult learners in higher
education: Barriers to success and strategies to improve results. Retrieved from http://www.jff.org/sites/default/files/
adultlearners.dol .pdf
King, P. M., Kendall Brown, M., Lindsay, N. K., & VanHecke, J. R. (2007). Liberal arts student learning outcomes: An
integrated approach. About Campus: Enriching the Student Learning Experience, 12(4), 2–9.
Labaree, D. F. (1999). How to succeed in school without really learning: The credentials race in American education.
New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Lareau, A. (2003). Unequal childhoods: Class, race, and family life. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Lareau, A., & Horvat, E. M. (1999). Moments of social inclusion and exclusion: Race, class, and cultural capital in
family-school relationships. Sociology of Education, 72(1), 37–53.
Lemann, N. (2000). The big test: The secret history of the American meritocracy. New York, NY: Farrar Straus & Giroux.
Major, B., Spencer, S., Schmader, T., Wolfe, C., & Crocker, J. (1998). Coping with negative stereotypes about intellectual
performance: The role of psychological disengagement. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24(1), 34–
50.
McDonough, P. M. (1997). Choosing colleges: How social class and schools structure opportunity. Albany, NY: State
University of New York Press.
Mills, C. W. (1997). The racial contract. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Morgan, S. L., & Mehta, J. D. (2004). Beyond the laboratory: Evaluating the survey evidence for the disidentification
explanation of black-white differences in achievement. Sociology of Education, 77(1), 82–101.
Morris, J. E. (2004). Can anything good come from Nazareth? Race, class, and African American schooling and community
in the urban south and Midwest. American Educational Research Journal, 41(1), 69–112.
Moynihan, D. P. (1965). The Negro family: The case for national action. Washington, DC: US Department of Labor, US
Government Printing Office. Retrieved from http://www.dol.gov/oasam/programs/history/webid-meynihan.htm
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. (2002). Pub. L. No. 107-110, 115 Stat. 1425, 20 U.S.C. §§6301 et seq.
Nora, A. (2004). The role of habitus and cultural capital in choosing a college, transitioning from high school to higher
education, and persisting in college among minority and non-minority students. Journal of Hispanic Higher Education,
3(2), 180–208.
Ogbu, J. (1988). Class stratification, racial stratification, and schooling. In L. Weis (Ed.), Class, race, and gender in
American education (pp. 163–182). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Omi, M., & Winant, H. (1994). Racial formation in the United States: From the 1960s to the 1990s (2nd ed.). New York,
NY: Routledge.
Osborne, J. W. (1997). Race and academic disidentification. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89(4), 728–735.
Perna, L. W. & Titus, M. A. (2005). The relationship between parental involvement as social capital and college enrollment: An examination of racial/ ethnic group differences. Journal of Higher Education, 76(5), 485–
518.
Posselt, J. R. (2009). The rise and fall of need based grants: A critical review of presidential discourse on higher
education. In J. Smart (Ed.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and research (vol. 24, pp. 183–226). New York,
NY: Agathon.
Pusser, B., Breneman, D. W., Gansneder, B. M., Kohl, K. J., Levin, J. S., Milam, J. H., & Turner, S. E. (2007). Returning
to learning: Adults’ success in college is key to America’s future. Retrieved from http://www.luminafoundation.org/
publications/ReturntolearningApril2007.pdf
Reardon, S. F., Atteberry, A., Arshan, N., & Kurlander, M. (2009). Effects of the California high school exit exam on
student persistence, achievement, and graduation. Working paper #2009-12. Institute for Research on Educational
Policy and Practice. Palo Alto, CA.
Rosenthal, R., & Jacobson, L. (1968). Pygmalion in the classroom. The Urban Review, 3(1), 16–20.
Ryan, K. E., & Ryan, A. M. (2005). Psychological processes underlying stereotype threat and standardized math test
performance. Educational Psychologist, 40(1), 53–63.
Smith, J. L. (2004). Understanding the process of stereotype threat: A review of mediational variables and new performance
goal directions. Educational Psychology Review, 16(3), 177–206.
St. John, E. P. (with Asker, E. H.). (2003). Refinancing the college dream: Access, equal opportunity, and justice for
taxpayers. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Downloaded by [University of Michigan] at 19:42 16 April 2012
INTEGRATING PERSPECTIVES ON INEQUALITY
293
Stage, F. K., Muller, P. A., Kinzie, J., & Simmons, A. (1998). Creating learning centered classrooms: What does
learning theory have to say? ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report, Volume 26, No. 4. Washington, DC: The George
Washington University, Graduate School of Education and Human Development.
Stanton-Salazar, R. D. (2004). Social capital among working class minority students. In M. A. Gibson, P. C. Gandara, &
J. P. Koyama (Eds.), School connections: US Mexican youth, peers, and school achievement (pp. 18–37). New York,
NY: Teachers College Press.
Steele, C. M. (1997). A threat in the air: How stereotypes shape intellectual identity and performance. American
Psychologist, 52(6), 613–629.
Steele, C. M., & Aronson, J. (1995). Stereotype threat and the intellectual test performance of African Americans. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 69(5), 797–811.
Steele, C. M., & Aronson, J. (1998). Stereotype threat and the test performance of academically successful African
Americans. In C. Jencks & M. Phillips, (Eds.), (The Black-White test score gap (pp. 401–427). Washington, DC: The
Brookings Institution.
Stevens, M. L. (2007). Creating a class: College admissions and the education of elites. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Swartz, D. (1997). Culture and power: The sociology of Pierre Bourdieu. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Tatum, B. D. (2007). Can we talk about race? And other conversations in an era of school resegregation. Boston, MA:
Beacon Press.
Teranishi, R., & Brisco, K. (2006). Social capital and the racial stratification of college opportunity. In J. Smart (Ed.),
Higher education: Handbook of theory and research (vol 21, pp. 591–614). New York, NY: Agathon.
Urrieta, L., Jr. (2007). Orchestrating habitus and figured worlds: Chicana/o educational mobility and social class. In J.
A. Van Galen & G. W. Noblit (Eds.), Late to class: Social class and schooling in the new economy (pp. 113–140).
Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Vélez-Ibáñez, C., & Greenberg, J. (2005). Formation and transformation of funds of knowledge. In N. González, L. C.
Moll, & C. Amanti (Eds.), Funds of knowledge: Theorizing practices in households, communities, and classrooms
(pp. 47–69). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Yosso, T. J. (2005). Whose culture has capital? A critical race theory discussion of community cultural wealth. Race,
Ethnicity and Education, 8(1), 69–91.
Johanna C. Massé is a doctoral student in the Center for the Study of Higher and Postsecondary Education at the University of Michigan. Her research focuses on nonlinear postsecondary
educational pathways, qualitative research methodologies, and Asian Americans in higher education.
Rosemary J. Perez is a doctoral candidate in the Center for the Study of Higher and Postsecondary Education at the University of Michigan. Her research interests include college student
development, learning via intergroup dialogues, and professional socialization processes.
Julie R. Posselt is a doctoral candidate in the Center for the Study of Higher and Postsecondary
Education at the University of Michigan. Her current research interests center on the sociology
of education, including faculty judgment in graduate admissions, stratification in educational
choices and opportunities, and the role of education in a diverse democracy.