Capital access and its mobilization for academic achievement: A case of Indian higher education system

Abstract

Previous research has demonstrated a strong relationship between access to capital and academic achievement. The present study explores the mediating role of the individual mindset and class perception in the capital–achievement relation. A survey-based study is conducted on 314 Delhi based undergraduate students. Different measures/proxies of various forms of capital and achievement are used. To see the role of the individual mindset, psychological resources of individual are considered and operationalized in terms of self-motivation and self-confidence. Results show that economic, social, and cultural capital have a significant influence on academic achievement. However, class perception and involvement in highbrow activities do not show any role in academic achievement. Results further reveal a significant mediating role of psychological resources in the capital–achievement relation. Results demonstrate that in the Indian higher education system, various forms of capital largely shape academic achievement and psychological resources significantly facilitate this relationship. Though the individual mindset can help in breaking this capital–achievement nexus, mostly it seems to be facilitating the relation. The results and implications of the study are discussed.

Keywords

Forms of capital capital theory higher education Indian education system psychological resources class perception

So long as society remains unequal there will be some inequality in access to higher education. Yet there is some leakage in both directions. (Williams and Filippakou, 2010: 2)

The notion of capital has always been fascinating not only for economists and businessmen but also for sociologists, philosophers, educationalists, and policy researchers. Though the concept of capital was originally restricted to economic and trade activities, however, in the last few decades it has been expanded as can be seen in the proposal of various forms of capital, like human capital, social capital, cultural capital, and so on. The capital is defined as “investment of resources with expected return in the marketplace. Capital is a resource when these resources are invested and mobilized in pursuit of profit-as a goal in action.” (Lin, 2001: 3). Research on various forms of capital shows the important role of capital in academic achievement (Bodovski et al., 2017; Boxman et al.,1991; Conley, 2001; De Graaf, 1986; DiMaggio, 1982; Orr, 2003; Parcel andDufur, 2001; Sullivan, 2001). However, the role of individual psychology in this capital–achievement relationship is largely neglected. Scholars have acknowledged the presence of a loophole in the capital–achievement relationship (e.g. Williams and Filippakou, 2010), i.e., when on one hand, due to low availability of capital some may not get access to higher education, on the other, some, despite enjoying high availability of capital, fail to get higher education. But researchers seldom try to capture what leads to the creation of such a loophole. Also, they fail to address the question of whether capital influences achievement in the same way for different individuals. One possible phenomenon that might intervene in this capital–achievement relationship is the achiever's mindset. Previous research has not looked into the fact that psychological resources can also be used and invested to procure desirable outcomes in the form of monetary profit or any other profit of tangible nature.

Although, the individual mindset, specifically, the psychological resources, restrict the understanding of the loophole in the capital–achievement relationship; it, however, may help in understanding the reproduction of capital in society, especially in higher education. From Marx (1867/1977) to Bourdieu (1985), several scholars have stated that the reproduction of capital exists in society. They have talked about the structure and the implications at the macro level but issues such as why some individuals are highly involved in maintaining their status quo in society, and why others are less worried about their present status, have not well been addressed. A missing aspect in the current literature is why individuals differ in their motivational levels. For example, in a family, two children having the same access to capital have differing levels of success in their lives. The important factor here could be the individual psyche which is essential for the capital reproduction cycle. However, this key issue has been highly neglected in research on capital theories. Lin (2001) is one of the few scholars who explicitly talk about how and why individuals acquire capital. He stated that both the individual and the society need a motive, not only for generating valued resources but also for maintaining the resources which are valued. The capital acquisition is not possible without motivation (Lin, 2001). Examples of people, who have achieved success with minimum resources also go on to further the importance of psychological resources. Albeit the fact that such examples in the society are very limited, there must be some explanation that could address the success stories of the small number of individuals who became successful despite having limited access to capital. A plausible explanation for these success stories/instances may come from achievers’ psychological resources.

Indian educational system

Studies mentioned earlier and others have shown that various forms of capital (i.e. economic, cultural, and social) play a very important role in an individuals’ educational attainment, however, this relation remains largely unexplored in the context of the Indian educational system. The Indian education system is different from the Western education system in many ways, such as Indian culture itself, scarcer sources and opportunities, and educational policies and practices. Scholars have shown that Indian culture is different from dominant Western culture in many ways (see Kakar and Kakar, 2007; Sinha, 2008); it is collectivistic (Hofstede, 1980; Marriott, 1990; Sinha and Verma, 1987; Triandis, 1995), hierarchical and high on masculinity (Hofstede, 1980). Sinha (1990) found that in India antagonistic features co-exist such as collectivism-individualism, structural hierarchical orientation-achieved hierarchical orientation, spiritualism-materialism, masculinity-femininity, personalized relation-contractual relation. Several cultural and cross-cultural studies show the differences in culture, values, and traditions between Indian and western culture. For example, the collectivist nature of Indian culture led scholars (Agarwal and Misra 1986; Misra and Agarwal, 1985) to find that achievement in India does not imply the individual’s success but the success of a group, well-being of others, fulfillment of one’s duties, etc., which is quite different from the Western individualistic notions of success. These cultural differences not only shape the meaning of achievement but may also influence the way various resources/capital influence achievement.

The current educational scenario in India is reflected in the quote of Dube (1997: 13), “education continues to be elitist in character and is oriented to the maintenance of status quo”. In a similar vein, Raina and Srivastava (2000: 104) write “the available programs employ education as a vehicle for identifying excellence, which favors a handful of individuals belonging to the upper-middle class”. Nambisan (1996) explored how schooling of Dalits (backward or disadvantaged groups) was different compared to that of upper caste groups and reflected that “besides poor infrastructural facilities, lack of effective pedagogic supports to acquire linguistic, numerical and cognitive competencies adversely affect the schooling of Dalit children” (1996: 1011). These researchers show the substandard as well as the dual nature of the Indian education system. Against this backdrop, one may explore how various forms of capital influence academic achievement in the Indian context.

Forms of capital and academic achievement

Applications of various forms of capital have been examined in various realms of individual life (e.g., Brehn and Rahn, 1997; Lin, 2001; Lin et al., 1981; Walsh, 1935). Numerous studies show that various forms of capital (i.e., economic, cultural, and social) play a very important role in an individual’s educational attainment and achievement (Boxman et al.,1991; Conley, 2001; De Graaf, 1986; DiMaggio, 1982; Orr, 2003; Parcel and Dufur, 2001; Sullivan, 2001). Some of these studies explore the role of a singular form of capital (e.g., DiMaggio, 1982; Sullivan, 2001) while others enhance its understanding by using multiple forms of capital in their analysis (e.g., Orr, 2003; Parcel and Dufur, 2001).

Previous studies have established a positive relationship between access to economic capital, individuals’ educational achievement, and attainment (Conley, 1999; Duncan et al., 1994; Huston, 1991; Parcel and Dufur, 2001). Orr (2003) argues that wealth is a possible cause of the difference in the educational attainment of whites and blacks. He locates the influence of economic capital in academic achievement and the intervening role of cultural capital and social capital in this process. Conley (2001) discussed the important role of parental wealth in the academic achievement of college students.

Studies on social capital not only show its importance for organizations (e.g., Adler and Kwon, 2002; Leana and van Buren, 1999; Nahapiet and Ghoshal, 1998) and society/community (Allik and Realo 2004; Coleman 1988) but also for individuals (e.g., Boxman et al.,1991; Burt 1992; Gabbay and Zuckerman, 1998; Israel et al., 2001; Lin et al., 1981; Varma and Varma, 2009). These studies examined the role of social capital on individuals’ lives in different realms, such as in educational achievement (Israel et al., 2001; Orr, 2003; Parcel and Dufur, 2001), success in business organizations (Boxman et al., 1991; Burt 1992), and success as entrepreneurs (Varma and Varma, 2009). Parcel and Dufur (2001) examined social capital at two levels: at the level of the family and the level of the school. Family-level capital included resources owned and invested by parents, and school-level capital included various resources owned by the school. They found that family-level social capital was more important for academic achievement, although school-level capital also showed a significant role. Orr (2003) found the mediating role of social capital in the relationship between economic capital and academic achievement. Sagas and Cunningham (2005) did not find any mediating role of social capital in the relationship between race and career achievement of football coaches, however, their results showed a significant difference in access to social and human capital due to race. Linnehan et al. (2011) showed that socio-economic status, which helped students in developing access to social capital, played a significant role even in getting favorable guidance from the high-school counselor.

Bourdieu defined cultural capital as “instruments for the appropriation of symbolic wealth socially designated as worthy of being sought and possessed” (Bourdieu, 1977: 489). After his first essay on cultural capital and its role on educational attainment and class reproduction, a series of articles were published on the role of cultural capital in educational achievement (De Graaf, 1986; DiMaggio, 1982; Frakas et al., 1990; Roscigno and Ainsworth-Darnell, 1999; Sullivan, 2001). These studies showed the direct and significant effect of cultural capital on educational achievement (DiMaggio, 1982; Sullivan, 2001). Many studies on cultural capital have used highbrow activities, the activities in which generally elite class members participate and reflect their cultural superiority, such as attending classical concerts, visiting museums or galleries, as an indicator of cultural capital and have found a significant positive impact of involvement in highbrow activities on academic achievement (e.g., DiMaggio, 1982; DiMaggio and Mohr, 1985; Orr, 2003; Robinson and Garnier, 1985).

Based on the above-discussed literature following hypotheses are formulated

H1a. Access to economic capital will positively influence academic performance.

H1b. Access to social capital will positively influence academic performance.

H1b. Access to cultural capital will positively influence academic performance.

Psychological resources

The psychological resource is an overarching phrase that includes various inner resources, such as a sense of control, self-efficacy, motivation, optimism, etc., which help individuals in both nonmonetary as well as monetary aspects. A line of research showed the uses of psychological resources in various realms of individuals’ health, be it physical health (Taylor et al., 2000), stress (Kiviruusu et al., 2013), or well-being (Wood et al., 2007). The role of psychological resources can be extended beyond health and well-being, i.e. towards facilitating and producing the desired outcomes. One possible outcome may be an educational achievement. Self-efficacy and motivation are the two most widely researched individual-level variables in the area of academic achievement. Various researches in educational psychology, from self-determination theory (Deci and Ryan, 1985; Ryan and Deci, 2000) to achievement goal theory (Dweck and Elliot, 1983; Meece et al., 2006; Pintrich and Schunk, 2002), showed the importance of motivation and/or self-efficacy in academic achievement. Though these researchers did not use the term psychological resource explicitly, one can label them as psychological resources based on the functions they serve. While previous studies have established the significant impact of motivation and self-efficacy on academic achievement, the present research goes beyond in exploring the role of motivation and self-efficacy, through the relationship between capital and achievement.

H2: Psychological resources will significantly mediate the relationship between various forms of capital and academic performance.

Class perception

Most of the research on capital and academic achievement has used objective measures of various forms of capital. There are, however, works, which show the important role of social class in education from a choice of education, academic attainment, to academic achievement (Argyle, 1994; Ball et al., 2002; Bourdieu, 1985; Hatcher, 1998). Class perception is different from the objective classification of class. Vanneman (1980) believes that class perception is a cognitive component of class consciousness. He further mentions that perception of the class lies only at the lowest level of class consciousness, therefore, it is the base of class consciousness and the most important aspect of class identity (Vanneman, 1980). Recent research shows that class perception/class ranking influences various social aspects such as pro-social behavior, attribution, health, subjective well-being, social interaction, emotional recognition, etc. (e.g., Fiske, 2012; Fiske and Markus, 2012; Kraus et al., 2010; Piff et al., 2010). The present research explores the possibility that class perception may influence student academic achievement. The rationale is the class reproduction hypothesis (Bourdieu, 1985), according to which higher-class individuals are continuously motivated to maintain their class. If this is the case then it is likely that students belonging to higher classes will try very hard to maintain their social position by securing high grades.

H3: Class perception will significantly mediate the relationship between various forms of capital and academic performance.

Method

Participants

The participants of the study were undergraduate students from different institutions based in the Delhi National Capital Region (NCR), India. A total of 314 students participated in the study. One hundred and ninety participants were males and 124 were females; 120 participants were from the rural background, 169 from the urban background, and 28 did not report the place to which they belonged. Since more than 90 percent of valid data were of Hindu participants, therefore, religion was not included in the analysis. Similarly, the caste of the participants was also asked, however, around 50 percent of participants did not disclose their caste, therefore, it is not used in the final analysis.

Measures

The study included six main variables: economic capital, social capital, cultural capital, psychological resources, class perception, and academic performance. Multiple indicators/proxies were used to reduce error.

Economic Capital. Different researchers have used different indicators as a proxy to measure access to economic capital. Orr (2003) measures economic capital through wealth (value of assets minus any debt); Conley (2001) measures it through the family’s permanent income (average of last five years’ income); Parcel and Dufur (2001) use the hourly wages of parents. Two different indicators were considered in this study to measure economic capital:

Family’s annual income. Participants were asked to report the gross family annual income from all sources.

Tuition fee. Participants were asked (only engineering students) to mention the money they paid for pre-engineering coaching/tuition (if any).

Social Capital. The operationalization of social capital is rather vague, therefore, there are several approaches to measure social capital. While some measure it by membership in voluntary organizations and trust in community/society (Brehn and Rahn, 1997; Putnam, 1995), others measure it in terms of parental engagement in children’s activities (e.g. Coleman, 1988; Orr, 2003; Parcel and Dufur, 2001). Still, others follow the network model (e.g., Lin, 2001) and a few others believe that friends and acquaintances represent social capital (e.g., Burt, 1992). In the present study, social capital is measured through the following indicators:

Facebook networking. In recent studies, Facebook uses has been widely examined as social capital (e.g., Brandtzæg, 2012; Ellison et al., 2007; Stefanone et al., 2012). It not only serves the purpose of maintaining strong and semi-strong relations but also helps in developing and maintaining weak ties. Though most scholars have assessed the activities and quality of engagement in Facebook as social capital, however, some studies have also shown a relationship between the number of Facebook friends and social capital (e.g. Ellison et al., 2011). Similar to that, in the present study, participants were asked to provide the actual number of friends on their Facebook account.

Membership of organization/society. It was asked to understand formal ties and social participation. Participants were asked whether they were members of any society or voluntary organization. If the participants’ answered yes, then they had to further disclose the frequency of their participation in, meetings and activities of the organization/society. The frequency was measured on a five-point scale ranging from never to always.

Cultural Capital. In previous studies, different indicators have been used to measure cultural capital. While Bourdieu (1985) believed that parental education and participation in highbrow activities are adequate indicators of cultural capital, Sullivan (2001) stated that only those features of culture that produce monetary profit should be the indicators of cultural capital. Similar to Bourdieu, several researchers use parents’ education as a proxy of cultural capital (e.g., Halsey et al., 1980; Jonsson, 1987; Robinson and Garnier, 1985). Several others measure cultural capital in the form of attitude or behaviour towards cultural activities such as music, visiting galleries, art, and theatre (e.g., DiMaggio, 1982; DiMaggio and Mohr, 1985; Orr, 2003; Robinson and Garnier, 1985). A few others use parents’ attitudes and involvement in cultural activities as a proxy of children’s cultural capital (De Graaf, 1986; De Graaf et al., 2000; Kalmijn and Kraaykamp, 1996). Sullivan (2001) also considers knowledge of the language as an important indicator of cultural capital in his study and measures it through a vocabulary test. In the present study, cultural capital has been measured through the following indicators:

Parental education. Similar to previous studies (e.g., Halsey et al., 1980; Jonsson, 1987; Robinson and Garnier, 1985), the present study also uses parents’ education as a proxy of cultural capital. Participants were asked to mention the highest degree obtained by their father as well as by their mother.

English proficiency. Language or even accent is treated as part of cultural capital in several studies. In the Indian scenario, knowledge of the language, particularly English, has become very important due to globalization. Srivastava (2008: 368) writes “[English] is considered a vehicle for social mobility and economic advancement”. Many previous studies have shown the role of perceived proficiency of English on academic achievement (e.g. Martirosyan et al., 2015), therefore, in the present study, we also used perceived proficiency instead of their actual marks or grades in earlier English tests. Apart from that one more indicator was used to measure the language proficiency, i.e. the schooling medium: English or non-English. Therefore, to measure the English proficiency two indicators were used: (1) whether or not the primary and/or secondary education of participant took place in an English-medium school; and (2) the individual’s own perception about his/her fluency in English, which measured on a four-point scale, ranging from poor to excellent. English proficiency was calculated by combining these two indicators.

Highbrow activities. Similar to previous research (e.g., DiMaggio, 1982; DiMaggio and Mohr, 1985; Orr, 2003; Robinson and Garnier, 1985), in the present study, cultural capital has also been measured through participation in several highbrow activities. These activities include participation in different cultural activities such as music, dance, and theater-participation in literary activities; and visiting museums. Participants were asked to respond on a five-point scale as to how much they participated/spent time in these activities in the last year.

Psychological Resources. In this study, two psychological resources were considered- the individual’s self-efficacy, and motivation. Though there are several scales and tests to measure motivation and self-confidence/self-efficacy, however, none are available with Indian norms. Therefore, a scale was constructed to measure these two variables in the Indian context. In the beginning, 15 items were constructed for each variable. These items were rated by three Ph.D. psychology students. Based on their ratings, some items were deleted (due to repetition, ambiguity, high desirability, and low face validity). Some items were paraphrased and rewritten. The remaining items with other variables were administered to 130 students as a pilot study. Item analysis such as item discrimination, total item correlation, skewness, mean, and standard deviation, was performed. Based on item analysis, the best five items from both dimensions were selected. These 10 items were included in the final questionnaire. The data analysis of a sample of the study (314 participants) showed that one item of self-efficacy had high cross-loading with the other variables, therefore, only four items of self-efficacy were considered for the final analysis. To see the internal reliability of the scale and subscales, Chronbac’s alpha values were calculated. Cronbach’s alphas of self-confidence and self-motivation for the present sample were .83 and .82 respectively. The 9 items scale had a total of .86 Cronbach’s alpha.

Class Perception. Previous research has measured class perception using various categorization, e.g. the upper, upper-middle, lower-middle, lower class continuum (Landecker, 1963); upper, middle, working, lower class continuum (Centers, 1949); middle-class and working-class dichotomy (Stephens et al., 2007; Vanneman and Pampel, 1977); and upper-class, lower-class dichotomy (Côtéet al., 2013), in a 10-point ladder (Kraus et al., 2010). In our study, a five-point continuum was used based on Jackman and Jackman (1973), with one minor change: while Jackman and Jackman used the upper class, upper-middle class, middle class, working class, and lower class classification, we replaced ‘working class’ with ‘lower-middle class’, since in India the notion of ‘working class’ is not frequently used. The participants, therefore, were asked to choose their social class amongst five classes: lower class, lower-middle class, middle class, upper-middle class, and upper class. A total of 5.7 percent of the participants identified themselves with the upper class, 28.7 percent with the upper-middle class, 58.4 percent with the middle class, 10.0 percent with the lower-middle class, and the remaining 1.1 percent with the lower class.

Academic Performance. Students’ achievements have been measured in different ways by different scholars. DiMaggio (1982) measured achievement through self-reported grades in English, history, social studies, mathematics, etc.; Sullivan (2001) measured it through grades in the GCSE examination; and Orr (2003) used the mathematical sub-score of PIAT-1996. Katsillis and Rubinson (1990) used retrospective measures of academic achievement: they considered the GPA of Class 11 students currently studying in Class 12. We used three indicators in our study: Class 10th grade; Class 12th grade; and All-India Rank in the Joint Entrance Examination (AIRJEE, for engineering students only).

Demographic Variables. We also enquired about the participants’ gender, age, the place to which they belonged (i.e. rural or urban), caste, and religion.

Procedure. Data was collected from five randomly selected Delhi based colleges. Two of them were engineering colleges and the remaining three were non-engineering colleges. Data was collected in the classroom setting with the help of class instructors. Undergraduate classes were chosen for data collection during their regular class hours. The class instructors introduced the researchers to the class. Researchers explained the purpose of the study and the process of responding in brief in the class and requested students to volunteer for the study. It was explained that it would take only 15 to 20 minutes to complete the questionnaire and that their participation is completely voluntary. They were told that they could leave any question they answer of which they were uncomfortable in delivering or were unsure of. They were also told that they could withdraw from the study at any stage. The questionnaire was self administrable and printed in the English language. All the participants needed to provide informed consent before filling the questionnaire. A total of 395 questionnaires were distributed out of which 350 were received back. However, 36 out of the received questionnaires were not useful since those were mostly incomplete. Therefore only 314 valid data were collected. After data collection participants were debriefed about the purpose of the study in detail and were thanked for their participation.

Data Analysis. Since multiple indicators of various forms of capital were the measures, it was essential to add several indicators to assess the access of capital. The units of the indicators were also different. For instance, as in the case of cultural capital, parental education, English proficiency, and highbrow activities were measured in different units, therefore, these indicators were standardized before computing. The average of standardization of each form of capital was calculated, e.g., social capital was computed by adding the standardized score of Facebook networking and membership of organization/society. The same process was followed for academic performance, where, the average of standardized scores of Class 10th grade, Class 12th grade, and AIRJEE were calculated. In the cases where data was unavailable, such as for coaching fees, AIRJEE, and missing values, only of the remaining indicators were added and averaged. For example, for those who had an AIRJEE score, academic performance was computed from Class 10 marks, Class 12 marks, and AIRJEE, but for those who did not have an AIRJEE score, academic performance was calculated using only Class 10 and Class 12 marks.

Results

Table 1 shows the descriptive and bivariate analysis of various study variables. Results show strong correlations among various indicators of different capital. For instance, as in the case of cultural capital, all three indicators- father’s education, mother’s education, and English proficiency - are found to be highly correlated. Highbrow activities did not show any significant relationship with any forms of academic achievement therefore it was dropped in further analyses.

Table 1.

Descriptive and bivariate analysis of the study variable.

	Mean	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14
1. Family annual income^a	7408.46	7024.31	1
2. Coaching fees^a^,e	898.22	683.75	.70**	1
3. Facebook networking	218.10	169.82	.28**	.20**	1
4. Membership of society^b	1.64	1.90	.16*	.18*	.23**	1
5. Father’s education	14.62	2.58	.28**	.12	.24**	.13*	1
6. Mother’s education	13.33	3.64	.33**	.01	.24**	.12*	.50**	1
7. English proficiency	5.06	1.86	.32**	.11	.37**	.11	.33**	.43**	1
8. Highbrow activities^b	2.56	.68	.03	–.03	–.03	.05	.01	.06	.04	1
9. Self-confidence^b	3.82	.82	.10	.11	.21**	.03	.12*	.13*	.25**	.00	1
10. Self-Motivation^b	3.90	.79	.05	.17*	.07	.11	.05	.02	.18**	.05	.54**	1
11. Class perception^b	3.28	.77	.39**	.20**	.21**	.11	.25**	.31**	.38**	.08	.09	–.11	1
12. Class 10th Marks^c	79.38	10.52	.16**	.31**	.37**	.14*	.24**	.11	.20**	–.02	.24**	.23**	–.05	1
13. Class 12th Marks^c	76.96	12.12	.32**	.29**	.44**	.28**	.25**	.15*	.31**	–.03	.29**	.33**	–.04	.65**	1
14. AIR-JEE^d^,e	---	---	−.13	−.31**	−.33**	−.16*	−.18**	−.02	−.11	.12	−.32**	−.29**	.22**	−.55**	−.64**	1

Note: N = 314. ^aFamily annual income and coaching fees were given in US$(@1US$= 70INR).

^bAverage scores are given on a five-point scale.

^cClass 10th and 12th marks are given in percentage.

^dAIR-JEE = All India Rank – Joint Entrance Examination; AIR-JEE is a reverse indicator, which means lower rank shows better achievement.

^eN = 204.

*p< .05, **p<.01.

Table 2 shows the relationship between various forms of capital, class perception, and academic achievement. It shows that economic capital significantly correlates with social capital, cultural capital, and psychological resources. Social capital shows a significant positive correlation with psychological resources and cultural capital. Cultural capital shows a significant positive correlation with psychological resources. In addition, Table 2 shows that all forms of capital significantly and positively correlate with academic achievement. Class perception shows no relation with psychological resources and academic achievement, but it is positively related to economic, social, and cultural capital.

Table 2.

Correlational analysis between various forms of capital and various indicators of achievement.

	Economic capital	Cultural capital	Social capital	Psychological resources	Class perception	Academic achievement
Economic capital	1
Cultural capital	.393***	1
Social capital	.343***	.328***	1
Psychological resources	.121*	.179**	.166**	1
Class perception	.295***	.375***	.186**	−.011	1
Academic achievement	.356***	.284**	.359***	.252***	.087	1

*p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.

Table 3 shows the results of structural equation modeling; the table shows the fit indices of five models. Model 1, the three-capital model, estimates the effects of social, cultural, and economic capital on educational achievement. Model 2 includes psychological resources as well in the Model 1 variables. Model 3 includes three forms of capital, psychological resources, and class perception, but is not a co-variance model. The results show poor-fit indices for these three models. The result of the hypothesised model shows better-fit indices in comparison to previous models. Root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) is an absolute measure of lack of fit (Steiger, 1990). The cut-off level of RMSEA is <0.080, recommended by Browne and Cudeck (1993). For the hypothesised model, the RMSEA value (.084) just crossed the minimum limit to get accepted. Though all other fit indices such as goodness of fit index (GFI), comparative fit index (CFI), are acceptable, we explored a better model because of a high RMSEA. Therefore, an alternative model was tested with no direct link from economic capital to psychological resources and from social capital to class perception. These two direct relations were deleted on the basis of the regression weightage of model 4. The results of the alternative model show best-fit indices including RMSEA value (.029).

Table 3.

Results of structural equation modelling.

Model	χ²	χ²/df	GFI	AGFI	CFI	IFI	RMSEA
Three capital model	107.599	35.866	.841	.409	.399	.402	.334
Three capital and psychological resources model	107.599	35.866	.868	.342	.540	.554	.334
Three capital, psychological resources, and class perception model	110.826	27.707	.885	.397	.573	.592	.292
Hypothesised model	3.227	3.227	.997	.928	.991	.992	.084
Best fit model	3.785	1.262	.996	.972	.997	.997	.029

Note: Three capital model includes economic, social and cultural capital only; four capital model includes three capital and psychological resource; hypothesised model is given in Figure 1; best fit model is same like hypothesised model except for no direct link from social capital to class perception and no direct link from economic capital to psychological resources.

Figure 2 shows that economic capital (R² = .232***), social capital (R² = .222***), and cultural capital (R² = .114*) significantly predict academic achievement. These results display the significant impact of various forms of capital on academic achievement. The results further show the significant role of psychological resources (R² = .165**) in academic achievement, which supports our first hypothesis. However, no mediating role of class perception in capital-academic achievement was found (R² = .064), therefore hypothesis 3 was refuted.

Discussion

The results confirm the findings of previous studies which show the importance of various forms of capital in academic and career achievement (e.g., Boxman et al., 1991; Burt, 1992; Conley, 1999; De Graaf, 1986; DiMaggio, 1982; Farkas et al., 1990; Gabbay and Zuckerman, 1998; Huston, 1991; Parcel and Dufur, 2001). This shows that be it the western education system or the Indian, access to capital helps significantly towards educational achievement. Those who have limited access to capital have been struggling with low-quality education from the days of their early schooling. This early-life low-standard of education causes failure in later academic performance. Every academic achievement influences the next; as we can see from the results of Table 1, there is a strong correlation between Class 10, Class 12^, and AIRJEE performance. Therefore, the main question in India is not about access to schools/colleges but the access to quality schools/colleges. Shiva Kumar (2003: 14) correctly says that to improve the Indian educational system, “we have to develop zero tolerance for inferior education and for a two-track schooling system”.

The result of structural equation modeling (presented in Table 3 and Figure 2) has been used for hypotheses testing. The results support our second hypothesis, that is, psychological resources play a significant role in the capital–achievement relationship. Psychological resources emerge as a strong predictor of academic achievement and are also an intervening agent between various forms of capital and academic achievement. Similar to the line of previous research that showed the usefulness of various psychological resources in health-related issues (Kiviruusu et al., 2013; Taylor et al., 2000; Wood et al., 2007), the present study shows its usefulness in academic achievement. This is important because of two reasons: first, it may help in explaining why all high-on-capital-access students do not perform highly; second, it helps in understanding how psychological resources can be deployed for better achievement in this highly competitive era.

Class perception does not show a mediating role between capital and academic achievement. This result is crucial in the sense that objective access to resources matters in academic achievement, rather than our perception about it. Class perception showed an influence on helping behaviour, attribution processes, attitudes, and beliefs (Fiske and Markus, 2012; Piff et al., 2010), however, we did not find a direct or an indirect effect of class perception on educational achievement.

The results display a significant positive correlation between various forms of capital. This shows consistency with the proposition given by Bourdieu (1985), that there must be a relationship between various forms of capital. Though psychological resources do not show a very strong correlation with other forms of capital, the correlation is positive and significant. This means, though, the psychological resources are not highly dependent on capital, they are not totally free from access to other forms of capital as well. Another striking result is that there is no role of engagement in highbrow activities on academic achievement; however, previous studies of US and European countries (e.g., DiMaggio, 1982; DiMaggio and Mohr, 1985; Orr, 2003; Robinson and Garnier, 1985) display that engagement in highbrow activities positively influences academic achievement. This contradictory result can be attributed to two possibilities: the first may be the influence of the Indian context, where cultural, sports, and extracurricular activities are treated as obstacles in educational achievement rather than complement; the second possibility could be the measurement of highbrow activities. Previous studies (e.g., DiMaggio and Mohr, 1985; Orr, 2003; Robinson and Garnier, 1985) used the frequency of participation in these activities, however, in the present study, the participants were asked to mention how much they participated in a particular activity on a 5 point scale. Since in the present study, rather than asking the actual participation, we asked the view of participants about their participation and, therefore, it is a possibility that these ratings might have been influenced by their perception of their contribution as well as their reference point of comparison.

Conclusion

The present study shows three important aspects: firstly, the Indian higher education system is reproducing class like any Western education system; secondly, psychological resources plays an important role in understanding the capital and achievement relationship; and thirdly, it shows that objective class or access to capital affects academic achievement and there is no role of class perception. The study also shows that in the Indian context, highbrow activities can not be treated as cultural capital, at least not in an educational setting. The present research has some limitations. For instance, the present study has been unable to capture caste, which is yet another important social stratification prevalent in the Indian culture, that could exert an influence on the capital–achievement relation.

The quotation at the beginning of this paper states that though there is upward and downward mobility through education, education still remains the biggest tool of maintaining the status quo in society. One possible reason for this loophole, whether upward or downward, could be students’ psychological resources. Some of whom are highly motivated and confident are able to achieve much with a little help from other capitals; on the other hand, students with no motivation and low confidence cannot convert their capital into achievement. The paper does not claim that anyone with limited or no access to capital may achieve whatever he/she wants with the help of psychological resources. The only claim of the paper is that of the catalytic role of the individual mindset in the relationship between capital access and achievement. It also argues that objective access to capital is more important for academic achievement than the subjective feeling of it in terms of class perception.

Figure 1.

Hypothesised model.

Figure 2.

Best fit model with regression and correlation value.

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Saurabh Maheshwari

References

Adler

Kwon

(2002) Social capital: Prospects for a new concept. The Academy of Management Review 27(1): 17–40.

Agarwal R and Misra G (1986) A factor analytic study of achievement goals and means: an Indian view. International Journal of Psychology 21(1–4): 717–731.

Allik

Realo

(2004) Individualism-collectivism and social capital. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 35(1): 29–49.

Argyle

(1994) The Psychology of Social Class. London: Routledge.

Ball

Davies

David

, et al. (2002) Classification and judgement: Social class and the cognitive structures of choice of higher education. British Journal of Sociology of Education 23(1): 51–72.

Bodovski

Jeon

Byun

(2017) Cultural capital and academic achievement in post-socialist Eastern Europe. British Journal of Sociology of Education 38(6): 887–907.

Bourdieu

(1977) Cultural reproduction and social reproduction. In: Karabel

Halsey

(eds) Power and Ideology in Education. New York, NY: Oxford, pp.487–511.

Bourdieu

(1985) The forms of capital. In: Richardson

(ed.) Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education. New York, NY: Greenwood, pp.241–258.

Boxman

De Graaf

Flap

(1991) The impact of social and human capital on the income attainment of Dutch managers. Social Networks 13(1): 51–73.

10.

Brandtzæg

(2012) Social networking sites: Their users and social implications – A longitudinal study. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 17(4): 467–488.

11.

Brehn

Rahn

(1997) Individual-level evidence for the causes and consequences of social capital. American Journal of Political Science 41(3): 999–1023.

12.

Browne

Cudeck

(1993) Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In: Bollen

Long

(eds) Testing Structural Equation Models. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp.136–162.

13.

Burt

(1992) Structural Holes: The Social Structure of Competition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

14.

Centers (1949) RThe Psychology of Social Classes. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

15.

Coleman

(1988) Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology 94: S95–S121.

16.

Conley

(1999) Being Black, Living in the Red: race, Wealth, and Social Policy in America. Berkley, CA: University of California Press.

17.

Conley

(2001) Capital for college: Parental assets and postsecondary schooling. Sociology of Education 74(1): 59–72. doi:10.2307/2673145.

18.

Côté

Piff

Willer

(2013) For whom do the ends justify the means? Social class and utilitarian moral judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 104(3): 490–503.

19.

Deci EL and Ryan RM (1985) The general causality orientations scale: Self-determination in personality. Journal of Research in Personality 19(2): 109–134.

20.

De Graaf

, De Graaf

Kraaykamp

and (2000) Parental cultural capital and educational attainment in The Netherlands: a refinement of the cultural capital perspective. Sociology of Education 73(2): 92–111.

21.

De Graaf

(1986) The impact of financial and cultural resources on educational attainment in The Netherlands. Sociology of Education 59(4): 237–246.

22.

DiMaggio

(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): 189–201.

23.

DiMaggio

Mohr

(1985) Cultural capital, educational attainment, and marital selection. American Journal of Sociology 90(6): 1231–1261.

24.

Duncan

Brooks-Gunn

Klebanov

(1994) Economic deprivation and early childhood development. Child Development 65(2): 296–318.

25.

Dweck C and Elliott E (1983) Achievement motivation. In: Heatherington E (ed) Handbook of Child Psychology (Vol. 4). New York: Wiley, pp. 643–691.

26.

Ellison

Steinfield

Lampe

(2007) The benefits of facebook “friends:” Social capital and college students’ use of online social network sites. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 12(4): 1143–1168.

27.

Ellison

Steinfield

Lampe

(2011) Connection strategies: Social capital implications of facebook-enabled communication practices. New Media & Society 13(6): 873–892.

28.

Farkas

Grobe

Sheehan

, et al. (1990) Cultural resources and school success: Gender, ethnicity, and poverty groups within an urban district. American Sociological Review 55(1): 127–142.

29.

Fiske

(2012) Envy up, Scorn down: How Status Divide us. New York, NY: Russel Sage Foundation.

30.

Fiske

Markus

(eds) (2012) Facing Social Classes: How Societal Rank Influence Interaction. New York, NY: Russel Sage Foundation.

31.

Gabbay

Zuckerman

(1998) Social capital and opportunity in corporate R&D: the contingent effect of contact density on mobility expectations. Social Science Research 27(2): 189–217.

32.

Halsey

Heath

Ridge

(1980) Origins and Destinations: Family, Class and Education in Modern Britain. London: Clarendon.

33.

Hatcher

(1998) Class differentiation in education: Rational choices? British Journal of Sociology of Education 19(1): 5–24.

34.

Huston

(1991) Children in Poverty: Child Development and Public Policy. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

35.

Israel

Beaulieu

Hartless

(2001) The influence of family and community social capital on educational achievement. Rural Sociology 66(1): 43–68.

36.

Jackman

(1973) An interpretation of the relation between objective and subjective social status. American Sociological Review 38(5): 569–582.

37.

Jonsson

(1987) Class origin, cultural origin, and educational attainment: The case of Sweden. European Sociological Review 3(3): 229–242.

38.

Kakar S and Kakar K (2007) The Indians: Portrait of a People. New Delhi: Penguin Viking.

39.

Kalmijn

Kraaykamp

(1996) Race, cultural Capital, and schooling: an analysis of trends in the United States. Sociology of Education 69(1): 22–34.

40.

Katsillis

Rubinson

(1990) Cultural capital, student achievement, and educational reproduction: The case of Greece. American Sociological Review 55(2): 270–279.

41.

Kiviruusu

Huurre

Haukkala

, et al. (2013) Changes in psychological resources moderate the effect of socioeconomic status on distress symptoms: a 10-year follow-up among young adults. Health Psychology 32(6): 627–636.

42.

Kraus

Côté

Keltner

(2010) Social class, contextualism, and empathic accuracy. Psychological Science 21(11): 1716–1723.

43.

Landecker

(1963) Class crystallization and class consciousness. American Sociological Review 28(2): 219–229.

44.

Leana

van Buren

III (1999) Organizational social capital and employment practices. The Academy of Management Review 24(3): 538–555.

45.

Lin

(2001) Social Capital: A Theory of Social Structure of Action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

46.

Lin

Ensel

Vaughn

(1981) Social resources and strength of ties: Structural factors in occupational status attainment. American Sociological Review 46(4): 393–405.

47.

Linnehan

Weer

Stonely

(2011) High school guidance counselor recommendations: The role of student race, socioeconomic status, and academic performance. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 41(3): 536–558.

48.

Marriott K (Ed.) (1990) India through Hindu Categories. New Delhi: Sage.

49.

Martirosyan

Hwang

Wanjohi

(2015) Impact of English proficiency on academic performance of international students. Journal of International Students 5(1): 60–71.

50.

Marx K (1867/1977) Capital, Volume One. New York: Vintage Books.

51.

Meece JL, Anderman EM and Anderman LH (2006) Classroom goal structure, student motivation, and academic achievement. Annual Review of Psychology 57: 487–503.

52.

Misra G and Agrawal R (1985) The meaning of achievement: Implications for a cross-cultural theory of achievement. In: Langues AR and Poortinga YH (eds) From a Different Perspective: Studies of Behavior across Cultures. Lisse: Sets and Zeitlinger, pp. 250–266.

53.

Nahapiet

Ghoshal

(1998) Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organizational advantage. The Academy of Management Review 23(2): 242–266.

54.

Nambissan GB (1996) Equity in education? Schooling of Dalit children in India. Economic and Political Weekly 20–27 (April): 1011–1022.

55.

Orr

(2003) Black-White differences in achievement: The importance of wealth. Sociology of Education 76(4): 281–304.

56.

Parcel

Dufur

(2001) Capital at home and at school: Effects on student achievement. Social Forces 79(3): 881–911.

57.

Piff

Kraus

Cote

, et al. (2010) Having less, giving more: The influence of social class on prosocial behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 99(5): 771–784.

58.

Pintrich PR and Schunk DH (2002). Motivation in Education: Theory, Research, and Applications. Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Prentice Hall.

59.

Putnam

(1995) Bowling alone: American’s declining social capital. Journal of Democracy 6(1): 65–78.

60.

Raina MK and Srivastava AK (2000) India's Search for Excellence: A Clash of Ancient, Colonial, and Contemporary Influences. Roeper Review 22(2): 102–108.

61.

Robinson

Garnier

(1985) Class reproduction among men and women in France: Reproduction theory on its home ground. American Journal of Sociology 91(2): 250–280.

62.

Roscigno

Ainsworth-Darnell

(1999) Race, cultural capital, and educational resources: Persistent inequalities and achievement returns. Sociology of Education 72(3): 158–178.

63.

Ryan RM and Deci EL (2000) Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions and new directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology 25(1): 54–67.

64.

Sagas

Cunningham

(2005) Racial differences in the career success of assistant football coaches: The role of discrimination, human Capital, and social Capital. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 35(4): 773–797.

65.

Shiva Kumar AK (2003, Nov 11) Common school system: End apartheid in education. The Times of India (New Delhi Edition), p.12.

66.

Sinha JBP (1990) Work Culture in the Indian Context. New Delhi: Sage.

67.

Sinha JBP (2008) Culture and Organizational Behaviour. New Delhi: Sage.

68.

Sinha JBP and Verma J (1987) Structure of collectivism. In: Kagitcibasi C (ed) Growth and Progress in Cross-Cultural Psychology. Lisse: Swets & Zeitlinger, pp. 123–129..

69.

Srivastava

(2008) Dynamics of school. In: Mishra

(ed.) Psychology in India. New Delhi: Pearson, pp.357–406.

70.

Stefanone

Kwon

Lackaff

(2012) Exploring the relationship between perceptions of social capital and enacted support online. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 17(4): 451–466.

71.

Steiger

(1990) Structural model evaluation and modification: An interval estimation approach. Multivariate Behavioral Research 25(2): 173–180.

72.

Stephens

Markus

Townsend

(2007) Choice as an act of meaning: The case of social class. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 93(5): 814–830.

73.

Sullivan

(2001) Cultural capital and educational attainment. Sociology 35(4): 893–912.

74.

Taylor

Kemeny

Reed

, et al. (2000) Psychological resources, positive illusions, and health. American Psychologist 55(1): 99–109.

75.

Triandis HC (1995) Culture and Social Behaviour. New York: McGraw Hill.

76.

Vanneman

Pampel

(1977) The American perception of class and status. American Sociological Review 42(3): 422–437.

77.

Vanneman

(1980) U.S. and British perceptions of class. American Journal of Sociology 85(4): 769–790.

78.

Varma

(2009) The making of Indian immigrant entrepreneurs in the US. Economic & Political Weekly 44: 64–69.

79.

Walsh

(1935) Capital concept applied to man. The Quarterly Journal of Economics 49(2): 255–285.

80.

Williams

Filippakou

(2010) Higher education and UK elite formation in the twentieth century. Higher Education 59(1): 1–20.

81.

Wood

Joseph

Linley

(2007) Coping style as a psychological resource of grateful people. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology 26(9): 1076–1093.