Emerging Trends in The Social and Behavioral Sciences

Cultural Consumption

Media

Part of Cultural Consumption

Title

Cultural Consumption

extracted text

Cultural Consumption
JÖRG RÖSSEL, PATRICK SCHENK, and SEBASTIAN WEINGARTNER

Abstract
Research on cultural consumption is a flourishing field across different disciplines
within the social sciences. It refers to the consumption of goods and services with
primarily aesthetic functions and only secondarily instrumental uses. We present
the main theoretical approaches, empirical methods, and results of research on the
main dimensions of cultural consumption, the explanation of correlations between
these dimensions and social positions, and the impact of cultural consumption
on the reproduction of structures of resource inequalities in societies, focusing
in particular on Bourdieu’s foundational work. Future research should move
beyond this approach by developing more precise concepts and more systematic
mechanism-based theoretical explanations. We suggest an approach based on
rational choice theory, because we deem it capable of overcoming the severe
limitations of practice theories. Furthermore, we propose more rigorous methods
for theory development and the establishment of causal claims, such as agent-based
modeling, longitudinal analysis, and experimental methods.

INTRODUCTION: WHAT IS CULTURAL CONSUMPTION … AND WHY
IS IT IMPORTANT?
Research on cultural consumption is a flourishing interdisciplinary field
across different disciplines within the social sciences. It refers to the consumption of goods and services with primarily aesthetic functions and
only secondarily instrumental uses. The relative importance of primary and
secondary functions may nevertheless differ between goods and services.
Cultural consumption is primarily linked with the sphere of arts, culture,
and leisure, encompassing consumption behaviors as varied as visits to
cultural events (theater, concerts, cinema, etc.), watching TV, reading books,
clothing, furnishing, or eating out in restaurants.
At first glance, cultural consumption may look like a sociologically rather
moot topic, mainly relevant only for diversion and amusement. We will
demonstrate, however, its strong ties to the class structure, the unequal
distribution of resources in society, and—based on the theory of cultural
Emerging Trends in the Social and Behavioral Sciences.
Robert Scott and Marlis Buchmann (General Editors) with Stephen Kosslyn (Consulting Editor).
© 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. ISBN 978-1-118-90077-2.

1

2

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

reproduction—its important causal role in the reproduction of the structure
of inequality in society. Our essay covers three main topics: first, the issue
of empirically describing the field of cultural consumption, its main dimensions, and their social correlates; second, the question of how to explain
the correlation between social position and cultural practices; and finally,
the role of cultural consumption in the reproduction of social structure
and the allocation of resources in society. Our suggestions for future research
concern mainly the second and the third area of research. We argue for more
precise, mechanism-based explanations and for more rigorous methods of
establishing causal relations in these fields.
WHAT ARE THE MAIN DIMENSIONS OF CULTURAL CONSUMPTION?
One of the main objectives of cultural consumption research in sociology is
to identify a small number of continuous dimensions along which all types
of cultural consumption activities are distributed. Such dimensions represent
a specific logic of sorting and differentiating consumption activities; and in
order to be sociologically relevant, dimensions need to be socially meaningful, that is, they need to relate to some sort of social structuring or be able to
define certain social boundaries (Lamont & Molnár, 2002).
Perhaps the most influential dimension of cultural consumption in
sociology—put forward prominently by Bourdieu (1984)—is the differentiation between highbrow and lowbrow kinds of cultural consumption.
This is an aesthetic dimension associated with the distinction between form
and substance, that is, between the formal configuration and refinement
of cultural practices (e.g. classical music, art films, haute cuisine, etc.)
and their function in terms of content and material significance (e.g. folk
music, romantic comedies, convenience food, etc.). This highbrow–lowbrow
dimension is, as argued by Bourdieu, directly related to a society’s social
(class) structure and thus socially meaningful (homology thesis). As members of higher social strata are endowed with sufficient amounts of cultural
and economic capital, they are able to understand, enjoy, and afford the
formal standards of highbrow cultural consumption. At the same time,
highbrow activities operate as a signal of superior social status and can thus
be used to effect distinction from others. As a consequence, since they are
related to high social status, highbrow activities are perceived as legitimate
culture, meaning that they constitute—even though performed only by a
minority—the dominant culture of society.
Some of Bourdieu’s original predictions are corroborated in recent empirical studies. For example, Falk and Katz-Gerro (2016), Gerhards (2008),
and van Hek and Kraaykamp (2013) all find strong correlations between
highbrow cultural consumption and indicators of education, income, and

Cultural Consumption

3

occupational class. Van Eijck and Bargeman (2004) even conclude that
educational attainment is nowadays more strongly related to highbrow
cultural consumption than in 1980. Most of the studies did also find strong
effects of other structural indicators, primarily age, gender, and urbanity
of residence, suggesting that the social gradient of the highbrow–lowbrow
dimension is much more complex than originally suggested. Moreover,
exclusive highbrow consumption seems to be practiced only by very small
segments of contemporary societies (Gerhards, 2008; van Hek & Kraaykamp,
2013).
Other studies argue that the highbrow–lowbrow dimension is not the only
and, more specifically, not the principal logic for differentiating cultural
consumption. Roose (2015, p. 568) reports that “for people born after
1980: legitimate art is less central as a distinctive force”, indicating that
other forms of cultural consumption are now serving this purpose. The
most prominent alternative to the highbrow–lowbrow distinction has been
proposed by Richard Peterson under the name of omnivorousness (Peterson
& Kern, 1996). He found that people who like traditional highbrow kinds
of cultural consumption also like middle- and low-brow ones. Therefore
he suggested a new dimension of cultural consumption, differentiating
individuals by the breadth (instead of the “brow-level”) of their tastes.
Although there are several conceptions of cultural omnivorousness (Ollivier,
2008; Robette & Roueff, 2014; Warde & Gayo-Cal, 2009), the main idea
is to contrast those engaging in a wide variety of cultural activities from
diverse brow-levels—thus taking up an open-minded stance toward arts
and culture—with those engaging only in a limited number of activities,
thus exhibiting a rather narrow-minded and inactive conduct.
Omnivorousness, in Peterson’s original sense, essentially refers to the
breadth of people’s cultural tastes and preferences (i.e., likes and dislikes)
and not necessarily to the breadth of their actual cultural consumption
behavior. To refer to the latter, the terms broad engagement or eclecticism
are more appropriate (Robette & Roueff, 2014). In accordance with this,
most international studies on cultural consumption behavior identify an
engagement–disengagement dimension. They differentiate between engagement in various cultural activities and disengagement in most activities
besides watching TV or listening to the radio as the predominant logic of
differentiation (Coulangeon, 2013; Katz-Gerro & Jæger, 2013; Roose, van
Eijck, & Lievens, 2012; Weingartner & Rössel, forthcoming). Nevertheless,
these studies also show that the distinction between highbrow (established,
traditional) and lowbrow (popular, emergent) activities is still the second
most important factor in differentiating cultural consumption. Notions of
omnivorousness/eclecticism should therefore not be conceived as a substitute for, but rather as a complement to the highbrow–lowbrow dimension.

4

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

Still, cultural omnivorousness/eclecticism seems to have replaced highbrow
exclusiveness as a signifier of superior social status, as it is related, in many
instances, to high levels of education, income, and/or occupational class.
The highbrow–lowbrow dimension itself is now mainly structured by age
and—to a lesser extent—by education and gender, with the elderly, the
higher educated, and women being more on the highbrow side. This finding
is in contrast to Bourdieu’s classical theory and points again to the fact that
the social structuring of cultural consumption is rather complex.
In fact, this complexity even increases, as research in connection with
the omnivore thesis has shown. First, there are additional dimensions
of cultural differentiation. Argued from a global perspective, breadth of
engagement should not only refer to the combination of different aesthetic
kinds but also include different regional cultures. Accordingly, many recent
studies identify different dimensions of cosmopolitanism, discriminating
between open, cosmopolitan and more locally orientated, less open cultural
consumption (Meuleman & Savage, 2013; Rössel & Schroedter, 2015). In a
similar vein, Sullivan and Katz-Gerro (2007) suggest that, besides breadth of
cultural engagement, frequency of consumption plays an independent role
and should thus be considered as an additional dimension of voraciousness.
Second—and already observed by Bourdieu—Holt (1997) emphasizes that
the kinds of activities consumed (the “what”) is less relevant for drawing
social boundaries by cultural means than the way in which they are consumed (the “how”). Hence, dimensions of cultural differentiation should
rather refer to the mode of consumption and, analogously, omnivorousness
should refer to the breadth of modes (Daenekindt & Roose, 2017; Hanquinet,
Roose, & Savage, 2014; Jarness, 2015). Third, identifying relations between
dimensions of cultural consumption and social indicators depends on
a multitude of methodological decisions. For example, empirical results
may differ according to what kinds of cultural activities are considered as
dependent variables (e.g., only highbrow activities or activities from various
brow-levels; see above), whether public or private cultural consumption is
studied (Daenekindt & Roose, 2013; Roose & Vander Stichele, 2010), whether
actual behavior or cultural preferences are under observation (Yaish &
Katz-Gerro, 2012), or which statistical methods are applied (Leguina, 2015).
WHAT ARE THE MAIN DETERMINANTS OF CULTURAL
CONSUMPTION?
Bourdieu (1984) explains the correspondence between social class structure
and cultural consumption by reference to the concept of habitus (homology
thesis). Habitus denotes a system of dispositions that structures an actor’s
thoughts, perceptions, and evaluations. Essentially, habitus entails a specific

Cultural Consumption

5

taste and an ability to decode the meaning of, and therefore enjoy, cultural
products. Individuals in the same social position possess a common habitus
as a consequence of the specific class conditions under which they live and
grow up. They, therefore, pursue the same cultural practices.
Labeled as practice theory, Bourdieu’s approach has become very influential in consumption research. We think, however, that the mechanisms
that render the connection between social position and cultural consumption intelligible should be explicated more precisely and developed in a
direction that makes them applicable in systematic explanatory endeavors
(Hedström, 2005; Jæger & Breen, 2016). First, the concept of habitus does
not clearly distinguish between taste, values, perceptions, and capabilities
(Yaish & Katz-Gerro, 2012). Second, the theory does not specify how these
constructs determine behavior, especially in conjunction with restrictions
such as the available supply of cultural products and services. We believe
that it is important to differentiate these explanatory variables and specify
how they function. Third, Bourdieu does not give a clear account of how
social position influences the habitus. For example, are educational effects
based on cognitive capacities, mimetic learning, or intentional instructions
by parents during primary socialization? A more systematic discussion of
these processes is needed. This implies, of course, the necessity of testing
the mechanisms empirically. We will now outline an explanatory theory of
cultural consumption that retains Bourdieu’s key insights while avoiding
these theoretical deficiencies.
Fundamentally, such a theory needs to include an explicit behavioral model
and situational mechanisms (Hedström, 2005). The behavioral model should
refer to taste as well as restrictions. It should also be able to make clear predictions. We have, therefore, based our approach on rational choice theory,
which—in a nutshell—explains behavior by preferences (taste) and opportunities (resources and restrictions). In addition, it includes the explicit decision rule that an actor “chooses those actions that satisfy their preferences to
the greatest extent, taking into account the constraints” (Opp, 1999, p. 173;
Rössel, 2008). Actors choose between cultural products in light of their cultural preferences and the opportunities for cultural consumption. The model
implies an array of testable predictions. It follows, for example, that cultural preferences have an effect only if there are sufficient opportunities for
cultural consumption (i.e., low costs). This has been largely confirmed in
empirical research. While we advocate rational choice theory as a reasonable
point of departure for explaining cultural consumption, other more complex
models—which take, for example, routines into account—are also viable if
they allow more precise predictions (Weingartner, 2013).
In a second analytical step, the origin of preferences and opportunities
needs to be explained. Such an explanation should clarify the situational

6

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

mechanisms in order to minimize the “black box” between structural and
behavioral variables (Hedström, 2005). Furthermore, in light of prior empirical research, the model should be more pluralistic in terms of antecedents.
Thus, apart from the position in social space (economic and cultural capital),
research may also take into account other social categories (e.g., gender, age,
ethnicity, lifestyle groups) or features of the social environment (e.g., supply,
or state involvement). For lack of space, we will focus on education and the
supply of cultural goods.
Education has been shown to be one of the most robust influences on
cultural consumption. Yaish and Katz-Gerro (2012) demonstrated that the
respondent’s education primarily determines preferences for cultural goods
and only indirectly actual participation. Consequently, taste seems to be an
important mediating factor in the educational effect. One important explanation of how education shapes taste is the theory of information processing
(Ganzeboom, 1982), which states that better educated individuals possess
the cognitive skills to enjoy more complex cultural goods. This argument
is akin to Bourdieu’s (1984) theory of art reception, stressing the ability
to decode cultural products as part of the habitus. However, research by
Reeves and de Vries (2016) revealed that it is not higher education per se
that fosters a taste for highbrow culture (or omnivorousness), but rather
education in the humanities. Thus, information processing does not seem to
explain education-based taste differentials. These differences seem to stem
from diverging processes of educational socialization.
Since educational attainment partially depends on social origin, differences
between educational groups may be traced back to the primary socialization in the family context. In a study by van Hek and Kraaykamp (2015),
active cultural guidance by parents (e.g. going to the theater together) promoted educational attainment as well as cultural consumption, while the
influence of mere parental cultural participation was negligible. This contradicts Bourdieu’s (1984) claim that cultural socialization takes place unconsciously through mimetic learning, but indicates that the transfer of cultural
capital may be based on active parental investment (Jæger & Breen, 2016),
as also discussed in the following section. Research on educational effects,
therefore, makes clear that future research needs to test Bourdieu’s original
ideas more rigorously, which is possible only on the basis of explicit theoretical mechanisms.
The supply of cultural goods was largely neglected in Bourdieu’s early
work on cultural consumption, whereas his field-theoretical studies impressively analyze the dynamics of cultural production (Bourdieu, 1996). One
important implication we can derive from this research is that the existence
of partially autonomous cultural fields (e.g., the field of haute couture) is a
precondition for cultural consumption. Such fields provide cultural goods

Cultural Consumption

7

with sufficient formal complexity—a necessary condition for the aesthetic
appreciation described above. Research by Lizardo and Skiles (2009) on the
television industry supports this argument. In mass-culture regimes with a
high profit orientation, television programs are standardized and marketed
toward a general audience. The resulting lack of formal complexity deters
cultural highbrows from consuming a broad range of genres. By contrast, in
more autonomous markets, a wide range of programs is attractive for consumers with an aesthetic disposition. Consequently, more autonomous cultural fields provide products that allow an omnivorous taste pattern, whereas
mass-culture regimes give rise to a highbrow-lowbrow cultural pattern.
One basic problem in research on supply effects, however, concerns endogeneity. For example, Gerhards (2008) presents evidence that the supply of
cultural goods correlates with high culture consumption (operas, concerts,
etc.) in 27 European countries. Yet, this does not clarify whether supply fosters demand or demand fosters supply. In contrast, Rössel and Weingartner
(2016) conducted a quasi-experimental study. They established that the inauguration of a new theater increased the share of theater visitors in the region,
thus providing strong evidence for a causal effect of the cultural opportunity
structure. These results demonstrate the relevance of the supply of cultural
goods for cultural consumption and the necessity of using more rigorous
causal-analytic methods.
WHAT IS CULTURAL CONSUMPTION GOOD FOR?
Cultural consumption has important social consequences apart from
individual pleasure, distraction, or enjoyment. It is causally involved in
vital social processes such as status attainment or network formation.
The most important theoretical starting point for the study of such effects
is again Bourdieu’s theory of cultural capital and cultural reproduction,
which attempts to explain the intergenerational reproduction of classes
and social positions. Following Lamont and Lareau (1988, p. 156), we
may define cultural capital as “widely shared, high status cultural signals
(attitudes, preference, formal knowledge, behaviors, goods and credentials)
used for social and cultural exclusion”. More generally, we may define it
as familiarity with the dominant (legitimate) culture of a society, which
in Bourdieu’s work and in most empirical studies is usually defined as
classical highbrow culture. Cultural consumption, the respective tastes,
and the necessary knowledge and behavior therefore form a major part
of cultural capital. In empirical research on cultural capital, it is often
operationalized as reading, visits to cultural institutions, or the presence of
cultural objects such as books and works of art in the household. According
to Jæger and Breen (2016), who recently systematized the theory of cultural

8

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

reproduction and provided—to some extent—a review of its empirical
support, the theory contains the following core theorems: parents are
endowed with a certain level of cultural capital; they decide, based on
a cost–benefit calculation, to actively invest part of it in their children;
and they furthermore transmit it through children’s exposure to cultural
capital in the home. Children are able to convert cultural capital into
high educational performance, even controlled for actual ability, because
teachers misperceive this familiarity with dominant culture as a signal of
academic excellence and thus concentrate their support and attention on
those children. The same process takes place in the labor market, where
educational credentials and cultural capital lead to higher occupational and
class positions. There is a lot of (not always completely) conclusive empirical
evidence for the relevance of cultural capital to educational outcomes (Jæger
& Breen, 2016; Lareau & Weininger, 2003). However, there is much less
evidence for the conversion of educational credentials and cultural capital
to occupational success and class destinations. A few field-experimental
studies show that signals of high class origin and highbrow cultural
consumption (Jackson, 2009; Rivera & Tilcsik, 2016) are relevant in hiring
decisions, even controlled for education, whereas Georg (2016) comes to
the conclusion that cultural capital only has an impact on educational
achievement, not on occupational positioning. There is therefore an urgent
need for further empirical studies on the role of cultural capital in labor
market outcomes.
Apart from educational and occupational attainment, the theory of cultural
reproduction has been broadened and applied to several topics such as
prosocial behavior, trust, attitudes toward homosexuality, housing choices,
and life satisfaction. However, the most important field of application is
the role of cultural capital in the formation of social relations and networks. There is comprehensive empirical evidence demonstrating that
acquaintances, friends, and spouses exhibit substantial similarities with
regard to cultural tastes, preferences, and consumption. The most serious
methodological issue for this line of research is, however, the need to
disentangle the role of homophilous selection and retention of friendship
relations and intimate partnerships on one hand, and of mutual influence
on the other (Arranz Becker & Lois, 2010; Della Posta, Shi, & Macy, 2015;
Lizardo, 2006). Existing research based on panel data and experimental
approaches shows that both processes are at work and that the impact
of social networks shaping cultural capital is not one-way; there is also
evidence of the reverse mechanism of cultural capital structuring social
networks. In an important study, Lizardo (2006) has shown that highbrow
tastes further the establishment of strong network ties, whereas popular
tastes increase the likelihood of weak network ties. This means that persons

Cultural Consumption

9

with omnivorous tastes are in the best position to create networks made up
of a balanced mixture of weak and strong ties, and therefore have a higher
endowment of social capital.
The research on the social consequences ofcultural consumption we have
presented is by no means conceptually precise in every sense, and by no
means empirically fully conclusive. We have therefore identified four main
areas of potential improvement for this line of research:
The first issue is conceptual: the concept of cultural capital in particular has
a certain opaque quality (Jæger & Breen, 2016). Going beyond the definition
mentioned above, some authors have argued that diverse competencies and
skills (e.g., IT skills) should be included in the concept of cultural capital. Our
position is to follow the definition by Lamont and Lareau (1988), because
it is not productive to conflate the notion of cultural capital with other
concepts such as competencies, skills, or human capital. However, future
research has to take into account that the dominant culture may change
over time and vary between different countries and societal fields. There is
empirical evidence showing that the type of cultural capital successful in
prestigious law firms is different from the cultural capital leading to a job in
advertising agencies (Koppman, 2015; Rivera & Tilcsik, 2016). There is also
some empirical evidence that the cultural and human capital of migrants is
to a certain degree country-specific: cultural capital linked to the country of
origin does not further educational and occupational advancement in the
country of residence (Leopold & Shavit, 2013). Empirical research on cultural capital thus needs to be context-sensitive in its operationalization. This
leads us to the second issue: the urgency of comparative and longitudinal
studies in this field. To clarify the theoretical mechanism underlying the
statistical relationship—for example, between highbrow cultural capital
and educational as well as labor market outcomes—it is necessary to study
this phenomenon in different countries, labor market fields, and over
time. The degree to which highbrow cultural capital is important may
depend on the degree to which highbrow culture is in fact institutionally
dominant in a certain country or a specific field in a certain historical era.
The theory of cultural reproduction thus needs to be linked to Bourdieu’s
field theory (section titled “What are the Main Determinants of Cultural
Consumption?”). However—and this brings us to the third issue—despite
the importance of Bourdieu’s work in this area, there is an urgent necessity to
theoretically systematize his approach and to go beyond his work to specify
the underlying mechanisms. Jæger and Breen (2016), for example, connected
the theory of cultural reproduction to rational choice theory to account for
the specific mechanism of decision making involved in parental investment
of cultural capital. Another fruitful avenue of theoretical innovation would
be the introduction of signaling and game theory into the explanation of the

10

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

role of cultural capital as a signal of important underlying qualities such
as high status, earning power, sociability (Gambetta, 2009). Agent-based
modeling could be a very productive tool in advancing systematic theoretical
explanations in this field (Della Posta et al., 2015). Finally, empirical research
on the impact of cultural capital would profit greatly from the broadening of
empirical research methods, especially when it comes to establishing causal
relations. Longitudinal studies based on survey panel data (Arranz Becker
& Lois, 2010; Georg, 2016) or experimental studies (Jackson, 2009; Rivera
& Tilcsik, 2016) would be an important step beyond the current norm of
mainly cross-sectional survey and qualitative interview designs, especially
in order to establish causal explanations.
CONCLUSIONS
We have presented the main theoretical approaches, empirical methods,
and results of research on the main dimensions of cultural consumption, the
explanation of correlations between these dimensions and social positions,
and the impact of cultural consumption on the reproduction of structures
of resource inequalities in societies, focusing in particular on Bourdieu’s
foundational work in this field. Future research should move beyond
this approach by developing more precise concepts and more systematic
mechanism-based theoretical explanations. Concordant with other authors
in the field (Jæger & Breen, 2016), we suggest an approach based on rational
choice theory, because we deem it capable of overcoming the severe limitations of practice theories. Furthermore, we propose more rigorous methods
for theory development and the establishment of causal claims, such as
agent-based modeling, longitudinal analysis, and experimental methods,
which move beyond the current norm of analyzing cross-sectional surveys
or cross-sectional qualitative interviews.
REFERENCES
Arranz Becker, O., & Lois, D. (2010). Selection, alignment and their interplay: Origins
of lifestyle homogamy in couple relationships. Journal of Marriage and Family, 72,
1234–1248.
Bourdieu, P. (1984). Distinction. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Bourdieu, P. (1996). The rules of art. Genesis and structure of the literary field. Stanford,
CA: Stanford University Press.
Coulangeon, P. (2013). Changing policies, challenging theories and persisting
inequalities: Social disparities in cultural participation in France from 1981 to 2008.
Poetics, 41, 177–209.
Daenekindt, S., & Roose, H. (2013). Cultural chameleons: Social mobility and cultural
practices in the private and the public sphere. Acta Sociologica, 56, 309–324.

Cultural Consumption

11

Daenekindt, S., & Roose, H. (2017). Ways of preferring: Distinction through the ’what’
and the ’how’ of cultural consumption. Journal of Consumer Culture, 17, 25–45.
Della Posta, D., Shi, Y., & Macy, M. (2015). Why do liberals drink latte? American
Journal of Sociology, 120, 1473–1511.
Falk, M., & Katz-Gerro, T. (2016). Cultural participation in Europe: Can we identify
common determinants? Journal of Cultural Economics, 40, 127–162.
Gambetta, D. (2009). Signaling. In P. Hedström & P. Bearman (Eds.), The Oxford
handbook of analytical sociology (pp. 168–194). Oxford, England: Oxford University
Press.
Ganzeboom, H. B. G. (1982). Explaining differential participation in high-cultural
activities: A confrontation of information-processing and status-seeking theories.
In W. Raub (Ed.), Theoretical models and empirical analyses (pp. 186–205). Utrecht,
The Netherlands: ES-Publications.
Georg, W. (2016). Transmission of cultural capital and status attainment – An analysis
of development between 15 and 45 years of age. Longitudinal and Life Course Studies,
7, 106–123.
Gerhards, J. (2008). Die kulturell dominierende Klasse in Europa: Eine vergleichende
Analyse der 27 Mitgliedsländer der Europäischen Union im Anschluss an die Theorie von Pierre Bourdieu. Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie, 60,
723–748.
Hanquinet, L., Roose, H., & Savage, M. (2014). The eyes of the beholder: Aesthetic
preferences and the remaking of cultural capital. Sociology, 48, 111–132.
Hedström, P. (2005). Dissecting the social: On the principles of analytical sociology. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Holt, D. (1997). Distinction in America? Recovering Bourdieu’s theory of tastes from
its critics. Poetics, 25, 93–120.
Jackson, M. (2009). Disadvantaged through discrimination? The role of employers in
social stratification. British Journal of Sociology, 60, 669–692.
Jæger, M. M., & Breen, R. (2016). A dynamic model of cultural reproduction. American
Journal of Sociology, 121, 1079–1115.
Jarness, V. (2015). Modes of consumption: From ‘what’ to ‘how’ in cultural stratification research. Poetics, 53, 65–79.
Katz-Gerro, T., & Jæger, M. M. (2013). Top of the pops, ascend of the omnivores, defeat of the couch potatoes: Cultural consumption profiles in Denmark
1975–2004. European Sociological Review, 29, 243–260.
Koppman, S. (2015). Different like me. Why cultural omnivores get creative jobs.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 61, 291–331.
Lamont, M., & Lareau, A. (1988). Cultural capital: Allusions, gaps and glissandos in
recent theoretical developments. Sociological Theory, 6, 153–168.
Lamont, M., & Molnár, V. (2002). The study of boundaries in the social sciences.
Annual Review of Sociology, 28, 167–195.
Lareau, A., & Weininger, E. B. (2003). Cultural capital in educational research. A critical assessment. Theory and Society, 32, 567–606.

12

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

Leguina, A. (2015). Musical distinctions in England – Understanding cultural homology and omnivorism through a methods comparison. Bulletin of Sociological
Methodology, 126, 28–45.
Leopold, L., & Shavit, Y. (2013). Cultural capital does not travel well: Immigrants, natives and achievement in Israeli schools. European Sociological Review,
29, 450–463.
Lizardo, O. (2006). How cultural tastes shape personal networks. American Sociological Review, 71, 778–807.
Lizardo, O., & Skiles, S. (2009). Highbrow omnivorousness on the small screen? Cultural industry systems and patterns of cultural choice in Europe. Poetics, 37, 1–23.
Meuleman, R., & Savage, M. (2013). A field analysis of cosmopolitan taste: Lessons
from the Netherlands. Cultural Sociology, 7, 230–256.
Ollivier, M. (2008). Modes of openness to cultural diversity: Humanist, populist,
practical, and indifferent. Poetics, 36, 120–147.
Opp, K.-D. (1999). Contending conceptions of the theory of rational action. Journal of
Theoretical Politics, 11, 171–202.
Peterson, R., & Kern, R. (1996). Changing highbrow taste: From snob to omnivore.
American Sociological Review, 61, 900–907.
Reeves, A., & de Vries, R. (2016). The social gradient in cultural consumption and the
information-processing hypothesis. The Sociological Review, 64, 550–574.
Rivera, L., & Tilcsik, A. (2016). Class advantage, commitment penalty: The gendered
effect of social class signals in elite labor markets. American Sociological Review, 81,
1097–1131.
Robette, N., & Roueff, O. (2014). An eclectic eclecticism: Methodological and theoretical issues about the quantification of cultural omnivorism. Poetics, 47, 23–40.
Roose, H. (2015). Signs of ‘emerging’ cultural capital? Analysing symbolic struggles
using class specific analysis. Sociology, 49, 556–573.
Roose, H., van Eijck, K., & Lievens, J. (2012). Culture of distinction or culture of openness? Using a social space approach to analyze the social structuring of lifestyles.
Poetics, 40, 491–513.
Roose, H., & Vander Stichele, A. (2010). Living room vs. concert hall: Patterns of
music consumption in Flanders. Social Forces, 89, 185–207.
Rössel, J. (2008). Conditions for the explanatory power of life styles. European Sociological Review, 24, 231–241.
Rössel, J., & Schroedter, J. (2015). Cosmopolitan cultural consumption: Preferences
and practices in a heterogeneous, urban population in Switzerland. Poetics, 50,
80–95.
Rössel, J., & Weingartner, S. (2016). Opportunities for cultural consumption. How is
cultural participation in Switzerland shaped by regional cultural infrastructure?
Rationality and Society, 28(4), 1–23.
Sullivan, O., & Katz-Gerro, T. (2007). The omnivore thesis revisited: Voracious cultural consumers. European Sociological Review, 23, 123–137.
van Eijck, K., & Bargeman, B. (2004). The changing impact of social background on
lifestyle: “culturalization” instead of individualization? Poetics, 32, 439–461.

Cultural Consumption

13

van Hek, M., & Kraaykamp, G. (2013). Cultural consumption across countries: A
multi-level analysis of social inequality in highbrow culture in Europe. Poetics, 41,
323–341.
van Hek, M., & Kraaykamp, G. (2015). How do parents affect cultural participation
of their children? Poetics, 52, 124–138.
Warde, A., & Gayo-Cal, M. (2009). The anatomy of cultural omnivorousness: The case
of the United Kingdom. Poetics, 37, 119–145.
Weingartner, S. (2013). Hochkulturelle Praxis und Frame-Selektion. KZfSS Kölner
Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie, 65, 3–30.
Weingartner, S., & Rössel, J. (forthcoming). Changing Dimensions of Cultural Consumption? The Space of Lifestyles in Switzerland from 1976 to 2013. Poetics.
Yaish, M., & Katz-Gerro, T. (2012). Disentangling ’cultural capital’: The consequences
of cultural and economic resources for taste and participation. European Sociological
Review, 28, 169–185.

JÖRG RÖSSEL SHORT BIOGRAPHY
Jörg Rössel is a Professor of sociology at the Department of Sociology, University of Zurich. His main research interests include economic sociology, the
sociology of consumption, migration, and sociological theory. His publications have appeared in European Societies, European Sociological Review, Journal
of Consumer Culture, Poetics, Population, Space and Place, Rationality and Society,
Sociological Quarterly, and Sociological Perspectives.
PATRICK SCHENK SHORT BIOGRAPHY
Patrick Schenk is a Postdoctoral Researcher at the Department of Sociology, University of Zurich. His research interests are primarily in economic
sociology—particularly the sociology of markets and the sociology of consumption. He studies cultural consumption mainly in the context of the wine
market. In a series of publications, he analyzed the consumption and production of wine from a Bourdieusian perspective. He has published his research
in the Journal of Consumer Culture, Sociological Perspectives, Social Problems, and
the Berliner Journal für Soziologie.
SEBASTIAN WEINGARTNER SHORT BIOGRAPHY
Sebastian Weingartner is a Postdoctoral Researcher at the Department of
Sociology, University of Zurich. His research interests include the sociology
of lifestyles, cultural consumption, cultural economics, and cultural policy.
He specializes in applying and empirically testing actor models and analytical explanations within these fields. He has published his research in Poetics,
Rationality and Society, Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie,
and Zeitschrift für Soziologie.

14

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

RELATED ESSAYS
Models of Revealed Preference (Economics), Abi Adams and Ian Crawford
Global Economic Networks (Sociology), Nina Bandelj et al.
Choice Architecture (Psychology), Adrian R. Camilleri and Rick P. Larrick
Authenticity: Attribution, Value, and Meaning (Sociology), Glenn R. Carroll
Culture and Cognition (Sociology), Karen A. Cerulo
Elites (Sociology), Johan S. G. Chu and Mark S. Mizruchi
Architecture of Markets (Sociology), Neil Fligstein and Ryan Calder
Culture and Social Networks (Sociology), Jan A. Fuhse
Museum Anthropology (Anthropology), Candace S. Greene
Behavioral Economics (Sociology), Guy Hochman and Dan Ariely
Technology Diffusion (Economics), Adam B. Jaffe
Cultural Neuroscience: Connecting Culture, Brain, and Genes (Psychology),
Shinobu Kitayama and Sarah Huff
The Emerging Psychology of Social Class (Psychology), Michael W. Kraus
Exploring Opportunities in Cultural Diversity (Political Science), David D.
Laitin and Sangick Jeon
Longitudinal Data Analysis (Methods), Todd D. Little et al.
Against Game Theory (Psychology), Gale M. Lucas et al.
Business Anthropology (Anthropology), Brian Moeran
Culture as Situated Cognition (Psychology), Daphna Oyserman
Migration and Globalization (Political Science), Margaret E. Peters
Culture and Movements (Sociology), Francesca Polletta and Beth Gharrity
Gardner
Economics and Culture (Economics), Gérard Roland
Production of Culture (Sociology), Vaughn Schmutz and Candace N. Miller
Sustainability (Archaeology), Joseph A. Tainter et al.
The Social Science of Sustainability (Political Science), Johannes Urpelainen
Culture and Globalization (Sociology), Frederick F. Wherry



Cultural Consumption
JÖRG RÖSSEL, PATRICK SCHENK, and SEBASTIAN WEINGARTNER

Abstract
Research on cultural consumption is a flourishing field across different disciplines
within the social sciences. It refers to the consumption of goods and services with
primarily aesthetic functions and only secondarily instrumental uses. We present
the main theoretical approaches, empirical methods, and results of research on the
main dimensions of cultural consumption, the explanation of correlations between
these dimensions and social positions, and the impact of cultural consumption
on the reproduction of structures of resource inequalities in societies, focusing
in particular on Bourdieu’s foundational work. Future research should move
beyond this approach by developing more precise concepts and more systematic
mechanism-based theoretical explanations. We suggest an approach based on
rational choice theory, because we deem it capable of overcoming the severe
limitations of practice theories. Furthermore, we propose more rigorous methods
for theory development and the establishment of causal claims, such as agent-based
modeling, longitudinal analysis, and experimental methods.

INTRODUCTION: WHAT IS CULTURAL CONSUMPTION … AND WHY
IS IT IMPORTANT?
Research on cultural consumption is a flourishing interdisciplinary field
across different disciplines within the social sciences. It refers to the consumption of goods and services with primarily aesthetic functions and
only secondarily instrumental uses. The relative importance of primary and
secondary functions may nevertheless differ between goods and services.
Cultural consumption is primarily linked with the sphere of arts, culture,
and leisure, encompassing consumption behaviors as varied as visits to
cultural events (theater, concerts, cinema, etc.), watching TV, reading books,
clothing, furnishing, or eating out in restaurants.
At first glance, cultural consumption may look like a sociologically rather
moot topic, mainly relevant only for diversion and amusement. We will
demonstrate, however, its strong ties to the class structure, the unequal
distribution of resources in society, and—based on the theory of cultural
Emerging Trends in the Social and Behavioral Sciences.
Robert Scott and Marlis Buchmann (General Editors) with Stephen Kosslyn (Consulting Editor).
© 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. ISBN 978-1-118-90077-2.

1

2

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

reproduction—its important causal role in the reproduction of the structure
of inequality in society. Our essay covers three main topics: first, the issue
of empirically describing the field of cultural consumption, its main dimensions, and their social correlates; second, the question of how to explain
the correlation between social position and cultural practices; and finally,
the role of cultural consumption in the reproduction of social structure
and the allocation of resources in society. Our suggestions for future research
concern mainly the second and the third area of research. We argue for more
precise, mechanism-based explanations and for more rigorous methods of
establishing causal relations in these fields.
WHAT ARE THE MAIN DIMENSIONS OF CULTURAL CONSUMPTION?
One of the main objectives of cultural consumption research in sociology is
to identify a small number of continuous dimensions along which all types
of cultural consumption activities are distributed. Such dimensions represent
a specific logic of sorting and differentiating consumption activities; and in
order to be sociologically relevant, dimensions need to be socially meaningful, that is, they need to relate to some sort of social structuring or be able to
define certain social boundaries (Lamont & Molnár, 2002).
Perhaps the most influential dimension of cultural consumption in
sociology—put forward prominently by Bourdieu (1984)—is the differentiation between highbrow and lowbrow kinds of cultural consumption.
This is an aesthetic dimension associated with the distinction between form
and substance, that is, between the formal configuration and refinement
of cultural practices (e.g. classical music, art films, haute cuisine, etc.)
and their function in terms of content and material significance (e.g. folk
music, romantic comedies, convenience food, etc.). This highbrow–lowbrow
dimension is, as argued by Bourdieu, directly related to a society’s social
(class) structure and thus socially meaningful (homology thesis). As members of higher social strata are endowed with sufficient amounts of cultural
and economic capital, they are able to understand, enjoy, and afford the
formal standards of highbrow cultural consumption. At the same time,
highbrow activities operate as a signal of superior social status and can thus
be used to effect distinction from others. As a consequence, since they are
related to high social status, highbrow activities are perceived as legitimate
culture, meaning that they constitute—even though performed only by a
minority—the dominant culture of society.
Some of Bourdieu’s original predictions are corroborated in recent empirical studies. For example, Falk and Katz-Gerro (2016), Gerhards (2008),
and van Hek and Kraaykamp (2013) all find strong correlations between
highbrow cultural consumption and indicators of education, income, and

Cultural Consumption

3

occupational class. Van Eijck and Bargeman (2004) even conclude that
educational attainment is nowadays more strongly related to highbrow
cultural consumption than in 1980. Most of the studies did also find strong
effects of other structural indicators, primarily age, gender, and urbanity
of residence, suggesting that the social gradient of the highbrow–lowbrow
dimension is much more complex than originally suggested. Moreover,
exclusive highbrow consumption seems to be practiced only by very small
segments of contemporary societies (Gerhards, 2008; van Hek & Kraaykamp,
2013).
Other studies argue that the highbrow–lowbrow dimension is not the only
and, more specifically, not the principal logic for differentiating cultural
consumption. Roose (2015, p. 568) reports that “for people born after
1980: legitimate art is less central as a distinctive force”, indicating that
other forms of cultural consumption are now serving this purpose. The
most prominent alternative to the highbrow–lowbrow distinction has been
proposed by Richard Peterson under the name of omnivorousness (Peterson
& Kern, 1996). He found that people who like traditional highbrow kinds
of cultural consumption also like middle- and low-brow ones. Therefore
he suggested a new dimension of cultural consumption, differentiating
individuals by the breadth (instead of the “brow-level”) of their tastes.
Although there are several conceptions of cultural omnivorousness (Ollivier,
2008; Robette & Roueff, 2014; Warde & Gayo-Cal, 2009), the main idea
is to contrast those engaging in a wide variety of cultural activities from
diverse brow-levels—thus taking up an open-minded stance toward arts
and culture—with those engaging only in a limited number of activities,
thus exhibiting a rather narrow-minded and inactive conduct.
Omnivorousness, in Peterson’s original sense, essentially refers to the
breadth of people’s cultural tastes and preferences (i.e., likes and dislikes)
and not necessarily to the breadth of their actual cultural consumption
behavior. To refer to the latter, the terms broad engagement or eclecticism
are more appropriate (Robette & Roueff, 2014). In accordance with this,
most international studies on cultural consumption behavior identify an
engagement–disengagement dimension. They differentiate between engagement in various cultural activities and disengagement in most activities
besides watching TV or listening to the radio as the predominant logic of
differentiation (Coulangeon, 2013; Katz-Gerro & Jæger, 2013; Roose, van
Eijck, & Lievens, 2012; Weingartner & Rössel, forthcoming). Nevertheless,
these studies also show that the distinction between highbrow (established,
traditional) and lowbrow (popular, emergent) activities is still the second
most important factor in differentiating cultural consumption. Notions of
omnivorousness/eclecticism should therefore not be conceived as a substitute for, but rather as a complement to the highbrow–lowbrow dimension.

4

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

Still, cultural omnivorousness/eclecticism seems to have replaced highbrow
exclusiveness as a signifier of superior social status, as it is related, in many
instances, to high levels of education, income, and/or occupational class.
The highbrow–lowbrow dimension itself is now mainly structured by age
and—to a lesser extent—by education and gender, with the elderly, the
higher educated, and women being more on the highbrow side. This finding
is in contrast to Bourdieu’s classical theory and points again to the fact that
the social structuring of cultural consumption is rather complex.
In fact, this complexity even increases, as research in connection with
the omnivore thesis has shown. First, there are additional dimensions
of cultural differentiation. Argued from a global perspective, breadth of
engagement should not only refer to the combination of different aesthetic
kinds but also include different regional cultures. Accordingly, many recent
studies identify different dimensions of cosmopolitanism, discriminating
between open, cosmopolitan and more locally orientated, less open cultural
consumption (Meuleman & Savage, 2013; Rössel & Schroedter, 2015). In a
similar vein, Sullivan and Katz-Gerro (2007) suggest that, besides breadth of
cultural engagement, frequency of consumption plays an independent role
and should thus be considered as an additional dimension of voraciousness.
Second—and already observed by Bourdieu—Holt (1997) emphasizes that
the kinds of activities consumed (the “what”) is less relevant for drawing
social boundaries by cultural means than the way in which they are consumed (the “how”). Hence, dimensions of cultural differentiation should
rather refer to the mode of consumption and, analogously, omnivorousness
should refer to the breadth of modes (Daenekindt & Roose, 2017; Hanquinet,
Roose, & Savage, 2014; Jarness, 2015). Third, identifying relations between
dimensions of cultural consumption and social indicators depends on
a multitude of methodological decisions. For example, empirical results
may differ according to what kinds of cultural activities are considered as
dependent variables (e.g., only highbrow activities or activities from various
brow-levels; see above), whether public or private cultural consumption is
studied (Daenekindt & Roose, 2013; Roose & Vander Stichele, 2010), whether
actual behavior or cultural preferences are under observation (Yaish &
Katz-Gerro, 2012), or which statistical methods are applied (Leguina, 2015).
WHAT ARE THE MAIN DETERMINANTS OF CULTURAL
CONSUMPTION?
Bourdieu (1984) explains the correspondence between social class structure
and cultural consumption by reference to the concept of habitus (homology
thesis). Habitus denotes a system of dispositions that structures an actor’s
thoughts, perceptions, and evaluations. Essentially, habitus entails a specific

Cultural Consumption

5

taste and an ability to decode the meaning of, and therefore enjoy, cultural
products. Individuals in the same social position possess a common habitus
as a consequence of the specific class conditions under which they live and
grow up. They, therefore, pursue the same cultural practices.
Labeled as practice theory, Bourdieu’s approach has become very influential in consumption research. We think, however, that the mechanisms
that render the connection between social position and cultural consumption intelligible should be explicated more precisely and developed in a
direction that makes them applicable in systematic explanatory endeavors
(Hedström, 2005; Jæger & Breen, 2016). First, the concept of habitus does
not clearly distinguish between taste, values, perceptions, and capabilities
(Yaish & Katz-Gerro, 2012). Second, the theory does not specify how these
constructs determine behavior, especially in conjunction with restrictions
such as the available supply of cultural products and services. We believe
that it is important to differentiate these explanatory variables and specify
how they function. Third, Bourdieu does not give a clear account of how
social position influences the habitus. For example, are educational effects
based on cognitive capacities, mimetic learning, or intentional instructions
by parents during primary socialization? A more systematic discussion of
these processes is needed. This implies, of course, the necessity of testing
the mechanisms empirically. We will now outline an explanatory theory of
cultural consumption that retains Bourdieu’s key insights while avoiding
these theoretical deficiencies.
Fundamentally, such a theory needs to include an explicit behavioral model
and situational mechanisms (Hedström, 2005). The behavioral model should
refer to taste as well as restrictions. It should also be able to make clear predictions. We have, therefore, based our approach on rational choice theory,
which—in a nutshell—explains behavior by preferences (taste) and opportunities (resources and restrictions). In addition, it includes the explicit decision rule that an actor “chooses those actions that satisfy their preferences to
the greatest extent, taking into account the constraints” (Opp, 1999, p. 173;
Rössel, 2008). Actors choose between cultural products in light of their cultural preferences and the opportunities for cultural consumption. The model
implies an array of testable predictions. It follows, for example, that cultural preferences have an effect only if there are sufficient opportunities for
cultural consumption (i.e., low costs). This has been largely confirmed in
empirical research. While we advocate rational choice theory as a reasonable
point of departure for explaining cultural consumption, other more complex
models—which take, for example, routines into account—are also viable if
they allow more precise predictions (Weingartner, 2013).
In a second analytical step, the origin of preferences and opportunities
needs to be explained. Such an explanation should clarify the situational

6

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

mechanisms in order to minimize the “black box” between structural and
behavioral variables (Hedström, 2005). Furthermore, in light of prior empirical research, the model should be more pluralistic in terms of antecedents.
Thus, apart from the position in social space (economic and cultural capital),
research may also take into account other social categories (e.g., gender, age,
ethnicity, lifestyle groups) or features of the social environment (e.g., supply,
or state involvement). For lack of space, we will focus on education and the
supply of cultural goods.
Education has been shown to be one of the most robust influences on
cultural consumption. Yaish and Katz-Gerro (2012) demonstrated that the
respondent’s education primarily determines preferences for cultural goods
and only indirectly actual participation. Consequently, taste seems to be an
important mediating factor in the educational effect. One important explanation of how education shapes taste is the theory of information processing
(Ganzeboom, 1982), which states that better educated individuals possess
the cognitive skills to enjoy more complex cultural goods. This argument
is akin to Bourdieu’s (1984) theory of art reception, stressing the ability
to decode cultural products as part of the habitus. However, research by
Reeves and de Vries (2016) revealed that it is not higher education per se
that fosters a taste for highbrow culture (or omnivorousness), but rather
education in the humanities. Thus, information processing does not seem to
explain education-based taste differentials. These differences seem to stem
from diverging processes of educational socialization.
Since educational attainment partially depends on social origin, differences
between educational groups may be traced back to the primary socialization in the family context. In a study by van Hek and Kraaykamp (2015),
active cultural guidance by parents (e.g. going to the theater together) promoted educational attainment as well as cultural consumption, while the
influence of mere parental cultural participation was negligible. This contradicts Bourdieu’s (1984) claim that cultural socialization takes place unconsciously through mimetic learning, but indicates that the transfer of cultural
capital may be based on active parental investment (Jæger & Breen, 2016),
as also discussed in the following section. Research on educational effects,
therefore, makes clear that future research needs to test Bourdieu’s original
ideas more rigorously, which is possible only on the basis of explicit theoretical mechanisms.
The supply of cultural goods was largely neglected in Bourdieu’s early
work on cultural consumption, whereas his field-theoretical studies impressively analyze the dynamics of cultural production (Bourdieu, 1996). One
important implication we can derive from this research is that the existence
of partially autonomous cultural fields (e.g., the field of haute couture) is a
precondition for cultural consumption. Such fields provide cultural goods

Cultural Consumption

7

with sufficient formal complexity—a necessary condition for the aesthetic
appreciation described above. Research by Lizardo and Skiles (2009) on the
television industry supports this argument. In mass-culture regimes with a
high profit orientation, television programs are standardized and marketed
toward a general audience. The resulting lack of formal complexity deters
cultural highbrows from consuming a broad range of genres. By contrast, in
more autonomous markets, a wide range of programs is attractive for consumers with an aesthetic disposition. Consequently, more autonomous cultural fields provide products that allow an omnivorous taste pattern, whereas
mass-culture regimes give rise to a highbrow-lowbrow cultural pattern.
One basic problem in research on supply effects, however, concerns endogeneity. For example, Gerhards (2008) presents evidence that the supply of
cultural goods correlates with high culture consumption (operas, concerts,
etc.) in 27 European countries. Yet, this does not clarify whether supply fosters demand or demand fosters supply. In contrast, Rössel and Weingartner
(2016) conducted a quasi-experimental study. They established that the inauguration of a new theater increased the share of theater visitors in the region,
thus providing strong evidence for a causal effect of the cultural opportunity
structure. These results demonstrate the relevance of the supply of cultural
goods for cultural consumption and the necessity of using more rigorous
causal-analytic methods.
WHAT IS CULTURAL CONSUMPTION GOOD FOR?
Cultural consumption has important social consequences apart from
individual pleasure, distraction, or enjoyment. It is causally involved in
vital social processes such as status attainment or network formation.
The most important theoretical starting point for the study of such effects
is again Bourdieu’s theory of cultural capital and cultural reproduction,
which attempts to explain the intergenerational reproduction of classes
and social positions. Following Lamont and Lareau (1988, p. 156), we
may define cultural capital as “widely shared, high status cultural signals
(attitudes, preference, formal knowledge, behaviors, goods and credentials)
used for social and cultural exclusion”. More generally, we may define it
as familiarity with the dominant (legitimate) culture of a society, which
in Bourdieu’s work and in most empirical studies is usually defined as
classical highbrow culture. Cultural consumption, the respective tastes,
and the necessary knowledge and behavior therefore form a major part
of cultural capital. In empirical research on cultural capital, it is often
operationalized as reading, visits to cultural institutions, or the presence of
cultural objects such as books and works of art in the household. According
to Jæger and Breen (2016), who recently systematized the theory of cultural

8

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

reproduction and provided—to some extent—a review of its empirical
support, the theory contains the following core theorems: parents are
endowed with a certain level of cultural capital; they decide, based on
a cost–benefit calculation, to actively invest part of it in their children;
and they furthermore transmit it through children’s exposure to cultural
capital in the home. Children are able to convert cultural capital into
high educational performance, even controlled for actual ability, because
teachers misperceive this familiarity with dominant culture as a signal of
academic excellence and thus concentrate their support and attention on
those children. The same process takes place in the labor market, where
educational credentials and cultural capital lead to higher occupational and
class positions. There is a lot of (not always completely) conclusive empirical
evidence for the relevance of cultural capital to educational outcomes (Jæger
& Breen, 2016; Lareau & Weininger, 2003). However, there is much less
evidence for the conversion of educational credentials and cultural capital
to occupational success and class destinations. A few field-experimental
studies show that signals of high class origin and highbrow cultural
consumption (Jackson, 2009; Rivera & Tilcsik, 2016) are relevant in hiring
decisions, even controlled for education, whereas Georg (2016) comes to
the conclusion that cultural capital only has an impact on educational
achievement, not on occupational positioning. There is therefore an urgent
need for further empirical studies on the role of cultural capital in labor
market outcomes.
Apart from educational and occupational attainment, the theory of cultural
reproduction has been broadened and applied to several topics such as
prosocial behavior, trust, attitudes toward homosexuality, housing choices,
and life satisfaction. However, the most important field of application is
the role of cultural capital in the formation of social relations and networks. There is comprehensive empirical evidence demonstrating that
acquaintances, friends, and spouses exhibit substantial similarities with
regard to cultural tastes, preferences, and consumption. The most serious
methodological issue for this line of research is, however, the need to
disentangle the role of homophilous selection and retention of friendship
relations and intimate partnerships on one hand, and of mutual influence
on the other (Arranz Becker & Lois, 2010; Della Posta, Shi, & Macy, 2015;
Lizardo, 2006). Existing research based on panel data and experimental
approaches shows that both processes are at work and that the impact
of social networks shaping cultural capital is not one-way; there is also
evidence of the reverse mechanism of cultural capital structuring social
networks. In an important study, Lizardo (2006) has shown that highbrow
tastes further the establishment of strong network ties, whereas popular
tastes increase the likelihood of weak network ties. This means that persons

Cultural Consumption

9

with omnivorous tastes are in the best position to create networks made up
of a balanced mixture of weak and strong ties, and therefore have a higher
endowment of social capital.
The research on the social consequences ofcultural consumption we have
presented is by no means conceptually precise in every sense, and by no
means empirically fully conclusive. We have therefore identified four main
areas of potential improvement for this line of research:
The first issue is conceptual: the concept of cultural capital in particular has
a certain opaque quality (Jæger & Breen, 2016). Going beyond the definition
mentioned above, some authors have argued that diverse competencies and
skills (e.g., IT skills) should be included in the concept of cultural capital. Our
position is to follow the definition by Lamont and Lareau (1988), because
it is not productive to conflate the notion of cultural capital with other
concepts such as competencies, skills, or human capital. However, future
research has to take into account that the dominant culture may change
over time and vary between different countries and societal fields. There is
empirical evidence showing that the type of cultural capital successful in
prestigious law firms is different from the cultural capital leading to a job in
advertising agencies (Koppman, 2015; Rivera & Tilcsik, 2016). There is also
some empirical evidence that the cultural and human capital of migrants is
to a certain degree country-specific: cultural capital linked to the country of
origin does not further educational and occupational advancement in the
country of residence (Leopold & Shavit, 2013). Empirical research on cultural capital thus needs to be context-sensitive in its operationalization. This
leads us to the second issue: the urgency of comparative and longitudinal
studies in this field. To clarify the theoretical mechanism underlying the
statistical relationship—for example, between highbrow cultural capital
and educational as well as labor market outcomes—it is necessary to study
this phenomenon in different countries, labor market fields, and over
time. The degree to which highbrow cultural capital is important may
depend on the degree to which highbrow culture is in fact institutionally
dominant in a certain country or a specific field in a certain historical era.
The theory of cultural reproduction thus needs to be linked to Bourdieu’s
field theory (section titled “What are the Main Determinants of Cultural
Consumption?”). However—and this brings us to the third issue—despite
the importance of Bourdieu’s work in this area, there is an urgent necessity to
theoretically systematize his approach and to go beyond his work to specify
the underlying mechanisms. Jæger and Breen (2016), for example, connected
the theory of cultural reproduction to rational choice theory to account for
the specific mechanism of decision making involved in parental investment
of cultural capital. Another fruitful avenue of theoretical innovation would
be the introduction of signaling and game theory into the explanation of the

10

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

role of cultural capital as a signal of important underlying qualities such
as high status, earning power, sociability (Gambetta, 2009). Agent-based
modeling could be a very productive tool in advancing systematic theoretical
explanations in this field (Della Posta et al., 2015). Finally, empirical research
on the impact of cultural capital would profit greatly from the broadening of
empirical research methods, especially when it comes to establishing causal
relations. Longitudinal studies based on survey panel data (Arranz Becker
& Lois, 2010; Georg, 2016) or experimental studies (Jackson, 2009; Rivera
& Tilcsik, 2016) would be an important step beyond the current norm of
mainly cross-sectional survey and qualitative interview designs, especially
in order to establish causal explanations.
CONCLUSIONS
We have presented the main theoretical approaches, empirical methods,
and results of research on the main dimensions of cultural consumption, the
explanation of correlations between these dimensions and social positions,
and the impact of cultural consumption on the reproduction of structures
of resource inequalities in societies, focusing in particular on Bourdieu’s
foundational work in this field. Future research should move beyond
this approach by developing more precise concepts and more systematic
mechanism-based theoretical explanations. Concordant with other authors
in the field (Jæger & Breen, 2016), we suggest an approach based on rational
choice theory, because we deem it capable of overcoming the severe limitations of practice theories. Furthermore, we propose more rigorous methods
for theory development and the establishment of causal claims, such as
agent-based modeling, longitudinal analysis, and experimental methods,
which move beyond the current norm of analyzing cross-sectional surveys
or cross-sectional qualitative interviews.
REFERENCES
Arranz Becker, O., & Lois, D. (2010). Selection, alignment and their interplay: Origins
of lifestyle homogamy in couple relationships. Journal of Marriage and Family, 72,
1234–1248.
Bourdieu, P. (1984). Distinction. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Bourdieu, P. (1996). The rules of art. Genesis and structure of the literary field. Stanford,
CA: Stanford University Press.
Coulangeon, P. (2013). Changing policies, challenging theories and persisting
inequalities: Social disparities in cultural participation in France from 1981 to 2008.
Poetics, 41, 177–209.
Daenekindt, S., & Roose, H. (2013). Cultural chameleons: Social mobility and cultural
practices in the private and the public sphere. Acta Sociologica, 56, 309–324.

Cultural Consumption

11

Daenekindt, S., & Roose, H. (2017). Ways of preferring: Distinction through the ’what’
and the ’how’ of cultural consumption. Journal of Consumer Culture, 17, 25–45.
Della Posta, D., Shi, Y., & Macy, M. (2015). Why do liberals drink latte? American
Journal of Sociology, 120, 1473–1511.
Falk, M., & Katz-Gerro, T. (2016). Cultural participation in Europe: Can we identify
common determinants? Journal of Cultural Economics, 40, 127–162.
Gambetta, D. (2009). Signaling. In P. Hedström & P. Bearman (Eds.), The Oxford
handbook of analytical sociology (pp. 168–194). Oxford, England: Oxford University
Press.
Ganzeboom, H. B. G. (1982). Explaining differential participation in high-cultural
activities: A confrontation of information-processing and status-seeking theories.
In W. Raub (Ed.), Theoretical models and empirical analyses (pp. 186–205). Utrecht,
The Netherlands: ES-Publications.
Georg, W. (2016). Transmission of cultural capital and status attainment – An analysis
of development between 15 and 45 years of age. Longitudinal and Life Course Studies,
7, 106–123.
Gerhards, J. (2008). Die kulturell dominierende Klasse in Europa: Eine vergleichende
Analyse der 27 Mitgliedsländer der Europäischen Union im Anschluss an die Theorie von Pierre Bourdieu. Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie, 60,
723–748.
Hanquinet, L., Roose, H., & Savage, M. (2014). The eyes of the beholder: Aesthetic
preferences and the remaking of cultural capital. Sociology, 48, 111–132.
Hedström, P. (2005). Dissecting the social: On the principles of analytical sociology. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Holt, D. (1997). Distinction in America? Recovering Bourdieu’s theory of tastes from
its critics. Poetics, 25, 93–120.
Jackson, M. (2009). Disadvantaged through discrimination? The role of employers in
social stratification. British Journal of Sociology, 60, 669–692.
Jæger, M. M., & Breen, R. (2016). A dynamic model of cultural reproduction. American
Journal of Sociology, 121, 1079–1115.
Jarness, V. (2015). Modes of consumption: From ‘what’ to ‘how’ in cultural stratification research. Poetics, 53, 65–79.
Katz-Gerro, T., & Jæger, M. M. (2013). Top of the pops, ascend of the omnivores, defeat of the couch potatoes: Cultural consumption profiles in Denmark
1975–2004. European Sociological Review, 29, 243–260.
Koppman, S. (2015). Different like me. Why cultural omnivores get creative jobs.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 61, 291–331.
Lamont, M., & Lareau, A. (1988). Cultural capital: Allusions, gaps and glissandos in
recent theoretical developments. Sociological Theory, 6, 153–168.
Lamont, M., & Molnár, V. (2002). The study of boundaries in the social sciences.
Annual Review of Sociology, 28, 167–195.
Lareau, A., & Weininger, E. B. (2003). Cultural capital in educational research. A critical assessment. Theory and Society, 32, 567–606.

12

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

Leguina, A. (2015). Musical distinctions in England – Understanding cultural homology and omnivorism through a methods comparison. Bulletin of Sociological
Methodology, 126, 28–45.
Leopold, L., & Shavit, Y. (2013). Cultural capital does not travel well: Immigrants, natives and achievement in Israeli schools. European Sociological Review,
29, 450–463.
Lizardo, O. (2006). How cultural tastes shape personal networks. American Sociological Review, 71, 778–807.
Lizardo, O., & Skiles, S. (2009). Highbrow omnivorousness on the small screen? Cultural industry systems and patterns of cultural choice in Europe. Poetics, 37, 1–23.
Meuleman, R., & Savage, M. (2013). A field analysis of cosmopolitan taste: Lessons
from the Netherlands. Cultural Sociology, 7, 230–256.
Ollivier, M. (2008). Modes of openness to cultural diversity: Humanist, populist,
practical, and indifferent. Poetics, 36, 120–147.
Opp, K.-D. (1999). Contending conceptions of the theory of rational action. Journal of
Theoretical Politics, 11, 171–202.
Peterson, R., & Kern, R. (1996). Changing highbrow taste: From snob to omnivore.
American Sociological Review, 61, 900–907.
Reeves, A., & de Vries, R. (2016). The social gradient in cultural consumption and the
information-processing hypothesis. The Sociological Review, 64, 550–574.
Rivera, L., & Tilcsik, A. (2016). Class advantage, commitment penalty: The gendered
effect of social class signals in elite labor markets. American Sociological Review, 81,
1097–1131.
Robette, N., & Roueff, O. (2014). An eclectic eclecticism: Methodological and theoretical issues about the quantification of cultural omnivorism. Poetics, 47, 23–40.
Roose, H. (2015). Signs of ‘emerging’ cultural capital? Analysing symbolic struggles
using class specific analysis. Sociology, 49, 556–573.
Roose, H., van Eijck, K., & Lievens, J. (2012). Culture of distinction or culture of openness? Using a social space approach to analyze the social structuring of lifestyles.
Poetics, 40, 491–513.
Roose, H., & Vander Stichele, A. (2010). Living room vs. concert hall: Patterns of
music consumption in Flanders. Social Forces, 89, 185–207.
Rössel, J. (2008). Conditions for the explanatory power of life styles. European Sociological Review, 24, 231–241.
Rössel, J., & Schroedter, J. (2015). Cosmopolitan cultural consumption: Preferences
and practices in a heterogeneous, urban population in Switzerland. Poetics, 50,
80–95.
Rössel, J., & Weingartner, S. (2016). Opportunities for cultural consumption. How is
cultural participation in Switzerland shaped by regional cultural infrastructure?
Rationality and Society, 28(4), 1–23.
Sullivan, O., & Katz-Gerro, T. (2007). The omnivore thesis revisited: Voracious cultural consumers. European Sociological Review, 23, 123–137.
van Eijck, K., & Bargeman, B. (2004). The changing impact of social background on
lifestyle: “culturalization” instead of individualization? Poetics, 32, 439–461.

Cultural Consumption

13

van Hek, M., & Kraaykamp, G. (2013). Cultural consumption across countries: A
multi-level analysis of social inequality in highbrow culture in Europe. Poetics, 41,
323–341.
van Hek, M., & Kraaykamp, G. (2015). How do parents affect cultural participation
of their children? Poetics, 52, 124–138.
Warde, A., & Gayo-Cal, M. (2009). The anatomy of cultural omnivorousness: The case
of the United Kingdom. Poetics, 37, 119–145.
Weingartner, S. (2013). Hochkulturelle Praxis und Frame-Selektion. KZfSS Kölner
Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie, 65, 3–30.
Weingartner, S., & Rössel, J. (forthcoming). Changing Dimensions of Cultural Consumption? The Space of Lifestyles in Switzerland from 1976 to 2013. Poetics.
Yaish, M., & Katz-Gerro, T. (2012). Disentangling ’cultural capital’: The consequences
of cultural and economic resources for taste and participation. European Sociological
Review, 28, 169–185.

JÖRG RÖSSEL SHORT BIOGRAPHY
Jörg Rössel is a Professor of sociology at the Department of Sociology, University of Zurich. His main research interests include economic sociology, the
sociology of consumption, migration, and sociological theory. His publications have appeared in European Societies, European Sociological Review, Journal
of Consumer Culture, Poetics, Population, Space and Place, Rationality and Society,
Sociological Quarterly, and Sociological Perspectives.
PATRICK SCHENK SHORT BIOGRAPHY
Patrick Schenk is a Postdoctoral Researcher at the Department of Sociology, University of Zurich. His research interests are primarily in economic
sociology—particularly the sociology of markets and the sociology of consumption. He studies cultural consumption mainly in the context of the wine
market. In a series of publications, he analyzed the consumption and production of wine from a Bourdieusian perspective. He has published his research
in the Journal of Consumer Culture, Sociological Perspectives, Social Problems, and
the Berliner Journal für Soziologie.
SEBASTIAN WEINGARTNER SHORT BIOGRAPHY
Sebastian Weingartner is a Postdoctoral Researcher at the Department of
Sociology, University of Zurich. His research interests include the sociology
of lifestyles, cultural consumption, cultural economics, and cultural policy.
He specializes in applying and empirically testing actor models and analytical explanations within these fields. He has published his research in Poetics,
Rationality and Society, Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie,
and Zeitschrift für Soziologie.

14

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

RELATED ESSAYS
Models of Revealed Preference (Economics), Abi Adams and Ian Crawford
Global Economic Networks (Sociology), Nina Bandelj et al.
Choice Architecture (Psychology), Adrian R. Camilleri and Rick P. Larrick
Authenticity: Attribution, Value, and Meaning (Sociology), Glenn R. Carroll
Culture and Cognition (Sociology), Karen A. Cerulo
Elites (Sociology), Johan S. G. Chu and Mark S. Mizruchi
Architecture of Markets (Sociology), Neil Fligstein and Ryan Calder
Culture and Social Networks (Sociology), Jan A. Fuhse
Museum Anthropology (Anthropology), Candace S. Greene
Behavioral Economics (Sociology), Guy Hochman and Dan Ariely
Technology Diffusion (Economics), Adam B. Jaffe
Cultural Neuroscience: Connecting Culture, Brain, and Genes (Psychology),
Shinobu Kitayama and Sarah Huff
The Emerging Psychology of Social Class (Psychology), Michael W. Kraus
Exploring Opportunities in Cultural Diversity (Political Science), David D.
Laitin and Sangick Jeon
Longitudinal Data Analysis (Methods), Todd D. Little et al.
Against Game Theory (Psychology), Gale M. Lucas et al.
Business Anthropology (Anthropology), Brian Moeran
Culture as Situated Cognition (Psychology), Daphna Oyserman
Migration and Globalization (Political Science), Margaret E. Peters
Culture and Movements (Sociology), Francesca Polletta and Beth Gharrity
Gardner
Economics and Culture (Economics), Gérard Roland
Production of Culture (Sociology), Vaughn Schmutz and Candace N. Miller
Sustainability (Archaeology), Joseph A. Tainter et al.
The Social Science of Sustainability (Political Science), Johannes Urpelainen
Culture and Globalization (Sociology), Frederick F. Wherry