This interview was published in the Social Sciences and Solvay Business School Newsletter. The full text of the article "Psychological Capital and Social Class: A Capital Approach to Understanding Positive Psychological States and Their Role in Explaining Social Inequalities", pulished in PloSOne and authored by Deborah De Moortel, Mattias Vos, Bram Spruyt, Christophe Vanroelen, Joeri Hofmans and Edina Dóci is available here.
Psychological capital and social class: A capital approach to understanding positive psychological states and their role in explaining social inequalities
Interview with Deborah De Moortel
“Building self-confidence is not only an individual task but also a group responsibility.”
Deborah De Moortel is a professor at BRISPO and coordinator of the EU CoWork-project, where she researches compassionate workplaces. As part of a senior FWO mandate and in collaboration with an interdisciplinary team, she wrote the article 'Psychological capital and social class: A capital approach to understanding positive psychological states and their role in explaining social inequalities’.
Hello Deborah, can you explain what the article is about?
The article is part of a two-part series. Earlier, we wrote a theoretical article. Then we tested that theory with data from a European database to verify if the theory holds true. That research led to the current article.
Which theory did you base your research on?
The theory focuses on social mobility and social inequality from the perspective of sociologist Pierre Bourdieu. Bourdieu distinguishes three types of capital: social, cultural, and economic, which together have the potential to define a social class and serve as means of power to achieve goals. We wanted to show that psychological capital (PsyCap), which unlike the Bourdieusian forms of capital has a personality trait-like component, and like the Bourdieusian forms of capital, can contribute to social mobility and social inequality.
What exactly does PsyCap entail?
PsyCap includes hope, self-efficacy, optimism, and resilience. It has a trait-like (or nature) component and a state-like (or nurture) component, so increasing your PsyCap is possible. To develop these characteristics, success experiences are essential. Research shows that individuals from dominant groups are more likely to develop high PsyCap for several reasons. First, these groups are perceived more positively by their environment, leading to repeated success experiences and social confirmations. Second, members of dominant social groups get more opportunities to prove their skills, which further strengthens their PsyCap. Finally, these individuals often have access to more alternative paths to success, such as a larger network, making it easier for them to achieve their goals.
What were the main findings after testing this theory?
First, we demonstrated that PsyCap can be considered a form of capital. There is a correlation between PsyCap and the Bourdieusian capitals, but these correlations are not so high that they overlap. This means that PsyCap is sufficiently different to be seen as a separate type of capital. Moreover, using Structural Equation Modeling, we confirmed that the theoretic model with PsyCap as a separate form of capital, compared to theoretical models where PsyCap is integrated in the Bourdieusian forms of capital, fitted better to the European data. Second, using the Bourdieusian capitals and PsyCap we distinguished six distinct social classes in Europe and compared their distribution across countries. Our results showed that government policies and economic conditions play a significant role in the distribution of these social classes. More than half of the European population has not received higher education, resulting in large social classes with low cultural capital. In countries like Portugal, Italy, and Albania, these classes also have low PsyCap. Yet, in countries like Western and Northern Europe, the social class with low cultural capital and high PsyCap is more common. This suggests that these countries can support a relatively prosperous social position, despite low cultural capital. Lastly, across Europe, we found that social classes with high Bourdieusian capital usually also have high PsyCap, and vice versa. Furthermore, people who scored lower on economic or cultural capital could still have high PsyCap, and this was always linked to a high volume of social capital. Although the capital volume of these classes was still lower than in the highest classes, it proves that these groups draw power from their social capital and PsyCap.
How can we explain the latter finding?
We can understand this using resistance theory. According to this theory, social groups in a weak social position use different strategies to make life bearable. One of these strategies is participating in a subculture, which positively influences their self-image. This emphasizes the importance of the relationship between social and PsyCap: social interactions strongly influence people's self-image, self-efficacy, and future outlook, and people with high PsyCap also build valuable social relationships more easily.
You mentioned your research is part of a two-part study. Is there potential for a third part, and what opportunities exist for further research?
Developing high PsyCap is more challenging for individuals with a lower socioeconomic status compared to those born into higher social classes. While being born into a higher social class does not automatically guarantee high PsyCap, it is often passed down through the success experiences of the parents. The key question is how we can support individuals from lower classes in achieving high PsyCap. School and work environments may play a crucial role in this process. In these settings, individuals can receive positive social reinforcement, gain success experiences, learn, and receive support. Further research is needed to determine how these environments can effectively contribute to increasing PsyCap in people from lower socioeconomic backgrounds.
Your research focuses on individuals from different socioeconomic classes, but which specific groups could particularly benefit from your findings?
Women and minority groups in general. Influenced by neoliberal ideologies, these groups often blame themselves for their difficulties in the work or educational context. They might struggle with self-confidence and attribute this to themselves. It is important to look at your environment: does it provide enough support to build self-confidence? Often, this is not entirely the case. Realizing that it is not just your fault can be a relief. Therefore, building self-confidence is not only an individual task but also a group responsibility.
