Psychological meaning of moving toward an olive-shaped society: Relationship between expanding the middle-income group and enhancing sense of fairness

doi:10.3724/SP.J.1041.2026.0292

Abstract

Abstract:

Expanding the middle-income group is a strategic priority toward forming an olive-shaped society, promoting common prosperity, and achieving Chinese-style modernization. While sociologists and economists have provided numerous social and economic recommendations regarding the expansion of this group from perspectives such as income, employment, social security, and industrial economy, research and suggestions from psychologists on the social psychological implications of this expansion and how it can enhance public perceptions of fairness have been lacking.
By integrating the social comparison theory and tunnel effect theory, this study proposes a parallel mechanism involving subjective socioeconomic status (SSES) and upward mobility perception, and examines the moderating effects of income and economic development level. Data was sourced from the China General Social Survey (CGSS), covering eight periods from 2010 to 2021 (N = 61,751). Participants ranged in age from 18 to 70 years (M_age = 46.20 ± 13.72). This study combined the annual survey data from the CGSS and utilized provincial data for period simulation. Given that the research model involved both micro and macro variables, a hierarchical linear regression model was employed for analysis, with individual variables treated as level-one variables and provincial variables as level-two variables.
This study found that: (1) the proportion of the middle-income group was approximately 48%, which remained relatively stable, expanding the proportion of the middle-income group faces difficulties; (2) expanding the middle-income group can significantly increase the sense of fairness, which is only possible through SSES, and does not significantly predict the perception of upward mobility; in fact, the mediating effect of upward mobility perception was not significant; (3) at higher levels of economic development, expanding the middle-income group can enhance the sense of fairness for all groups, while at lower levels of economic development, it can only improve the sense of fairness for higher-income group, potentially reducing the sense of fairness for lower-income group; (4) the higher the level of economic development, the more the expansion of the middle-income group can enhance the sense of fairness for higher-income group through SSES, or for the lower-income group through the perception of upward mobility and SSES; but will potentially reduce the upward mobility of higher-income group; (5) the spatiotemporal heterogeneity test indicates that the research results of this study have a certain degree of robustness and generalizability.
Through empirical research, the study demonstrates that common prosperity should be achieved step-by-step. When the level of economic development is low, equal distribution may fail to create a high sense of fairness; however, when economic development reaches a higher level, greater emphasis should be placed on equitable distribution. Therefore, for contemporary China, it is necessary to promote sustained economic development within the framework of high-quality growth while adjusting the income structure becomes increasingly crucial. Additionally, attention should be paid to differentiating strategies for enhancing the sense of fairness among different groups of people in varying periods and contexts.

Key words: sense of fairness, social comparison, tunnel effect, middle-income group, common prosperity

ZHANG Yan, WANG Junxiu, XU Boyang, CUI Yuqing. (2026). Psychological meaning of moving toward an olive-shaped society: Relationship between expanding the middle-income group and enhancing sense of fairness. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 58(2), 292-307.

Figures/Tables 14

References 40

[1]	Chen Z. S. & Chen T. F. (2024). The measurement and trend analysis of the scale of China’s middle-income group. Changbai Journal, (4), 1-24.
[2]	Diemer M. A., Mistry R. S., Wadsworth M. E., López I., & Reimers F. (2013). Best practices in conceptualizing and measuring social class in psychological research. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, 13(1), 77-113. doi: 10.1111/asap.2013.13.issue-1 URL
[3]	Gao W. J. (2018). The model of the development of subjective social status based on social comparison. Journal of Social Sciences of Hunan Normal University, (4), 90-100.
[4]	Gao W. J. (2020). Research on the current situation of social justice and its influencing factors. Journal of Guangxi Normal University: Philosophy and Social Sciences Edition, 56(5), 28-44.
[5]	Han K. (2022). China's model of common prosperity. Administration Reform, (4), 4-8.
[6]	Hayes A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation and conditional process analysis. Guilford Press.
[7]	Hirschman A. O., & Rothschild M. (1973). The changing tolerance for income inequality in the course of economic development. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 87(4), 544-566. doi: 10.2307/1882024 URL
[8]	Hoff E., & Laursen B. (2019). Socioeconomic status and parenting. In M. H. Bornstein (Ed.), Handbook of parenting (pp. 421-447). Routledge.
[9]	Huai M. T. (2009). Views of Chinese citizens on current inequalities.? Sociological Research, (1), 96-120.
[10]	Huang Y. L. (2022). Social cognition change of middle-income group in the transitional period:Tendency and impact. Journal of Huazhong University of Science and Technology (Social Science Edition), 36(4), 102-111.
[11]	Kelley J., & Evans M. D. R. (2017). Societal inequality and individual subjective well-being: Results from 68 societies and over 200,000 individuals, 1981-2008. Social Science Research, 62, 1-23. doi: S0049-089X(16)30221-6 pmid: 28126092
[12]	Kuznets S. (1955). Economic growth and income inequality. The American Economic Review, 45(1), 1-28.
[13]	Li C. L. (2022). China's middle income group in the new stage of common prosperity:Growth status and policies design. Journal of Beijing University (Social Sciences Edition), 22(2), 38-48.
[14]	Li J. C., & Ren Z. Y. (2023). Research on the definition criteria and reasonable scale of middle-income groups in the context of common prosperity. Statistical and Information Forum, 38(2), 16-28.
[15]	Li J. C., Ren Z. Y., & Chen Y. Z. (2023). The logic and path of expanding middle-income group: Quantitative analysis based on international experience and Chinese practice. Statistical Research, 40(7), 3-16.
[16]	Li P. L. (2020). Trends and hot issues in social stratification in China. In D. Y. Hong & S. J. Liu (Eds.), Sociology and Chinese social research: Record of Zheng Hangseng sociology lectures (Volume 1). Renmin University of China Press.
[17]	Li P. L., Li Q., Xie L. Z., Zhang Y., & Li L. (2019). 40 years of reform and opening-up and social development in China. Financial Minds, 4(1), 33-63.
[18]	Li W. (2019). The sense of social fairness: Structure and trends of change (2006-2017). Journal of Huazhong University of Science and Technology (Social Science Edition), 33(6), 100-121.
[19]	Liu N. (2013). International lessons from the middle-income trap and pathways for China’s advancement. Practice in Foreign Economic Relations and Trade, (9), 29-31.
[20]	Liu S. J., Wang Z. H., Jiang S. J., & Zhao J. X. (2022). A study on the potential, timeframe and pathways of realizing the doubling of middle-income groups. Management World, (8), 54-66.
[21]	Ng S. H., & Allen M. W. (2005). Perception of economic distributive justice: Exploring leading theories. Social Behavior and Personality, 33(5), 435-454. doi: 10.2224/sbp.2005.33.5.435 URL
[22]	OECD. (2019). Society at a glance 2019: OECD social indicators. OECD Publishing.
[23]	Piketty T. (2014). Capital in the twenty-first century. CITIC.
[24]	Reyes G., & Gasparini L. (2022). Are fairness perceptions shaped by income inequality? Evidence from Latin America. Journal of Economic Inequality, 20(4), 893-913. doi: 10.1007/s10888-022-09526-w
[25]	Su H. N. (2003). Strive to increase the proportion of middle- income population in China. Macroeconomics, (4), 12-14.
[26]	Sun B. C. (2024). Towards common prosperity: A research on quantitative effect and influencing factors of expanding middle-income groups. Journal of Statistics and Information, 39(12), 112-125.
[27]	Trump K.-S. (2020). When and why is economic inequality seen as fair. Political Ideologies, 34, 46-51.
[28]	Wei Q. G., Zhang Y., & Li H. L. (2014). “The dual impression” in the development process: A study on the perception of income inequality among urban residents in China. Journal of Social Development, (3), 1-32.
[29]	Whyte M. K. (2010). Myth of the social volcano: Perceptions of inequality and distributive injustice in contemporary China. Stanford University Press.
[30]	Wood J. V. (1996). What is social comparison and how should we study it? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22(5), 520-537. doi: 10.1177/0146167296225009 URL
[31]	Xu Q., He G. Y., & Hu J. (2020). Marketization and change of perceptions about distributive justice in China: 2005-2015. Society, 40(3), 88-116.
[32]	Yang C. (2019). The identification and social attitude of middle class in China. Beijing Social Sciences, (4), 91-104.
[33]	Yang Y., Gu Y., & Wan H. (2016). Expanding the middle-income group to build a well-off society in an all-round way. Macroeconomic Management, (9), 11-14.
[34]	Zhang W. H., Liu F., & Xiang J. (2023). Research on the public's subjective status identity in China under the background of common prosperity. Sociological Research, (4), 27-49.
[35]	Zhang Y. (2024). For a fair world: The sense of fairness among the Chinese people from the perspective of social change. China Social Sciences Press.
[36]	Zhang Y., & Wang J. X. (2023). Re-exploring the issue of misalignment between subjective and objective class: From identity to class. Journal of Jiangsu Administrative Institute, (1), 66-76.
[37]	Zheng C., & Sun H. (2016). Income, expectations of social status mobility, and public perception of social equity: An empirical test using CGSS (2010, 2013) data. Western Forum, 26(5), 100-108.
[38]	Zhou Y., Xu B. Y., Shi J. M., & Lin X. Y. (2023). Authoritarian parenting and physical bullying: The mediation effect of aggression attitudes and the dual moderation effects of low self-control and teacher support. Journal of Psychological Science, 46(5), 1228-1236.
[39]	Zhu B. (2024). The growth mechanism and regional differences of the middle income group in China. Zhejiang Social Sciences, (4), 80-92.
[40]	Zou Y. C. (2023). The power of the times: A trend analysis of the class identity bias of the middle-income group in china. Sociological Research, 38(3), 180-202.

Variable		Full Sample Characteristics			Period Mean
Variable		Mean	SD	Range	2010	2011	2012	2013	2015	2017	2018	2021
Individual Variables	Perceived Fairness	3.09	1.05	1~5	2.96	3.08	3.02	2.97	3.18	3.06	3.17	3.42
	Gender	0.48	0.50	0=Female, 1=Male	0.48	0.47	0.52	0.51	0.48	0.47	0.47	0.46
	Age	46.20	13.72	18~70	44.89	45.29	45.82	45.35	46.46	46.97	47.60	47.27
	Residence	0.62	0.49	0=Rural, 1=Urban	0.60	0.57	0.60	0.61	0.59	0.64	0.71	0.58
	Household Annual Income (log)	10.54	1.12	4.61~16.12	10.12	10.15	10.37	10.55	10.60	10.74	10.80	11.01
	Years of Education	9.31	4.46	0~19	8.96	8.87	9.20	9.31	9.19	9.62	9.35	10.10
	Ethnicity	0.92	0.27	0=Ethnic minority, 1=Han	0.90	0.95	0.91	0.92	0.92	0.92	0.93	0.93
	Religious Belief	0.11	0.31	0=No, 1=Yes	0.13	0.11	0.14	0.10	0.10	0.10	0.10	0.07
	Party Membership	0.11	0.31	0=Non-member, 1=Communist Party Member	0.12	0.10	0.12	0.10	0.10	0.10	0.10	0.12
	Self-rated Health	3.61	1.09	1~5	3.67	2.87	3.62	3.80	3.71	3.57	3.64	3.58
	Employment Status - Unemployed	0.33	0.47	0=No, 1=Yes	0.31	0.28	0.29	0.30	0.35	0.36	0.38	0.40
	Employment Status - Agricultural Work	0.23	0.42	0=No, 1=Yes	0.27	0.29	0.26	0.24	0.22	0.19	0.18	0.16
	Employment Status - Non-agricultural Work	0.44	0.50	0=No, 1=Yes	0.42	0.43	0.45	0.46	0.43	0.45	0.44	0.43
	Marital Status	0.82	0.39	0=unmarried、 1=married	0.85	0.84	0.84	0.83	0.81	0.80	0.80	0.76
	Subjective Socioeconomic Status	4.21	1.69	1~10	4.04	4.12	4.17	4.36	4.32	4.14	4.26	4.31
	Perceived Upward Mobility	1.00	1.39	-9~9	1.16	1.21	1.12	1.06	0.95	0.88	0.78	0.91
Provincial Variables	Provincial Variables
	Middle-income Group Proportion	0.48	0.08	0.28~0.81	0.46	0.49	0.49	0.52	0.48	0.46	0.45	0.47
	Per Capita GDP (log)	10.70	0.50	9.46~12.14	10.24	10.44	10.53	10.63	10.76	10.92	11.02	11.26
	Per Capita GDP Growth Rate	0.12	0.06	-0.02~0.29	0.18	0.19	0.10	0.10	0.05	0.10	0.10	0.14
	Urbanization Rate	0.58	0.13	0.23~0.90	0.51	0.54	0.54	0.56	0.59	0.62	0.63	0.65
	Gender Ratio (Female=100)	104.79	3.78	95.77~120.43	104.29	104.99	104.85	105.23	105.56	104.44	104.72	104.11
	Total Dependency Ratio	36.75	7.38	19.3~56.7	34.92	33.73	34.33	34.51	36.02	38.14	38.97	46.65
	Share of Social Security Spending	0.13	0.03	0.06~0.28	0.12	0.12	0.11	0.12	0.13	0.14	0.14	0.16
	Share of Tertiary Industry	0.47	0.09	0.32~0.83	0.43	0.43	0.44	0.45	0.49	0.52	0.53	0.51
	Share of Private-sector Employment	0.33	0.12	0.08~0.73	0.29	0.30	0.30	0.29	0.33	0.37	0.38	0.41
	Higher Education Enrollment Ratio	1.08	0.57	0.38~3.54	0.93	1.02	0.99	1.01	1.06	1.14	1.17	1.42
Sample Size		61751	/	/	9189	4289	9053	8653	7954	9028	8886	4699
Number of Provinces		217	/	/	31	26	29	28	28	28	28	19

Variable		Full Sample Characteristics			Period Mean
Variable		Mean	SD	Range	2010	2011	2012	2013	2015	2017	2018	2021
Individual Variables	Perceived Fairness	3.09	1.05	1~5	2.96	3.08	3.02	2.97	3.18	3.06	3.17	3.42
	Gender	0.48	0.50	0=Female, 1=Male	0.48	0.47	0.52	0.51	0.48	0.47	0.47	0.46
	Age	46.20	13.72	18~70	44.89	45.29	45.82	45.35	46.46	46.97	47.60	47.27
	Residence	0.62	0.49	0=Rural, 1=Urban	0.60	0.57	0.60	0.61	0.59	0.64	0.71	0.58
	Household Annual Income (log)	10.54	1.12	4.61~16.12	10.12	10.15	10.37	10.55	10.60	10.74	10.80	11.01
	Years of Education	9.31	4.46	0~19	8.96	8.87	9.20	9.31	9.19	9.62	9.35	10.10
	Ethnicity	0.92	0.27	0=Ethnic minority, 1=Han	0.90	0.95	0.91	0.92	0.92	0.92	0.93	0.93
	Religious Belief	0.11	0.31	0=No, 1=Yes	0.13	0.11	0.14	0.10	0.10	0.10	0.10	0.07
	Party Membership	0.11	0.31	0=Non-member, 1=Communist Party Member	0.12	0.10	0.12	0.10	0.10	0.10	0.10	0.12
	Self-rated Health	3.61	1.09	1~5	3.67	2.87	3.62	3.80	3.71	3.57	3.64	3.58
	Employment Status - Unemployed	0.33	0.47	0=No, 1=Yes	0.31	0.28	0.29	0.30	0.35	0.36	0.38	0.40
	Employment Status - Agricultural Work	0.23	0.42	0=No, 1=Yes	0.27	0.29	0.26	0.24	0.22	0.19	0.18	0.16
	Employment Status - Non-agricultural Work	0.44	0.50	0=No, 1=Yes	0.42	0.43	0.45	0.46	0.43	0.45	0.44	0.43
	Marital Status	0.82	0.39	0=unmarried、 1=married	0.85	0.84	0.84	0.83	0.81	0.80	0.80	0.76
	Subjective Socioeconomic Status	4.21	1.69	1~10	4.04	4.12	4.17	4.36	4.32	4.14	4.26	4.31
	Perceived Upward Mobility	1.00	1.39	-9~9	1.16	1.21	1.12	1.06	0.95	0.88	0.78	0.91
Provincial Variables	Provincial Variables
	Middle-income Group Proportion	0.48	0.08	0.28~0.81	0.46	0.49	0.49	0.52	0.48	0.46	0.45	0.47
	Per Capita GDP (log)	10.70	0.50	9.46~12.14	10.24	10.44	10.53	10.63	10.76	10.92	11.02	11.26
	Per Capita GDP Growth Rate	0.12	0.06	-0.02~0.29	0.18	0.19	0.10	0.10	0.05	0.10	0.10	0.14
	Urbanization Rate	0.58	0.13	0.23~0.90	0.51	0.54	0.54	0.56	0.59	0.62	0.63	0.65
	Gender Ratio (Female=100)	104.79	3.78	95.77~120.43	104.29	104.99	104.85	105.23	105.56	104.44	104.72	104.11
	Total Dependency Ratio	36.75	7.38	19.3~56.7	34.92	33.73	34.33	34.51	36.02	38.14	38.97	46.65
	Share of Social Security Spending	0.13	0.03	0.06~0.28	0.12	0.12	0.11	0.12	0.13	0.14	0.14	0.16
	Share of Tertiary Industry	0.47	0.09	0.32~0.83	0.43	0.43	0.44	0.45	0.49	0.52	0.53	0.51
	Share of Private-sector Employment	0.33	0.12	0.08~0.73	0.29	0.30	0.30	0.29	0.33	0.37	0.38	0.41
	Higher Education Enrollment Ratio	1.08	0.57	0.38~3.54	0.93	1.02	0.99	1.01	1.06	1.14	1.17	1.42
Sample Size		61751	/	/	9189	4289	9053	8653	7954	9028	8886	4699
Number of Provinces		217	/	/	31	26	29	28	28	28	28	19

Variables	Model 1: Perceived Fairness	Model 2: Perceived Fairness	Model 3: Subjective Socioeconomic Status	Model 4: Perceived Upward Mobility
Intercept	0.369^***(0.063)	0.263^*** (0.063)	0.504^*** (0.081)	2.361^*** (0.068)
Control Variables	Controlled	Controlled	Controlled	Controlled
Middle-income Group Proportion	0.435^***(0.077)	0.403^*** (0.076)	0.316^** (0.115)	-0.102 (0.095)
Subjective Socioeconomic Status		0.103^***(0.003)
Perceived Upward Mobility		0.023^*** (0.003)

Variables	Model 1: Perceived Fairness	Model 2: Perceived Fairness	Model 3: Subjective Socioeconomic Status	Model 4: Perceived Upward Mobility
Intercept	0.369^***(0.063)	0.263^*** (0.063)	0.504^*** (0.081)	2.361^*** (0.068)
Control Variables	Controlled	Controlled	Controlled	Controlled
Middle-income Group Proportion	0.435^***(0.077)	0.403^*** (0.076)	0.316^** (0.115)	-0.102 (0.095)
Subjective Socioeconomic Status		0.103^***(0.003)
Perceived Upward Mobility		0.023^*** (0.003)

Path	Model 1	Model 2	Model 3	Model 4	Model 5	Model 6
Middle-income Group Proportion×Income →Perceived Fairness	0.352^***(0.058)				0.215^***(0.063)
Middle-income Group Proportion×GDP →Perceived Fairness		0.814^***(0.157)			0.658^***(0.169)
Middle-income Group Proportion×Income →Subjective Socioeconomic Status			0.951^***(0.088)			0.863^***(0.096)
Middle-income Group Proportion×Income →Perceived Upward Mobility			-0.306^*** 0.073)			-0.226^**(0.079)
Middle-income Group Proportion×GDP →Subjective Socioeconomic Status				1.877^***(0.235)		1.134^***(0.253)
Middle-income Group Proportion×GDP →Perceived Upward Mobility				-0.567^**(0.195)		-0.207 (0.210)
Middle-income Group Proportion×Income×GDP →Perceived Fairness					-0.236^*(0.117)
Middle-income Group Proportion×Income×GDP →Subjective Socioeconomic Status						-0.086 (0.178)
Middle-income Group Proportion×Income×GDP →Perceived Upward Mobility						-0.553^***(0.147)