迈向橄榄型社会的心理意义：扩大中等收入群体与公平感提升

doi:10.3724/SP.J.1041.2026.0292

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 扩大中等收入群体是推进共同富裕和实现中国式现代化的重要途径。为考察扩大中等收入群体与公平感的关系, 本文分析了中国综合社会调查2010~2021年8期数据(N = 61,751)。结果发现：扩大中等收入群体与公平感的关系受到收入和经济发展水平的双重调节, 主观社会经济地位和向上流动感知在其中起到相互拮抗的中介作用。具体来说, 当收入和经济发展水平都低时, 扩大中等收入群体会降低公平感, 主观社会经济地位有显著负向的中介作用, 而向上流动感知有显著正向的中介作用; 当收入或经济发展水平变高时, 扩大中等收入群体对公平感的预测作用转为正向, 主观社会经济地位的中介作用转为正向, 而向上流动感知的中介作用转为负向。时空异质性检验发现研究结果具有可推广性。总的来说, 本研究提示调整收入分配结构应以经济发展为先。

关键词: 社会公平感, 社会比较, 隧道效应, 中等收入群体, 共同富裕

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

中图分类号:

B849: C91

张衍, 王俊秀, 许博洋, 崔雨晴. (2026). 迈向橄榄型社会的心理意义：扩大中等收入群体与公平感提升. 心理学报, 58(2), 292-307.

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.

图/表 14

参考文献 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.
	[陈宗胜, 陈涛峰. (2024). 中国中等收入群体规模测度与变动趋势分析. 长白学刊, (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.
	[高文珺. (2018). 基于社会比较的主观社会阶层过程模型. 湖南师范大学社会科学学报, (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.
	[高文珺. (2020). 社会公平感现状及影响因素研究. 广西师范大学学报(哲学社会科学版), 56(5), 28-44.]
[5]	Han K. (2022). China's model of common prosperity. Administration Reform, (4), 4-8.
	[韩康. (2022). 共同富裕的中国模式. 行政管理改革, (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.
	[怀默霆. (2009). 中国民众如何看待当前的社会不平等. 社会学研究, (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.
	[黄永亮. (2022). 转型时期中等收入群体的社会认知变迁:趋势和影响. 华中科技大学学报(社会科学版), 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.
	[李春玲. (2022). 迈向共同富裕阶段:我国中等收入群体成长和政策设计. 北京工业大学学报(社会科学版), 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.
	[李金昌, 任志远. (2023). 共同富裕背景下中等收入群体的界定标准与合理规模研究. 统计与信息论坛, 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.
	[李金昌, 任志远, 陈宜治. (2023). 扩大中等收入群体的内在逻辑与路径选择——基于国际经验与中国实践的定量分析. 统计研究, 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.
	[李培林. (2020). 我国社会分层的变动趋势和热点问题. 见洪大用, 刘少杰(编), 社会学与中国社会研究——郑杭生社会学大讲堂实录(第一辑). 中国人民大学出版社.]
[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.
	[李培林, 李强, 谢立中, 张翼, 李林. (2019). 改革开放40年与中国社会发展. 财经智库, 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.
	[李炜. (2019). 社会公平感:结构与变动趋势(2006-2017年). 华中科技大学学报(社会科学版), 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.
	[刘娜. (2013). 中等收入陷阱的国际借鉴及我国的提升路径. 对外经贸实务, (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.
	[刘世锦, 王子豪, 姜淑佳, 赵建翔. (2022). 实现中等收入群体倍增的潜力、时间与路径研究. 管理世界, (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.
	[托马斯·皮凯蒂. (2014). 21世纪资本论. 中信出版社.]
[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.
	[苏海南. (2003). 努力扩大我国的中等收入者比重. 宏观经济研究, (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.
	[孙伯驰. (2024). 走向共同富裕: 中国“扩中”量化效果及影响因素研究. 统计与信息论坛, 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.
	[魏钦恭, 张彦, 李汉林. (2014). 发展进程中的“双重印象”:中国城市居民的收入不公平感研究. 社会发展研究, (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.
	[许琪, 贺光烨, 胡洁. (2020). 市场化与中国民众社会公平感的变迁:2005-2015. 社会, 40(3), 88-116.]
[32]	Yang C. (2019). The identification and social attitude of middle class in China. Beijing Social Sciences, (4), 91-104.
	[杨灿. (2019). 中等收入者主观认同感与社会态度研究. 北京社会科学, (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.
	[杨宜勇, 顾严, 万海远. (2016). 扩大中等收入群体全面建成小康社会. 宏观经济管理, (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.
	[张文宏, 刘飞, 项军. (2023). 共同富裕背景下中国公众主观地位认同研究. 社会学研究, (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.
	[张衍. (2024). 天下为公:社会变迁视角下中国民众的公平感. 中国社会科学出版社.]
[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.
	[张衍, 王俊秀. (2023). 主客观阶层不对应问题再探讨:从身份到阶层. 江苏行政学院学报, (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.
	[郑畅, 孙浩. (2016). 收入、社会地位流动预期与民众社会公平认知——采用CGSS (2010、2013)数据的实证检验. 西部论坛, 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.
	[周由, 许博洋, 史敬敏, 蔺秀云. (2023). 专制教养与校园身体欺凌:攻击态度的中介作用与低自我控制和教师漠视的双重调节作用. 心理科学, 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.
	[朱斌. (2024). 我国中等收入群体的成长机制及其区域差异. 浙江社会科学, (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.
	[邹宇春. (2023). 时代之力:我国中等收入群体阶层认同偏差的趋势分析. 社会学研究, 38(3), 180-202.]

变量		全样本特征			分时期均值
变量		均值	标准差	取值范围	2010	2011	2012	2013	2015	2017	2018	2021
个体变量
	公平感	3.09	1.05	1~5	2.96	3.08	3.02	2.97	3.18	3.06	3.17	3.42
	性别	0.48	0.50	0=女性、1=男性	0.48	0.47	0.52	0.51	0.48	0.47	0.47	0.46
	年龄	46.20	13.72	18~70	44.89	45.29	45.82	45.35	46.46	46.97	47.60	47.27
	居住地	0.62	0.49	0=农村、1=城镇	0.60	0.57	0.60	0.61	0.59	0.64	0.71	0.58
	家庭年收入(对数)	10.54	1.12	4.61~16.12	10.12	10.15	10.37	10.55	10.60	10.74	10.80	11.01
	受教育年限	9.31	4.46	0~19	8.96	8.87	9.20	9.31	9.19	9.62	9.35	10.10
	民族状况	0.92	0.27	0=少数民族、1=汉族	0.90	0.95	0.91	0.92	0.92	0.92	0.93	0.93
	宗教信仰	0.11	0.31	0=无、1=有	0.13	0.11	0.14	0.10	0.10	0.10	0.10	0.07
	政治面貌	0.11	0.31	0=非共产党员、 1=共产党员	0.12	0.10	0.12	0.10	0.10	0.10	0.10	0.12
	健康状况自评	3.61	1.09	1~5	3.67	2.87	3.62	3.80	3.71	3.57	3.64	3.58
	工作状况−无工作	0.33	0.47	0=否、1=是	0.31	0.28	0.29	0.30	0.35	0.36	0.38	0.40
	工作状况−务农	0.23	0.42	0=否、1=是	0.27	0.29	0.26	0.24	0.22	0.19	0.18	0.16
	工作状况−非农工作	0.44	0.50	0=否、1=是	0.42	0.43	0.45	0.46	0.43	0.45	0.44	0.43
	婚姻状况	0.82	0.39	0=未婚、1=已婚	0.85	0.84	0.84	0.83	0.81	0.80	0.80	0.76
	主观社会经济地位	4.21	1.69	1~10	4.04	4.12	4.17	4.36	4.32	4.14	4.26	4.31
	向上流动感知	1.00	1.39	−9~9	1.16	1.21	1.12	1.06	0.95	0.88	0.78	0.91
省级变量
	中等收入群体占比	0.48	0.08	0.28~0.81	0.46	0.49	0.49	0.52	0.48	0.46	0.45	0.47
	人均GDP (对数)	10.70	0.50	9.46~12.14	10.24	10.44	10.53	10.63	10.76	10.92	11.02	11.26
	人均GDP增速	0.12	0.06	−0.02~0.29	0.18	0.19	0.10	0.10	0.05	0.10	0.10	0.14
	城镇化率	0.58	0.13	0.23~0.90	0.51	0.54	0.54	0.56	0.59	0.62	0.63	0.65
	性别比(女性=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
	总抚养比	36.75	7.38	19.3~56.7	34.92	33.73	34.33	34.51	36.02	38.14	38.97	46.65
	社会保障占比	0.13	0.03	0.06~0.28	0.12	0.12	0.11	0.12	0.13	0.14	0.14	0.16
	第三产业占比	0.47	0.09	0.32~0.83	0.43	0.43	0.44	0.45	0.49	0.52	0.53	0.51
	私营就业人员占比	0.33	0.12	0.08~0.73	0.29	0.30	0.30	0.29	0.33	0.37	0.38	0.41
	高等教育招生比	1.08	0.57	0.38~3.54	0.93	1.02	0.99	1.01	1.06	1.14	1.17	1.42
样本数		61751	/	/	9189	4289	9053	8653	7954	9028	8886	4699
省份数		217	/	/	31	26	29	28	28	28	28	19

变量		全样本特征			分时期均值
变量		均值	标准差	取值范围	2010	2011	2012	2013	2015	2017	2018	2021
个体变量
	公平感	3.09	1.05	1~5	2.96	3.08	3.02	2.97	3.18	3.06	3.17	3.42
	性别	0.48	0.50	0=女性、1=男性	0.48	0.47	0.52	0.51	0.48	0.47	0.47	0.46
	年龄	46.20	13.72	18~70	44.89	45.29	45.82	45.35	46.46	46.97	47.60	47.27
	居住地	0.62	0.49	0=农村、1=城镇	0.60	0.57	0.60	0.61	0.59	0.64	0.71	0.58
	家庭年收入(对数)	10.54	1.12	4.61~16.12	10.12	10.15	10.37	10.55	10.60	10.74	10.80	11.01
	受教育年限	9.31	4.46	0~19	8.96	8.87	9.20	9.31	9.19	9.62	9.35	10.10
	民族状况	0.92	0.27	0=少数民族、1=汉族	0.90	0.95	0.91	0.92	0.92	0.92	0.93	0.93
	宗教信仰	0.11	0.31	0=无、1=有	0.13	0.11	0.14	0.10	0.10	0.10	0.10	0.07
	政治面貌	0.11	0.31	0=非共产党员、 1=共产党员	0.12	0.10	0.12	0.10	0.10	0.10	0.10	0.12
	健康状况自评	3.61	1.09	1~5	3.67	2.87	3.62	3.80	3.71	3.57	3.64	3.58
	工作状况−无工作	0.33	0.47	0=否、1=是	0.31	0.28	0.29	0.30	0.35	0.36	0.38	0.40
	工作状况−务农	0.23	0.42	0=否、1=是	0.27	0.29	0.26	0.24	0.22	0.19	0.18	0.16
	工作状况−非农工作	0.44	0.50	0=否、1=是	0.42	0.43	0.45	0.46	0.43	0.45	0.44	0.43
	婚姻状况	0.82	0.39	0=未婚、1=已婚	0.85	0.84	0.84	0.83	0.81	0.80	0.80	0.76
	主观社会经济地位	4.21	1.69	1~10	4.04	4.12	4.17	4.36	4.32	4.14	4.26	4.31
	向上流动感知	1.00	1.39	−9~9	1.16	1.21	1.12	1.06	0.95	0.88	0.78	0.91
省级变量
	中等收入群体占比	0.48	0.08	0.28~0.81	0.46	0.49	0.49	0.52	0.48	0.46	0.45	0.47
	人均GDP (对数)	10.70	0.50	9.46~12.14	10.24	10.44	10.53	10.63	10.76	10.92	11.02	11.26
	人均GDP增速	0.12	0.06	−0.02~0.29	0.18	0.19	0.10	0.10	0.05	0.10	0.10	0.14
	城镇化率	0.58	0.13	0.23~0.90	0.51	0.54	0.54	0.56	0.59	0.62	0.63	0.65
	性别比(女性=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
	总抚养比	36.75	7.38	19.3~56.7	34.92	33.73	34.33	34.51	36.02	38.14	38.97	46.65
	社会保障占比	0.13	0.03	0.06~0.28	0.12	0.12	0.11	0.12	0.13	0.14	0.14	0.16
	第三产业占比	0.47	0.09	0.32~0.83	0.43	0.43	0.44	0.45	0.49	0.52	0.53	0.51
	私营就业人员占比	0.33	0.12	0.08~0.73	0.29	0.30	0.30	0.29	0.33	0.37	0.38	0.41
	高等教育招生比	1.08	0.57	0.38~3.54	0.93	1.02	0.99	1.01	1.06	1.14	1.17	1.42
样本数		61751	/	/	9189	4289	9053	8653	7954	9028	8886	4699
省份数		217	/	/	31	26	29	28	28	28	28	19

变量	模型1：因变量−公平感	模型2：因变量−公平感	模型3 因变量−主观社会经济地位	模型4：因变量−向上流动感知
截距	0.369^*** (0.063)	0.263^*** (0.063)	0.504^*** (0.081)	2.361^*** (0.068)
控制变量	已控制	已控制	已控制	已控制
中等收入群体占比	0.435^*** (0.077)	0.403^*** (0.076)	0.316^** (0.115)	−0.102 (0.095)
主观社会经济地位		0.103^*** (0.003)
向上流动感知		0.023^*** (0.003)

变量	模型1：因变量−公平感	模型2：因变量−公平感	模型3 因变量−主观社会经济地位	模型4：因变量−向上流动感知
截距	0.369^*** (0.063)	0.263^*** (0.063)	0.504^*** (0.081)	2.361^*** (0.068)
控制变量	已控制	已控制	已控制	已控制
中等收入群体占比	0.435^*** (0.077)	0.403^*** (0.076)	0.316^** (0.115)	−0.102 (0.095)
主观社会经济地位		0.103^*** (0.003)
向上流动感知		0.023^*** (0.003)

路径	模型1	模型2	模型3	模型4	模型5	模型6
中等收入群体占比×收入→公平感	0.352^*** (0.058)				0.215^*** (0.063)
中等收入群体占比×人均GDP→公平感		0.814^*** (0.157)			0.658^*** (0.169)
中等收入群体占比×收入→主观社会经济地位			0.951^*** (0.088)			0.863^*** (0.096)
中等收入群体占比×收入→向上流动感知			−0.306^*** (0.073)			−0.226^** (0.079)
中等收入群体占比×人均GDP→主观社会经济地位				1.877^*** (0.235)		1.134^*** (0.253)
中等收入群体占比×人均GDP→向上流动感知				−0.567^** (0.195)		−0.207 (0.210)
中等收入群体占比×收入×人均GDP→公平感					−0.236^* (0.117)
中等收入群体占比×收入×人均GDP→主观社会经济地位						−0.086 (0.178)
中等收入群体占比×收入×人均GDP→向上流动感知						−0.553^*** (0.147)